1. Money always seemed like such a simple concept when growing up. 2. As a kid, all I thought I needed money for was food, clothes, and and the toys I wanted growing up. 3. It was so simple back then, but money is much more of a complex concept. 4. As you grow older you start to realize how much you need money and how life can depend on it at times. 5. In today’s society though everyone needs everything now. 6. Its all about convince and speed. 7. I remember getting a ten dollar bill from my grandparents one day and saving it for what seemed like forever. 8. I can’t do that now. 9. Everything I earn goes right into the bank never to be seen again until the day i swipe a card and i see the amount dwindle away. 10. Seeing that number go down every time you purchase something is truly saddening to see. 11. We don’t see our money anymore. 12. Its in a bank somewhere and all we see is numbers. money is fragile, and could be gone in a second. 13. We put so much trust in banks to hold our money. 14. To not be able to see the money physically is kinda crazy. 15. It makes you start to think where it actually is. 16. Being able to hold that money as a kid and thinking it was so simple is a think of the past in our fast pasted modern world.
In The Bubble Bursts on e-currency Bitcoin the crash of an internet money currency sounds quite crazy. The concept of an internet money that has no backing or involvement in the government sounds very risky to me. This is the epitome of a currency based upon trust. All you have is a series of numbers saying you have so many bitcoins. If something were to go wrong you could have nothing is seconds. Its stated that with money you can spiral downwards forever where as with bitcoins there is a bottom. This system seems very flawed and doomed to me.
The Curious Case of Japan’s Economic Stimulus is a very interesting article. The ability of one man to be able to spike a countries economy back into balance astounds me. I find it crazy that the balance of an economy can be swayed that simply. This shows how fragile money is yet how important it is also.
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 
Can I please get some feedback on this!
Feedback provided, —DSH
Sure, Luke. As you may know (or not), I comment as I read, not after, so you can see how an engaged reader reacts to your argument as it unfolds. In the notes, P and S represent Paragraph and Sentence. I’ve numbered some of your sentences.
P1/S1. Your first sentence says money grew up. Do you know how to fix this?
S2. Your tone is conversational, Luke, which is perfect for conversation (!), not so much for academic essays. You don’t have to be formal or sound like an art critic, but your language needs to be careful and not slangy. And not wordy. The rest will take care of itself. Eliminate the redundancy of “As a kid” and “growing up.” “All I thought I needed money for” is two steps too many for that thought. “Growing up, I thought money was for necessities: candy and toys.”
S3. You’re repeating yourself already. “Seemed simple” appears in S1 and S3. Your new idea in S3 is that it isn’t. Combine S1, S2, and S3, please.
Is anything missing?
S4. 2nd person “you” is banned. “As we mature,” Or, combine S4, S5, and S6.
Are you OK with this, Luke? If you’re going to commit to the light touch and personal reflections, make the best of that choice. Keep yourself in the comparison. Not “today’s society” and “it’s all about convenience,” which are woefully vague and disembodied.
S7. Your anecdotes are not consistent. Money was simple then: turn it into toys. But in S7 you’re a saver. And now (S8, S9) you deposit checks so you can withdraw or debit impulsively. Yet you’ve complained that money is “more of a complex concept” now. Seems you’ve simplified your relationship with it in fact.
S10. Listen harder to what you say: “Seeing that number . . . is saddening to see.” Of course, lose the “you.”
S11. You’re back to “we.”
S12. Fails for Grammar: It’s. Did you hide S13 in here? [numbers. money] (?)
S13. Now that I read 13, 14, etc., I see you’ve spent seven sentences to write one. Combine S11 through S15. Then close with S16.
There’s a chance here to make a further point, which you hinted at earlier, about “watching the amount dwindle away,” something else we used to do physically by checking our wallets. Now most of us just swipe and never check the balance (until the card’s declined)!
Please understand I’m not telling you how to write, Luke. I’m modelling a technique for you that you can reject. But I am telling you not to write like P1. For example, short sentences of the type you seem to prefer are perfectly fine, provided they all say something purposeful.
I think you’ll agree that the progress of the argument in the above is clearer than it is in yours, where it’s hard to tell what you miss about the old days, and even more difficult to see what it is you regret about modern money. The choices I’ve made for you in the above might not be your choices, but I have committed to them.
One last note, Luke. Your Rewrite will be more analysis, less personal reflection, than the first Money post. So observations about how you felt about money and the way your mind changed while you were studying the Friedman article and NPR broadcast, etc., should not appear.
Do you find this helpful? Bullying? Unpersuasive? I’d love to know.
It was quite helpful and and I thank you for being so in depth with it. I will take all of it into account for the rewrite.
Thank you so much for your response, Luke. I truly appreciate knowing that my feedback is helpful (or that it’s not).