I think the whole argument is a bit silly (and in my opinion it's no one's business but my own what I spent money on or why, so I don't care one way or the othe

I think the whole argument is a bit silly (and in my opinion it's no one's business but my own what I spent money on or why, so I don't care one way or the other about this particular point), but let's be realistic. Assuming you want to simplify spending choices to this degree, be realistic: If it's Netflix, it's closer to $10 a month for unlimited usage. If it's a latte, it's more like $4 per day. If you only buy one latte, and only on weekdays, that's in the neighborhood of $86 per month. So if you accept the idea that you should select the thing that brings you the most "joy" for the lowest expenditure, then unless you plan to get Netflix and then just not use it at all (or if there's nothing on it you want to watch), it's clearly providing more value for a lower investment. As I said... the whole thing strikes me as a bit silly and seriously presumptuous, but it's also pretty unambiguous which option "wins" if you consider it past "x and y cost the same" without bothering with the frequency of payment for both of them.