I was requesting the original report as I can't find it in the article. The control group in the graphic I've seen doesn't imply that there was or was not more inflation in the experimental group. It shows higher income, but it seems to me that UBI could cause inflation so I want to know about that.
Inflation would show up across the board. It's a metric of the relative value of the common currency.
How would UBI increase inflation if it only affects the distribution of money and not the overall monetary supply?
UBI affects the speed of the cash flow, more going in and more going out of individuals accounts. This seems to me like it may contribute to inflation in an area. Please link the source report. I want to read it.
Its not UBI, its a basic income guarantee of just $500/month.
If you really feel the need to push others down for fear that their $500 makes things slightly worse for yourself, there is something wholly wrong with your thinking.
22% taking on extra training should be the headline.
I'm not... What? I said I wanted to read the whole report because I don't understand something about it and you are complaining that I'm trying to put people down. Calm down. Thank you for the correction though, I didn't notice the subtleties here, and they are important.
Where are you getting this idea that cash flow rather than cash supply drives inflation?
It's so out of the pale that I can't find any economic sources that even discuss it.
Just intuition, I never claimed I was an expert, I'm just saying that's what makes sense to me. If you want to tell me how exactly inflation works that would be cool, but until then I still don't have a working link to the original report. So I can't read it.
Comments
How would UBI increase inflation if it only affects the distribution of money and not the overall monetary supply?
Its not UBI, its a basic income guarantee of just $500/month.
If you really feel the need to push others down for fear that their $500 makes things slightly worse for yourself, there is something wholly wrong with your thinking.
22% taking on extra training should be the headline.
It's so out of the pale that I can't find any economic sources that even discuss it.