I may question MMT premise, but the comment I was replying to said "central bank with the authority over a reserve currency never runs out". Here, you qualify that a little more to say "central bank with the authority over a reserve currency never runs out... as long as they spend it on infrastructure, not consumption". A little more palatable, but I would still question whether any given thing is "going to return more money to the economy than it costs". Any savvy investor knows such "sure bets" are usually scams. The real problem is we don't know what the return on, say, a bridge to nowhere, study of cow farts, or blanket no-strings-attached UBI is, or what the unintended consequences or opportunity cost of such investments is. So we should experiment, but I don't see true, objective, double blind experiments being done in most of these UBI experiments, or real attention to the downsides. Just some hand-waving "meh, don't worry about the deficit or inflation, it'll pay for itself", without real evidence. Also, who defines what is "infrastructure"? Is oil exploration "infrastructure"? Google and Facebook? Too-big-to-fail financial companies? Government officials kids and friends?

> Why do you believe that a government is more likely to be a slow inefficient bureaucracy than a private NGO or whatever it is that you're suggesting? Because I've worked with government organizations. A large chunk of the employees lack motivation for what they are doing. Arcane employment rules mean you can't fire people who are dead weight, or pay the well-performing people based on merit. NGOs and private sector have other motivations that usually (not always) makes for more efficiency. One has only to go to their local DMV to see this. And of course, it's a spectrum. Most reasonable people see merits in some government programs, and some private. Where to draw those lines vary.

>It's the same as everyone paying their share of a dinner.

I think a better analogy is a group where half want to go to a really expensive lavish restaurant (UBI+Universal Healthcare+Free Housing), and the other half want to go to a local pub (safety nets, small government, private charity). They could fight over which place to go, or, just each go to their own place. No need for the expensive dinners to insist the pub-goers go with them, or for the pub-goers to begrudge the restaurant-goers their meal. The "unable" I referred to were poor-to-middle class. I'm saying a middle class person saving for her retirement and kids' education, need not be coerced by millionaire class actors and athletes into paying for UBI or other programs she doesn't think are wise investments. If the Screen Actors Guild members think UBI is so great, their first step could be to set up one with their own funds.