&gt; [1] Because there&#x27;s more money and the same amount (or less) of things to buy. Think of it a bit like someone issuing stock: yes, that dilutes your shares.<p>Why would there (necessarily) be more money?<p>&gt; People are also likely to start charging more because everything costs them more and people have more money to spend now<p>It seems like all of this would work equally well as an argument for a policy of depressing wages as a way to makes everyone better off. If you wouldn&#x27;t support that, why the concern about guaranteed income?  Or, what is the difference, in terms of effect on the money and labor supplies? How would lowering wages not be the inverse of this, and (under this line of reasoning) be good for us? Unless you believe we&#x27;re at some sort of maxima for the ideal share of money flowing to the bottom of the economic pyramid, and that sending more that way will make collectively less well-off. It&#x27;s also possible I&#x27;m just not following what you mean.