I wonder how much of that is true in our modern economy. Between our incredible latent productive capacity and the sizable chunk of our economy that consists of non-rivalrous goods, I wonder how much of the increased demand we could absorb without causing inflation to rise substantially. For example, how much would food prices go up if poor people had more money? We can produce a lot of food, and the demand for additional food is not limitless. Some of that money would go towards digital goods like Netflix and video games and other digital goods, which are non-rivalrous.
Of course it would have an effect on inflation, but I am just wondering how much.
Proclamations of certainty around UBI are common, but the only intellectually honest position is that we simply do not have enough empirical data to tell with a useful level of confidence how a UBI would affect inflation.
Also, I believe that the only way to collect that empirical data is to implement a UBI at a sufficiently large scale and see what happens.
I agree that a lot can be done if you're careful about how you do it, but if you aren't careful enough, you may easily make things worse.
How is your family's net worth percentage change looking compared to Bezos? How is your salary percentage change looking compared to that?
Sorry for laboring your point. It should be labored. Repetatedly & with emphasis.
This isn't actually true, though it's a widespread belief (quite a number of pundits kept making incorrect predictions after the global financial crisis).
Where the logic goes wrong is that an increase in money supply doesn't automatically translate into higher disposable incomes. (And higher disposable incomes don't automatically translate to higher effective demand, though in practice they usually do if you the increase in income isn't extremely unequally distributed.)