Free But Not Cheap!

Is something to be viewed and treated as having more value because it was purchased with money? My wife received an annoying email this morning, saying a birthday wish was appreciated notwithstanding that it was free (generated by a free card site). The word “free” was in upper case. We had a similarly annoying experience last year during Christmas. Some gifts were re-cycled and the recipient, though only a 7 year old, made a big fuss about how he thought it was a re-cycled item. I told wifey that must have been a point discussed in home of that 7 year old as I thought kids would just like or dislike a gift, regardless of whether such a gift was purchased new or re-cycled. This is especially so seeing that the re-cycled item was still nicely packed (it was never opened). If it was still a very good item and very suited to the recipient, what did it matter? It has everything to do, I think, with this materialism generated chasing of new goods. To be good, an item must be new, just hot off the oven and newly placed on the shelf. It must have been preferably, paid for by the giver. This brand of consumerism is juvenile. Like I blogged a few days ago, the gift of preparing breakfast for mom is a much better gift on mother’s day than a treat to a restaurant. If as a child I gave mom something say, a bowl of shark’s fin soup (not that I think that is something great, but just to emphasise the point) which I received from someone else but I did not eat immediately, would that bowl of soup be of less value than a bowl of the same stuff I treat her to in a restaurant? Is it any less valuable because I did not purchase it myself? Very annoying indeed, that email was.