Every study of UBI has been overwhelmingly positive also every study of UBI has ended without enacting UBI. They will continue to study it until they get the answer they want.
I’m pretty sure they meant that “the result they want” (“UBI is bad”) would be peer reviewed and shown to be bunk, but the people who wanted that result will ignore the peer review results.
They weren’t disagreeing with the original comment, just adding to it.
or… maybe it’s just diligent to have a very strong body of evidence before you go ahead and make a huge change to your country’s economic policy based on something?
Every study of UBI has been overwhelmingly positive also every study of UBI has ended without enacting UBI. They will continue to study it until they get the answer they want.
Until it is peer reviewed and points out the glaring errors, which will promptly be ignored.
Why don’t you stop and smell the roses?
Jumping to such a conclusion, then blaming the hypothetical reaction, displays ignorance or malice.
I’m pretty sure they meant that “the result they want” (“UBI is bad”) would be peer reviewed and shown to be bunk, but the people who wanted that result will ignore the peer review results.
They weren’t disagreeing with the original comment, just adding to it.
If so, then my reaction was ignorant and I retract it :)
I probably should have made it more clear that that is what I was going for.
I can see why the mistake was made.
You are correct, this is what I was going for.
or… maybe it’s just diligent to have a very strong body of evidence before you go ahead and make a huge change to your country’s economic policy based on something?