Capitalism Fails

So:

"The 1,000 wealthiest Britons now own ?518.975 billion - the equivalent of a third of Britain’s gross domestic product (GDP) - with their combined worth rising 15.4 per cent on last year's total of ?449.654 billion, according to the Sunday Times Rich List.

The top 64 names have a combined fortune of ?255 billion, which is equivalent to the combined wealth of the poorest 30 per cent."

Article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...h-9391634.html

Discuss.

518.975billion pounds = $872,812,155,000 = 636,392,574,775 Euros

Even ancient Romans made sure people had bread and circuses. As long people had even moderately food and entertainment, mass' won't do thing to those who hold power. But greed has tendency never filling its appetite and usually it culminates destruction of old ruling system and establishment of new one. There's always those in power who have never enough. That is part of the human history. Capitalism indeed has failed what its purpose was as too much power and wealth has been driven on too few people and thus twisted capitalism from its original from into this plutocratic (IMHO corporatocracy is one form of plutocracy) society we are heading more and more in western world. Without radical change either this society will fall from with-in as its driven into the point it simply cannot sustain itself anymore, or outside force will force change / collapse of the society. This is how it has been so far when you read history and there's no evidences why it would not happen again. Humanity seem to repeat same mistakes all over again. Just my humble opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by American Badass

So:

"The 1,000 wealthiest Britons now own ?518.975 billion - the equivalent of a third of Britain’s gross domestic product (GDP) - with their combined worth rising 15.4 per cent on last year's total of ?449.654 billion, according to the Sunday Times Rich List.

The top 64 names have a combined fortune of ?255 billion, which is equivalent to the combined wealth of the poorest 30 per cent."

Article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...h-9391634.html

Discuss.

---

congratulations to them for making good investments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goodz

Why is capitalism failing? It is acting as expected. Your problem is that you would prefer to live somewhere more socialist imo.

In a capitalist world in which you fully did away with socialism there would be no public schools, people would be less educated and they would earn less- although Americans area already shockingly uneducated . 15% of americans drop out of highschool. Those who have wealth would have far better education (they do now, but at least the poor receive some chance due to the social support structure).

Anywho America is the most powerful/wealthy country in the world. By all means capitalism is a wild success. It creates opportunities for exceptional people to excel. It does not do a great job carrying the average.

---

Have to say you don't know your history then. Here in America, we have only had "public" education since 1913...and ever since our education has been going down hill. Though that in itself shouldn't be the deciding factor. Our education system does exactly what it is supposed to do, which is dumb down the public. That isn't all it is designed to do, but no need to derail the original topic.

I'm not sure where you're getting that information from, but public education began shortly after the American Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educati..._United_States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

I'm not sure where you're getting that information from, but public education began shortly after the American Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educati..._United_States

---

Pretty sure that the original public education was the "church" or the various churches; and also, universities were almost always (if not they plain were) monasteries of some kind.

What difference does that make? It was education available to the public for free at the cost of the government. I don't recall there being a lot of 8 year old athiests in the late 1700's lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

What difference does that make? It was education available to the public for free at the cost of the government. I don't recall there being a lot of 8 year old athiests in the late 1700's lol

---

Doubt there is today.. Ill even argue that peaple become that much later

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalsdk

Doubt there is today.. Ill even argue that peaple become that much later

---

Possibly true, children have vivid imaginations and are extremely impressionable. I don't believe anyone is born with a religion or without one, they're born as a blank slate in that regard until somebody impress them with their values, ideas and misgivings.

Which is why I think it's imperative to keep any form of religion out of our schools whether they're private or public. Let adults choose their religion or irreligion when they become adults. But don't go teaching them religious dogma and/or about the existence of god/gods(or the absence of thereof) except in informative religion classes(informing them that some people believes this or that and that others believes in some radically different interpretation of god/gods) free of dogma.

Let them form their own beliefs when they have all the facts about the world that we can give them at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elldallan

Possibly true, children have vivid imaginations and are extremely impressionable. I don't believe anyone is born with a religion or without one, they're born as a blank slate in that regard until somebody impress them with their values, ideas and misgivings.

Which is why I think it's imperative to keep any form of religion out of our schools whether they're private or public. Let adults choose their religion or irreligion when they become adults. But don't go teaching them religious dogma and/or about the existence of god/gods(or the absence of thereof) except in informative religion classes(informing them that some people believes this or that and that others believes in some radically different interpretation of god/gods) free of dogma.

Let them form their own beliefs when they have all the facts about the world that we can give them at hand.

---

I encourage you to go look up all the things scientifically proven as 100% fact. When you do you should come to know that very, very little is 100% proven fact. So to apply what you say unbiased, kids should only be taught next to nothing about anything, and we should have to disregard nearly all of recorded history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khronosschoty

I encourage you to go look up all the things scientifically proven as 100% fact. When you do you should come to know that very, very little is 100% proven fact. So to apply what you say unbiased, kids should only be taught next to nothing about anything, and we should have to disregard nearly all of recorded history.

---

Science in and of itself is not mutually exclusive to religion, Hell both Darwin and Einstein were religious, who are some of the most foremost scientists in recent history. It is true yes that Science is usually used as a counter argument to religion because there's a long history of animosity between the two, well specifically between the catholic faith and scientists.

But yes you're correct that very little is 100% proven fact, assuming that the definition of a fact is something immutable(which in natural science it is not).
But no, I think children should be educated in what we currently know about our world or think we know about it through an unbiased view on religion, just as they should be taught history, inform them objectively about religion(have classes that explains the views and positions of the major world religions etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elldallan

Science in and of itself is not mutually exclusive to religion, Hell both Darwin and Einstein were religious, who are some of the most foremost scientists in recent history. It is true yes that Science is usually used as a counter argument to religion because there's a long history of animosity between the two, well specifically between the catholic faith and scientists.

But yes you're correct that very little is 100% proven fact, assuming that the definition of a fact is something immutable(which in natural science it is not).
But no, I think children should be educated in what we currently know about our world or think we know about it through an unbiased view on religion, just as they should be taught history, inform them objectively about religion(have classes that explains the views and positions of the major world religions etc.).

---

Please define religion and then show me from concrete sources how this is separate from Science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

I'm not sure where you're getting that information from, but public education began shortly after the American Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educati..._United_States

---

Think I may have been mistaken, the general education board was formed in 1903...not 1913 like I supposed, but in 1913 the Federal Reserve was formed. There is something that happened in 1913 to education as well...or so I believe I recall. Will try to find the old source and post it for you.

But in regards to your wiki link, I find it interesting that it makes no distinction between the one room school house and our modern K-12 system. In fact, it makes no mention of it what-so-ever.

Call me crazy, but I don't see why a pastor teaching kids in the church about math for free isn't a public education in math...lol

Education is education, whether it looks like our current system or not