Analysis of The Book Wealth by Andrew Carnegie

Andrew Carnegie was born in 1835, and he lived till 1919. He lived until the age of 84, which back then was a lot. Carnegie was a Scottish immigrant who created the world’s largest steel company. This steel company made him one of the wealthiest men in the world. The reason was because this steel company, more specifically, was the most efficient steel company that was around during that time. Even though he was very rich, he was different. He didn’t want to keep the money to hoard it, instead he was really giving. He emphasized that the rich should donate their money, and to not be greedy with it.

This is a public announcement and is giving Andrew’s opinion on what to do with the wealth rich people acquired back in the day. So, this would be an opinion piece because he’s explaining his “Gospel Of Wealth” and how it can help benefit others.

This is mostly targeting the upper, rich class because Carnegie wants people to give back.

Carnegie describes the “law of competition” as a great advantage to different individuals and different kinds of companies. Carnegie believes that “while the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department”. With survival of the fittest, it means that someone must be on top. When someone is on top and is gaining wealth, Carnegie describes “three modes in which the surplus wealth can be disposed of”. Carnegie uses personal experience and reasoning to declare to best support his opinion.

Summary and Analysis

There are two main points that connect to each other relatively. The first one is the law of competition and how it helps us as individuals to become better versions as ourselves. Carnegie believes this law is “best for the race”, because it allows people to maximize their potential outcome. Everything that Andrew is saying is taken deeply because one has to remember, Carnegie was a Scottish immigrant himself. He wasn’t spoiled as a kid and when the time came he took over his father’s company. Carnegie built his steel company from the ground up. He has every right to talk about how survival of the fittest can help benefit everyone in the world because that is how he was able to make the most efficient steel company during that time.

Carnegie describes the law of competition not as not only being “beneficial, but essential for the future progress of the race”. It makes sense in today’s society because if everyone was paid the same, and everyone received the same benefits, how can we make the best of something? How did Carnegie make the best steel company during that time? The law of competition makes an incentive for people to work harder and that is what Carnegie was trying to point out. This law is what has helped society come to where it is today. People outcompeting and outworking other people to deliver the best product or to have the same product but at a different production level.

The other point that Carnegie makes that relates to the law of competition is the “three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of”. This relates to the law of competition because when someone is outworking and outhustling everyone in their field to become to the top spot or to survive, it is obvious that wealth comes with it. So, one outworks someone in their field and they have the number one spot in that space, with all the wealth that their product is bringing them, after the living expenses, what should one do with it? Just spend it all on themselves and their family? This is where Carnegie’s three modes come into play.

The first mode that Carnegie describes is “it can be left to the families of the decedents”. Even though, this is what most people do with their wealth, Carnegie think’s that “if this is done by affection, is it not misguided affection”. The reason why this is describes as misguided affection is because it gives them the wrong types of responsibilities. Anyone can posses money, but again going back to the law of competition, being given all that money does not teach one on how to outwork someone else. It just gives them a sense that the money is there because the money is there.

The second mode that Carnegie describes is “it can be bequeathed for public purposes”. Carnegie describes these men as “men who would not have left it at all, had they been able to take it with them”. He describes them as this because in the case he was talking about, people leave all the money behind for public use when they are about to pass away. When they were alive and well, they had no intensions on passing the money onto the public, they do it now because they don’t have another option.

The last mode which Carnegie believes is the best option is “in which the surplus of wealth of the few will become, in the best sense, the property of many”. Carnegie believes this is the best solution possible because “it is administered to the common good”. This means that with the wealth of someone really power, more people will be able to do good with the wealth as it will be spread out in the world. If it is not spread out amongst the world, the public can decide on what to do with the large sum of wealth.

Conclusion

Carnegie thinks this is best option for what society should believe in. He thinks that holding on to money for yourself and not giving the chance to help others is not the “true Gospel concerning Wealth”. It really makes the reader read with both eyes open because Carnegie talks about the best way in which to dispose of wealth. Not only the best way, but why the other ways in which society believes in has a detrimental affect onto mankind. Carnegie also believes that building wealth comes from the law of competition and that one needs the law of competition to be able to posses wealth. It allows the reader to decide what they can do to help the world become a better place. Carnegie gave his reasoning on which mode he thinks is best and now it is society’s job to either follow or to come up with a better plan in which everyone has a chance to succeed.