QE added ~$3 trillion cumulatively to the money supply at its peak. And most of it sat on banks' balance sheets because in a $200+ trillion global financial asset market ($300+ trillion today), $3 trillion doesn't do much to change banks' incentive structure for making loans, it just propped up the existing incentive structures so the whole system didn't collapse.
I can't fathom how adding $2+ trillion every year directly to working Americans' wallets wouldn't lead to greater consumer price inflation than we've seen with QE. That doesn't actually tell us much about whether UBI is worthwhile, but I don't see the point in denying it. In fact, it's important to have that discussion because there are ways we could mitigate it. For example, most of UBI would likely get sucked up by supply-constrained markets like housing, so it's probably a good idea to combine UBI with housing reform, such as development as of right for missing middle multifamily projects.
I agree, we should have an exit plan. But we should also have an entry plan.
You made very good points and I think we probably agree on the need for both good entry and exit plans. The larger point I was trying to highlight is how much of each side is based on conjecture, not data driven evidence. Which makes good planning that much more necessary
I can't fathom how adding $2+ trillion every year directly to working Americans' wallets wouldn't lead to greater consumer price inflation than we've seen with QE. That doesn't actually tell us much about whether UBI is worthwhile, but I don't see the point in denying it. In fact, it's important to have that discussion because there are ways we could mitigate it. For example, most of UBI would likely get sucked up by supply-constrained markets like housing, so it's probably a good idea to combine UBI with housing reform, such as development as of right for missing middle multifamily projects.
I agree, we should have an exit plan. But we should also have an entry plan.