>Everyone can already afford basic goods. Its just at the lowest of incomes instead of a varied portfolio of extremely expensive to administrate benefits, all that would be wiped out and replaced with one simple check.
I think you and I disagree on this assumption. For one, we still have homeless people, although for a handful it is a lifestyle choice. I'd say it's far more nuanced and complex than to just say everyone can already afford basic goods. If someone loses all their current gov't benefits, but starts receiving $1,000/mo which they are free to spend however they want, how do their buying habits change? No one really knows.
As far as I know, food stamp programs and other current welfare programs have many restrictions on the types of goods you can purchase.
In addition, we aren't considering the marginal costs of increased production of some goods, while others are negligible - e.g., software.
I agree with your other criticisms of the model though.
I think you and I disagree on this assumption. For one, we still have homeless people, although for a handful it is a lifestyle choice. I'd say it's far more nuanced and complex than to just say everyone can already afford basic goods. If someone loses all their current gov't benefits, but starts receiving $1,000/mo which they are free to spend however they want, how do their buying habits change? No one really knows.
As far as I know, food stamp programs and other current welfare programs have many restrictions on the types of goods you can purchase.
In addition, we aren't considering the marginal costs of increased production of some goods, while others are negligible - e.g., software.
I agree with your other criticisms of the model though.