Brexit

[tands]

What do you guys think will be the outcome of the French election? All the polls were saying Clinton was going to win over here, so I'm not all that convinced by them this time. Were the polls saying Remain would win, too?

 

[DaveP]

Macron is 61%,  Le Pen is 39%

Much bigger gap than Brexit or Clinton

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

I agree it is often better to use your own common sense possibly tempered with a liberal dose of suspicion concerning the motives of certain people (politicians and scientists in this case)My personal gut feeling is we are being led up the garden path in order to cover up the real issues. There are two dangers. The obvious one is that it is in the interests of politicians and a lot of scientists to promote human CO2 emissions as the culprit. The more subtle one is the assumption that that reducing human CO2 emissions, assuming it actually happens, will actually make a difference. Human CO2 pundits  studiously ignore two major factors that quite possibly have a far greater influence on climate than human CO2. The first is that big ball of nuclear gas in the sky called the sun. It is the power supply and we all know what happens when you get noise on a power supply. The second is water vapour which is much more of a greenhouse gas than CO2 and appears as clouds. The thing is they act as a moderator. If it gets hot and sunny the seas evaporate and produce clouds which cut down the heat reaching the surface by reflecting it back into space. I never see these two factors discussed.

What is more alarming to me is the climate could go either way independent of what we humans do. We could get a lot of warming no matter what we do but we are not prepared to meet the consequences. Equally, back in the 70s, scientists were predicting we were entering another ice age. This could yet be the case but again we are not prepared to meet it.

And don't get me started on the huge island of rubbish in the Pacific.

Cheers

Ian

The humorous answer to all this is what would Captain Kirk  (or Captain Picard) do? I somehow doubt they would suggest a carbon tax... They'd have Scotty (or Jordi) whip up a technology solution. I appreciate those are TV shows that require complete resolution in 50 minutes or less, but we are simultaneously being told this is an immediate crisis, with a centuries long tail.

My new theory and I am still working on it, is that this (carbon tax) is just another attempt to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, but it seem tragically challenged at that since the poor will pay disproportionately for a carbon tax based on energy use.  Unless the world governments suddenly find themselves with too much money in the bank, they will most likely apply these  carbon tax revenues to pay for general obligations. This may be a win for the poorest of the poor, but the vast middle will likely get less benefit than they pay.

Looking at science fiction (like star trek) they never quite explain how the future society deals with unlimited energy and replicators that eliminate any need for manufacturing (or cooking, or making beer).

I suspect some star trek nerd will chime in and explain it all to me, but I see us having to deal with this before the end of this century... how many of today's bread winner jobs will go away in coming decades not centuries...  One tech executive made the rather remarkable prediction that AI will replace the CEOs too...

Bill Gates suggestion to tax robots was well intentioned but too simplistic to work?  Another similar suggestion is that employers who replace workers with robots give those displaced workers stock in the company, interesting but I am not optimistic that could work either.

At the end of the day it looks like government force will somehow be involved to take wealth from people who earned it to subsidize people who can't work for whatever reason, like perhaps not many workers are needed.  The big question is how to extract that wealth from those who have it without killing the host, or discouraging them from creating more wealth (not to mention that government is not the most trustworthy agency to distribute large amounts of money without fraud) .

I sure don't have the magic answer and barely understand the question, but it doesn't seem to remotely be about the climate that won't even be a crisis level situation for a couple hundred years, if ever. 
 
Maybe I am completely wrong and this is just simple science (nah).

JR

PS: yes Frexit seems off the table but Italy is next unhappy EU camper. Germany's election (sept?) will likely be a referendum on the recent immigration expansion. Our buddy Ahmadinejad was not even allowed to run in Iran by the elders.  :

 

[ruffrecords]

Yes, this has happened before due to myriad reasons:  but doesn't explain what is happening now.

This is a good treatise : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5kejSYPD7U

What is happening now is not climate change it is just weather. You cannot extrapolate the future from such a small sample of data. It is like trying to predict the next few bars of a CD from a single digital sample.

That presentation is riddled with errors and as usual conveniently ignores facts that contradict it. I am offended that they call it Denial 101

Cheers

Ian

 

[s2udio]

What is happening now is not climate change it is just weather. You cannot extrapolate the future from such a small sample of data. It is like trying to predict the next few bars of a CD from a single digital sample.

That presentation is riddled with errors and as usual conveniently ignores facts that contradict it. I am offended that they call it Denial 101

Cheers

Ian

Absolutely agree Ian, this man made global warming nonsense has more to do with corporate agenda brainwashing,
Using pseudo science  to promote an agenda of technocratic tax burdens on a gullible society.
We need to wake up to the lies that the corporate elites are trying to make "us" the people swallow without questions or
Real scientific fact,which of course is never presented in any valid form,
So called "climate change science" ,seems to be politically pushed agendas, instead of actual scientific facts.
Most mainstream scientists are also  pushing politically biased viewpoints, not based on facts but " beliefs".
This is not true science !

 

[Matador]

What is happening now is not climate change it is just weather. You cannot extrapolate the future from such a small sample of data. It is like trying to predict the next few bars of a CD from a single digital sample.

It's more like trying to predict the next few bars of a CD based on the previous 500,000 thousand playbacks.  It's not guaranteed to be right, true, but if you knew that going in would you discard that knowledge because the chance wasn't 0.00000000000000000000%?

Let's start with the basics:  do you accept the evidence of the conditions on Earth during previous periods of high CO2 levels?  Mass extinctions?  Large changes in vegetation mix and concentrations around the globe, which took many thousands of years of adjustment?  Seas where there weren't any seas previous, and vise versa?  Or is that all unknowable since nothing alive at the time isn't present to ask definitively?

That presentation is riddled with errors and as usual conveniently ignores facts that contradict it. I am offended that they call it Denial 101

What facts contradict what portions?

Most mainstream scientists are also  pushing politically biased viewpoints, not based on facts but " beliefs".
This is not true science !

That is an absolute statement that requires the burden of proof: which studies (and scientists) were biased, and what facts contradict them to lead you to that conclusion?

And global cooling?  Not too long ago, doctors would 'let blood' to cure a fever, thinking the blood 'held in heat'.  They also thought removing teeth would cure insanity.  Does the mere fact that this used to be standard practice mean nobody can ever visit a doctor ever again?  Do you believe in MRI machines?  Ohm's Law? Gravity?  Or are those not true science either, because perceptions of these things have changed over time?

 

[JohnRoberts]

It's more like trying to predict the next few bars of a CD based on the previous 500,000 thousand playbacks.  It's not guaranteed to be right, true, but if you knew that going in would you discard that knowledge because the chance wasn't 0.00000000000000000000%?

Let's start with the basics:  do you accept the evidence of the conditions on Earth during previous periods of high CO2 levels?  Mass extinctions?  Large changes in vegetation mix and concentrations around the globe, which took many thousands of years of adjustment?  Seas where there weren't any seas previous, and vise versa?  Or is that all unknowable since nothing alive at the time isn't present to ask definitively?
What facts contradict what portions?
That is an absolute statement that requires the burden of proof: which studies (and scientists) were biased, and what facts contradict them to lead you to that conclusion?

And global cooling?  Not too long ago, doctors would 'let blood' to cure a fever, thinking the blood 'held in heat'.  They also thought removing teeth would cure insanity.  Does the mere fact that this used to be standard practice mean nobody can ever visit a doctor ever again?  Do you believe in MRI machines?  Ohm's Law? Gravity?  Or are those not true science either, because perceptions of these things have changed over time?

Science is used to confuse the debate.

Most accept the current and recent temperature as that is an empirical measurement.
I will even concede that humans may be contributing to warming so we can move past this to the real questions.

What should the global temperature (or temperature rise) be held to, assuming that is possible? And how much cheap energy should we forfeit over the next few centuries to hopefully address this vague speculation about future global harm?  There is a huge real human cost for making energy more expensive mostly, to the developing economies we'll just suffer slower economic growth but they can suffer health problems.

I repeat IMO this is not a question about science but about government decision making priorities, and desire to control the private economy.

I am pretty confident that the human race will rise to the challenge when and if it ever becomes urgent (IMO it isn't yet). Right now we have far more important issues, like humans still way too comfortable killing each other (and even us).

A lot can and probably will happen before the next few centuries pass. The only thing I can be certain about is that I won't see it.

JR

 

[Matador]

The only thing I can be certain about is that I won't see it.

Well, that certainly explains your perception of the urgency.  ;D

I fully agree: the real question is what to do as a response.  But we can't ever get there if we can't get past the 'Is anything even knowable, man?' faction of the population.  If we can never agree on a baseline of objective reality then everything else become moot.  The 'alternative facts' era is a strange one indeed.

It's strange, because we don't have 50+ page threads here where we debate if Ohm's Law is true, and if we can really predict the basic operation of a circuit without building it first and observing it with our own eyes.  It may be the case that there exists to-be-invented materials where Ohm's Law doesn't apply, but nobody proclaims that the mere possibility renders simulation and analysis as irrelevant, or a vast conspiracy by physics researchers to sell more licenses of Altium and PSpice.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Well, that certainly explains your perception of the urgency.  ;D

I fully agree: the real question is what to do as a response.  But we can't ever get there if we can't get past the 'Is anything even knowable, man?' faction of the population.  If we can never agree on a baseline of objective reality then everything else become moot.  The 'alternative facts' era is a strange one indeed.

I have actually been writing about this subject here for years...

I have shared that there was a good study done by some (Chicago) economists weighing the pros and cons of different short term strategies to cool (warm?) the planet.

Economists routinely look at the pending world problems with a sharp pencil to gauge cost/benefit. AFAIK golabal warming is not remotely near the top of their list. .

It's strange, because we don't have 50+ page threads here where we debate if Ohm's Law is true, and if we can really predict the basic operation of a circuit without building it first and observing it with our own eyes.  It may be the case that there exists to-be-invented materials where Ohm's Law doesn't apply, but nobody proclaims that the mere possibility renders simulation and analysis as irrelevant, or a vast conspiracy by physics researchers to sell more licenses of Altium and PSpice.

I repeat the science debate is mainly a distraction, while political decisions are rarely made based on facts. Just what they can convince a majority to believe. If humans were critical thinkers we wouldn't  buy different brands of gasoline that come from the same tanker.

JR

PS: Economists do not have any corner on "the truth" but they seem to ask smarter questions than politicians.

PPS: The thing i really like about electronics is you can't deny the laws of physics....

 

[ruffrecords]

It's more like trying to predict the next few bars of a CD based on the previous 500,000 thousand playbacks.  It's not guaranteed to be right, true, but if you knew that going in would you discard that knowledge because the chance wasn't 0.00000000000000000000%?

i don't get that at all. The video shows temperature change in the last 100 years and instantly says that is due to out CO2 emissions and ignores any data before that - the exact opposite of what you said.

Let's start with the basics:  do you accept the evidence of the conditions on Earth during previous periods of high CO2 levels?  Mass extinctions?  Large changes in vegetation mix and concentrations around the globe, which took many thousands of years of adjustment?  Seas where there weren't any seas previous, and vise versa?  Or is that all unknowable since nothing alive at the time isn't present to ask definitively?

Yes let's start with the basics. Do what I did which is take a basic course in Paleontology. The first part of that course covers the life of the earth, the climate changes is has seen and the possible causes. It is obvious to anyone  taking this course that there are a large number of factors that, individually and in combination, cause much greater climate change than we are supposedly seeing now.

Start with the basics and read the book by the guy from Climate Research Unit at the UEA in the UK. He has made a detailed study of the weather over the last two millennia, identified the causes of specific short term changes and identified many well defined cycles in weather patterns right up to the end of the lass century. It is quite clear from that research that we are probably in exactly the combination of cycles he has identified and provides a much more plausible basis for predicting short terms variations (like a decade or so) then the computer models currently so much in vogue.

Start with the Basics and read the book by the Climatolgoy Professor from the UK who reluctantly wrote a book just to set the record straight about all the so called evidence of man made climate change.

I apologise for not naming the actual people and book titles but we have just moved house and all my books are in storage.

What facts contradict what portions?
That is an absolute statement that requires the burden of proof: which studies (and scientists) were biased, and what facts contradict them to lead you to that conclusion?

See above

And global cooling?  Not too long ago, doctors would 'let blood' to cure a fever, thinking the blood 'held in heat'.  They also thought removing teeth would cure insanity.  Does the mere fact that this used to be standard practice mean nobody can ever visit a doctor ever again?  Do you believe in MRI machines?  Ohm's Law? Gravity?  Or are those not true science either, because perceptions of these things have changed over time?

True science is repeatable and demonstrable. Proper theories make verifiable predictions. That is the scientific method. It is nothing to do with perception, it is all to do with the search for the truth.

Cheers

Ian

 

[mattiasNYC]

My new theory and I am still working on it, is that this (carbon tax) is just another attempt to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, but it seem tragically challenged at that since the poor will pay disproportionately for a carbon tax based on energy use.

Maybe that should tell you that your hypothesis is wrong then.

And the "transfer of wealth" is going from the poor to the rich.

At the end of the day it looks like government force will somehow be involved to take wealth from people who earned it to subsidize people who can't work for whatever reason, like perhaps not many workers are needed.  The big question is how to extract that wealth from those who have it without killing the host, or discouraging them from creating more wealth (not to mention that government is not the most trustworthy agency to distribute large amounts of money without fraud) .

The wealthy owning class aren't the people that actually create true wealth, true wealth is created by the working class. It is actual labor that produces wealth, not ownership. You're just perpetuating the myth that there's this transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, when in fact the rich keep not only getting richer but increasing the distance between them and the rest of people. That, by definition, is a transfer of wealth.

 

[mattiasNYC]

how much cheap energy should we forfeit over the next few centuries to hopefully address this vague speculation about future global harm?  There is a huge real human cost for making energy more expensive mostly, to the developing economies we'll just suffer slower economic growth but they can suffer health problems.

You don't think they'll suffer as the climate changes and sea levels rise?

I repeat IMO this is not a question about science but about government decision making priorities, and desire to control the private economy.

In the United States the only real reason anyone in government would want to regulate the private economy is if there is a financial capitalist gain outside of his career as a politician. The vast majority of people in the US government are pro-capitalism. They don't care about controlling the private economy, they care about either making money or answering to their constituents which are other money-making for-profit entities. You make it sound like there's this latent socialist bent to US politicians and that climate change is their chance to place ownership or control of the means of the production in the people's hands via the government, and that's just silly. All one has to do is look at history to see that.

Secondly, IF we need to do something about this then do you really think that corporations will take the initiative to work this out by themselves in time to fix the issue? You yourself seem quite happy to not worry about this because before there are severe consequences you'll be dead. That's exactly the short-term thinking that corporations have. So they too have zero incentive. As long as they think they don't suffer why care about future generations?

So really if we need to stop our contribution to warming then you need to force corporations to do so, which in turn requires your hated communist government. We know this is true - again from history which you seem to like to not dwell on (as well as hypotheses) - because we had to regulate to get corporations to stop polluting the environment. What on earth makes you think they'd act differently in regards to global warming???

I am pretty confident that the human race will rise to the challenge when and if it ever becomes urgent (IMO it isn't yet).

Climate isn't like a thermostat you set and then an hour later the temperature is perfect. Scientists have been warning us for years about what we're doing to the environment and capitalists and conservatives keep telling us that the problem is in the future. All while they don't suffer. There's something disturbingly convenient about that attitude.

And yet again, look at the record: Smoking was fine and it didn't cause cancer. How did we know? Because the private corporations spent a fortune on indoctrinating the public using fake science to do so. Their incentive? Capitalism/profit. They didn't care if cancer rates went up. Why would they - they made money. But scientists kept warning about the dangers of smoking, and to those who smoked it was urgent, yet people in general didn't listen for a long time because of the for-profit indoctrination taking place.

As I have said MANY times we are in the late interglacial period where warming has occurred in previous cycles.

Change isn't the issue, the rate of change is.

The scientists in question create models for climate and then extrapolate that and see what happens. They use different tools to do so and curiously it seems that different people using slightly different methods not only come to very similar conclusions, but that those conclusions actually conform to the various means found to evaluate past and present climate. In other words; The Japanese pick a method to model climate and their model conforms to what you can see when studying tree rings in North America, and so on.

The models show that the rate of change is increasing, and that's the issue, because it implies that we're beyond a natural cycle of warming/cooling.

One track mind much? I was thinking more about new arable farmland in Canada, etc.

And as I was saying, those with wealth and power will survive warming quite well, which certainly includes a fair amount of Americans and Canadians. You yourself almost got to the same point when you pointed out that the cost of this will disproportionally affect the poor. To see how things tend to pan out you can look at hurricane Katrina and how it changed things. Now make that a slower process, but globally. The picture is pretty clear.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Maybe that should tell you that your hypothesis is wrong then.

And the "transfer of wealth" is going from the poor to the rich.

The wealthy owning class aren't the people that actually create true wealth, true wealth is created by the working class. It is actual labor that produces wealth, not ownership. You're just perpetuating the myth that there's this transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, when in fact the rich keep not only getting richer but increasing the distance between them and the rest of people. That, by definition, is a transfer of wealth.

Heard that all before... Coincidentally this morning I read an article in the (Saturday) newspaper that the real situation that offends people is not inequality of wealth, but unequal opportunity.

This is good news because we can and should increase opportunity for all. That in fact (IMO?) is one thing that differentiates America from many countries. But we can make it even better... I think we are failing the younger generation with shoddy education. WTF is going on with college campuses shutting down free speech. The first amendment was first for a reason.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Richard Dreyfus on TV being set up for classic left-right argument and instead he came out with rational discussion and passionate support for increased civics education... Kids today do not understand their own country (government).

http://www.thedreyfussinitiative.org/  (We need a bigger boat)...  8)

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

Heard that all before...

Yet you continue to repeat what isn't true.

Coincidentally this morning I read an article in the (Saturday) newspaper that the real situation that offends people is not inequality of wealth, but unequal opportunity.

This is good news because we can and should increase opportunity for all. That in fact (IMO?) is one thing that differentiates America from many countries.

Except for many European nations, where the increased level of "socialism" actually helps give more people equal opportunity, with more upwards mobility as a result, relative to the US. At least this used to be the case. With the more recent right-turn of some nations in Europe it wouldn't surprise me if that no longer was the case.

Either way you're right that it is about equal opportunity and not equality in an absolute sense. The only problem is that having wealth gives you opportunity, so at the end of the day it's not about the wealthy having a bunch of money, but about the power and opportunity that gives them, disproportionally to the poorer.

But we can make it even better... I think we are failing the younger generation with shoddy education. WTF is going on with college campuses shutting down free speech. The first amendment was first for a reason.

What free speech though? Though I have a hard time sympathizing or empathizing with white power movement representatives (for example) not being allowed to speak at a college. I honestly have a hard time getting annoyed or worried about that and thinking it somehow diminishes the value of education at that college.

It's curious to see though that you champion education on civics and bemoan some nutcases inability to speak at a college while referencing the first amendment, yet don't talk about capitalist interests influencing elections as that relates to the same amendment. I mean, which one is really a bigger threat to democracy?

I find it odd that you'd reference this amendment when it clearly refers to the people having the right to express their views, yet Berkley for example is a for-profit institution, and it's pretty clear that they're being careful with which speakers they invite for financial reasons. The first amendment doesn't seem to apply to invitation of speakers at a private institution.

 

[micaddict]

Most times I visit this thread (or the DonaId one) I get an All In The Family déjà vu.
If they ever want to revive that series, there's a wealth of material here. 
Whole parts don't even need to be reworked for stage.
OK, maybe condensed a bit.

Funny if it wasn't so sad.
Then again, the best humor often is bittersweet.

 

[ruffrecords]

The wealthy owning class aren't the people that actually create true wealth, true wealth is created by the working class. It is actual labor that produces wealth, not ownership. You're just perpetuating the myth that there's this transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, when in fact the rich keep not only getting richer but increasing the distance between them and the rest of people. That, by definition, is a transfer of wealth.

That is not the problem. The problem is that the commonly used framework that creates the wealth is itself divisive. It stops both  the owners (investors is a more accurate word) and the labour getting as wealthy as they could. The reason is the framework tends not to allow the labour to gain ownership of part of the investment. This disincentives them, reduces productivity and creates the well known them and us syndrome. There are plenty of examples of very successful companies where this framework has been discarded and replaced by one where the labour gains not only wages, but shares in exchange for its labour. A point is soon reached where a large proportion, and often a majority, of shares are owned by the labour. Labour is incentivised, productivity soars and a lot more wealth is created for all.

It is not capitalism that is wrong, it is the implementation.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

That is not the problem. The problem is that the commonly used framework that creates the wealth is itself divisive. It stops both  the owners (investors is a more accurate word) and the labour getting as wealthy as they could. The reason is the framework tends not to allow the labour to gain ownership of part of the investment. This disincentives them, reduces productivity and creates the well known them and us syndrome. There are plenty of examples of very successful companies where this framework has been discarded and replaced by one where the labour gains not only wages, but shares in exchange for its labour. A point is soon reached where a large proportion, and often a majority, of shares are owned by the labour. Labour is incentivised, productivity soars and a lot more wealth is created for all.

It is not capitalism that is wrong, it is the implementation.

Cheers

Ian

That is interesting but a little simplistic...

How would the worker owned business deal with automation and layoffs?

Wealth is not created just by labor, or capital, but there also must be some creative input that combines the capital and labor in such a way to make something more valuable than the input cost (AKA profit).  (The drum tuners I sell are worth more than the parts cost because it does something of value).

On paper there is no reason why what you propose can't work, but I would like to see successful large scale examples.  More commonly workers (unions) get granted ownership in some kind of bankruptcy settlement and the businesses rarely prosper from there.  IIRC VW unions own a share of VW group, with local government on the board too... VW is doing OK if we ignore the cheating and fines. They do not seem at risk of going down. German companies have a more holistic (? partnering) relationships with labor.

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

That is interesting but a little simplistic...

How would the worker owned business deal with automation and layoffs?

It is not at all simplistic although I only briefly outlined it so it may have come  across that way. There is the usual gamut of problems that any business faces. The difference is the approach to each. Automation for example is seen as an opportunity to increase production and create even more wealth. The workers freed up can then be deployed creating a new part of the business. Layoffs do not normally occur. Instead everyone shares the burden by taking a salary sacrifice. Again, the people freed up can be used to discover new sources of revenue. The point is everyone is in the same boat.

Wealth is not created just by labor, or capital, but there also must be some creative input that combines the capital and labor in such a way to make something more valuable than the input cost (AKA profit).  (The drum tuners I sell are worth more than the parts cost because it does something of value).

Agreed, and the environment that incentivises all employees promotes creativity rather than stifling it.

On paper there is no reason why what you propose can't work, but I would like to see successful large scale examples.  More commonly workers (unions) get granted ownership in some kind of bankruptcy settlement and the businesses rarely prosper from there.  IIRC VW unions own a share of VW group, with local government on the board too... VW is doing OK if we ignore the cheating and fines. They do not seem at risk of going down. German companies have a more holistic (? partnering) relationships with labor.

JR

I would like to see large scale examples but they are not especially important. In the UK for example, almost 50% of GDP was generated by SMEs (defined as employing less than 250 people and turning over less than 50 million Euros). These are the perfect size for employing these principles. In this sector you will find plenty of real examples. The company some colleagues and I set up in 1987 is a good example. It has grown from 20 employees to over 200 now and has spun off several businesses nearly as big in that period, all based on the same guiding principles. When you retire or leave the company, your stock loses voting rights and most people cash some or all of it in to start their own business or invest in one or simply as a pension. Cashing in is easy; the stock is purchased by the employee share option scheme for allocation to existing and new employess. I did this but I still retain a small number and enjoy a nice twice yearly dividend.

Cheers

ian

 

[tands]

Happy Real Labor Day. Thank a socialist for you not dying in a coal mine disaster when you were 7 yrs old working 12 hr days for 50 cts./hr

https://twitter.com/historyinflicks/status/859036721647947776

 

[DaveP]

That is not the problem. The problem is that the commonly used framework that creates the wealth is itself divisive. It stops both  the owners (investors is a more accurate word) and the labour getting as wealthy as they could. The reason is the framework tends not to allow the labour to gain ownership of part of the investment. This disincentives them, reduces productivity and creates the well known them and us syndrome. There are plenty of examples of very successful companies where this framework has been discarded and replaced by one where the labour gains not only wages, but shares in exchange for its labour. A point is soon reached where a large proportion, and often a majority, of shares are owned by the labour. Labour is incentivised, productivity soars and a lot more wealth is created for all.

It is not capitalism that is wrong, it is the implementation.

I agree with this 100%

DaveP