“I’ve been poor and I’ve been rich. Rich is better!”
(Attr. Beatrice Bakrow Kaufman; from Leonard Lyons’ column, The Washington Post (May 12, 1937) … via Wikiquote)
Whoever said that first, I think the one-liner makes sense.
This week I’m talking about a new book, “The Art of Spending Money”.
Instead of rehashing the usual budget advice, Morgan Housel shows how you can make yourself miserable by thinking about money the wrong ways. That actually makes sense, since knowing what’s daft helps you avoid ‘what everybody knows’ about money and life.
Bottom line, I think there’s considerable good sense in Mr. Housel’s book.
But something he said about treating money and religion — gave me an opportunity to look at curiosity from a Catholic viewpoint.
- Living on the Income Ladder’s Less Showy Rungs
- “…Simple Choices for a Richer Life”: Money and Making Sense
- Is Curiosity Good, or Bad? — Yes!
Living on the Income Ladder’s Less Showy Rungs
I’ve never been at either end of the socioeconomic spectrum, but I’ve slid back and forth a considerable bit.
My parents didn’t have a big income, but they weren’t big spenders either. Experiencing the Great Depression as adults probably helped.
Having enough to pay this month’s bills, and reason to think there’ll be enough next month: that definitely feels better than the alternative.
My personal wealth, the part I could pay bills with, went down to the low single digits for a few days when I lived in San Francisco. But a job and a paycheck turned that around. It’s an experience I’d prefer not repeating.
Over the decades we’ve been married, my wife and I have done a bit better.
We’ve never gone without food, but we did qualify for — and take — government handouts.
The first time was when we lived in Fargo, North Dakota. Some agency was distributing bricks of surplus cheese. Then, here in Sauk Centre, we had enough kids and a low enough income to qualify for school lunch freebies.
I’m not overwhelmed with shame and guilt for keeping my family fed by accepting what was available at various times. And we’re doing pretty well. We’ve got more than enough food under the roof to see us through a week: and own the roof. Many get by with less.
On the other hand, I’d have preferred having had more income, so that we needn’t have been so creative about keeping ourselves fed, clothed, and housed.
It certainly helped that my wife is intensely practical, and I acquired an intellectual appreciation for alternative lifestyles during the Sixties.
But enough about me.
“…Simple Choices for a Richer Life”: Money and Making Sense
A tip of the hat to Morgan Housel, for writing “The Art of Spending Money”: a common-sense look at rethinking how many of us relate to our money.
“If you want to be miserable, then spend your money like this” [excerpt from “The Art of Spending Money: Simple Choices for a Richer Life”]
Morgan Housel, Books, Big Think (October 9, 2025)Key Takeaways
- Happiness in life can be elusive, but misery often follows clear patterns.
- Chasing status, wealth, or others’ approval with your money almost always undermines independence and contentment.
- Treating money as your identity or a social scorecard also leads to regret, while using it as a tool to create freedom has the opposite effect.
“An important fact of life is that it’s often difficult to know what will make you happy, but quite easy to identify what will make you miserable….”
I haven’t read, and won’t be reading, the book: mainly because it costs more than the household can afford. It’s not overpriced, but we’re not buying luxuries like that.
Happiness is NOT Having Just a Little More
Besides, after reading Big Think’s excerpt, my guess is that I’ve long since learned the book’s lessons.
No great virtue there: I never did see a point in buying stuff I don’t need, with money I don’t have, to impress people I don’t like.
Don’t get me wrong.
I like buying stuff I don’t need.
It’s the ‘to impress people I don’t like’ part that lacks appeal.
And I’m none too fond of being in debt.
Now, an excerpt from Morgan Housel’s “The Art of Spending Money” —
“…So let me offer you a brief guide on how to be miserable with your money.
“Direct your gaze at the socioeconomic group just above you, assuming that within it you will find a level of durable happiness. Tell yourself that you’ll be satisfied once you make just a little more money, have a little bit nicer home, … Ignore the fact that the group you’re in now used to be a dream that you thought would bring you contentment and happiness….”
(“If you want to be miserable, then spend your money like this” , Morgan Housel, Books, Big Think (October 9, 2025))
Somewhere along the way, while youth was merging into adulthood, I heard someone say that “enough” money was about 20 percent more than you’ve got. I’ve tried tracking down that claim’s source, but with no success.
Anyway, the point Housel was making is that imagining I’d be “happy” if only I had more, bigger, or shinier stuff — would be an exercise in futility.
Money’s Okay: Loving the Stuff, Not So Much
Great Choice Audio Video’s “The Ultimate Home Theater Room”. (2025)
I lean towards Tevye’s view of wealth:
Perchik:
“Money is the world’s curse.”
Tevye:
“May the Lord smite me with it! And may I never recover!”
(“Fiddler on the Roof” (film), (1971))
I don’t daydream about owning gigantic mobile bowling shoes, or the other stuff featured in Macy’s annual Thanksgiving Day Parade.
I’ll admit that I would enjoy having one of those high-end home theaters: complete with overstuffed easy chairs, a scintillating fiber optic ceiling — but even if this household had the resources, there are a great many other items with higher priority.
And I know that, although some of my my problems involve money, not being in the top five percent isn’t their cause.
Time for another excerpt —
“…Fantasize that having more money is the solution to all your problems. Tell yourself that you’d wake up every morning with a smile on your face if you had just a little more money. … Believe that none of your current fears, anxieties, doubts, and confusions in life would exist if only you had more money than you do now.
“Assume money can solve none of your problems, and that it is the root of evil and ego. This can be just as dangerous as the previous point. Money is a remarkable tool, … How tragic it is to live in a world where you believe the accumulated efforts of the 100 billion people who came before you have produced nothing worthy of your time and attention….”
(“If you want to be miserable, …” , Morgan Housel, Books, Big Think (October 9, 2025))
Wrapping this bit up, money is NOT “the root of all evils”. It’s a disordered attraction to the stuff that’s a problem.
“For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.”
(1 Timothy 6:10) [emphasis mine]
Hogarth, Escher, Me, and Extreme Recycling — a Digressive Detour
Folks can get crazy about money in quite a few ways.
One of my problems has been spending too much on stuff I don’t need.
Being on a tight financial leash most of my life helped keep that from becoming a big problem, but the potential was and is there.
I’m a fan of M. C. Escher, and even have a few of his works: posters, the sort of thing you could buy for a few dollars.
When I was in San Francisco, I went to an art gallery that had, among other things, an actual Escher print.
It cost more than I could ever justify spending on art, but seeing it helped me appreciate why folks with such resources don’t settle for posters. The paper, even the ink, had rich colors and textures that simply don’t photograph well.
These days, if I could get either an Escher print, or one of Hogarth’s, I’d take the Escher: and that’s another topic.
Budget-Consciousness Above and Beyond the Call of Reason
Although it’s been years since I heard or read about misers, I’m guessing that some folks still take a good idea — not overspending — and run with it straight off the edge of reason.
An extreme and fictional example is the budget-conscious father of Tom Rakewell — I’ll say this for Hogarth, he wasn’t overly subtle — who recycled a Bible’s leather cover to resole his shoe.
That sort of bonkers budget-consciousness apparently isn’t all that big a problem in today’s America. When folks who had endured the Great Depression got in the habit of stuffing their mattresses with paper currency: that’s yet another topic.
(Mis-)Measuring Men, Merit, and Money
I think there’s a correlation between virtue and wealth, particularly wealth that someone has earned. A person who lacks focus and self-control isn’t likely to either gain wealth or keep it.
But I think ethics and attitudes are only part of the equation, and I certainly don’t think that a public image of affluence reflects someone’s worth.
Here’s what Housel said about another way to let money make you miserable —
“…Associate net worth with self-worth (for you and others). Think of money as the ultimate scorecard for how well people have done in life — and, worse, assume that their material appearance is an accurate indication of how much money they actually have….”
(“If you want to be miserable, then spend your money like this” , Morgan Housel, Books, Big Think (October 9, 2025))
I’ve said this before. Life happens: wealth and poverty, sickness and health. None of it’s a sure sign of virtue or sin. What I do with what I’ve got: that’s what matters. (1 Timothy 6:10; Hebrews 13:5; Catechism 828, 1509, 2211, 2288-2291, 2292-2296, 2448, 2540, 2544)
Is Curiosity Good, or Bad? — Yes!
That Foxtrot strip doesn’t have much to do with personal finance, but Jason Fox wanting “to lord it over my classmates as math king” connects with something I’ll mention.
After wrapping up my look at “The Art of Spending Money”.
The excerpt from Morgan Housel’s book ends with another example of how you can make yourself miserable with whatever money you have.
“…Assume you have all the right answers. Try nothing new. Reject the mystery of life, and fight against all inclinations you have to grow, adapt, and change your mind. Be curious of no alternative viewpoints. Assume that what you know about money is all there is to know, and argue fiercely when you discover information that might go against your current beliefs. Treat money as you might treat religion, with devotion above curiosity and orthodoxy above exploration.
“Do this, and you will, I guarantee, be on your way to misery.”
(“If you want to be miserable, …” , Morgan Housel, on Books, Big Think (October 9, 2025))
If the rest of Morgan Housel’s book is like this, I’d say it’s among the better ‘how to use your money’ books I’ve run across.
Each item in the Big Think excerpt identifies and discusses a common-sense approach, giving advice by presenting and explaining the opposite of good ideas.
It’s the approach C. S. Lewis used in his “The Screwtape Letters”. I’ve no idea whether “The Art of Spending Money” will be as well-known in the early 22nd century as Lewis’ book is now, and I’m drifting off-topic again.
The point is that what I see in the Big Think excerpt is common sense, clearly and entertainingly presented.
Since the ‘how [not] to think about your money’ message is somewhat counter-cultural, I see this as a useful guide for anyone wondering whether ‘what everybody knows’ about money really makes sense.
Asking Questions, Seeking Answers
The only problem — and it wasn’t much of a one — I had with this extract from “The Art of Spending Money” was in the second-to-last paragraph.
“…Treat money as you might treat religion, with devotion above curiosity and orthodoxy above exploration.…”
(“If you want to be miserable, …” , Morgan Housel, Books, Big Think (October 9, 2025) [emphasis mine])
Another tip of the hat to Morgan Housel for saying “as you might treat religion”. This is far from the sweeping generalities about ‘those religious people’ I’ve seen in mainstream articles and op-eds.
The notion that religion, particularly Christianity, regards curiosity as a vice keeps popping up. So I figure this’d be a good time to glance at why I don’t think using my brain is wrong.
Curiosity as a Vice —
Pious people looking askance at those who flagrantly display curiosity is nothing new.
About seven and a half centuries back, St. Thomas Aquinas discussed “the vice of curiosity” in “Summa Theologica”.
There’s a lot there: St. Thomas Aquinas was a very chatty writer. But it’s not fluff: there’s a very great deal packed into each sentence.
Anyway, St. Thomas talks about the “vice of curiosity” from (at least) two angles: “intellective knowledge” and “sensitive knowledge”.
About intellective knowledge, which I take to mean what my culture calls “book knowledge”, it can be a problem:
“…for instance those who study to know the truth that they may take pride in their knowledge. Hence Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. 21): ‘Some there are who forsaking virtue, and ignorant of what God is, and of the majesty of that nature which ever remains the same, imagine they are doing something great, if with surpassing curiosity and keenness they explore the whole mass of this body which we call the world. So great a pride is thus begotten, that one would think they dwelt in the very heavens about which they argue.’…”
(“Summa Theologica,” Second Part of the Second Part, Question 167; St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (1920) via NewAdvent [emphasis mine])
I could summarize that as “curiosity is bad”, but a bit later in Question 167 there’s this:
“…Although … the knowledge of truth is good in itself, this does not prevent a man from misusing the knowledge of truth for an evil purpose, or from desiring the knowledge of truth inordinately, since even the desire for good should be regulated in due manner.…”
(“Summa Theologica,” Second Part of the Second Part, Question 167; St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (1920) via NewAdvent [emphasis mine])
What I get out of that part of “Summa Theologica” is that curiosity is good or bad, depending on why I use it.
If I’m trying to “lord it over” folks who haven’t dived down as many rabbit holes as I have, acting as if God comes to me for advice: that would be self-defeating, and a very bad idea.
No matter how well-informed I get, most folk have built-in baloney detectors that go off when someone spouts off about The Meaning of Everything.
And some folks don’t, which may be why End Times Bible Prophecies often get traction before fizzling. That’s yet again another topic.
Basically, being curious isn’t a problem. Why I use that facet of my human nature: that may or may not be a problem.
Intent, my motive or motives for doing something, makes a difference in whether a particular act is good or bad, right or wrong. So do the circumstances I’m experiencing. But “I meant well” isn’t an excuse for doing something that’s bad. It’s complicated. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1750-1754, for starters)
— AND a Virtue
Then there’s “sensitive knowledge”, the sort of information we take in through our senses. That can be a problem, too:
“…to employ study for the purpose of knowing sensible things may be sinful in two ways. First, when the sensitive knowledge is not directed to something useful, but turns man away from some useful consideration. Hence Augustine says (Confess. x, 35), ‘I go no more to see a dog coursing a hare in the circus; but in the open country, if I happen to be passing, that coursing haply will distract me from some weighty thought, and draw me after it . . . and unless Thou, having made me see my weakness, didst speedily admonish me, I become foolishly dull.’ Secondly, when the knowledge of sensible things is directed to something harmful, as looking on a woman is directed to lust: even so the busy inquiry into other people’s actions is directed to detraction….”
(“Summa Theologica,” Second Part of the Second Part, Question 167; St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (1920) via NewAdvent [emphasis mine])
But paying attention to the beauties and wonders surrounding us isn’t basically wrong. It can be a good idea.
“…On the other hand, if one be ordinately intent on the knowledge of sensible things by reason of the necessity of sustaining nature, or for the sake of the study of intelligible truth, this studiousness about the knowledge of sensible things is virtuous.…”
(“Summa Theologica,” Second Part of the Second Part, Question 167; St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (1920) via NewAdvent [emphasis mine])
If some of this sounds familiar, it should. I’ve talked about curiosity, religion, being human, and all, that before:
- Pages
- Posts
- “Science, Religion, and Saying Goodbye to the 19th Century” (May 25, 2024)
- “Unidentified Phenomena, Being Human, Taking Reality As-Is” (September 30, 2023)
- “Curiosity and Science, Intent and Wisdom 11:22” (June 4, 2022)
Like This? Share It:
Discover more from A Catholic Citizen in America
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
