Wealth In Adam Smith, Andrew Carnegie, And Andrew K. Gailbraith

1200 Words5 Pages

Wealth is driven by commerce. Wealth in any form is the root of all needed things in the sense that currency is the simplification of ones own definition of wealth by being the common denominator that translates through the world. Translating wealth is most commonly left to the rich and philosophically inclined such as Adam Smith, Andrew Carnegie, and Andrew K. Gailbraith.
Adam Smiths realism rhetoric stood that in order for a prosperous town to exist there first had to be an equally if not better country-side because Adam Smith believed that wealth was a measure of how much land one had and how much of it could be cultivated for the use of planting crops and manufacturing raw goods and how close it was to any town.
Wealth in the form of fertile lands was in major part of …show more content…

449) In similarity in the ideas of enrichment of land Andrew Carnegie believed that the wealthy were responsible for the public good through decisive disbursement of their riches whether it be through art, parks, or public institutions and that the act of indiscriminate charity was a crutch for society, and that society mustn't stand still or move backwards if it is meant to thrive.
Giving back to society through the act of erecting institutes of knowledge was Andrew Carnegies form of wealth and is shown in his use of hyperbolic rhetoric. While building public buildings, libraries and institutions was a form of charity in itself. Mr. Carnegie's goal was to offer the people a place where they could help themselves, and in the process of their growth become great within themselves, so that those people who rose through these public institutions given by him, could then offer in return their part to society instead of being the dreg of society and becoming a

Open Document