MR. CARNEGIE ON MONEY MAKING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 13948, 2 January 1909, Page 5 (Supplement)

MR. CARNEGIE ON MONEY MAKING.

Mr. Carnegie reproving men for seeking to lay up for themselves riches naturally reminds one of another celebrated character in ancient and modern history. But Mr. Carnegie preaches his gospel with great earnestness and sincerity. The world makes many mistakes, but one of the greatest, ho assures us, is that of supposing that great wealth brings great happiness. The man who lias a comfortable competency has more that is worth having, and can avoid more of what all wise men would wish to avoid, than the man who is burdened with the cares of a multi-millionaire. There is no doubt that this is true, for the multimillionaire literally has so much money that he docs not know how to spend it wisely during his lifetime, nor how ; to provide for its wise expenditure} whoa he no longer can control it. And yet if Mr. Carnegie could only live his' life over again, no doubt he would wish to do very much as he has done, though, that might not be possible—times, ho says, have changed, and he does not believe that even in America immense fortunes will in the future bo made by individuals. He defends the making and the accumulation of wealth only upon the ground that it can be, and should be, used for the benefit of the community. For the man who makes money and hoards it for the sake of making and hoarding it, he expresses the utmost contempt—he would throw such a man and his money to the socialists at once, though Mr. Carnegie is not a. socialist, and thinks that socialism, as it is now being preached, is a vicious babble of words. In his new book on "Problems of To-day" (George Allen and Sons), he has many forceful comments on these matters. Tho unequal distribution of wealth Mr Carnegie admits to be at the root of the present socialist, activity; it is the great problem of the day. The question is whether wealth should be in the hands—that is to say, under the control—of a few, who should use and distribute it for the benefit of tire many, or whether it should be taken, over by the State and distributed as the socialists propose. What the socialists propose, however, is not easy to ascertain. Their chief spokesmen are at sixes and sevens on the question, some advocating absolute equality, others a modified equality, and the majority having no very clear conception of what they want. Mr. Carnegie in despair gives up the quest for a definite scheme of things, and comes back to the contention that the onlr thing we can do is to make the best of things as they are, ever striving to improve them by increasing and spreading out the common stock of happiness. MONEY-GATHEBING. First he repeats some of his old Gospel of Wealth, and tries to remove some common misconceptions. Money-makers, he says, should not be unduly hampered or restricted. After all, they cannot enjoy all their money—they must do something with it, and as they put it into circulation the community get the benefit of it. The millionaire himself is probablv the least expensive bee in the industrial hive." In the interests of the community, "he should not be disturbed while gathering honey, provided it be destined for the general hive under a just system of taxation when he passes away."" Here Mr. Carnegie raises a point which may be discussed later. For the moment see what he says on the general subject of accumulating wealth:— b

" Let this be noted by the workersnone of the professions regard great wealth as the chief prize. Its acquisition is not their aim. . . . -Only a modest competence is the reasonable expectation of all these classes. The great 'teachers of their fellows, the presidents and professors of our seats of learning, and the teachers of our common schools— what .thought have they of bowing before the vulgar idol of wealth? Our wets, authors, statesmen, the very highest tvoes of huma'nitv. are above the allurements of money-making. These know of higher satisfactions and nobler lives than those of the mere millionaire. Having their nobler missions, they have no time to" waste accumulating dross. " All these men are quite right, for beyond a competence for old age, which need not be great and may be very small, wealth lessens rather than increases human happiness. Millionaires who laugh are rare. The deplorable family quarrels which so often afflict the rich, generally have their rise in sordid differences about money. The most miserable of men, as old age approaches, are those who have made monev-making their god ; like flies bound to the wheel, these unfortunates fondlv believed they were really driving it, onlv to find when tired and craving rest that it is impossible for them to get off, and they are lostplenty to retire upon but nothing to retire to, and so they end 'as they began, striving to add to their useless hoards, passing into nothingness, leaving their money behind lee bain "> 3*MTe> s>nr, milj "because they cannot take it with them— melancholy end much less enviable than that of their poorer fellows. "Wealth confers no fame, although it may buy titles where such prevail. Nor are the memories of millionaires as a class fondly cherished, lb is a low and vulgar ambition to amass money, which should always hi the slave, never the master of man." Squandering money is easier than making it, and Mr. Carnegie, with much emphasis, repeats his proposal that great fortunes should he heavily taxed by graduated death duties. Very large fortunes he would divide into halves at the rich man's death, the State taking one-half, and he does not think this would lead to such evasion as is feared on the contrary, he thinks men would be ambitious, as they are now, for the distinction- of leaving large sums of money at their death, though this is an ambition which for himself Mr. Carnegie disclaims. Coming to the question of how to make the best of things as they are, on an individualist basis, he commends the system of profit-sharing amongst employers" and workpeople along the lines to be adopted by Sir Christopner Furness and his employees on the North-east coast, encouraging every man to make the most of his own energy and resource. He gives particulars of how this has been done by various firms and corporations in the United States. There are, he says, three partners in every business, and they must all stand together as one, like a. three-legged stool— "Capital, Labour, and Abilitv. There is no first, second,' « last. There is no precedence : — "We are just at the beginning of profitsharing, and the reign of workingmen proprietors, which many indications point to as the next step forward in the march of wage-paid labour to the higher stage of profit-shqring— partnership—workers with the hand and workers with the head paid from the profits—no dragging of t... latter down, but the raising of the former up. "We never see a fishing fleet sail without hailing it as the finest illustration of the perfect relationship which is one day to prevail between capital and labour generally. Evcyv man in tho ship from the captain down is a partner, paid by sharing in the profits of the catch, according to the value of his labour. Even the lowest paid, probably a young hand, not yet an ablebodkd seaman, could be a partner in the business." This, says Mr. Carnegie, with the assurranco of a practical man who knows, is better wcirth agitating and preparing for than any of the nostrums of the socialist party, with State ownership and State control, and the broadcast distribution of wealth. Where should we be next week, he asks, if such distribution could take place to-morrow? And he answers: We should be just where we, are, rich and nor/:, thrifty and thriftless, happy and unhappy. Socialism is no cure for the inherent weaknesses of human nature. Mr. Carnegie looks forward to changes in the land laws, leading to a large increase in the owners of land, but this is in> the far future. Better, he thinks, to begin to do p' y tv what it is possible to do, and by improving the conditions of life, prepare the way for still higher and-greater things. But preaching about socialism, he thinks is sheer folly.