> I find it so interesting that there are so many things being proposed by people entirely ignorant of political economy and contradictory to the most basic und

> I find it so interesting that there are so many things being proposed by people entirely ignorant of political economy and contradictory to the most basic understanding of the profession. Actually, the opposite is true. 1. There are many economists who support the idea of a basic income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Origins 2. Many supporters of basic income are empiricists. Me, for example. I think it's an intriguing idea and that the trials so far have all shown good points. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-new-approach-to-aid-how-a-basic-income-program-saved-a-namibian-village-a-642310.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-new-approach-to-... What the idea needs now is more testing in the field. If I might suggest, this is actually the problem with most of the arguments against basic income. People appear to have very strong beliefs about how the universe works and how economics works that are grounded in philosophic principles of fairness. Phrases like: > This whole idea is a very naive scheme > ... proposed by people entirely ignorant of political economy > ... contradictory to the most basic understanding of the profession > I keep hoping that the adults show up ... are all emotional reactions not supported by evidence. Economics is, sadly, able to support lots of opinions, many contradictory. The only solution has to be based on real-world evidence from real-world trials. Either we'll find this idea will work or it won't, but I don't think your phrases above are currently strongly evidenced.