The Gospel of Wealth

But, you know, I think it's And maybe we're going to ask about this, Kevin, but I think it's relevant to bring up a figure like Andrew Carnegie himself, who, of course, has his own unique story and was able to accumulate great wealth for himself.

But what he ended up doing toward the end of his career, of course, was not only deciding internally, but then publicizing for readers both in the U.S. and elsewhere the need to Give back to the society that allowed you to produce the great amount of wealth that had accumulated to those individuals, to those individual tycoons themselves at the end of the Gilded Age, right? He wrote it, he called it the gospel of wealth.

And to paraphrase, he said that those individuals who have that greatest wealth still attached to their name by the end of their lives, without having given it away or returned it to the society that has allowed them to create such wealth, they die miserable men.

And there was an ethos, there was a moral core, for lack of a better term, that was attached to Andrew Carnegie.

I think you're absolutely right.

There was an ethos.

There was a learn, earn, and return framework to go into the gospel of wealth a bit, but It seems to be that the American oligarch of today is more malleable in terms of principles related to civilizationalism or freedom or universality.

And these are big, big ideas that obviously go back thousands of years and we thought had kind of a step up, let's improve over the last hundred years.

It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy.

of every thousand dollars spent in so-called charity to-day it is probable that nine hundred and fifty dollars are unwisely spent so spent indeed as to produce the very evils which it hopes to mitigate or cure a well-known writer of philosophic books admitted the other day that he had given a quarter of a dollar to a man who approached him as he was coming to visit the house of his friend he knew nothing of the habits of this beggar knew not the use that would be made of this money although he had every reason to suspect that it would be spent improperly this man professed to be a disciple of herbert spencer yet the quarter dollar given that night will probably work more injury then all the money will do good which its thoughtless donor will ever be able to give in true charity he only gratified his own feelings saved himself from annoyance and this was probably one of the most selfish and very worst actions of his life for in all respects he is most worthy in bestowing charity the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so to give those who desire to rise the aids by which they may rise to assist but rarely or never to do all neither the individual nor the race is improved by almsgiving those worthy of assistance except in rare cases seldom require assistance the really valuable men of the race never do except in case of accident or sudden change every one has of course cases of individuals brought to his own knowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good and these he will not overlook but the amount which can be wisely given by the individual for individuals is necessarily limited by his lack of knowledge of the circumstances connected with each he is the only true reformer who is as careful and as anxious not to aid the unworthy as he is to aid the worthy and perhaps even more so for in almsgiving more injury is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue the rich man is thus almost restricted to following the examples of peter cooper enoch pratt of baltimore mr pratt of brooklyn senator stanford and others who know that the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise free libraries parks and means of recreation by which men are helped in body and mind works of art certain to give pleasure and improve the public taste and public institutions of various kinds which will improve the general condition of the people in this manner returning their surplus wealth to the mass of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them lasting good the laws of accumulation will be left free the laws of distribution free individualism will continue but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor entrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself the best minds will thus have reached a stage in the development of the race in which it is clearly seen that there is no mode of disposing of surplus wealth creditable to thoughtful and earnest men into whose hands it flows save by using it year by year for the general good this day already dawns men may die without incurring the pity of their fellows still sharers in great business enterprises from which their capital cannot be or has not been withdrawn and which is left chiefly at death for public uses yet the day is not far distant when the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth which was free for him to administer during life will pass away unwept unhonoured and unsung no matter to what uses he leaves the dross which he cannot take with him of such as these the public verdict will then be the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced Such, in my opinion, is the true gospel concerning wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the rich and the poor, and to bring peace on earth among men goodwill.

End of Part 1 The Problem with the Administration of Wealth The Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie.

This LibriVox recording is in the public domain.

Read for you by Michelle Fry, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The Gospel of Wealth, Part 2.

The Best Fields for Philanthropy.

While the Gospel of Wealth has met a cordial reception on this side of the Atlantic, it is natural that in the Motherland it should have attracted more attention.

It's not the most toys, it's enough toys.

In his essay called The Gospel of Wealth, Andrew Carnegie suggested that excess wealth be used for the greater good of society rather than be left to heirs or given to charity.

His belief was, the man who dies rich dies disgraced.

You can find Take a Moment on KUT.org or the NPR app.

He becomes a major philanthropist.

He gives away, and he writes an article called The Gospel of Wealth, which is is saying that not only will he give away his money, but encouraging other wealthy people to do the same.

And why does he want to do this? Well, he really is very explicit in this article.

He says, we're living in a society that is being divided into these social castes where people in the elite don't know anything about the people who work in their companies.

If you look back at the Gilded Age, Andrew Carnegie, one of the richest men in human history, famously feared that large inheritances would utterly ruin the recipient.

He wrote extensively about this in The Gospel of Wealth.

Carnegie understood human nature.

He really did.

It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy.

of every thousand dollars spent in so-called charity to-day it is probable that nine hundred and fifty dollars are unwisely spent so spent indeed as to produce the very evils which it hopes to mitigate or cure a well-known writer of philosophic books admitted the other day that he had given a quarter of a dollar to a man who approached him as he was coming to visit the house of his friend he knew nothing of the habits of this beggar knew not the use that would be made of this money although he had every reason to suspect that it would be spent improperly this man professed to be a disciple of herbert spencer yet the quarter dollar given that night will probably work more injury then all the money will do good which its thoughtless donor will ever be able to give in true charity he only gratified his own feelings saved himself from annoyance and this was probably one of the most selfish and very worst actions of his life for in all respects he is most worthy in bestowing charity the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so to give those who desire to rise the aids by which they may rise to assist but rarely or never to do all neither the individual nor the race is improved by almsgiving those worthy of assistance except in rare cases seldom require assistance the really valuable men of the race never do except in case of accident or sudden change every one has of course cases of individuals brought to his own knowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good and these he will not overlook but the amount which can be wisely given by the individual for individuals is necessarily limited by his lack of knowledge of the circumstances connected with each he is the only true reformer who is as careful and as anxious not to aid the unworthy as he is to aid the worthy and perhaps even more so for in almsgiving more injury is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue the rich man is thus almost restricted to following the examples of peter cooper enoch pratt of baltimore mr pratt of brooklyn senator stanford and others who know that the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise free libraries parks and means of recreation by which men are helped in body and mind works of art certain to give pleasure and improve the public taste and public institutions of various kinds which will improve the general condition of the people in this manner returning their surplus wealth to the mass of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them lasting good the laws of accumulation will be left free the laws of distribution free individualism will continue but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor entrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself the best minds will thus have reached a stage in the development of the race in which it is clearly seen that there is no mode of disposing of surplus wealth creditable to thoughtful and earnest men into whose hands it flows save by using it year by year for the general good this day already dawns men may die without incurring the pity of their fellows still sharers in great business enterprises from which their capital cannot be or has not been withdrawn and which is left chiefly at death for public uses yet the day is not far distant when the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth which was free for him to administer during life will pass away unwept unhonoured and unsung no matter to what uses he leaves the dross which he cannot take with him of such as these the public verdict will then be the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced Such, in my opinion, is the true gospel concerning wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the rich and the poor, and to bring peace on earth among men goodwill.

End of Part 1 The Problem with the Administration of Wealth The Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie.

This LibriVox recording is in the public domain.

Read for you by Michelle Fry, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The Gospel of Wealth, Part 2.

The Best Fields for Philanthropy.

While the Gospel of Wealth has met a cordial reception on this side of the Atlantic, it is natural that in the Motherland it should have attracted more attention.

Now, before we go further, I want to actually give both sides of this a fair fight, not some like, you know, some people disagree, but like an actual case.

So Carnegie wrote an essay in 1889 called The Gospel of Wealth.

it's really interesting to hear his own words and his argument is basically this the rich have a moral duty to give their fortunes away while they are still alive for the public good and to his credit he actually put his money where his mouth was i mean over 2500 public libraries funded out of his own pocket rockefeller the same way poured a ton of money into medical research he even founded the university of chicago a ton of hbcu colleges like spelman was founded by rockefeller actually named after his wife seti spelman And the strongest version of the defense comes from historian Burton Folsom in a book called The Myth of the Robber Barons.

And his argument in defense of the robber barons as these captains of industry is that there is a difference between market entrepreneurs who build value through actual competition and innovation and political entrepreneurs who just basically leaned on government favors and used loopholes to get rich.