You're assuming the economy is running at full capacity.
Pollution is THE textbook case for an externality. By definition it cant be fixed by the free market.
Love the idea, but we had one of these for a couple of years, and at $23/t there was at least an order of magnitude less money in it than needed for a GBI. And per capita, we are among the highest carbon emitters on earth.
Even if we aren't, this article provides no mechanism by which a BI would get us to full capacity or increase output at all. All it provides is a mechanism which would take us away from full capacity (If your boss is an unreasonable jerk, you can tell him to “take this job and shove it”...).
Even then, I still think it is the third order effects of GBI (the ones we don't know about, or are to complex to model) that are most likely to cause massive societal upheaval. But then, maybe massive societal upheaval is what proponents of GBI are most excited about.
That's not what "monopolistic" means. "Monopolistic" means one supplier.
Is the argument for BI really "we have no idea what will happen but it'll sure be massive and we believe without evidence that it will be good?"
In an employment market, I am the supplier, my boss is the consumer. I hold a monopoly over my supply. All of my competitors offer my employer a slightly different product. The market is a monopolistic competitive market. On the other hand, my boss holds a temporary monopoly on my income, whether I eat or not.
With a GBI, these monopolistic parts of the market may be removed. My boss does not have to choose between me and another employee offering slightly different products, we can both be hired for the distinct bits of work we are can provide, and for an agreed price we value the work at, not an amount we need to satisfy our need to live. ie.it opens the employment market up to purer competition.
Is the argument for BI really...
Let me be clear, I don't think this is a good thing, but that is the sense I get from pro-GBI advocates. The scary thing is it most probably would be massive, in time, and there is little good evidence on the knock-on effects. I get why anti-GBI advocates are scared, they stand to lose money, but pro-GBI advocates should be scared too. So I guess what surprises me is they both should be arguing for trials, surely?
The former is not the latter. Google "savings account".
Transaction costs are, economically, only a monopsony in the regime of small price changes compared to switching costs. I.e., if the cost of finding a new job is $2,000 then your boss can only underpay you by $2,000.
So I guess what surprises me is they both should be arguing for trials, surely?
I have no objection to trials. Unfortunately, a lot of BI "trials" are not really trials of BI at all - they are experiments in transferring wealth from outside the trial area into it. E.g., Mincome, the Uganda experiment. These trials certainly show that imperialism makes the empire richer.
Google poverty.