Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one way to reasonably do it. Otherwise, the benefit goes largely to the rent-seekers instead of the people you're trying to help. I suppose another way would be to issue restricted local currencies and non-transferable coupons or vouchers. That has the added benefit of creating a lot of paper-pushing bureaucracy jobs.
>I suppose another way would be to issue restricted local currencies and non-transferable coupons or vouchers. That has the added benefit of creating a lot of paper-pushing bureaucracy jobs. Isn't one of the main goals of BI to eliminate the "need" for bullshit jobs, though?
And it isn't always about the money, either. Sometimes the petits Napoleons just need to lord the tiny bit of power they have over those who don't even have that much.
My cynicism is bleeding through. The US government has a tendency to just throw money at a problem instead of actually doing something to solve it. Failing that, they throw on a half-assed patch that is only funded well enough to partially address the unintended consequences of the check-writing fix.
The only realistic way to keep BI out of the pockets of rent-seekers is to pay it as the basic necessities rather than as cash. Nobody will raise your rent from 20# of corn to 30# of corn, but they sure will raise it from $200 to $300. And the best way to do that is to hire people to produce the necessities directly. But congress is skittish about doing anything that looks too much like communism. Hence the vouchers. So they can control how things get done without actually doing anything.