How Andrew Carnegie Thought the Wealthy Should Handle Their Wealth

            Andrew Carnegie, one of the wealthiest industrialists of his day, made his opinions on the wealthy well known in the late 1880’s with his book, Gospel of Wealth. Carnegie’s philosophical beliefs were somewhat of a new view regarding wealth and the role the wealthy played in society. He stated that the wealthy were the elite of society, as they possessed a spectacular talent, which allowed them to make their fortunes in a capitalist society. Due to their natural intuition, the wealthy had a duty to watch over the gap of classes in the capitalist society in order to make sure the gap didn’t grow too much to cause an uprising from the poor (Gandolfo). Carnegie had many ideas regarding how the wealthy should handle their fortunes to maintain a sufficient gap; one was that of a 100% inheritance tax upon the death of the prosperous figure. This tax would encourage the well-off population to figure out ways to spend their money in alternative ways, because who would want to give all their money straight to the government? Carnegie thought that with this tax, the government wouldn’t have as much control of the gap of classes, since the government workers were not the wealthy, which means they did not possess the sought after hardworking, creative gene that graced the top tier of the world (Gandolfo).

            Another conclusion made by Carnegie was that any person that dies filthy rich is a disgrace because the money is supposed to circulate in philanthropic ways to help to common good. Carnegie also stated that leaving all of your hard-earned money to family isn’t a great alternative since the family weren’t graced with the same fabulous talents as the wealthy, so it wouldn’t be fair to society to have untalented rich people.

            Recently, the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, decided to follow in Andrew Carnegie’s outline, as he plans to give away his $785 million fortune, minus the money he put aside to pay for his nephew’s college education (CNBC). Many other millionaires and billionaires have gone in the same direction, finding it necessary to aid the remainder of society rather than frivolously spend and leave it all to family members.

            Many arguments can be made against Andrew Carnegie’s philosophy. The biggest being that of his idea of the wealthy being the most talented people in the world (Gandolfo). What about public heroes such as Mother Teresa or influential figures like Martin Luther King? Are they not considered spectacular because of their small bank account?

            I completely support wanting to give away your fortune to the less fortunate or public services, but I also believe that it is entirely up to the wealth-holder. If they want to hand it all down to their decedents, go for it. If they want to build thirty libraries, all power to you.

            I don’t believe that a person’s economic status decides how talented, hardworking, and creative they are. So many factors play into the character of a person, not just wealth.

            Andrew Carnegie brought up many solid points, but like every opinion, it can be disputed.

"Apple's Tim Cook Will Give Away His Money." CNBC, 26 Mar. 2015. Web. 26 Mar. 2015.

            http://www.cnbc.com/id/102539600

Gandolfo, David, Prof. "Andrew Carnegie." Philosophy Lecture. Forman University, Greenville. 26 Mar. 2015. Lecture.

Meat Production in Popular Culture

            I’ve been hearing more about meat production in the past week than I ever have in my entire lifetime. My sustainability science class, an extremely depressing course revolving around how my car, long showers, and eating habits are making the Earth deteriorate, has focused the past two classes on how food production, mainly meat, is incredible possessed and the treatment of the animals is beyond humane. After the class ended on Thursday, I walked into my room with a cloud over my head, searching for something to cheer me up. Naturally, I watched Aziz Ansari’s newest stand-up to grace Netflix. As I laughed along to his witty commentary on relationships, he transitioned to his next segment: meat production.

            After having the few classes dedicated to meat production and how evil it is, I had a good amount of background knowledge regarding Ansari’s bit. He commented on how various documentaries about food production have been released in order to instill fear and outrage in all consumers so that we could spark a change. I personally know a few people who have taken on a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle to fight the treatment of animals involved in meat production, but for the most part, most people I know have witnessed the horrid documentaries and continued with their hamburgers and chicken nuggets. Aziz Ansari touched on this topic during his comedy show. He said that he, like many other viewers, was outraged by the conditions of animals and was completely grossed out to hear about the genetically modified chemicals and drugs, but continued to eat meat, because, well, let’s face it, meat tastes really good.

            I would assume that the majority of people in the world dislike how animals are treated in food production and would fully support new, safer, more natural methods for meat. However, until a bill or a law comes around with enough force to reach the general public, I think most are going to put ketchup on their hot dogs, unhappy with the process it took to produce said hot dog, and enjoy it for dinner without much thought.

Putting Music to Murder

            The horror/thriller masterpiece, Psycho, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, has the ability to put a chill in anyone’s spine. The surprising reveal of Norman Bates as the mysterious and murder-hungry mother left audiences feeling horrified and compelled at the same time. Although Alfred Hitchcock’s effective use of camera angles and a wonderfully talented selection of actors helped bring the film into the one of the most iconic horror movies, I believe that the musical score Hitchcock oversaw and incorporated in the film took the finished product from scary to downright terrifying.

            Marion Crane’s final scene has gone down in history. The recognizable scene was chilling due to the element of surprise, and the exemplary music that took place. As Marion opened the shower curtain to reveal a shadowed figure wielding a knife, shrills of various stringed instruments filled the ears of the audience members. The alarming and grating sounds displayed in the shower scene were then used as the meaning of a death in the film. As soon as the violin was played, the audience knew someone was dead.

            Hitchcock never used gory images in Psycho, so in order to instill fear in the audience, he had to think outside the box and bring together different elements to create an unsettling feeling in the pits of the audience members’ stomachs. By relying heavily on a wonderful musical score, fear was triggered by the use of sound. The random interjections of simple strings made audiences scream with terror, without even having to witness the brutal deaths imposed on the characters.

            Various other films have been praised for their impressionable musical score, such as Jaws, Rocky, and The Breakfast Club. Each film provoked emotional responses from the audience with the matching of music to a certain scene. Music has the ability to bring a movie into a new realm of possibilities and emotions that could be portrayed.

Consumption = Happiness?

Barry Schwartz of The Daily Beast wrote an article on the links between consumption and happiness. He stated that people fall victim to a phenomenon called hedonic adaptation, which is the action of getting accustomed to new objects, and eventually, the joy and excitement from a new product will fade into normalcy. Schwartz argued that the population has been conditioned to stay on a “hedonic treadmill”, where people get caught up in the next big thing and forget how eventually, products don’t really give substantial fulfillment. Instead, he suggested that extra money would provide more sustainable contentment when spent on experiences to create memories that can be relived.

            Taylor’s post about the economic revenue from Valentines Day falls into the “hedonic treadmill” ideal. 13.9 billions dollars is spent on average each year in ways of flowers, candy, jewelry, meals out, and much more. Does this practice really bring happiness? Not in the eyes of the hedonic adaptation enthusiasts. The new piece of jewelry won’t be perceived as shiny and new for long. The bouquet of roses will eventually die, making them no longer aesthetically pleasing. A sunset hike, however, would be romantic and memorable. And a lot cheaper than diamonds.

            Perhaps next year, an effort should be taken to do something out of the box. Make a meal instead of a reservation and craft a gift instead of spending hundreds at Jared’s. Barry Schwartz, along with psychologists and some economists, argue that creating experiences produces more happiness. Isn’t that the point of Valentines Day, anyway? Partners want to make each other happy and feel special, and knowing that material objects can only bring about bliss for a limited time, isn’t it time to shift perspectives?

Schwartz, Barry. "Consumption Makes Us Sad? Science Says We Can Be Happy With Less." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast. Web. 3 Mar. 2015. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/14/consumption-makes-us-sad-science-says-we-can-be-happy-with-less.html>.