and she said.. "how you interpret the dream is probably more important than the dream itself"

I was in Seattle for the weekend, and just the change in venue had me thinking about the economics of things - what is important to different people in different places, and what their spending thresholds are. While I was there, I had a desire to purchase something. Not so much a souvenir or anything, but more a token of the trip. A nice hat. Some shoes. With so many hipsters around, it was hard not to stare at all the accessorizing - nose rings, ear rings, face rings, belt buckles, bags, bikes, etc, onward, upward, to consumerist bliss and beyond - and desire a little piece of the pie yourself. I didn't do it, though, because I am keenly aware of the fallacy that money spending can create happiness. Well, let's not blame the money this time; Materialism does not solve sorrow. So I saw some nice shoes and some cool hats and I thought about owning them, and that was nice, and then I went home. Today, I see that Jaime has put it quite nicely, and better than I could:

Just thinking about [a $25,000 windfall] can be fun in itself. When you have a little money to play with, you can fantasize and own everything, but once you spend it, you only own what you bought.

That statement in itself is a testament to the power of the human mind and spirit, ultimately triumphant over any mundane earthly things we may toil to create, like money or even art. Money buys art and art buys representation, but it's all just a model for the intangibility of existence.