Thanks for replying.
So, in summary, it looks like you were just speculating that “indexing the benefit (UBI) to inflation guarantees a self-feeding loop of inflationary pressure.”
You also write: “I’d be interested in how you arrive at the thought that an additional $1000, or even less, every month to every adult wouldn’t be inflationary.”
Firstly, the thing is that we’re not really talking about ‘additional’ money at all. A Basic Income scheme would probably involve giving people Basic Income instead of other welfare payments and instead of tax allowances. For the population as a whole, it isn’t really ‘extra’ money. It’s just existing money which is being distributed in a new way.
Secondly, it isn’t really down to me to prove a negative. If someone wants to identify a mechanism and put forward an argument (and perhaps provide some supporting evidence) as to how an index-linked UBI would be inflationary, they can do so. Then I can have the opportunity to pick flaws in their argument/evidence.
The thing is I don’t wish to put you off taking an interest in Economics, but I think you ought to be realistic about your capability for analysing complex macro-economic policy suggestions, when you yourself are not an economist. You’re all too likely to be using faulty analysis, based on a lack of understanding of the fundamental Economics of the situation — regardless of how well-intentioned your efforts are.
I see a lot of people on the internet who seem to think they understand Economics much better than they really do. It seems silly for them to be trying to explain matters of economics to other people, when they understand so little about Economics themselves. Instead, I suggest they might be better off studying Economics for themselves from the grounds up, starting with the really basic stuff, like this:
Have a great day! :)