Is it normal to think of money in different “contexts”?
The psychology around money is the subject of a lifetime of study.  Your observations are not uncommon.  The market daily fluctuation is out of our control. Hopefully, by the time the 1% volatility impacts you by say $1,000, you'll have grown accustomed to it, so when the 1% is then $10,000, you won't lose sleep. The difference between the $1000 up/down and the $3 sandwich is simple - one is in your control, the other isn't.  When you're out, you need to try to cut down on the math, it will only bring you unhappiness. You're paying for the socializing and can't let the individual items on the check bother you. I'm at the point in my life when I prefer a more expensive restaurant meal that I can't make at home to a moderate one that I'd make myself. For me, that logic works, and it's not keeping us home. Funny how my own sense of value for the dollar pushes me to a more expensive experience, but one that I'll enjoy.  By the way - eBay has done an amazing thing, it's created a market for you to sell your stuff, but it's also pulled everyone's collection of junk out for sale. Books I thought might be worth selling go for $1-$2 plus shipping. It's not worth my time or effort, and I need to just break the emotional ties to 'stuff.' I box them up and bring them to the library for their sale. If that picture frame isn't antique, throw it out or have a yard sale.  This may be right on track to your question or a complete tangent.... All value given to products is subjective and is different from person to person.  It can also vary for the same person from year to year, month to month, day to day, or even hour to hour as a person analyzes different products and prices to determine which imparts the most value to him or her at a given point in time. In regards to losing money in your investment accounts.  This reminds of a book I read on Jesse Livermore.  Jesse was a famous stock broker who made millions (in the 1920's so he would be a billionaire in today's money) in the stock market multiple times.  Jesse felt like  you - he felt like after a while the losses on paper did not seem to concern him as much as he thought it should.  He thought it was due to the investment accounts being simply being numbers on papers and not cold, hard cash. So what did Jesse do to remove the abstract nature of investment accounts?   From here: Livermore always sold out all his positions at the end of every year   and had the cash deposited in his account at the Chase Manhattan Bank.   Then he would arrange with the bank to have the money, in cash, in the   bank’s vault in chests. “There was a desk, a chair, a cot and an easy   chair in the middle of the cash.” On the occasion described in 1923,   there was $50 million in cash.  In the corner was a fridge with food,   enough for a few days. There was lighting installed. Then, like   Scrooge McDuck, Livermore would have himself locked in the vault with   his cash. He would stay a couple of days and “review his year from   every aspect.”  After his stay was over, he would fill his pockets with cash and go on   a shopping spree.   He would also take  a vacation and not re-enter   the market until February. But unlike Scrooge McDuck, this was not the act of a miser, explains   Smitten.  Livermore lived a world of paper transactions all year long.   He believed that “by the end of the year he had lost his perception of   what the paper slips really represented, cash money and ultimately   power.”  He “needed to touch the money and feel the power of cash.” It   made him re-appraise his stock and commodity positions. Imagine the $60,000 from your investment account sitting on your kitchen table.  Imagine seeing $1,000 dumped into the trash can one day.  I know I would appreciate the money much more seeing that happen. "Well, this relates to how you interpret something's value. We can use that magazine and restaurant as an example. For you the extra $10-$30 more on a decent meal or wine is worth it while $5 for a magazine entertainment on a train ride might not be. This is how all markets work, people make decisions about how they value something and hence choose to spend or not. If you're asking ""should I value certain things the way I do?"" well that's a different story  e.g. should I keep that picture frame for years in the attic to sell it for $3 on eBay later. (probably not worth it) But again you are making that decision based on how YOU choose to value it. So to answer your question: How can I possibly care about this when my stock portfolio is losing (or gaining) $1000 a day? and is it normal? Yes it is normal and we all care. Everyone makes these decisions throughout each day, people will vary as to what they value something to be, but all in all everyone does just what you explained. Here is something that you may find interesting it is about how we value money: What color is your money? if the pdf doesn't work for you then try this link: What color is your money alt link" Here's how I think about money. There are only 3 categories / contexts (buckets) that my earned money falls into. Savings is my emergency fund. I keep 6 months of total expenses (expenses are anything in the consumption bucket). You can be as detailed as you want with this area but I tend to leave a fudge factor. In other words, if I estimate that I spend approximately $3,000 a month in consumption dollars then I'll save $3,500 times 6 in the bank. This money needs to be liquid. Some people use a HELOC, other people use their ROTH contributions. In any case, you need to put this money some place you can get access to it in case you go from accumulation (income exceed expenses) to decumulation mode (expenses exceed income). This money is distinct from consumption which I will cover in paragraph three. Investments are stocks, bonds, income producing real estate, small businesses, etc. These dollars require a strategy. The strategy can include some form of asset allocation but more importantly a timeline. These are the dollars that are working for you. Each dollar placed here will multiply over time. Once you put a dollar here it shouldn't be taken out unless there is some sort of catastrophe that your savings can't handle or your timeline has been achieved. Notice that rental real estate is included so liquidating stocks to purchase rental real estate is NOT considered removing investment dollars. Just reallocating based on your asset allocation. This bucket includes 401k's, IRAs, all tax-sheltered accounts, non-sheltered brokerage accounts, and rental real estate. In general your primary residence is not included in this bucket. Some people include the equity of their primary residence in the investment column but it can complicate the equation and I prefer to leave it out. The consumption bucket is the most important bucket and the one you spend the most time with. It requires a budget. This includes your $5 magazine and your $200 bottle of wine. Anything in this bucket is gone. You can recover a portion of it by selling it on ebay for $3 (these are earned dollars) but the original $5 is still considered spent. The reason your thought process in this area is distinct from the other two, the decisions made in this area will have the biggest impact on your personal finances. Warren Buffett was famous for skimping on haircuts because they are worth thousands of dollars down the road if they are invested instead. Remember this is a zero-sum game so every $1 not consumed is placed in one of the other buckets. Once your savings bucket is full every dollar not consumed is sent to investments. Remember to include everything that does not fit in the other two buckets. Most people forget their car insurance, life insurance, tax bill at the end of the year, accountant bill, etc. In conclusion, there are three buckets. Savings, which serve as your emergency bucket. This money should not be touched unless you switch from accumulation to decumulation. Investments, which are your dollars that are working for you over time. They require a strategy and a timeline. Consumption, which are your monthly expenses. These dollars keep you alive and contribute to your enjoyment. This is a short explanation of my use of money. It can get as complicated and detailed as you want it to be but as long as you tag your dollars correctly you'll be okay IMHO. HTH.
"Two reasons: Many people make lots of financial decisions (and other kinds of decisions) without actually running any numbers to see what is best (or even possible).  They just go with their gut and buy things they feel like buying, without making a thoroughgoing attempt to assess the impact on their finances.  I share your bafflement at this, but it is true. A sobering example that has stuck with me can be found in this Los Angeles Times story from a few years ago, which describes a family spending $1000 more than their income every month, while defaulting on their mortgage and dipping into their 7-year-old daughter's savings account to cover the bills --- but still spending $275 a month on ""beauty products and services"" and $200 a month on pet expenses. Even to the extent that people do take finances into account, finances are not the only thing they take into account.  For many people, driving a car that is new, looks nice and fresh, has the latest features, etc., is something they are willing to pay money for.  Your question ""why don't people view a car solely as a means of transportation"" is not a financial question but a psychological one.  The answer to ""why do people buy new cars"" is ""because people do not view cars solely as a means of transportation"". I recently bought a used car, and while looking around at different ones I visited a car lot.  When the dealer heard which car I was interested in, he said, ""So, I guess you're looking for a transportation car.""  I thought to myself, ""Duh.  Is there any other kind?""  But the fact that someone can say something like that indicates that there are many people who are looking for something other than a ""transportation car""." Most people when asked what would they do with $X dollars say:  Pay debt (their own / loved ones)  Buy a nice house  Buy a nice car  Travel   460 million is plenty to do all those things. With the rest I'd start a bond ladder and try to live off the interest That sounds interesting.. As I was looking through some articles on [wealth management](http://www.millionairemindevents.com/) the same question came into my mind. Where did money originated. It would be interesting to read some books about it. Thanks for the suggestion. I don't know what you are asking. Can you give me an example of what fits the question?   That you use phrases like profit extraction make me think we have a different assumption base, so I think we have to find common syntactic ground before we can exchange ideas in a meaningful way. I would like to do so, though, so I hope you respond. "My wife and I maintain seperate accounts. We have the bills split between us so that certain bills are paid by one of us, and other bills by the other. This is not a perfect 50/50 split as we don't make the same amount of money, but comparable enough that neither feels like they're doing all the bills alone. Our investments are similar. That means we each have a pool of money that we can spend on toys or entertainment as we see fit without overspending. Once my bills are paid and my savings are paid for the month, if I want to go buy some DVDs and my wife wants to buy a new lens for the camera, we don't have to agree. We just use our own money and do it. For us that's led to minimal friction or arguments over what to spend money on, simply because we aren't using the same pool. Getting it work requires getting the split right AND having the mindset that the other person is just as entitled to spend their share of the money as you are to spend yours. It really helps to eliminate issues where she spent money that I expected to be able to spend before I could, which can happen in a joint account. (We have no joint accounts, only things like the mortgage are in both our names.) I've been told by more then one person that how we're doing it is ""wrong"", but it works a lot better for us then trying to combine finances ever did. I think it also helps that we're younger, and this seems far less common amongst older couples." Credit in general having no significant change between an income level or net worth is due to the economic reciprocity principle inherent in many societies. Although some areas of credit may be more admirable to those who aren't as well-off, such as car loans, the overall understanding of credit is a trust agreement between someone getting something (e.g., credit card user) and someone giving something (e.g., bank or company). Credit doesn't have to mean just money -- it can be anything of value, including tangible materials, services, etc. The fact is that a credit is a common element in most economical systems, and as such its use is not really variable between income levels/etc. Sure, there is variance in things like credit line amounts and rewards, but the overall gist is the same for everyone -- borrowing, paying back, benefits, etc. All of these exchanges form the same understanding we all know and follow. Credit brings along with it trust -- the form represented in a score. While not everyone may depend entirely on credit, and no one should use credit as a means of getting by entirely (money), everyone can understand and reap the benefits of a system whether they make 10K a year of 10M a year. This is the general idea behind credit in the broadest sense possible. Besides, just because one has or makes more money doesn't mean they don't prefer to get good deals. Nobody should like being taken advantage of, and if credit can help, anyone can establish trust. Have an upvote. I don't really understand the issue of money competition. There really isn't anything stopping me from putting my wealth in any other currency, or any other store of value for that matter (gold, stocks, bonds, lollipops, prison cigarettes). The value of a domestic currency is affected by the relative value of these others. "&gt; Because: people with lots of money don’t spend it. They just sit on it, like Smaug in his cave.  Do they actually sit on cash - or are those ""money"" invested into factories and companies?  When you have more ""money"" than you can spend in a lifetime, those are not the same ""money"" you had then you were struggling day by day - they are power and control over livelihoods of others, and not your own livelihood...  People with money are like politicians that no one voted for but that were elected nonetheless." &gt;if you don’t have a lot of money, the presence of a sizable sum in the house or even in the bank means that you’ll be constantly tempted to dip into it.  The psychology behind statements like this are a source of amusement to me. They seem to presuppose that those who have less money are bad with it, kind of a chicken and egg issue that assumes one over the other.  It makes me think that authors, researchers and opiners have likely never felt the degree of financial insecurity that drives behaviors such as the ones being discussed.  If you don't have a lot of money, the possession of a sizable sum presents other problems, such as issues of needs and purchases that have been put off due to a lack of resources while you prioritized for survival. You put off buying the washing machine because your car needed repairs, how else were you going to be able to get to work? You can limp by using a laundromat or doing laundry at your parents' house. But you likely put off all sorts of other needs as well, and now you have to find the best way to allocate a sizable sum that likely isn't going to be enough to address all of the needs you have put off.  While you're trying to decide how to best allocate this resource, don't forget the talking heads that lecture you on the importance of an emergency fund. Disregard for a moment that when cash is such a scarce resource, any unexpectedly dire circumstance which would be best resolved by your having more of it probably constitutes an emergency. There's a difference between physical currency and money (For example a bank may only hold only a small percentage of total deposits as cash that it's customers can withdraw).   I'm not sure which you're referring to, but either way you should read  about inflation. Echoing JohnF, and assuming you mean the physical, rather than abstract meaning of money?  The abstract concept obviously isn't replaced (unless the currency is discredited, or like the creation of the Euro which saw local currencies abandoned). The actual bits of paper are regularly collected, shredded (into itty-bitty-bits) and destroyed.  Coinage tends to last a lot longer, but it also collected and melted down eventually. Depends on the country, though.  No doubt, many people who took a gap year to go travelling in points diverse came across countries where the money is a sort of brown-grey smudge you hold with care in thick wadges. The more modern economies replace paper money on a dedicated cycle (around three years according to Wikipedia, anyway). What you are seeing is the effects of inflation. As money becomes less valuable it takes more of it to buy physical things, be they commodities, shares in a company's stock, and peoples time (salaries).  Just about the only thing that doesn't track inflation to some degree is cash itself or money in an account since that is itself what is being devalued.  So the point of all this is, buying anything (a house, gold, stocks) that doesn't depreciate (a car) is something of a hedge against inflation. However, don't be tricked (as many are) into thinking that house just made you a tidy sum just because it went up in value so much over x years. Remember 1) All the other houses and things you'd spend the money on are a lot more expensive now too; and 2) You put a lot more money into a house than the mortgage payment (taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.) I'm with the others though. Don't get caught up in the gold bubble. Doing so now is just speculation and has a lot of risk associated with it. "There is also the very simple fact that cash is a *significantly* self-limiting thing: you are limited in amount you can spend on any give day to the cash you have on hand -- this along makes you either reticent to spend it, forces you to spread your purchases (or forgo one in order to enable another), and/or requires additional planning to spend larger amounts.  Conversely, most debit &amp; credit cards while they also have some limits on them, enable far more free spending.  So whether the spending of cash is a negative ""painful"" reaction, or really just an awareness that their available resource is being reduced, would be a better question.  After all, similar things are seen in other things that have short-term physical limits: smokers tend to smoke cigarettes more quickly at the beginning of a new pack, and tend to space out the intervals between them as the pack empties; likewise with other resources (food, beer, soda) within a home -- if/when the supply is abundant, we tend to gorge &amp; snack, as the available supply decreases, we cut back." "There has been almost no inflation during 2014-2015. do you mean rental price inflation or overall inflation? Housing price and by extension rental price inflation is usually much higher than the ""basket of goods"" CPI or RPI numbers. The low levels of these two indicators are mostly caused by technology, oil and food price deflation (at least in the US, UK, and Europe) outweighing other inflation. My slightly biased (I've just moved to a new rental property) and entirely London-centric empirical evidence suggests that 5% is quite a low figure for house price inflation and therefore also rental inflation. Your landlord will also try to get as much for the property as he can so look around for similar properties and work out what a market rate might be (within tolerances of course) and negotiate based on that. For the new asked price I could get a similar apartment in similar condos with gym and pool (this one doesn't have anything) or in a way better area (closer to supermarkets, restaurants, etc). suggests that you have already started on this and that the landlord is trying to artificially inflate rents. If you can afford the extra 5% and these similar but better appointed places are at that price why not move? It sounds like the reason that you are looking to stay on in this apartment is either familiarity or loyalty to the landlord so it may be time to benefit from a move." Ultimately the bank will have first call on the house and you will be the only one on the hook directly to the bank if you don't make the mortgage payments. There's nothing you can do to avoid that if you can't get a joint mortgage. What you could do is make a side agreement that your girlfriend would be entitled to half the equity in the house, and would be required to make half the payments (via you). You could perhaps also add that she would be part responsible for helping you clear any arrears. But in the end it'd just be a deal between you and her. She wouldn't have any direct rights over the house and she wouldn't be at risk of the bank pursuing her if you don't pay the mortgage. You'd probably also need legal advice to make it watertight, but you could also not worry about that too much and just write it all down as formally as possible. It really depends if you're just trying to improve your feelings about the process or whether you really want something that you could both rely on in the event of a later split. I don't think getting married would make any make any real difference day-to-day. In law, with rare exceptions, the finances of spouses are independent from each other. However in the longer term, being married would mean your now-wife would have a stronger legal claim on half the equity in the house in the event of you splitting up.