Blog # 28 – Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth”
In Andrew Carnegie’s essay, “Gospel of Wealth” originally published in 1889, discussed the steel king’s attitudes towards the working class, the loss of the cottage industries that doomed his father’s weaving craft, and why the capitalist system back then (and by extension even now) is better than what they had. He also then goes on to explore three different ways that the wealthy have disposed of their extra income when or before they die, and he explains why he feels which one is the best.
Back in the apprentice / master days, Carnegie states that the relationship between the two was more equal. They shared the same work space, the same hardships, and the same successes. But, as specialization and factories expanded, the cottage industries with their hand crafted goods could not compete with the factories’ cheaply priced goods and eventually had to adapt or go out of business (which sounds a lot like what happened in Carnegie’s experience). A third option that occurred was to violently resist the change like some weavers and other workers had done when they destroyed the machines in the early 19th Century (the Luddites). In the Carnegie’s case, they adapted and headed for America where some of their family had already had some success.
The problem with working in factories, according to Carnegie, is that the owner no longer works side-by-side with the workers in the factories. There’s a huge gulf between “the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer” and this is beneficial to all, he believes. He uses a visit to a Sioux Indian tribe as an example where the chief’s dwelling wasn’t very different from the rest of his peoples’ “wigwams.” By this, Carnegie inferred that Americans are advancing in civilization because not only are there cheaper goods for all, but that:
“This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay, essential, for the progress of the race that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best in literature and the arts, and for all the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so.”What we basically have here is the survival of the fittest, Carnegie states, in the business world. Those who are best at managing money, creating products, organizing and conducting business affairs will be rewarded because they are the best at what they do.
But, Carnegie feels that the gap between rich and poor has to be addressed in some way, and that’s where the disposal of excess wealth comes in. First, “it can be left to the families of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administered by its possessors during their lives.”
The problem with the first way (inherited wealth), Carnegie believes, is that it is rare to find children of wealthy individuals who have NOT been spoiled by a life of leisure or indulgence, and by giving the inheritance to them would be a waste of that hard-earned money. See the 60 Minutes video below on Howard Buffett, son of billionaire Warren Buffett and see what he has done w/ his life so far. The father has made all of his children work for their lives and given them few extra things in their lives (in fact, none of them have graduated from college).
The issues with the second way (money is left to the public or gov’t) is that the real wishes of the deceased abo
ut how the money should be used might be thwarted (though I wonder what happened to wills and stuff like that in Carnegie’s day). This particular quote is probably the most damning: “In many cases the bequests are so used as to become only monuments of his folly. It is well to remember that it requires the exercise of not less ability than that which acquires it, to use wealth so as to be really beneficial to the community.” In essence, it’s easier to spend the money than to make it.
So, Carnegie feels that the best way to address the gap between the rich and the poor is for the wealthy of his and future time periods to follow the third way and use that wealth however they choose, but to do it wisely. People have joked that if Bill Gates just divided up his fortune amongst everybody, things would be nice in the short term. But it literally might amount to $500 a person (my own estimate) and then trigger some staggering inflation across the country as many people use some of that money to go and buy stuff unless they put it away for college or retirement. Carnegie felt that this kind of gift would be a silly idea: “if distributed in small quantities among the people, would have been wasted in the indulgence of appetite, some of it in excess, and it may be doubted whether even the part put to the best use…”
So, the wealthy shouldn’t be extravagant. They should be modest, and use that money wisely, in effect, putting it aside like a trust fund for when they retire to be spent on things that they feel are important. And, as Carnegie writes, the wealthy know how to spend the money better than the poor: ” the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent 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.”
Questions:
1. Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
Due Thursday 12/15 by the beginning of class.
150 words minimum for each question (so 300 minimum total!).
Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie – http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/carnegie_wealth.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7391360n Same video below.
1. I agree with Andrew Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. He stated that some of the rich have gotten their wealth handed down from generation to generation. This might not be the case all of the time, but it would mean that the people with family money might not have had to work for their money. For example, John D. Rockefeller’s kids have basically had most of their life given to them on a string. Since John D. Rockefeller was the highly wealthy owner of Standard Oil Company, his kids, especially John D. Rockefeller Jr., were living the high life all of their lives. After Junior graduated from Brown University, he joined his father’s company and immediately became a Standard Oil director. Any normal person, or hard-worker, would have worked their way up to being a director. There is also the side of the rich that make their children/other family members work for their wealth. This is the side that I think would distribute their wealth more responsibly because of the effort they had to make in order to be that wealthy. I believe that the best way to spend your wealth is in a way that will benefit all of society, and not just your family. This way, many people benefit.
2. I think that the money from the rich should have been/or spent on schools, libraries, homeless shelters, hospitals and research to cure diseases and sicknesses. These are all beneficiaries that would benefit all of society. Schools and libraries benefit all the country’s children and families. Both schools and libraries are public places, and are free for the people who pay taxes, so the poor and the rich can both benefit from these places. Homeless shelters are places that help the people in need of a home, get off the streets and into some place dry and warm for the night. They also give these people meals throughout the day. Homeless shelters are mainly somewhat poor looking places, but with help from the wealthy, they could really thrive. Hospitals and research benefit all citizens, because if you are sick enough to be in a hospital, you are entitled that right to be taken care of. Also, if the wealthy give money for research, it might come out to benefit them in the long run. For example, if a millionaire gave money to a cancer researcher, who eventually finds a cure for that cancer, and the millionaire ends up getting that same cancer later on in life, the researcher will re-pay the favor back to that generous person.
1) I mostly agree with Carnegie’s idea of how the wealthy should spend their money. I believe that the one aspect that Carnegie neglects is the judgement of a wealthy person as to what is truly important. Most who have wealth today haven’t earned it nearly the same way that men like Carnegie did. Many of the people today who are financially well off earned their money through either inheritance or through means such as a superficial television series. These people haven’t learned what’s truly important in life; they haven’t had a taste of hard work and independence. Therefore, if they were to spend their money on what they thought was important none of it would go towards what is actually important and would benefit the greater good. At Carnegie’s time however, most of the rich people living in America had earned their money somewhat fairly (and by somewhat I mean partially illegally i.e. J.P. Morgan’s Insider Investments) and knew what was truly important to benefit those that needed it most. But after all, it comes down to the fact that it is that person’s money. No one should be able to force how they spend it.
2) In order to decrease the gap between the rich and the poor in both the older and modern America I believe that the money of the wealthy should be spent on projects that benefit the working class people of America. Such projects would include libraries for the youth of the working class adults, schools, small businesses ready to employ those who need it. This type of spending by the wealthy would encourage the growth of the economy and raise the position of the poor while at the same time engaging them more with the upper class who is making their rise possible. This would create a network of connections between the poor, the working class, and the rich.
Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie
1. Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
Yes, I do agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. I agree because it should be administered wisely by the owner of the wealth. Carnegie talked about three possible things that could happen to the money. One give the money to your relatives, but as he explained a bad idea because they usually waste it or squander it and don’t do enough good with it. Two give it to the government, but they spend it in their own way which probably doesn’t go to the right cause. Third is give it to the public but this was also a bad idea because everyone would receive so little money that it wouldn’t affect the generally welfare of the community. But the last thing is to use the wealth, however use it wisely by being modest with it. It should be given back to the community like Carnegie did by giving 90% to charities and the 10% to his wife and kids and the rest into libraries.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
In order to address the gaps between the rich and poor, back then and even today, the money should have been spent on to help the economic welfare to fuel America. Some examples are food, shelter and education for the poor. I agree with the libraries and the museums that they used the money for. The most important of these is education because the people that are more educated can contribute to America society not needing to depend all on the wealthy and there giving away money even though a good thing. If the wealthy financers are able to help the government in an economy crisis then that also helps America as a whole. In comparisons today buy not helping America by having off shore accounts which is hurting the America economy increasing the gap between the have and have-nots. So by America allowing anyone make money that is not illegal they should be giving back to what let them do it in the first place America as a whole.
1.) Yes, I do agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their wealth. Yes both leaving money to descendants or to the public are OK ways of leaving your money behind. But, in most cases children of the wealthy are rather privileged and do not have to worry about next week’s paycheck paying for food and clothes, like the working class does. They do not have to worry about how they will make their own money, but rather they worry about having the latest iPhone. This is not always the case but it happens very often. A risk with leaving your wealth to the public and/or the government is, they would not use your money the way you intended that it be used. Say you leave $50,000 to the city of Detroit to make Detroit’s libraries better. The city could only put a minimum amount of that to the libraries and use the rest to pay off it’s debt. And the reason that Carnegie and I both agree on this, is that you should spend your money wisely throughout your life. Spreading the wealth to the less fortunate. Instead of you and your family living extravagant lives, you should put the money to good use and discover a way to help the less fortunate.
2.) In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and today, the money should be given to organizations and foundations that help better the community. Today foundation like that include; The Boys and Girls Club, Make a Wish Foundation, or Susan G Komen for the Cure. These are just a few charities that could help give back to the community and help fill the gap between the rich and the poor. Carnegie believed that when you died you should not leave all your money to your descendants or to the public / government. If you left your money to an already well off descendant they would not necessarily give some or any money back to the community. And the public / government would most likely do the same thing. Carnegie believed that to fill the gap between the rich and the poor was to give back to worthy, established, creditable organizations and foundations.
Kaitlin Flaherty 3rd Hour
I want to agree with Carnegie thought of how rich people should donate their money there way. So that the money is being spent the right way. Although I may have to disagree on his saying that not rich or wealthy people don’t know how to spend their money. Cause by no extreme imagination is my mom rich but, she may be the most savviest and thoughtful shopper. I think that his thought of ignorance of the poor came to Carnegie’s mind because of the lack of widespread education and just the lack of educated people in the lower end of the social classes. So yes I do belivev that the wealthy should distribute there wealth because if the wealthy jus t keep on passing on there wealth there will be families with just ancient money being able to live off there ancestors money and wealth and never having to work for themselves.
I believe the money that the wealthy and rich donate should be used on public institutions. Therefore donating a gift that keeps on giving. Which will always be something a community will want. You can never go wrong with a university, public library and local park etc. These sort of donations will help educate people and set a higher standard of living in that community while not putting the financial burden of those facilities on the local communities. Thus allowing many people to live a better life without having any negative factors affect them. I believe that these facilities will bring down crime rates and any sort of abuse or neglect in an community. Because these facilities offer peace of mind and essentially a free education. A Library for example would give kids a place to study without having the distractions of home. A basketball court or public park would allow kids and anyone to compete peacefully. Possibly lowering any sort of crime rate. Point of the matter is with these kind of facilities nothing bad will happen but, good things will.
1. I agree that it would be beneficial to society and the economy if the wealthy were able to give back in some way that isn’t wasteful and would continue to benefit for years to come. I think that giving back is important to send a good message to the working class and to benefit both the poor and the wealthy to become better people. Although I don’t think that giving back should become a source of expected pay to the poor, I think that charity is good to an extent until people start using it as a crutch. In some cases charity can do more harm than good, if charity were just giving out money to the poor, in most cases the poor would be worse of than before. I do agree with Carnegie that the wealthy should give back but they should only give back if they are going to do so wisely, the wealthy cannot just throw money away mindlessly to please critics and to justify themselves. If they are going to give back then they should actually give back by putting some thought and effort into it, so that the money is used as efficiently and wisely as possible.
2. I think the public libraries that Carnegie created were a good idea. I think that the money should be spent on education applicable to the lifestyle the worker of the lower class. I think education is most important but being able to apply it to their lifestyle and to improve it is more important. If they get a nice good education but can’t use it then it’s just wasted money. I also think that spending the money on trust funds and systems that allow the lower class worker to save money are a good Idea so that the benefits of charity are long term and not short-lived. If we can get the working class to save and spend more wisely, be educated in a way applicable to their lifestyle, and overall improve their lifestyles then the gap between the rich and the poor will start to shrink. Although in capitalism there will always be a winner and a loser so I don’t think this issue will ever be truly solved.
I disagree with Andrew Carnegie’s opinions of giving money away. While all three of his issues with giving money away make sense, it does not make them correct. People should pass some money on to their offspring. It’s stupid to give 3 million dollars to some spoiled heir or heiress who will spend it on stupid and/or harmful stuff, but giving inheritance to children through paying for college tuition is not only beneficial to the one being put through school, but the community as well. Money left through inheritance can be just as helpful to some people as it is destructive to others. If it’s helping someone, it deserves to be an option. Leaving money to the government may have risks of it being used in ways you did not intend, but if you leave any money to anyone there is a risk of that happening. You can’t control it: You’re dead. Once you are gone, who ever has your money can do whatever they please with it and you can’t do a thing about it. Dividing it up amongst a large group of people is not the smartest idea, it should still be considered. Even if some are using the money on things that are not deemed useful, there are people out there that would put it to good use. Honestly, I don’t see what issues these big tycoons like Carnegie have with charity. It helps people, and it’s not like they need the money anymore.
Money should be spent on improving the lives of those still living. Wishes of those deceased should be noted, but not control the entire way it is spent. It should be used to pay for schooling of a relative, construction of a community building, donated to a worthy charity , or given to person who will take care of it and spend it wisely. These standards should be held to the people of both now and then. Expectations of what is morally right do not change with the era. When you die, you have no need for anything you had on earth, including money. It should be used to benefit those who maybe did not get through life as easily as you did. There need to be laws that prevent corruption and greed to occur in situation where inheritance play a big role in innocent people’s lives. People shouldn’t use so much their precious time on earth to decide how they’ll divide something as trivial as money when they are gone. It’s just not worth it.
1.) I definitely agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their excess wealth. This is because the first two options are illogical. The first option, passing the money down trough the family, isn’t logical because as said in the article, most children in a wealthy family are spoiled and don’t have to work to inherit money. This is unfair because some people work very hard for low wages, while a billionaire’s son doesn’t have to work at all and will still be ridiculously rich. The second option, which states that the money will be left to the government or public when the owner dies, is also illogical. This is because you can’t trust everyone. You may say what you want the public or government to do with the money, but that doesn’t mean they’ll actually do it. The only logical way to get rid of excess wealth is the third option, which states that the wealthy should spend their excess wealth on what they want to be done for the public before they die. This is logical because you know exactly where the money is going, you’re being fair, and you’re helping out the public.
2.) The money should have been spent on the public, their workplaces, and the community in order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor. This is because if you build public libraries and universities and clean up the community it might motivate more people to work. It will also set a standard for the poor, and this might cause them to want to change their way of life. Also, a billionaire’s workers are the ones who are making him the money. Since this is the case, the workers should have some luxuries. It’s kind of ridiculous how people like Rockefeller got so rich, yet his workers worked in horrible conditions. It wasn’t right, Rockefeller should have spent some of his money on his actual factories, so his workers could have had the luxury of working in a nice environment. Excess wealth should have been and should still be spent on public projects like these because it would improve society and motivate the poor.
Alex Saenz
12-14-11
2nd
Blog #28
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. The wealthy have so much money, that sometimes they don’t know what to spend it on. Instead of not spending it and having it sit there, they should donate it to charities, contribute to their society, or share some of it with the government. The rich should be generous with what they have and help out the less fortunate. They would even have good public images if they did that. Carnegie was right to think that the rich should not have been selfish with their money. It may not be the best choice to give it all to the government, but they could still donate some of it. Like Carnegie invested in the many libraries he now has, the wealthy could donate and contribute to something they like in their community. They could help out and make things better. Carnegie was only trying to help out the less fortunate, and trying to teach people not to be so greedy with what they have. He was trying to enlighten others on the best way to address the gap between the rich and the poor.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and today, the money should have been spent on useful things. It should not have been blown on unnecessary things. Money should have been used to help out the poor and make conditions better. Money could have been used for education for children, to help people go to college, to get people food, or to better the community, and much more. The wealthy should “spread the love,” and not keep it all to themselves, by donating to charity, donating to organizations or churches, or giving back to society. They might not realize it, but $1000 could make a huge impact on someone’s life. Giving that small amount of money could be life changing; it would barely make a different to the rich. Spending the money on poor people and things that would help them or society out, it would boost the economy also. People would have more money, which would help out businesses and such. Money should be used as a tool that provides health, education, and food to the people who really need it most. It would not only make the poor feel better, but it would make the rich feel better also.
1. I disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. Everyone is able to spend their money the way they want to without anyone telling them how to spend it. I think that it shows a lot about someone’s character on how they choose to spend it. If someone prefers to pass all of their money on to family and not donate it, or use it to help others, it shows that they are selfish. But when a good man has a lot of money and they choose to help others with their money, it shows that they are a lot more caring. I disagree with Andrew Carnegie when he states that the wealthy know hoe to spend money better than the poor, because sometimes the poor have a lot better understanding of what’s needed around the country. I personally think that the wealthy need to be a little less modest and use their money not for their own benefits, but for others benefits as well.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, I think money should be spent to help the American economy and people less fortunate than the rich (like the working class and poor). I think everyone will benefit from a booming American economy. Also with more money within the working class, people can benefit because of the circulating wealth. Not only should the working class get more money, but the poor should also. The wealthy should help schools, libraries, and other public places by donating money. If this happened, many people would benefit. If people spent more money to help the less fortunate, the world would be a lot better place. I think that America would be a much better country if money was spent to help individuals and the economy.
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. It was mentioned in the video by Warren Buffet that he doesn’t want to give all his money to his kids because he doesn’t believe in giving money to people when they haven’t had to work for it or wouldn’t have to after the money is passed down to them. I think that’s very sensible because sometimes kids who inherit a lot of money tend to spend it on careless purchases that aren’t important in life. I think its acceptable to leave some money to your kids, just not an overwhelming amount. However, I see where Carnegie is coming from when he says to use wealth wisely and to have a blend of what you spend your money on. For example, it can be used to help the community, the government and the less fortunate which are a nice blend of places to put your extra money and by doing so, a variety of causes could be helped. You would just have to make sure you are putting your money in reliable places to make sure the fortune lives up to what it could potentially do for the nation. I think it’s ridiculous how the rich spend all their money on extravagant things today such as flashy cars and huge houses that aren’t necessary instead of putting their fortune towards great causes that will help the country advance over time.
2. I think the money should have been and should still be split up between charities, community and government. Also, a lot of money should be put toward research funds in order to cure diseases and make sure we are up to date with information related to the well-being of mankind. This way we can count on our government to run our country to the best of their ability and our communities can offer people everything they need to succeed such as jobs, public places to provide service and good education. Doing these things will help our country to be an overall better place with more success Also, the more money the rich give to charities, the more the wealth equals out and is spread all over. This also gives the poor a chance to start lives for themselves. If wealth is spread around and not spent all in one place, then there is a smaller chance of wasting all your money on a lost cause or an undeserving subject.
1. Due to the present economic environment, I personally disagree with Carnegie’s idea that the rich should spend their wealth however they choose. Carnegie chose to distribute his money amongst those who are less fortunate, and therefore I can conclude that this is what he means by “spending their (the tycoons’) wealth however they choose”. This concept, as morally correct as it is, is a wrong doing towards our present day economy. Although I’m sure that by doing so Carnegie’s intentions were to assist the poor and to improve the lives and economic standings of others, he didn’t consider and or realize the fact that by doing so he is eliminating the very necessary and distinct line that separates the rich from the poor. It is true that in Carnegie’s time period there was a line that was perhaps too distinct, causing the gap to be over-large. However, the current day’s economy isn’t like that. In present-times, the middle class not only exists, but also makes up a large part of society in the United States. In other words, the gap is very understandable and manageable. Also, in addition to the gap being substantially different nowadays, the reasons for the present-day gap also differ from the reasons for the gap during the so called Gilded Age. In Carnegie’s day most people were either uneducated or were dispirited by the popular idea of the extremities of Social Darwinism. On the hand, nowadays the poor community is a result of unemployment. Unemployment is very different from being dispirited by propaganda, because unemployment is a result of lack of effort, education, and motivation. In an economy like today’s, full of entrepreneurs and newfound business owners, making money is quite simple. From coming up with a fantastic idea to working at McDonalds, employment opportunities are plentiful. In conclusion, Carnegie, although with good intentions, only focused on his economy and disregarded any social or economic changes that could be made in the future.
2. With the economy in the Gilded Age, I quite agree that charity was a great investment for those who made billions of dollars. It helped the community, gave back to society, and created a good reputation for those tycoons who did. It spread good word about them, and helped them to gain followers and fans. However, in present times, I believe that the wealthy should spend their money on themselves, or pass it on after their deaths to their descendents. Although I agree with Carnegie that sometimes this can result with spoiled, bratty children, I have faith that if the parent distributes and manages the wealth fairly yet strictly and smartly, the wealth can have more of an advantage than disadvantage. In other words, it’s the parenting and not the wealth that determines a spoiled or a generous child. This is because the gap between the rich and the poor in the Gilded Age was huge! It needed to be lessened, and charity was a good way to do that. However, today the gap is a good size and shouldn’t be messed with, due to the overwhelming middle class. However, as a side note, I agree that the money should never go towards the public or the government.
Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. I feel this way because the other two assessments that were made wouldn’t be as effective as in beneficial as Carnegie’s. If money was just given to people because of inheritance, they wouldn’t use it to improve the community or the lives of others as much as they would use it to waste on themselves. People who inherit money don’t deserve it because they don’t work for it; it is just handed to them. Also, giving the money straight to the government does not ensure that it will be spent benefitting the people who are working towards success, it could be wasted on the wrong cause. Carnegie’s assessment ensures that the working people who are trying to succeed will get help. For example, Carnegie’s legacy is the approximately 3,000 libraries he had built, will help those who work hard.
In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, money should have been, and still should be spent on helping improve the lives of the working class in any way, shape, or form. Whether it be spent on libraries, or creating more scholarships, building more schools, or giving schools adequate supplies. The benefit that is being created for hardworking people who may not have the money to spend on books, supplies, and school will help them become successful, which will benefit the community as a whole. Also I believe it should also be spent on charities, those of people in the hospital, or sent to research for certain illnesses such as cancer. Perhaps a smaller portion should go to the poor, to the places they stay in, like homeless shelters as well as soup kitchens, because even though most are there by their own fault, that isn’t always the case. The extra money should be spent on benefitting communities and people in any way possible.
1) I would have to agree with Carnegie on this one, simply because I feel like [1] Children, whether rich or poor, should be taught the value of money, and that [2] when given the opportunity, there will always be someone ready to take advantage of a charitable doing. Even with the best of intentions, the said wealthy business owner can’t stop this from happening if they leave their hard earned cash with an outside charitable program. Plus, if a wealthy business owner were to just throw money at their kids, it’ll make them feel as though money is an indispensable resource. They won’t have a good work ethic, they won’t be as inclined to give help to the less fortunate, and they themselves won’t know how to budget their money. They might actually run the risk of being driven into debt from their lack of knowledge. I don’t necessarily believe that the poor are poor just because they don’t know how to handle money, I also think that some were just not given the chance because they were born into a family without money…But I also believe that those who are poor and shrewd with money are far and few, so the best possible thing for a wealthy businessman to do with his money is use it as he pleases. I would hope this would include helping the less fortunate in some way, but who am I to judge?
2) In order to address the gap between the rich and the poor, I feel as though the money should be spent in a variety of investments into the public (schools, hospitals, fixing neighborhoods, etc.). Investing in these things is probably the best way to both spend the money wisely and help to bridge the gap between poor and rich. Flinging money at poor people isn’t going to do anything to help better society, and giving it to government comes with it’s obvious downsides, so the best option is to either do it yourself or leaving money to specific things. But going about making sure the money gets there and not into the wrong hands is a completely different story…
1. For the most part I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. It’s definitely important for the wealthy to use their money wisely, for example a gilded yacht would not be a wise purchase, just a way to flaunt ones excessive wealth. I also agree with Carnegie’s view on inherited money. It’s important for children and young adults to learn how to support themselves and not rely completely on their parents because it’s possible that one day that money wont be there anymore. The parents can still spend on their children, and maybe spoil them a little nit, because they earned that money to make a better life for themselves and their children. I also agree with Carnegie’s idea of money being easier to spend then to make. Making money takes work, while spending can get out of hand quickly, and before you know it all of the money that was once saved up is gone, and not necessarily to a good place.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor I believe money should be spent on things like improving working conditions of middle to lower class jobs. It should also be spent on early education facilities and vocational training. Money should be spent on programs to keep kids in high school, and eventually scholarship programs for those deserving, or of in need of financial support in order to get into college and further their education. It is important to have a very strong education system so that is why I think the number one thing to spend money on in order to have more prosperous and productive future generations is the educational systems. Money going towards thing like road repair or other community maintenance is important to because it is imperative that communities are kept safe and things are maintained. Money being invested in small businesses would also be a worthy cause and a good way to bridge the gap between the wealthy and poor.
I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. Carnegie believes that there are three possible options for the wealthy to dispose of their excess wealth: leave it to their families, leave the money to the public or to the government, or for the wealthy to use their money however they want, but to do so with intelligence. Carnegie believes that the third option is the best, and I agree. If someone who was wealthy gave their money to their family, who would have supposedly been given an extravagant lifestyle before hand, these family members would not experience having to work hard to support themselves and thus would miss out on important life lessons. If they missed out on these life lessons, they would be less apt in a world of business were a knowledge of people who are not wealthy, and also would be less well-rounded people. On the other hand, if a wealthy person chose to give their money to the public or the government, their wishes as to how the money is spent might not be upheld regardless of what is stated in their will. Finally, the third option is the best, not only by default, but because when people spend money it stimulates the economy, and the cash flow will supposedly trickle down to less wealthy people.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, the money should have been (and should be) spent on savings, investments, and consumer goods. Savings is important in order to protect the wealthy person who is spending said money. If something were to happen, they have money put away for things they might need it for (like college). Secondly, investments are important because they help to get a business going and also to make more money for said wealthy person to spend, which leads me to my third point. It is important for money to be spent on consumer goods because this helps to stimulate the economy in a chain reaction. Basically, when a consumer spends money on a product, the company makes money and subsequently its employees. These employees will then spend their paycheck on bills, food, other consumer goods, etc., which gives money to the government, and other businesses. The government then can spend the money on things that benefit the people, and the other businesses follow the same pattern.
Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
I agree with Carnegie’s assessment because the person with the wealth gets to choose how to use it. Generally, wealthy people are smart, and they will choose something good to spend their money on. The problem with inherited wealth is the inheritor is cheating to get their money. It is important to learn how to work for money, just in case something catastrophic happens. The inheritor might only care about the money, and not respect how it was gotten in the first place. The problem with giving the money to the public is that the wealthy person didn’t get to choose what it will be used for. It should be approved by the person it is coming from. It is their money. Even if it is being used for something good, it might not be what the person wanted. Andrew Carnegie, for example, created libraries because he thinks they are very important. Everybody should get to choose how their money is spent.
In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
I think it should be spent directly on charity. Spreading the wealth is very important. If one side has too much and one side has too little, the money should be shared. It makes no sense to have extreme highs and extreme lows. Charities also have the least chance of corruption. If you give money to help the economy, not all of your money will really help the economy. There is a good chance some will be lost. Charities, on the other hand, want the greatest effect to come out of the money, and will make smart decisions with it. You have a direct link to where the money is going and a lot more choice. You can choose exactly which charity, and even how your money will be used. Even a little bit of money could greatly improve one person’s living conditions. The most important thing is the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Giving to charity will help spread the gap.
1) I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how wealth should be distributed. I think that inherited wealth can also lead to the laziness of the child and irresponsibility concerning the money. However, if the child proves to be as intelligent or generous as the parent, I think that they should inherit money. They can smoothly continue the work of their parents, instead of having to rebuild the fortune from scratch. If the child has potential but has not yet proven himself/herself to be a deserving successor to the fortune, I think that they should have to make their own money, maybe with a little help. This way, they can learn things for themselves, and decide which field they are most passionate about and will be most successful in. Also, I think that sometimes it is a bad decision to leave your money to the government or public, but sometimes it isn’t. If you lay out specific, logical rules for how your money should be spent or saved, then the instructions can be carried out faithfully. If you don’t, and loopholes can be found, then your money might not go to the intended cause. Overall, I agree that hard-earned money can be spent foolishly without clear guidance. Finally, I agree with Carnegie’s third point, that wealthy people should wisely distribute their money, instead of hastily handing it out. I think it is more effective for large amounts of money to be invested in a few important causes, rather than small amounts to be invested in many different causes. When the money is concentrated like this, certain causes can progress quickly with results. But if there is so little money given to one cause, it is pretty useless. If someone donated millions of dollars to the research of a certain disease a cure might be found, but if a couple hundred laboratories only received one hundred dollars each, they might just buy themselves a coffeemaker for the lab. Or, if the money is spent on a soup house to feed the poor, it would be more useful long-term than giving each poor person in the area enough money to buy a meal for the night. Carnegie’s assessment sums up what I believe is the wisest way to distribute wealth—raising future leaders and philanthropists, and distributing money carefully to the community and important causes.
2) I think that back then and today, the money should have been/should be spent on education. Education is extremely important because it provides the knowledge and problem solving skills needed in all aspects of life. Even basic schooling can provide a person with valuable tools for the rest of their life. The ability to solve math problems and the ability to read are both fundamental skills that are the foundations for a successful life. For example, being educated can help a person find work, or start their own business. With work comes money, and this gives them a chance to escape poverty and establish a better life for themselves, thus reducing the gap between the rich and poor. Being educated also helps people take care of themselves and their families better. They can make healthier decisions (like adjusting their diet) that may be small, but can affect them significantly. They can also make better decisions in daily life. In my opinion, providing education is like the philosophy that if you give a person a fish, you feed them for a night, but if you teach a person how to fish, you feed them for a lifetime. Soup houses and homeless shelters are extremely important too, but education lets people be self-reliant. This lets them rise from their class and bridge the gap between the rich and poor.
1. I agree with with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should spend their extra money. If you work hard enough and earn a lot of money, you have the choice of what you want to do with that money, whether that is invest it, spend it on yourself, or give it to charity. No one should force you to spend your own hard earned money. I agree with Carnegie because it would be great to give back to the community like Carnegie did. As long as you spend your money wisely and don’t just give it away for no reason, then your doing the right thing. The poor don’t have as many opportunities to become sucessful like the rich do, because most of them are born into wealthy families. Unless they work extremely hard to become rich. Since the poor usually don’t have the time or money to try and be successful, the rich should give some of their money, not directly to the citizens, but to the community, for libraries, schools etc, so the poor can benifit from it.
2. The money should have been and still should be spent on projects that benifit the working class, these projects would include librairies, small buisnesses, and schools to help educate and employ the poor. Doing this the wealthy would help boost the economy, and give needed help to the poor. Giving to the community would make the rich look really good and respectable for spending their hard eraned money for the better of the community, so it would end up being a win-win situation for both the rich and the poor.
1. I partially agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. I understand his reasoning about why the wealthy should give their money away at a certain point in their life, rather than allowing the government to decide how it should be spent. If you do this, then you have no say in what the money goes to. I agree with Carnegie that giving it away to help others is a great thing to do. However, I feel that there are more important causes than just to build libraries and other buildings, although these are very important. There are so many organizations and charities that could really help people in need. Also, I feel that the family of the wealthy person should receive some amount of money from them. That way the family is taken care of, and they can also choose to give some money away.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor back then, the money should have been donated to charities that help people who can’t provide for themselves, or public buildings. Libraries are great for the public because people can go there for free and use the resources. Parks and museums also provide great places for recreation for the whole family. Giving money to schools and universities helps pay for computers, books, supplies, or programs. Charities help so many people in a lot of different situations around the world. If wealthy people have enough money to give away, they should find charities that they believe will help the most people or that has the best cause. Today, there are countless charities that feed children in poverty, help hospital patients, help find cures, etc. By donating to these buildings or charities, you are helping a lot of people.
1. I disagree with Carnegie’s assessment that the wealthy should distribute their excess wealth. I believe that if a man works hard his entire life and earns a small fortune that he should be able to keep his money and do with it what he chooses. Generally, wealthy business people are very wise with how the use their money. They understand that it is much easier to spend money than it is to save it up. They won’t go around spending money and throwing it out the window. But, people who inherit family from their family may not have been taught the values of saving money, and spend it however they can. In this case, since the money they spend is not theirs, and they have not spent their life earning it, it is fair to distribute the wealth amongst the less fortunate. Otherwise I do not believe the wealthy need to distribute their extra wealth.
2. After watching the 60 minutes video about Howard Buffet, I think that it is a good idea to spend money on improving the world’s agriculture production. This would not only help the hunger and impoverished people around the world, but it would teach farmers in rural remote areas the importance of business and how it relates to agriculture production. It would teach them money management, how to invest in the right products and how to produce everything as cheaply as possible to keep prices on goods low. If we had used Buffet’s idea back then, we would have seen major improvements in the distributing of wealth amongst the people. Everyone would be earning around the same amount of money and we wouldn’t have problems with overpowering entrepreneurs who consume all the wealth. That is how I would have addressed the gaps between the rich and the poor back then, and even today.
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment in that the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth wisely and just leave it to their family. Distributing wealth can help out America in different ways. For one, it would improve America’s economy. Instead of selfishly spending money on silly, overpriced wants (which is pretty much a waste of money) you would be circulating money in the society and it could help the poor. This could also help decrease the amount of wasteful spending the wealthy does that while increasing their lifestyle, helps out nobody in the long run. The wealthy, should instead, think of their country and the future of its economy. As Carnegie describes in the article, children that inherit money from their wealthy fathers are usually spoiled by a life of laziness and don’t experience hard work. To decrease the gap between the rich and the poor, the wealthy should put some of their expenses to good use.
2. To address the gap between the rich and the poor, I feel the wealthy must invest their money wisely, occasionally to charities or libraries that could help the community. Distributing money too much could cause inflation because people would not know how to handle and instead buy products instead of saving. This is putting the gap between the rich and poor at risk. An attempt of being too fancy, while being selfish, by spending money on personal unnecessary needs and wants does nothing (just as I said earlier). This would, again, increase the gap between the rich and poor. Money should be invested wisely into things that would build the economy and public facilities that could benefit the community such as libraries. Having plenty of money and being wise and/or charitable about it helps nobody. Wealthy spenders should do what they choose, but spend wisely.
The majority of Carnegie’s ideas make sense, but not all of them. He thought that inherited wealth would spoil the kids, but it would in actuality cause them to be grateful and be less likely to spend the money in stupid ways. Plus, as Carnegie said, the wealthy would know how to spend better than anyone else. Secondly, by giving money to the public or the government, the wealthy person is putting trust into the organization that they will spend it on his wishes. Even if the organization does not, then it is probably for something more necessary than what he would have wanted. By inherited wealth, the kids are grateful and less likely to waste the money. Finally, If wealthy people spend their money too wisely, then they don’t give away enough money or as much money as they wanted too. If they are really worried about the inheritance, then they can spend as much as they want on whatever they want. They should enjoy their remaining time.
Closing the gap between the rich and the poor is unnecessary for the family, but it may be for the national economy. In order to close the gaps between the rich and the poor, the wealthy people’s money should be spent on the necessities, but the best of the best. If they want food, hire a gourmet chef to cook his best meal and import fresh spring water. If they want a new bed, get the best bed around. If they want a new house, move to the biggest and nicest house in the country. In other words, do whatever they want and just have fun doing it. The rich should not be required to give money to charity. It’s their money that they earned and worked for. It would be the right thing to do, and also the most appreciated choice, but they don’t have to. It is not their duty to give away their money before they die, but it is best.
1. Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
Carnegie feels that the best way to spend ones wealth is to do whatever one wants with it, but to spend it wisely. I agree with Carnegie, because if you were to give your money to your children, they would spend it recklessly. If you give it to the government, there is not telling where that money is going. But if you send it who you want to give it to then you know exactly where its going. Carnegie had a huge belief in supporting eduction, and he was successful in distributing his wealth to different groups to make libraries in his name, and also funded a college. By knowing where he was putting his money, he was able to ensure that his funds were put to the purpose he wanted. Instead of leaving his fortune to be distributed by his family or government, Carnegie took his fortune into his own hands and gave it to who and what he thought deserved it.
In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
The problem you face when deciding where to place your fortune is the unknown future. Yes Carnegie did a fantastic job distributing his fortunes to the entities he felt supported his belief in education by building libraries and colleges, but imagine living in a rural community, 15 miles outside of where his library was located. By the time you packed up, drove into town, payed for the parking meeter, got out of the car, walked in, and got started reading, you’ve wasted 45 minutes. 45 minutes you could have spent reading. Carnegie’s problem was that he did not know that many years later the computer would be invented. In today’s time we are able to read all the books we want with one little click. If Carnegie would have known about this invention before he gave it to building libraries, computer could have been much more advanced by now, and who knows how I would be typing this! But since seeing into the future is impossible, Carnegie should have left his fortune to entities that would have been able to move the money around to fulfill the needs of education. He loved education thats why he made so many colleges and libraries. Maybe if he knew that the computer would come along he would have given it to other people to can manage it. Since you cant perceive all the needs, then you have to give it to people that can manage your money and invest it into your belief.
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment on how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. Back in those days, the wealthy were usually greedy using extreme amounts of money to buy what they wanted, no matter what. They were never satisfied on what they had, so they would go out and use the money to buy other things on their wish list. Unlike the poor though, the wealthy knew how to use this money in an efficient way. With many poor individuals working at the factories for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, earning about $10,000 a year today, they barely survived each year and could not predict if they could survive this year, or the next, or the next. If the wealthy could for a moment, forget their ego, and give away a reasonable amount of money to the poor,(for they knew how to use it wisely) everybody would benefit.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, the money should be spent on items necessary to survive, and stowed away somewhere safe, as a trust fund when individuals retire from their job. If the money was used to buy only necessary stuff, the wealthy would have loads of money left to either share wisely with the poor. The poor wouldn’t have to work at the factories with ridiculous hours and pay, and everybody could have an easier, better life surviving. Not even this would use up all the wealthy people’s money. As I stated above, by stowing away the money in a trust fund when they retire, they could do things that benefit themselves or even the community. Andrew Carnegie was dedicated to making libraries, and Vanderbilt dedicated $1 million to a university. Carnegie would make about 300 for the public to use freely, while the university changed its name to Vanderbilt University, honoring the donation that Vanderbilt made.
1. I think that out of the options given, Andrew Carnegie’s thought that it is best to use excess wealth to help improve the community was a good option. The so to say American dream is that when you come to America you can do anything. However to be able to do anything, people often need education such as that you can receive from a library and other buildings for the public good. Building these buildings creates options and helps improve people’s lives through learning. However, people can not really mooch off of a library so you will not end up with the people who even today just find ways of living off of welfare. Also too, technically speaking libraries are “extra” in the government’s budget. This means if things go bad the government will be quite ready to cut library funding over many other thing. So if the economy gets bad enough there will not be libraries open to the public. Yet, in many ways closing these free educational facilities will make the line between rich and poor more defined because the poor will not be able to figure out options for living or how to be efficient or cleaner with their day to day lives. How many people even now in America know how to cook good tasting food from scratch? Not so many as just buy processed foods. Also how many people relies how much cheaper it often is to cook your own food? If we lacked the public educational facilities my Mama would not have been able to learn how to. The stability of the government is never predictable; the only thing that is predictable is that there will at all times be someone who is richer than someone else in one way or another. I think out of the options that having people with excess wealth spend it on improving the education and providing opportunities for those lower down on the class list is one of the better things they can do.
2. As I said before I think that the best way to bridge the gap of rich and poor is through education. Which is poorer, the man who cannot fish but was handed one on a whim to be charitable or the man who was taught how to fish and can now eat for life? I lean towards the last. Just handing out money or good for nothing in return often attracts the type of people who will do anything not to work. However creating opportunities not through education helps those people who are in a bad circumstance but want to improve it. Making a person dependant on you doesn’t ever really help the person. Making them able to be successful and improve their life on the other hand does help the person. So in a nutshell, I think the money should be used on education. Too this education should be reasonable for the circumstance the person your trying to help lives in. For example if a person had never seen paper, paint, or pencils before in their life because it wasn’t available where they lived, teaching them how to be artist with these objects would do them no good even though it is a form of education.
1.
I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how wealthy should distribute the extra wealth. In today’s society you see wealthy families getting wealthier, because they keep all of their money within the family handing it down from generation to generation, therefore spoiling the recipient of the money. When large amounts of money are given to a person who comes from a rich background and hasn’t had to work for anything their entire life, they become lazy and even more spoiled and feel even more entitled to have and do anything they want. Carnegie believed that sharing wealth with the less fortunate was a great thing to do. In the article Carnegie says “’ if distributed in small quantities among the people, would have been wasted in the indulgence of appetite, some of it in excess, and it may be doubted whether even the part put to the best use… ‘”. I agree with this statement, and so does Bill Gates. Bill Gates has done with his wealth what Carnegie expresses he wants the rich to do. He has donated money to many charities to help the less fortunate, and hasn’t just given his children all his money, but he made them work for it like every other child should have to do.
2.
The gaps between the rich and the poor, in Carnegie’s time and even today are becoming more and more apparent to the world. Today’s money is spent on technology and making the world a prettier, and faster world. In Carnegie’s time money was spent on investing and conducting businesses. Honestly I think that money should be children of less fortunate families and educating them so they can grow to be more successful people. I also think that money should not be spent on sure materialistic this such as; brand name clothes and expensive technology that we don’t need. In Carnegie’s time many people just spent their money on themselves and didn’t truly care about giving back to the community. A solution for both time periods would to have the very wealthy just donate a small amount of their money, (which they most likely are not using) to help a family in need or to help educate young people.
Kevin Dagenais
Period 2
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. The reason is because if you give away your money for a good cause such as a charity, and use it wisely, you will help out the community. So people that actually are in need, and have a low financial status will greatly appreciate donations. I think that spending your money this way is better than just giving your money to later generations because the kid will be spoiled and expect everything to come to him. Therefore, the kid will not care about school, and might not even graduate from college. In other words, the kid does not experience what life really is and you have to work for your money and not just get it because of wealthy parents. I guess wealthy people could give part of their money to the government to help out any economic problems, or reconstruction of buildings. But I strongly believe that the majority of the money should be used wisely, and spend your money in a philanthropic way. There are many people out there in need with no money, have no education, or extremely sick. As a conclusion, I believe that wealthy people should donate their money in a philanthropic way by donating to the poor, and donating money for either health or educational purposes.
2. As stated earlier, I strongly believe that the wealthy should be spent in a philanthropic way such as helping the poor, the sick, and people with no education. Donating money will help build libraries like Carnegie did or schools, for educational purposes. Also, donating money for educational purposes might help people finish their education in college because many people in this world cannot finish school due to financial issues. Donating money to hospitals or other health organizations will definitely help treat the ill, since health treatments are very expensive, and many families would not be able to afford special treatments and finally, donating money to the poor will provide them with food, shelter and other necessities to life. Donating money in these ways will all put a smile on thousands of people’s faces. Giving all your money to your children is pointless and does not help the world in any possible way.
1. I do and do not disagree with Andrew Carnegies idea of the wealthy distributing their extra wealth. I do agree with it because distributing extra money can make a lot more people than just you happy. It also helps the people who are in need of money and may not make it through the year if they don’t get it. Andrew Carnegie thought that you should spend half your life making and the other half giving back. If you can make enough in half of your life to give back the other half you should. The reason I do not agree is because you earned the money even if it was through insider information. It seems as a lot of people don’t like to give out their money and they want to keep it. I agree that distributing is the way to go.
2. There are massive gaps between the rich and the poor back then and today. Now a day it seems worse than it ever was due to the fact everything is so expensive today. To differentiate the rich and poor gaps the poor should only spend their money on the bare necessities. They should not but unneeded things if they barely have enough money to buy food for their family. The rich can really do anything they want with their money. They don’t need to worry about not having enough because they normally will always have enough. The first priority of the rich should still always be food and then they can start buying other things that not are needed. I think the reason of this is because of the reason that one group has money and the other doesn’t which makes it easy to spend money. Even though the rich can spend their money on anything it doesn’t mean they always should. When they have a little extra money they could donate it.
Kian Soleimani
12/15/11
2nd hour
APUSH
Andrew Carnegies Opinions
I agree with Andrew, and think that the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth for several reasons. One of those reasons are that before you die you will probably have millions of dollars from your successful business or investments, and I never think that it should go to waste. After Carnegie sold his company for 480 million dollars, he just spent time relaxing and taking easy while thinking about all of his wealth. Before he died he donated millions of dollars to thousands of libraries all over the world. That way people could learn about his success and hopefully make it a reality for themselves too. Another reason why extra wealth should be distributed is because it will help the economy in the long run. For example after Andrew donated millions of dollars to libraries he knew that he had also created many jobs for people in the long run. It’s not just about money in the present, it is also very important that you give the people of the future a secure and stable economy so that they don’t have to go through a recession or depression.
Well back then you were either really rich or really poor, there wasn’t really a strong middle class like now. But what the rich and poor do with their money can also really distinguish them. I think that if you are poor then you should try to get your necessities first and then think about how you can help yourself economically by maybe getting a better job or think about investing, or if you’re really rich and you have an infinite amount of money. In that case you should probably donate to the poor or charities. Or even better a foundation, that way many jobs are created and the poor are in a better financial state. This would also give the United States a better economy. In the end the end it’s always good to give to others not only for yourself satisfaction but also for the better of the economy.
1. Yes I do agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. The reason I agree with his assessment is because nobody should be entitled to having that much money while there are other people who can barely afford for their own family. As Carnegie said that it is very hard to find a child that has come from a rich family and is not spoiled. I am not saying that some certain kids that come from rich families are always spoiled but a majority of them are. Because they are always use to getting what they want and never had to work for anything. When they grow up and inherit all of their family’s money they wouldn’t have learned how to be able to give back to the community. They would just grow up both keeping all the money to themselves and spending it on themselves. Or just keeping the money in s small range of people and not expanding all their wealth that they have with other families. What I believe could be done about this is that every year around the holidays my family I adopt a family and we buy the necessary items that we have every day but that they do not. And this way it teaches you what other families don’t have and how you are able to share your wealth throughout the world.
2. In order to decrease the gap between the rich and poor back then and even today, the money should be spent on charities in order to help those who are in poverty. Also organizations that benefits the working class. Some types of charity that should be organized should be, like I mentioned in the first paragraph, where a bunch of wealthy families should “adopt” a family in poverty and give them necessary items that we take for granite every day. And we should organize benefits that help the working class by building libraries, and banks that can both benefits the working class. This can benefit the working class by building a library so we can get easier access to books, also banks because more people can feel a safe place to store their money, and more people could get loans in order to do what they want. And that’s how we should decrease the gap between rich and poor.
Mitchell August
12-15-11
Blog #2
I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how a rich person should spend your money. Throughout your life, the money you make belongs to you however when you no longer need it and it is not being used, it is the correct thing to do to donate it. Although Carnegie’s places of donation were flawed his general idea was good. He decided to give his money into three different places. His family, the government and the public, none of these groups of people knew how to spend money and that created problems. However Carnegie was smart about how he gave his money, he did not give all of his money in one massive donation. His beliefs benefited people all over the world and without him the country would not and could not be the same. What he did for our country was great and his heart was in the right place, conversely he should have thought more about who he was giving the money to.
Back when Carnegie was living there was a huge economic gap between the upper class and the lower class. As there are stimulus donations our government makes now; they were also around than, just not in a great enough quantity. If more money would have been plugged into the overall economy (or into the working class) than the gap could have been closed or at least brought to a minimal level in-between the wealthy and the poor. With this stimulus poor wages could be fixed and also poor working class conditions could be reformed. Carnegies’ idea of libraries is a smart idea because to break the vicious cycle of poverty, there needs to be education and at that time there was no education. With education and money flowing through the economy it would have bridged the major gap in the economic structure of America.
Dude, 3 in the a.m.? Get some sleep! Please.
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute extra wealth. I agree because the first two options aren’t the right way to help non wealthy people. Usually people who inherit wealth are stubborn and spoiled and don’t think of other people who are not wealthy like themselves. Since they don’t get their money through hard work, they think everything is easy to get and they only want to spend the money on things they want or desire. They’d rather not spend money on things that people need to survive. On the second option, I believe you can’t trust the government to use the money the way that best benefits other people. The government might just use the money to finish unnecessary projects that don’t help people but gain not needed knowledge. The third option is the best way because you are the only person who knows how to spend your wealth.
2. I believe that the money should be spent on education, at first. Like helping schools and colleges get the right materials and technology so students succeed. Then the students can get better jobs to help them gain money and become wealthy and in turn give back to the community. Another way that the money could be used on is health care for people that can’t afford it. If the people have health care then they have a better chance of being healthier and living longer. Another way the money should be used for is charity. The charities usually do things for a good cause like helping people in need and giving back to the community. The only way that you know the charity will be using your money rightfully is if you research them. Some charities just put money straight in one person’s pocket and the money is not used to help people in the community. So you have to know the right charity to give the money away to or your money will be used for nothing.
1. Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
I agree and disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. I agree with his statement that the wealth should be carefully distributed throughout a family because children who are spoiled and who were born into money will not learn the value of a dollar and far it could go to help someone. Though, I do not agree with Carnegie on what the wealthy distribute their money into, well I do agree some should be saved for the future and a little can go to the family in the future, but not the whole loot! Money can be distributed to the less fortunate, contrary to Carnegie’s belief that they won’t spend it properly. Helping out the less fortunate in the community would help out the overall community in the long run. It would even out the separation of classes and it would eventually lead to a more prosperous and powerful United Sates.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
I believe that giving money to a community or organization can do wonders. Carnegie believes that money going to a poor man will not be spent correctly, though I do not believe that is true in all cases. If money was donated to build a college, more libraries, and community centers, as stated in the Gospel of Wealth, the community would be enriched and furthermore it enhance the people there, helping them advance more in the future. If a rich man paid for an intelligent, yet underprivileged, person to go to college, maybe all that person needed was a fair chance at knowledge, and he could then become a millionaire and do the same for someone else. Let’s be honest here, does someone really need $480 million dollars to save for retirement? No they don’t. They should give most of it to the less fortunate, which could help them succeed and someday slow down the separation of the classes.
I agree with Carnegie’s idea of how the wealth should be distributed by the wealthy people. It is very true that with inherited wealth it is impossible to find someone who has not been spoiled and leisured his or her entire life. However, when they get into the real world, they will have no idea what to do because they have been pampered since they could walk. Also, if you used the second idea of giving your money to the government, they government would use it for their own selfish ways and not care what anyone else thinks. I definitely think the last option of giving the money to charity would be the best option. Charity really can use the money for greater things, and can help organizations that really need it. The government already gets money from taxes and such, but charities do not have that leisure which is what makes people like Andrew Carnegie who donate a lot very important.
The article says that the money should be spent however they choose but do so wisely. However, what that is really trying to say is that in order to address the gaps between rich and poor you should donate as much money to charity as you can. Obviously you want to set aside some money for your family, but if people just give all of their money to their families then they would just be spoiled and charities that really need the money would eventually die out. It is very important to balance out money between rich and poor. Not just with wealthy people, but in general. The balance between rich and poor is not very good, because some people just have too much money and don’t know what to do with it all. But, if many more people did donate to charities, then it would all eventually balance out and the world would become a better place to be.
Emily S. – 5th
I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their money. His first way makes sense because what better way to spend your money than to give it to the ones you love the most. You worked so hard to get that money in the first place, that you want to make sure something good is done with it. His second way also makes sense because if the money is left to the public or government it may not be used exactly how the deceased wanted it to be, but in the end it will most likely still be put to good use such as building a library or funding a school. Lastly, I believe the last way also makes sense because nothing is better than spending the money you worked so hard to make on luxurious things for yourself. If you put in all the time and effort to make the money, you might as well enjoy your life and enjoy all you’re hard work by spending it on yourself.
I personally think the money should be spent on making a difference. I think it should be used to maybe fund new advances in technologies, especially in the field of medicine. Or maybe used to figure out a way to use different things as substitutes for gasoline. Or maybe even go to helping out the people who are hungry and less fortunate. It could help them get an education (by building schools and libraries), as well as provide them with the necessary nutrition (food) that they’re not getting right now. I think the money should be spent on helping people (the poor) figure out a way to make it for themselves in this world. To help provide them with the tools so that they can go out in the world and make a living, as well as provide for their families. I think it’s really important that the money is put to a good use that in the end benefits everyone is some way.
Thanks!
Shayna -4th Hour
1.) I strongly agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. As Andrew Carnegie says, “To die rich is to die disgraced”. In my opinion, a man who has worked hard his whole life, and is lucky enough to have the luxury of being rich and having the extra money should never die with that money. He should use it to benefit the world around him in which he lives in. Andrew Carnegie thinks that most children of wealthy individuals have been spoiled by a life of leisure and indulgence, and giving the inheritance to them would be a waste of that hard-earned money. I agree, these children of wealthy individuals will never get a chance to know what it’s like to actually deserve something. When money is handed to them, most of them will probably never work or contribute to the world. Keeping an abundance of money to one family is also bad for the economy; it’s great to have extra money, but the wealth also needs to be distributed because there are many problems such as homeless families out on the streets. These children of the rich will never truly know what it’s like to have hardship so they will have an unrealistic view of our world. I believe that leaving the money to the public could be a great idea if it is spent right, but then the money is left in someone else’s hands to distribute and wouldn’t it be more special to distribute it yourself? I think that Andrew Carnegie was a very smart man; he made great choices with his money. He made the right decision by distributing the money himself. He worked had to gain all of his money, and he got to decide where it all went in the end. He probably dies a very content and happy man. He got to make sure his wife and daughter would have money and he benefited the community in the ways he wanted to. He is a great example a smart rich man.
2.) In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, I think the money should’ve been spent on things that would really make a difference and fix the largest of problems in society. A huge problem in the 19th century was providing good jobs to workers which included high wages. I think the rich could’ve set up some more businesses, organizations, and factories to provide these jobs to the public. If everyone got a good education, than they could get the better jobs, so education could be a great opportunity for the rich to build on to. They could donate money to actually help the schools or the students in the schools. Sometimes scholarships at colleges exist and are named after the person who funds the scholarship. Andrew Carnegie expressed his feelings of how the rich shouldn’t live a flashy extravagant life. I think the rich could’ve or could really address the gaps between the rich and the poor by living a more simple life. They could still live a nice lifestyle, but not show off private jets or take up land to build silly things like personal salons. The rich should also try to connect with the poor by starting organizations that help the poor like homeless shelters and soup kitchens. I say, if the rich has the extra money to contribute to society and make a difference then they should act on it.
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment because people shouldn’t be selfish and just take all the money they make for themselves, they should improve their environment around them. I do believe that you are given money to help others around you. Carnegie understood that because he had worked in factories and he knew the conditions that factory workers had to work in. I think that people who are wealthy aren’t really into giving back a lot because they consider themselves back then as special citizens. They didn’t really care about the lower class’s problem that’s why there are different types of neighborhoods the wealthy block them from looking at the poverty and lower class conditions which were dangerous and unsanitary. The high power business men were the cause of many of the lower class problems, which is one of the reasons why Carnegie wanted to give back. If wall street, and high powered ceo’s did this nowadays took up this idea the U.S economy wouldn’t be where it is now.
2. The money back then should have been spent on education, environmental causes and government welfare projects. If the men back then invested more into the middle class then the U.S economy would be in a better state today. And those values of investing into the middle class would be passed down from business man to business man. Some of the ,most successful and wealthiest men are known for giving money to charities and starting their own charities to help people who are less fortunate than them like Bill Gates. Today the money should be spent on education in economy struggling cities like Detroit, mainly the middle class bring them back up so that America can have a strong back bone, small businesses that use U.S materials and environmental causes that can preserve America’s natural recourses.
1.) Yes, I do agree that wealthy people should give back to people who are less fortunate. I think anyone that can give back to people less fortunate should do so. People don’t often realize how lucky they are and should help people who aren’t so lucky. A lot of people have more than they will ever need and some people don’t have anything. Andrew Carnigie set a great example for people who have wealth. I think that inspired a lot of people to follow in his footsteps and give back to people who don’t have as much as they need to live. I believe that there are people in this world that have too much money than they should and although Andrew Carnigie probably did have more that he needed he did good with his money and helped a lot of other people who weren’t as fortunate as him.
2.) I think the money today as well as the money back then should have been spent on something that does good for someone or something. I believe that people in this world get paid way more than they should and that isn’t fare to people to people who put in hours of hard work in factories, mines, and the military. I think the government should take more of someones income if they make over a certain amount of money each year and not just use it to support the government but to better out economy by giving it to people who need a break and to finance small businesses. Think about it if everyone in America gave one dollar that would add up to over 300 million dollars that could be used to help people whose homes have been foreclosed or people who are truly struggling to find a job.
Brian Jelinek
APUSH/5th
12/15/11
Blog # 28
Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth
Question One: Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
Yes I do agree because the wealthy will not end up spending all of the money that they make. My family and I are all into charity, we know that we can’t donate hundreds of dollars, but we can donate to certain things very wisely. “The wealthy shouldn’t be extravagant. They should be modest, and use that money wisely, in effect, putting it aside like a trust fund for when they retire to be spent on things that they feel are important.” That’s what Carnegie was trying to state in his “Gospel of Wealth.” They could spend or set up charities, donate and make things useful for the public such as libraries. Carnegie says (and hopes) “that the best way to address the gap between the rich and the poor is for the wealthy of his and future time periods to follow the third way and use that wealth however they choose, but to do it wisely.”
Question Two: In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
Money should have/ and still should be spent in all kinds of charities and also support for low income job environments. Back in that time money should have been spent on working conditions of the factories where most of the “poorer” people worked. The safety was another big issue. Not just charitable reasons but the working conditions that I mentioned before really need more money. With a very slim middle class you were either very rich or the majority of the United States dirt poor. If each very wealthy person were to donate a couple of hundred of dollars they could save so many families and slim that lower class down. At the same time those wealthy people could not donate too much because there would be a chance that inflation would occur, so there were slim margins of what you could actually donate. Most money should be spent and donated on organizations to help economically unstable families back on their feet and into every day society.
I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. The first way of inherited wealth makes sense because giving children and family member’s inheritance makes them work for their whole lives and rewards them when a family member passes away. It is smarter to distribute money this way than to give it to children during the duration of their lives because they may spend it irresponsibly. The second way, where money is left to the public or government makes sense because the money is used for the common good of the community and the country. The third way makes sense also because you worked hard to make your own money, so you should be able to spend it how you choose to. To spend it wisely, you should just consider spending it slowing or saving some of it, instead of spending it all at once.
Money should be spent differently to decrease the gap between rich and poor in this country. It is obviously been a problem for quite some time, and the problem can be addressed by following Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should spend money. In order to make a difference in the economy, money should be spent on donating and assisting the community and donating to charity. Donating to the community and building and improving establishments in the community and money should be donated to non-profit organizations that benefit the common good. When the money of the decease is being used by the government, we should listen to how the decease wishes it would be spent, but not fully operate around that. If money was donated to the poor and they spend it wisely, it can benefit the entire economy by stimulating it in areas that were not very strong before.
1. I agree with Carnegie on how the wealthy should distribute their wealth. First, I think that giving the extra wealth to the descendents is a smart thing to do but you have to make sure they don’t become spoiled. You can’t just hand them the money and let them spend it all. Like in the video Howard Buffet, who was the son of a millionaire, became a farmer and worked hard. The second way is also smart. If the wealthy person wants to give his money to the public or government, I think that’s a good idea. Carnegie used his wealth to build libraries and found universities. If you’re wealthy it is important to give back to the community that helped make you wealthy. The last way is to just have the wealthy person spend it however they want to. That makes sense but they should spend it wisely and not blow it all off on something not important.
2. I think that the money should be used to close the gap between the rich on the poor by giving some money to build hospitals for the sick or homeless shelters for the homeless. The wealthy should give some money to make their community better or help out the poor by creating soup kitchens. I think that it is very important for the wealthy to connect with the poor by helping them and not just sitting on a pile of their money. It is important for the rich to help the economy prosper and even in our economy today, the rich could help by creating more jobs for unemployed people at their companies. They could even create a community college for all the uneducated poor people or give advice on how to save money. By doing these things the wealthy are able to connect with the poor and help close the gap between both classes.
1. Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
I agree with Carnegie’s assessments for multiple reasons. First, Andrew Carnegie led by example and showed that his methods do work by becoming one of the, if not the richest and most wealthy man in the world. Also, Andrew Carnegie emphasized not to do careless spendings and to spend with percise investments. With these smart investments and desicions, Andrew Carnegie set a good solid foundation of how to be a successful high profile businessman. If this example were to be followed then many other businessman would have been able to help advance the U.S in both an economical stand point, and a social stand point.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, the rich and the wealthy should spend money on industrialization. The rich and welathy should have invested in industrialization because investing in industrialization wouldv’e opened up jobs for the common Americans of that time period. If there were more jobs then there would be more wealth being earned by the poor and more wealth being lost by the rich. The wealthies money would now be in investments and factories to create jobs instead of their money being in the banks, their wallets, and in their pockets. Another thing that could be done would be for the rich to pay higher taxes while the poor would pay lower taxes (although I am against this). THis would be an effective way of funding government projects and an effective way of lowereing the gap between the poor and the wealthy.
Oran Lieberman
4th hour
12-15-11
1. I don’t agree with the way that Carnegie elected to spend his wealth. While I do think it is a good thing to help out the community with projects such as libraries and parks, I also think that charities can do a good job as well by funding things such as hospitals and research. The way that Carnegie states why he decided to spend his money in this manner is extremely shallow, and maybe even offensive in my opinion. In his writings he basically says that the poor will do nothing with money if they are given an opportunity to have it, and that they will essentially throw it all a way. It is almost as if he believes that he is a god compared to the rest of men. Overall what Carnegie did with his money benefited thousands, but I just think that had he elected to spend it other ways it may have been put to better use.
2. Had the money been spent properly I think it should have been spent on issues such as public welfare, creating jobs, and education. Had it been spent on these things during this time period I think that the poor would have been able to move up in the ranks of the social ladder. But, because of the way it actually was spent it made the rich richer and the poor poorer. This way of society was the cause of much outrage in the poor communities, and was essentially the cause of many labor strikes, and unions being created. Overall I think that the rich thought what they were doing was benefitting society, but in reality it was only creating a larger gap in between the two social classes. What the rich were unknowingly doing was killing the poor mans dreams of someday become rich, and securing the richs position as the all powerful and all important.
1: Yes, I agree with Carnegie that the best way to distribute their wealth before or when they die is to spend however you choose. This I think is best because millionaires and billionaires both earned their money, some not in the best way, but they worked to make it and should be able to spend it how they want. Giving your money to family is a nice thing but you also want your kids to work for their money as well instead of being enriched all of their lives. Giving it to the government or the public can also be tricky because you don’t know exactly what they will do with it, and if it will be for the better. This is why I liked Carnegie so much because he spent a lot of his money on charities and this not only helped people but gave him a good reputation before and after he died. He was a smart man and spent his money wisely but also how he wanted to and in the end it was for the best.
2: I think that the money should have and should be spent on charities and important organizations like scientist labs that work on air pollution, curing diseases, and other things in that category. My reasoning is that we (Americans) spend our money on useless things like drugs, alcohol, accessories, and other things that are thrown in the attic. If every American family saved their money from buying unnecessary items, they would be able to save a lot of money and it could help them get out of any financial problems they were or are in. Many millionaires and billionaires today spend some of their money on charities and other events and it has gone a long way! Hundreds of organizations have been given financial aid and it has helped many people and saved many lives. Some old people also die leaving their money to no one when it could be put forward to a better cause. America has a wide range of classes from really wealthy to really poor, and this has put our country in a lot of trouble because there are so many poor areas across the country. To conclude, I believe that money should be spent first to the family and their needs, then any extra should be given to a charity of some sort.
1. Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
Yes I agree. Because his message was for the more wealthy and fortunate to help the less fortunate. It says for the wealthy to spend their money as they please but do so wisely. So if they choose to help others to make sure the money will not be used frivolously.
1. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
In order to address the gap I think money should be used for education and the society. If the less fortunate can be educated they will have the chance to succeed later on in life. It can reduce the amount of people living in poverty because if they are able to be educated they can learn the necessary life skills and knowledge to survive. The more people that are educated means there are more successful people which creates more money to continue to put forward to helping other.
1. I actually never really even thought of the issue until now but yes, I do agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth because it seems to be the healthiest way to give back to the community. He is not blaming or degrading the wealthy like many have done, rather is saying that they earned their money from the community and should be wise enough to then give it back to the community, like, for example libraries, and help others achieve what they are best at. This to me shows a lot of thoughtfulness on his part while not treating the matter as “I give to the poor because I pity them and it will ease my guilt to give some of my money to them” but rather as “the purpose of money is to create a good society, so my excess money should go into doing just that.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, money should be spent on EDUCATION. Education is what builds a solid, lasting foundation for a successful generation. Money is best spent, as said above, on the community, so creating an safe, clean, good place for children to study and develop into useful members of society is a major issue. But education does not only apply to the youth, adults still can learn so much on how to better themselves and society. By putting money into smart -not reality-show- TV that could set forth a message to people of all ages, the entire mindset of a generation could be tested for the better.
Marie Portes
5th
I agree with how Carnegie thinks wealth should be distributed. Coming from a fairly un-wealthy family I understand the importance of money and how you spend it. Money that you do obtain should be put towards important things like college, or retirement funds. The way that rich people act today, flaunting their wealth and acting like money falls off of trees, I think is highly disrespectful to people who don’t have that privilege, that kind of money, or that kind of ignorance to waste what they’ve been given in an explicit manner. It’d be easier to deal with NOT being wealthy if the people who were wealthy didn’t rub it in the poor people’s faces. I do agree, that it would be nice to have that wealth distributed to everyone but I agree with Carnegie. That would be impractical and no one appreciates wealth enough to actually spend it on something worthwhile.
I think that money should be spent on important things. Sure, it’s okay to have a little luxury in life, but at the same time you have to look forward at what’s coming. Back then, a lot of people were poor and it would have helped if that money had been used to help out THOSE people. The people who couldn’t get jobs or who lost their jobs. Nowadays money should definitely be saved for education and transportation due to all of the rising prices in….everything. You have to look forward when you think about where you’re money is going. If you have wealth, and then lose it, you feel stupid when your kids can’t go to college or you’re waiting until you’re eighty to retire. The money you spent on short-term happiness won’t help you in the long run. So when you obtain wealth, it should be put towards education and other necessities in life.
Mady T.