What he means by this is that it’s not only the right thing to do but it is the duty of the wealthy elites to ensure the advancement of society as a whole. Moreover, he even takes it a step further and asserts that, “They [rich men] have it in their power during their lives to busy themselves in organizing benefactions from which the masses of their fellows will derive lasting advantage, and thus dignify their own lives” (Carnegie 370). Thus, the philanthropy of the rich is not only beneficial to the community but also the individual. His favor of a Carnegie later goes on to even go as far as condemning those who worships wealth as a false idol. He is very critical of those who hoarded their surplus riches while living and only wait until their death to allow their amassed fortune to be used for public goods.
Carnegie took a strong stance on wealth and its stewardship. He argued that wealth in the hands of the few is actually beneficial for the progression of civilization overall: it is “essential for the progress of the race, that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best in literature and the arts, and for all the refinements of civilization” Many disagree with the viewpoint that concentrated wealth in the hands of a few benefit the welfare of the greater masses, but I believe that not only was this a valid idea when he proposed this theory as a whole, but that his work has done immeasurable good and that it is still a valid theory in practice today by some of our wealthiest citizens. Many criticize the ideals in his essay The Gospel of Wealth as being elitist. Carnegie was to a certain point because he had earned the right to be with hard work, determination and business savvy. When he wrote this essay he was not writing it to talk down to the poor and destitute, he was writing this piece to urge his peers to demonstrate responsible stewardship with the wealth they had accumulated.
Whose ideas do you think offer the most hope for improving the industrialized world as you see it in 1900? Why? Write a short essay of one or two paragraphs that: • Names the man whose ideas you think offer the most hope for improving the industrialized world • Briefly describes his political or economic philosophy and his ideas • Explains why you think his ideas offer the most hope for improving the industrialized world. All of the information you need to address the first
Third, he says,“The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor.” That wouldn’t be the finest thing to do if he did things wrong in the past, it would be better to continue working hard to preserve their wealth. They get money because of what they’re doing in the present, not by sustaining schemes from the past. Henry David
Regarding Mr. Buffett`s investment philosophy, my disagreement points lays mainly in the per-share basis which he truly believes, diversification and risk and discount rate points. First of all, in my opinion, Mr. Buffett should use both per-share basis and complete value to give a better insight to his investors. Secondly, I agree with Mr. Buffet`s ideas when it regards that we must invest in our expertise areas, but I disagree that a moderate portfolio can bring damages to the investor or even that it might seem as ignorance. Finally, Mr. Buffett is right to use the CAPM method to assess his investments, but using the 30-year U.S treasury rate seems a little bit mistaken even if he is a non-risk taker or his companies are not financed by debt. In Mr. Buffett`s opinion, intrinsic value is the present value of the future expected performance.
For example, greed causes businessmen to compete with other businessmen, thus, keeping prices reasonable and forces them to keep up with consumer demands. But then greed could cause businessmen to make not so smart decisions to make more money which may affect everyone in the economy negatively. But I still believe that greed is good for capitalism in the US. I
Executives are hired to act as fiduciary agents of their stockholders for the purpose of increasing wealth (Smith, 2003). He argued that CSR amounted to spending the stakeholder’s money that clouded decision making by reducing the firm’s focus on maximizing profits, thereby placing the firm at a competitive disadvantage (Smith, 2003). Friedman’s approach is practical and takes into account the interests of both firms and society. However, it is not realistic to think that a firm can separate business and social responsibilities. According to Mintzberg "the strategic decisions of large organizations inevitably involve social as well as economic consequences, inextricably intertwined...there is no such thing as a purely economic strategic decision."
The enquiry implies the view that British presence in India was on the basis that the British intended to expand the Indian economy, earning wealth and prosperity for the benefit of the country. All the sources provide conclusive evidence against the view that Britain’s purpose was to serve the Indian economy, although Sources 5 and 6 explore the possible benefits the British brought to India, despite the purely mercenary motives of the British Empire. British impact on the economic development of India was limited, although there some benefits of British rule. The British transformed the economy by investing in India’s main industries, enabling the expansion of these industries. Before British involvement, the Indian iron, cotton, jute and coal industries operated on a small-scale.
The higher valuation of the bidders, compared to the true value of the target, would not have been made by rational bidders. Thus, managerial motives are important determinants for the outcome of the M&A as manager may act to maximize their own utility and engage in ‘empire building’ (Trautwein, 1990) instead of their shareholders’ value. Managers may invest the free cash flow in projects such as acquisitions with negative net present value if that would lead to increased personal utility rather than maximize shareholder value. These free cash flows, which are generally found in the reserves, should rather be paid out as to shareholders in the form of dividends if the firm is to be effective and to maximize the stock price (Jensen,
But, he later learned that this wasn’t going to solve anything. This would only help out a person for a moment, however it wouldn’t solve any issues. Tolstoy needed to create a way for the people in poverty to be able to support themselves. After much thought, Tolstoy concluded that rich people shouldn’t just hand out money; rather they need to change the way they live. Rich people need to learn to spend their money on things that matter, instead of wasting it on unnecessary things.