You're sort of helping me make my point. From my perspective, everything is much more complex than what it seems you're outlining in some of your articles. Everything is a moving target. For example, you wrote "groceries might end up costing you an extra 1.4% per month", based on the following video about what would happen if Walmart paid a "living wage":
But, fast forward a year and a half later, and we got this instead:
Investors revolted after Chief Financial Officer Charles Holley lowered the boom at its annual investor day at the New York Stock Exchange (ICE), disclosing that profits will decline between 6 and 12% in fiscal 2017. The consensus was for a drop of 4%. He also stated that 75% of the reduction was tied to higher wages.
Link: Wal-Mart Lost $21 Billion Wednesday: What Really Happened?
But what's a few extra billion here and there among friends?! ;) Also sounds like taxpayers may have lost quite a bit more in tax revenue than they "saved" from this particular "debacle" as well.
Regarding inflation, the main reason all the Fed Q.E. really didn't work is because all the money they "printed" was not only hoarded by banks, but it still didn't make up for all the money that "evaporated" in the debt bubble collapse. Martin Armstrong has generally been one of the few who's gotten much of this correct. And he's also been right in that inflation shows up as interest rates rise, not when rates fall (as most mainstream news sources often claim)...
All of these gurus assumed that the Fed’s balance sheet would cause huge inflation because they just read headlines and do not comprehend how the system really works. Their assumption was that all this money would spark inflation, which they only see, and the 1970s demand inflation into 1980. The money never made it to the people. The bankers were paid to HOARD that cash, which shows that the Fed is really insane.
Link: Armstrong Economics: The Three Faces of Inflation
Link: Armstrong Economics: The Fed & Interest Rates: The Nightmare That Will Not End Nicely
Regarding Milton Friedman, I've seen that interview a few times and generally agree with what he says. However, he's also making the point that if you're going to have welfare, with all its double-thinking "conditions", and all the additional middle-men and overhead, why not take that money and give it directly to the people instead, where it can do the most good. In 2009, if the bailout money had gone more directly to the people as opposed to the bankers, it may have also had a much greater effect as well.
Finally, I'm always fascinated by how much more "bang for the buck" I seem to extract versus others who seem less able to "afford it" in the first place. As such, I'm intrigued by how some countries such as India are able to perform cataract surgery for $25 per patient versus $1000's of dollars in the West. Perhaps if we could find a way to bring more such competitive "price advantages" to Western cultures, it may go a long way in addressing some of these bigger issues.