I find it interesting when people take a proposal with a specific number then try to discredit it by talking about changing it drastically in one direction. When does any natural or human made system have a single parameter that we can make better by some adjustment in one direction, respond 10x better when we change the parameter 10x more? Almost every parameter has some optimal range, above and below which are sub-optimal. Vitamin C in the body, water/sunlight for plants, semiconductor voltage, radiation level in chemotherapy, etc. Simply taking a proposal to to distribute X as being good, and showing that 100X must be better, but it obviously is absurd and would lead to bad things, does nothing to discredit the original proposal.

One reason to stop at $2,000 is so that inflation is limited. 2% inflation is quite manageable, historically. 2000% inflation is not.

Is there particular motivation for $2000, or just using the article's number? It seems that there's clearly some optimal number, and I suspect it's >0, but I'm not sure how it should be determined.

I was just using the given number.

If this scheme were implemented, I'm guessing the number would be picked by economists at the Fed who target a particular money supply. And then that number would be criticized by people who think that the Fed is choosing to stiff the poor. For that reason, I think it would be a huge mistake to tie together monetary policy and income redistribution. :)

Basic income can be cost neutral.