As far as increasing domestic production goes, if people have more money, they have the greater potential to create more production thru small businesses and local economic development. I mean, that is the very premise of trickle-down economics, isn't it? That producers with more money will create more production. Except in this case, we want the lowest producers to grow, not the biggest, since we know that capital has a habit of stagnating as it reaches the top, or being offshored.
A pilot program in Namibia decreased child malnutrition, increased school attending, and boosted income-generating activities since people were freer to attempt to pursue those activities. Alaska has had lower inflation than the rest of the US since their basic income was instituted in 82!
Scott Santens is a major UBI proponent, so take what he says with your own analysis of its sources, but here's a solid article on UBI's effects on entrepreneurship and inflation.
You replied to my comment but it does not appear that you understood any of it.
The circulation of money does not create wealth, it does not increase wages, it is not a good measure of the health of an economy. I know you have been taught this and that it has become a prism through which you interpret economic reality, it seems self evident doesn't it?
Sorry, its a flat world view; its wrong; it doesn't work. The article you link to is not a 'study,' the holes in its anecdotal metaphors to support ideology are big enough to drive an oil tanker through. The unidentified exogenous factors that impact the economies of Alaska and Kuwait are myriad and the role of UBI is insignificant; what do you think the role of oil might be?
Think about what you suggest...we give everyone, or I suppose you mean only people at the bottom of the earnings metrics...say the bottom 20% of households, money with no conditions and we assume they will spend it quickly and that circulation will cause the whole economy to grow; it will increase domestic production because it will increase demand for products and then people will invest and grow the economy.
What will these people spend this money on? Beer? Sneakers? Flat TV's?
How much of that spending do you think will be captured by domestic production or is produced by domestic industry?
How many do you suggest will start a business?
I don't know how much money you suggest to hand out; I think you would be talking about something that would sustain the cost of living and that would be about it. I would not think they would have anything to invest in a business, nothing to save that would be invested in business.
The idea of 'trickle-down' has always been a political pejorative embedded in a demand based, consumption paradigm. It really makes no difference who gets money when the idea of simply spending money is a wrong headed idea in the first place.
It is not the spending of the money that matters, it is what you spend it on that matters. The whole idea of a general reduction in income tax is a consumption paradigm idea. The only thing that matters if you want to increase wage and create an increase in aggregate wealth is the spending, investing of money, profits from production, in the creation and maintenance of assets, assets being possessory rights to future income streams.
It matters nothing whether you spend the money on a new pair of $400 sneakers or a Maserati, that spending does not expand the domestic economy in terms of real wealth.
You have to spend the money on creating a future income stream domestically or you do not create any value in the domestic economy.
