We've already tried this experiment. It's called financial aid for college. Tuition prices just keep tracking federal aid increases.
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/report-federal-aid-ri...
If they gave the money as credits to developers to build more housing, then they might have a chance at accomplishing their goal.
Colleges and other shared-expense systems (see also: healthcare, military spending, public spending generally) present and pose other challenges, but they are not the same as the situation as applies to housing, specifically.
You don't give builders credits to build houses. You tax them for the potential revenues of a given quantity of land. Since land is nonfungible, the consequence is to both develop undeveloped lots, and to increase the density of utilisation of developed losts.
One can argue that taxation in all its forms, including inflation, is the singular cause of all poverty in the USA-- it is the largest most massive wealth transfer fro the masses to the rich ever. And I don't mean "rich don't pay enough taxes" I mean taxes are stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
That's a key reason they're so markedly different from other goods.
Incidentally, your username and curiosity prompted me to check to see if Hazlitt's infamous little book makes any mention at all of either rents or monopoly. It doesn't.
I find that quite interesting.
It's not quite thermodynamics, because it's not as strict of a 'law', but it's close.
Seems this inflation argument against UBI has obvious limits. Maybe it could cause some but it can’t be a linear relationship as people like the parent argue.
Available cash flow definitely plays into the equation, and we can see this at work in a multitude of areas, from the skyrocketing cost of a university education, to the fact that ski resorts charge two or three times the going rate for a cup of hot chocolate (because if you have the money to go skiing, you have the money to pay extra for a hot beverage).
Costs also play a factor, of course. Dropping everybody's wages to zero doesn't mitigate the fact that raw materials, fuel, and even time are all finite resources.
Personally, while once a fan, I'm highly skeptical of UBI.
I would rather see something more like a universal assistance program: safe, government-run housing, dormitory style, with a cafeteria, available to all.
And I do mean "all". If Warren Buffet wants to bunk with Hobo Joe, that's his business. Buffet pays taxes that support the system, and shouldn't be barred from making use of it.
The people that live there are responsible for working to maintain the space: cleaning, cooking, etc. Put them near libraries and community centers, with ready access to whatever public transportation is available.
Unfortunately, given the current political climate, I doubt that this would go over well with either party.
Prices can rise above cost, as long as someone will keep paying for it, But prices can only drop until the seller loses their incentive to sell, at which point the product/service will be withdrawn from sale.
And why do you think Govts will do better job at identifying/investing in potential productivity than rest of the market ?
Things like rent and certain utilities I can understand this might happen to but a mass devaluing of a currency just because the flow of money is routed a little different doesn't smell right to me.
The net change will be zero.
There is an argument that while costs go up $1,000, if a true life changing event occurs, let's say sickness or entrepurship happen, maybe the person can scale down their life style from ramen to unflavored ramen and not be as bad off as with no UBI.
If that isn't a correct interpretation of your argument, then the rest of this won't make a lot of sense.
The reason this sort of thermodynamics arguments fails for me is that the economy isn't really the amount of cash flowing through it, rather cash is a proxy for GDP not the economy itself. GDP is a function of productivity and effort. In simpler terms we can have our fictional worker 'Bob' who is anxious and fearful so he scrapes along with a minimum wage job that he hates, versus 'Alt-Bob' who is engaged and excited about his career and is building a future retirement nest egg. With the same 'worker population' of '1' we get two very different GDPs.
One theory is that UBI will make the anxious Bob less anxious and fearful and able to make better choices about their future. If you look at some of the work on how people who are anxious about the amount of money they have a hard time making good choices I refer you to the book 'Scarcity: Why having so little means so much.' it is a good read in general because it applies to anything, even 'free time' as a resource.