I think Carnegie was right that for people of his generation public institutions offered great mobility. Willingness to work and work hard could take you far. The single most important portal for opportunity for me as a working-class kid was a quality public high school. And I completed my PhD at a land grant university. But the sorting that we see in college admissions is mirrored everywhere else now. One of my friends finished his PhD at Iowa in the mid 2010s. All of his professors had Ivy League credentials, and he said of his cohort that their own program (Iowa) wouldn't hire them. I like your idea that Substack is one of those opportunity portals, but I don't think it's true. Sorting happens here, too. And if young people from my background continue to opt for trades over college, that gap will widen. To really embrace the potential of a platform like this, you need to feel that you're actually part of the conversation.
I listened to a great interview with Codie Sanchez recently, where she said that ownership is the most important factor in growing wealth. And that many of the most successful businesses are "boring" (renting construction equipment to contractors). I don't think college is any longer the best way to open more pathways to ownership, but that would be an interesting conversation all on its own.
An abundance of talent and ambition seem to be the hallmarks of self-made wealth. But for those cut from more modest cloth, an excellent education can somewhat offset lack of drive. To not only learn marketable skills; but to perhaps more importantly create social connections that can later be leveraged professionally.
A kid I roomed with in boarding school--who's made many tens of millions as a real estate developer--used to tell me his formula for how he was going to make his fortune. As a teenager. And by God, he went on to do just that. His formula was pretty simple: generate some seed capital; then buy low, sell high.
No, his formula was primarily "be born into a wealthy family, go to a private school and have lots of important contacts that will allow me to raise seed capital."
Lots of people of modest means have an abundance of talent and ambition, you know. What they do not have are the advantages of starting out in a wealthy family.
Yeah; the seed capital part is the real kicker. But even that is no guarantee of success. Take Donald Trump, whose father gave him a start with roughly half a billion in todays's money as cash or loan guarantees. He managed to nearly lose it all, and if not for the success of The Apprentice, would be pushing a shopping cart under a bridge somewhere.
The only times I ever flew private was as a kid with my parents and some of their billionaire friends. My father also owned a plane--albeit a 2-engine turboprop Cessna--and so flying on a private plane at that time didn't seem all that abnormal. Or alluring.
But I rebelled from that world that I both loved and hated, and became a "spiritual seeker." To prove my sincerity, I even went as far as to become a penniless alms-mendicant in Thailand for four years. Begging daily for my single meal; declining to even touch much less use money; sleeping on the ground; meditating constantly.
Looking back as a sixty-something, Andrew Carnegie embodied the WASP ideal of self-created wealth. An ideal that even in his time was rare, as greed for more wealth usually seems to trump altruistic impulses in the ultra-wealthy. The implication being that psychologically healthy billionaires sooner or later organically cycle into a phase of giving back. While the psychologically damaged ones remain compulsively driven to accumulate ever more no matter the cost.
Would Carnegie have traveled coach? Probably not. Neither would he have felt guilty about flying private.
David I love these deeper and deeper peeps into the lives of folks at the highest strata of wealth. I appreciate how you grapple with the choices available to you—my husband, through his work, has had a chance to fly private a few times. I think he should flat out refuse given the environmental implications, but it’s not always possible when you’re the low man on the corporate ladder. But I can sense the seduction…he’s made jokes about working enough to afford to fly our family of 6 with greater convenience. Unfortunately, I will have to flat out refuse :)
I didn't consider the carbon impact. I do think it's crazy when people fly private to attend Global Warming Conferences. A very bad look. And it sounds like those corporate flights would happen whether your husband was on them or not.
It’s admirable that you think so hard about all of this-and are thoughtful about trying to be better than many of your peers-Il sure most of the rest of the world would at the very least blab all over the place about the Curb spot;)
I loved seeing the midrash about Noah in the footnote. We named our son Noah because of that midrash. Even the more cynical interpretation of “a good man in his generation”—that Noah was only good in comparison to the schmucks around him—is still quite a compliment, in my opinion. It takes courage to do the right thing when every other person you know is doing otherwise. The important thing is to reflect and strive to improve. Or, in the words of another great teacher, Clarence Fountain of the Five Blind Boys of Alabama, “I’m not what I oughtta be, but I’m better than I used to be. I’m getting better all the time.” Your reflections on the waste of flying private, and your decision to forgo extreme luxuries and to use your money for good, seems very much in this vein!
That is one of may most favorite Torah questions because it has such universal application how we assess ourselves and others. Thanks for the comment, Mari.
In the Kabbalistic “Book of Splendor,” there is a retelling of the Noah story that notes that unlike other Biblical patriarchs, Noah doesn’t even bother to argue with God about how many other righteous folks’ existence would justify God staying His hand when God informs Noah of His intention to kill everyone besides the Family Noah. Instead, Noah is “a good man in his generation” by just taking care of himself and his own—as you note, maybe just “good” in comparison to those other schmucks. It concludes, “But Noah just built the Ark/and so the whole world was destroyed.” I think that is apt here, too.
You are both right that in the comparison with Abraham, Noah does not come off well as there is no bargaining. On the other hand the result is the same––total destruction–– since there are not ten righteous people to be found in S&G.
I thought of the most humble, richest man I know of, Warren Buffet, and decided to consult with ChatGPT on how he might reply to your post:
Warren Buffett's Hypothetical Reply:
Thank you for sharing such a thoughtful reflection. It takes humility to look back on one’s choices with a critical eye and the courage to share those reflections openly. That’s a sign of growth and a true understanding of wealth's responsibilities. Here it is:
On Private Flying:
I’ve often joked about the name I gave my private jet: The Indefensible. While it serves a practical purpose in my life now, I avoided flying privately for decades because it felt like a luxury I didn’t need, even when I could afford it. The decision to fly private—like most spending—has more to do with what we value than what we can afford. You’ve recognized that your early flights were more about status than necessity. That’s an insight worth its weight in gold.
On Carnegie’s Views:
Andrew Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth” has been a cornerstone of my thinking. While some of his principles might feel outdated, his emphasis on avoiding wasteful ostentation and focusing wealth on helping others resonates deeply. Like you, I think he underestimated the systemic challenges that keep people in poverty. Today, it’s clear that libraries and parks, while invaluable, are not enough to address structural inequality.
On Inheritance:
You mention Carnegie’s views on inheritance. I’ve echoed similar sentiments—large inheritances can be a curse, robbing children of motivation and the opportunity to carve their own path. My goal for my family has always been to give them “enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing.” It sounds like you and your spouse have struck a balance that works for your family, focusing your pride on their character rather than their wealth.
On Giving:
I was particularly struck by your focus on giving to counter poverty and injustice. While Carnegie might have preferred funding grand public institutions, I believe effective giving is less about what others think and more about what moves the needle. Whether it’s funding parks or fighting systemic poverty, the measure of your giving isn’t in how it aligns with Carnegie’s ideals—it’s in the tangible impact it has on people’s lives.
Final Thoughts:
Wealth is like manure: it’s only useful when spread around. Your reflection, especially the “grades” you’ve given yourself, shows that you’re thinking critically about how to steward your resources. That’s the most important step. Keep asking yourself how your decisions align with your values, and you’ll make an enduring difference.
Very interesting, as usual. Personally I have flown private (really corporate) a number of times when I worked for Pratt and Whitney and I was in around private jets for several years when I worked for GE Aviation. Its an interesting world, but my interests and ethics were never aligned with working in General Aviation, so I left and worked then mostly in infrastructure engineering, where I felt like I was adding value to society, and not just the spoiled rich.
As for Carnegie, I am huge fan and think he mostly gets it right, and I mostly disagree with your assertions and conclusions about supposed 'systemic' barriers.
Also, regarding your claim about women not having the vote (and that men did) you may wish to follow Janice Fiamengo who is an expert scholar in the history of feminism, and explains that a lot of our modern understanding of universal suffrage is incorrect, that its more complex that we are led to believe (i.e. a LOT of men in the early part of the 20th century didn't have voting rights either).
That's kind of missing the point, Steven, which is that of all those people who had the vote, they were *only* men. And in many cases of men who couldn't, in practice, vote freely, they ostensibly had the vote according to law.
I think most of us know that Black men did not have the ability to vote in many states during the late 19th century. My point in the essay was to remind readers that Carnegie wrote "men" because of the year he was writing.
But it is true in the that they were the only group that - as an entire sex - didn't have the vote. So it is 100% true to say "women didn't have the vote" though it is not true to simply say "men didn't have the vote". Trying to shoehorn men into the statement as though the statement wasn't true on its own, or that the two were somehow equal in historical oppression tells us too much about your own sensitivities while clarifying nothing about history.
"When any of us support a writer on Substack with our attention or our money, we’re planting seeds that can build a mighty digital institution." beautifully put. I wondered if this was were you were headed when you mentioned Carnegie was best known for the libraries he built. This 'living library' continually inspires and delights. Thank you ✨
This is a very thought-provoking post, David (as always). I have conflicting views about what you've written, as follows:
1. "When a man faces his Maker, he will have to account for those God-given pleasures of life which he failed to enjoy." -- Talmud. On those grounds, well done for taking private flights on the occasions you describe. They obviously gave many important people in your life pleasure, and was doubtless enormously helpful for your father-in-law, and therefore Debbie and others.
2. At Freedman Towers we live comfortably but frugally. For example, we have a car that is at least ten years old, but it gets us from A to B, is relatively inexpensive to run, and is in good condition, so why upgrade? Plus there's the bonus that (we hope) no self-respecting car thief would want to steal it. To quote one of the few Members of Parliament who did NOT try to rip taxpayers off with ludicrous and outlandish expenses claims: As far as I'm aware most people have only one stomach and can only sleep in one bed at a time, so why did they need to spend so much on food and accomodation?
3. I agree with providing an incentive for people to lift themselves out of a cycle of poverty, but they do also need a helping hand. As Kahlil Gibran wrote in a story about giving and taking, and which I quoted in a recent guest essay, the mother of Jesus went to a man who had thousands of needles, and asked him if he would give her a needle so that she could mend a tear in his cloak. The man did not give her a needle, but instead gave her a learned discourse on giving and taking.
4. On the other hand, in England at the moment the benefits system has worked for a long time to provide an economic disincentive for some people to NOT work (because the combination of losing benefits and paying more income tax would render them worse off). Plus people must not be deprived of their self-respect. Interestingly enough, I have had several conversations with elderly people who would not claim some of the State benefits to which they were entitled, and which would have been hugely helpful. They saw it as accepting chairty, which was shameful, despite my protestations that they had paid into the system for the whole of their lives and for that reason were entitled to accept some help now that they needed it.
5. Finally, and if you don't mind my saying, I think your awarding yourself grades for certain activities isn't quite right. Or doesn't feel comfortable should I say? The idea of a kind of scorecard somehow reduces the significance of the fact that we are all complex beings, and reducing that whole to a bundle of individual and separate activities is reminiscent of the worst kind (in my opinion) of subject assessments in schools. As I've said previously, you seem to be mensch, and that menschness (!) overrides any self-perceived shortcomings. Still, I admire and respect your commitment to self-reflection and self-improvement, which I realise sounds terribly patronising but it really isn't meant to be!
Great post.. as someone who worked in aviation and therefore flew in many private planes and the occasional private jet, I can honestly say it’s one splurge I’d go all in on… simply to avoid the chaos of commercial travel. Now we do our best to upgrade and frequent the ambassador lounge. I grew up somewhat frugally as the daughter of an aerospace entrepreneur. My dad loved airplanes and eventually bought a small FBO and started collecting WWII aircraft and small private planes.. Cessnas, Beechcraft, Piper etc.. but in the rest of his life, he-and mom were pretty frugal.. midwesterners, big Catholic family etc.. now I spend time in Scottsdale and occasionally eat at the local FBO, watching the jets come in and take off.. we look up where they’ve been (flight aware) and make up fun stories about the passengers etc.My brother in law retired as a corporate pilot and flew bigwigs around for business and many boondoggles.. interesting stories all around.. my dad did eventually write a book about his aviation experiences.. self published but well done..
There's so much here that I agree with. but honestly, if I were lucky enough to have had a 3.5 second spot on Curb, I'd lead with it every time. Maybe even enhance it a bit. Tell stories about hanging out with Larry on set. Breaking up the cast with a joke I made. A suggestion I had for a future episode that Larry loved. Milk it like a prize Holstein.
On a more serious note, where my mind kept taking me as I read your post was less about what to do with wealth and more about a parallel and sometimes underlying question. That is, when are we sharing (e.g., I had tea with the queen) and when are we boasting (e.g., I had tea with the queen)? There's a fine, sometimes unseeable line between the two, and it's easy to make the wrong choice about saying it out loud.
The most fascinating thing about Carnegie is the way he anticipates the ascendancy of the managerial class. His essentially libertarian scheme of hypercapitalist accumulation and dispensing of wealth was designed to keep that wealth in the hands of his class, the owners. The NGO/nonprofit complex thst emerged instead is a tool of managerialism, one which now encompasses the universities and the education system more generally. Foundations are the Neoliberal version of the entail, used by the managerial elite to perpetuate their class through sinecures and propaganda.
I assign “The Gospel of Wealth to my students, and one of the questions I ask them is, “what would you do if you had billions like Carnegie?” Inevitably, at least half of them say, “I’d start a business.” How impoverished of an imagination do you have to have where the only thing you can think to do with infinite money is make more money? I usually tell them I would do things like start an Ultimate Panda Fighting League with Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, give gorillas PCP and turn them loose in malls while I livestream, buy all the ad space during the Super Bowl where I just throw stacks of money at the camera and laugh at the viewers for being poor, and of course fill mansion after mansion in the richest neighborhoods across the country with hundreds upon hundreds of unvetted refugees each, that they might be enriched by diversity. And I guess build a hospital too.
Why would you even joke about this? "just throw stacks of money at the camera and laugh at the viewers for being poor, and of course fill mansion after mansion in the richest neighborhoods across the country with hundreds upon hundreds of unvetted refugees each, that they might be enriched by diversity."
David is a wealthy man who has the courage to look at wealth honestly and to grapple with it, and he helps support some good causes.
I get that you are joking, but I suggest you rethink what you said.
I suppose that’s why God made me poor; all the power and pandas would go straight to my head. It might also be why people skip my considered analysis of a document I’ve read and taught and focus on the jokes I made to a classroom full of teenage boys specifically to tweak them for their lack of creativity.
Were I to actually come into money- I suppose teaching history could become the new Pilates- I would probably first use it to assemble multiple competing teams of top oncologists, fully funded and equipped, and set them a ten-year goal of curing cancer, especially pediatric cancer, with prizes in the tens of millions for the winning team. All medical school would be free to anyone who passed my character and intelligence tests. Likewise, all students passing similar tests in the liberal arts, especially Classics, would be fully funded through college, and I would issue grants to microschools to further Classical education. My goal would be to serve as the hub of a new Renaissance. There’s enough people trying to go to Mars; I’d prefer returning to Florence.
I do. I like reading views for a different perspective than mine. We differ on many things. He writes well and is interesting. His history essays are wonderful.
Fyi, historically, we've always had better (and faster) results in medicine and science when teams cooperate and share information more than compete. There is usually some element of competition between countries or teams, but the cooperation is what usually leads to the major breakthroughs. The mythology of competition being the most significant and driving factor is mostly just that: a myth.
He was as righteous and virtuous as his imagination and the time in which he lived allowed. Would that our current oligarchs had 1/10th of his noblesse oblige.
He also had the good sense to distribute it himself, rather than let others (e.g. the government) do it for him, as doubtless a swarm of parasites would have sought to enrich themselves at it's expense.
Giving your kids a leg up is a moral imperative, but he also recognized *too* much of a good thing is too much. Nothing wrong with a generous, even a very generous starting stake. But giving the whole lot to your progeny is asking for the fortune to dissipate in three generations (on average) or end in disaster (e.g. DuPont https://allthatsinteresting.com/john-du-pont-dave-schultz , and many other such cases).
I think Carnegie was right that for people of his generation public institutions offered great mobility. Willingness to work and work hard could take you far. The single most important portal for opportunity for me as a working-class kid was a quality public high school. And I completed my PhD at a land grant university. But the sorting that we see in college admissions is mirrored everywhere else now. One of my friends finished his PhD at Iowa in the mid 2010s. All of his professors had Ivy League credentials, and he said of his cohort that their own program (Iowa) wouldn't hire them. I like your idea that Substack is one of those opportunity portals, but I don't think it's true. Sorting happens here, too. And if young people from my background continue to opt for trades over college, that gap will widen. To really embrace the potential of a platform like this, you need to feel that you're actually part of the conversation.
I listened to a great interview with Codie Sanchez recently, where she said that ownership is the most important factor in growing wealth. And that many of the most successful businesses are "boring" (renting construction equipment to contractors). I don't think college is any longer the best way to open more pathways to ownership, but that would be an interesting conversation all on its own.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/codie-sanchez-how-to-make-money-if-you-dont-have-money/id1450994021?i=1000678873449
An abundance of talent and ambition seem to be the hallmarks of self-made wealth. But for those cut from more modest cloth, an excellent education can somewhat offset lack of drive. To not only learn marketable skills; but to perhaps more importantly create social connections that can later be leveraged professionally.
A kid I roomed with in boarding school--who's made many tens of millions as a real estate developer--used to tell me his formula for how he was going to make his fortune. As a teenager. And by God, he went on to do just that. His formula was pretty simple: generate some seed capital; then buy low, sell high.
No, his formula was primarily "be born into a wealthy family, go to a private school and have lots of important contacts that will allow me to raise seed capital."
Lots of people of modest means have an abundance of talent and ambition, you know. What they do not have are the advantages of starting out in a wealthy family.
Yeah; the seed capital part is the real kicker. But even that is no guarantee of success. Take Donald Trump, whose father gave him a start with roughly half a billion in todays's money as cash or loan guarantees. He managed to nearly lose it all, and if not for the success of The Apprentice, would be pushing a shopping cart under a bridge somewhere.
Maybe there's a tie-in between the theory of ownership and Substack yet to be developed. As usual you have me thinking, Josh.
The only times I ever flew private was as a kid with my parents and some of their billionaire friends. My father also owned a plane--albeit a 2-engine turboprop Cessna--and so flying on a private plane at that time didn't seem all that abnormal. Or alluring.
But I rebelled from that world that I both loved and hated, and became a "spiritual seeker." To prove my sincerity, I even went as far as to become a penniless alms-mendicant in Thailand for four years. Begging daily for my single meal; declining to even touch much less use money; sleeping on the ground; meditating constantly.
Looking back as a sixty-something, Andrew Carnegie embodied the WASP ideal of self-created wealth. An ideal that even in his time was rare, as greed for more wealth usually seems to trump altruistic impulses in the ultra-wealthy. The implication being that psychologically healthy billionaires sooner or later organically cycle into a phase of giving back. While the psychologically damaged ones remain compulsively driven to accumulate ever more no matter the cost.
Would Carnegie have traveled coach? Probably not. Neither would he have felt guilty about flying private.
I agree with you about Carnegie and how he would have travelled. Those four years living that life must have had an indelible impact on you.
David I love these deeper and deeper peeps into the lives of folks at the highest strata of wealth. I appreciate how you grapple with the choices available to you—my husband, through his work, has had a chance to fly private a few times. I think he should flat out refuse given the environmental implications, but it’s not always possible when you’re the low man on the corporate ladder. But I can sense the seduction…he’s made jokes about working enough to afford to fly our family of 6 with greater convenience. Unfortunately, I will have to flat out refuse :)
I didn't consider the carbon impact. I do think it's crazy when people fly private to attend Global Warming Conferences. A very bad look. And it sounds like those corporate flights would happen whether your husband was on them or not.
It’s admirable that you think so hard about all of this-and are thoughtful about trying to be better than many of your peers-Il sure most of the rest of the world would at the very least blab all over the place about the Curb spot;)
I loved seeing the midrash about Noah in the footnote. We named our son Noah because of that midrash. Even the more cynical interpretation of “a good man in his generation”—that Noah was only good in comparison to the schmucks around him—is still quite a compliment, in my opinion. It takes courage to do the right thing when every other person you know is doing otherwise. The important thing is to reflect and strive to improve. Or, in the words of another great teacher, Clarence Fountain of the Five Blind Boys of Alabama, “I’m not what I oughtta be, but I’m better than I used to be. I’m getting better all the time.” Your reflections on the waste of flying private, and your decision to forgo extreme luxuries and to use your money for good, seems very much in this vein!
That is one of may most favorite Torah questions because it has such universal application how we assess ourselves and others. Thanks for the comment, Mari.
In the Kabbalistic “Book of Splendor,” there is a retelling of the Noah story that notes that unlike other Biblical patriarchs, Noah doesn’t even bother to argue with God about how many other righteous folks’ existence would justify God staying His hand when God informs Noah of His intention to kill everyone besides the Family Noah. Instead, Noah is “a good man in his generation” by just taking care of himself and his own—as you note, maybe just “good” in comparison to those other schmucks. It concludes, “But Noah just built the Ark/and so the whole world was destroyed.” I think that is apt here, too.
Yeah, that is the very disappointing other side of the story. Noah is no Abraham, arguing God down to ten righteous people, is he?
You are both right that in the comparison with Abraham, Noah does not come off well as there is no bargaining. On the other hand the result is the same––total destruction–– since there are not ten righteous people to be found in S&G.
I thought of the most humble, richest man I know of, Warren Buffet, and decided to consult with ChatGPT on how he might reply to your post:
Warren Buffett's Hypothetical Reply:
Thank you for sharing such a thoughtful reflection. It takes humility to look back on one’s choices with a critical eye and the courage to share those reflections openly. That’s a sign of growth and a true understanding of wealth's responsibilities. Here it is:
On Private Flying:
I’ve often joked about the name I gave my private jet: The Indefensible. While it serves a practical purpose in my life now, I avoided flying privately for decades because it felt like a luxury I didn’t need, even when I could afford it. The decision to fly private—like most spending—has more to do with what we value than what we can afford. You’ve recognized that your early flights were more about status than necessity. That’s an insight worth its weight in gold.
On Carnegie’s Views:
Andrew Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth” has been a cornerstone of my thinking. While some of his principles might feel outdated, his emphasis on avoiding wasteful ostentation and focusing wealth on helping others resonates deeply. Like you, I think he underestimated the systemic challenges that keep people in poverty. Today, it’s clear that libraries and parks, while invaluable, are not enough to address structural inequality.
On Inheritance:
You mention Carnegie’s views on inheritance. I’ve echoed similar sentiments—large inheritances can be a curse, robbing children of motivation and the opportunity to carve their own path. My goal for my family has always been to give them “enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing.” It sounds like you and your spouse have struck a balance that works for your family, focusing your pride on their character rather than their wealth.
On Giving:
I was particularly struck by your focus on giving to counter poverty and injustice. While Carnegie might have preferred funding grand public institutions, I believe effective giving is less about what others think and more about what moves the needle. Whether it’s funding parks or fighting systemic poverty, the measure of your giving isn’t in how it aligns with Carnegie’s ideals—it’s in the tangible impact it has on people’s lives.
Final Thoughts:
Wealth is like manure: it’s only useful when spread around. Your reflection, especially the “grades” you’ve given yourself, shows that you’re thinking critically about how to steward your resources. That’s the most important step. Keep asking yourself how your decisions align with your values, and you’ll make an enduring difference.
Warm regards,
Warren
xoxo JR
ps. he renamed the plane the "Idispensable"
Wow! Thanks Jen. Very cool use of Chatgpt. Now i feel like Warren and I are pals
Jen! This is a fabulous response. :)
This is a remarkable application of AI :) You've given me such a good idea!
Oh, hope to know more! Lots of fun ways to use it.
Very interesting, as usual. Personally I have flown private (really corporate) a number of times when I worked for Pratt and Whitney and I was in around private jets for several years when I worked for GE Aviation. Its an interesting world, but my interests and ethics were never aligned with working in General Aviation, so I left and worked then mostly in infrastructure engineering, where I felt like I was adding value to society, and not just the spoiled rich.
As for Carnegie, I am huge fan and think he mostly gets it right, and I mostly disagree with your assertions and conclusions about supposed 'systemic' barriers.
Also, regarding your claim about women not having the vote (and that men did) you may wish to follow Janice Fiamengo who is an expert scholar in the history of feminism, and explains that a lot of our modern understanding of universal suffrage is incorrect, that its more complex that we are led to believe (i.e. a LOT of men in the early part of the 20th century didn't have voting rights either).
That's kind of missing the point, Steven, which is that of all those people who had the vote, they were *only* men. And in many cases of men who couldn't, in practice, vote freely, they ostensibly had the vote according to law.
The way it is viewed today, it is framed as 'only women' didn't have the vote, which is simply not true.
I think most of us know that Black men did not have the ability to vote in many states during the late 19th century. My point in the essay was to remind readers that Carnegie wrote "men" because of the year he was writing.
But it is true in the that they were the only group that - as an entire sex - didn't have the vote. So it is 100% true to say "women didn't have the vote" though it is not true to simply say "men didn't have the vote". Trying to shoehorn men into the statement as though the statement wasn't true on its own, or that the two were somehow equal in historical oppression tells us too much about your own sensitivities while clarifying nothing about history.
Thanks for keeping up with your writing during the holidays David. I really appreciate your candor.
You and wifey were on Curb?!? Mad respect.
"When any of us support a writer on Substack with our attention or our money, we’re planting seeds that can build a mighty digital institution." beautifully put. I wondered if this was were you were headed when you mentioned Carnegie was best known for the libraries he built. This 'living library' continually inspires and delights. Thank you ✨
Thanks Emily.
This is a very thought-provoking post, David (as always). I have conflicting views about what you've written, as follows:
1. "When a man faces his Maker, he will have to account for those God-given pleasures of life which he failed to enjoy." -- Talmud. On those grounds, well done for taking private flights on the occasions you describe. They obviously gave many important people in your life pleasure, and was doubtless enormously helpful for your father-in-law, and therefore Debbie and others.
2. At Freedman Towers we live comfortably but frugally. For example, we have a car that is at least ten years old, but it gets us from A to B, is relatively inexpensive to run, and is in good condition, so why upgrade? Plus there's the bonus that (we hope) no self-respecting car thief would want to steal it. To quote one of the few Members of Parliament who did NOT try to rip taxpayers off with ludicrous and outlandish expenses claims: As far as I'm aware most people have only one stomach and can only sleep in one bed at a time, so why did they need to spend so much on food and accomodation?
3. I agree with providing an incentive for people to lift themselves out of a cycle of poverty, but they do also need a helping hand. As Kahlil Gibran wrote in a story about giving and taking, and which I quoted in a recent guest essay, the mother of Jesus went to a man who had thousands of needles, and asked him if he would give her a needle so that she could mend a tear in his cloak. The man did not give her a needle, but instead gave her a learned discourse on giving and taking.
4. On the other hand, in England at the moment the benefits system has worked for a long time to provide an economic disincentive for some people to NOT work (because the combination of losing benefits and paying more income tax would render them worse off). Plus people must not be deprived of their self-respect. Interestingly enough, I have had several conversations with elderly people who would not claim some of the State benefits to which they were entitled, and which would have been hugely helpful. They saw it as accepting chairty, which was shameful, despite my protestations that they had paid into the system for the whole of their lives and for that reason were entitled to accept some help now that they needed it.
5. Finally, and if you don't mind my saying, I think your awarding yourself grades for certain activities isn't quite right. Or doesn't feel comfortable should I say? The idea of a kind of scorecard somehow reduces the significance of the fact that we are all complex beings, and reducing that whole to a bundle of individual and separate activities is reminiscent of the worst kind (in my opinion) of subject assessments in schools. As I've said previously, you seem to be mensch, and that menschness (!) overrides any self-perceived shortcomings. Still, I admire and respect your commitment to self-reflection and self-improvement, which I realise sounds terribly patronising but it really isn't meant to be!
Good point about the grades, Terry. I appreciate and welcome all constructive criticism.
You’ve read the Talmud, Terry. Or at least parts of it. 🥰🙏
Not quite, Carissa. I've read lots of 'meditations'/study pieces and, like a magpie, collected the glittery bits along the way 🙂
Great post.. as someone who worked in aviation and therefore flew in many private planes and the occasional private jet, I can honestly say it’s one splurge I’d go all in on… simply to avoid the chaos of commercial travel. Now we do our best to upgrade and frequent the ambassador lounge. I grew up somewhat frugally as the daughter of an aerospace entrepreneur. My dad loved airplanes and eventually bought a small FBO and started collecting WWII aircraft and small private planes.. Cessnas, Beechcraft, Piper etc.. but in the rest of his life, he-and mom were pretty frugal.. midwesterners, big Catholic family etc.. now I spend time in Scottsdale and occasionally eat at the local FBO, watching the jets come in and take off.. we look up where they’ve been (flight aware) and make up fun stories about the passengers etc.My brother in law retired as a corporate pilot and flew bigwigs around for business and many boondoggles.. interesting stories all around.. my dad did eventually write a book about his aviation experiences.. self published but well done..
Poor guy. He looks like someone who should have had an upgrade but didn’t. Oh, and he accidentally checked in those GOOD headphones. 🤣
There's so much here that I agree with. but honestly, if I were lucky enough to have had a 3.5 second spot on Curb, I'd lead with it every time. Maybe even enhance it a bit. Tell stories about hanging out with Larry on set. Breaking up the cast with a joke I made. A suggestion I had for a future episode that Larry loved. Milk it like a prize Holstein.
On a more serious note, where my mind kept taking me as I read your post was less about what to do with wealth and more about a parallel and sometimes underlying question. That is, when are we sharing (e.g., I had tea with the queen) and when are we boasting (e.g., I had tea with the queen)? There's a fine, sometimes unseeable line between the two, and it's easy to make the wrong choice about saying it out loud.
Excellent observation.
I love that the picture of the TV shows that David and Debbie also need close captioning. It’s the over 60 club. Hehe.
The most fascinating thing about Carnegie is the way he anticipates the ascendancy of the managerial class. His essentially libertarian scheme of hypercapitalist accumulation and dispensing of wealth was designed to keep that wealth in the hands of his class, the owners. The NGO/nonprofit complex thst emerged instead is a tool of managerialism, one which now encompasses the universities and the education system more generally. Foundations are the Neoliberal version of the entail, used by the managerial elite to perpetuate their class through sinecures and propaganda.
I assign “The Gospel of Wealth to my students, and one of the questions I ask them is, “what would you do if you had billions like Carnegie?” Inevitably, at least half of them say, “I’d start a business.” How impoverished of an imagination do you have to have where the only thing you can think to do with infinite money is make more money? I usually tell them I would do things like start an Ultimate Panda Fighting League with Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, give gorillas PCP and turn them loose in malls while I livestream, buy all the ad space during the Super Bowl where I just throw stacks of money at the camera and laugh at the viewers for being poor, and of course fill mansion after mansion in the richest neighborhoods across the country with hundreds upon hundreds of unvetted refugees each, that they might be enriched by diversity. And I guess build a hospital too.
Why would you even joke about this? "just throw stacks of money at the camera and laugh at the viewers for being poor, and of course fill mansion after mansion in the richest neighborhoods across the country with hundreds upon hundreds of unvetted refugees each, that they might be enriched by diversity."
David is a wealthy man who has the courage to look at wealth honestly and to grapple with it, and he helps support some good causes.
I get that you are joking, but I suggest you rethink what you said.
I suppose that’s why God made me poor; all the power and pandas would go straight to my head. It might also be why people skip my considered analysis of a document I’ve read and taught and focus on the jokes I made to a classroom full of teenage boys specifically to tweak them for their lack of creativity.
Were I to actually come into money- I suppose teaching history could become the new Pilates- I would probably first use it to assemble multiple competing teams of top oncologists, fully funded and equipped, and set them a ten-year goal of curing cancer, especially pediatric cancer, with prizes in the tens of millions for the winning team. All medical school would be free to anyone who passed my character and intelligence tests. Likewise, all students passing similar tests in the liberal arts, especially Classics, would be fully funded through college, and I would issue grants to microschools to further Classical education. My goal would be to serve as the hub of a new Renaissance. There’s enough people trying to go to Mars; I’d prefer returning to Florence.
🍿👀David could grapple a wee bit harder methinks.
Always open to grappling guidance!
My advice is to follow the Librarian, if you don’t already.
I do. I like reading views for a different perspective than mine. We differ on many things. He writes well and is interesting. His history essays are wonderful.
Fyi, historically, we've always had better (and faster) results in medicine and science when teams cooperate and share information more than compete. There is usually some element of competition between countries or teams, but the cooperation is what usually leads to the major breakthroughs. The mythology of competition being the most significant and driving factor is mostly just that: a myth.
I don't know the context but stop being such a faggot
Not sure who this was directed to but calling someone a "faggot" is not acceptable here. Please respect my standards.
Thanks for attacking Michelle’s question seriously and rigorously (after the panda jokes). I am moved by earnestness.
Did you see the old film, “The Magic Christian”?
This was Guy Grand’s schtick.
Have not seen it.
He was as righteous and virtuous as his imagination and the time in which he lived allowed. Would that our current oligarchs had 1/10th of his noblesse oblige.
He also had the good sense to distribute it himself, rather than let others (e.g. the government) do it for him, as doubtless a swarm of parasites would have sought to enrich themselves at it's expense.
Giving your kids a leg up is a moral imperative, but he also recognized *too* much of a good thing is too much. Nothing wrong with a generous, even a very generous starting stake. But giving the whole lot to your progeny is asking for the fortune to dissipate in three generations (on average) or end in disaster (e.g. DuPont https://allthatsinteresting.com/john-du-pont-dave-schultz , and many other such cases).