It seems to me that it alleviates poverty related depression, if one has a clear overview, what decisions in my life are a money related compromise and what decisions are those of a true, sincere, me.
Some decisions are good for both, the sincere me and my monetary situation, but not all of them.
For example, I chose to study IT in stead of physics due to monetary reasons and I was lucky enough to study IT in a form of "computer engineering" in faculty of Physics and Chemistry. Later I came to a belief that I got lucky that I chose the IT, because I probably would have failed in physics due to deep interest in software development. By mere chance my first, and probably best in some narrow contexts, job was software development, not hardware development (as I first planned) and that sort of life experience lead me to a conclusion that in stead of IT master studies I should learn pure mathematics instead. So, after obtaining the 3-year course diploma (equivalent to the bachelor's degree) in IT, I enrolled to the bachelor's studies of pure mathematics in stead of enrolling to master studies in IT. While working in one town and attaining school in another one that is about 180km apart from the first, I failed miserably. Nonetheless, I learned some things that helped me a lot in later work-life and felt satisfied that I was able to attend some courses that I did not have time to attend, while I was studying IT.
So, it is possible to make a choice according to monetary considerations and then, by mere chance, get lucky to find one's true life's calling. (Here's a strange article that is surrounded by strange advertisements, but for some weird reason, as of 2013_04_27 the text is pretty compelling.) I LOVE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT!!! (but hate most of the software industry from the bottom of my heart).
I find that to make sense of it all, it helps to ask oneself, if decision X is made due to monetary reasons or due to some other reason.
For example, would I live in this town, if money was not an issue? I would probably NOT live in Tartu or Kuressaare even if I had no problems with money, because there is just not enough people, who care about the same things that I care about and if I wanted to find a date, regardless of the gender of the person, whom I meet, then those towns just don't cut it. Not in the terms of population size, nor in the terms of mentality, i.e. the smaller the town, the more likely it is to be like some countryside, where people hate gays and are proud Nazis.
Would I live in Tallinn, if money were not an issue? I guess that I would like to complete my masters studies here, because I found out that at least some people at the Tallinn University of Technology really have some unique things to teach and some of it, what they teach there, is probably very useful for fulfilling my non-monetary, true, dreams. The town is a bit small, but, unlike the Kuressaare and Tartu, it's not that bad that I would have to run from here. This town actually does have some things to offer, so in a way, it could be considered as a "home base under the world radar", provided that contacts to greater communities in London, Berlin, Hamburg, Paris exist. As I'm a libertarian, I'm not so fond of all those state interventions that take place in Finland and Sweden (and Estonia, in that matter), although due to the monetary reasons Helsinki is a place, where I probably strive to move.
Would I live in a flat, if money were not an issue? Depends. I hate to do household related maintenance work. It's so darn nice, if I can just walk out of the house during winter and find that someone else has cleared all side-walks from snow. For comparison: at my parent's house it's useful, if I take a shovel to help my parents a little by removing some of the snow from the terrace, because it's self-service there and that sort of help happens to be practical.
If money were not an issue, one could hire maids and alike, but my philosophical approach is that human labour should be spared, which means that there's always an incentive to automate things and minimize the amount of human labour. I guess that if money were not an issue, I would live in a differently designed apartment building. A kind of building, where it's OK to have a loud disco all night long without any of the neighbours ever hearing it due to higher quality construction standards. The building would be covered with solar cells and have it's own wind turbine(s) at the top and it would use geothermal heat pump for compensating heat losses of the entire building. Due to the fact that in this, fictional, contemplation the money is not an issue, the solar cells and turbines are for making good use of the space, not for avoiding the monopolies of power station owners.
If money were not an issue, then the issue would be the health deterioration, e.g. the occurrence of "natural" death and traumas. I would work on preventing that. Probably I would never achieve the prevention of "natural" death, but I could do some necessary, helpful, first steps towards achieving that goal. As biological systems are very complex, then understanding those systems would probably have to be done by using mathematics and software. Measurements and biochemistry is related to physics, nanotechnology, which in turn depend on mathematics and software.
One might think that if one picked the money problem to be the first step in solving the important problems, then everything would be on track, but money is a tool for collaboration. As long as people need each others' services, there is a necessity for some points to be exchanged, e.g. money. Even in "paradise", where the "natural" death does not occur and food, shelter, computer hardware and internet are for free.