So by your logic if there is no UBI suddenly money ceases to exist completely and we can't have price discovery?
There you go jumping from one thing to another, extrapolating without any basis for comparative assessment and therefore lack of sensibility (senseless).
To the contrary, there is no price discovery possible if people don't have money to signal demand for goods and services.
That doesn't equal to No UBI = No Money.
Price discovery does not cease to exist just because certain people don't participate in the market.
If those certain people are the only ones that would demand that resource than it ceases then and there, economic 101.
The fact that you linked this segment of an article as an argument shows me you nor the author have any understanding of the definition or function of price discovery (or perhaps are willfully perverting it).
That's quite an absurdity but why not, you can be swayed to calling people idiots to their face or telling them kindly that they don't comprehend, either way, it's an Ad Hominem because it doesn't connect any reasoning behind it outside the "fact" that it was presented.
Price discovery is the method by which producers are signaled the supply and demand of limited resources and therefore are able to price them correctly.
A whole bunch of nothing:
Certain portions of people not participating in the market (even if true), do not prevent the mechanism of price discovery of RESOURCES.
Except that without money, how can you discover the price of resources? So back to square one, especially if that is endemic of all of the demand. Again can you have price discovery without money? Not where there's not money, Nope.
An individual person or even groups of people's inability to "price signal" as the article puts it is irrelevant to the price discovery mechanism because some one else wants those resources more and they are willing to pay for it.
Unless they don't, so your "assume someone else want's it more and has the money to pay for it" is a nice way to avoid the argument, because why can't you just assume someone with deeper pockets and demand when the argument is empty pockets and demand.
No amount of waving your magic money wand will make producers want to sell resources for less than what they could realistically get.
Because you've demonstrated how economically literate you are "What happens to the price of chicken feed".
In short price discovery sets the value and price of resources. With out it there is no reliable way to do so and production is interrupted resulting in over or under supply causing instability and shortages long term, for everyone.
Price discovery needs the capital, a shortage of capital isn't price discovery, only a Buble. There is nothing more devastating than a shortage of money which affects everyone.
I have read enough of Friedman to know he did not support UBI, and enough of your work to know you hear what you like and discount the rest.
Except that interview that came much later af this work when he clearly supports UBI or a basic income.
That article is more contrarian tripe again jam packed with rhetorical and ideological arguments sprinkled with economic terminology in a sad attempt to give it credence.
Of course, your trite remark probably holds that article (which one?) it's contrarian in the same way you think it contrarian because there won't be Price Discovery without UBI, as if they cannot comprehend what they read and can confuse something as simple or succinct as "no price discovery without money".