"When you give money to the upper class or financially stable people, that money leaves circulation (welcome to inflation)."

Are you kidding right? Please, think twice about what you just said.

Question: the Federal Reserve just minted a bazillion of trillions of dollars and then they put them in their deepest coffin, out of circulation. Disregarding the raw material used to mint them (these are magic dollars that don't cost neither ink nor paper) how much will inflation increase due to the existence of this massive amount of out-of-circulation money?

"When you give that same money to the people who don't have it, what you are really doing is recirculating money in a manner..." that creates inflation, exactly the opposite you said.

"I mean, isn't the UBI just the same thing as a "guaranteed income", really?"

No, it isn't. UBI means everybody gets a paycheck no matter what. "Guaranteed income" means that your income will be completed up to a minimum if you don't manage to get it by other means. Pesky details due.

"But as soon as it becomes the "standard" that everyone starts off with X amount of monthly income, even for doing absolutely nothing? Prices will go up to reflect that fact."

Of course yes. And, if not, it's the onus on the one telling that, to thoroughly demonstrate why that won't be the case with his proposal.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you know.

"This would've been a great time to try Universal Basic Services"

*THIS*.

"A UBS can't advertise a price floor like a UBI can and doesn't require the traversal of unexplored economic territory."

It's basically what most of first world already has, understands and knows how to manage, only a bit wider. We already have UBS for military, police, government, healthcare and education. Just make it also cover at least food and shelter and you are done.

Then why "many high-profile Silicon Valley entrepreneurs" (bullshit: it is not "Silicon Valley entrepreneurs" but "Silicon Valley billionaires") are not favoring UBS instead of UBI?

Might it be because UBI is not in *your* best interest but in *theirs* instead? Moreso, how is it that those UBSs that were already in place, and working fantastically, are strongly pressed by these and other billionaires to be dismantled, substituted by private-held versions?

Food for mind.

"I don't like a UBI because people need a bit of adversity to thrive, and I worry that a guaranteed income will remove the motivation that many people need to lead fulfilling lives."

The "B" in UBI means "Basic", as in "not in excess, just barebones".

Think about you: did you suffer famine, or at least had big troubles to make ends meet (I mean *really*, not "I'd want to buy a newer TV set but, alas, not enough credit on my card")? If not, you already benefited from UBI, only most possibly, it was just your parents paying for it, at least to your early adulthood. If so, do you think having your *basic* needs covered took away your motivations to find a fullfilling live? If you think it didn't, why do you think others in your situation wouldn't be the same?

"Things are tougher on some people than others...that's been a fact since man has existed."

So? Man was unable to flight, until it was.

"The world doesn't owe you anything."

Right.

"The government cannot fix any of this."

Wrong.

"Universal basic income has become a favored cause for many high-profile Silicon Valley entrepreneurs"

That should be enough of a hint to understand it's not in your benefit.

"the company declined to give specifics it there were product loss or damage".

NOT to, of course.

"Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator."

Yes, I know, you moron. Allow me to correct a mistake and you won't need to tell me that.

"Of course you can. Here try this: Go bake a bread, but rather than finish baking it about 1/3rd of the way through the process turn off the bread maker. Then separate the raw ingredients and put them back in their packaging."

Yes. That's actually what I was asking for. Yes: loss in raw materials is certainly a loss.

It's only the article is *very* vague about that. On the beginning it says Samsung lost no less than $268M due to damaged products (that can be possible, as you stated) but right in the next phrase what it says is "Samsung executives said they saw lost profits" and then again, the next one is "the company declined to give specifics it there were product loss or damage". Then, the next paragraph: "waffer loss is equivalent to $268M to $357M"

So... was it to be believed? Me? I say "they are computing projected sales as a loss -that's deceitful".

"Actually, not only you *can* lose money you never had, but you can also get insured for such a loss."

No. You can bet on future earnings and you even can find others to bet along you (for a fine). But that's a completely different issue.

"Its functionality is exactly what autopilots in airplanes are capable of"

Modern aviation autopilots can fly a plane from taking off to landing... on a good day. Can Tesla's do the same?

OTOH, plane autopilots, and the complexity of its use, have been related to plane accidents, even considering highly trained personnel are in command. Maybe autopilots like the ones on planes are not suitable for layman usage?

Was it due to fines, penalties on failed contracts... what?

Note: you can't lose a money you never had to start with so, no, failing estimations is not a lose.

>> Drugs should be legal.
>> All drugs or just some drugs?

Moot question: some drugs are *already* legal.

Even accepting you are not talking about prescription drugs, alcohol and tobacco are drugs and are already legal like in "another thing anybody can put in their Amazon shopping cart".

ahh ha ha... someone got hurt his feelings, uh?

"It isn't popular because it's non-workable, communist, and evil. "

YES, EXACTLY THAT!

And History does nothing but make that fact clear.

That's why History books point USA as one of the most ineffective, communist and evilesque countries of the world in the 1936-63 period when its max marginal tax was 80% or over.

"Any system of taxation that levels more than 50% is slavery"

Also a big fat truth. No wonder countries like France, Finland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Japan or Sweden, are renowned slavery hells, as they all have max marginal taxation above 50%.

"I think the solution is clear. When people say "Universal" income they ultimately mean "People-we-Choose" income.
I suspect that most of the UBI proponents imagine that they will get to set the "Universal" criteria and choose the type of recipients they consider worthy."

Yes, that's part of the truth. Just in this case, they say "UBI" but then, they explain how is not "Universal", not even "Random", but money given to a collective that shares a very specific economic characteristic.

But then, there are others that when say UBI, mean UBI.

The most rational (hum... less crazy) explanation I read here is that it may be inflationary-neutral because the money issued to the less favoured people will be extracted right from level immediately above them. Which, effectively means that mid-class will be made poorer so those below can at least survive. Now... try to politically sell that to a mass of voters in a scenario when the gap between the "filthy rich" and "everyone else" does nothing but become wider by the day.