Every living organism has an optimal habitat, a setting in which it best survives and thrives; an opposite or inhospitable habitat can prove harmful, even lethal, to a species (think: “fish out of water”). Humans are no exception to this general principle. Our specific nature decrees that we too have a preferred habitat. Aristotle distinguished man as both the rational and political animal; our best habitat allows the free exercise of our mind and inter-personal relations. Call it a habitat for humanity.
Capitalism has proved to be the most hospitable habitat for humans. But what is capitalism, exactly?
Why do so many humans, oddly enough, oppose it? -- Richard Salsman
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2020/06/varieties-capitalism/
An excerpt from Chapter 1 of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, Volume I.
Economics has been defined in a variety of ways. In the nineteenth century it was typically defined as the science of wealth or of exchangeable wealth. In the twentieth century, it has typically been defined as the science that studies the allocation of scarce means among competing ends. [1]
I define economics as the science that studies the production of wealth under a system of division of labor, that is, under a system in which the individual lives by producing, or helping to produce, just one thing or at most a very few things, and is supplied by the labor of others for the far greater part of his needs. The justification of this definition will become increasingly clear as the contents of this book unfold. [2]
The importance of economics derives from the specific importance of wealth—of material goods—to human life and well-being. The role of wealth in human life is a subject that will be examined in ...
Andrew Bernstein's book is "among the best single presentations of the case for capitalism. (It is) amazingly good." - Harry Binswanger
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2021/04/andrew-bernsteins-the-capitalist-manifesto/
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2021/04/woke-ceos/
Why do CEOs go woke?
...Most CEOs go woke because they are pragmatists. They believe that by appeasing the woke among their employees (which unfortunately include many business school graduates today), customers and investors, they believe to be protecting their companies’ profits—and their own generous compensation packages.
Rather than being true believers, these pragmatists pay lip-service to the causes they believe their stakeholders and shareholders hold dear. They virtue-signal, like the leaders of Canadian banks who posture as thought leaders on ESG, or like Larry Fink, who pretends to divest BlackRock of fossil fuels and has made a large portion of his fortune from them.
Why should CEOs reject ESG wokeness and virtue-signaling about it?
