Inflation is a non-issue? We'll good to know that every economist is wrong and adding money has no costs, and all resources are unlimited!

I'll go buy a loaf of bread for a penny and feed my family!

If you are proposing that this should actually be tested. Show me somewhere that's proposing to do a test. This proposal doesn't even come close to any form of a test of this system. Nor has any other "test" (and there have been many) done anything to actually test the concept.

I suspect the reason that there's never been an actual test, is that even the diehard proponents know how bad an idea this is. Hey, I stand corrected, there have been full scale tests. We call it communism. And we all know how well that's worked out.

I didn't make the list, and if you really thought it was irrelevant, why didn't you say so I'm response to the person who brought up temperance at the top instead of waiting for a bigger list of similar failures to which UBI can easily be added? Was it because you thought you could defend any one or two of your preferred party's failures, but the list was just getting too long now?

You are, just not the way the op thought. What you're really doing is transferring poverty from those in the program to those not in the program. Moving that money causes inflation in basic necessities of life, the fact that those poor people have more money does not increase how much food or how many apartments there are total, it only drives up the prices of those same goods. What that means is anyone not in the program who was just barely able to afford food, no longer can because they're being out competed by those who suddenly have more money in their pocket.
Money itself is useless, you can't eat it, you can't live in it. It's only useful for what it can buy you, and that becomes less when more people are trying to use it to buy the same item.

You're right, communism would actually be a very apt description of ubi.

Name one. There has never been an actual UBI test, ever, anywhere.
Most skipped the universal part, by being means tested, or not covering an entire area and therefore not showing the effect of inflation. But some have other ways of failing, often by not being self funded, or not looking at long term effects.

Actually, I take that back. The biggest test of ubi, is communism. So I guess we have tested it, works well doesn't it?

Then why did you bring it up?

And that is exactly the problem. Remember, money is useless. You can't eat it, you can't live in it, it does nothing by itself.
Now if an area has 200 houses, and 250 people who want them, the prices will be such that the poorest 50 can't afford one. If you give those people more money, it doesn't change how many houses there are, so what happens instead is you change your much the houses cost. Either way the bottom 50 can't afford one. The same goes for every good and service. Adding money does not change how many of those goods and services exist, it only changes how much they cost.
Given the above, there are only 2 possible outcomes to UBI:
-at low levels it drives inflation of basic goods and services (but not luxury goods) and therefore increases inequality as the effective inflation rate for the poor outstrips that of the rich.
-at high enough levels it moves so much wealth from the top to the bottom that all people have equal outcomes regardless of effort, thus completely disincentivizing work. See how well that's worked for all the other communist countries so far.

There is no possible solution that ends well for anybody.

But no one has ever tested that. All studies so far have been either means tested, not replacing existing programs, not covering an entire geographic area, not funded by the participants of the study, or a multitude of other problems. And usually a combination of almost all of the above.

Nobody can claim that this has ever been tested, or that it works until you can show it working in a population over a large geographic area funded entirely by the people within that geographic area and eligible to all within that area without means testing. Nothing else is actually UBI.

I'm pretty certain that when everyone's costs of living goes up by exactly the same amount as the UBI people will find that it doesn't really help them that much. Remember the reason people are poor has nothing at all to do with the lack of money. Money by itself is useless, what's useful is what it buys, having more of it spread out through the area causes inflation not wealth, and that disproportionately negatively affects the poor vs the wealthy.

The car may not have "full self driving" enabled, but it was probably in the sales sheet saying they bought it. They fact Tesla takes your money for a feature, and then delivers the car, somewhat implies that you have the feature. If you aren't heavily invested in researching it ahead of time you could easily look at "autopilot" and think, that must be the full self driving thing I paid for.

I own a model S, I love autopilot, and I truly believe I have the best car ever built. I also know for a fact that Tesla is one of the slimiest companies I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with. It is perfectly consistent to praise autopilot, and lambast Tesla for their flat out lies in marketing.

Except google just points to the stack overflow thread that tells you to use google.

All I ever see are self righteous snobs who would rather spend time insulting anyone who dares have a legitimate question than try to answer it. I suspect most of these people couldn't actually answer the question anyway, they just think they can look superior by degrading others.

Telling someone to search for something doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look childish. Especially when the original question includes the fact that they already searched, and that their question is different from every result they could find, and when your "just search for it" doesn't include any links to actual answers.

If you think you want to tell someone to do a search, you're better off not typing anything at all.

That's funny, whenever I try to look up anything on stack overflow all I see is 1,000 posts telling me to look for the other thousand posts that all tell me to look at those same first thousand posts. I didn't know stack overflow actually had answers, generally they just have a bunch of posts deriding the person for asking and telling them to look at all the other posts that don't have answers and are just deriding the person for asking.

On the exceedingly rare occasion where someone actually tries to provide an answer instead of derision, the answer they give almost never has anything at all to do with the question that was asked.

Yes, but can the tenants have negative equity? Because there options on this are:
- Negative equity
- Higher cost than market rate
- Taxpayer subsidized

What they really don't want to tell you is that it's the third option they're banking on.

What they're trying very hard not to tell you, just like all of these communist plans, is that all things are not equal. In fact what they are counting heavily on is positively massive injections of money from other taxpayers.
We all know very well, the governments are the least efficient businesses out there. Which means actually running these properties will cost significantly more than it cost a private landlord to do the same. Even without the incentive for profit, rent would still need to be more than the going market rate to make these things break even. Adding in a way for the renter to gain equity just makes it even more expensive.

But as with all of these plans, it's not a problem because someone else is paying. That's someone else of course being the taxpayer.

You're not allowed to know that. They don't want to publicize the increased drop out rates, or the lower percentage finding careers in their fields, etc.
Remember, the only thing that matters is how woke they are.
If you care about educational outcome rather than racial outcome you must be racist!