I had this discussion with my eighty-year-old father recently. I was sort of irritated because someone I barely knew made the comment that she was surprised that my husband and I were as smart as we were. She knew we both had college degrees, and while I know that not all people who get degrees are what I would call smart, having the piece of paper does presuppose a certain level of intelligence.
I am sort of prejudiced against people who have money, mostly because the ones I know who have money flaunt it. I have been bothered by this for a long time. My friend Kathy and I back in Ohio used to talk about the people who had $100,000 houses (back then that was a lot of house) but no furniture to put in them. At least they had the show. Then I went back to college and read The Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie. That just ticked me off.
As far as I am concerned, the Gospel of Wealth espoused social Darwinism. I haven't looked at the writing in a while, but the main gist of it seemed to me to be that Carnegie had wealth because he was smart. Since he was wealthy, he felt an obligation to share his wealth with those less fortunate than he, but I didn't get the feeling that he did it just to help. It was more because those poor saps who didn't have money weren't intelligent enough to make it. His obligation was because he was smarter.
Now, I know that Andrew Carnegie was smart, and there is no doubt that he was a philanthropist. I myself have enjoyed many years of using public libraries, for which I have him to thank. I also have no quarrel with the idea that he should have been the keeper for his wealth. I mean, he made it after all. Where I have the problem is that he was better than anybody he helped because he had more money.
My father pointed out a relative that we have who is a retired VP of Lever Brothers. He has a lot of money. There is no doubt that he is smart. But my father is fluent in three languages and has the true mind of a linguist. Is he less intelligent just because he chose to teach? Did he contribute less to society? True, society as a whole did not benefit from my father's efforts the way they did from Carnegie's, but I have seen him interact with former students, and I KNOW he has made a difference.
Maybe the answer lies in how you assess your wealth. I have noticed that two relatives with whom I have been fairly close assess their wealth in possessions. I assume this is at least partly because they have never had children and so have no other way to measure what they have. My father pointed out that Bill Clinton is both intelligent and wealthy, and I do not dispute either his intelligence or his monetary wealth. After all, the man was a Rhodes scholar. And he served two terms as the president of this country. But his private problems were made painfully public, and I wonder if he is wealthy in the way I would count wealth.
See, although I will admit that I like my creature comforts, I count my wealth in the memories, for instance, that I have of my mother. My mother was a very quiet, gentle Christian woman, and she taught me a lot, specifically about patience. She and I may have had words, but when she went to heaven, we had settle things between us. The only regret I feel is that I ever caused her grief, and I know that she forgave me.
Or what about my husband? As far as I am concerned, I am wealthy just because I am married to him. He is in actuality very shy, and sometimes I wonder how we ever got together, but I have watched him blossom as a man and as a father over the years, and I count myself blessed to be his wife.
The Bible says you should store up your treasure in heaven where moth and rust do not corrupt and thieves do not break through and steal (Matthew 6:19,20). I may not have a lot of wealth in the way the world counts it, but I think mine is the kind that lasts. And I probably shouldn't judge how other people count their wealth. Who am I to know what sorrows they have felt along the way and why their wealth might be counted in a more material way than my own?
I guess, maybe, that I have answered my own question. Maybe you do have to be smart to have a lot of money.
But you don't have to be smart to be rich.
I am sort of prejudiced against people who have money, mostly because the ones I know who have money flaunt it. I have been bothered by this for a long time. My friend Kathy and I back in Ohio used to talk about the people who had $100,000 houses (back then that was a lot of house) but no furniture to put in them. At least they had the show. Then I went back to college and read The Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie. That just ticked me off.
As far as I am concerned, the Gospel of Wealth espoused social Darwinism. I haven't looked at the writing in a while, but the main gist of it seemed to me to be that Carnegie had wealth because he was smart. Since he was wealthy, he felt an obligation to share his wealth with those less fortunate than he, but I didn't get the feeling that he did it just to help. It was more because those poor saps who didn't have money weren't intelligent enough to make it. His obligation was because he was smarter.
Now, I know that Andrew Carnegie was smart, and there is no doubt that he was a philanthropist. I myself have enjoyed many years of using public libraries, for which I have him to thank. I also have no quarrel with the idea that he should have been the keeper for his wealth. I mean, he made it after all. Where I have the problem is that he was better than anybody he helped because he had more money.
My father pointed out a relative that we have who is a retired VP of Lever Brothers. He has a lot of money. There is no doubt that he is smart. But my father is fluent in three languages and has the true mind of a linguist. Is he less intelligent just because he chose to teach? Did he contribute less to society? True, society as a whole did not benefit from my father's efforts the way they did from Carnegie's, but I have seen him interact with former students, and I KNOW he has made a difference.
Maybe the answer lies in how you assess your wealth. I have noticed that two relatives with whom I have been fairly close assess their wealth in possessions. I assume this is at least partly because they have never had children and so have no other way to measure what they have. My father pointed out that Bill Clinton is both intelligent and wealthy, and I do not dispute either his intelligence or his monetary wealth. After all, the man was a Rhodes scholar. And he served two terms as the president of this country. But his private problems were made painfully public, and I wonder if he is wealthy in the way I would count wealth.
See, although I will admit that I like my creature comforts, I count my wealth in the memories, for instance, that I have of my mother. My mother was a very quiet, gentle Christian woman, and she taught me a lot, specifically about patience. She and I may have had words, but when she went to heaven, we had settle things between us. The only regret I feel is that I ever caused her grief, and I know that she forgave me.
Or what about my husband? As far as I am concerned, I am wealthy just because I am married to him. He is in actuality very shy, and sometimes I wonder how we ever got together, but I have watched him blossom as a man and as a father over the years, and I count myself blessed to be his wife.
The Bible says you should store up your treasure in heaven where moth and rust do not corrupt and thieves do not break through and steal (Matthew 6:19,20). I may not have a lot of wealth in the way the world counts it, but I think mine is the kind that lasts. And I probably shouldn't judge how other people count their wealth. Who am I to know what sorrows they have felt along the way and why their wealth might be counted in a more material way than my own?
I guess, maybe, that I have answered my own question. Maybe you do have to be smart to have a lot of money.
But you don't have to be smart to be rich.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home