Actually, this is something that academic proponents of Basic Income have thought quite a lot about (and analyzed quite exhaustively). While it may seem counterintuitive at first, t's definitely not some kind of perpetual motion machine, or "something for nothing" scheme
Out of curiosity, these proponents who say they've analyzed it through and through and think the theory is sound, their assumptions don't include rational players, do they?
You can go around thinking contentedly to yourself that basic income advocates are total idiots (and that those on the academic side, in particular, are outright frauds, and functionally illiterate in the field that they claim to have gotten their advanced degrees in) if you want to. But I might recommend doing some basic research on the topic, instead.
The way you put it, as though all ideas that ever existed only ever had opponents who were illterate and did not have advanced degrees in anything. But the second part sounds fair and will take that to heart
Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound that way. The only position I really have on BUI is that it seems "worth testing, at the very least". There seem to be some interesting live trials going on in that regard, so I guess we'll see how they play out.
We can all tell that your conclusion was written before you read any studies or started on any premises, so please just stop having this conversation. One man's modus ponens is another's modus tolens, and all that.
