Essentially if everyone had $1000 extra then everything would cost $1000 extra. So if you went from 0 to $1000, you'd just be left with $1000 and nothing to spend it on. You can't eat money.
You just said "then". Where is the argument?
So if I earn $500 now, and buy 500 lollipops at $1 each.
If everyone gets $1000 as UBI, then those 500 lollipops will cost ... $1001 each and $501000 in total?
Isn't that absurd?
That is what the sentence "everything will cost $1000 extra" means, and the only way "raising the value of zero" makes mathematical sense.
What is probably meant here -- that the sum of what you buy will be $1000 more in total -- is accurarely captured by the term "inflation" in the OP.
But then the statement "raise value of zero" does not make sense.
Because you can't print food, houses, energy etc. Give everyone $1000 and you won't magically create any more food or any more houses or any more energy out of thin air. So the market will adjust the price to account for the increased demand. It's basic supply and demand.
> If everyone gets $1000 as UBI, then those 500 lollipops will cost ... $1001 each and $501000 in total?
> Isn't that absurd?
Yes it is, but you misunderstand. It's not that every individual item would cost $1000 extra, it's that the total cost of living would be $1000 extra.
Hey, I even quoted the interpretation you explain to me here further down in the post I wrote.
What I was arguing about was whether the specific phrase "change the value of zero" makes sense to describe inflation.
The first one just requires changing some digits in a bank account. The second requires an enormous amount of positive work by the whole of society to generate that much value.