Ramani and his theory of money

Over the last couple of years income in India has skyrocketed. I remeber, when entering college, the highest paying job for a 20 something on the market was one of these FMCG companies, which paid about 4-5 lakhs. Even that was considered quite high, most managers would have been happy to make 10-15k a month. Today, the job market is flooded. So much money and jobs floating around with the the BPOs, IT companies, and big MNCs. Most of the employees in these companies are young, have little responsibilities and well willing to spend their money. So there have been all kinds of retail chains and stores that have cropped up over the last few years ! Economic growth.
Is it really? The numbers look great, but there are some interesting points. If, you look at the US, they speak of economic growth, and how per capita income has gone up over the last few years. Do you know that the country that this country also has the lowest per capita savings in world. Most of the popultation is highly indebted and survives on credit cards. Isn't this paradoxical? No it's not! One does not speak of per capita savings, because one cannot!
Lets have a kutti model economy. There are 10 people and 1000 rupees. One person cooks, the other cleans clothes, the other repairs machinery and so on. Each charges for his services. Lets assume, no one is willing to spend, and each would rather do all the work himself. So, each person keeps 100 rupees and there is no exchange of money. But, lets assume the start paying each other's for services, so there is a rotation of money. The more each produces and consumes, the more the rotation and more the per-capita-income, but lesser the saving!! The more money you have, the less money you actually have! Isn't it weird, you earn the most, when you are least willing to keep what you earn!
Another point I have to make, this so called purchasing power of the consumer. Today you earn 5 lakhs a year, when you would have earned 50k 10 years back. You can afford a car, TV and all the other amenities of modern life. Yes, you have greater purchasing power, but it's only for commodites with an 'unlimited' supply, i.e. can be produced. And most things that can be produced are relatively peripheral needs! Unlike what all the adverts tell you, life isn't really that better.
Lets go back to our old example, 1o men and 1000 rupees. Lets assume that one of them gets hold of a bar of chocolate. He wants to sell it and make a profit. He will sell it to the maximum bidder! It is relative. Thus, if everyone has a lot of money, it really doesn't matter. The one with the maximum money always gets the chocolate (assuming he is not allergic to it or something). Thus, the price of commodites naturally shifts up so it remains to be affordable only to a specific percentage of the population.
This basically means that, just because you earn 10 times as much as your father did, you are probably are going to be no better off when it comes to buying a house, eating at a restaurant or doing a lot of other things! The housing market has exploded, they say it is impossible to buy a house today. No, it isn't impossible to buy a house today, it has always been impossible to buy a house. Just because you earn more, as long as you earn less than someone else, that someone can afford it and not you!
What about the other intangible quantity whose supply is limited - respect, admiration, fame! The top 0.1% percent of the population is probably held in awe (or envy!) by the remaining 99.9%. Thus, if you want to be famous, it doesn't matter how good you are in absolute terms, but how you are relative to the population!
As Ayn Rand says, life is not designed to be fair! Actually, it is eminently fair, you get what you deserve, not what you need! What you deserve is relative to what everyone else deserves, and hence intrinsically competitive. No matter how much humanity progresses, certain things have been and will be accessible only to a specific percentage of the population. Natural selection you see!