Source identified
“You give but little when you give of your possessions.”
Possessions can be given without much personal cost; Gibran prepares the contrast with giving one’s own time and presence.
Source note: The Prophet, “On Giving.”
Source identified
“The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth.”
Carnegie frames wealth not only as possession but as an administrative responsibility, making the use of accumulated resources the central moral question of his essay.
Source note: The Gospel of Wealth, first sentence of the 1889 essay “Wealth.” Carnegie’s position is a historical normative argument about concentrated wealth, not a neutral description of modern economics.
Source identified
“Politeness and civility are the best capital ever invested in business.”
Respectful treatment is described as business capital because trust, repeat dealings, and reputation often depend on how people are treated as much as on the transaction itself.
Source note: The Art of Money Getting, “Be Polite and Kind to Your Customers”; Barnum treats civility as a practical part of durable commercial reputation.
Source identified
“The greatest privilege of wealth is, beyond all peradventure, the opportunity it affords for doing good, without sacrificing one’s fortune.”
Wealth is given ethical value when it creates capacity to help others sustainably rather than serving only accumulation, display, or personal appetite.
Source note: De Officiis, Book II, section 64; Cicero discusses generosity while also warning against careless management of one’s property.
Source identified
“life is the end and aim of consumption.”
Consumption is judged by what it ultimately does for human life, making economic activity a means rather than an end in itself within Ruskin’s argument.
Source note: Unto This Last, fourth essay; Project Gutenberg #36541. The line follows Ruskin’s distinction between production and consumption and retains the nineteenth-century political-economy setting.
Source identified
“With malice toward none; with charity for all.”
The phrase argues for moral seriousness without revenge, especially after collective conflict.
Source note: Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865.