Thank you palsch.
It's an interesting read.
I disagree with him on many fronts. The first and foremost thing is that the people whom are wealthy have done so on skill alone, and that individuals who regularly hold no income have no value to society. Luck and position plays as much of a part as skill. A skillful person might need 10 dollars for every dollar a lucky person has. With position the skillful or lucky person might have enough resources to get their aim. Also a person's worth cannot be measured by the standard yardstick of success. Some people have legitimate problems that will prevent their success, but otherwise provide net benefit for the public. A library or a homeless musician, both can provide value to society as a whole if used in the right way, but both can also be an enormous waste of resources.
I also disagree with Mr. Carnegie on the aspect that giving money to public works is more valuable than giving many tiny amounts to individuals. Mr. Carnegie made a separation between fortunes and wealth, which sat at
the returns on which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education of families. If you have even a single employee that lacks the ability for comfortable maintenance and education of his family due to insufficient funds and not some form of negative addiction or behavior pattern, then you have a severe problem with the wage you are paying, and no amount of distribution of your wealth to public works is good. If your employees are struggling to put food on their table, no amount of Libraries will be of benefit to them. Books are only as valuable as their nutrition content then. Of course once that threshold is crossed, he's right. The thing is, to meet it for the lowest employee is to cross it for the rest. That isn't a bad thing though, because they too can do public good.
So interesting read, but lots I disagree with. Thank you for the link.
...Guess you knew more about the cold war then JFK.
To be fair to poor Mister Kennedy, I have the benefit of seeing it through the eyes of history.
Also, I would like to see a definition of Socialism that supports those statements. It seems to me people label anything socialism that they disagree with, so let's see your definition. Not some vague mention of an organization that intends to spread Socialism, but what Socialism really is.
I know what it isn't. It isn't what you are all trying to pass it off as.