Andrew Carnegie The Gospel of Wealth

At first it was hard to read and I feel like I always say the readings are difficult to read maybe because i have a low comprehension but I do like to read, anyways it was kinda long and a little boring at parts. I felt like some parts just kept on going and never ended. So the question arises, “Does Carnegie’s argument apply today”? Carnegie argued that individual capitalists were duty bound to play a broader cultural and social role in which will help improve the world. Carnegie felt that wealth was brought by those ‘who have the ability and energy that produce it”. He also believed in the three modes in which wealth can be distributed after death; left to close relatives, public proposes or administered during their lives by its possessors. He also mentions that in other countries, such as Europe, that the property and a majority of the wealth are left to the first son to keep their title going for generations. But why should they leave their fortune to their children? Maybe because they are their close relatives and want to help support them. That doesn’t teach people to work hard to get what they want when they get handed a large amount of money. Take the Hilton family for example, Paris doesn’t have her own personal income. The money she gets is from what her family earned from the hotels. Everything is always given to her. She has no clue what its like to have a normal life in which she would have to work and earn the money she spends. This is a perfect example of what Andrew Carnegie is trying to explain the reasons why its not a good idea to just give everything to your children. They need to learn to work for what they want. Now its okay to leave some sum amount to your children to help support them but not to give them more then they need.