Sure, if you say so.

Whether this is OK is a different question.

In other words it is a monetary illusion. The workers can’t be allowed to be any richer because there isn’t any extra production they can consume with that extra money.

Money supply is a flow, not a stock. There isn’t a fixed amount of money.

This is true exactly as much as it is true with “capitalism” in place of “UBI” (particularly if the UBI is, in the more direct sense, funded by taxes on capital.)

> Sure, if you say so.

Economics is a social science, not a hard science based on empirical evidence. Denying that there's an incentive for the ultra-wealthy (e.g., billionaires, corporations) to fund and promote specific ideologies is to deny reality; similar to denying that oil and gas companies influenced climate and environmental research or Purdue influences medical research and practices, in the pursuit of profit.

Social sciences are based on empirical evidence the same way hard sciences are; to the extent they are more problematic it is because they deal with complex and in part, chaotic systems where isolating effects is difficult (a problem shared, often, with life sciences), plus they frequently deal with issues about which political, religious, commercial, and/ir identity issues are tied up (this is true for subfields scattered across the rest of the sciences, but it is true of almost every subfield of the social sciences).