Compare And Contrast Carnegie Vs Galbraith
Carnegie
VS
Galbraith
Carnegie and Galbraith are playing billiards next to the fireplace while drinking fine Cognac brandy and smoking top of the line Cohiba cigars. Both are having an exceptional time. At the same time, their differing opinions on political topics, most strongly on how money should and should not be used, begin to develop. Carnegie believes money is worked for, therefore the one who earned it has every right to do just as he or she pleases, gambling being one of those things. As a matter of fact, the house the two men are playing billiards in, is Carnegie’s third house, which he built after winning a vast sum of money at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Meanwhile, Mr. Galbraith gives a strong emphasis on how …show more content…
And, besides, the case you have been pushing all along, is radical. You are saying that since gambling can have negative side-effects to it, either we should abolish it all-together, or we should re-route where the money goes to. Let me tell you, Mr. Galbraith, casinos have been responsible for some major donations to local and national organizations. Public schools are just one of the many places they have given money to: for new supplies, and even infrastructural improvements.
(G) You know the reason they do that, is to solely look good to the public. Casinos have a dark side to them as well, and trying to cover it is completely unethical. At this point, the argument is still growing. Carnegie has many resources left, and knows he can win by simply continuing his form of deductive reasoning. However, he comes up with a brilliant plan. He knows that a $1000 is nothing more than a few minutes worth of work. He has probably made more money than that in stock equity in the time of this short debate. So Carnegie decides to disprove Galbraith, not by continuing to argue his point, but by losing instead!
(C) I am sorry, Mr. Galbraith, I have been leading this conversation too long now. I can clearly see you have something you need to say. Fire
VS
Galbraith
Carnegie and Galbraith are playing billiards next to the fireplace while drinking fine Cognac brandy and smoking top of the line Cohiba cigars. Both are having an exceptional time. At the same time, their differing opinions on political topics, most strongly on how money should and should not be used, begin to develop. Carnegie believes money is worked for, therefore the one who earned it has every right to do just as he or she pleases, gambling being one of those things. As a matter of fact, the house the two men are playing billiards in, is Carnegie’s third house, which he built after winning a vast sum of money at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Meanwhile, Mr. Galbraith gives a strong emphasis on how …show more content…
And, besides, the case you have been pushing all along, is radical. You are saying that since gambling can have negative side-effects to it, either we should abolish it all-together, or we should re-route where the money goes to. Let me tell you, Mr. Galbraith, casinos have been responsible for some major donations to local and national organizations. Public schools are just one of the many places they have given money to: for new supplies, and even infrastructural improvements.
(G) You know the reason they do that, is to solely look good to the public. Casinos have a dark side to them as well, and trying to cover it is completely unethical. At this point, the argument is still growing. Carnegie has many resources left, and knows he can win by simply continuing his form of deductive reasoning. However, he comes up with a brilliant plan. He knows that a $1000 is nothing more than a few minutes worth of work. He has probably made more money than that in stock equity in the time of this short debate. So Carnegie decides to disprove Galbraith, not by continuing to argue his point, but by losing instead!
(C) I am sorry, Mr. Galbraith, I have been leading this conversation too long now. I can clearly see you have something you need to say. Fire