> the likely feedback effects on the broader economy that a universal rollout would have
It's interesting to describe as "likely" something for which there is no evidence. This is an actively anti-science belief. It seems to me as if you really don't like the idea of UBI and so are saying that, if it actually happened, the effect would be the opposite of what experimental data shows. This is pretty clearly biased.
> (increase in the money supply)
There is no effect on money supply if this is funded through taxes.
> Some things just can't be tested ahead of time empirically.
You can gradually expand the pool of people receiving UBI to see how these effects scale. Begin in one city, then increase to a larger region, then do it nationally.
> There is no effect on money supply if this is funded through taxes
Of course there is. Suppose we tax Elon several billion dollars. Now, instead of sitting in his money vault, it flows into the economy where it increases demand pressure.
He doesn't have a money vault. He has almost zero cash holdings. If you tax him, then he will have to sell assets to pay for those taxes, which removes money from the economy as that money was being actively spent on his assets. The only situation when money supply changes is if someone has a literal mattress full of cash hidden away. Even if you just have money in a savings account, it acts as a fractional reserve for the banking system meaning that there is a net decrease in money supply when you give it to the government as banks can no longer use it as the backing for loans.
To split hairs slightly that is the "velocity of money" (basically how often does the average dollar get spent and passed around per year). Money supply is the total amount of (a given type of) money in existence. But yeah, the effect on inflation is the same.
It's interesting to describe as "likely" something for which there is no evidence. This is an actively anti-science belief. It seems to me as if you really don't like the idea of UBI and so are saying that, if it actually happened, the effect would be the opposite of what experimental data shows. This is pretty clearly biased.
> (increase in the money supply)
There is no effect on money supply if this is funded through taxes.
> Some things just can't be tested ahead of time empirically.
You can gradually expand the pool of people receiving UBI to see how these effects scale. Begin in one city, then increase to a larger region, then do it nationally.