I can globally redistribute the wealth better than a Socialist. Watch me!

I don't usually think of Capitalism as a mode of redistribution of wealth.  Perhaps it's not redistribution necessarily, but rather distribution (because redistribution assumes that wealth is finite and cannot be created, only moved around).  But it is a much better method by which to "spread the wealth around" globally than any Socialist scheme (read global warming redistribution scam).  Let me explain.

1st way I can globally distribute wealth better than a Socialist:
I run my own business, purchasing many of my supplies internationally, from 3rd world countries.  That means that a wholesaler in, say, India, buys their wares from a factory for a fair price in rupees (which is only pennies on the dollar in US money.  1 rupee=22 cents), and then sells to me for a large profit because of the difference between our currencies and the prices of living.  They can sell to me for massively more than they can sell to others within their own country because of the exchange rate. What does this mean?  It means that I have given wealth to a person in India in a larger net amount than it would be had I bought that same item for the same price from the store down the street.  You can say that I am exploiting cheap labor, but I didn't buy from a US retailer who sent their factory overseas for cheap labor.  The labor is cheaper because the cost of living there is massively cheaper, so should I not buy from them and let the factory shut down and the people starve instead?  It's a false argument, in my opinion.  By purchasing from wholesalers in 3rd world countries I am globally distributing the wealth straight to those people, not the elite, while at the same time helping their economies develop.  I'm not necessarily getting a much better price, but I am making a bigger difference to the person I am purchasing from.  That is global distribution of wealth through Capitalism.  I happen to sell internationally quite a bit too, so even as I give money to 3rd world countries I am also making money for my own economy.

2nd way I can globally distribute wealth better than a Socialist:
I give to charities because I can make money through Capitalism.  We see the statistics over and over again:  Generally, people who believe in Capitalism give more to charities while people who side with the Socialists expect the government to give charity for them.  I make money, so I can give money, and time and time again the people, under Capitalism, give more in charity than the government or people living under high Socialist taxes can.  The people can amass wealth, so they can be charitable, and they are.  The government just pretends to be charitable with the money it confiscates.  Through charity, funded by the people because of Capitalism, people all over the world receive food, money, clothes, medicine, housing, schools, etc.  I give a certain percentage of my wealth to charity every month.  I do it because I am a Capitalist.  If I was living under Socialism there wouldn't be anything left to give after the government took its portion.  Capitalists globally distribute wealth through charity.  Socialists don't.

Consider the Climate Change Redistribution of Wealth Scheme:
Under the scheme that the UNFCCC was trying to push through in the name of climate change only the wealthiest in the underdeveloped world would have benefited from the redistribution of wealth, and we are expected to then assume that that will benefit the people of those countries.  How can that be assumed?  Giving money to a king does not mean that the people will see any of it.  It seems that it would only benefit the elite to hand money over to countries from one to the other through the kings, dictators and presidents.  And in addition to that, under the UNFCCC plan the undeveloped countries would be restricted in ways that would destroy their ability to really develop- being told that they can't use their oil or coal but that they have to use solar energy and wind power, which are prohibitively expensive, to develop.  Only the elite can afford to make money.   The people suffer, can't capitalize, can't develop economically, while the governments of the world transfer redistributive money to kings and elite.  How is that really redistributive, and not just creating a more powerful and totalitarian elite?

So here's the question: If it is true that Capitalism is the best way to spread the wealth around to the people globally, then why are our elite trying to figure out ways to transfer money and power to their other elite friends?  Why be Socialist when Capitalism works better at meeting your redistributive goals? Because redistribution of wealth to the people is not the true goal, but rather, it is the trojan horse.  By making it impossible for underdeveloped countries to advance themselves through Capitalism the scheme creates Feudalism or Communism in those countries: a need for the people to grovel before their wealthy government masters for their own survival.  The real goal is not spreading the wealth around and equality for all, but a consolidation of power and wealth within a very small minority of mutually sustaining friends, and total control over and suppression of the people, while destroying Capitalism, the better system.