I think this is pretty much the same as "penny wise, pound foolish", which is certainly not a new concept.
I don't think the boot story is intended an example of "frupidity" at all, and I think it's pretty judgmental to include it in that category, as written and especially because it includes a strong implication that it's not referring to stupid choices, but to desperate ones. The point of that story, as far as I can tell, is that you first need to actually have $50 to buy the nicer boots. But if you need boots to wear to work tomorrow and you only have $10 in your pocket, you have no choice but to buy the boots you can afford. You can't go barefoot to work for a year until you've saved up the $50. So you buy the shoes that cost more in the long run, because you can't afford to make the better decision, even if you know it is the better decision. No different than not being able to buy products in bulk in order to get down the per-use price, because you don't have the money up front. You could buy a year's supply of laundry detergent for half the per use price, but then you wouldn't have money leftover to buy food. So instead you buy the smallest (and cheapest total, but most expensive per use) container of laundry detergent, so that you can also afford to buy the smallest packages of diapers, toilet paper, rice, and beans. That's not Frupid; it's practical and shows how--as the boot story mentions--sometimes you need money to save money.
It would be frupid if someone had a choice--had access to the $50--and still bought the $10 boots. But much of the time, that's not the case. If someone is eating ramen for three meals a day, it may be because they are cheap and 'frupid'. They could afford to add in some salads and rice and beans and fresh fruit, but they choose not to because they can save an extra $1/day. But it may also be that in order to get enough calories, they eat the cheapest option they can find, even though it is worse and ultimately more expensive in the long run. Because they need to eat *today* so they can't really factor in their blood pressure and future medical costs. That's not a luxury they can afford.
I think it's important to make the distinction. The same act may or may not be "frupid" depending on the context and underlying factors.
All that said, I'll nominate my landlords. They made their brand new tenant deal with a broken stove for a couple months--until it reached the point where I was making very pointed calls to the PM and mentioning setting up an appointment for legal aid. They burned up a great deal of good will, and now things that I could probably fix but would be a minor headache, I'm unlikely to do when I can just submit a work order and not have the headache. And, once I applied enough pressure, they finally ended up repairing a 23 year old stove rather than replacing. A new stove as soon as it was clear that a fix wasn't going to be fast would have made their tenant far more inclined to be patient, help out, give them the benefit of the doubt, etc., and likely they are going to have to replace the stove soon anyway. Similarly, they know the french door seals have failed. There is evidence of past damage--repaired badly--so this is not new problem but of course it gets worse over time. They had told us they would replace this summer. But when the time came, the PM told us they are no longer going to replace them because they priced out replacements and they were too expensive. So water will continue to leak, ruining the trim and potentially more--the door frame, the floor boards, the carpet and padding, the wood floors in front of the other set of doors. Because they don't want to spend the money to fix what they know is broken and have known for quite a while is broken (giving them time to save). And given the rent we pay and what we know about their work situation, these are not people living paycheck to paycheck just covering basics.