Analysis Of Andrew Carnegie's Three Different Forms Of Distributing Riches

Andrew Carnegie discusses three different forms of distributing riches. Carnegie used ethos and pathos as well as vocabulary in order to strengthen his argument. The three methods are inheritance, distributing after death and distributing during a lifetime. Inheritance refers to the wealthy person leaving behind their riches to their children. Carnegie argues that this method often leads to failure. He says that it is too much pressure for the children. Having to manage a large estate without life experience or knowledge of maintaining a business. Carnegie also believes that leaving behind so much wealth sets up the descendants for failure. Since the offspring are not learning how to making a living with their own bear hands kids they will often end up in poverty. Most of these inheritors end up living off the wealth and not using it to better humanity, the wealth stagnates. Carnegie goes to say that it is rare for rich children to not be spoiled and to work for the greater good of the general public. Although there are exceptions Carnegie believes that this is the worst way to distribute wealth. Distribution after death, this consists

Although the concept of the rich supporting the lesser off is a beautiful one, it is a very unrealistic ideal. This would only be possible in a perfect world, one without greed. This is evident to this day as most billionaires turn their families into long lasting empires and some even die with their money collecting dust in the bank. It’s ironic because Carnegie is constantly attacking communism in order to advance his own viewpoints ( another ideal that would only work in a perfect world). Both concepts lack incentive, as for carnegies viewpoints, the incentive to be generous instead of hoarding riches like a dragon. As for communism, the incentive to work an arduous job that took many years in college to obtain, like being a doctor, and having the same living conditions as a fry