In the family of some of my acquaintances, the first word that my son said was “money”. The boy's parents were very surprised and even saddened by this, because we all wish that money was only a concomitant circumstance. However, in this family the topic of money was constantly discussed in the version: "There is not enough money, where can I get it?" How to raise a child who will be “friends” with money, appreciate it, make savings, spend wisely? Parents should think about this at the earliest age of their children, and not when the first problems come (child theft, greed or wastefulness, complete inability to navigate in the financial sphere), because children draw their knowledge about monetary relations from the comments and reactions of their parents ...

Greed or economy?

We do not teach a small child to save or spend money, we teach him to take care of toys, to appreciate purchases, not to forget the molds in the sandbox and not to lose mittens in winter. Or, on the contrary, we calmly relate to the fact that everything is lost, broken, forgotten, and we just buy something new for him. It is these parental actions-attitudes that shape the child's future attitude towards money.

Several years ago I observed the following situation from the outside: two girls simultaneously bought a new model of a baby doll with a pot and special cereals. The doll could be fed with porridge, and she went to the pot. Separately, "porridge" was not sold. A girl from the same family immediately opened all the bags and spread a giant portion of porridge. The other looked at it with horror, realizing that the bags should be saved. She took such care of the treasured bags that, upon reaching adolescence, she found them in her old toys. These four-year-old girls already showed two opposite traits: extravagance and economy. This is already a small result of the action of parental attitudes: do not waste too much, there will be no other, or, conversely, seize the moment, live in your own pleasure.

Also, the attitude to money brings up the observation of how parents and loved ones manage resources. Do they easily throw away the weathered products or recycle them? Throw away unwanted clothes, attach them to those in need, or sell them? Children notice all these little things and shake them off. Whichever approach you take - so will your child.

An interesting situation occurs when parents from families with different economic attitudes simultaneously broadcast them to their children. Once a couple came to me for a consultation on the problem of parenting, for many years arguing about the unplugged lights and wasted water. My wife’s installation sounded something like this: “Why bore yourself with dim lighting and semi-darkness, if the payment for resources is minimal?”. The husband's attitude was the opposite: “if there is an opportunity to save money, you have to save in order to buy something valuable later”. In the wife's family, comfort and relaxation were valued, in the husband's family - raising the social and economic status through savings. The spouses faced a dilemma: which of the guidelines should be followed as the main one? Each defended his own: the husband saved up, the wife spent, and the children absorbed both. What attitudes the children who grew up in this contradiction will follow will be seen over time: either the influence of one of the parents will be stronger, or it will be some other position. We can never foresee in advance what a child will choose when equally important people profess different values. But the golden mean exists both between greed and economy, and between generosity and wastefulness, and the choice of how to raise a child remains with you.

Mine - yours - someone else's

All mothers know that among children aged two or three years, words such as "mine", "I will not give", "no" become almost the most used. It is then that the attitude towards property begins to form in children - so far, this role is played by the values ​​of the children's world, that is, toys. Hence the first manifestations of greed, when the little ones cling tightly to their buckets in the sandbox and are not going to share with anyone. This does not indicate greed as such, but that the child has entered a new period of his psychological development. "I will not give" means that the baby has already experienced the concept "mine - not mine", which is new for himself.

Some mothers mistakenly perceive it this way: the child was at first kind and shared, and then spoiled and became greedy. But the situation is, rather, the opposite. The child initially shared because he did not feel the boundaries between his own and someone else's, and only realizing that not the whole world belongs to him, he began to hold on to his own. And on how the parents relate to his "retention", such important qualities as future greed or generosity depend, whether the word "alien" will be forbidden or will be a reason to expand the boundaries of "one's own."

It is very important to teach a child, even a small one, not to take someone else's without the permission of the owner, to exchange toys with other children. It is also worth respecting the child's right to defend his own. "Misha loves this car very much, probably, he is not ready to share it yet, maybe you can play with our ball instead of the car?" - can tell the mother of "greedy" to the baby, already ready to change toys. It is the parents who must articulate the most important points of such interaction. If you are a mother of a child who heard from another kid "I will not give it!"

Unfortunately, often we ourselves allow children to take someone else's, forcing others to share, not our own, justifying his actions by the fact that he is still small. A taboo on someone else's property that is not formed in time leads to an unconscious permission to take someone else's property, especially when you really want to, and, accordingly, to theft.

First money

The abstract value of banknotes is not easy for children to understand. Often, kids offer their parents, if they have no money, to go to an ATM, where bills are given to everyone. By the age of four or five, they already understand that you can't buy anything in a store without money, they like to take change, rejoicing in its quantity, and not the face value. Then, already before school, they understand the differences in the value of bills, they can control a simple commodity-money exchange, and then they begin to accumulate "their" money.

A preschool child should be initiated into commodity-money relations gradually, but this must be done. At first, the child is interested in giving the bill to the seller instead of the parents, then taking the change. Take to give to parents, not take it for yourself. The main thing is that a child should not have his own money if he does not understand their economic value. If you let your child play with little things, there is nothing wrong with that. It is important that he does not perceive it only as a toy (for little things there should be a special place, a container), but also as a value of the adult world. And here an interesting question arises - whose money is it: a child's or a parent's?

The answer seems to be simple - who earned them, that they belong to. But some parents agree to consider them children. Modern grandmothers and grandfathers often give money to children just like that, give it for the holidays. On the one hand, this is a good opportunity for preschoolers to practice managing their money. However, there is one BUT that must be taken into account: a child cannot and should not dispose of money that he did not earn himself! Parents are responsible for children's money, so all decisions should be a subject of discussion. Parents, controlling how the child spends "their" money, can teach him the processes of financial management. Accumulate, plan the necessary purchases, spend on hobbies or momentary desires - you can try all the tactics, the main thing is to help the child make the right conclusions.

In the lower grades of school, the child has a new category of money - pocket money. The degree of independence of the child and the number of options for dealing with money are growing - now he has the opportunity to buy a bun in a buffet, ice cream after school, to borrow or borrow money. The question of how much money to give for pocket expenses, whether to give it at all, is decided by the parents, based on their financial situation. But if the child does not have small pocket money, he does not have the opportunity to learn these financial operations, to make the first mistakes, to gain experience. The child spends his pocket money himself, but from time to time it is important to be interested in where they go, at what speed and what conclusions the young financier draws.

Child theft

I think almost every adult can remember an episode from their childhood associated with theft. Someone stole buns in the store, someone stole money from their parents ... Therefore, a one-time "action" can be attributed to the category of children's experiments, but parents need to respond correctly to such an act. Correctly means treating it as something unacceptable, terrible and requiring your increased attention. Even if you treat this condescendingly, exactly as a child's experiment with the boundaries of the permissible, you must react strictly.

At the same time, not every appropriation of someone else's is theft - it must contain self-interest or intent. Accordingly, the child must already operate with the concepts of "mine" and "alien".

If a three-year-old child takes a wallet from her mother's bag while she is chatting with a friend, this is not theft, but an occasion to talk and learn the rules. If a teenager, who knows all the rules for a long time, does the same, it is already stealing. Anything illegally confiscated must be returned to the owner with an apology from the child or parents. Often, parents are ashamed to return the stolen goods, and they release the situation on the brakes, limiting themselves to swearing and edification. But according to the law, theft is considered a completed crime from the moment when the perpetrator seized someone else's property and got a real opportunity to dispose of it at his own discretion, regardless of whether he managed to realize this opportunity or not.

Why do children experiment with a stranger? There are many reasons for stealing: parents have not introduced a strict taboo on this; the child is fighting for power with his parents; the child wants to conquer the whole world, feeling that he is above all parental rules; he feels his own deprivation, uselessness and restores "justice"; he had an experience of misappropriation with impunity and enjoyed it. There are many reasons, but they often boil down to two opposite parental attitudes: connivance and disrespect for the child's personal boundaries. Theft always has psychological reasons, and to understand them correctly is very important for both parents and children. It is often a way of saying something to the world, to your parents, or to yourself. By understanding this language, you can teach a child to express himself in a socially acceptable way.

Should the child be paid money?

Parents often think about this question, but they all answer it differently. Usually, there are not many options for what to pay a child for: good grades at school, housework, and other "services." In life, the principle of payment is logical and simple: work can be called an item or service for which an outsider is willing to pay money, because for him it is a value. A person who washes windows in his own house certainly works, but does not earn, maximum, saves. But if he washes the windows in someone else's apartment, this is already earnings. However, parents often use completely different principles of material incentives for children.

Parents who pay for their studies believe that this increases their motivation to learn. “Studying at school is like a job, so we pay for it by introducing a system of bonuses and fines” - I come across such ideas quite often. Recently, however, I met a family who similarly encouraged their four-year-old daughter to go to kindergarten. The girl did not want to visit him, and her parents assumed that the garden was the same job for her as their professional work for father and mother. The girl reasonably noticed that they were making money there, but she was not. After this conversation, the parents agreed with the teacher so that she would pay the girl a “salary” at the end of each week, and she would start attending the kindergarten more willingly. Financial incentives have produced the desired result, but thanks to what? What conclusions does a child draw when he receives money for things that are not labor?

Attending kindergarten, studying at school, cleaning the house is not work, but life processes, the results of which bring benefits to the child, and not to society.

Parents who pay for this "work" substitute for concepts, drawing an extra material element into parent-child relationships. Often this does not lead to increased motivation, but to the accumulation of funds through dishonest play. In studies, this manifests itself as follows: twos are actively hidden, fives are assigned, second diaries are started, a lot of other tricks are invented. The child learns to cheat, not earn honestly. Motivation for learning is when it is interesting for me to study, I myself see the sense, purpose and perspective in this matter, I get pleasure from it. Tuition fees support the idea that it is not the child who needs the education, but his parents.

With housework, things are almost the same, but there is one peculiarity. All household chores can be roughly divided into three categories. The first two are work in your name (cleaning your room, washing and ironing your clothes, etc.) and work for the benefit of the family (washing the floor in the apartment, baking a cake, going to the store, sitting with your younger brother, etc.). etc.). These actions are not paid for moral and ethical reasons. The third category is serious and high-quality work for the good of the family, when the child is performing someone else's duty. Here you can already think about -payment.

For example, you have always used the services of window washers and you know perfectly well how much it costs and what quality the work should be. Your teenage daughter offers you her services for the same payment. She needs money, you need clean windows. In the process of washing, she learns how money is earned through physical labor, how fastidious the "owners" are, who check the quality and speed of work, how to negotiate the amount of payment, and how quickly this payment evaporates from the wallet ... And the daughter's work should be assessed as strictly as the labor of an outsider, or reduce wages for poor quality.

When it comes to paying or not paying a child for work, there are two criteria: the willingness to pay for this work (service) to an outsider and the child's duty / non-duty to do this work.

General financial awareness

Sometimes parents try to prolong the childhood of their children and hide from them the entire financial life of the family - spending, loans, plans. “Why would he know our difficulties? We will take care of everything, ”the parents think.

It is reasonable at the age of 9-10 to begin to devote the child to the financial situation of the family, that is, to explain, tell and comment. It is important for the child to see how you prioritize, what you are doing in order to improve your financial situation: do you earn more or spend less? What are the financial principles of your family? This awareness, on the one hand, brings the child down to earth, and on the other hand, makes him a participant in the family process. The clash of a child's consumerist position with the principle of reality and the capabilities of parents is very sobering to the child and helps to develop responsibility in him.

Recently, I witnessed a conversation between a thirteen-year-old girl and her mother. Making plans for the next year, the daughter asks: "Mom, will you give me money for a trip to a ballet competition in Germany?" Mom, in response, asks her daughter's previous plans, desires: "So the trip to your birthday in Paris is canceled?" - "No". - "And in the summer to the language camp?" - "No". - "And with us at sea with the whole family?" - "No". - "That is, during the year you plan to go to Germany, to Paris, to a foreign language camp and to the sea with everyone?" - says mom. And he hears in response: "Yes ... Do you think too much?". “Daughter, great wishes, but you know our financial capabilities,” says my mother. The girl thought about it. Mom is not against her desires, only they will have to be correlated with the financial reality of the family and prioritized.

When parents initiate their children into the principle of their decisions, children become participants in the events, and not just their weak-willed followers. It teaches the child to limit their desires, plan and rely on reality. How many people, in pursuit of their "want", have taken unbearable loans? The relationship between "I want - I can - I can not" determines the degree of maturity of a person as a person.

Money is not a toy for children

In order for children to grow up as financially successful people, it is necessary to instill in them the values ​​that, in your opinion, will help them in this from a very early age. Children are great imitators, they see and feel your true attitude towards money, and it becomes their value and a guiding star. In addition to the correct attitude towards other people's property, the presence of money management skills and general financial awareness, the child should realize that money is only a means, not an end in itself. As Horace said: "Money either dominates its owner or serves him." What role they will play in your child's life depends also on you.

Dear readers, do you shop? It's a strange question, isn't it? You go shopping, of course. And you can often observe what I witness, every morning going out for a walk with the dog and buying fresh bread at the stall. And what do I see every morning? I see a certain action and hear the words accompanying this action: - Come on, don't.

Words spoken with indulgence in voice. Somehow even said downrightly. Why don't you? But change is not necessary. Two, three kopecks. Five. Sometimes ten. I became interested in people who refuse to accept change. Here is their general, so to speak, collective portrait: mostly men; age - different, although old people, as a rule, do not disdain trifles; look - sloppy, clothes - cheap, some kind of synthetic; no haircut. But the look at the saleswoman is thrown when the phrase "change is not necessary" is pronounced - like mountain eagles. Expressive like that. Proudly touchy. Or contemptuously wrinkled. "Fi! To me? It’s not! ” It seems to be even insulting to this male buyer that the lady saleswoman could think such a thing about him.

Once for several evenings in a row I had the opportunity to observe customers in a Kiev grocery store. So - the results of my "research" were amazing! The higher the well-being of a person, the more seriously he takes money. Even to the money that men in synthetic shirts call “not money”. He will drive up a new BMW on a BMW, shine with glasses in a gold frame, choose products for three hundred hryvnias, pay at the checkout. And then he will neatly collect the change to the last penny, thank the saleswoman politely and drive off to his apartment with awesome renovation. But a man comes from a neighboring construction site, buys for seven and fifty and throws it over his shoulder to the saleswoman, leaving the cash register - "no change!" How he benefited the girl with fifty kopecks. Shikanul, it seems like ...

It seems to me that no other country in the world has such an attitude towards money. The relationship is illogical, because contempt for a trifle is mainly caused by those who are as far away in prosperity from the middle class as, for example, Mr. Leonid Kuchma is far from the level of intellectual development of Sir Charles Darwin. In this regard, I recall the story of a certain Tatiana, an old friend of our family, now living in the United States. Rather, the story of Tatyana's meeting with one person. But - in order ...

... The story began back in 1941. Tanya's grandfather Stepan was drafted into the army. He left behind the sobbing wife and two children, crossed himself and set off to meet his fate. He was captured, like millions of Soviet servicemen, in the first months of the war. Like the hero of the film "The Fate of a Man" he traveled around half of Germany, swung his pick in mines and quarries, walked along the edge of life and death, tried to escape several times, but was captured. Miraculously, he held out in a concentration camp until the arrival of the allied forces and was liberated by the Americans.

Being a man by no means stupid, he realized that he had every chance to get into no less harsh conditions of stay in his homeland for another fifteen years. And he decided not to return. Moved Stepan to America. And he began his long way up the stairs, leading to success. Whoever he did not work! Taxi driver, miner, dishwasher, cameraman, school bus driver ... Then he moved to Texas. With what exactly Stepan began his - history is silent. It is only known that Stepan became a millionaire twenty-three years after his arrival in America. One of the richest people in Texas. So that's it. The American Dream on the example of a guy from a Ukrainian village.

The years passed. The sons abandoned by Stepan in Ukraine had children. The sons themselves felt very comfortable. One is an engineer at the Arsenal plant, the other is a taxi driver. Quite good, by the standards of the Soviet Union, profession. And so they both receive letters from a distant and so terrible (after all, everyone walks with pistols there!) America. Their father writes to them that he is sick, that he wants to see them at home, that he earned a lot of money and created a business, but did not give birth to an heir in a foreign land. The father writes to them so that their mothers bow down for him. That he had no other way out in the distant forty-fifth, and now he will not be able to look into the eyes, once relatives, to look ...

In general, their father invited them to his place in Texas. One of the sons, who worked as an engineer, scratched his forehead and refused, realizing all the difficulty of his departure to the distant States. The second waved his hand and began to prepare. He was able to leave for Israel as a Jew (and what it cost him, a pure-blooded Ukrainian, to get the necessary certificates - a separate conversation) and from there rushed to America. Before leaving, he kissed his five-year-old daughter, his sobbing wife (as it turned out, he kissed for the last time) and left for the unknown ...

He emerged from the unknown after nineteen years in the form of a telegram addressed to his daughter. In it, a former Soviet taxi driver, and now a successful American businessman and oil tycoon, announced that he intended to visit his only daughter. Tanya worked as a waitress in a restaurant, was a girl beyond her years quick-witted and, which was especially appreciated in the union, punchy. At twenty-four I went to the Zhiguli, earning good money. But such an event - the arrival of a millionaire dad - could not but force the girl to exert all her strength and throw them into preparation for the arrival of her parent.

A friend borrowed a crystal chandelier, and a friend borrowed several paintings. In the restaurant Tatyana borrowed a service for twenty-four persons, and she had ordered innumerable delicacies in advance. Tanya threw all her savings to prepare for the arrival of dad. And he flew in. I hugged my daughter at the airport, marveled at the presence of her own (washed and polished to a mirror shine). He entered his daughter's apartment and opened his mouth in amazement. There are paintings on the walls, a crystal chandelier under the ceiling. Tanya herself is dressed in the latest fashion, in gold and pearls (the most difficult thing was to borrow a pearl necklace from a friend, but nothing - she gave up). Dad chuckled and went with his daughter to the market for groceries. Tanya paid for everything out of her own pocket, and dad constantly wrote something down in a small notebook.

Tanya's friends began to worry:
- What is he writing there?
Tanya threw up her hands:
- I'm used to, probably, in America, to write everything down ...
- Keep the change! - several times with a broad gesture Tanya refused from trifles in the markets. Dad looked strange, wrote it down. He grunted ...

Evening came. The closest friends gathered at the elegantly laid table. Some did not believe that this simple little man sitting next to Tanya was a millionaire. Not very much. What was special and striking about it was the gold watch. The rest is like an ordinary "foreign tourist". At the end of the feast, Tanin's father took the floor. He got up with a glass of champagne in his hand and quietly began:
- You know, I flew here and thought - how does my daughter live, what does she breathe? Is everything so bad with you as it sometimes seems to us from across the ocean? And I realized something. Now I will try to explain ...

He took out of his trousers pocket the same notebook in which he wrote down every purchase in the markets.
- Here ... The amount spent by my daughter on purchases timed to my arrival is astronomical. By my standards - absurdly large. In addition, as far as I understand, they were preparing for my arrival in advance, - my father looked around the walls, hung with paintings, and for a second it seemed to Tanya that he had guessed where the canvases came from.

You live richly! You are very rich, as I see it!
Everyone blushed. The effect has been achieved. They didn't hit their face in the dirt ...
- Another one surprised me immensely. My beloved daughter is so much that she does not take change in the market! - he looked around all those present as if he had said something surprising and impossible. They looked at him with incomprehension. Well, what then? Well shikanula. To me too ...

Strange Texas Millionaire Gets Serious:
- So, my dears. As long as you treat money this way, you will not live well. You will splurge, you will not pick up small change in stores, you will buy delicacies at exorbitant prices in order to “be no worse than others” ... Why are you doing this? From the breadth of the soul? An ordinary quiet dinner prepared in this kitchen, and not in a restaurant, would be enough for me. What you eat would be enough for me. I don't need to eat with silver and drink with gold. I count money. I will return the entire amount to Tanyusha, of course, but on my own behalf, I would not waste money like that. For the meeting!

He drank the champagne and sank into a chair. Many years have passed since that day, but none of those present at the dinner then forgot the speech of Tanya's dad. They told their children about it, and their children are now telling their children about it. And I, the son of one of the guests, pass on to you literally that monologue, spoken many years ago, surprised by our extravagance and desire to "boo". Tanya left for America and already there she fully understood the whole concept of rich people who count every cent ...

I think that where money is not counted, it simply does not exist... Internet forums are full of headlines calling for help for the starving children of Laos. Who writes to these forums? Those who have very little money. Those write who are poorly dressed, who have shoddy shoes. Those are on fire to help abstract children who consider their loaf of butter a delicacy at home. Who on the subway serves beggars most willingly? Those who have money - from paycheck to paycheck. Who doesn't pick up change in stores? Those who may not have money tomorrow at all. From whom we can most often hear the phrase - "This is not money!"? Not from wealthy people, oddly enough.

I have an acquaintance. The man is rich. So, I was somehow amazed when I saw how he, getting out of his car worth several tens of thousands of dollars, dropped a change on the asphalt. Bent over and collected! He did not wave his hand contemptuously, but collected it. Before that, bending over. The crown did not fall. And then I realized that this is why he is rich, that he treats money in a special way. Without the contempt of the stupid.

I wish you all to become rich. Start small - small c. Money is worth respecting. And when you start to respect them, they will start to respect you. And they will be friends with you. Strong, real friendship.

Now we have to consider extravagance, under which heading there are three points: 1) whether extravagance is opposite to greed; 2) whether extravagance is a sin; 3) whether it is a more serious sin than greed.

Section 1. IS WASTE GREED OPPOSED?

The situation with the first [provision] is as follows.

Objection 1... It seems that wastefulness is not the opposite of greed. Indeed, opposites cannot simultaneously be in the same subject. But some are wasteful and greedy at the same time. Therefore, wastefulness is not the opposite of greed.

Objection 2... Further, opposites are associated with the same things. Therefore, greed, being the opposite of generosity, is associated with some passions through which a person is interested in money, while extravagance does not seem to be associated with any mental passions, since it is not interested in money or the like. Therefore, wastefulness is not the opposite of greed.

Objection 3... Further, as already mentioned (II-I, 62, 3), sin receives its form primarily from the goal. But extravagance seems to be always determined towards some illicit purpose, for the achievement of which the extravagant squander their goods. And first of all, she is determined to pleasure, in connection with which [in the Scriptures] it is said about the prodigal son that “he squandered his property, living dissolutely” (). Hence, extravagance seems to be the opposite of moderation and indifference, not greed and generosity.

This is contradicted by said by the Philosopher that extravagance is the opposite of generosity and avarice, which we call greed.

I answer: in moral vices, the opposition to each other and virtue arises from excess and lack. But greed and extravagance differ in terms of excess and scarcity. Thus, as far as the attitude to wealth is concerned, the greedy one is redundant, because he loves him more than he should, while the wasteful one shows insufficiency, caring about him less than he should. As far as external action is concerned, wastefulness implies excess in giving and inadequacy in saving and acquiring, while greed, on the contrary, means insufficient in giving and excess in acquiring and saving. From what has been said, it is obvious that wastefulness is the opposite of greed.

Reply to Objection 1... Nothing prevents opposites from simultaneously being in the same subject, but in different relationships. In fact, things tend to get their name from what is in them in the first place. Then, just as in generosity, which watches over the middle, giving is primary, to which receiving and saving are subordinated, just as it is primary in greed and wastefulness. Therefore, one who is excessive in giving is called "wasteful", and one who is deficient in giving is called "greedy." But sometimes, as the Philosopher notes, it happens that a person who is deficient in giving does not show redundancy in receiving. And in exactly the same way, it sometimes happens that a person who is excessive in giving, and therefore is wasteful, at the same time, is also excessive in receiving. This can happen both in connection with some need, since, in excess in giving, he begins to lack the benefits for his own needs, which prompts him to improper acquisition, which is associated with greed, and because of the disordered mind when he gives no for the sake of something good, but out of contempt for virtue, and therefore does not at all care about where and how he gets it. Thus, he is [at the same time] wasteful and greedy, but in different ways.

Reply to Objection 2... Extravagance is associated with passions related to money, not as an excess, but as a lack of them.

Reply to Objection 3... The prodigal is not always excessive in giving because he strives for pleasures that are the subject of moderation, but sometimes because he is located in such a way that he does not care about wealth, and sometimes because of something else. However, most often he is inclined precisely to immoderation - both because, spending too much on other things, he loses fear of the costs of objects of pleasure, to which the desire of the flesh is directed, and because, not getting pleasure from virtuous goods, he seeking bodily pleasures. Therefore, the Philosopher says that "most of the motas are licentious."

Section 2. IS WASTEENING A SIN?

The situation with the second [provision] is as follows.

Objection 1... It seems that extravagance is not a sin. After all, the apostle said that "the root of all evil is the love of money" (). But it cannot be the root of the opposite extravagance. Therefore, wastefulness is not a sin.

Objection 3... Further, extravagance is characterized by redundancy in giving and inadequacy in caring for wealth. But this most befits the perfect one who fulfills the words of the Lord: "Do not worry about tomorrow" (), and also: "Sell your property and give it to the poor" (). Therefore, wastefulness is not a sin.

This is contradicted by that the prodigal son was guilty of his extravagance.

I answer: as it was already said (1), extravagance is opposite to greed, as redundancy is inadequacy, and both of them are opposite to the middle of virtue. But a thing is vicious and sinful insofar as it destroys the good of virtue. So it follows that extravagance is a sin.

Reply to Objection 1... Some explain these words of the apostle in such a way that they were told to him not about actual greed, but about a kind of habit of greed, namely, the lust for "filth," from which all sins arise. Others say that he was referring to a certain kind of greed associated with any kind of good, and in this case it is difficult not to notice that extravagance also arises from greed, since the wasteful one randomly seeks to obtain some transitory benefits, namely, to provide pleasure to others. or at least to satisfy one's own desire to give. But to those who examine these words with due diligence, it is obvious that the apostle speaks of the desire for wealth literally, since he precedes what he said with the words: "But those who want to get rich ..." (). Greed in this sense is spoken of as the "root of all evil" not because it gives rise to all evil, but because there is no such evil that could not arise from this greed. Therefore, extravagance is sometimes generated by greed, as when a person squanders a lot in order to gain favor in the eyes of certain persons from whom he hopes to gain wealth.

Reply to Objection 2... The Apostle obliges the rich to be willing to give and to impart their riches in the way that it should be done. The wasteful act differently, because, according to the Philosopher, “their gifts are not good and they give not for the sake of good and not in the way they should give. After all, sometimes they make rich those who should live in poverty, such as sycophants and buffoons, while they give nothing to worthy people. "

Reply to Objection 3... The excess of wastefulness is not connected with the amount given, but with the fact that this amount exceeds the due measure. Therefore, if necessary, the generous can give more than the wasteful. Therefore, we must answer that the one who gives away his possessions in order to follow Christ, and does not burden his mind with concern for the transient, is not wasteful, but completely generous.

Section 3. IS WASTEENING A GREATER SIN THAN GREED?

The situation with the third [provision] is as follows.

Objection 1... It seems that extravagance is a worse sin than greed. Indeed, through greed, a person harms his neighbor, denying him good things, while through extravagance, a person harms himself, in connection with which the Philosopher says that “to destroy your own state, by which you live, means to destroy your own. being ". But harming oneself is the gravest sin, according to the words [in Scripture]: "Who is evil for himself, for whom will he be good?" (). Therefore, extravagance is a more serious sin than greed.

Objection 2... Further, when disorder is associated with a meritorious circumstance, it is less sinful. But the disorder of greed is sometimes associated with a commendable circumstance, as is the case in the case of those who do not want to waste property so that later they do not have to take from others, while the disorder of wastefulness is associated with a condemned circumstance, since, as the Philosopher notes, as a rule, motes are loose ... Therefore, extravagance is a more serious sin than greed.

Objection 3... Further, the main moral virtue, as shown above (56, 1; 61, 2), is prudence. But extravagance is more contrary to prudence than greed, in connection with which [the Scripture] says that “the longed-for treasure and fat are in the house of the wise, and the foolish man wastes them” (); and the Philosopher says that "it is superfluous to give and not to take is the trait of the stupid." Therefore, extravagance is a more serious sin than greed.

This is contradicted by what the Philosopher said that "the prodigal is still much better than the stingy."

I answer: wastefulness itself is a less grievous sin than greed, for three reasons. First, the fact that greed is more different from its opposite virtue, since giving, the measure of which exceeds the wasteful, is inherent in generosity to a greater extent than saving, the measure of which exceeds the greedy. Secondly, the one that, as stated in the fourth [book] of Ethics, the wasteful one helps many, and the greedy one helps nobody, not even himself. Thirdly, the one that is easier to heal from extravagance. Indeed, wastefulness, being repugnant to old age, diminishes with age, and besides, it, causing senseless spending, quickly leads the wasteful to poverty and want, depriving him of the opportunity to exceed the measure in giving. Moreover, extravagance is more easily converted to virtue because of its greater resemblance to it. Greed, as shown above (118, 5), is incurable.

Reply to Objection 1... The difference between the wasteful and the greedy is not that the former sins against himself and the latter against the other. Indeed, the prodigal sins against himself, spending that which can help him survive, and against others, spending that which can help others. This fully applies to the clergy distributing church benefits, who rob the poor, who are befitting these [benefits], if they allow themselves wasteful spending. And in the same way, the greedy sins against others when he is insufficient in giving, and against himself when he is insufficient in spending, in connection with which [the Scripture] says: “God gives man wealth ... but God does not allow him to use it. this "(). However, the excess of the wasteful not only harms him and others, but also brings them some benefit, while the greedy does not benefit either others or even himself, since he does not use his own benefits for his own benefit.

Reply to Objection 2... In speaking of vices in general, we judge them according to their corresponding nature; so, in relation to extravagance, we draw attention to the fact that it uses wealth excessively, and in relation to greed, that it excessively protects it. Thus, when someone wastes too much because of his intemperance, he combines many vices in himself, and therefore, as stated in the fourth [book] of the Ethics, such wasteful ones are considered the most bad people. When a stingy, or greedy, refrains from taking from another, then although in itself it seems commendable, nevertheless, from the point of view of motivation, this is reprehensible, since he does not want to take from others because he does not want to give them.

Reply to Objection 3... The discernment that directs all virtues is opposed by all vices. Consequently, if a vice is repugnant only to prudence, then by virtue of this it can be considered less serious.

All people want to live in prosperity, but not everyone succeeds, because they are controlled poverty consciousness.

There are reasons for this, but our material is not about that.

Today we will consider 9 signs that will help determine how the consciousness of poverty manifests itself.

So read what thoughts and behavior program people for lack of money.

Money Laws

→ What you need to do to move to a higher income level

→What is the relationship between your value and money

→ How to activate your cash flow

By clicking the "Instant Access" button, you consent to the processing of your personal data and agree with

What is poverty consciousness

Awareness of poverty is a type of thinking when a person is confident in limited resources of the universe, which are not enough for everyone.

The main characteristics of poverty consciousness:

• Fear of the future
• Lack of internal security
• Pessimistic attitude - a person expects the onset of something bad,
• Distrust of the world and the universe,
• Fear of parting with money
• Limited vision of resource flow.

In this regard, appropriate habits are formed.

We have compiled a list of common signs of a predominant consciousness of poverty.

If you see in yourself or your friends other signs that are not in this list, we would be grateful if you share them in the comments.

9 signs of poverty consciousness

# 1 Feeling secure depends on the amount of money

A person only feels safe when he has money.

The more money, the greater the level of security.

Present fear of losing financial security and work as its source.

Because of this, many tolerate the antics of an inadequate boss, a quarrelsome team, even if the salary is small and the working conditions leave much to be desired.

Better this way than completely without a livelihood.

The feeling of security is on the inside, not on the outside.