spender's delight

The economic recession has loomed large over the last year.There has been outbreak of unemployment , increase in poverty and more importantly, an increase in fear in the populace about the effect , the recession might have on their living conditions and future prospects.The only sect that might have got some respite during this period is the sect of writers of the articles in the news papers and the magazines ( Not all papers and magazines!). The collapse of some of the largest lenders in the financial world has had a domino effect on the financial sectors all over the globe. The reporter's or the writer's job became easy as he had to choose from the causes , effects or the causality of this cataclysmic event. Among the three , the effects seem to be a better choice.Firstly, because there is no ambiguity or the writer's subjectivity involved in writing the article. It's more like reporting. And secondly, there's no dearth of bad news . The reports ranged from "a person's suicide due to job cut" to a "major automobile manufacturing giant filing for bankruptcy".

So , the reporters reported the aftermath with an enthusiasm. There were creative headlines that could catch the eye of the reader , make him go through the entire article, and make him wonder if things are going to get any better. All in one shot. When this pessimistic person goes out to work, he chooses to go by public transport leaving his car at home. Then he cuts down his expenses on his food. Stops going to the movies and finally stops a part of the process of distribution of money. The articles spawned a whole bunch of pessimists who fed the pessimism to their peers and thereby leading to a whole bunch of new problems. The malls and shopping complexes closed down and more people have lost their jobs. And this vicious cycle of writing articles on the bad news thus creating more bad news continued on and on.

Had it been not for the reporters, I feel that the effects wouldn' have been so bad. A person who saves so much more than what is really required, is really stopping the distribution of money in the system. The money a person looses in a fair in an attempt to win a stuffed animal makes a big difference in the sense that it probably would go to a person who really needs it.Rather than spreading the bad news, it would have been better if a few prudent reporters colluded together and came about with a range of articles about how and where to spend the money. This would have guided the lavish spender's money in the right channel. But unfortunately, there was a blockade.

The whole message may sound philanthrophic, which may be the least appealing concept to many. But it's not all philantrophy. If every body starts spending again, then in the course of the distribution, the money reaches you too. [:)]