Cash v/s Items

When it comes to gifts, I always felt cash were a better choice than goods. After all, how could one know for sure what the recipient wanted? Don’t many of us receive all sorts of items we don’t care about? And even if you knew what the other guy wanted, wasn’t it possible that he was getting the same item from someone else as well? And by giving cash, didn’t you give him the choice of buying what he wanted when he wanted it? And with cash, didn’t the receiver also have the option of pooling in other cash contributions and/or from his pocket to buy that really expensive item?

To me, cash feels far more valuable than an object of that same value. Because cash can buy so many different objects of a particular value. Or combinations of objects that add up to that value. This comment by Arthur Schopenhauer captures that sentiment:

“(Money) is always ready to turn itself into whatever object their wandering wishes or their manifold desires may fix upon. Everything else can satisfy only one wish; money alone is absolutely good, . . because it is the abstract satisfaction of every wish.”

I guess most people feel the same. Or at least that’s my take on the findings of Dan Ariely in his book “Predictably Irrational”. Ariely described some experiments he conducted to see how likely an average person was to cheat. He found that if the item in question was hard cash, then the average guy tended to be honest. But when it came to objects (like office stationery), then the same people were far more likely to cheat or steal. Somehow, it seemed that people find it easier to justify to themselves if the item in question is not cash. Because cash can be converted into anything you want, it seems to feel far more valuable than an item that costs the same amount.