Skip to main content

Why I Feel Being Stingy in Your Expenses is Also Stupid

iStock Photo

I remembered some time ago when I wrote about how being miserly is not a good option. It's not that I advocate being the opposite extreme and being a spendthrift either. What I'm trying to advocate is balance. I was reading through the comic strips of Simple Sum Philippines. Sometimes, we need to write things less academically to reach a wider audience. I think the Simple Sum Philippines manages to do just that--a more casual approach. One of the comic strips I've read talked about being stingy. What I'd like to think is the awkwardness of the situation based on experience.

It's one thing that the Chinese tend to be stereotyped as stingy. An Israeli could also be stereotyped as such as well. I remembered how the sitcom The Nanny even had the furniture covered in plastic. There was even a joke that the Israeli accepted the Ten Commandments because it was for free. It's only natural to want to save up money. However, it becomes a dangerous thing when one becomes a hoarder. It's too unfortunate that I've noticed absurd practices such as hoarding stuff, cooking the same food all over again because it's "economical" (never mind there's a lot of cheap, delicious food to try out), buying the same easily-broken brand all over again (because it's cheap), etc. Such people only care about short-term savings such as, "As long as I can't spend money." Such people can soon be easily exploited one way or another. Did they bother to compute for the long term?

If there's such a thing as compromising quality for a brand name--it's possible to compromise quality all in the name of saving ahem hoarding money. Such people may be prone to doing something illegal so they could keep hoarding money. Saving money for a rainy day is good. Hoarding money like that's all there is to life isn't. It's like the Aesop's Fable of The Miser and His Gold. The miser kept his gold in a secret spot and it eventually got stolen. Would have the miser placed his gold in the bank--maybe it would've been in better hands. That's why I don't like the idea of putting all your life savings in a secret spot or under your mattress. It reminds me of a Spongebob episode where Mr. Krabs got into a "cash coma" when his mattress (containing his money) but thrown away.

I think there's the problem of too good to be true. A miser may reject a Ponzi scheme but end up buying stuff too cheap to be true. I'd like to make some exaggerations for fun. For example, would you believe that I bought a smartphone for only PHP 100.00? Would you believe I bought a pair of shorts or pants for only PHP 10.00? Those are obviously too good to be true. Labor expenses in garments factories go from equipment, labor force, and all expenses related to the company's operations. No good garment manufacturer will sell at a loss. Making a smartphone isn't so easy either. Research and development are absolutely not cheap either. Somebody may be buying these because it's "cheap". However, that cheap smartphone may be prone to exploding, that cheap appliance may be prone to exploding, that cheap chair fell down and broke your spine, not getting insurance will compound the hospital bills, wearing torn clothes will provide huge embarrassment, and traveling abroad with broken luggage is a very huge disadvantage.

It would be very much unlike if I did this. If I bought energy-efficient equipment--my electricity would go lower so that I wouldn't have to wait for two months (getting a notice of disconnection) before I pay for it. Besides, not paying your bills until you get a notice of disconnection is highly disrespectful. Just remember the customer isn't always right even if the call is there to always treat the customer right. Politely cutting away electricity connection for unpaid bills isn't mistreating the non-paying customer--it's to save other good customers from getting bad services as a result of bad credit. If I bought a good smartphone (and no, I'm not referring to branded items) then maybe I could use it for two to three years before I get another phone. I still prefer to hold on to a phone for up to four to five years. I don't want to keep changing my phone too often either. Though, upgrades in technology may make it better advice to get a new phone if the technology gets obsolete. 

I find myself trying to strike the balance. I tend to overspend or become a miser. I feel like stingy people can be of bad effect. It could also cause serious health issues when one compromises safety in order to keep hoarding money. Instead, it's striking the balance. Thrifty is good. Stingy is bad. Easy to memorize. Very hard to do.  

References

Websites

"Don’t Stinge On These Expenses" (May 24, 2022)
https://ph.thesimplesum.com/dont-stinge-on-these-expenses/

Popular posts from this blog

The Idiocy of Typing Anti-FDI Rants Using IMPORTED Devices, IMPORTED Platforms, and IMPORTED Social Media

Bulatlat It's very easy to open Facebook (or any related platform) and find lots of stupidity , right? There have been idiotic comments I find on Facebook such as FDI is this and that. We can find "thought leader groups" such as Alliance of Concerned Teachers, Anakpawis, Anakbayan, Bayan Muna, IBON Foundation, Kabataan Partylist, League of Filipino Students, and Philippine Anti-Fascist League (PH Antifa) who keep ranting about FDI as this and that. I even remember somebody dared to say that FDI caused Egypt to dry up. Ironically, North Korea and Venezuela, two protectionist countries, have very bad pollution problems. I'd blame it that they don't have the money to do a clean-up drive. How can you clean up a polluted river without the right equipment? How can you expect better power efficiency with outdated equipment that keep coughing up, cough, cough, lots of black smoke?  All the talks on social media can be very funny. The big irony is that all calls for "...

Get Stuck with EDSA, End Up Like Nokia

  Yes, we should never forget what history teaches us. A classmate of mine, back in high school, wrote a simple and blunt essay called "History: A Teacher". I doubt he still has a soft copy, given it was already more than 20 years ago. I'd like to quote Duterte critic Andrew James Masigan wrote this in  Philippine Star --something that should remain relevant: I would never undervalue the 1987 Constitution. It dismantled the legal framework of a repressive regime and established the democratic institutions we enjoy today. For this, I am grateful. The 1987 Constitution was crafted with the best of intentions. It sought to put the Filipino first in all aspects of governance and to level the playing field amongst sectors and peoples.  But it is far from perfect. It failed to consider the importance of foreign capital and technologies and the stiff competition we would have to face to obtain them. In short, its economic provisions were short-sighted . So despite the Constitut...

It's Incredibly Frustrating to Discuss Economics with an Overspender

Overspending is just bad economics, isn't it? Economics is defined as the following for the sake of a review of high school basics: Economics is a social science concerned with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. It studies how individuals, businesses, governments, and nations make choices about how to allocate resources. Economics focuses on the actions of human beings, based on assumptions that humans act with rational behavior, seeking the most optimal level of benefit or utility. The building blocks of economics are the studies of labor and trade. Since there are many possible applications of human labor and many different ways to acquire resources, it is the task of economics to determine which methods yield the best results. Economics can generally be broken down into macroeconomics, which concentrates on the behavior of the economy as a whole, and microeconomics, which focuses on individual people and businesses. It had me thinking of 2016 wh...

Talking Economics with an Overeating Glutton

Two years ago, I wrote an entry about why discussing economics with an overspender is frustrating . Now, I was looking at certain fat people who say really dumb things about economics. Just recently, I was looking at a certain fat idiot (fortunately, he only has 1K+ followers) who posted on Facebook that not only will the parliamentary system cause the Philippines to become a dictatorship, but he also says that changing economic provisions will cause the Philippines to collapse and the country to fall into the hands of foreigners. I won't name the person out to avoid getting personal. However, the person is apparently very fat and he blames capitalism day in and day out. The person even says that businessmen do nothing and it's the employers that do everything. Has that fat slob ever heard that businesses are run by bosses and that if the bosses do screw up, they're the ones who are the most answerable? The employees are the cogs and the boss runs the cogs. I was looking at...

Social Media Gossipers' Ad Hominems Against Actor Robin Padilla Regarding His Proposal to Remove 60-40

Make no mistake that I didn't vote for Robin Padilla. I feel like I've had enough of voting for celebrities, athletes, and those who I felt are know-nothings in the legislative. However, Padilla recently had his proposal to remove the 60-40 restrictions regarding foreign direct investments (FDIs) . Former Philippine Vice President Maria Leonor "Leni" Gerona-Robredo was even in favor of that amendment. I guess that's why Philippine economist Andrew James Masigan endorsed Robredo. I may have not endorsed Robredo while Masigan remains to be one of my favorite local sources. The news from GMA News Online reveals these plans by Padilla himself: Senator Robin Padilla said he wanted to revise the Constitution to scrap the 60-40 rule on foreign ownership of businesses to accelerate job creation and competition among industries . In a Monday interview, Padilla said the move would attract more foreign investments to support the country’s economic recovery. “Para sa akin mas...