Gospel Of Wealth Analysis

In 1879 Henry George wrote an article titled “Progress and Poverty”. In this article he discussed the ongoing industry and he stated that “the wealthy class is becoming more wealthy; but the poorer class is becoming more dependent.

Social classes have different standards of living. By properly administering wealth, Carnegie becomes the trustee of his poorer brethren’s funds. He believes the wealthy man, with his superior knowledge and experience in financial matters, is better suited to administer these funds. Carnegie says he would be “doing for them better than they would or could for themselves” (399). A wealthy person could buy a few acres of land, build a hospital, and create a hundred jobs in the hospital while creating affordable or free health care. The wealthy do not have to worry about how much it would cost if they were diagnosed with pneumonia. They simply take the diagnosis, pay for the treatment, and move on with their lives. A diagnosis of the same magnitude to a poor person could be life threatening. When Carnegie talks about

He discusses all that is wrong with the wealthy individuals and how they are spoiled. He makes his argument by revealing how wealth is disposed of, “There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It can all be left to the families of the descendants; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administrated during their lives by its possessors” (3). The author is Andrew Carnegie and intended audience is the general public but more specifically are those of wealth and make them conscious of how surplus wealth is disposed of. This is a primary source and reveals that even though this was how the world was a decade ago, it is quite similar and not much has

The Gospel of Wealth is primarily about the dispersion of wealth and the responsibilities of those who have it. Carnegie thinks that inheritance is detrimental to society because it does not do any good for the

As civilization has evolved, economic inequality has existed since the feudal era and has made its place in modern society. It is a dilemma that examines the gap between the low wealth of the middle-class worker and the profitable earnings of the monopolizing upper-class business owner. It is a socio- economic issue that can best explored through the lens of the conflict theory; thoroughly explaining as to how the wealth gap came to exist and the consequences of such an economic state on the interaction between the middle-class worker and the wealthy businessman.

In the 20th century it was a time in which you could attain wealth quickly manufacturing without having capital to start off with. He believes the advantage of becoming wealthy does not lay within starting out with wealth, but with having the knowledge of what people need. His ideals derive from the certainty that opportunity is in the hands of human needs. Conwell expands on how prospects of money is in near reach of many, however, they are just unaware of it. He gives many examples of people and their experiences with wealth and poverty. Conwell spoke of many people moving to find wealth, when there was many opportunity for wealth within the city that they had lived. However, they did not know of those opportunities; again, referencing that wealth is in close connection with knowledge. Conwell concludes his speech with describing his definition of greatness. Greatness defined by Conwell is accomplishing things of significant purposes, as well as working, no matter what career, and becoming something better than where you started. He reminds the audience that they can become successful starting from where they are and being who they are, and that these circumstances don’t matter when it comes to being

Wealthy businessmen helped fill the gap between rich and poor by donating much of their profit to those less fortunate. Big businesses during the Industrial Revolution boomed, and as a result, business owners acquired a large profit. Andrew Carnegie was one of the select few large business owners of the Industrial Revolution who gained a significant prophet. He was not only wealthy, but also invested his money for charities and the poor. The ability to give to the poor and to charities was a positive impact from the growth of the upper class. While contributing to the society by setting up free public libraries and other resources, the wealthy did not interfere with the lower classes self preservation and survival. It insured the survival of the fittest while opening opportunities for the less fortunate to grow intellectually and better their chances for future progress (doc

“Nature is rich; but everywhere man, the heir of nature, is poor.” Lloyd begins his work by complaining about how the rich remain rich and the poor remain poor; however, as the essay progresses, one can see the accuracy of his views. He references the creation of Adam and Eve, stating that, “Never since time began have all the sons and daughters of men been all warm, and filled, and all shod and roofed.” It’s been true throughout history that because of monopolies that a very small percentage of men control a majority of land and resources. Lloyd states that individuals holding a majority of resources and land believe that that there is a scarcity; that there is not enough. And in order to survive, in order to be happy, in order to be prosperous, they must contain and constrain. Men must hold on to any and everything they can get their hands on. The minority has an opposing viewpoint. It feels that there is an abundance of resources, but because of unequal distribution, there is never enough to go around: “There is too much iron, too much lumber, too much flour―for this or that syndicate. The majority have never been able to buy enough of anything; but this minority have too much of everything to sell.” Lloyd concludes by expressing that we have become a “mutual deglutition.” He states that we have advanced too quickly and implicates that we are beginning to reverse

There are different opinions towards inequality, some people are accepting of it while others dislike the whole idea of inequality. Is it okay to let the wealthy have more control than the poor? Should their ideas matter more than the non-wealthy? And most importantly should the poor be okay with this, if not what must they do? In “Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie and “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx, both Carnegie and Marx expose their thoughts behind inequality and its traits. They both focus and touch upon the poor (proletarians) and the rich (bourgeoisie). They bring up the pros and cons about inequality, capitalism, and communism. Inequality was in Carnegie 's view. In his opinion progress required the processes of competition. Making capitalism an engine of progress. Carnegie believed that there is good to inequality while Marx begs to differ. Marx had his own view on capitalism, he believed that it would eventually result disastrous. Marx believed communism was the best solution to keep both the proletarians and bourgeoisie in an equal place. Both of these socialists have much to say about capitalism and communism and also for economic inequality. They both share different points of view, neither wrong or right. Their opinions are based towards their life experiences and this essay will be noting the differences between they share on inequality, the means of production, and capitalism.

Dear editor, Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth can have some valid points about things. One quote Carnegie stated is “In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will become themselves” (61-62). He is explaining how if people were to help themselves, then that’s the biggest charity there is because you won’t end up becoming or remaining poor. This in my opinion is true since you have to work hard in life to succeed and it doesn’t come easy. A second point Carnegie made was “we accept and welcome… as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves” (5-6). He is saying how we as people accept conditions to which we have to work hard for and maintain it and work with other people with that same mindset. I agree because

Andre Carnegie was a poor immigrant who came to the United States in a quest for the realization of the American Dream. A self-started entrepreneur who through hard work and by taking advantage of the right opportunities was able to develop an enormous wealth, signifying with it, the definite possibility of social mobility. In his essay “Wealth” of 1989 Carnegie refers to the importance of the distribution of wealth and how such fortune was there to be used by the rich for the benefit and well-being of all individuals of society. Throughout this essay I will be explaining the arguments for the redistribution of wealth made by Carnegie, while analyzing as well the factors that may have motivated him to write his famous essay “Wealth.”

In his article “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues for the wealth to give back their wealth to the community by providing “public institutions of various kinds … [to] improve the general condition of the people” (Foner 30). Carnegie uses this article to promote his Gospel of Wealth idea and provide his interpretation of the changing America. Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth stated that “those who accumulated money had an obligation to use it to promote the advancement of society” (Foner 28). Carnegie’s articles focuses on the themes of Capitalism and Inequality, which continue to shape society.

Nonetheless, the third mode is which Carnegie beckons as the start of a great evolutional growth in the distribution of wealth amongst classes. Carnegie believes that the rich must supply the poor with not money directly to their pockets, which would coax temptations. Rather, the rich must supply the less fortunate with the means to grow as people, to heighten ambitions, and raise the level of class. This is done through, for example, the construction of a public library. Carnegie, in fact, tells a tale of Mr. Tilden. Mr. Tilden, a wealthy man, builds a large public library in New York City. This distributes more than a couple quarters could ever, the ability for any man to enhance his learning and opportunities for free.

When addressing social classes in a society, Carnegie believes that society performs better when there are class structures. Moreover, he believes that society can be harmonious and people can benefit from each other in an unequal environment. One-way Carnegie argues this position is when he claims that capitalism lifts all boats. He writes, “the poor enjoy what the rich could not before” (486). Here, Carnegie acknowledges that although the divide between the rich and the poor was enormous at the time, the poor were a little better off than they were before.

Wealth in relation to the upper class is defined not as income, but “the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts” (Domhoff 2005). Income according to Domhoff, “is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own” (Domhoff 2011). Those who own a great deal of wealth do not derive it from income, although they may have a high income resulting from the returns on their wealth. (Domhoff 2011) As for the power the upper class wields on politics, the economy and the government, it is indirectly carried out “through the activities of a wide variety of organizations and institutions. These organizations and institutions are financed and directed by those members of the upper class who have the interest and ability to involve themselves in protecting and enhancing the privileged social position of their class” (Domhoff 2005). This description of the upper class by Domhoff provides the basis for the argument that it institutionally exist - an organized, cohesive group set apart by its wealth and power.