Andrew Carnegie wrote and lived in an era without an income tax. In that era rich men were expected to be broadly philanthropic, to steward their wealth for the good of the common, to act with generosity and responsibility. Because the state did not provide a safety net, the wealthy faced immense social pressure to act as stewards of the public good.

In today's era those expectations do not exist. The public-facing, gilded age palaces, which by their public nature tend to enforce good behavior by forcing them to physically interact with the society they profited from, have been replaced by private, gated bunkers behind tall hedges blurred out on Google Maps. The wealthy wear jeans and hoodies to "blend in" or appear common, when they are very much not. A rail tycoon in a 10X beaver tophat might offer a beggar something on the street. A tech mogul in a hoody might not even get solicited.

Income tax - and broadly speaking many other changes to the social contract between upper and lower classes, like the bureaucratization of welfare - has not just allowed but incentivized the wealthy to shirk the responsibilities of old, and outsource their morality to a (corrupt, as many have pointed out) government. And it's not good. There is no honor in giving anymore.

I think you've got that quote backwards. In full it reads:

> Unequally or unjustly, perhaps, as these laws sometimes operate, and imperfect as they appear to the Idealist, they are, nevertheless, like the highest type of man, the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished.

Or (to shorten it a bit): "These laws (of capitalism) [...] are nevertheless [..] the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished". So this is only an unlimited belief in the virtues of capitalism, not in the virtues of rich people.

From the introduction:

> Carnegie believed in giving wealth away during one’s lifetime, and this essay includes one of his most famous quotes, “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.” Carnegie’s message continues to resonate with and inspire leaders and philanthropists around the world.

I really wonder what Carnegie would think about his successors dismantling USAID?

You're right, the other was Kamala Harris, who was far worse.

In my case it is a charitable take of someone who appreciates that painting his political opponents as evil incarnate is not going to bring about a political change. There is nuance in how people form their ideological priorities and how they end up making the final decision on who to vote for. Recognizing that is very important if we want to, you know, win any more elections. Trump would be approximately dead last for my vote if you gave me an arbitrarily long list of terrible candidates.

The dems consistently push everyone even a little bit impure from their coalition, which is why they have had difficulties winning slam-dunk elections. And instead of calling everyone who voted from Trump evil or stupid, they refuse to look in the mirror and see if there is anything they could change about their own pitch that would make it more appealing.

> conservative talking point

The problem with your accusation is that I am a long ways from conservative, and what I said is a pop culture reference straight from South Park.

> In 2024, it wasn't about politics

It wasn't? The dems took a candidate so weak in charisma that she lost her first primary to another candidate also historically weak in charisma (Biden) who himself tried multiple times to run for president and only won in 2020 because he barely edged out the most historically unpopular president in memory. The cherry on top was that she didn't have to win a single primary to become the nominee, and her party had just spent months insisting that the guy at the helm who 1) promised to be a one term president and 2) was losing his already unfortunately weak ability to speak clearly before realizing how badly he was going to lose to Trump and just handing over their blessing to his VP. What a shit show. As a long time democrat I remain astounded at how horridly incompetent the leadership is and the lengths to which rank-and-file supporters will go to make excuses for them.

And yes, charisma isn't the ideal requirement for a presidential candidate, but failure to recognize that this is basically how all presidents win election just means you are going to lose more often.

Plus, we still have people insisting that Kamala lost because she was a woman. No, she won because she sucks as a political candidate. Hillary had precisely the same issue. There are strong women who communicate well who would perform much better, but they have thus far decided to avoid the circus.

> From a pure performance standard across economy and quality of life, its pretty clear that Democratic policies always end up as net positive,

All one has to do is point at San Francisco as this us provably false. Dems have been in charge their for decades and it's arguably not working.