1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
trapecia [35]
3 years ago
14

In the myth of the "Self-Made Man", what did business tycoons claim their success was simply the result of? What was the actual

reality of how they became rich and influential? Explain and provide an example.
History
1 answer:
True [87]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

The Self-Made Myth exposes the false claim that business success is the result of heroic individual effort with little or no outside help. Brian Miller and Mike Lapham bust the myth and present profiles of business leaders who recognize the public investments and supports that made their success possible—including Warren Buffett, Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s, New Belgium Brewing CEO Kim Jordan, and others. The book also thoroughly demolishes the claims of supposedly self-made individuals such as Donald Trump and Ross Perot. How we view the creation of wealth and individual success is critical because it shapes our choices on taxes, regulation, public investments in schools and infrastructure, CEO pay, and more. It takes a village to raise a business—it’s time to recognize that fact.

This book challenges a central myth that underlies today’s antigovernment rhetoric: that an individual’s success is the result of gumption and hard work alone. Miller and Lapham clearly show that personal success is closely tied to the supports society provides.

Explanation:

it’s worth mentioning briefly an additional impact that the self-made myth has on our public debates—that of people voting their aspirations. Because the rags-to-riches myth persists, many Americans hold on to the belief, however unlikely, that they too may one day become wealthy. This has at times led to people’s voting their aspirations rather than their reality. As Michael Moore noted in 2003:

After fleecing the American public and destroying the American Dream for most working people, how is it that, instead of being drawn and quartered and hung at dawn at the city gates, the rich got a big wet kiss from Congress in the form of a record tax break, and no one says a word? How can that be? I think it’s because we’re still addicted to the Horatio Alger fantasy drug. Despite all the damage and all the evidence to the contrary, the average American still wants to hang on to this belief that maybe, just maybe, he or she (mostly he) just might make it big after all.35

It is essential that we find a more honest and complete narrative of wealth creation. In chapter 2, we expose the fallacy of the self-made myth by examining the stories of individuals often lifted up as successes in our public dialogues. In examining their stories, we come to better understand that even their business success includes contributions from society, from government, from other individuals, and even luck.

Beyond the moralizing ridiculed by Twain, this individual success myth overlooked a number of key social and environmental factors. The emergence of a clear geography of opportunity showed that there was something about the place where one lived that contributed to one’s success. No matter what personal qualities someone had, if you lived in Appalachia or the South, your chances of ascending the ladder to great wealth were slim. Those who achieved great wealth were almost invariably from the bustling industrial cities of the Northeast. By one estimate, three out of four millionaires in the nineteenth century were from New England, New York, or Pennsylvania.7

Another unique external factor was the opportunity that existed at that time, thanks to expanding frontiers and seemingly unlimited natural resources. The United States was conquering and expropriating land from native people and distributing it to railroads, White homesteaders, and land barons. Most of the major Gilded Age fortunes were tied to cornering a market and exploiting natural resources such as minerals, oil, and timber. Even P. T. Barnum, the celebrated purveyor of individual success aphorisms, had to admit in Art of Money Getting that “in the United States, where we have more land than people, it is not at all difficult for persons in good health to make money.”8

He might have added that it also helped to be male, to be free rather than a slave, and to be White. While free Blacks had some rights in the North, they had little opportunity to achieve the rags-to-riches dream because of both informal and legal discrimination. Even after the Civil War, Blacks, Asians, and others were largely excluded from governmental programs like the Homestead Act that distributed an astounding 10 percent of all US lands—270 million acres—to 1.6 million primarily White homesteaders.9

You might be interested in
Why did the Federalists have more support than the Antifederalists?
Sliva [168]
If I remember correctly, thought it's been a while since I've had US History it's C. Because the anti federalist wanted the bill or rights added and both parties didn't pay attention to the alliances.
6 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did Commodore Perry visit Japan?
krok68 [10]

Answer:

He wanted to start trade deals between the US and Japanese. He wanted Japan to open up, because the Japanese had been mainly isolated for hundreds of years.

5 0
3 years ago
How and why did the Soviet Union enter the Second World War
Alenkasestr [34]

Answer:

After the defeat of Germany, the Soviet Union entered the Pacific War, which had begun with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. On 9 August 1945 the Soviet Union attacked the Japanese Army in Manchuria, which capitulated eight days later.

Explanation:

hope this what you was looking for

4 0
2 years ago
What type of public policy or regulation topic best relates to this map
bija089 [108]
A is the answer to the question
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Score The dissenting opinion raises the fact that Japanese Americans were being deprived of what rights?
Anna007 [38]

Answer:

The dissenting opinion raised the fact that the Japanese American people were being deprived of their civil liberties and of their civil rights. They were taken from the homes they lived in, their businesses they owned were closed down, and were put into camps and not able to return. Many of the people died.

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of the following are methods for getting your name on the primary ballot of a party? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY!! A. lobbying B
    15·2 answers
  • How do government corporations differ from other corporations in the united states
    8·2 answers
  • Which is the BEST description of the purpose of political cartoons? A. they simplify complex political documents by showing them
    13·2 answers
  • What was jimmy carter the first president to do since Thomas Jefferson?
    7·1 answer
  • How do primary and general elections differ
    9·1 answer
  • How did their previous status as colonies of European powers have an effect on the development of many less developed countries?
    5·1 answer
  • its the end of your school year, and your class of 250 students must decide the best place for the yearbook signing party
    12·1 answer
  • True Or False
    9·1 answer
  • Heeeeeeeeeeeelp ples
    10·1 answer
  • 1. Which political party gained control over Russia in 1917?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!