Sometimes its not so much the extra inch of ground clearance, as the extra length of the contact patch, and higher tire mid point, that make a 37 able to roll over things that stop a 35, etc.
The longer the contact patch, the better the forward traction (Think "Tank Tread").
Obviously, for 40's, its even MORE the case, etc....but to RUN 40's, you spend MUCHO dinaro on drivetrain mods to handle them, whereas 37's seem to be a reasonable point of diminishing return.
I also believe you will NEVER lift enough to clear EVERYTHING anyway...and believe in armor over lift as a priority, and as an insurance policy for getting to work again Monday morning, etc.
I like big heavy tires if I'm off camber, as they lower my COG, and I dislike crazy high lifts because they raise my COG....and I'm off camber A LOT around here....typically when loaded with equipment I have to haul into remote locations, etc....which makes it even worse.
I know what you mean about the trade off between a wide, stable track, and the damn wheel bearings dealing with the added leverage. sigh.
So - only you can truly prioritize the economy vs the capability issues....as there IS no universally "right" answer.
You can do more with 37's, but it costs more for the tires, and, between 35's and 37's, the added rolling resistance goes from slight, to significant....costing more for gas.
I look at it like OK, I bought a rig to offroad, I am driving 1,000's of miles to GET TO places to offroad (And to work, so I can PAY for it...), how WELL do I want it to offroad?