These are all very common tricks that are often used by even the highest-profile publications. It might not have much to do with anti-UBI sentiment rather than just for-profit/click motivations, but I cannot personally know either way.
Although I do disagree with the author when they suggest that we can easily generalize results across countries, stating:
>As the behavioral economist Dan Ariely replied when asked if what is being learned in GiveDirectly’s 12-year UBI experiment in Kenya could be applied to the US, “If you think about the fundamental aspect that you’re testing, people are people.”
We know there will be fundamental similarities, but countries are vastly different and have vastly different problems, and direct political comparisons are thus rarely fair. For UBI to actually be implemented within a country like the US, you need a lot more than just a small trial in Kenya. Even performing trials in 'more similar' countries like the UK and Canada leaves a lot to be desired.
I don't like articles like this one, they start claiming a tutorial on how to identify fake news, and it ends up selling us a personal opinion on the opposite opinion they are judging, which at the same time can be judged by the same principles. These principles are highly subjective and the same can be used to disprove reality and authentic facts which we dislike, in addition, it is completely charged by a highly polemic topic; probably as much as communism was on its origins: there were also small communities which saw success in communism and many of these experiments and studies divided academics and experts of the time.
Teaching against fake news disproving someone's opinion while pushing for an opinion of our own between lines is like saying that the evil is in there, and then listen to me, I am the truth.
> It is an observable fact that unconditional basic income reduces stress. This fact is indisputable.
Except that's the reverse is true too.
An increase in tax expenses lead to an increase in stress. And to distribute $1,000 per month, you are gonna have to collect way more than $1,000 per month.
> And to distribute $1,000 per month, you are gonna have to collect way more than $1,000 per month
You might want to check your math there but I'm glad you said it. This is a popular misconception of universal basic income. It's an investment not an expense. People who receive basic income immediately spend it on taxed goods and services provided by businesses who in turn pay taxes on their profits. Businesses in turn use the added profits to expand, consuming more taxable goods and services and creating additional jobs which minimize reliance on public services like universal basic income and allows comsumers to purchase more taxable goods and services. Wash, rinse, repeat. Ultimately it's a net gain for the economy as a whole.
The $1,000 per month doesn't come from nowhere. The government has no way to create additional value from thin air. It will have been spent in the economy anyway. And every time governments try to steer the economy in a certain way the overhaul it create far overweight any upsides. So it's negative feedback loop, not a positive one.
Although I do disagree with the author when they suggest that we can easily generalize results across countries, stating:
>As the behavioral economist Dan Ariely replied when asked if what is being learned in GiveDirectly’s 12-year UBI experiment in Kenya could be applied to the US, “If you think about the fundamental aspect that you’re testing, people are people.”
We know there will be fundamental similarities, but countries are vastly different and have vastly different problems, and direct political comparisons are thus rarely fair. For UBI to actually be implemented within a country like the US, you need a lot more than just a small trial in Kenya. Even performing trials in 'more similar' countries like the UK and Canada leaves a lot to be desired.