To quote Ayn Rand:

“The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.”

you completly misunderstood that he is taking the very “context” in account (that we are already a country that is high taxed), where there is a global (mondial) consensualy ubout global warming and carbon taxes, that isn’t France who is at the origin of this global hoax, but your beloved politicians Al Gore & Cie

Besides he said that France was rather “phony” than effective on the subject since it was on all politicians board, 5 years ago.

now our greens only represents 1,5 of the french voters in last presidential elections, and they surely can’t dictate our policies, what you didn’t capted too, is that THESE policies come from Brussels, and from the “atlantic alliance” shared by your peers, my dear !

From the title of this article, one might expect a defense of capitalism. Instead what we have is a man who endorses a tax, which is an attack on the free market, and an enlargement of the welfare state, thus taking us in the direction of more socialism or fascism. For this reason, Guy Sormon is no defender of the free market. He’s selling us out, and he knows it.

The virtue of using an appropriate cliché is that you can make your point and expect to be widely understood, without wasting the reader’s time with a bunch of nuanced non-essentials.

We’ll all be dead before we know for sure whether global warming exists. To escape this ideological controversy which has religious overtones, I have, like many free market economists, made a rational choice: since we do not know much about climate change, let’s implement a modest carbon tax.

This isn’t a rational argument, it’s just the appeal to ignorance fallacy applied to global warming. It’s also moral cowardice to appease eco-nazi aggression. We don’t need any more economic Nevil Chamberlains, what we need are logical and principled defenders of capitalism.

Just what I was saying, or trying to.
One small detail. Just what do you mean by ‘wealth’? One can be poor and still have wealth. I argue that poor with wealth is as good an explanation of Inflation as to many dollars chasing to few goods. That depends on how wealth is defined.

I think by poor you mean what I would call ‘broke’. As in not having a pot to piss in. No money at all. Buddy can you spare a dime? By poor I mean no capital.
That means the poor can still buy the things they need, unlike those that are broke.
Someone living paycheck to paycheck is poor. No matter what size those paychecks are. Someone without a paycheck is broke. A lot of that going around.
Meanwhile, the economy is based on providing ‘poor’ people what they need. All business does is pay the producers of goods as little as possible and sell them to all those poor people for as much as those poor people can afford to pay. Those poor people trying to get to the next paycheck will look for ‘deals’ to stretch out their wealth a little more, which means the producers of those goods compete with one another for the wealth of those poor people.
This system works very well, although it has a razor thin margin of error. When some politician who has never produced anything in his life and is far removed from a paycheck to paycheck world makes changes, the System breaks. Then we all suffer.
The long term solution is to take the politicians out of the loop. You do that by replacing Nationalism with the Corporate State. Citizens become corporate shareholders and the CEO’s are elected on their ability to provide the higher standard of living for their shareholder/citizens.