Ford was, of course, known in the Detroit area as an astonishingly successful manufacturer, and in the automotive world as the dauntless leader of the battle against the Selden patent monopoly, bunt elsewhere until 1914 the name Ford connoted a brand, not a man.
Henry Ford’s sudden fame did not burst and fade; it remained fixed in the skies as a brightening star.
Carnegie proposed that the best way of dealing with the new phenomenon of wealth inequality was for the wealthy to redistribute their surplus means in a responsible and thoughtful manner.
This approach was contrasted with traditional bequest (patrimony), where wealth is handed down to heirs, and other forms of bequest e.g.
History strongly hints that neither absolutist stance is fully effective and that both theories deserve examination of their merits and pitfalls, but that point is an aside to the charitable and philanthropic actions of men like Carnegie and Rockefeller.
See the videos below for a mix of viewpoints and more insight into the Baron’s Carnegie describes the responsibility of philanthropy by the new upper class of self-made rich.
He believed in a version of philanthropy that was entirely driven by the free-market.
In accordance with the tenets of the gospel of wealth, many of the “barons” gave away sums (so to speak) by directing most of their fortunes to philanthropic causes.
capitalism debate regarding their for-profit companies. They are at the center of the debate in terms of their non-profit companies and how social welfare should be handled.
Marx would say 100% state directed; Carnegie will say 100% directed by individuals.