## 6 Discussion  
The results of the experiment show that GDP tends to be higher under BI benefit conditions than under NoBI conditions, while investment and other economic activities are also greater under NoBI conditions. One answer to the question of which is better is \"the amount of product that households are able to consume\". Product output in this model is only determined by the firms' decisions in response to market demand, and high output does not necessarily indicate that there are high numbers of households capable of consuming the goods. Even in societies with high GDP, many households are not well off due to lower consumption volumes, which are due to higher prices because of lower production. Therefore, Figure 7 presents the results of stratifying the number of products that households are able to consume from zero, one, and two to five, among others. Figure 7 shows that under conditions with BI, there is a larger proportion of households that consume 6 to 10 products each period than under NoBI conditions. Furthermore, the product consumption layers of two to five are reduced in the conditions with BI compared to the conditions without BI. It was found that under NoBI conditions, the society was hyper-competitive and separated into a small segment of households that were able to consume large amounts (some households in the 21+ consumption segment consumed more than 70 units each quarter) and a larger segment of households that were able to consume only a small amount. In addition, the group that consumed two to five units was the smallest at BI20% for those under \(\varepsilon=-0.1\) conditions. Furthermore, BI20% produced a large variety of products while maintaining somewhat high prices; yet, an equal percentage of products was consumed, while GDP and investment thrived, making it the ideal situation of the three conditions. These results indicate two implications: implementing BI tends to result in higher GDP, but investment is more active when BI is not implemented. This is the outcome of the impact of BI on both the financial cycle and the competitive aspects of the economic system in this model. The main factor that increases GDP is the income redistribution effect of BI. In this model, in the absence of BI, a large portion of the tax revenue ultimately goes to firm sales as public spending. These sales become the savings of firms, the income of households, and the next source of government spending, and after several cycles, they are aggregated under firms with a competitive advantage, encouraging investment, and then further aggregated as profits to selected households. As a result, wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few  
Figure 7: Household ratios by product consumption. firms and households, which impedes the flow of funds. As a result, the flow of funds deteriorates during economic downturns, lowering GDP. In contrast, BI, because it redistributes tax revenues evenly, has the effect of preventing wealth from being concentrated in the hands of a few firms and households and of giving even low-income individuals purchasing power, thereby preventing GDP deterioration during economic downturns. The factors that lead to reduced investment as a result of BI are driven by reduced competition. Under the assumption that an increase in income decreases work motivation, the implementation of BI is likely to cause a decrease in work motivation. Therefore, firms with competitive advantages do not emerge, investment declines, and production tends to decrease. However, because of the distributional effects of BI, even low-income households can still purchase goods, and GDP tends to be comparatively higher under BI during economic downturns. These effects become more apparent the higher the amount of BI; so, both the work ethic and investment tend to be low under the 40%BI condition. Because BI exhibits these two opposing effects, the results show that BI20% results in better social and economic outcomes than NoBI or BI40% under extreme conditions such as \(\varepsilon=-0.1\).