[most of these notes come from Early Retirement Extreme, and refer to one's relationship to things: what is worth having, criteria to have, and many related questions.]

There are no such things as needs and wants. It's therefore pointless to argue about the difference or make lists of needs and wants. The problem is that needs and wants don't fit on two different lists. They fit on one list where they're ranked according to value rather than price (see Economical). Needs and wants are different in degree, not in kind.

Which things should I own? Given these problems, things should:

• have the appropriate quality and a low lifetime cost.
• be durable.
• be easy to dispose of either by selling, giving away, or trashing in a responsible manner.
• be small and preferably lightweight.
• be easy to make.
• be serviceable locally and easy to maintain and repair, preferably by yourself.

For commonly used items, a higher quality tends to pay off in the long run. Surprisingly, disposability is quite important. If you buy things that can be sold again at a price which will recover most of your cost, you haven't paid a lot. Rather than being a consumer of the thing with a plan to eventually throw it away, you're essentially holding an asset with the intent of selling it. If you can enjoy the asset while holding it, so much the better. Small and lightweight is important because it keeps storage and transportation costs down. Reducing the need for storage allows for substantial cost savings, and keeping transportation costs down makes it easier to move. Think twice before getting anything that doesn't fit easily within a suitcase or which you can't carry.

The final problem is a curious aspect of living in a society of material abundance: Things are much harder to get rid of than they are to acquire in the first place. It's very easy for Aunt Martha to acquire the proverbial ugly vase, but it would be very hard for you to get rid of it, other than throwing it in the trash, and throwing useful things in the trash is simply irresponsible.

Realize that the strong desire to acquire new things can be replaced with an equally strong desire to avoid acquiring new things. This transition will take a few months to become habitually ingrained. The wish list method seems to be widely known. It's trivially easy to use and I have been using it for a long time, first with actual pen and paper, later just mentally. Here's how it works: Instead of buying when I develop a spontaneous desire to purchase something, I put it on my wish list along with the date of the wish. Don't buy anything unless it has been on the wish list for at least 30 days. You will likely find that you have either found an alternative to buying it in the meantime, perhaps by finding an alternative or by learning how to do without it.

Buying a set of, say, screwdrivers to "save" money is rarely worthwhile. You will end up breaking the ones you use constantly and with a collection of ones you never use. Never buy the set. Also avoid buying a fully equipped shop-set for the same reasons.

It's quite interesting to note that by choosing to modify your behavior and give up certain average but comparably incredibly expensive things like $20,000 cars or $50,000 for an extra bedroom, being able to afford, or more accurately, having access to little luxuries becomes a source of pleasure. How about owning one of the best pocket knives in the world, the Sebenza made by Chris Reeves? Regardless of how much someone spends on a pocket knife, it doesn't get much better than this. The VitaMix blender retailing at more than $400 is similarly considered one of the best blenders that money can buy. Kuhn Rikon pressure cookers are in the same league. All of these are in a league that is typically beyond what most people have heard of. Why freeze in "normal" winter clothes when you can wear expedition-quality clothes that are comfortable in a wider range of temperatures and activities? The typical objection is that these things cost 10 times more than what someone "normally" would pay. However, they also last at least 10 times longer, so the cost isn't that high (see Depreciation schedules). To wit, my boots are 13 years old and my jacket is 14 years old. The cost over time is the same as a cheap unit, but the utility is much higher. The choice is therefore between using a high-quality item and rarely or never replacing it, or a typical, low-quality item and replacing it often. Choose the former even though fashion encourages the latter!

My current pair of boots are almost as old as my jacket and I've walked many thousands of miles in them. This means an annual depreciation cost of about $20, if maintenance is expensed separately. They are full grain leather. I don't like nubuck because it doesn't last as long and it doesn't survive long against rock, in the case of serious hiking. It goes without saying that I'd never get anything with nylon in it. My boots have a stitched Norwegian welt. Stitched welts are getting hard to find these days since $100 glued sole boots sell better, but some companies still make them. If you get a chance to buy a pair, jump on it–maybe buy two or three pairs so you're covered for life! Having used a lot of leather fat and polish, I've made mine quite water-resistant and wouldn't think twice about walking through a two inch deep water puddle. Find a good cobbler who will put in good replacement soles, preferably the same as the original soles or better, rather than a cheap sole that has to be replaced again in a year.