I shipped an essay yesterday about how relatively smart people are oblivious about what life on the low end of the IQ distribution is like. It mentioned UBI because what stimulated me to write it was somebody else's thread about a recent study of UBI.
I should have expected what happened next. Lots of clever people tried to come up with clever ways to fix UBI's failure modes by time-structuring the payouts, or erecting restrictions on what the money can be used for.
I was gobsmacked that only one person in the entire thread pointed out the obvious: if you try to trickle payments so that UBI recipients can't overspend, all you will do is create a market niche for shady characters peddling predatory payday loans. At which point your clients will revert to their careless high-velocity spending, after the shady characters have taken a rake off the top.
I waited in vain for somebody to point out that we already know what happens when you try to put use restrictions on transfer payments. There's plenty of experience about this around EBT cards - people spin up informal markets in which they can sell the planner-approved goods they don't want for money to buy the disapproved goods they do want. They don't mind that they're usually taking a huge nominal loss on these transactions, because they want what they want and not what planners think they should want.
All such proposals are doomed. They're technocratic wankery, perfect examples of what Nassim Taleb calls "fragilista thinking". They illustrate another chronic failure mode of smart people. This post may look like it's about UBI, but it's really about that failure mode.
All you would-be social engineers continually trip over your own blindness about second-order consequences. Especially the second order consequences that come from the fact that the people you are trying to help, or nudge, don't want what you want. They want what *they* want, and they don't care about your clever planning except to the extent they can exploit it to pursue their own desires.