Andrew Carnegie, 1913 [Public domain], by Theodore C. Marceau (1859–1922) Since I watched a series on the great figures of the Gilded Age - Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan - I have been thinking about their role in the shaping of America.  They amassed such huge fortunes, and such a great percentage of the overall wealth in the country at the time, that today's rich people more than likely cannot compare.  But it was done at a time when many people were living in squalor, unlike today, when even many poor people live well-off by comparison.Eventually, at least some of these rich men started to give their money away in philanthropic ventures.  I don't have the data for this, but it seems that the period from about 1900-1930 saw a huge return of money that had been accumulated in the previous decades.  Carnegie, for example, built libraries in almost every state, and therefore contributed to long-term educational needs that might otherwise not have been met.Based on this, was it better to have massive wealth accumulated in the hands of a few, and subsequently given out later in concentrated doses?  Or would it have been better had wealth naturally spread to the hands of those who did not receive it due to competition from the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.?  I pose this question in part because when money is given out by thew few for philanthropy, those few people have an inordinate amount of influence over which charities will benefit, and therefore what the direction of society will take.  This isn't necessarily a good thing.To be fair, if Carnegie did not control the steel, or Morgan the financing, or Rockefeller the oil, America as a nation would likely not have been as competitive in the international arena.  I think it's safe to say that at the macroeconomic level, the rich men of the Gilded Age gave America a benefit that would not have been had otherwise.Thoughts?