Carnegie and Galbraith
Galbriath and Carnegie are basically opposites when it comes to Social Darwinism. Galbraith believes it’s an excuse to ignore poverty, whereas Carnegie believes it’s simply a part of nature. I can agree with certain points of both their arguments. Carnegie believes that it is the “survival of the fittest” was and still is true but I do still think with a certain amount of money poverty can be solved.
“The survival of the fittest” seems to be true because multi-million dollar companies seem to be there for a long time and don’t simply vanish. Due to the fact that most of them have very wealthy and smart leaders like Carnegie was. I think the ideas of both these men could be infused into diminishing poverty and making sure the rich’s money is spent the correct way. If the rich could be convinced that diminishing the percentage of those living in poverty would help the economy and therefore helping their own businesses, they would have no problem spending money towards helping improve those who live in poverty.
Even though Carnegie and Galbraith have different views on Social Darwinism and poverty both can likely be solved. Introducing Carnegie’s method of having the rich donate money with Galbraith’s wants to solving poverty may work. It’s the fact that they are opposites, which would make it work. If the rich were to be told that donating money towards solving poverty would help improve the economy, they would of…