UBI Universal Basic Income, Great for Investors and Authoritarians

Why not ? Joe already proved money is free, just print it out of thin air in the Trillions.
What could possibly go wrong?

False. Fiat currency. Google.

I really don't think they are!!

Why not? The higher the UBI goes, the more rent they can charge.

I don't know how to tell you that the landlord class are not known for their far-left views!

Same that happened with medical care - between insurance and assistance for the poor. Also college with loans and grants. An assured money stream means rising prices.

In the building I lived it for c.20yrs, they had had a deal back in the 90s with nearby St Barnabas Hospital to rent to medical staff, subsidized by the hospital. Most were Filipino nurses - gosh great neighbors, way better than the noisy Fordham University students they catered to before and after, super nice and neighborly.
But then my landlords (a family) started taking advantage and started jacking up the rent till after a cpl of yrs Barnabas pulled the plug out on that contract and it was back to FU students.

Guarantee a money supply, and there is no incentive to keep charges low,,,

But that doesn't mean they voted for it or would vote it. You're familiar no doubt with the fact that American farmers who most benefit from the food stamp program are also the least supportive of food stamp programs - well, a very similar thing goes on elsewhere. Hospital bosses and administrators are suprisingly hostile to unionization of staff and municipalization of access to hospitals; university bosses are similarly surprisingly conservative for people in charge of what are supposed to be hotbeds of liberal intellectualism, and so on.

Yes, landlords will price gouge us at every opportunity - but ironically, it's precisely BECAUSE they want to be able to price gouge us at will that you will almost never meet a landlord who supports Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren; mentioning UBI might put dollar signs in their eyes, but they know full well that rent controls and a renters' bill of rights are part of that discussion.

Besides, what the conversation really lacks is conclusive proof that this actually happens. Alaska is a place where UBI was introduced, but it's also a place that stopped building new housing during the pandemic, making it yet another situation where both sides of the political divide have something to blame for why rents went up.

Like the controls and protections the NYC Rent Guidelines Board 'imposes'? Ugh, try dealing with those asswipes.
On top of that that rent stabilization and limits on increases isn't a thing in most places, so NYC is still Heaven compared to other places.

Welfare, SS/SSI/SSDI, Medicaid, Medicare, etc, are adminstered on the state level, etc... and chances are so would this. They have enough hassles with Sect 8. Anything akin to that but on a broader scale isn't a guarantee that the recipients will win out over lobbyists and the profiteers they represent. Try contacting any agency here for anything. Even the DMV is Hell on Earth. Nothing beats a GEDer with a God Complex for something as simple as getting a Driver's License. Living in a slum for two decades, I've known plenty of vulnerable, from single mothers to the homeless to the disabled, and they always get such a runaround from agencies designed to help them, many give up on programs they're eligible for or the adovocates supposed to represent and help them.

I don't know, but there's seasonal open air greenmarkets in NYC where EBT means more customers for farmers selling poduce, although getting hooked up in it and the added paperwork can be a hassle...

The ACA also had price controls - until Republicans too over Congress which was supposed to oversee it and that was the end of that.

And Alaskans receive dividends from oil revenue - or is that the UBI?
It's a big place in need of more people. Its lack of such makes it vulnerable to the impacts of economic swings. Even with oil money coming in, throwing money at building housing stock and the infastucture that goes with which may then go unused isn't necessarily the favored way of wasting it. Bottom line, they have the means to cover a relatively small pop but that stetched over a big empty place. That's a far different scale than an NYC or the Eastern Seaboard.

Capitalism and communism share more than people think because the correct system is very different than either of them.

We are taught to choose between the left and right to trap us. Neither side offers real freedom or real equality. We can't be free without equal access to land, but neither "side" offers that.

Both "sides" want the elite to use and control the masses. Neither wants to free us. Either out of fear or out of greed, they do not want society freed from their financial slavery to central authorities.

And the correct way is your chosen pet variation of what is basically recycled libertarianism?

It's the original libertarianism. The economists who coined the phrase were advocating the single tax, not deregulation. They were saying there should be only one tax - for owning land. They were the intellectual resistance to the monarchy.

Oh even better! The ORIGINAL libertarianism - the one we already know doesn't work because we tried it! Well? good thing we have the true intellectuals like you to show us the one and only way, right?

It worked fine until 1791 when they changed the constitution. That's what led to tax revolts including the Whisky Tax Rebellion.

No, it actually didn't! That's why they needed the Whiskey Tax in the first place!

They could have obtained the needed revenue via land value tax, but they were giant landowners (and puritans) and wanted to tax whisky drinkers instead.

Well, no, they couldn't, because that strategy was producing much less revenue than was needed to administer the country.