On wealth and ideologies

Wealth creates wealth, builds upon previous wealth.
It takes wealthy people to buy products from others, making the producers wealthier (and the purchasers too: for otherwise they would not have parted with the money). Those producers can then, in turn, purchase products from others, and so forth and so further.
Wealth breeds safety and security. When one does not have to worry about acquiring the basic necessities for life (food, drink and shelter), one does not have to consider acquiring those by violent means, risking injury or even death (or social ostracisation),wasting resources one does not have due to one’s poverty (war presumes wealth: which is why it is very unlikely that North Korea will go to war).
Paradoxically, poverty creates empoverishing conflict while extreme poverty prevents it. Making socialism the most potent force for peace the world has ever known.

Growing the #economy by running a succesful business not only enriches thousands upon thousands, up to millions, but then enables these richer people to give to charity themselves because they now have more disposable income than they immediately need (so do not have to live hand to mouth).

Capitalists are not likely to deliberately put people in unsafe factories. It is not in their benefit for people to risk their health there. Capitalists will provide safer factories, if they would result in higher productivity/fewer complaints/strikes by the workers.
This would be for his own good, for increased profits.
Being a sadist, intent on harming workers, takes money and effort, which one cannot afford to spend on such unproductive matters, unless one is a capitalist.

Capitalism doesn’t tend to have people alwith an innate desire to tell people how to behave, because doing so is wasteful,of effort better spent on producing stuff.
Socialism on the other hand, is all about telling people what do do, and if the glorious leadership would rather not hear that, they easily turn aggressive. This means that people with an inherent violent streak are most likely to gravitate to socialism.

On Slavery (exploitation / exclusion)

Wheneer,someone equates #Capitalism with #slavery, mention #apartheid. Slavery is  a way for the government to torture people, just like apartheid. But there’s no way you can say apartheid was a system for economic exploitation. It was economic exclusion, not exploitation, exploitation may yield money (though slavery turns out to not be economically viable, maybe with a government to wield its magical authority to coerce citizens into catching runaway slaves).

Excluding entire masses from economic life is entirely harmful to capitalists. So, only an ideologue, like a #politician will do that.

How about this hypothesis (#oil, #wealth)

How about the hypothesis that oil is literally the earth’s mantel (or crust, I confuse those two), processed by bacteria?
The people that support that hypothesis – over the #fossil fuel-hypothesis, suport that by a.o. the claim, that if it where fossil, it would have run out yonks ago, given all the #oil that’s been burnt & processed into plastic?
I propose not putting artificial limits on oil now (out of faux-concern for #durability), because all it would do, is keep the oil in the ground for future generations who are not allowed to touch it, because it has to be preserved for even further future generations, and infinitum. So it’s best to use it to create wealth now, and use that wealth to be able to fund a transfer to different energy sources. Wealth generated today is not wealth stolen from the future (like inflationary fake-wealth from central banks), so the #wealth generated today can be built upon by future generations, adding today’s wealth to the future’s wealth. A wealthy future can better support luxuries like “#durable #energy” that must be rammed down our empoverishing throats today.

Remarkable insights from #climate-research.

What remarkable insights does Syun Ichi Akasofu’s article “On the present halting of global warming” contain?
Global warming began in 1800-1850, not after CO2 began rising rapidly in 1946. Ah: immediately after WW2, which means that rising CO2-emmissions are correlated to rising wealth levels, here meaning explicitly that war is destructive to economic well-being. Oddly enough, war didnot caude en extreme rise in CO2 (as one woud expect given the amount of bombers, tanks, ships, etc.)

Also, the’s the fact that several decades of climate policy resulted in a rise of #CO2 concentration.
And during that rise, there was no temperature increase. According to prof. Ross McKitrick, the warming pause has lasted 19 years at the surface, and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere. Since 1990, atmospheric #carbon levels rose from 354ppm to just under 400ppm, a 13% increase.

1990 is the baseline year for the #Kyoto protocol.

The University of East-Anglia (UK), projected an increase of atmospheric CO2 of 61% since Kyoto. Which was supposedly about reducing CO2, right? Or was it about reducing wealth? The EU was the 3rd largest emitter of CO2, after China and the US. Per capita emmissions reveal a different story: the US is the highest emitter, averaging about 10* that of poor India. So again, high emmissions correlate to wealth. Plant growth increases due to rises in carbon levels, permit more people to eat more, to feed their wealth-producing labour.

To reform #banking

Fractional reserve banking is what enables banks to pay #interest to the saver. It also makes banks susceptible to #collapse from a #bank #run.
If one wishes (nearly) 100% assured safety, only deposit one’s money in a bank that does not lend out at an interest rate, so a bank that only engages in the traditional role of warehousing. You pay a modest fee, but are assured that your money is there (bar events such as robbery, bankruptcy, earthquake, war…)
How could banks earn enough money to pay you(!) a fee for storing your money with them (the exact inverse)? Why, through

Fractional #reserve-banking

of course! By not keeping all the deposited money in reserve, but lending out a #fraction the bank earns #interest #payments, which are used to pay the worker’s salaries, saver’s interest mortgages on the bank-building, purchases of bank-safes, etc. This lending out of money to borrowers, makes investments possible (like the aforementioned mortgage on the bank-building, or mortgages for factory- or office-buildings), and thus economic growth. Regrettably, it also makes possible a bank run, where savers want to get back more money than the bank currently holds (some of which is loaned out to borrowers).
Citizens that are concerned about “greedy banks” or bank-runs might choose to keep their money in a bank, that only stores the money for a fee and doesn’t lend it to borrowers. Such banks no longer exist, one could easily purchase a safe and start advertising about your run-proof money-storage.
Except in today’s world, ever fewer payments are done in cash (#gold bullion), but rather electronically, so your money safe would likely remain quite empty & pristine.
One could engage in a different strategy, and take #CryptoCurrencies like #BitCoin or one of the many derivatives. So long as there is an internet (and you didn’t lose your password), you have access to your balance.

The seeds of its own destruction?

Friedrich #Engels was able to finance Karl #Marx, because Engels was the son of a wealthy entrepreneur. Engels and Marx both famously opposed entrepreneurship. Marxism inspired communist dictatorship, which as we know was a disaster for the esstern-European people (proletariat), unlike #capitalism, which had lifted the western worker up to great affluence, even the poorest households tended to be able to acquire toothpaste, unlike even the elite in the #communist block.
So, basically, #capitalism made possible the ideology that spent 3/4 of a decade fighting it (and didn’t really stop with the collapse of the USSR; there are so many communist activists in the west that try to overthrow the free-market-way of life – Al #Gore, Naomi #Klein, …) So did capitalism carry the seeds of its own destruction?
I tend to disagree. Capitalism (I use that as “free-market”) simply means that people are free to make their own choices, unlike communism/socialism, which is all about the state imposing its will upon others. Since capitalism is a different kind of ideology (Strictly speaking it’s not about #politics), unlike #communism which is about how many roles the evil institution should play) it is not an ideology that fights other ideologies. I know, the cold war between #communist east and capitalist west disproves that, except it wasn’t really between communism and capitalism, now, was it? It was about control of the earth by one nation or by another nation (#4thReich), it just so happened that the west, in spite of all its socialist faults (and there were so many: starting with Central Banking, over-regulation of markets and more) tended to be a bit freer & wealthier than the east. So socialism, with its more violent nature, tends to destroy anything it gets in contact with, and is the side most likely to pick a fight and attempt to impose itself anywhere it can, because socialism is all about politics, and politicians desire power for (abuse of) power’s sake. Businessmen desire a comfortable life, so wealth for comfort’s sake. Hence proper capitalism is not about abuse of power, so proper capitalists don’t really care if the state is governed one way or another: of course, the presence of a state tends to diminish the virtues of capitalism, states automatically lean more toward socialism (totalitarianism).