"SAVING IS SIN, SPENDING IS VIRTUE"

A highly intellectual person wrote this... and i thought i must share it..... try it for a good read...

Happy Blogging!!

Japanese save a lot. They do not spend much. Also Japan exports far more than it imports. Has an annual trade surplus of over $100 billion. Yet Japanese economy is considered weak, even collapsing. Americans spend, save little. Also US import more than it exports. Has anannual trade deficit of over $400 billion. Yet, the American economy is considered strong and trusted to get stronger.
But where from do Americans get money to spend? They borrow from Japan, China and even India... Virtually others save for the US to spend. Global savings are mostly invested in US, in dollars. Indiaitself keeps its foreign currency assets of over $50 billion in US securities. China has sunk over $160 billion in US securities. Japan's stakes in US securities is in trillions.
Result: The US has taken over $5 trillion from the world. So, as the world saves for the US, Americans spend freely. Today, to keep the US consumption going, that is for the US economy to work, other countries have to remit $180 billion every quarter, which is $2 billion a day, to the US! Otherwise the US economy would go for a six. So will the global economy. The result will be no different if US consumers begin consuming less.
A Chinese economist asked a neat question. Who has invested more, US in China, or China in US? The US has invested in China less than half of what China has invested in US. The same is the case with India... We have invested in US over $50 billion. But the US has invested less than $20 billion in India ... Why the world is after US?
The secret lies in the American spending, that they hardly save. In fact they use their credit cards to spend their future income. That the US spends is what makes it attractive to export to the US. So US imports more than what it exports year after year.
The result:
The world is dependent on US consumption for its growth. By its deepening culture of consumption, the US has habituated theworld to feed on US consumption. But as the US needs money to finance its consumption, the world provides the money. It's like a shopkeeper providing the money to a customer so that the customer keeps buying from the shop. If the customer will not buy, the shop won't have business, unless the shopkeeper funds him. The US is like the lucky customer. And the world is like the helpless shopkeeper financier. Who is America's biggest shopkeeper financier? Japan of course. Yet it's Japan which is regarded as weak. Modern economists complain that Japanese do not spend, so they do not grow. To force the Japanese to spend, the Japanese government exerted it self, reduced the savings rates, even charged the savers. Even then the Japanese did not spend (habits don't change, even with taxes, do they?). Their traditional postal savings alone is over $1.2 trillions, about three times the Indian GDP. Thus, savings, far from being the strength of Japan, has become its pain.
Hence, what is the lesson? That is, a nation cannot grow unless the people spend, not save. Not just spend, but borrow and spend. Dr. Jagdish Bhagwati, the famous Indian-born economist in the US, told Manmohan Singh that Indians wastefully save. Ask them to spend, on imported cars and, seriously, even on cosmetics! This will put India on a growth curve.

"Saving is sin, and spending is virtue." Before you follow this neo economics, get some fools to save so that you can borrow from them and spend.
This is what US has successfully done in last few decades.
~~Professor Jagdish N Bhagwati

posted by Neha

I believe that Farhan Akhtar is a true example of God’s crafts(wo)manship (has to be a woman; only she could translate her vision into such perfection ). His looks, his charm, his voice as he belts out Socha Hai or as he croons Tum Ho Toh, those eyes. Oh yeah. I could go on and on. I’ll never forget the time when I went to watch the preview show of Rock On. Which a friend was kind enough to ensure I got to see. Truth be told, it was Arjun Rampal who was the original pull. And that indeed, is a story for another time. Coming back, I can recall in perfect detail, the way my jaw dropped when I saw Mr. Akhtar on the big screen for the first time. God is a woman indeed!

But there’s always been something nagging in the deep dark recesses of my mind. Ever since Dil Chahta Hai and we had this debate in class (film studies, I’m guessing) when a really close friend asked a question that has remained with me since then: why did Dimple Kapadia’s character have to die in the end? What if this character hadn’t died? And instead, if she had continued to have a relationship with a younger man, a relationship for which we may not be able to put a name? Would the movie have done just as well? Or better? Or not so well? Would the viewing audiences have accepted such an ending? What if these two characters were to be joined in holy matrimony? Would audiences have been more receptive to that? Was the forecasting of the box-office response a factor in determining the fate of the character? And eye-opening session Sonia Johnson, in case you do happen to stumble upon this piece, sometime, somewhere.

I’m not sure if this has been written about before. But these are thoughts / perspectives / opinions of my own. Call it another way of thinking aloud. Don’t get me wrong - I loved the film – feel, format, friendships. And yet, the very end. When Aamir Khan storms into Preity Zinta’s wedding? Now this is really tough. Aamir Khan is definitely the one man I have loved for the longest time in my life. No debate about it. Well, maybe after Boris Becker. I was 8 when I saw him first in QSQT and man! Was that sweet! Falling in love with him, I mean. So to see him do something like this. I don’t know. The character he plays till then – incredibly real, I thought. I’ll never forget one shot in Tanhai – when he is on the train – the train is moving in one direction and he sits in the other corner staring the other way. Symbolising the loneliness. Genius. Absolutely. But somehow the end, and the character that Zinta plays? Not what I would have thought. This whole thing of being so grateful to a family that’s supported a woman when she’s growing up is fine. But does that mean she has to marry the boy of the house? Even when she feels that this may not be what she wants? Thankfully, she realises that this is wrong for her and makes amends. But if such characters on screen can be strong enough to change their minds, why cant they be strong enough to make it up in the first place itself? What happens to Preity Zinta in Lakshya and the femme fatales in Don – I’m not really getting into too much detail on those here. Suffice to say that it left for a lot more to be desired.

The reason I’m writing this now is Luck by Chance. The role that Mr. Akhtar essays comes across an honest portrayal of what he, as a struggling actor, goes through. Everything, from the acting classes, to cajoling Mr. Bhatt’s AD to pass on his photographs, taking the grandfather clock for the shoot and helping a friend in dire need. Some of the scenes, I could learn a lot from, especially given the profession I’m in. The easy charm with Dimple Kapadia’s character, how he oh so subtly eliminates competition in the last round and needless to say, turning out to be what probably a lot of other men would be. But it is Konkana Sen, with her last word, who is bound to remain with me for a much longer time. Her stand when Vikram meets her towards the end to apologise, her words - that it is guilt this time around that has brought him back, there may always be a next time and over and beyond all this, where does she feature in his list of priorities? – these are things that so many women go through. Not just in terms of marriages or relationships but also in terms of platonic relationships. It made me wonder. Why doesn’t Preity Zinta’s character ask these questions in DCH? Yes, the characters are so different. Yes, that was made a number of years back (but still, later than a film where a girl marries the man who originally loved her mother). Yes, maybe the audiences have evolved over the years. But maybe – just maybe - because LBC is made by a woman? Ms. Akhtar, no less. Just something to mull over.

Everything said and done, mine still remains one of the million hearts you broke, Mr. Akhtar (ref: Oye It’s Friday, featuring Deepika Padukone)

i'm so glad for the day i stumbled upon david baldacci's "the collectors". and i write this under the strong influence of the last baldacci novel that i read "stone cold". oliver, reuben, milton and caleb. the four members of the camel club. first of all, i loved the books themselves for what they are. but beyond that, what has really stayed with me after everytime i've read a camel club novel is the whole thing about sticking up for your beliefs. i love the imagery of 60-year old oliver seeking nothing but the truth from the powers that be. standing up for what he believes in. the image of oliver as he sits on a bench, bonding with alex ford, the secret service agent. two men on the opposite sides of the fence, but who happen to share the same beliefs nonetheless. there are some characters who have such a strong impact on me sometimes that i marvel at the wrtiers themselves. i mean, to wield such power over readers' minds is tremendous ability indeed. and one such character for me will always be Tom Hemingway from "the camel club". the way the character unfolds through is intriguing to say the least. and then, when the rationale behind Hemingway's actions is put forth, i mean, i think all of us go through these situations where the end justifes the means and it is our past that invariably makes us what we are.

coming back to the camel club, the nature of the relationship between the four characters is really interesting. one ex-CIA agent, a librarian, a third one with OCD and the fourth who is now loading ships, having worked with the Govt earlier. again, i think the disillusionment that is so subtly weaved into Oliver's character (but is verrry there) is something that really touches me. at least on an individual level. here's a man who works for the CIA, who undertakes assignments handed over to him in the sincere belief that what he's doing makes the rest of the world a safer place to live in. and then, he begins to feel that this is not the whole picture. so he tries to make amends. get out of the game before its too late. and what happens next? his wife is murdered by men who used to work with him and his daughter is taken away. never to know him. the empty grave, John Carr and Carter Gray. it's quite possible that everyone of us knows at least one Carter Gray in our midst. and yet, when the story unfolds in "Stone Cold", though there is loathing, i somehow felt something more for this head of intelligence. yes, one reason could be that he loses his wife and daughter in the 9/11 attacks. but beyond that, when the truth about what happened thrity years ago is disclosed, combined with the radical change in the character, one cant but feel a little sorry for this man. i guess power does come with a price tag attached. and the question is invariably the same: is it worth it?