Compare Andrew Carnegie And The Gospel Of Wealth

723 Words2 Pages

Wealth is something that all mankind wish to obtain in great amounts. Wealth has been aspired since the Gilded Age and has not yet failed to continue being the number one concept on an individual's minds. Not all, in fact very few reach the ladders of wealth in which one can live in ultimate comfort. Many are left to live in ghastly situations and life styles of living. Is it more beneficial to live in a world of two classes the rich and the poor or in a world where the wealth is spread amongst mankind? A man named Andrew Carnegie, which of whom had great wealth and power, explains his idea of the gospel of wealth as it pertains to the system of competition and survival of the fittest and its advantages and disadvantages towards this country.
In order to obtain wealth, there is a need for competition between the people. Carnegie believed that with competition comes growth and progress to our nation and slowly but surely prosperity. The other essential advantage would be the progress of the human race as individuals. The disadvantage would be that few are always going to live in excellent conditions while others do not necessarily. Competition is in every human's genes …show more content…

The law of competition brings the best out of people to strive for greatness and contribute to not only the economy, but to themselves. Wealth is only achieved through great knowledge and proving oneself to be the best in any given situation or their respective career field. Knowledge is the ultimate factor pertaining to the law of competition and it is for an individual's best interest to obtain great knowledge. According to Carnegie a disadvantage under the law of competition is that there will always be friction between a boss and the employee’s, capital and labor. Also, human society loses its ability to be in a homogeneous

Open Document