I'm the same way, most of the time. But I think many (most?) people are not. Also, even if they are, it's really hard to visualize large sums of money, so spending $1B on something is really hard to reason about.

But I think it makes sense in general. If I were to buy something with someone else's money for someone else, I honestly wouldn't care too much about either the cost or the gift, I'd get the thing that seemed reasonable to both parties. For example, if I bought gift for someone who performed a service for my company, using my company's money, I would not be very cost conscious, and I'd only put minimal effort in (after all, it's just a task I need to complete). I don't want to be stingy (we want the person to like us), but I also don't want to get flak from accounting.

Do you work for the Boy Scouts?

I am not going to spend in excess, but if a company is paying for me to fly somewhere, I doubt a $30 airport meal is going to break them.

Now there have been times on site with a client, and I had a $120 per diem, where I might eat breakfast and lunch from a vending machine so that I can have a nice dinner, but I would never skip a meal at an airport if I had enough money left for it, and even if I didn't, I'd still charge the company and hope it flies under the radar.

Again $30 isn't going to bankrupt any company that can afford to fly you around.

It's not that I actually think the company will go bankrupt. It's just I am more concerned about how others will think of my spending, than my own comfort. There are plenty of cultures where this is the case, and people feel uncomfortable indulging in luxury, especially when other people (fellow employees in my case) are not.

I was thinking of a reimbursement policy where there is no per diem, and they'll reimburse all meals and alcohol "within reason" (meaning so long as you indulge less than the VPs), but I just thought about it, and if I had a per diem I would also keep costs low. When others are paying, and you keep costs low, it's kind of signaling that you value them paying enough that you are willing to do the job of picking the most efficient resource allocation, just like they would do for themselves. I think of it as showing goodwill and that you are on the same side. I was raised in a business culture that is more relationship oriented than the US.

I'd argue there's a big difference between my company paying for dinner and a friend or family member taking me out to dinner. In the latter case I'm definitely not going to run up a huge bill. Looking back to the quote, I suppose the definition of "someone else" can mean a lot.

Same, when out to dinner with friends, if I pay for everyone I will nag them to order the steak and every extra they might want, and if someone is paying for me I will try to pick something worth less than what they would have picked for themselves. I'm pretty sure they used to make menus with no prices for people like me. (It is common for my friends to also be generous and constantly try to get people to order more when they're the one paying. So I don't think this is a case of me being a Christlike figure of self-denial and the world being full of sharks. Economists just may not know enough good people.)

I wish I had more friends like you, then ;)

The kind of company culture that doesn't have an opinion on spending $30 for fast food... can eventually have a real impact on profitability eventually.

And when the attitude and behavior you just described is scaled throughout an organization you wind up bleeding money everywhere.

MF's classifications appear to not be universal. People do exist that are more careful with other people's money than with their own, because they feel empathy and/or wish to cultivate a professional reputation. I imagine such people would be very sought after and highly paid as fiduciaries and managers.

I too have been frugal with an expense account, but that may have been more out of a general mistrust of the employer, who might not reimburse in a timely and convenient fashion, rather than out of concern for their financial well-being. If my brother-in-law were to offer my entire family dinner, on him, at a restaurant of our choice, we would be eating at a strip-mall taqueria, for less than at McDonald's; whereas if my parents are buying, it's gonna be sushi, with a bunch of the fancy rolls. I know what they can each afford. Also, when I am shopping, I take it personal when I feel like I am getting ripped off, even if I am buying on behalf of someone else. If buying is a game, I want to win it.

For instance, I am super pissed about the F-35. I don't fly it, build it, maintain it, develop for it, see it, or even hear it. But it seems like maybe the government spent at least 5 times as much on it as it should have. Same with Boston's Big Dig. I don't live there or drive through it, but we all got ripped off on that one. That deal where Chicago sold its public parking meters and the Skyway Bridge? Pissed. People who don't care about other people's money when they spend it should not be allowed to spend other people's money. But there is way too much money that needs to be spent, and not enough conscientious spenders to do all of it. Thus, we end up with the yahoos that allow other people to be ripped off.

Yes, one of the problems with Friedman and his adherents is that they take the most cynical view of any situation, and assume everyone thinks like they do. So real, complex problems get reduced to a joke about how everyone else is an asshole and shouldn’t be trusted.

It’s a cute quip, but if you presented the opposite political viewpoint with an equally cute quip from a liberal, these Friedman acolytes would be the first to yell at you about “anecdotes vs evidence.”

I personally think that all forms of this style of comment are lowbrow-highbrow, contribute nothing but a sense of self-satisfaction to the poster, and should be voted down.

I think that, depending on culture, people like you are actually in the majority. How vast that majority is, is still very relevant to government efficiency however. Regulations on spending can also be quite successful in nudging people in the right direction.

All in all, it's IMO a very undifferentiated, ultra-libertarian point of view that Friedman's quote is displaying. I'd rather have somewhat inefficient government services than private monopolies, wherever market forces are not strong enough to create good competition. That applies to things like health care, the electrical grid, drinking water and a reasonable social safety net.