For their rich kids education
“While recession-hit Brits are forced to scrimp to send their children to private school, Russia’s super-rich are cashing in on the chance of an elite education.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...c-schools.html
And buying up stately homes;
“Leon Max is one of a number of Russian-born tycoons acquiring some of the UK's most iconic buildings from old families crippled by their exorbitant running costs.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/03/bu...on-dos-santos/
The UK has been globalised. Its welfare state is being made to look foolish and the heath service is under severe pressure. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has never been greater and fantastic wealth and power is concentrated like never before. It doesn’t look so good, does it?
“Does Capitalism entail concentration of wealth into the hands of a few?”
“There is nothing about the notion of voluntary trade that promises this outcome. Capitalism defined this way, would not lead to concentrations of wealth unless there are significant differences between the more productive and less productive people in the world. The gap between the very rich and the very poor under monarchy seems to be greater than under democracy and there are very good reasons to believe that the ideas of capitalism expounded by people like Adam Smith created the necessary change to decentralized control of the economy.
The very notion of decentralized control seems to mean that concentrations of wealth and power would dissipate.
However, there is an alternative conception of capitalism which thinks that the phrase "free markets" can be bastardized into special advantage toward those that have proven success. Tax breaks for large businesses when these tax breaks are not available to small businesses is an example of this attitude. This is by no means a form of capitalism that would have been supported by those like Smith who revolutionized the idea of order in society through decentralized control. Because of a real problem with clarity in our debates these two versions of capitalism are very often conflated. Those defending capitalism defend the generous, decentralized, and productive aspects of capitalism. Those attacking it point out that stingy, centred, and inbred capitalism is destroying society.
There is much work to be done on clarifying this debate and getting to the heart of the matter.”
http://www.quora.com/Political-Econo...s-not-widening
“While recession-hit Brits are forced to scrimp to send their children to private school, Russia’s super-rich are cashing in on the chance of an elite education.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...c-schools.html
And buying up stately homes;
“Leon Max is one of a number of Russian-born tycoons acquiring some of the UK's most iconic buildings from old families crippled by their exorbitant running costs.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/03/bu...on-dos-santos/
The UK has been globalised. Its welfare state is being made to look foolish and the heath service is under severe pressure. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has never been greater and fantastic wealth and power is concentrated like never before. It doesn’t look so good, does it?
“Does Capitalism entail concentration of wealth into the hands of a few?”
“There is nothing about the notion of voluntary trade that promises this outcome. Capitalism defined this way, would not lead to concentrations of wealth unless there are significant differences between the more productive and less productive people in the world. The gap between the very rich and the very poor under monarchy seems to be greater than under democracy and there are very good reasons to believe that the ideas of capitalism expounded by people like Adam Smith created the necessary change to decentralized control of the economy.
The very notion of decentralized control seems to mean that concentrations of wealth and power would dissipate.
However, there is an alternative conception of capitalism which thinks that the phrase "free markets" can be bastardized into special advantage toward those that have proven success. Tax breaks for large businesses when these tax breaks are not available to small businesses is an example of this attitude. This is by no means a form of capitalism that would have been supported by those like Smith who revolutionized the idea of order in society through decentralized control. Because of a real problem with clarity in our debates these two versions of capitalism are very often conflated. Those defending capitalism defend the generous, decentralized, and productive aspects of capitalism. Those attacking it point out that stingy, centred, and inbred capitalism is destroying society.
There is much work to be done on clarifying this debate and getting to the heart of the matter.”
http://www.quora.com/Political-Econo...s-not-widening
Comment