First of all that is not a quote of Friedman supporting UBI, that is him comparing them in a way that is selectively taken out of context in a manipulative way.

So we are to take your assertion without any kind of substance because you spoke on scott's actions but spared no word to explain what context you're talking about?

Second, as I explained before Friedman is not God and he doesn't have all the answers EVEN IF HE DID support UBI (which he doesn't).

Because those things were Implied at all or someone was arguing that he was a God or that he had ALL the answers. Classic red herring.

The interview I linked previously shows him comparing UBI with NIT, and why he supports NIT over UBI specifically.

And we have been past that and are here is exactly how the interview concludes:

FRIEDMAN: "I am not familiar with the evolution of this proposition during the nineties in Brazil. With respect to the local initiative you refer to, a similar program has been instituted in Mexico for a particular section of the country in which the government is paying families a supplement if their children go to school instead of to work. A basic income or a negative income tax is a much more comprehensive measure for assuring a basic level of living. However, the provision of funds to subsidize the schooling of children has many more precedents in the actual behaviour of various countries. I suspect that Brazil's government already finances schooling and this could be seen as part of that. As you know from my book Capitalism and Freedom, I am not only in favour of a negative income tax; I am also in favour that if government chooses to finance schooling, it should do so through a voucher to parents rather than by administering the schools. I have done no writing or work on the negative income tax in recent years so I am not familiar with the latest developments in respect of it. I hope these comments are of some help to you."

Why did he mention that he isn't familiar with the latest developments in respect with negative income tax, because earlier he had equated the two as being of the same ends:

“A basic or citizen’s income is not an alternative to a negative income tax. It is simply another way to introduce a negative income tax if it is accompanied with a positive income tax with no exemption. A basic income of a thousand units with a 20 percent rate on earned income is equivalent to a negative income tax with an exemption of five thousand units and a 20 percent rate below and above five thousand units.”

And that's why he concluded after being thoroughly questioned if he had any idea of the different UBI initiatives and projects because it was the same ends, complementary.

Regarding Alaska, just because a fund is in place to account for minor market oscillations does not mean the money supplying it is infinite.

That's not why the foud is there, so take your strawman for a dance home because it's there to directly earn dividends to be paid out to the people not to account for market fluctuations and the money supplying it doesn't need to be infinite, but what was your point? Is the found still working? Why wouldn't it? Lack of reasoning and strawman are your substitute for specificity and sound reasoning?

SUPLICY: "The Alaska Permanent Fund is now completing 20 years of distributing a dividend to all citizens that have been living in Alaska for more than a year. According to several studies it has contributed the Alaskan economy's steady rate of growth, with everyone having a basic right to participate in the wealth of the State. It is the practical demonstration that a basic income can work. In 1999, the 600,000 inhabitants received US$ 1679.84 each. I visited Alaska in 1995 and observed that the population was very enthousiastic about the system. I could not see people not working because of that dividend. I saw there the application of a very similar proposal made by Thomas Paine in his 1795 Agrarian Justice. I noticed in the autobiography of Jay Hammond [the governor who created the scheme in the early 1980s] that you once suggested him to divide among the population the total oil revenue obtained at the beginning of the Alasca Permanent Fund. He preferred, however, to think not only of that generation, but also of future generations. How do you evaluate the experience of the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend? Would you recommend it to other nations, each one building a fund based on the nation's wealth so as to have a citizen's income to all?"
FRIEDMAN: "I believe the Alaska Permanent Fund works very well, but I think it is difficult to generalize it to other states. The Alaska situation is a very special one. The problem arose because it was clear that Alaska was going to have a very high income that would be temporary and not permanent. The decline in that income is now coming about, and the problems about what to do about the Permanent Income Fund are becoming pressing. At the time, the issue was whether to divide the extra income among the people year by year or instead do what they actually did, which was to use a considerable part of it to support government spending and then accumulate the rest in a fund which would yield a dividend that could be paid to each individual. It is still not clear to me at this date which would have in principle been better. I have no doubt that because of the way in which it was done Alaska has a larger government than it otherwise would."

Regarding Finland, no official results have not yet been published. However that by no means makes it impossible to observe existing trends and make extrapolations of the success or failure (in this case failure) of the experiment.

Vacpus language that once questioned for specificty will demonstrate that there's nothing of substance to it, so without further ado, What current (existing) trends are you assuming to be at play in Finland to effectuate that conclusion?

What then happens to the price of chicken feed? There is always another down chain cost created by inflation.

Wait are you trying to say that the chickenfeed will increase in price simply because you redistributed the chickens around? Only so many chickens are required for the population, the problem is distribution. The same ammount of chickens are going to be tended to, the same ammount of chicken feed will be used, except that it won't be from the demand of a chicken farm but from 1000 smaller families, so instead of 10000 pounds of chicken feed being demanded by the now obselete chicken farms, they go right back into the supply chain to the 1000 smaler farms and their orders of 10 pounds each.

Your premise operates on the illusion that handing out money will magically make more resources available.

It will make more resources available in the form of abled people that can be productive. It's exacty the distribution and supply of money that is at the core issue of economics, that is after writing his A Modest Proposal Benjamin Frankling enacted the most prosperous time in our history, because in his treatsey he enunciated the fact that without enough money there is no economy. People think that money will normalize the value of goods with a bit of time, yet that is not how it played out in the colonies once Benjamin Franklin was questioning Parlament about the adherent Poverty that was in England, to which the English had only just gotten news of the unprecedented Prosperity of the colonies, where there weren't any poor people to put in poor houses even if they would have built them, and which prosperity was squelced rather quickly by the kings order that comerce be done in gold and silver coins, a short supply of which recked the prosperous colonies into the poverty that the English had attempted to pragmatically clean themselves of through Famine and War, as they considered the workers as an Excess.

Furthermore handing out money is destructive to the VITAL price discovery system of which any resource based economy is based off of.

No reasoning is offered as to why that is, but we're supposed to take your Assertion that the price of feed will go up even though the demand hasn't done anything but moved from one position to 10000, and previously it was that the discussion was about the Status of God or that the Alaskan State Dividend is there to account for market fluctuations. Ridiculous if I would sit and let that nonsense slide any more than I let the rest slide! Indeed your article would be full of shit if it's all based upon the same kind of errenous reasoning as "what happens with the price of chicken feed?"

As far as your "net transfer from those above a threshold point to those below a threshold point", that is also known as re-distribution of wealth, and is at the core of Communist ideology, no matter how apolitical you claim UBI to be. These people may be disproportionately wealthy but they are also the people that GENERATE most of the wealth to begin with. At a certain point you keep taking more and more until they no longer have motivations to keep producing at such levels and tax revenue starts falling.

There exists almost NO certain point and the proof is in the fact that taxes were as high as 93% and prosperity was climbing:

So much for "wealth producers". There's no wealth without demand, economics 101.

Once again, the problem with wealth redistribution is eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, then the resulting system simply eats itself as has been demonstrated every time in history when such an economic model was attempted on a large scale. Bury it in all the terminology you like, you are still talking about using the state to take from some by force to give to others.

It's the BAD state, taking it by "FORCE". These people have every oportunity to opt out of paying taxes, but they won't get bankruptcy protection anymore. Where do you think the benefits of such come from? Maybe you ought to read some of this guys thoughts, he understood prosperity pragmatically:

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Then explain to me how taxes for income for over 100 years for Federal Citizens and then by voluntary choice by American Nationals since WW2, has not yet drained the people?

Markets are complex adaptive systems, yes. However resources are not. Resources are quite finite, and you can wave your magic wand over the money all you want and in whatever way, but more money does not equal more resources.

And people without money willl equal no more markets and revolution in the street, and you forget that Renewable Resources and abbundant resources might not be infinite but there is more than enough to go around, yet all that money that sits in the pocket of "wealth creators" does nothing but diminishes the amount of money people can transact with, money too is a resurce in that sense but you think it's only an abstraction despite what reality tells you.