I mean, you have to wonder if it really matters? Obviously lying is bad, etc etc, but personally, I just evaluate people's ideas on their own merit. Especially in terms of FIRE - it's math, it either works or it doesn't. Ideas are either logically sound or they aren't. Someone saying "ditching cars saves tons of money and makes you healthier" is right, whether they personally grocery shop with a bicycle or a private jet.
Personally, that level of deception just seems like way too much work. In order to fudge expenses, you'd have to track your expenses accurately in order to know what to fudge. Then keep track of what you're fudging and not slip up. I guess you'd do, like, an Excel formula to import real values into a new spreadsheet and add a fudge factor to each category? But you'd have to remember, like "Okay, I take 10% off my groceries, 25% off my transportation....". What a huge hassle for zero benefit.
It just seems like it's a topic that comes up fairly regularly in finance discussion circles, but it just seems pointless.
MMM is about way more than the math though. It's about how to get to numbers where the math works; it's highly philosophical. In a nutshell, he claims that not only do you not need to buy much in order to be happy, but that buying more rarely increases happiness. So when he buys more, one has to wonder which part of the philosophy has shifted for him.
I'd live differently if I had a significant extra money, I'd spend more. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. And I'd love to see MMM explore how he makes those choices now that he has way more money than he needs (so saving for the sake of security isn't an issue) and has loosened the reins a bit. I think that would be helpful for a lot of people. How do you balance maybe buying a luxury here and there without letting it snowball? How do you allow some additional comforts and excitements without spiraling into hedonistic adaptation?
It's especially interesting to me because a refusal to be completely transparent seems almost certainly to come from knowing it would hurt the blog business. But if MMM truly doesn't need the blog money, why does he care? Yet is seems fairly clear to me that he does. So what are we supposed to surmise from that?
Also, as far as how difficult it would be to fudge the numbers, it wouldn't need to be complicated at all. Just make them up.
Groceries: $155
Gifts: $15
Clothing:$10
pet care: $70
electric: $100
gas: $40
rent (incl. water) : $2100
vacation/travel:$150
fuel: $15
metro:$10
insurance: $55
car sinking fund: $25
home improvement/repair/decor:$10
misc: $15
haircuts: $15
medical: $15 (co pays)
...
There. Entirely made up. I don't even have a pet. Most of those numbers weren't based on my spending plus or minus something. They are just what might be reasonable or possible for someone.
I mean, I think it's been pretty well established by research in general that buying tons of stuff doesn't lead to happiness - that's not some revolutionary thing MMM (or any other blogger) came up with.
As far as fudging numbers, the problem comes with consistency. Fudging something now means you need to remember your fudge in the future. If you forget and start making mistakes, people will call you out on it really quickly. If you say you spend $155 on groceries now, then six months from now you say you spend $300, that's not going to slip by unnoticed. So if you're going to go that route, you'd need to come up with some sort of system to keep your lies straight.
You know what I find really interesting? How many people, even on FIRE forums, are still linking spending levels with happiness. People just CANNOT seem to let go of the idea that low spending = shitty life. Therefore, if someone says they spend little but live a happy fulfilling life, they're LYING. And yet this is one of the most central tenets of the FIRE concept as a whole. I have never had that problem myself, so it's pretty tough for me to wrap my head around it, but I suspect people use it to rationalize their own over-consumption and laziness (especially re: driving, cooking, and so on). Example: "Groceries just cost a certain amount, spending less than that means eating garbage, and it's definitely not that I'm just too fucking lazy to cook and plan!"
But, and this is the point I tried and failed to make earlier, MMM was a leading champion of what you are saying and yet he's now spending more. Why? If it's not bringing additional happiness, why is this guy who spent years and many a blog post examining this concept, spending more? Did he just get lazy? (If so, that suggests that keeping things locked down isn't quite as simple as his schtick claims.) Did he find that in specific, targeted ways, spending more can increase happiness? (This is the case for me, and what I suspect happened with Pete.)
Shit is my life is complicated right now, it's a crazy time of year, we are traveling a ton, and my anxiety is in a not-great place--a situation that is unlikely to resolve itself for at least another month due to the things pushing the anxiety spike. I'm giving thought to---Gasp!--bringing in a housekeeper for a one time deep clean early in January. This is anathema to mustachianism. But I suspect that doing so absolutely would purchase me some additional happiness. Just thinking about it feels like a weight lifted. I need some help and I am very fortunate enough (due in part to things like not having a regular housekeeper, even though in many circles that's seen as a basic need.) to be able to purchase that help. That said, I'm not just doing it. I'm thinking about it. I'm in the process of making a carefully examined decision. Part of that is telling myself that this WILL be a one-time thing if I do it. It won't bleed into, "well, it's cheaper per hour if I book a regular service, and we can afford once a month, and...". Is that lazy, or an excuse for over consumption? Not by my definition.
So I no longer buy (ha!) the concept that money doesn't buy happiness. Sometimes, it does. And I think we all, even the most frugal among us, acknowledge that on some level because we don't live in vans down by the river eating beans and rice and roadkill and wearing clothes dug out of landfills. Maybe we purchase some moderately priced spices to add to our beans. That $10/year buys is some happiness we wouldn't have if we choked down unflavored beans every day. The difference is where we draw the line on the continuum: [spices for beans]-----------------------[Kardashian extravagance]. By refusing to acknowledge that in focused, considered levels money does by happiness, and to discuss how to draw that line and what questions we should ask ourselves before an expense, it kind of makes the entire concept bullshit. If you [global] are spending money on ANYTHING that truly brings you happiness--which we ALL do, then you are tacitly acknowledging that money can buy happiness. The real issue is how, and on what.
I know that, nearly everyone knows that, and Pete knows it. And he's doing it. As far as I can tell, he's doing it responsibly and thoughtfully and carefully and well. But he can't quite say he's doing it because it waters down the badass persona that was the hallmark of his success.
There's a lot of room between "spending only the bare minimum buys you as much happiness as money every will and everything else is wasted" and "I couldn't possibly spend less than I do know because what I spend now is comfortable which I translate to mean any less would make my life catastropically sucky, so I won't spend less and I won't examine any existing or future expense."