Call me a naive sucker, but every now and then, I get pulled into these random debates... and it almost invariably involves Farcebook.
Yeah, I know... "why am I still using Farcebook?"
I have no excuse... well, I do have the excuse that it's still fertile "recruiting ground" for Steemit... so there's that.
But anyway...
So anyway, this discussion was a sidetrack to one of the inevitable Donald-Trump-political-rants on Facebook, and I felt like exploring it a bit further, and wanted to invite the Steemit community to share opinions, too.
Money, like a dandelion puff, can be gone in a moment...
A fellow by name Kinky Friedman (one time candidate for Texas governor) once observed that "Money can buy you a fancy dog, but only love can make him wag his tail."
Any time I come across a debate related to the issue of whether or not it's "good" to be rich (from birth, or otherwise) that quote tends to pop into my mind-- perhaps because this is ultimately an issue of "What is going to make me happy, in life?"
Something not very many people know about me is that I grew up among some very rich and powerful individuals, which gave me some inside looks at lifestyles of the rich and famous.
Truthfully? I saw very little evidence that wealth alone made anyone happy. In fact I saw more alcohol and substance abuse, as well as depression and suicide attempts, than I have seen with pretty much any other group of people.
By the way, I have also been homeless... and spent a while "living" on a bench at a municipal golf course... so I've "lived" both sides of the equation.
So, from a purely experiential point of view, that's a pretty strong vote for being born intelligent rather than rich. Yeah, I know the two aren't mutually exclusive...
Experience there is a considerable difference between being born rich (which is how this debate started, remember?), and becoming rich, through your own ingenuity and hard work.
Branches silhouetted against the sunset...
As human beings, we tend to derive pleasure, satisfaction and a measure of contentment from the creative process, itself. If you look at the daily news, more often than not the "troubled" individuals who make the headlines with their crappy behavior are the born-to-wealth likes of billionaire heiress Paris Hilton, rather than the self-made likes of Microsoft founder Bill Gates.
After all, how can you possibly know the "value" of money, if you never actually had to work for it?
Don't get me wrong-- I have nothing against money or wealth.
But consider this: the old saying "A fool and his money are soon parted" is much more than an empty saying. Managing and maintaining wealth is a very complex process, and most people totally misunderstand (or gloss over) that part.
If you are born to riches but lack intelligence, how do you propose to manage your money so as to continue being rich into old age, rather than just burning through your stash of cash? Again, there ARE people who are born rich and intelligent- but this particular discussion was phrased as an "either/or" question.
People always seem to want what they don't have.
Foliage of a bright yellow Yew tree
If you were born and raised in poverty and have struggled to earn a basic living all your life, there tends to be a subtext in your life the "being rich" is-- somehow-- the "magic pill" that will make life better.
But usually... it isn't.
Think of all the times we hear about someone winning the lottery, and five years later they are declaring bankruptcy... and not only are they right back where they started; they now have a ton of debt they'll never be able to repay, as well as a massive dose of anger and bitterness at no longer having "the good life."
I'm also reminded of a massive study done back in 2008-09 which showed that once someone made (at the time) US $75,000 a year... they stopped feeling materially better about their lives as their income went up... a strong vote for the idea that money can only "buy happiness" up to a point.
On a personal level, what "seals the deal" is the issue of permanence vs transience.
Purple petunia
I'm a long term thinker. One of "those people" who started planning for retirement at age 20, etc. The fact that I failed miserably at building anything permanent again points to the transience of money.
Barring a horrible accident or illness, intelligence tends to be a permanent attribute-- as a result of which having it can most likely help you (re)create wealth, even if something causes you to lose all your money. If you are born intelligent, you will always have that.
Riches, on the other hand, can be very temporary and fleeting; a fortune can be erased overnight as a result of misfortune, economic downturns, a bad investment or a poor business decision. I have seen this in my own extended family, multiple times-- every generation since the 1870's has included multi-millionaires who lost everything and rebuilt their wealth from scratch, using little more than their intelligence and insight. Some did it more than once, in their lifetimes.
Without intelligence, would they have been able to rebuild their fortunes?
There's one final-- slightly paradoxical-- thought here: In more than a few cases, having intelligence allows for the consideration and insight that "being rich" actually isn't "all that," thus rendering the entire discussion somewhat moot...
Being born rich might look nice-- on paper-- but the majority of the time, true enduring wealth is created as a result of using one's intelligence. Hence I'd rather be born intelligent, than rich... any day.
What do YOU think? If we could start with a "clean slate," would you rather have been born intelligent or rich? This assumes you could only have ONE "dominant" attribute! Does it even matter to you? Have you ever considered this line of thought? Leave a comment-- share your experiences and feedback-- be part of the conversation!
(As usual, all text and images by the author, unless otherwise credited. This is original content, created expressly for Steemit)
Published 20170820 10:34 PDT
