Andrew Carnegie Wealth Essay

Greed – the extreme, selfish desire to acquire what is beyond average necessities. Whether greed applies to wealth or power, mankind is prone to exemplify the cupidity. Humans may never become truly content with what they are given, allowing them to desire superfluous objects. The development of greed, as shown in repeated history, eventually leads to the ruination of characters, one particular character being Andrew Carnegie. Andrew Carnegie, the leader of the steel industry in the 19th century, epitomized the concept of greed by yearning for supplementary profits within his company; this greed greatly affected the lives of many, including Carnegie himself.

Carnegie thinks it is better to build public institutions than give charity to the poor because the poor need to have the “desire to improve” and find help in these public institutions. (Carnegie 30). He believes that rather wealthy “Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives” can find the proper use for their money, which is to help the community. (Carnegie 29). By just giving money to the poor the wealthy are doing all their work and instead the poor should find the assistance they need to improve their lives.

Carnegie, who was a believer of Social darwinism, which was a belief held by many that stated that the rich were rich and the poor were poor due to natural selection in society. This was the basis of many people who promoted a laissez faire style of economy. He believed if you worked hard, you could be successful. He believed that a man of wealth should set modest examples and help those in need (DOC E) Carnegie donated more than 150 billion of dollars for libraries, colleges and concert halls. The high population density of the early twentieth century put pressure on fragile infrastructures and demanded insight from urban planners and politicians.

Likewise, many wealthy people, including big business leaders, came to realize that it was their role in society was to give back. Due to all the negative responses, people such as Andrew Carnegie were huge philanthropists . They stated that because they were wealthy and were better inclined than most, they should be willing to help those at the bottom. Andrew Carnegie’s, Gospel of Wealth, explicitly stated how the wealthy have a moral obligation to give back (Outside Evidence). Other major responses to changes and the impact of big business were responses from the government.

Carnegie immigrated at age thirteen from Scotland and worked his way up by developing the telegram system during the civil, there collecting his first million then dominated the steel industry; thereafter prospering his enterprise, which leads him to be the second richest man after Rockefeller. “The American Dream”, envisioned by our Founding Fathers, is a revolutionary idea that any citizen has an equal opportunity to prosper by challenging themselves and through an initiative, and determination. This gives” Wealth” much more of an impact thus, many Americans consider ‘The American Dream” as a standard and praise this idealism. Even if his views seem a bit outdated; it stills heavily impacted lots of Americans from the Gilded Age to modern day. However, for all that prosperity, the gap between rich and poor has always been a huge complication, for over a century, people have tried to fix this inequality.

The captains of industry believed that the poor people were inferior to the rich people. The rich were superior because they had “wisdom, experience, and the ability to administer”. The duty of a rich person was to help out a poor person which was what was said in the Gospel of Wealth. The Gospel of Wealth is about how the rich person's responsibility is philanthropy. Carnegie believes in charity work so he would donate to libraries, and universities and schools and etc.

horizontal) reflects their consciousness of the diversity in societies they seek to uplift. On one hand, although Carnegie writes that “[h]uman society loses homogeneity” (“Wealth”), he only mentions the economic disparities creating a “problem of Rich and Poor” (“Wealth”). This binary understanding of the division of society is reflected by his repeated use of terms like “the masses” (Carnegie, “Wealth”), and offers insight into Carnegie’s vision of social uplift. Indeed, he doesn’t mention any tailored actions for subgroups of the mass, whose needs and existence are completely flattened by his

This theory, Social Darwinism, was applied to the monopolistic efforts of businessmen as John D. Rockefeller, Jr. so eloquently stated: “The growth of a large business is merely the survival of the fittest” (Nash p. 417). The Gospel of Wealth based on Social Darwinism is the notion that the massive wealth held by prosperous businessmen was for the social benefit of everyone. The advocates of the Gospel of Wealth such as Andrew Carnegie, Russell Conwell, and Horatio Alger linked wealth with a sense of heightened responsibility as those with more wealth had an equally great obligation to society. Each of the advocates of the Gospel of Wealth came from diverse backgrounds, but preached the same ideals.

For instance, Carnegie presented his library named Carnegie Library, he considers this “the best kind of philanthropy” (Ernsberger). By this he indicates the correct way a wealthy individual should live,is by giving back to the community. On the contrary, Richard argues this as negative affect to the company due to the loss of income. Richard believes that Carnegie shouldn’t have spent his money on helping the community instead, he should have continued to invest it on the steel industry. Overall, Richard views Carnegie as “little capitalist who urged presidents to do right things in Philippines, Panama and international diplomacy [but] had never done the right or moral thing as a businessman,” (Ernsberger).

He believed that if the wealthy don't give back some of their profits to the community, they are living a dishonorable life, and although I didn't necessarily agree with this radical viewpoint at first, I now am a firm believer in Carnegie's argument about wealth.

What he did was give money to organizations, but not to the community who actually needed it. “The duty of the man of wealth is to set an example of modest living” (Document M). This says that all rich people should try and hide the money they have but, not all do that. Many people, like Carnegie, who are rich will flaunt it and not care what others say. That is not being moral or having integrity.

To start, John D. Rockefeller, one of the richest capitalists in history, used the term Social Darwinism to say why some people were poor and some were rich. This ideal is exemplified in Ghent ’s Our Benevolent Feudalism, (Doc. 7), which explains why the principle of “Survival of the fittest” applies to laissez-faire capitalism. Essentially, it said that if someone was not successful, it was a result of not working hard enough.

Underpinnings and Effectiveness of Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth” In Andrew Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth”, Carnegie proposed a system of which he thought was best to dispose of “surplus wealth” through progress of the nation. Carnegie wanted to create opportunities for people “lift themselves up” rather than directly give money to these people. This was because he considered that giving money to these people would be “improper spending”.

Andrew Carnegie Once, there was a man to have the largest personal fortune in the world. He helped improve mankind by donating millions of his fortune to charity. This mastermind was named Andrew Carnegie, an industrial monopolizer who used steel to gain his massive fortune. Andrew Carnegie was born November 25, 1835 in Dunfermline, Scotland.

Carnegie stated that it is “much better this great irregularity than universal squalor” (Andrew Carnegie, “Wealth”). I believe that Carnegie contradicts himself with this statement, and I feel that it could be considered to create an ethical situation. Through his works he emphasizes the importance of sharing wealth for the greater good of society and to bridge the gap between the classes, but yet this statement seems to say that only a few are chosen to be wealthy while the rest of society is not. It in some ways undercuts the capabilities of the lower class. The giants of industrialism made their fortunes because of the labor of those worked for them.