Lets go point by point:
The inflationary pressure of Fed policy has not been seen in consumer markets precisely because a vast majority of the money it has created has not entered the real economy. It has been spent in the markets. The inflation of equities is direct evidence of the inflation Fed policy has created, the Fed simply doesn’t measure equity inflation as a part of the CPI.
So what happens when a $3-$4 trillion dollar per year policy moves that money from equities and into the pockets of consumers? The inflation of the market is shifted to consumer level inflation in necessities like food and rents. ($12,500 x 250 millions people = $3+ trillion per year).
Sample size is everything. If a small economy that is intricately woven into the fabric of a much larger economy experiments with a UBI, its impact is going to be drastically different than that of the entire society making a similar change. Zero is no long zero, particularly when a vast majority of the good Alaskans buy on a day to day basis are being produced in economies without a similar policy.
B is a little more nuanced. First of all, I disagree with the premise that a UBI would eliminate other forms of welfare. If this were true, many people would be receiving less relative assistance per year than they already are. It would be severely regressive to many already in poverty. Second, see the part about inflation above.
>Everyone will receive a monthly check to afford rent,
If the numbers in his first paragraph are representative of this annual payment expectations, than a UBI will barely over the annual rent for most Americans living in growing and burgeoning cities. If we discuss indexing the UBI to something like the CLI, then we enter the means testing category of welfare and it in effect ceases to be universal.
I almost agree with this. Of course giving people who need money more money will increase spending, but that bonus is negated by the negative effects the author rationalizes won’t occur in the previous paragraphs.
If I accept the UBI as a necessity for the coming Automation apocalypse, a premise that surmises labor will no longer be in demand, than higher wages as a result of a shrinking labor force are irrelevant because that labor won’t even be necessary.
Indexing Basic Income:
More productivity per dollar is why prices fall. Rising productivity is why we left the fields and can work on computers. Indexing wages to productivity is counter to anything a market economy should want to be. Fewer people completing more tasks for less money with the help of technology is why we have higher standards of living across the globe today than at any time in history.