We receive thousands of comments each week on message boards, in e-mail and on Facebook and Twitter. We read as many as we can, though we can't respond personally to each one. Below is a sampling of some of the recent MSN Money articles that received insightful comments and feedback.
- These are all good points -- but I'd argue a counterpoint is that most financial aid these days (and conceivably in the future) is in the form of student loans. Repaying these loans can take an important portion of a young adult's income, significantly delaying and reducing their ability to save for retirement or purchase a home. A side effect is that the young adult may be more (not less) dependent on their parents -- because they have to have money to repay the loans and thus may not be able to afford their own place while working at typical low-paying entry-level jobs. I'd argue a better method would be to have a mix of investments and be willing to pay for a basic education, such as community college or a state school. If the child wants to get a "better" education, such as at a private school, the child would then be expected to make up the difference with scholarships or grants.
- Freshman students can fund only a portion of their education through loans as the max available to them will not pay the bill. As they progress, the amount the student can borrow increases. Therefore, Federal Parent PLUS Loans for most of us are the only way to bridge the gap. Concurrent enrollment in high school for college credit is the best bet for undergraduate classes at a value price.
- I went to college in the day when you got student loans and a small scholarship, and any money parents spent on education (not clothes) was kept track of and was treated like a loan to be paid back with interest! I paid every penny back and did not think my dad was some cruel person. There were six of us and he made sure we all had the same arrangement. My mother is 102 years old and in a nursing home -- and is paying for it with the money they saved all those years. Seems like a plan, don't you think? Good article -- finally some perspective on parents and college educations as give-me's.
- What a lame article. These are all selfish arguments except for the community college idea. These are the arguments of parents trying to figure a way out of helping their children.
- I think your idea that kids work harder if they pay for it is incorrect. I have two grown daughters that have graduated from college, one with a master's degree. My wife and I had not saved for their college because we did not know what and how much to plan for. When my older one started down the college path, my wife got a job specifically to pay for her school. My daughters worked hard because they knew what we -- especially my wife -- were doing for them. They tell us that their friends are buried with student loans, and they have thanked us over the years for fully paying for school and leaving them free of education debt. I would have worked two or three jobs so that my children could get a college degree and have no debt hanging over their heads.
I find it humorous that Fleckenstein is replaying the gold bugs' ancient theme song, that gold is somehow "real money" while paper is not. Gold became "real money" when emperors started having their images stamped on flat pieces of gold. The sad fact is that gold and paper currency are just commodities. When people want things more than they want currency, prices go up and we call it inflation. When people want currency more than they want things (the last quarter of 2008 in the U.S.A. for example) prices go down and we try not to talk about it.
- Yes, the dollar is in decline -- it will eventually become so worthless that it will be replaced by a new currency. The problem at this point is that a person needs to hold dollars to use as a medium of exchange. Gold, silver, oil, etc. aren't much use for day-to-day purchases.
- Please send to me all of your worthless paper money. As much as you can muster. In exchange, I will offer gold (Krugerrands, bullion, or whatever form you like) at 25% of the cash's face value. Send me a worthless U.S. $4,000 cash; I'll send you an ounce of gold. Have we got a deal?
- Gold is pretty, and it's fun to own some just so the grandkids can play with it when they are visiting, but as an investment it has a negative return. Bill keeps saying gold is money. Would someone, anyone, please tell the last time you saw someone pay for their groceries, rent, utilities, what have you, in gold? Just repeating something does not make it true. If you are truly convinced the dollar will continue to decrease in value compared to other currencies, then buy the other currencies.
- I'll take land over gold. There really is a limited supply of that. You can't mine more land to increase the supply, like you can with gold. In fact, if you believe all this global warming talk, there is going to be less land in the future.
This is one of the most thoughtful articles I have read in many years. It is not a downer in that we as consumers are "bad" now for saving too much to make up for all the years of being "bad" in spending too much. The author will not win praise from the macro economists (yes, I am a member of this tribe of tripe spending), as the GDP is not juiced by the rethinking of happiness unlinked with the economic model of how happy I am with one more piece of candy.
I doubt if Washington is interested in our "happiness." Subjectively, I would like to report that what is going on in Washington today leaves me feeling as unhappy as I have every felt in my adult life. The last time I was this concerned about my country was when Nikita Khrushchev was banging his shoe on the table at the United Nations and proclaiming that the Soviet Union was going to bury us.
I always read your column because your economic analysis is so good. And I'm delighted that you are talking about the thing that justifies and drives wealth production -- happiness. The realization that wealth production does not necessarily create happiness (though a certain amount may be necessary for it) has important economic consequences. So please pursue this line of thinking.
Jubak, whom I otherwise enjoy reading, and the government should stick with thinking about GDP instead of GNH. Looking to our government to keep us happy is a pitiful reflection on us and an invitation to the government to invade our personal lives at the expense of our liberties. In promoting utopian visions of a happy society, the Soviet Union, North Korea and Cuba, among other totalitarian regimes, have destroyed not only their GDPs but the lives and personal liberties of their people. I do not want the government to worry about my happiness. I am perfectly capable of finding it in loving relationships with my wife, children, grandchildren, church, co-workers, friends and neighbors.
My life experience tells me that the employment numbers are as good a GNH as you'll find. If you're out of work, you're miserably unhappy. And if you're younger than 80 you can't possibly know how terrible it is to have a father out of work in a real depression. You live in basements, you get whipped for no good reason, you get hungry, etc. I reckon it's not as bad today, but in the end, it comes down to income and that requires an increasing GDP.
Individuals establish their own index of happiness with its subjective definition. Get an essential hooded sweatshirt for night camping. True happiness, and you'll get some sleep.
Editor's note: Letters may have been edited for grammar or spelling. Due to space considerations, some letters have been condensed and are not presented in their entirety. The views and opinions expressed in the letters are those of the authors and not necessarily those of MSN Money.
To comment on articles: Send e-mail to investor@microsoft.com, tweet us on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook or join the discussion on the Your Money message board.