10. Give an example of how the wealthy can benefit a mass of people rather than just a few.

History

2 answers:

Ksju [112]3 years ago

7 0

The wealthy people can benefit a mass of people rather than just a few, in many different forms.

One, is creating social programs with the government that can benefit a majority of people in less favorable conditions. Another form is that wealthy people can create foundations to focus its objectives on helping poor people or any other group that needed support. It could be children, minorities groups, the elders, among others.

If rich people invest money in these programs, they can get some benefits like social recognition, presence on Mass Media and a better public image in the community.

In the late 1900s, a philantrophic and entrepreneur called Andrew Carnegie wrote an essay called the Gospel of Wealth. In the document, Carnegie elaborated philanthropic projects with the goal of benefiting majority people like the poor. The intention of Carnegie was to change the extreme ideas of Social Darwinism. He considered that the rich should be thankful for their wealth and a way to show it was helping people in need.

prisoha [69]3 years ago

4 0

An example of how the wealthy can benefit a mass of people rather than just a few is that they have access to a ton of money which can be given to help others since they do not need much more then a amount to get by in life

You might be interested in

N your response, be sure to address all parts of the question. Use complete sentences; an outline or bulleted list alone is not

xz_007 [3.2K]

Answer:

Help Me Plz

Explanation:

6 0

3 years ago

What resulted from the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Scott v. Sandford case?

Mashcka [7]

Answer: A. The abolitionist movement grew stronger.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. It held that black people whose ancestors were imported into the U.S., whether enslaved of free, could not be American citizens. Therefore, they could not sue in federal court. Moreover, it ruled that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the territories acquired after the creation of the United States.

The decision was controversial, and greatly opposed by abolitionist groups. It strengthened the abolitionist movement and may have been a catalyst for the American Civil War.

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What is positive about seaborne trade?

Fittoniya [83]

It’s cheaper, and it’s also the ideal way to move big volumes of cargo.

5 0

3 years ago

When did hitler comes to power in germany?

abruzzese [7]

The 30.1.1933 He was chancellor but still Controlled by a other politicians. He Then Started to Change the laws so He could more easily Control Germany (e.g. He forbid other policial Parties). On the 2.8.1934 the President Hindenburg died and Hitler one day later decided that He would also be President now. Starting at that Point, He was Not Controlled any more.

5 0

3 years ago

What was the outcome of the Worcester v. Georgia court case?. . a.The Cherokees won the right to stay on their land and were dee

AnnZ [28]

"The Cherokees won the right to stay on their land and were deemed an independent nation" was the outcome of the Worcester v. Georgia court case. The correct option among all the options that are given in the question is the first option or option "a". I hope that the answer has helped you.

4 0

3 years ago