This whole article feels like it is written by someone who is elated to think they've figured out that we've been doing economics wrong this whole time, and the solution to scarcity is actually super simple!
There's not 10 people with 1 money each, there's a ton of people, some of who have 1 money, while others have a billion money, and others have a couple hundred money, and some have 0 money and are at risk of starving.
UBI causes inflation, which hurts the lower class the most. How is this a win? If everyone gets UBI, then the prices adjust and no one effectively gets UBI anymore. this is what happened to college tuitions in the US because of government grants and government-guaranteed student loans.
Yes, if everyone gets UBI, some inflation will happen because more people have money. The assertion that the inflation will be so great that it will completely cancel out the benefit of UBI for the lower classes is a far stronger claim that I've seen dozens of times, but which I've never once seen anyone attempt to justify.
If housing in one place get too expensive you can move to a place with cheaper housing.
You can’t really do the same for colleges. Reputation is not something you can simply manufacture more of.
The comparison is not even remotely valid.
Except that it isn't UBI for students. It's nothing even remotely similar to UBI. Those students still need to pay for housing and food and everything else. The loans students get aren't just free money in students pockets either. It's just "free money for schools" with extra steps and those schools are happy to take the money and pocket it.
Imagine if we really did just give every 18 year old kid hundreds of thousands of dollars in free money that would never need to be paid back. That'd be a terrible idea for a lot of reasons, but while schools would probably still benefit the most, they'd also have to compete with all the other things those kids could spend that money on and prices likely wouldn't be quite as bad.
It's the opposite of UBI—UBI you're given money that you don't have to pay back. Student loans that you can't default on is money that you can't get out of paying back.
The article argues that income is necessary for trade and therefore work which is kind of correct by accident, you need a medium of exchange to trade and work.
No income means no medium of exchange and hence an inability to trade and work.
So what is the solution? Supply and demand, the very thing that economists appear to have forgotten a long time ago, just think about it what it means to have axiomatic scarcity i.e. infinite demand. It means demand and supply will never be in balance. It doesn't take much to recognize that such an axiom is ridiculous and the fact that it is empirically disproven is just one more sad story we have to tell each other to stay grounded in reality.
If economics is a game then games can be finished until there is an update or expansion.
What does the very simple concept of supply and demand being in balance predict? It obviously predicts that all savings are bounded in time as any eternal savings would violate supply and demand. What do we observe in the economy? Eternal savings, quite literally in the form of cash. To make all savings bounded in time, economists have started inflation rate targeting.
Now imagine, you are a rational business owner and you build factories to mill grain and bake bread. You accidentally build one factory too many, it still costs you money to keep it staffed and ready to produce, yet the redundancy is useful if there is a famine, just in case we do need extra bread. However from the business owners perspective it would be better to close the factory and liquidate it into money and then... do absolutely nothing because it costs him nothing and his savings are eternally guaranteed by artificial interventions like the deposit guarantee and the government bailing the banks out at the cost of tax payers.
Okay let's get to the point, the business owner doesn't like an empty factory because it carries business risk and costs him money, but he likes money because the risk is carried by others and it is free at no cost to him. One person has too much money and doesn't invest it, if the money supply doesn't grow endlessly through more debt, then someone else ends up with too little money. The person with too little money has legitimate interests and a desire to work but no ability to do so. At no point is the bottleneck ever in the productive economy and if it was, it would be reflected through higher wages, there would be a scarcity of workers, not a scarcity of the medium of exchange.