Andrew Lloyd Webber's Wealth

All i’ve heard from others is that money is everything. That its all you need to survive. That's not true, you don't need wealth. There's people with wealth or people without wealth. That's where people rate you or how you're famous or known out there because you have you have money. Well none of that matters because we were all born to be equal nothing more, nothing less. You might think thats how its suppose to be, where someone's on top or on bottom but everyone should be treated the same.

     True, Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller may have been the most influential businessmen of the 19th century, but was the way they conducted business proper? To fully answer this question, we must look at the following: First understand how Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller changed the market of their industries. Second, look at the similarities and differences in how both men achieved domination. Third and lastly, Look at how both men treated their workers and customers in order achieve the most possible profit for their company.

Lin-Manuel Miranda, a person who has won countless awards for his music, creating the Broadway hits In The Heights and Hamilton The Musical

Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) was a major American industrialist in the late 19th century and after obtaining substantial wealth from his steel industry, became an advocate for giving back to the less fortunate. Carnegie’s desire to donate to those less fortunate came from past experiences, growing up as an immigrant and working in a cotton factory young. He knew and understood the hardships that people faced when not able to acquire the type of wealth he rose to earn. Through his long life this atypical businessman advocated for many and dedicated the later years of his life to promoting the general welfare of the world.

Since the beginning of civilization, unfortunately, there has always been some type of ranking when it came to social status. Usually, there was a small group of wealthy elites who ran everything, and then there was the large group of people who were not rich. One would think that the rich would take care of the poor, but often times the rich kept to themselves and let the poor suffer. This can be seen all over history from the time of the Egyptians to the feudal system of the middle ages, to even more current times.This holds true when diving into the 1800 and 1900’s. One would see that like there were very few social elites and a plethora of people who were not wealthy by a stretch. There were times when the rich would participate in activities that would make it seem like they were helping the poor when in actuality they were not doing the slightest. An example of this can be seen in Andrew Carnegie's “The Gospel of Wealth.” In “The Gospel of Wealth” Carnegie explains what one should do to help society and the poor, but what it is is a way for the wealthy to feel better about themselves.

Often considered as the most unscrupulous of the robber barons, Jay Gould was involved with Tammany Hall and William “Boss” Tweed from the initial stages of his business career. Shortly after hurting his reputation in a gold speculation that induced the Black Friday panic 1in 1869, he went on to gain control of western railroads such as the Union Pacific and Missouri Pacific railroads. By 1882, Gould had a firm grip on 15% of the United States’ total trackage. Although many of his contemporaries feared him because of his ability to influence the market, he was recognized by other magnates as a rather skilled businessman. From his rather corrupt business practices, Jay Gould built up and ultimately established his reputation in the 19th century through his involvement with the Erie railway, the panic of Black Friday, and Tammany Hall which reassured his position as one of the leading robber barons during the Industrial Revolution.

William Vanderbilt was an American businessman whose wealth was derived from the thriving railroad industry of the late nineteenth century. He was born in New Brunswick, New Jersey in 1821 and died at age 64 on December 8, 1885. During this time, he led the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway, the Canada Southern Railway, and the Michigan Central Railroad. He took over as president for these organizations for his father. His father, Cornelius Vanderbilt, brought the railroad business to his family. Upon his death, William Vanderbilt was the richest man in the world. His success can be attributed to his ability to capitalize on the transportation revolution that swept America years ago, and only remained to expand and grow with the

As a businessman he owns more than two. Trump owns a real Estate, Hotels, Golf Courses, and Casinos. He had sold some of the most expensive houses in America. He owns 17 different Golf Courses. You can find his hotels in Illinois, Nevada, Florida, New York, and Hawaii. He managed a climb back from a 900 million det and reached 2 billion. He also developed a Eastern Airline in 1989.

Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) is a prime example of the phrase, from rags to riches. During his early and teenage years, Carnegie went through poverty. After coming up with crafty investments and going through various jobs, he rose to great prosperity. Because he has experienced poverty and knows that it is a well-known problem, “Carnegie sought to use philanthropy to provide opportunities for individuals to help themselves.” Unlike Carnegie, William Graham Sumner (1840-1910), an influential professor at Yale University, believed that those who were rich deserve to be rich and those who were poor deserved to be poor. He was in favor of economic inequality and believed that helping those who are less fortunate would bring down the society. This paper examines the differences between Andrew Carnegie and William Graham Sumner’s point of view on the issue of rich and poor and whether the two classes should coexist or remain unequal.

Good morning to my fellow American citizens and colleagues. I, Andrew Carnegie have decided, after much deliberation, to address my status as a “robber baron”. To truly understand my reasoning on this issue, we must first discuss how I rose to my current status, and what hardships I faced along the way.

The continuous disparity of wealth and income can cause constant economic problems within a society. Although it is not apparent all the time, there are few benefits of discrepancy itself such as individual wealth, capital, and labor. Both Smith and Carnegie have distinct beliefs about wealth that differentiate from one another, yet are similar in certain ways. Adam Smith confined all his ideas about the common man in his “Wealth of Nations”. Whereas, in the “Gospel of Wealth,” Andrew Carnegie had distinct beliefs about the effects of capitalism . All in all, economic conditions of the 21st century still date back to previous years and signify the importance of economic competition.

The True Gospel of Wealth, an article written by one of the richest, most powerful men of the 19th century, is a guide to a nation virgin to mass amounts of wealth, and power. Carnegie is a self made millionaire, who immigrated to the United States with less than a dollar in his pocket. This fact would serve important in Carnegies epic rise to fortune, also in developing such philosophical understandings as, The True Gospel of Wealth.

In the “Gospel of wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues that it is the duty of the wealthy entrepreneur who has amassed a great fortune during their lifetime, to give back to those less fortunate. Greed and selfishness may force some readers to see these arguments as preposterous; however, greed is a key ingredient in successful competition. It forces competitors to perform at a higher level than their peers in hopes of obtaining more money and individual wealth. A capitalist society that allows this wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few might be beneficial to the human race because it could promote competition between companies; it might ensure health care for everyone no matter their social standing, and parks and recreation could

In William Domhoff’s article, Wealth, Income, and Power, he examines wealth distribution in the United States, specifically financial inequality. He concludes that the wealthiest 10% of the United States effectively owns America, and that this is due in large part to an increase in unequal distribution of wealth between 1983 and 2004. Domhoff also states that the unequal wealth distribution is due in large part to tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions. Most of Domhoff’s information is accurate and includes strong, valid arguments and statements. However, there is room for improvement when identifying the subject of what is causing the inequality.

This developing liberal trend within the middle class produced conditions that allowed for the exploring of social thinkers such as John Locke, a philosopher of the 17th century, who theorised on politics and liberty and the individual. Then there was the Magna-Carta adding further to the liberal maelstrom of the political debate at this time. There was Adam Smith, who promoted a laissez-fare approach to economics, which was a further expression of liberal thinking. Smith’s book, ‘The wealth of a Nation’ heralded new thoughts about trade and the market. He suggested that the market should be left to regulate itself, reducing governmental control. This gave the enterprise class further opportunity to break with the old restricted practices of