[the_benno]

What is this gobbledygook? These technical terms have meanings that you clearly either (a) do not understand or (b) are abusing to trick less-educated folks into thinking your political opinions are authoritative and intellectual or whatever.

To an audience that _does_ speak theoretical CS, your sprinkling in of its terminology weakens whatever point you're trying to make and comes off instead as silly and pretentious.

[iammisc]

Hey... I'm not tricking anyone. I used a term that was related to work I was currently doing. It's not the best term, you're right. But my meaning was quite clear.

If you base UBI on cost of living, and cost of living depends on UBI, then you find yourself in a feedback loop. My use of turing complete was not really accurate, but it was the context my mind was in when writing this comment.

I make mistakes and sometimes speak unclearly. No need to be pedantic.

[the_benno]

Your meaning was indeed clear but I find your reasoning flawed and the cargo-cult intellectualism... silly and pretentious.

The main flaw, to me, is the 1:1 correspondence you draw between the magnitude of UBI-style benefits and cost of living. That may be true (at least under some simplified/idealized econ101 assumptions) if UBI was the sole source of money in the economy, but that's obviously not the case. The crux of the "UBI doesn't cause spiraling inflation" argument is that UBI accounts for a sufficiently small fraction of total incomes that its benefit (greater spending power for lower incomes, and the downstream economic benefits of that spending) outweighs its nonzero but noncrippling inflationary effect.

That is, though the $10 cash benefit you describe may of course increase COL, it does so by some amount between $0 and $10 that is influenced by all sorts of factors you're glossing over.