These are salient points and indicative of the general need for more nuance in the dialogue and debate on this issue. An additional layer I feel is critical yet almost universally ignored is that "foreign aid" and "development" get used in these transfer and UBI discussions as blanket terms meaning efforts to improve income-based poverty only. Yet didn't we all agree more than a decade ago that poverty is more than income? Development as freedom, and all? The argument seems to be that if we could bring everyone up to or over the poverty line with cash transfers, then voila, no more need for international development assistance...which is absurd. Development funding does more than improve incomes of people, and is necessary for actually enhancing the broader systems and services upon which these people (with their shiny new incomes) will rely upon. So I wish the debate about cash transfers could include a little more context about their relation to income, explained within the greater development ecosphere. They may (in some cases) improve income poverty, but they don't necessarily have a magic ability to make key health, education, or environmental institutions and services function and serve a country's needs. The latter would still need attention, and it's far-fetched to believe domestic resources and political will are sufficient.