Wealth is something that all mankind wish to obtain in great amounts. Wealth has been aspired since the Gilded Age and has not yet failed to continue being the number one concept on an individual's minds. Not all, in fact very few reach the ladders of wealth in which one can live in ultimate comfort. Many are left to live in ghastly situations and life styles of living. Is it more beneficial to live in a world of two classes the rich and the poor or in a world where the wealth is spread amongst mankind? A man named Andrew Carnegie, which of whom had great wealth and power, explains his idea of the gospel of wealth as it pertains to the system of competition and survival of the fittest and its advantages and disadvantages towards this country. In order to obtain wealth, there is a need for competition between the people. Carnegie believed that with competition comes growth and progress to our nation and slowly but surely prosperity. The other essential advantage would be the progress of the human race as individuals. The disadvantage would be that few are always going to live in excellent conditions while others do not necessarily. Competition is in every human's genes …show more content…
The law of competition brings the best out of people to strive for greatness and contribute to not only the economy, but to themselves. Wealth is only achieved through great knowledge and proving oneself to be the best in any given situation or their respective career field. Knowledge is the ultimate factor pertaining to the law of competition and it is for an individual's best interest to obtain great knowledge. According to Carnegie a disadvantage under the law of competition is that there will always be friction between a boss and the employee’s, capital and labor. Also, human society loses its ability to be in a homogeneous
Andrew Carnegie, was a strong-minded man who believed in equal distribution and different forms to manage wealth. One of the methods he suggested was to tax revenues to help out the public. He believed in successors enriching society by paying taxes and death taxes. Carnegie’s view did not surprise me because it was the only form people could not unequally distribute their wealth amongst the public, and the mediocre American economy. Therefore, taxations would lead to many more advances in the American economy and for public purposes.
Andrew Carnegie, the “King of Steel”, the benevolent employer, the giant of industry, was among the greatest influences of the second industrial revolution. It is sometimes questioned whether Carnegie was the ruthless, sneaky steel tyrant some made him out to be, or the generous, benevolent education benefactor he appeared to be. I believe him to be a combination of both, but more so the great giant of industry.
At this time, Vanderbilt had emerged as a top leader in the railroad industry during the 19th century and eventually became the richest man in America. Vanderbilt is making it abundantly clear to Americans that his only objective is to acquire as much wealth as possible even if it is at the expense of every day citizens. Another man who echoed such sentiments is Andrew Carnegie. In an excerpt from the North American Review, Carnegie takes Vanderbilt’s ideas even further and advocates for the concentration of business and wealth into the hands of a few (Document 3). Carnegie suggests that such a separation between the rich and the poor “insures survival of the fittest in every department” and encourages competition, thus, benefiting society as a whole. Carnegie, a steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest businessmen to date, continuously voiced his approval of an ideology known as Social Darwinism which essentially models the “survival of the fittest” sentiment expressed by Carnegie and others. In essence, he believed in widening inequalities in society for the sole purpose of placing power in the hands of only the most wealthy and most
The rags-to-riches story is always a classical and inspirational tale that tries to touch our hearts. These stories seeks to arouse the warm, intrinsic emotions that all humans get when they proudly achieve a long-term goal. Andrew Carnegie’s life is the exception. Andrew Carnegie was an industrialist who guided the expansion of the American steel industry in the 1800s. During this period, the United States was a demanding country for steel to use in the rail roads. Andrew Carnegie was not a hero but a heartless capitalist because he sabotaged his competitors in the steel industry, applied his belief that “(competition) insures the survival of the fittest in every department” into social standards, and, maintained his employees in unfair working
Carnegie’s essay contains explanations of three common methods by which wealth is distributed and his own opinions on the effects of each. After reading the entire essay, readers can see his overall appeals to logos; having wealth does not make anyone rich, but using that wealth for the greater good does. He does not force his opinions onto the reader, but is effectively convincing of why his beliefs make sense. Andrew Carnegie’s simple explanations intertwined with small, but powerful appeals to ethos and pathos become incorporated into his overall appeal to logos in his definition of what it means for one to truly be rich.
Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland in 1835. His father, Will, was a weaver and a follower of Chartism, a popular movement of the British working class that called for the masses to vote and to run for Parliament in order to help improve conditions for workers. The exposure to such political beliefs and his family's poverty made a lasting impression on young Andrew and played a significant role in his life after his family immigrated to the United States in 1848. Andrew Carnegie amassed wealth in the steel industry after immigrating from Scotland as a boy. He came from a poor family and had little formal education.
Also, they both understand the importance of the competition of man and how it affects wealth and poverty. The reasoning that can attribute to their similarities and differences is their profession. Carnegie is a renowned industrialist known for his steel industry. Being an industrialist he understands the importance of contribution to society which is why he propagates the significance of the wealthy helping the poor. On the other hand, Sumner was a “professor of political economy at Yale University” (textbook, 488), and his profession correlates to why he advocates the idea that social darwinism can positively affect a capitalist
Carnegie states, “Under the law of competition, the employer of thousands is forced into the strictest economies, among which the rates paid to labor figure prominently, and often there is friction between employer and the employed, between capital and labor, between rich and poor” (393). It is this competitive nature which allows the hardest working individuals to rise above their peers, create personal wealth and continue to accumulate wealth. Competition is a beneficial to capitalism. A company can produce an item and sell the
Throughout Carnegies life he struggled to find a balance between two ideals; to make money, and to stand up for the working man. He obviously leaned more towards making money than he did working for labor rights, but Carnegie’s contributions to his community, the United States, and the world can not be understated.
Carnegie did not believe in spending his money on frivolous things, instead he gave most of his fortune back to special projects that helped the public, such as libraries, schools and recreation. Carnegie believes that industries have helped both the rich and the poor. He supports Social Darwinism. The talented and smart businessmen rose to the top. He acknowledges the large gap between the rich and the poor and offers a solution. In Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie, he states, “the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves” (25). He believes the rich should not spend money foolishly or pass it down to their sons, but they should put it back into society. They should provide supervised opportunities for the poor to improve themselves. The rich man should know “the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise- free libraries, parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind” (Carnegie p. 28). Also, Carnegie does not agree they should turn to Communism to redistribute wealth. Individuals should have the right to their earnings. Corporations should be allowed to act as it please with little to no government
Carnegie understands the flaws with the law of competition, stating that their is often friction between the rich and the poor. He acknowledges that the law may be hard for individuals, but in the long run it will benefit the race. He continues that the competition of industrial and commercial are more than beneficial but will allow progress of society. He suggests that the wealthy can use their wisdom and experience and help set an example for those without guidance. Carnegie endorses the wealthy allow their surplus of wealth to be given to improve their community. He states that the riches passing through the hands of a few can be more beneficial than if the wealth distributed and was given directly to the
Heavy industrialization in the United States created a new economic reality in which “the poor enjoy[ed] what the rich could not before afford” by decreasing the labor and money needed to produce material goods (Carnegie). However, it also created problems for the poor in the form of pollution, moral deterioration, and lack of interest in work (Rauschenbusch). Despite the fact that both works focused on a Christian approach to interacting with the economy, their conclusions differed greatly, with Carnegie arguing for the rich to continue to accumulate and distribute wealth to public projects, and Rauschenbusch calling for the rich to redistribute directly to projects that would improve the daily health and moral well being of the poor. While the beliefs were inherently different, their importance was the same. It mattered less what actions the men perceived to be the most beneficial, because both were actively engaging the moral implications of technological advances and their effect on the economy, something that few modern economists
Andrew Carnegie believes in a system based on principles and responsibility. The system is Individualism and when everyone strives towards the same goals the system is fair and prosperous. Carnegie’s essay is his attempt to show people a way to reach an accommodation between individualism and fairness. This system can only work if everyone knows and participates in his or her responsibilities. I will discuss Carnegie’s thesis, his arguments and the possible results of his goals.
Carnegie, Andrew. The Gospel of Wealth. 391st ed. Vol. 148. N.p.: North American Review, 1889. Print.
Although it has been said that money is the root of all evil, many people actually believe that they would be happier if they were wealthier. Could this be correct? This essay will support the thesis that not only does the pursuit of wealth not lead to happiness; it may actually make us unhappy.