To some degree, I&#x27;m sure - it may indeed have secondary effects like lowering of the average salary, or increasing of average prices, etc.  But I don&#x27;t think it can get to the point that you&#x27;re specifying, simply because prices will always be determined in a way to maximise profits, as opposed to simple price fixing.<p>But other, potentially larger secondary effects is that overall productivity and efficiency of the economy should increase, driving prices lower.  Essentially, what we&#x27;re talking about is that people below a certain threshold are not free enough to pursue paths which would give them the most benefit in the long run.  E.g. they cannot enroll in a university, or whatever, because they are living day to day.  By giving financial independence to everyone, you are giving them the freedom to achieve these long term goals.  It&#x27;d also give more people the freedom to get into the startup scene, and I think HN agrees that innovation is an overall net win.<p>Also, clearly the money has to come from somewhere in the short term, and this would likely be a form of taxation which would come from richer people and companies, and it&#x27;d redistribute this wealth to the poorer ones.  It can be argued that the current (and seemingly near future) distribution of wealth is rather one sided, and things would be better if wealth was distributed more evenly.  Of course, that wealth would be re-injected into the economy rather rapidly, so arguably little would be lost.