Summary: As our economy advances, and civilization emerges, a gap widens between the rich and poor. Chieftans of old never distinguished themselves from their tribespeople with grander dwellings or material expression of wealth, but today, the rich and poor are clearly seperated. This division should be regarded as a good thing, for the "universal squalor" would occur if there were no rich. Economic disparity allows for the arts to flourish and the rich to serve as patrons, cradling modern civilization. The question is, when a select few absorb most of the wealth, how is it redistributed? Carnegie speaks not of moderate sums aqcuired by hard work, but vast fortunes and huge accumulations of wealth. Three options to dispose of wealth are outlined. The fortunes can be handed down to familial successors, it can be bequeathed for public purposes or it can be sitributed while the owner still lives. The first two modes are the most common, yet the first is the greatest injustice, for it resembles monarchical Europe. Most wise men realize that this burden on the family and possibility of losing the money in the future make it an improper move. Selfish men let their wealth linger in the banks while they live, until their death brings speedy taxation on their estate from the government. The third and most reasonable way to dispose of wealth allows the rich to reconcile the poor, though it doesn't resemble communism.
The role of the wealthy should be to live an unostentatious life, provide a modest amount for his descendents, and invest the remaingin portion of the wealth in well calculated charities that will benefit the community. In this way the wealthy can do for the poor what they cannot do for themselves.
