Friedman’s poverty floor was political, not economic, necessity.

Evidence

The reasons for focusing on a floor of income instead of reducing inequality were, however, less economic than political. “Even with a completely competitive order,” Friedman argued at the 1947 Mont Pèlerin Society conference, there would always be a “problem of poverty” and “no democratic society is going to tolerate people starving to death, if there is food with which to feed them.” — Anton Jäger and Daniel Zamora Vargas, Welfare for Markets, 118

Categorization

• XREF: Parallel to my Frankfurt School notes on why the ruling order must concede relief to survive. — connects to: Guaranteed income historically implied work duties tied to citizenship. — Anton Jäger and Daniel Zamora Vargas, Welfare for Markets: A Global History…, 107; Friedman redefined economics’ goal from welfare maximization to freedom maximization. — Anton Jäger and Daniel Zamora Vargas, Welfare for Markets: A Global History…, 118; Nixon’s EITC implemented Friedman’s NIT only for workers — Anton Jäger and Daniel Zamora Vargas, Welfare for Markets: A Global History…, 197 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Friedman deliberately courted unpopular positions because he found them low-cost and rewarding #corroborates (0.85) — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion, 391