I am a big fan of Andrew Yang’s proposed policies, and I’ve been a supporter of his since last summer when I read about him for the first time. However, I’ve begun to see a common misconception across social media from his supporters: that Yang’s UBI will not cause inflation. People who say this couldn’t be more wrong.

The main argument that many of Yang’s supporters use to argue that inflation won’t increase under his policy is that the money supply is staying the same. Yang is merely using existing money in the economy and redistributing it, how would that ever cause inflation? Well, to answer that question, one needs to look no farther than Yang’s own website.

While Yang has denied the risks of inflation while talking about his UBI, the study that he cites to demonstrate that the policy would create economic growth also says that it would cause inflation. The Roosevelt Institute study says that while the economy would likely grow 12.56 to 13.10 percent, that growth would also be accompanied by a price level increase of 3.68 to 3.77 percent.

But why? How would increasing household incomes grow and inflate the economy to such an extent. Well, the primary reason is that the Levy Model used in the Roosevelt Institute study assumes that the United States has “demand slack.” Because household incomes are low in the United States, the demand side of the economy isn’t performing to its full capacity. By redistributing the money supply and increasing household incomes, a $1,000 a month UBI would counteract the demand slack.

Due to poorer people’s higher marginal propensity to consume, it does make sense that giving households more money would help the demand side of the economy. Also, a UBI would increase the government’s deficit, giving a further boost to aggregate demand.

I support both the assumptions and conclusions of the Roosevelt Study, as the Levy Economic Model that they used has a strong track record in predicting Macroeconomic outcomes. However, I don’t see why Andrew Yang and many of his supporters can’t publicly accept these facts. Regardless of the inflation, what the study shows is a massively positive impact on our nation’s economy.

Yang, his campaign, and his supporters should start being honest with themselves and others about the macroeconomic implications of a UBI. I don’t know why Yang has chosen not to discuss the inflation, but it really wouldn’t be that complicated to explain to voters. Yes there would be inflation, but economic growth would exceed that inflation. Yes your groceries might cost more, but you’ll have way more money to spend on groceries in the first place, so you would net benefit from a UBI.

So, I implore you all to think harder about the policies that your candidate has proposed, and use relevant economic theory when talking about them. Accept the negatives, and then weigh them against the positives, because when it comes down to it, the proposed UBI is still highly beneficial to our nation’s economy.

