> But if UBI replaced all normal welfare (excluding disability etc) is that such a bad thing?
Part of the problem is that some welfare is not about the money, but the support. UBI is less likely to help someone with mental issues than someone who hates working at 7/11 while studying. Generalised, UBI likely helps those who have an impermanent problem over those that have longer term issues.
Society likely would still need welfare services for those people who struggle with the multiple travails of existence.
Personally, I'm less interested in UBI in the first world, where welfare is pretty good already and the negative affects are unknown and complicated. I'm more interested in what affect it would have on the third world, where the downsides - disincentives to work etc - seem far less of an issue. https://www.givedirectly.org/ubi-study/ is a good example.
That's the missing piece of all this. The Saudis may legitimately be in the market for turning $15B into $10B, and being happy.
Oil is under a LOT of pressure, and while it won't go away anytime soon, the Saudis need to put their money somewhere. They likely already have a diversified portfolio of other stocks, they have after all made billions for almost a half century, and risking a smallish percentage of their wealth (there's a terrifying thought) is likely a smart move, even if they lose big, by anyone else's standards.
As a political strategy it is also probably sane. Vision Fund is likely good for the Saudi's reputation, as investment in innovation over, say, real estate in London or SF is less politically charged.
I'm also pretty sure that is the case in almost all countries, where welfare is all money spent on, well, looking after people in some way?