Flawed logic right here. Of course I get your point, it's a really good idea to set aside some money for emergencies. The main substance of your post is fine, good idea and all. But I take issue with this line quoted above. You cannot consider money "wasted" if it was on an experience, service, or object that brought you happiness or enjoyment. Otherwise we'd all buy the simplest, cheapest food you can find that has no flavour but exactly gives you the required nutrients, minerals and vitamins. We'd all live in much smaller houses, because who needs space for things, right? Anything else would be a "waste" of space and therefore money.

Of course, I'm not saying go and spend all of your money on a second-hand Porsche. Live within your means, spend sensibly, but splashing out once in a while is fine as long as it doesn't become a regular habit that takes its toll on your finances. Money spent on things not strictly necessary is by no means "wasted" money.