When I was a child, I kept all of my money in a piggy bank. If I wanted to purchase something, I took what I needed from that bank. Of course, if I did not posses that money, I couldn’t buy what I wanted. My parents stressed to me the importance of saving my chore and birthday allowances so I would be able to buy whatever I needed without having to borrow from another source.
Because of this upbringing, I have always perceived “money” as a physical entity. Thus, I have never felt an overwhelming urge to spend it freely like others might. But, credit cards make buying now and paying later a simple reality for economically sound countries like the United States. With the average American carrying about 4 credit cards in their wallet (according to this 2012 census by Statistic Brain), it is no wonder how consumers are tempted to spend so much more than what they have.
Debt for individuals and bankruptcy for larger groups are the ultimate results of spending more money than what is being earned. Brazil knows this better than most; for almost 50 years, the country’s economy was in shambles because of such reckless spending. In 2011, this radio broadcast by This American Life recounted the financial struggles that enveloped the country after its government decided to produce too much money during the 1950s. Excess currency created up to 80% inflation, which made even necessities like milk cost almost two times as much as their original value.
In today’s times, it is not Brazil, but Japan that is about to suffer an economic crisis. Despite Japan having a public debt that, according to The New York Times, is twice the size of its economy, the Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has announced to pump an economic stimulus of 12 trillion yen ($136 billion) into the country. This will most likely lead to the same economic problems that plagued Brazil for decades. The yen will become so devalued that no one will want to invest in Japan. The prices of goods will soar, leaving the Japanese people unable to pay for the basics. When will the global community learn that taking more than what you have will lead to severe consequences?
The lesson to be learned is that money should be handled in a way that prevents overspending. The island of Yap is quite famous for its monetary system consisting of giant stone coins. According to Milton Friedman’s essay “The Island of Stone Money,” the islanders considered their currency to be so valuable because it was a “concrete manifestation of wealth.” The stones had to be carved, then transported over the ocean some 400 miles to the island. This currency worked because the people of Yap had a physical connection to their money. Simply put, if the stone coin did not exist, then the wealth did not exist. I think this world of credit cards could learn a lot about economics from the people of Yap.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
You are off to a roaring start, Rachel! This opening of yours is clear, poignant, and best of all, very specifically detailed. I love that you are starting us from the comfortable (childlike?) premise that money must be tangible; we all know we’ll soon be plunging into unfathomable abstraction. What better way to sense the height of the diving board than to take us to the edge and let us feel it with our toes.
Just one technical note to help you keep your language clear. You don’t mean that the concept of money is a tangible object. Tangible concepts are oxymorons. You could sensibly say that your concept is that money is a tangible object. Or that you find it hard to think of (conceive of) money as anything other than tangible. OK? Sorry.
Awesome!! I thought the personal intro would hinder my writing.
It would have if it hadn’t been pertinent, Rachel, but the anecdote helps us think concretely, which is precisely the right note to strike for an essay that will soon deal in abstractions. You start by reminding us exactly how we all learned about money: as something to hold in our hands that could be traded for candy and movies.
Could I have more feedback on this?
Feedback provided, —DSH
OK, Rachel! Your turn for torture!
P1. —possess
[This might still be a strong and appropriate opening for your Rewrite, Rachel, but the TUE FEB 11 assignment is for an analytical essay, not a personal reflection so its goals are different. Consider a new approach for the new assignment.]
P2. —”freely as others might”
—No comma after thus, none after but
—You mean for Americans, not for the country [you could say for residents of economically sound countries] [you could say a simple reality IN economically sound countries]
—There are five infelicities in your final sentence, Rachel. You do want to write felicitously, don’t you?
1. the “with . . . it” construction
2. the “average American . . . their” mismatch of singular and plural
3. the “census” where you mean “survey” [even if Statistic Brain analyzed the US census, it can’t be the “census by Statistic Brain”]. It is a survey, right?
4. the “no wonder HOW” instead of “no wonder THAT”
5. the “so much more than what they have”
As for content, argument, and structure: you’re proceeding rationally from P1’s “I was raised to spend from savings, not on credit” to “Americans live on credit.” It’s not too early (in fact it’s getting late) to tell us why you’re making this comparison. If you want me to read P3 (it is the job of P1 and P2), I need to know it will be worth my while. You’ve spent the capital you earned in P1; reading P2 evens the score; I don’t owe you P3. Make me.
P3. —Remember: 5. the “so much more than WHAT they have”? You do it again here: “more money than WHAT is being earned.” Stop doing it.
Your content: Debt creates problems. Are they caused by currency? What about the nature of money makes this happen, if anything? What is the relationship between your content and the central themes of the story of “The Invention of Money”?
A problem you must fix if you revise this post: 80% inflation is meaningless without a time span. Over ten years it’s ordinary. Over one year, it’s disturbing. Over a month, it would be catastrophic. What was the case in Brazil?
P4. —has announced to pump?
Remember 5: ? You do it again here: ” taking more than what you have”
I admire this paragraph’s claim that Japan will suffer what Brazil suffered, Rachel. Be careful that your claim is precise though. Economic stimulus isn’t necessarily inflationary. Printing a fresh 12 trillion yen—instead of collecting it in taxes—is a method of stimulus though that does have a history of wreaking havoc.
P5. Well this is wordy: The lesson to be learned is that money should be handled in a way that prevents overspending.
You mean: The lesson is don’t overspend. (We could compromise on the word count.)
The rest of your paragraph is quite impressive, Rachel. Saving the Yap for your conclusion is a perfect strategy. You’ve spent the essay promoting the simple fiscal policy of spending from savings, not borrowing, and now you’ve offered us a strong example of an economy in which the wisdom of that policy is illustrated. I like it very much.
Getting back to my P3 caution, think how you could indicate earlier that you know of an economy that works on the Rachel Principle, and that you’ve seen both the brilliance of following it and the peril of ignoring it. You don’t have to mention the Yap (though you might) or give away the sweepstakes in your introduction, but you do want to invest us (as sweepstakes do) by showing us the game and then doling out the playing pieces.
Feedback for me? I always appreciate it.
Do you dare go back to read your first draft from Comp 1?
You’re SO much better now.
I looked back alright. Wow.
I’m not sure what you mean by the “with . . . it” construction you mentioned in P2. And, I’m also confused about the “so much more than what they have” in P2. Is there a grammar error I’m missing?
“With” is always a dangerous opening rarely used correctly, and “it” is another, usually redundant pronoun when it opens a clause. Together, they’re a particular mess. Consider that the sentence really means:
You use that same illegal
whatrepeatedly.Other than that, you don’t miss much, Rachel. 🙂