> Are there any papers addressing the issue "basic income increases the returns to owners of scarce goods" issue? I don't know what the correct name is.

The correct name is "inflation", the effect to which this is effect is present for suppliers of any particular good is measured by "price elasticity" -- both price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply play a role (in a real tax-funded BI, which is redistribution of returns, it is offset in part for many goods by the fact that increased money chasing the goods in one segment of the population is mirrored by reduced money chasing goods in another segment of the population.)

"Inflation" occurs when the money supply increases but the supply of things money can buy does not increase.

If basic income is funded by taxation, then the money supply does not increase. Every dollar distributed to the set { A, B, C ... } is taxed away from the set { A, B, C ... }, so the purchasing power of the set is unchanged.

> "Inflation" occurs when the money supply increases but the supply of things money can buy does not increase.

There are two different uses of the term "inflation" in economics: one is simply an increase in the money supply ("monetary inflation"), the other is simply increase in nominal prices in either the market as a whole or some segment ("price inflation"); the latter is what is being discussed in the grandparent post. Monetary inflation is a potential cause of price inflation (though there are other potential causes, and other factors can result in monetary inflation without price inflation, so there is no necessary direct relationship.)

You seem to want to restrict "inflation" to mean "monetary inflation producing price inflation", which is narrower than either of the usual definitions.

The price of lithium has risen. The price rise is often attributed to an increase in demand for batteries. Is it correct to describe this price increase as"inflation"?

That's how the term is most broadly used by people who follow financial markets. Central bankers are currently obsessed with inflation as they see it as an indicator of economic vitality (ie. people have such a thirst for creating/obtaining new wealth and new enterprise that they are willing to pay more for things like the batteries in your scenario).

Yes, what you describe is market-segment-specific cost-push (as opposed to demand-pull) inflation

It doesn't have to be funded by taxation.

Basic income could become the primary lever of the money supply or of monetary policy generally.

e.g. imagine if Quantitative Easing had been implemented via an adjustment to a basic income, rather than buying bonds from merchant banks.

Monetization is equivalent to a global tax on net dollar denominated assets; doing it to a major ongoing program is a good way to trash your currency.

It's not necessarily bad to use direct benefit payments as a monetary policy tool when there are monetary policy reasons (e.g., your proposed QE alternative), but unless you're willing to see BI go away completely when the traditional concerns governing monetary policy call for tight money, then you shouldn't call for it to be monetized unless your goal is to destroy the dollar rather than provide a stable public benefit program.

Since I am suggesting that BI be a major lever of monetary policy, it should follow that I am willing for it be tightened as necessary. Do you think it would go to zero? That would be more extreme than any of today's austerity programmes.

> it is offset in part for many goods by the fact that increased money chasing the goods in one segment of the population is mirrored by reduced money chasing goods in another segment of the population

YCBI does not have this feature.