'And the oscar goes to' .....
Perhaps the most coveted phrase in the history of films, raising the heartbeat of all those aspirants, for whom the academy is more or less the 'Mecca' of their lifetime.
Almost all the dailies, the world over will be hosting the details of the academy awards starting from who wore which underwear to who had the last sip of drink at the dinner party.
So a brief report on the winners:
Million Dollar Baby: What a movie, swept the oscars for the best picture, best actress, best actor in a supporting role and best director. All well deserved.
Clint Eastwood, even at this age winning 2 oscars makes a humble acceptance speech and says hes still a kid when compared to all the other eminent directors.
Hillary Swank has successfully depicted, how tough and determined can a woman be esp in a phycially demanding sport of boxing. The way she shapes up in the movie has to be just watched on the big screen.
Morgan Freeman, perhaps should've won the oscar for another category called 'Best Narration'. People who have seen 'Shawshank Redemption' know the depth of this man's narrative abilities. The same narrative power is portrayed in million dollar baby coupled by his powerful acting.
Jamie Foxx: Almost every movie buff in the world was rooting for this guy to win the best actor award and he did. What a performance in Ray, the genious of Ray charles has been relived and the acceptance speech couldnt have been more emotional.
'Born Into Brothels', a documentary on the calcutta red light areas snatched the oscar for the best documentary and 'Little Terrorist' found a nomination in the category of 'Short film (Live Action)'. Some Indian presence was felt at the academy.
In my opinion, a captivating song, 'Vois Sur Ton Chemin'(Look into your path):It was nominated OST for the movie 'Les Choristes'. Beyonce sang it on stage and the beauty of this song is the combination of the sentimental piano tunes with the chorus of the children. Am simply hooked to this song.
Finally these were the movies that were common in almost all nominations and walked away with atleast one award:
The Aviator, Finding NeverLand, Million Dollar Baby, Ray and Sideways.
An unusual aspect: Most of them are blockbuster hits.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Financial Literacy
This may sound like an economics/finance course jargon, but its apparently not. Way back in the 80s the ABBA sang, 'Money Money Money, Must be Funny, in the rich man's world'. Whatever made them sing that song, money is surely not funny in a rich man's world. In fact its not funny in anyone's world.
Without money, life doesnt just go on, everyone understands this. So does it mean, one should have money just to suffice for the livelihood. Yes, definitely. But 'livelihood' is a broad term and it varies from individual to individual. As the 'livelihood' or more appropriately put 'lifestyle' of an individual changes, so does the need for money. Most of us individuals understand this but when there is immediate availabilty of money to satisfy a 'better' lifestyle, the understanding we had before is masked by the lure for the betterment in lifestyle. This is where most of us become 'financial illiterates'. The first and the foremost resource for 'immediate availability' -> credit cards. The next bieng 'loans at lower interest rates'. Just these two things prompt an average common man to 'spend' his money more and more on things that will be of less or meagre value with the passing time. These are classified as liabilities. So lured by a better lifestyle, a common man puts most of his money in liabilities. What we fail to see is, in due course of time, these liabilities lose their value whereas the money bieng poured to them keeps increasing day by day in the form of 'interest'.
Does that mean, we should not buy liabilities, no. We should buy liabilities but buy intelligently. Just because there is a sale going on some jeans, buying a pair even though the wardrobe is full of jeans is definitely not wise. Also if one starts thinking about a way of earning some money from a secondary resource ( part time jobs, investment in stocks, bonds ) and fuel those earnings towards buying liabilities, that'll be kind of ideal. These investments are termed 'assets'. Assets are defined as those which provide a moderate return on investment ( commonly called ROI in the business jargon ) over a period of time.
So it goes without saying, a salaried person earns more money by acquiring more assets and not by aiming for a higher salary. ( The more the salary, more the taxes and the finaly pay off is minimal ). It is an observed phenomenon that the 'rich' buy more assets, reduce the tax burden or intelligently and legally avoid tax and remain rich, whereas the middle class buys more liabilities, pays higher taxes and remain as middle class. As someone said. 'The rich remain rich, and the poor remain poor'. Yes of course, these are more or less the same words of 'Rich Dad, Poor Dad' :), a must read in my opinion.
I learnt this lesson the hard way, but there are few I know who are kind of born with this learning, who have managed to earn enough to sustain decently for a few years, retire at an early age (35 - 40) and pursue what their heart desires. Thats the pay off for bieng financially wise.
Without money, life doesnt just go on, everyone understands this. So does it mean, one should have money just to suffice for the livelihood. Yes, definitely. But 'livelihood' is a broad term and it varies from individual to individual. As the 'livelihood' or more appropriately put 'lifestyle' of an individual changes, so does the need for money. Most of us individuals understand this but when there is immediate availabilty of money to satisfy a 'better' lifestyle, the understanding we had before is masked by the lure for the betterment in lifestyle. This is where most of us become 'financial illiterates'. The first and the foremost resource for 'immediate availability' -> credit cards. The next bieng 'loans at lower interest rates'. Just these two things prompt an average common man to 'spend' his money more and more on things that will be of less or meagre value with the passing time. These are classified as liabilities. So lured by a better lifestyle, a common man puts most of his money in liabilities. What we fail to see is, in due course of time, these liabilities lose their value whereas the money bieng poured to them keeps increasing day by day in the form of 'interest'.
Does that mean, we should not buy liabilities, no. We should buy liabilities but buy intelligently. Just because there is a sale going on some jeans, buying a pair even though the wardrobe is full of jeans is definitely not wise. Also if one starts thinking about a way of earning some money from a secondary resource ( part time jobs, investment in stocks, bonds ) and fuel those earnings towards buying liabilities, that'll be kind of ideal. These investments are termed 'assets'. Assets are defined as those which provide a moderate return on investment ( commonly called ROI in the business jargon ) over a period of time.
So it goes without saying, a salaried person earns more money by acquiring more assets and not by aiming for a higher salary. ( The more the salary, more the taxes and the finaly pay off is minimal ). It is an observed phenomenon that the 'rich' buy more assets, reduce the tax burden or intelligently and legally avoid tax and remain rich, whereas the middle class buys more liabilities, pays higher taxes and remain as middle class. As someone said. 'The rich remain rich, and the poor remain poor'. Yes of course, these are more or less the same words of 'Rich Dad, Poor Dad' :), a must read in my opinion.
I learnt this lesson the hard way, but there are few I know who are kind of born with this learning, who have managed to earn enough to sustain decently for a few years, retire at an early age (35 - 40) and pursue what their heart desires. Thats the pay off for bieng financially wise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)