Carnegie's View On Wealth Analysis

Finally, Carnegie should be considered a hero because of his philanthropy contributions and donations to society. Andrew Carnegie believed that the best way to spend your fortune was to devote it for the most beneficial results for the community by providing them what they could not do for themselves (Doc 8). Carnegie spent most of his life gaining immense amounts of money and becoming one of the richest men of the 19th century. Once he retired, he felt he needed to use his

In the gilded ages dating back to the nineteenth century both Andrew Carnegie and Henry George were known as very influential men of their time both striving towards the common goal of deflating poverty in hopes to diminish it as a whole. Though both Andrew and Henry shared a similar feat they had very different approaches and ideas of methodizing the overall goal. Carnegie was a shrewes businessman who viewed it to be acceptable for very rich and very poor people to co-exist as long as the rich provided that their surpluses aspired the community with parks or libraries for example to better themselves known as the "lasting good," and

Carnegie, born poor; grew up to be one of the wealthiest men in American history. You would think that his actions would be generous with how much money he has. In light of things his actions were quite the opposite. Carnegie grew up poor in a cabin in Scotland. His family decided to move to America and later he end up making money off of low wage workers.

Perhaps the most controversial of Andrew Carnegie’s qualities is his belief in Social Darwinism. The English philosopher Herbert Spencer convinced Carnegie that it wasn’t bad to be successful. It was “survival of the fittest” in the business world and there was no reason for Andrew Carnegie to feel guilty for obtaining more wealth. Throughout Carnegie’s life, he displayed his firm belief in the certainty of competition. In fact, he was afraid of competition and did all he could to obstruct or completely remove it when it came to his

Andrew Carnegie is considered to be the richest person ever. Carnegie is known for his steel business that he developed on and became one of the last steel business by buying and taking out his competition. Carnegie is said to be a very generous man by donating to education and charities. The questionable thing about Carnegie is if he is a hero? Many people see him as helpful, and nice, but others see him two faced, selfish, and hypocritical.

As young as 33, Carnegie was pulling in an annual income of $50,000 a year, a huge amount at that time, and this was enough for him. Carnegie was a firm believer that anyone could make it to the top, and that it was the wealthys’ duty to help the poor work towards a more comfortable life. Carnegie said that “the man who dies rich, dies disgraced.” This is a greedy, unselfish philosophy that a robber baron could not conceive.

Criticism of the economy can differ dramatically. Many might have very polar opposite ideas as to what needs to be done in order to better provide for a society's economic well-being. This is definitely the case between Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie. Despite some basic similarities regarding the need for economic change, Marx's "Communist Manifesto" and Carnegie's "The Gospel of Wealth" prove incredibly different in how they claim to provide real solutions for economic problems. Marx demands that the people take back control of the means of production and redistribute wealth to all; while Carnegie insists that only an elite few in a society are responsible enough for handling the wealth and should remain in absolute control of it, even when determining how it is being redistributed into the society.

Dear editor, Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth can have some valid points about things. One quote Carnegie stated is “In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will become themselves” (61-62). He is explaining how if people were to help themselves, then that’s the biggest charity there is because you won’t end up becoming or remaining poor. This in my opinion is true since you have to work hard in life to succeed and it doesn’t come easy. A second point Carnegie made was “we accept and welcome… as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves” (5-6). He is saying how we as people accept conditions to which we have to work hard for and maintain it and work with other people with that same mindset. I agree because

Social classes have different standards of living. By properly administering wealth, Carnegie becomes the trustee of his poorer brethren’s funds. He believes the wealthy man, with his superior knowledge and experience in financial matters, is better suited to administer these funds. Carnegie says he would be “doing for them better than they would or could for themselves” (399). A wealthy person could buy a few acres of land, build a hospital, and create a hundred jobs in the hospital while creating affordable or free health care. The wealthy do not have to worry about how much it would cost if they were diagnosed with pneumonia. They simply take the diagnosis, pay for the treatment, and move on with their lives. A diagnosis of the same magnitude to a poor person could be life threatening. When Carnegie talks about

Andrew Carnegie was a firm believer in idea of individualism. That everyman must work and rise on his own ambition alone, that each man for themselves. In other word, he did not believe in the communist thought of working

Carnegie is looking out for the best interests of the rest and his admirable goals are clearly seen from this quote. He puts power in the hands of those who can make a difference with the excess amounts of money given by wealthy men. If inheritances were instead used during life to help the community instead of

Carnegie was a wealthy man himself, but he practiced exactly what he preached. He notices how American society has revolutionized and created the divide between the rich and the poor as it changed. Carnegie compares the American past equality to the equality experienced among the Sioux Indians. Carnegie does not disapprove of the change, but recognizes it as “highly beneficial” (Foner 29). According to Carnegie, the evidence of the changing society is present in the “contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer” (Foner 29). Although Carnegie recognizes the divided between rich and poor, he does not see it as a bad thing, nor does he believe that people should stop obtaining wealth. Carnegie believes that the wealthy should use their money to provide for good instead of “hoarding great sums all their lives” (Foner 29). Carnegie approves of the implementation

For Carnegie, there was a need to balance between the individual and fairness in order for society to function correctly. That is to say that those who enjoy the possession of large sums of money shouldn’t just look out for themselves and their own needs or wants at the time to make decisions on how to use their fortune, but instead, should try to use such resources for the benefit of all individuals of society. However, with this Andrew Carnegie didn’t mean that wealth was there to be distributed equally among all men. Instead, he believed that wealthy individuals were superior to the rest of the people and therefore, should be the ones managing surplus earnings since they had the experience and knowledge required which made them more fitted to do the job. According to Carnegie’s idea under this system based on principles and responsibilities, if everyone was to do their part of the job society will continue to experience

The fourth Gospel, book of John, has been attributed to the apostle John (Harris, 2011, pg. 232). The apostle John was the son of Zebedee, and brother of James which are fishermen. They created a circle, including Paul and followed Jesus closely throughout all his transgressions. It was not until years later, leading churchmen accepted as John’s composition (Harris, 2011, pg. 233).

Crisis in America profoundly affect what people wear, what they buy, and what they desire. The diversity of the American population, politics, and economic status is reflected in fashion. The changes in fashion are motivated by culture and political events. It could be seen as a tool of self-expression. Fashion can boast one’s self-esteem. Who doesn’t like to go shopping when feeling low? It allows you to present yourself to the world on how you want to be viewed. Fashion allows the celebration of America’s diversity. In this report, it will deal with the political crisis of the 20th century in the United States and how it is reflected in her fashion.