Given their claim is about large-scale (well beyond the scale that had been experimented with*) implementation, obviously there’s no research on it. I think there is a bit of an issue of inflation reducing the effectiveness of the money, particularly in the short-term. New houses aren’t just going to pop up overnight just because every homeless person has more money and many vacant homes aren’t in the locations or price ranges they can afford. If you make macro 101 level assumptions, long-term with more demand for basic goods, its possible that their prices will be higher than people going without those basic necessities if costs increase with increased production. But they could also be cheaper long-term depending on the economies of scale. I think real-world assumptions would tend towards higher prices because real pricing is more about what people will pay than how much it costs to produce, but if you’re using those assumptions, you’re still going to have an equilibrium where more people are getting more basic goods, not an equilibrium where the money just doesn’t do anything anymore.
*some people will always just claim it hasn’t been done on a large enough scale for the effects they worry about to materialize until its don’t federally in the US, the entire EU, or some similar scale.
Why don’t you link to peer reviewed research on the subject then if you’re so confident.
Given their claim is about large-scale (well beyond the scale that had been experimented with*) implementation, obviously there’s no research on it. I think there is a bit of an issue of inflation reducing the effectiveness of the money, particularly in the short-term. New houses aren’t just going to pop up overnight just because every homeless person has more money and many vacant homes aren’t in the locations or price ranges they can afford. If you make macro 101 level assumptions, long-term with more demand for basic goods, its possible that their prices will be higher than people going without those basic necessities if costs increase with increased production. But they could also be cheaper long-term depending on the economies of scale. I think real-world assumptions would tend towards higher prices because real pricing is more about what people will pay than how much it costs to produce, but if you’re using those assumptions, you’re still going to have an equilibrium where more people are getting more basic goods, not an equilibrium where the money just doesn’t do anything anymore.
*some people will always just claim it hasn’t been done on a large enough scale for the effects they worry about to materialize until its don’t federally in the US, the entire EU, or some similar scale.
Elimination of the stock market would address a lot.