Andrew Carngie wrote, as did other writers of the day, about the duties of the rich in "Wealth," also known as the Gospel of Wealth. What are his arguments and what do you think of them? Here's an audio clip if your interested.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments:
Alright, first off to me Andrew Carnegie was a very brilliant individual,who had many ideas on the administration of wealth. Carnegie wanted to make wealth a beneficial thing, that anybody could obtain, no matter what gender or race. The way Carnegie saw it there were three main ways to which wealth could be distributed; the first of which was to give the wealth to the family of the decedent, (second) it could be used for public purposes, or(third)it could be administered throughout the life of the possessor. I agree with Andrew Carnegie on many of his thoughts and ideas. I like the fact that he was into individualism, if the world had more people who obtain the mind or thoughts such has his own, maybe there would already be a proper way for the administration of wealth.
Carnegie was smart. He wrote two very good books. One in which I know. He wanted to make wealth a beneficial product that could be obtained by anyone, no matter what race or color they were. The only thing he cared about was making wealth a profitable product. He was a man that looked at a people individually and not as people as one group of people. I like that fact only because I think that everyone should see one another as an individual and not see them as something else. That's why the world is so corupted today. Everyone has to pick on someone of a lower class as the other. I don't think thats right. I like that fact that Carnegie had the idea of wealth in his head for everyone, not just for the whites, because if everyone was on the same page as everyone else, there will be no more fighting in the world.
i believe tha andrew carnegie was a good man for his i deas of being able to to make wealth beneficial. He thought of three meain way of distributing the wealt, one was that it could be used to help the public, second, it also could be given to the processor thought out its life and lastly, was to give the wealth to the family who is the decendent of. i have to agree and be on carnegie's side with his ideas and thoughts.
I believe, from what we discussed in class, that Carnegie was leftist. He believed in sharing the wealth. He thought of three ways that he could spread the wealth. 1. it could be left to the family, 2. bequethed for public purposes, 3. or it could be administered during their lives by it's possessors. For some reason i dont really understand this entire document, im out of it. Ne ways i agree with his three main points. Only with the wealth being administered to those in need.
Carnegie's arguements were about how to administer the wealth of the nation. He argues that there are three modes for doing so: it can be left to the families od he descendents; it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or it can be miistered during their lives by its prssessors. He argues against the first mode for he thinks it is misguided and an improper use of means. The second mode he argues is good for the people for it pushes for the wealthy to administer their wealth during their life as well as then after due to the heavy taxes at death. The third mode he argues will only result in the unequal distribution of wealth. It will be passed through the few but put towards the common throught these few, therefor, Carnegie htinks it is good. I think that overall Carnegie's ideals are to have wealth administered to benefit the common people and community. However, I wasn't too sure sometimes when reading this article about which side he was really on. But then, i think i figured it out and realized that he thinks wealth should be administered throught the hands of a few but done so to benefit all people where as most others who think that wealth should be administered through the few think that it will only benefit those few.
Andrew Carnegie's arguements are about the the removal of wealth. The three ways to use the weath up are by passing the wealth to your son, using the wealth for the public after the person is dead, and for the person to use the wealth to improve the lives of the poor. I sort agree with Andrew's third mode but not his other two.
Andrew Carngie's arguments were over the distribution of wealth and what to do with the leftover money. He believe that the leftovers could be disposed of three different ways: by leaving it to the family of hte decendents, given for pulic use, or administered by the possesors. He believed that the second method was the best. I agree with Carngie that taxing people is the best way to use the money because it will go towards helping the public. I also agree that it is better when the money is spent over several years instead of just one or two, because it will help the money be evenely distributed and make sure that the money is not wasted.
No one person should have or be incharge of that much money or reasource. It was bogus that Carnegie exploited so many people that possibly worked way harder than Carnegie ever did him self. What a jerk. He is not a extreem libertarian("The laws of accumulation should be left free; the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue. But the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; entrusted for a season with a part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it did, or would have done, of itself. ") HE wants to be incontrol and have his fellow richies (concentrate the power) incontrol, but does not even bring up that his fellow buisness men as well as himself are, 99% of the time, oppressing their workers.
First ruls: desendents inherit wealth (concentrate power), donate it to public purposes(that allowed him and the system that allows him to function incontrol), and finally to administrate the money through out the life of a possessor(concentrate the wealth)
All in all, Carnegie was still oppressive scum who had a liitle more heart than most. Just because he donated his money does not mean he was a good person, it just meant that he had guilt (and wanteed to go to "heaven"). Why did he pay himself so much money?
I agree with what Andrew Carnegie believed. He was a strong individualist and even more of an advocate of the distribution of wealth. He believed that you could either give your money to your family, give it to the public, or let the possessor handle its distribution (which were the three ways he believed you should handle money). He was a strong advocate of taxation, which would help the people in more ways than one. He also believed that no matter your race or religion, etc., you should have equal rights and shares to money.
Andrew Carnegie believes that wealth is a necessity because it has allowed society to devoloped culturally. There must be a poor man in order for there to be a rich man, and wealth has allowed the rich man, over time, to progress the human race. This being stated, Carnegie believes that there are three ways to distribute surplus wealth that has been "thrown into the hands of the few." First, the wealth can be left as an inheritence for the family of the deceased. Secondly, wealth can be used for public purposes, and lastly, wealth can be "administered" by its possessors when he/she is still alive.
Carnegie scorns the idea of wealth being left behind for a son to inherit. He believes that leaving wealth as an inheritence is a "burden" to the children and is "misguided affection." I disagree with Carnegie about his dislike of wealth being left as an inheritence because I believe that a person should be able to leave his possessions for his loved ones if he so chooses. As for Carnegie believing that wealth should be left at death for public uses, he means that the estates of the dead millionaire, or so to say, should be taxed heavily so that the tax can go towards helping the public. Although this is a valid point, I also agree with Carnegie that no good goes toward the millionare if he waits until he's dead to admister his wealth to help the public. Laslty, Carnegie believes that wealth can distributed by its possessors over the years to help the public. Personally, I believe that this is the best way that wealth can be distributed, because by having surplus wealth "of the few" become the property "of the many," will help our race become "more elevated" as Carnegie puts it. With this third method, the wealthy seem to have a heart because they are actually trying to give their wealth (while they are alive), rather than have their wealth taken (from taxes, when they're dead) to help the public.
Andrew Carnegie was how wealth should be administer to people. In his book, Carnegie wrote that there are three ways of disposing wealth. First, it can be left to the family of the descendents. Second, it can be use for public purposes. Lastly, it can be adminster while the person is living. Carnegie belief is that the rich should use their wealth to help enrich society. Carnegie also believed that achievement of financial success could be reduced to a simple formula. I agree with Carnegie argument but only to a certain extent. If i was rich, I would use my wealth to help others but not to a point where it puts me in a rough situation. I think that the wealth should help society but they don't have to if they don't want to.
This was a very interesting artical. One of the most interesting yet. Its like I totally agree with what Carnigie was saying but that was not the first time I 've heard it. Is'nt it amazing how this man lived many years ago but nothing has changed. The most stricking thing to me in the article was the part when he was talking about how we have created "wealth" within the family and the races and how they own that wealth ,,, the bell has rung I'll be back to finish what I was saying 222
I agree with the idea that at some point there had to be differences in wealth, some high some low. Different types of jobs were created that obviously made a huge impact and change on the American economy. If everyone still lived with the same mediocre wealth there wouldn't be many advances in the economy. It is understandable that those who are not as wealthy as others, fear the power held over them by the much wealthier.I also agree that "great sums gathered by some of their fellowcitizens and spent for public purposes" is beneficial because without this it would take years to make advances. For example Carnigie funding to libraries for the public's benefit, it would have taken years if it just consisted of small donations from everyone to present the public with better study materials but Carnigie made it possible in a shorter amount of time. Andrew Carnegie's "socially beneficial projects" made a real difference in how the people at this time saw wealth from a different perspective.
Andrew Carnegie was a rich man who thinks like a poor person. The idea of giving your wealth to your decedents is stupid. They wouldn't know what do do with the money since they didn't earn it. Everyone would suffer. Tax heavily on the rich after death. is a good thing if the money is going to the right place. The other way is to give out the money while you are alive. This is the best way and the one I would use if I was alive.
I think that this was one of the best articles yet. It was actually interesting. But I think that Andrew Carnegie was very smart for wanting to make wealth beneficial. I agree that anyone no matter what the issue, should be able to obtain wealth as long as you work for it and don't expect it to just come overnight. The three ideas he had in mind to use the wealth were to pass it down to your son, using it for the public after the person is dead, or using it to improve lives of the poor. Andrew was also big on individualism. He was one of the few that believed in that and if we had more people that felt the some way as Andrew did, then I think the world would be a better place today.
Andrew Carnegie had three ways on how to manage wealth. The money could be passed on to decedents, given for public use, or administered by its posessors. I agree with Carnegie that the wealthy should be taxed for the benefit of the public good. The rich and wealthy will never give money that they don't need to help out the poor, thus they need to be forced to do it through taxes.
Carnegie was a wealthy man that had a good set of morals. He believed that the rich should help the poor. He also believed that the rich shouldn't help thier children as much, because in the end that only spoils them. Carnegie thought that taxes was a good way to force the rich to give money to the lower class.
Carnegie believes are partial correct. The taxes could cover for the poor, but some people will try to take advantage of this. There are already of people taking advantage of the government, we don't need anymore.
Carnegie proposed some excellent ideas about redistributing the wealth, but i tend to agree with Ursula on this one. He believed that the needy should be compensated, however the poor people were being exploited by the wealthy that held the power.
Andrew Carnegie had three major points about wealth. He is a very intelligent man because of these three points. The first was to pass on the fortune to family members, but he argues that it's the wrong kind of affection to give to children. The second was about ditributing the money to the public after death, to benefit the community, but his arguement was that over time the money would be used not for the community but for spending. And the third was to have the wealthy help the poor, but his arguement was that it was an unequal wealth within the society. I think that this is a very wise and unique way of keeping the peace between the rich and the poor. I never thought that there were three ways to handle the "peace" between social statuses. But if this is working, then maybe the society will eventually function better than it is now.
Andrew Carnegie was, just like years in the past between Hamilton and Jefferson, arguing the value and position of wealth in a scoiety/where the money should go to be most effective, he believed that money to the public good, almost like civic virtue, would best benefit the society, he proposed ohtre ideas of what could possibly happen to the money, going to inheritance or to the possessors, he had an idea that wealth, if used the right way could be beneficial, of course, but he also understood the downsides of wealth falling into the wrong hands
andrew carnegie presented some pretty good ideas on how the wealth should be redistributed but even though he thought that the needy should be compensated, they were still being exploited by the wealth so it had some good sides and bad sides
Andrew Carnegie's main point was the distribution of wealth among the community and the people in it. He goes through a few different examples. He argued that it could be distributed to a relative once the person holding the money had become deceased. But this had the downside of having to "wait" for your money. He mainly argued that money should be distributed among the public and the poor. His ideas were generally well documented and were all for a positive purpose.
Andrew Carngie had 3 main ideas of the adminstration of wealth: 1)it can be left to the families of the decedents 2)it can be passed on for public purposes 3)it can be managed throughout their lives by its possessors.
I think that option #1 is stupid. When you pass down money throughout your family they will just become greedy with it and spend it on unnesecary tings.
I think that #2 is the best way because that way money will be put in places that society needs... BUT I think that the person with the money should choose where it goes.
Andrew Carnegie's main point in he writings was talking about how wealth should be detributed. i am not sure what his point was about wealth being past one from relatives but most of his ideas were good.
Andrew Carngie, one of the writers of the Gospel of Wealth, wrote about how there are three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. The first mode is that wealth can be left to the families of the decedents. This means that if the father dies, the wealth are left to the first son. The second mode in which wealth can be disposed of is that it can be donated for public purposes. It can be used to paid for taxes or whatever usage it can be use for. The third mode is that wealth can be managed during their lives by its possessors. It can be put in stock or used in whatever ways it can.
If you have money, you are considered to be wealthy. What you do with your money is on you. I agree with Andrew Carngie. If you past away, you can either hand it down to your family or distribute it. It's your money, and you can't be force to do things you don't want too.
i think Andrew Carnegie is a left wing becuase he was talking about spreading wealth so everyone would be wealthy. the ways were to leave the wealth with the family, give to the public after thier death, and using it for the poor. i agree with him except for he one on giving it to the pulic after death because money was earn hard. i would perfer it to just go to the family.
Carngie beliefs of how to administer wealth were very interesting to me. I had never considered his second argumnet before but I always thought the rich should help the poor while they were alive wich was his third argument.His first mode to administer the wealth of the rich was to leave it to the family of the decesed. I agree with him that this is not a good idea. When a person inherits royalty they grow up with no respect and no abilities to provide for themselves. Life is given too easily to them and they don't have to work for anything they want or need. The only way I would agree with giving it to the family of the deseced would be if they recieved it after they went to school and got a CAREER, or if they used it to help pay for school to get them a career. His second idea for administering wealth was to use it for public purposes. I believe taxing wealth after death is a good idea. It will benefit the public which is the goal of administering wealth. It's a way to get back at the rich snobs who were too good to help the poor when they were alive. The third way to administer wealth was to adsminister it throughout the life of the possessor. This should be the way it's done. Helping the poor shouldn't have to be forced by taxing you after you die. It should be something you want to do. Carnegie believed that the second method was the best way to administer wealth and I agree with him.
I think that Carnegie was very smart and knew what he was doing. Ithink that he had a very open mind and willings to help people very generously.He funded some libraries which I think was agreat idea. He was a very giving person and cared about the outcome of our countries finances. He believed that if you had extra money give it away to a good cause. I think he was avery wise man.
Carnegie says that economic inequality is necessary because even the wealth of the few makes everyone, including the workers, happier, and it makes patronage of the arts possible. Wealth shouldn't be bequeathed to family because it's unfair, it puts a burden on the family members, and it doesn't help them. He says death taxes are good because they discourage the too-rich from hoarding money and instead put the money to the public good.
I agree with Carnegie completely. I think good-faith generosity on the part of the rich is the best way to use wealth for the benefit of everyone and that, failing that, death taxes ensure people don't hoard money. (I don't know how strictly he adhered to this ideal, though.) Carnegie is right in finding a balance that lets people keep the benefits of hard work and but doesn't make them uncharitable.
Carnegie argued that leaving money publically available to all equally was a sure way to ensure it would be irrationally squandered or wasted. Therefore, one of the primary roles of the wealthy few was to ensure that money be put toward rational, meaningful institutions. To ensure that the wealthy, in fact, remain wealthy Carnegie proposed that money or belongings either be utilized during one's life or be saved to eventually pass on to a family descendent. I feel that in a sense if there was not some sort of restriction to who has wealth and power there would be less interdependence in society and the world and overall much greater instances of conflict, and less functionality.
Andrew Carnegie had an interesting point of view on how to administer thw wealth. Carnegie brought his leftist ideas into three strategies for the ditribution of wealth. He was also an advocate of the death taxes that would help to prevent the rich from gaining more money. I agree with the methods that Carnigie used to distibute the wealth. He had the idea that the wealth should be attainable for all members of society, thus creating a more equal society.
Andrew Carnegie was an very intelligent person. He believed that wealth can be obtain by anyone. That it should benefit everybody. He believed that wealth should be given to family of the decedent, public purposes, and and life of possessor. I really don't agree with him. Because no matter what there is always someone who will more money than another
Andrew Carnegie ideas on wealth were pretty interestin. I strongly agree with his ideas on how the money of a dead person should go to their family.
I agree with Carnegie on how to obtain and keep wealth. He says that anybody, no matter what race or gender should obtain wealth. I also think government should redistribute the wealth (his second point) because if gov't distributes it, everyone would obtain the benefits, not just the wealthy.
Andrew Carnegie was trying to find a system to redistribute the wealth of a deceased individual. He came up with three methods to this. His first method was to give the money to a decendent. The second was to distribute the wealth to the poor and underprivilaged citizens. And the last way to distribute the money was to administer it throughout the life of the possessor. I agree with Andrew Carnegie that the wealth of a deceased inidividual should be used for public purposes and helping poor people.
I enjoyed this article and surprisingly learnd and agreed with the author's views. Andrew Carnedie was a kind and intelligent man who had the right interests at heart for the people. More people should listen to his opinion of how wealth should be distributed. He doesn't promote the "old days" without wealth but insteads advocates the contrast of a master to his servant. However, he's also an advocate of distribution of the wealth. He says there are three ways of performing this act: leave your estate to the family, after death-help the community or during the course of your life-contribute to society. He disagrees with the first two options and even commends the taxation on the selfish millionaires. He presents many valid points and expresses problems and solutions that are still extremely relevant for today.
I think that Carnegie's comments about wealth are true in a lot of ways, but I also believe that he did not always feel this way. Of course when you start making some serious money you will get big headed, but eventaully some come to their senses and realize that nothing in this world is permanent and you should share the wealth. I think that Carnegie must have been a good man to have these views and then actually practice what he had preached.
Andrew Carnegie was a very good man. He had different beliefs about the wealth of the deceased and I agree with him. He thought about the poor people even though he was a rich man. I agree that there should be taxes, but only if the money is actually going to help the public. I like the fact that he opened up schools and things like that because it shows his generosity.
telethia hr.2
Andrew Carnegie was a great ideological thinker but in my opinion his theory on wealth was outrageous. Carnegie administered three ways in which the leftover money could be distributed in terms of giving the money of the decendent, leaving it for public usage, or administering it through the life of the processor. I totally agree with Carneige because he was trying to advocate the idea of wealth for all no matter the race or religion of a person. Though Carnegie was an millionarie,and through his work many people were oppressed by by the pay given off to them. In my mind I realize that these three ideas was none other than a way for Carnegie to make right for the wrong done in the public eye. All in all those ideas can only make it better for the people because with the adding of taxation it can only benefit the public which leads to wealth. Distributing money in these terms is an good idea because know money can not be heavily wasted among the rich.
I agree with almost everyone else to think that Carnegie is a smart man. It would be nice if he could have influenced our society more because there's still people out here who think's that it's a crime to give back to the community. Many wealthy, famous people who have been looked up to all of their life seem to look down on other people who don't have the same opportunities as they do. But on the other hand celebrities work for what they have and they follow their dreams, so they deserve everything they have. I think their riches should be passed down to their loved ones since they're the ones who have worked their whole lives to do what makes them happy. So in that since i don't agree with the outlook that wealth should be a profitable product.( I think?, I don't really know what the heck I'm talking about! I'm getting confused myself!)
This guy is the shizzle nizzle because he wants to give back to the community. Major props should go to this man they call Carnegie because he has a big heart. I agree with him because he is a smart man. He is getting respect from the poorer and some rich. At first i thought he was crazy because he was a rich man givin money to the poor and all but he is just cool.I hope to give back to my getto on 35th and Villard when my record company Eternal Sound records blows up and i will be known as the new swiss beats.
1 luv fons( Mr. Fizzle)
pizzle my nizzle
Andrew Cranegie makes some interesting points in this article,making it the most interesting yet. He argues with three points on how a man should use his wealth. He said that first the man should support his family, then he should not be extravagant about his lifestyle and use the extra surplus on the public. The first point he made to using the surplus money was to give your family,once you die your money. The second was to give it to give the money to the public aftre you die. The third way was to administer your money and use it on the public and on the poor while you are still alive. The last point was the one he most agreed with. Some of these point are still true in todays economic society, because many of todays rich people have inhereted their wealth, point number one.
Andrew Cranegie makes some interesting points in this article,making it the most interesting yet. He argues with three points on how a man should use his wealth. He said that first the man should support his family, then he should not be extravagant about his lifestyle and use the extra surplus on the public. The first point he made to using the surplus money was to give your family,once you die your money. The second was to give it to give the money to the public aftre you die. The third way was to administer your money and use it on the public and on the poor while you are still alive. The last point was the one he most agreed with. Some of these point are still true in todays economic society, because many of todays rich people have inhereted their wealth, point number one.
To summarize, after his success as a business man, Carnegie is in need of a way in which to use his money. He comes up with three possible options. The first is to pass it on to his family, which he considers to be a good idea if he only gives enough to support them in education and basic sustenence. The second option is to give the wealth to the public after his death. He did not approve of this method and is most supportive of the third. This method, is spending the majority of his money on the underprivelaged public.
Essentially, I agree with Carnegie. In no way is it essential for anyone to squander his or her earnings on solid gold toilet seats, or twenty cars, or anything just to show-off to people who can not buy such things. I agree that it is essential to continue with free accumulation of wealth because it ensures those who work harder or come up with better concepts then the ones we currently exist with will come out on top. I also don't believe they should be forced to give their money away (considering it's theirs) but do believe it is their best option. Finally, the supposed oppression of workers. Although it obviously was existent, it has decreased dramatically due to labor unions, and is no longer an issue of wealth accumulation.
Andrew Carnegie had some interesting ways of distibuting wealth to the common man. He felt that when a person dies that the money should be redistubuted to the public. I agree with him because I think that we all need to help each other out every once and a while but not feel obliged to do so. It shouldn't be manditory because some people work really hard to get where they are financially. He has a point in a way.
Honestly i dont understand what this blog was saying. was going to read the others and copy them but i rather you explained it in class on friday so that i can understand than me acting like i did and really didn't.
while reading this I was very intersted in what Carnegie had to say. I found myself disagreeing at the fact that I bleieve that ints unfair to say that everyone should make the same amount of money as everyone eles. I mean everyone wants to rich but sometimes the cookie doesn't crumble the way we want it to. I also think that its a good idea that when someone dies that their money should be given to the community. But at the same time the money should only be given to the community if the person has no one eles to give it to. I think that many of ideas are very succeful in order to improve are community, but all dont seem realistic.
what they said
Andrew Carnegie was avery wise, knowledgeable human being. His insight on the disposal of one's wealth is a very agreeable, fair one. It should either be given to the family, to the public, or distributed to those who are dependant on the wealthy. I agree with him on several accounts, but ultimately, I belive that it should distributed upon the person's request. It is up to the person who holds the wealth how the money is used. If to family, then equally to his close family. Throughout the rich person's life, I think it should be used to help those who need help.
Andrew Carnegie wanted to teach the ways of distributing wealth and making sure that it doesn't get wasted. He had 3 ideas of distributing wealth, 1: was to the public, 2: give to the processor thought out its life, and 3: give it to the decendents. i agree with him because i believe that money shouldn't be wasted, it should be used for important things and be invested.
Andrew Carnegie had a very interesting view and under standing of how men should get rich, and what things should take place when they do so. He argued that a key way to getting wealthy was to gaine money through trusts'. He believed it was beneficial to the poor to have someone wealthy who they could envest their money in(trust) because this man who was so wealthy was supposedly wise and could manage the money better than any of the poor people or the poor people's comunity could. At the same time he always encourages the wealthy to help those who help them selves; this way more people have the opprotunity to become just as wealthy. His final arguement (with wich I agree the most)is a man who dies rich is disgrace. By that I think he meant that instead of a wealthy man keeping the money himself, he should entrust a good majority back into the comunity, thus giving more people a chance to become somewhat moderatly wealthy, butnot as wealthy. I believe that there is alot of truth to Mr. Carnegie's arguements, but I don't agree with one community ever entrusting all its money to one man who is already wealthy,to make the decissions of to do with the money because the wealthy man is only going to meet the communities lowest needs at most and that is why the poor tend to stay poor and the rich,rich. the problem between rich and poor can never be solved in a capitolist society because there will always be rich, and as long as theres rich, you will always have poor.
Carnegie said that money can be passed on to families, the public, or whoever the person decides before they die. He agreed with death taxes. He also believes in individualism.
People like Carnegie are awesome and the kind of people I look up to. I love private property and people doing whatever they want with what they own. It is not that smart of a thing to pass money on to children though. They just live a privileged life without knowing the value of money. If I had a lot of money, I'd split it up among the three ways.
Something so wonderful is that any of us can make however much of ourselves as we want. Social mobility does exist. I hate to see great people like Carnegie and Sam Walton(or whoever owns wal mart now) defamed for making a lot of money and being evil oppressive heartless machines... No one always does the best thing and things would be horrible without corporations like them. Capitalists make so many jobs, create so much wealth, and better society altogether. They deserve every cent they make.
I do disagree with the death tax. That's a horrible thing. The fair tax is the way to go. Taxes are horrible oppressive things, not Capitalists.
Carnegie agruments are basically stating that wealth can be disposed of in 1 of 3 ways. He also argue that w=one way for a men to get reach is by gaining the trust from others. To me thta shows you can get rich quicker by having the trust of the people.Just look at some of the rich people in today's age that sell products and they get people to buy their product by hving sumthing that will make the people want to believe that this product is for them. Carnegie argue that upon a men death he shouldn't leave his wealth to the children because it will become a burden on them and their environment. I think that what Carnegie really was tryin to get across is don't spend all your riches just because u see sumthing or don't be too quick to hand out your money if u dont kno the reason.
Carnegie believe that brotherhood might bond the rich with the poor. But in reality the rich might only bond with the poor thru charity or another matter. Race plays a factor in who really among the rich and very few rich people or an minority. He believe that a man should provide for his wife and daughters upon his death so they won't have anything to worry bot. In today's world Europe teaches the methods that such hopes and ambitions are a good thing in order to get wat u want out of life.
I believe that Andrew Carnegie was a bright person. He put forth three new thoughts on how to use the wealth which were,leaving it for the decendants, giving it to the public, or administered by the possesors. I agree with Andrew Carnegie with using the money for the public by using tax revenues.
Andrew Carneige welcomes the new change of the gap between the rich and the poor. He believes this to be a mark of progress and change that comes with a civilization. He also argues that there are 3 ways to distribute the wealth that one has accumlated over their lifetime. (1) to leave it to the family, esp the children, (2) to leave it for public purposes, and (3) to administor it during the lives of its posessors.
Carnegie says that men should not leave their wealth to thier family and children because it would burden the children and show them misguided affection. I agree with him on this point of not leaving it to the children because it teaches them (the children) nothing of value. They now do not have to work for wealth and will not comprehend the true value of it. People should have to earn wealth themselves, not have all of it handed to them.
Carneige agrees with the second mode of leaving the wealth at death for public uses. I think this is a good idea as well, but why can't a wealthy man share his wealth with the public while he is alive, would he feel too guilty about not giving enough so waits until he is dead to do so? I think the wealthy should give more while living, not wait to die and be remembered for giving "crumbs" of it away after death.
The last way of leaving behind the wealth is to have the government distribute it to the people instead of having it (the wealth) remain private. I think this is a good idea as well, the government should be evenly distributing the wealth now to all people.
I do not agree with the heavy taxation after death. I believe that the wealthy should be taxed heavily while living, not just gaining and gaining more and more wealth, and never paying anything on it. I belive that the wealthy should have, and feel, the obligation to give to the people while they are living, and not have it taken and given after they have died.
All of Andrew's ideas on money from inheritants wre good. if the decendants of a dead person recieves money than they won't work but only live off of what was giving to them. This wasn't good where as the money could be use to help the poor and the public which was andrew's other ways of distributing money of the dead. But what i dont understand is how a person can be middle or low class when they're alive but have lots of money when they're dead. whats up with that??? they basically lived to make money for those when they're long gone.
i believe tha andrew carnegie was a good man because of his ideas of making wealth beneficial. he mentioned three main ways that could help spread wealth. he would either leave it to the family, give it to public purpose or administer their life by processors. his argument was pretty good.
The ideas of "The Gospel of Wealth" were basically that wealth should be distributed among all people even the poor. This was a great three ideas to give the wealth to the family of the decedent,it could be used for public purposes,or the wealth could be administered throughout the life of the possessor. I think that wealth shouldn't be as important as it is in our society today and even back then. A lot of people work and work their whole life to have wealth but in my eyes it shouldn't matter as much as it does. We need to focus on other isssues but if it has to be distributed then it should do so equally.
I FEEL THAT CARNGIE'S IDEAS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF MONEY WERE GREAT. HE FELT THAT MONEY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO A DECENDENT, GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC OR IT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PROCESSOR.I AGREE, WITH HIM. I CAN'T BE MAD THAT HE EARNEDTHE MONEY HE GOT AND DECIDED TO DO WITH IT WHAT HE DID, WHICH HAPPENS TO BENEFIT A LOT OF PEOPLE. "HE WAS A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS MAN."
Andrew Carnegie wrote about the distribution of wealth. He gave three possibilities of distributing wealth but most strongly believed in giving it to the public and to the poor. I do not fully agree with this sentiment. He aquired his wealth and therefore he can choose what to do with it. I do not think that people with money should have to give it away to the poor. They can do what they want with it. Taxing, however, I do believe in. In order to get money to the country and to the poor, taxing is the only equitable way to do so. His thoughts were more left, mine are more right, the differences in people tell them what to do with their money.
what about Charity
Post a Comment