Your editorial today on national savings, "The Thrift Imperative,"
leaves me a bit confused. I am only an MBA student with an undergraduate degree in Economics, so maybe you can assist me. If homeowner's assets appreciate quickly and they then realize this rise in value by selling their homes, which value they then convert into cash, which they then spend on consumer goods...how does this lead to the "country as a whole [being] poorer?" Surely you realize that while before we as a nation just had a house, now we as a nation have a house and some consumer goods. This would seem to mean we as a nation are better off, assuming we as a nation realize consumer and producer surplus in both these transactions, which obviously we do since we voluntarily undertook them! It is true that these transactions do not add to our national savings, but they clearly make us richer, not poorer as you say.
As to the question of national savings being too low, there are of course many reasons for our level of national savings, national budget deficits among them. You never specify what level of national savings you would find acceptable, what level would be "enough," perhaps having this amount published would help guide future policy proposals.

I am somewhat doubtful that your prescription of encouraging automatic (or involuntary) sign up of employees into retirement savings programs of which you approve (hopefully not those too much like the President's private savings accounts for Social Security!) will raise the level of national savings "enough." Perhaps you could advocate a federal law forcing Americans to save the proper amount-you seem to believe that you know what mix of current and future consumption is best for individual Americans, I'm sure you won't hesitate to make your beliefs mandatory; after all, it's for our own good.