My mom sometimes distinguishes between “problems that money can solve, and problems that money can’t solve.” Usually, in prosperity, she makes the distinction when discussing a costly problem of the former type, in order to reassure. Usually, in prosperity, this works.
In addition, the suggestion to think of problems this way is interesting to me. After all, money spent to solve any given problem won’t be available for solving future problems– or satisfying any other future needs or desires. Psychologically, I think the suggested distinction works because those future losses are easy to ignore. Distant and non-specific, it isn’t necessary to think of them in detail (and might not even be possible).
To put it differently, the psychological trick seems to actually reassure to the extent one thinks one is unconstrained. If the budget constraint already doesn’t bind, what difference does it make if you need to make an expenditure that moves you slightly closer to the constraint? Lacking prosperity, I bet the distinction would be immaterial– and I bet it would sting.
