> Land has a perfectly inelastic supply, and thus expectations of more income will lead to increases in rent.
It seems like you're talking about housing rather than land, you don't think that more construction happens when there's more demand? Most of the populated world doesn't have the unique constraints present in the Bay area or NYC.
Because of the law of supply and demand, as it pertains to the outputs of a productive process in a relatively free market context. The prices will generally tend towards the costs (including opportunity costs) in the long run, and demand shocks will only cause temporary rises in price until production can catch up.
With naturally scarce commodities, that is not possible, because there is no production.
>you don't think that more construction happens when there's more demand?
Land supply is perfectly inelastic. Improvements on land are somewhat elastic, although ultimately anchored by lots of factors... and the speculative holding of land is a big one. Furthermore, there's an upper limit to the amount of density that a region can sustain and still be livable.
There's a "standard of comfort" that people have, which ultimately determines a lot of it, though. So, in theory, if we became more comfortable at higher densities, we could live like people in Hong Kong. Yet, that doesn't mean even they can sustain infinite density, and indeed they have high rents in Hong Kong.
Oil rights are a kind of land, of course, because that is what land really is... the rights.
Those rights are precisely quantifiable in the form of land titles. The scope of those titles, and the quantity of land subsumed under them, is precisely quantifiable and does not change from year to year.
The speculative holders of the rights are often neglecting to rent out the land, but in economic terms they are just consuming their own imputed rents. The rents are a flow that continuously accrues to the title.
One of the cool things about basic income is that because it distributes the incomes evenly, it flattens out the demand curve or increases the price elasticity of demand. This means that (even absent competition) if producers raise prices, they'll lose customers. Conversely, if they lower prices they'll get more customers.
A basic income creates an incentive for producers to keep their prices low. This incentive is higher than it would be without the basic income.
Another way to think about it is that basic income, doesn't give people more money to spend on goods they're already buying. Instead, it gives money to more people to spend on goods they wouldn't have bought before. It's the difference between giving money primarily to people who already have it and giving money to people who don't.
Basic income allows the economy to start activating previously unused productive capacity that was already available.
Of course this doesn't work for goods whose production is being constrained by resource limits. For example, under basic income, you might see the price of meat rise, which would cause people to buy less meat and substitute other types of food. We have the capacity to feed the world, but we don't necessarily have the capacity to feed everyone meat 24/7.