Would you care to know how I determine that a writer is clueless about macro-economics and the nature of money in modern economies? I'm going to tell you anyway.

There are several indications, but they all come back to a few key points, especially among liberals. The first of these is an almost universal advocacy for a UBI, accompanied by a Rube Goldberg plan for "funding" their version of the program. This shows that they don't understand the most basic concept of money at the macro level and conflate the singular "source" of money, their sovereign currency issuing government, with the micro of all "users" of that currency.

This inevitably leads them to a trek into the deep weeds where things must be "paid for" with increased "revenue" (an oxymoron for regular morons at the federeal level) and elaborate tax plans/formulas are used to convey a false impression of expertise. While comforting to the ignorant, such misinformation is damaging to the overall goal of society in that it speaks in the language of its own opponents and is often in direct opposition to that goal.

The US and Canada are similar enough in their money creation process that I feel I can accurately predict outcomes from various actions by their respective governments. When all US citizens and legal immigrants received just a small portion of what you are suggesting during COVID shutdowns the inflationary impact was devastating. Imagine what the impact of amounts such as you are suggesting might have on a smaller economy with more difficult to navigate supply chains.

That impact was only partly attributable to higher wage demands and somewhat scarcer resources, and largely "just because" corporate powers knew the working class had some money and were determined to get as much of it as would be allowed. The deficit spending involved only provided the usual cover of monetarism the ruling class always promotes as a deflection for their greed.

Now imagine this dynamic working to capture the $14+k you suggest as UBI while almost all social safety nets have been eliminated to "pay for" the UBI. To state that the potential damage to the working class may be devastating and put them farther behind the curve would be an extreme understatement. If you are dead set on the correctness of a UBI, the worst thing you could do is to "pay for" it with cuts to the safety nets. If it will work as you claim, those reductions to spending will be automatic.