Over 130 years and counting, gospel of wealth still holding

Andrew Carnegie led the American steel industry in the late 19th Century and became one of the wealthiest men in history.

Admired for his philanthropic efforts (he gave away an estimated Sh6.5 trillion to charities, foundations and universities totalling almost 90 percent of his fortune), the man is equally respected for his sagely advice on wealth.

On this subject, he penned the now-famous letter; The Gospel of Wealth nearly 130 years ago.

His advice then, as in now, remains sharp and remarkably relevant. Today’s article distils some of his wisdom on a touchy issue affecting our society today: the problem of proper administration of wealth.

To begin with, Carnegie had a disdain for massive wealth distribution to ones’ kin. He considered the approach as improper use of ones means.

In the letter, he asks; “Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection?”

Carnegie believed that it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened with “too much wealth” and neither is it well for the State.

Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, Carnegie advised men should hesitate to bequeath generously to kin, for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed often work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients.

Most certainly, his view on wealth distribution is debatable (some call it simplistic or overly prescriptive) but there’s no question, his observation is spot on and it’s hard to argue that there’s a better solution than this.

On wealth inequality, he vigorously defended the pillars for economic success – respect for private property, law of competition and accumulation of wealth – even accepting the concentration of wealth as essential.

He firmly believed that civilisation itself rested on these pillars. Carnegie strongly believed that one ought to eat what he kills.

He best summed-up this point by restating, “If thou dost not sow, thou shalt not reap.”

Obviously, the man was no socialist. Nonetheless, the human in him, persuaded and encouraged men like him to be rich in good deeds, to be generous and willing to share their possessions in their lifetime.

This, he believed was the only feasible way to re-balance the wealth inequality situation. He emphasised on this point with the now famous remark, “he who dies rich, dies disgraced.”

Lastly, Carnegie cautioned against leaving wealth under trusteeship after ones death. He based this view on the fact that in many cases, the real object sought by the testator is never attained and in some cases forgotten.

Further, he stressed on the lack of talent, which often made things difficult. “It is well to remember that it requires the exercise of not less ability than that which acquired the wealth to use it so as to be really beneficial to the community,” he wrote.

Carnegie believed the man of wealth should be the trustee for his poorer brethren; to bring to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer his wealth. This way, men of wealth get the job done.

To close, we all face the choice to follow Carnegie’s common-sense on wealth administration. I believe his call to good stewardship is well grounded. But then again, it’s your money, your choice.