Thursday, November 17, 2011

The Re-Distribution of Wealth

I sometimes look at the Re-Distribution of Wealth as a love for country above love for anything else. Plain and simple.

A person who has amassed an empire of wealth has done so simply because there has been a country that has allowed him to prosper in it. You can take a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet and allow them to grow up and be educated in Siberia and see them prosper as a great employee, but never amount to the success and potential that a country like the United States enables them to be.

Recently, I visited the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This city was formerly known for it's massive Steel Industry. In fact, just the city of Pittsburgh produced more steel itself in WW2 than the Axis nations combined. One of the men in history that built that empire was a man named Andrew Carnegie. A respected businessman, Carnegie was the 2nd most wealthy man in the World at the time (after the controversial JD Rockefeller) At the time of his death in 1919, Carnegie had managed to give away over $350,000,000 of his amassed fortune to foundations, universities, hospitals, libraries, museums that count in the thousands in numbers and literally cover the map in area of influence. That number in present day dollars would represent about 6 billion dollars. -And this is the money he simply GAVE AWAY.

If you look at the scope of the fortune that Carnegie invested in the infrastructure of his foundations, it often surpassed government subsidies in many nations of their own ability to contribute. But why would this man simply give away this hard earned fortune? It's simple. He had a vision for contribution and he felt it was his duty as a human being to do so. He was interested in development of business, nation, arts, education because they develop the human spirit which drives the reason for existence.

You can see where Carnegie has his hand in today's society almost 100 years after his death because his influence is still present. Yet, he was only one man. An extremely wealthy man, no doubt, yet he set an example that any person could follow in principle of contribution. And still all I see in the world of finance is the rich wanting to expand their greed and not contribute back to the country which enabled them to amass that lifestyle.

Collectively, if the wealthy populace of the United States would combine its forces, you would see an action plan unrivalled in history about where it's focus and contribution would impact, and how it would make a difference. The development of such an action plan would last over a 100 years, just as Carnegie's legacy has been preserved today, and it would develop the human spirit again in the process.

Yet sadly, all these people want to do is contribute to themselves and their families which will have far less impact in society and their country. They complain about having to share their fortune via taxes to support the lazy, uneducated masses rather than seeing the greater contribution larger than themselves that they could ever attain.

And while this goes on, the wealthiest nation on earth is divided between a class system that clearly doesn't work anymore, and just gets wider to bridge as time progresses. Policies get broader and reach fewer people, and less gets done. The term "many people make light work" doesn't occur to the wealthy in the sense of what it can do for them.

If you truly loved your country, society, and way of life, protect it by contributing to the people who will ensure its survival. The last time I checked there are no pockets on a casket, and you can't take your money with you.

Creating a place for your legacy to reach others is really the only reason we are on this planet. So it just makes sense to broaden your contribution to make a difference in anything you wish. You only live once, right? Do you want to be remembered as an Andrew Carnegie or as an Ebenezer Scrooge?


  1. There are many individuals who gave a good size of their wealth to others. The banks are the big winners and they are never going to give back anything to anyone. OCCUPY is scaring the hell out of Wall Street and the backing community.

  2. Good post. But it should be up up the individual if they want to redistribute their wealth or not. Of course they can not take it with them so they leave it to their successors.
    For some reason there is a finger pointing at the rich people. The rich people did not cause the mess that the USA is in. The idea that they should give up their money against their will is an infringement upon their individual rights.
    Money does not solve money problems. The reason people have money problems is because of their irresponsible behaviour with it ( most of the time ). Federal Bail outs are an infringement on the taxpayers rights. Remember people, the government is not infinitely wise.
    If governments wish to tax people then everyone ought to pay the same rate whether rich or poor.
    There was a time in history where the US government and did not control the money supply and set interest rates.
    There was a time where a bank note was a representation of how much gold it was worth! Money was real! Interest rates were actually set by real economic conditions rather than what the FED thinks it should be.
    The best way to redistribute wealth is less government, just labour laws, and lower taxes so people can keep what they earn.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.