Critical Essay on Wealth by Andrew Carnegie

Introduction

It is not difficult to find in the market numerous self-help books, and personal improvement written on many occasions by gurus of more or less success. Tonny Robbins, or Robert Kiyosaki among many, are examples contemporary to our time. Being a bit direct, self-help books come to simplify the answers to our longings, fears, failures, etc. Gospel of Wealth, published in 1889, collects the main writings on the wealth of Andrew Carnegie, one of the greatest millionaires and philanthropists ever lived, inspirer and master of Napoleon Hill, the author of the bestseller "Think and enrich yourself". A visionary entrepreneur and leader in the iron and steel industry, after making his fortune with his companies, Carnegie decided to sell everything and allocate its assets to various and numerous philanthropic initiatives. In this text, Carnegie offers us a unique and innovative vision of wealth and its distribution. In fact, it indicates how to redistribute and invest money in a responsible and prudent manner, not with simple investments for the interest of the individual, but through the donation of money for the growth of the community, in order to obtain advantageous results for everyone in the various sectors of society.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Thus Carnegie illustrates the path that every man and woman can take to reach wealth and put money for the benefit of themselves and others. The same path that made Carnegie one of the greatest representatives of the American Dream. The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth so that a bond of brotherhood, in harmonious relationship, can still unite the rich and the poor. In the last centuries, the conditions of human life have not only changed: they have been revolutionized. At one time, there was not much difference between the house, the clothing, the food and the environment of the master and those of his servants. The contrast, today, between the millionaire's palace and the worker's house is the measure of change brought about by civilization. This change, however, should not be deplored but should be considered highly beneficial.

The globalizing economy and finance triumph, but inequalities between the few who accumulate huge fortunes and the masses of the dispossessed grow. With the crisis of the welfare state, it becomes increasingly difficult to guarantee respect for the dignity of the humble, and consequently also for the dignity of the rich and powerful. Carnegie believes achieving social justice by avoiding the "turbulence" of the poorest is the best way and I agree with this. I believe philanthropy is a sort of corrective of the inevitable inequalities of savage capitalism and the accumulation of enormous capital in the hands of a single or a multinational.

In the world of triumphant capitalism, how to ensure social justice? Faced with a few super-rich, how to avoid the inevitable turbulence of the many dispossessed? How can we guarantee respect for the dignity of the humble - and consequently that of the rich and powerful? An answer, in a moment in many respects curiously similar to ours, marked by growing inequalities, had been found by some of the richest men on the planet. Andrew Carnegie, the lord of American railways, exhibited his recipe at the beginning of the twentieth century, very similar to the one practiced today by the great stars of the economy and show business through philanthropy.

The two richest entrepreneurs in history, David Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie did not want to die remembered for the value of their companies: Standard Oil, in the first case, and US Steel in the second, but for returning to humanity what they had received from her. It is estimated that Rockefeller's money, stripped of the inflationary distortion, amounts to between the US $ 400 and 600 billion today, and Carnegie's not much less. Carnegie explains that people and institutions that could waste them, but assigned to causes that nurtured human progress should not inherit the wealth obtained from below. It is no wonder Rockefeller was so fascinated by the text that he dedicated the last 40 years of his life to inventing modern philanthropy using foundations. The result, the Rockefeller Foundation, not exempt from tremendous controversies since its inception in 1913, is the most famous philanthropic institution in the country.

The book has influenced several wealthy people. Currently, the Gates Foundation has assets of more than US $ 35 billion, most of it donated by Bill Gate and his wife Melinda, to which are added annual contributions from Warren Buffett, who in 2006 provided the institution with 10 million shares of Berkshire Hathaway to be delivered step by step. The foundation's donations, which amount to half of Nicaragua's GDP, adding everything committed last year, focus on combating disease and hunger in Africa and South Asia, and, in the United States, on projects educational.

Conclusion

The opinion about a book is very subjective and promotes social justice. The book orbits around concepts with utility and weight. Carnegie believes that the rich should come forward and take responsibility for philanthropy. He is against the idea of delivering gigantic amounts of a rich man's status quo. In my opinion, this is a positive quality, since it is the minimum that should be asked to a book of help and motivation. In this sense we could introduce a point of prudence, because, as it is to be noted, motivation is an essential ingredient in the diet of those who want to succeed, it is no less true that an excess of something can cause serious indigestion, over everything if one is not used to digesting it.

Bibliography

Carnegie, Andrew. The Gospel of Wealth and Other Timely Essays. New York: The Century Co, 2011.

Ernsberger, Richard (February 2015). "Andrew Carnegie: Robber Baron turned Robin Hood". American History: 32-41.

Nickliss, Alexandra (2012). "Phoebe Apperson Hearst's "Gospel of Wealth," 1883-1901". Pacific Historical Review. 71 (4): 575-605.