I'm not an economist and some points in your article I fail to grasp fully (maybe cos I haven't read the earlier installment?), but here's how I view UBI, and tell he how you disagree. UBI is to literally stop people from dying, first of all. So, provide a roof over their heads, food, etc. Basically, very similar to a prison. Second, this UBI community will be geared toward teaching the unemployed new skills, so that they can reenter the job market. This could be done as a loan: for example, the government will take 10% of all future profit you make, to repay itself for the project. This is similar to what is done in the UK with students getting student loans that they can repay whenever they find a job that pays. If even one person that comes out of the 'projects' finds tremendous success, the project will be able to survive on his 10% alone. But there's gonna be more people earning good money, in my estimation.
What the UBI certainly won't be doing, is giving people anything non-essential: i.e. anything not related to learning and to staying alive and healthy. So, it won't be buying you a TV if you don't need one to learn something. It won't be buying you bus tickets to visit other counties. Most people will not find that kind of life enjoyable, and will work hard to escape those conditions.
This is how UBI would work in the system as it already is, in a country that can afford it, i.e. most western countries.
The other post is more along these lines as you mentioned here. This one is decidedly...down.
There will be good sides to it of course but there will also be the risks that come from reliance on external support etc. I like to spend the time thinking through many sides of situations, even if they are unlikely or impossible.
The thing is with UBI though is it must be unversal, so those that are in the position they do not use the support will be able to buy the TV or such. Of course, who kows what kinds of shape it would actually take once implemented.
What do you mean universal, the entire planet? Why should it be so? Why can't every country (that can) start (and end?) by doing it on its own soil?
Oh. Universal means all within the country. Not the world. So if implemented in Finland, all Finns and qualifying foreigners will get it. Not means tested.
Whether any final form will look like that, who knows.