Studies show that beyond making enough to covers the basics (shelter, food, etc) more money has declining marginal returns.
In fact, in the longest (and on-going) study about what makes us happy (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200906/happiness), when the experimenter is asked “What have you learned from the Grant Study men,” his response is "That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people.”
White's point (from the Forbes article) is that $40M can't make the questioner happy, because happiness doesn't come from money.
I understand his point, of course. What I am objecting to is that 'no, true happiness is beyond price' does not usefully address the question asked.
The point I'm trying to make is that someone like White (who is obviously respected by someone who asks him such a question) would do better to drop the role of philosopher king and instead give the questioner the psychological push back out into the world they are so obviously asking for.
I have some first-hand experience of White's situation: what I learned was that hand-waving answers like this are not actionable. Someone who has enough decision power to be rewarded with very large amounts of money wants concrete answers and is suspicious of equivocation.
In fact, in the longest (and on-going) study about what makes us happy (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200906/happiness), when the experimenter is asked “What have you learned from the Grant Study men,” his response is "That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people.”
White's point (from the Forbes article) is that $40M can't make the questioner happy, because happiness doesn't come from money.