Income from India is the main driver of 18 century British naval dominance but even if we exclude India and the sugar growing Caribbean islands, there was tons of British colonial possessions that didn't directly contribute to the treasury enough to cover expenditures but still benefited the Empire economically and enriched upperclass brits individually. There are maybe a handful of remote islands that could be considered charitable to add to the British Empire; exploitation was the name of the game everywhere else.

From cold hard rationale, Hayek and Friedman makes sense, but they do ignore reality that circumstances always change. Deregulation made sense at the time of 1970s oil crisis as the economy and welfare state stagnated, but we're now in the age of economic prosperity again, but the wealth is hoarded by the few and act as though austerity still matters.

Not entirely sure about why Friedman's claim that India was costing the British empire more to maintain, but it has also been repeated in many circles. I suspect that the data is not fully contextualised and repeated as if it's the absolute truth. An Indian historian countered the narrative, mentioning that if we include the period of private control of India by the British East India company, before India was formally taken over by the British state in 1858, the total wealth plundered from India is about $1 trillion. The term "loot" is Indian origin, which became part of the English language after East India's violent colonisation. When the British public found out of about the brutal occupation by a private company and were enraged by it, the British state took over the formal administration. But this only happened well after committing crimes against humanity, after a state-sanctioned plunder and massacre that made their private owners and their government enablers rich, while the cost of running another country is taken over by tax payers. It's an early example of "privatise the profit, socialise the cost".

Found a fascist.

Once down the dark path you begin, forever with it dominate your destiny.

Which they wont, but they believe they will.

We should start planning on fouling their air exchange systems now.

No, Capitalism will not make the Earth uninhabitable. It will kill very many things the longer it is part of our world, but you are subscribing to a liberal fatalist narrative that constructs the future as definitively destroyed because it does not resemble the world we live in. It's doomer shit that is painfully white.

How you got, "we don't need to end capitalism" I have no responsibility for. If I say it isnt infinitely powerful but must end as quickly as possible, what exactly do you think I'm advocating for?

Wow, two pompous dudes who assume they know everything but don't even bother to read.

Nothing you just talked about was said by me. Doomer shit, as in saying "all life will end" or even "all human life will end," is in fact liberal, settler, bs. It presumes that a world that is not conducive to human life as it exists is not one worth imagining and especially not building. It is a convenient dead end that absolves you of the responsibility to participate in mitigation and reconstruction because, of course, it's too late and even if it isn't it will be and capitalism is powerful enough to apparently sustain a collapse of supply chains. It is foolish.

Nowhere did I say people won't die, I emphasised that they do and actually value the lives of people who will more than some dude who does fucking nothing because I at least recognize that there is a way to mitigate the amount of people who do die. Additionally, I acknowledged that this is not limited to human life. Capitalism will not destroy all life on this planet, this is straight up reality. No, human systems are not equal in power to fucking cosmic events.

Capitalism does try to survive despite the obvious reality that a system dependent on infinite resources cannot exist in a finite material world. It will do so by killing more and more life until it dies, and it will die whether that is from human action itself or the eventuality of a world that refuses to sustain its existence through environmental change and yes, the collapse of crucial ecosystems.

I say humans are durable because we are, do you have any fucking clue how insane this way of life is in the context of life on this planet? Do you have any idea how close humans have come to extinction in the past exactly because of ecological change? You don't, you refuse to because all of that is terribly inconvenient for someone who doesn't want life to change.

Grow up and help. I won't read a response as it's obvious you didn't grant me that level of respect.