Everyone doesn't get more money, the money is just distributed differently. The rich would be paying in much more than they get back in basic income. This doesn't change the money supply, just the distribution.
Right, but cost of basics would increase. If you sell bread, and you know that everyone now has $xxK basic income, why would you not increase the price of bread?
> If you sell bread, and you know that everyone now has $xxK basic income, why would you not increase the price of bread?
If you are a monopoly, of course you would. That's called a monopoly rent -- and why, in a supply monopoly, the demand curve effectively sets prices.
If you aren't a monopoly, you won't because competitors (either existing or new entrants) will undercut your prices until the prices are dropped to the economic cost of production.
Its how pricing works in a competitive market where even a loose approximation of rationality applies.
> Your competitors would raise prices, not lower them.
"Lower" relative to yours (or compared to incumbents, in the case of new entrants.)
> Either way there are only like 3 players in the "basics" market anyway so we're closer to a monopoly as it is.
To the extent that the absence of a competitive market in basics is a problem, its a problem independently of basic income and needs to be addressed whether or not a basic income is adopted.
The idea is that you collect taxes such that you can pay this out from them. After you've decided on tax rates and expenditures the Fed can decide how much money gets created or destroyed to stabilize the economy.
And what is the problem with inflation? If something it is a great problem that we are having so little of it globally. Inflation in the 2-4% per year is healthy.
