You’ll notice that the question is not of a choice between love and money. The question is one of balance. But speaking of balance already implies a parity of sorts between love and money.

You might say that a choice between two things involves balancing the two. But after putting them on the scales you make an outright choice of the heavier one, and then it’s over. But balancing the two is a continuing battle.

So I still insist that if there is a question of seeking a balance between love and money it means the two are ongoing rivals. They may even be evenly matched, making the question of balance so much more difficult.

If you were to ask what is more important, or more valuable, or more pleasing, love or money, the answer would be quite affirmatively in favor of love. The few practical-minded people might opt for money but in their hearts they’d probably prefer love.

When you ask for a balance between the two, however, you’re asking that love be put on the same level as money. You cannot balance two things that are simply incomparable. So love and money then, are players on the same playing field.

You’ll notice that love is mostly mentioned before money, and that is the practise followed in this article. This is not to imply that love has already won the battle and weighs heavily on the scales. It’s merely to please the lovers and so as not to give the impression of being a money-lover.

“Money-lover.” Do you notice anything in that phrase? A money-lover is also a lover. Thus a money-lover might put more weight on love in the proposed balance between love and money without being hypocritical.

Of course, the question may have been asked of a food-lover. How do you balance your love for food and money? The reply then might be that it all comes down to how much they can afford to indulge in their love of food.

Similarly the question may be asked of lovers of other things. Lovers of books. People who love going to the theatre. People who love clothes, jewellery, etc. They’re still lovers. And they still have to balance their love of the particular thing against money. They have to take into consideration what they can afford.

But you won’t agree. You’re thinking only of that particular love. You know and I know what love that is. The love for another person. But really, love for another person isn’t much different from love for a thing.

What you have to put onto the balance is love, whether for a person or a thing, and money. The person you love is, after all, the object of your love. No different from any other object you love. You have to be fair and accept all kinds of love. And I’m still thinking of the greatest lover of all: The money-lover.

I call that the greatest lover because that’s the only lover who is in a win-win situation. The money-lover wins on both sides of the balance. If money weighs heavier, it’s love fulfilled. If love weighs heavier, it’s still love of money fulfilled.

Love is love no matter what the object of love. This almost answers the question of finding the balance between love and money. The answer is to lean heavily on the love and then look at the object of the love.

This might not be satisfactory to a lot of people. Love for money is not real love, they’ll say. The question asks for a balance between love for something other than money on the one hand, and money on the other.

A money-lover could possibly fall in love with another person and be forced to balance that with the love of money. So the matter of finding a balance between love and money remains open. How do you strike a balance between the two?

The decision depends on the strength of the love, and the desire or need for money. And, really, that’s what it boils down to. There’s no need to look for any formula to the balance. Every individual instance will be determined by exactly these two factors.

Strength of love, no matter what or who the object of the love, and the need for money. In most cases the need will outweigh the desire. Necessity forces sacrifices upon all. Love may triumph in fiction but in real life needs must be met before anything else.

And that is the crux of the balance. What is more urgent, as opposed to what is more desirable. The two will have to be balanced by the particular individual. Others may approve or disapprove of the way these are balanced. But only the individual knows what sacrifice is demanded in the balance.