> Post-scarcity doesn't exist in the real universe.
It could... at least for the things that matter to our survival. There will always be scarcity for some things, like works of art, time, etc. Those things will always have a value and people will always work to obtain those kinds of things.
> Providing actual necessities, instead of money, would be far better.
Some amount of money will always be needed since people couldn't pursue their own interests or better themselves without it, but we could just give people houses and set up stores that didn't accept money for things food and medicine and household products. One nice thing about giving people money though is that it eliminates the problem of hording. If I can go into the store and take whatever I want without paying for it, what's to stop me from taking everything? Giving a set amount of money means people will have to budget it according to their needs and wants.
> Money is a proxy, and just giving it away makes it worth less... So you get inflation.
When people's basic needs are met, money can be worth less and it won't matter. The entire valuation of money will shift, but ultimately people will still set their own prices for the goods and services they provide. It doesn't matter if a loaf of bread cost $5 or $500. If you were a great architect and I asked you to design my new house you'd set your asking price accordingly. If owning a home designed by you were my goal, I'd look for work and set my asking rate accordingly. The economy would continue chugging along regardless.
> UBI may be a wealth transfer to the poor
That wealth is already being spent. We already know that it's much cheaper for taxpayers to give homeless people houses. That's not a wealth transfer to the poor though, it's putting money back into the pocket of taxpayers instead of burning it on problems we don't bother to take the time to solve. UBI could (in theory) save wealthy people a lot of money and more importantly, the money we aren't throwing away on dealing with the costs inherent to abject poverty can be put into making more wealth and improving things for everyone.
You see the problem here. As money continues to be worth less, UBI would have to increase to meet "people's basic needs." As UBI increases, inflation gets worse, until everyone is worse off, and UBI collapses.
If you want to destroy the middle class (which we've been doing a darn good job of), this would pour cement over the coffin.
It could... at least for the things that matter to our survival. There will always be scarcity for some things, like works of art, time, etc. Those things will always have a value and people will always work to obtain those kinds of things.
> Providing actual necessities, instead of money, would be far better.
Some amount of money will always be needed since people couldn't pursue their own interests or better themselves without it, but we could just give people houses and set up stores that didn't accept money for things food and medicine and household products. One nice thing about giving people money though is that it eliminates the problem of hording. If I can go into the store and take whatever I want without paying for it, what's to stop me from taking everything? Giving a set amount of money means people will have to budget it according to their needs and wants.
> Money is a proxy, and just giving it away makes it worth less... So you get inflation.
When people's basic needs are met, money can be worth less and it won't matter. The entire valuation of money will shift, but ultimately people will still set their own prices for the goods and services they provide. It doesn't matter if a loaf of bread cost $5 or $500. If you were a great architect and I asked you to design my new house you'd set your asking price accordingly. If owning a home designed by you were my goal, I'd look for work and set my asking rate accordingly. The economy would continue chugging along regardless.
> UBI may be a wealth transfer to the poor
That wealth is already being spent. We already know that it's much cheaper for taxpayers to give homeless people houses. That's not a wealth transfer to the poor though, it's putting money back into the pocket of taxpayers instead of burning it on problems we don't bother to take the time to solve. UBI could (in theory) save wealthy people a lot of money and more importantly, the money we aren't throwing away on dealing with the costs inherent to abject poverty can be put into making more wealth and improving things for everyone.