Remember that all of this is just feelings

Both men and women can become possessive in relationships, often to the detriment of the union. Ironically, the more possessive a person becomes, the more their partner will likely struggle to be free, hence making the person feel an even greater need to control the situation. It is a vicious and emotionally draining situation.
The driving force behind possessiveness, in both men and women, is insecurity. People who are self-confident and happy with themselves typically have faith that their partner will love them too, and don't feel a need to control the relationship or their partner.
Conversely, someone who is insecure may doubt their partner's dedication and may therefore try to maintain control of them. In short, they are feeling vulnerable and will do anything to make sure they are not hurt.
"Feeling possessiveness toward another is based on feelings of scarcity and insecurity," points out Hale Dwoskin, CEO and director of training of Sedona Training Associates.
This insecurity can stem from a number of places: a parent leaving you as a child, a past romantic partner who was unfaithful, and more.
Possessiveness also often stems from feelings of jealously, and fear that a partner does not love them.
According to some researchers, jealousy is actually a part of evolution. They say that men tend to be more jealous about their mate being sexually unfaithful, while women get more jealous about emotional infidelity.
The reasoning is that men want to know that their genes, not another man's, are going to be passed on, while women traditionally needed to maintain a man's emotional love in order to receive shelter and protection.
Nowadays, some of this evolutional jealousy may still be at play, while other factors (such as a person being cheated on or abandoned in the past) almost assuredly also play a role.
Are You, or Your Partner, Too Possessive?
If you are in a relationship with someone possessive to the point that you are fearful of your safety, you should seek help immediately.
If you recognize that you or your partner is just a little bit possessive, realize that feeling a little possessive or jealous is quite normal, but if it gets excessive the relationship is at risk. What can you do? The following tips can help you get rid of your possessive feelings, or deal with a possessive partner, so your relationship can flourish:

1. Identify the reasons why you're feeling possessive. Most likely, it is YOUR issue (such as a fear of abandonment) that is making you possessive and is not related to your partner at all.

2. Let go of your fear and insecurity. If you have possessive tendencies, you need to learn how to boost your self-esteem. The Sedona Method can help you to do this by teaching you how to release negative feelings about yourself along with fears of infidelity.

3. Be true to yourself. If your partner is overly possessive, don't stop doing the things you love to appease him or her. You can verbally reassure your partner of your dedication to the relationship, but you should under no circumstances give up your own interests because of it.

4. Release your desire to hang on, or pull away. Part of the cycle that keeps a possessive relationship so tumultuous is that as one partner tightens his or her grasp, the other increasingly pulls away. If you both let go of your need to control, or your feelings of "pulling away," there will be much less fuel to fan the fire.

5.Reaffirm your love. Sometimes all a person needs to get over a possessive or jealous nature is reassurance that they're loved. Taking the time to rekindle the love in your relationship will increase your overall happiness and peace of mind.

6. Remember that all of this is just feelings. "When someone is chasing you it can make you feel like running away," Dwoskin says. "Remember, this is a feeling, not the truth." The more that you and your partner focus on letting go of your negative feelings about the relationship using The Sedona Method, the easier it will become to feel secure in your love and devotion, without a need to control it.

India as a Country for Business

What is India as a Country for Business?

Inflation - Indian Economy

Fall in Indian Inflation continues, positive signs are seen in Future: Here are the highlights

Hits six-month low. For the week ending 8 Nov ’08, headline
(wholesale price index, WPI) inflation fell to 8.90% from 8.98% last
week, slightly ahead of our (9.04%) and the market’s estimates
(9.00%).

Food prices stay firm. The overall index witnessed a fall, but
primary articles witnessed a jump due to high food articles like pulses,
vegetables, fruits and oilseeds. Non-food articles and minerals also
witnessed a spike.

Fuel and manufactured articles fall. The fuel index continues to
fall on the back of non-administered oil prices. Manufactured articles
witnessed a fall due to food products, edible oils, basic metals,
chemicals and leather products.

Inflation outlook positive. The inflation scare is almost over and we
expect the softening trend to continue and inflation to be ~8% by
end 2008 and between 2% and 4% by end-FY09. As mentioned in
our earlier reports, deflation in India between Jun and Aug ’09 looks
likely.

Fall to provide cushion for RBI. As inflation falls, it provides the
RBI a cushion to ease monetary policy to boost growth momentum.
We expect a 100-150bps cut in the repo rate and the CRR in FY09.
We feel that the repo rate cut would be accompanied by a cut in the
reverse repo rate as well.
The information is derived from the research note from Anand Rathi

Subprime Mortgage Crisis

The subprime mortgage crisis is an ongoing economic problem which became more apparent during 2007 and 2008, and is characterized by contracted liquidity in the global credit markets and banking system. The recession in the U.S. housing market, risky lending and borrowing practices, and excessive individual and corporate debt levels have caused multiple adverse effects on the world economy. The crisis has passed through various stages, exposing pervasive weaknesses in the global financial system and regulatory framework.
The crisis began with the bursting of the United States housing bubbleand high default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), beginning in approximately 2005-2006. For several years prior to that, an increase in loan incentives such as easy initial terms and a long-term trend of rising housing prices had encouraged borrowers to assume difficult mortgages in the belief they would be able to quickly refinance at more favorable terms.
However, once housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults and foreclosure activity increased dramatically, as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest rates reset higher. Foreclosures accelerated in the United States in late 2006 and triggered a global financial crisis through 2007 and 2008. During 2007, nearly 1.3 million U.S. housing properties were subject to foreclosure activity, up 79% from 2006.
The mortgage lenders that retained credit risk (the risk of payment default) were the first to be affected, as borrowers became unable or unwilling to make payments. Major banks and other financial institutions around the world have reported losses of approximately US$435 billion as of 17 July 2008. Owing to a form of financial engineering called securitization, many mortgage lenders had passed the rights to the mortgage payments and related credit/default risk to third-party investors via mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO). Corporate, individual and institutional investors holding MBS or CDO faced significant losses, as the value of the underlying mortgage assets declined. Stock markets in many countries declined significantly.
The widespread dispersion of credit risk and the unclear effect on financial institutions caused reduced lending activity and increased spreads on higher interest rates. Similarly, the ability of corporations to obtain funds through the issuance of commercial paper was affected. This aspect of the crisis is consistent with a credit crunch. The liquidity concerns drove central banks around the world to take action to provide funds to member banks to encourage lending to worthy borrowers and to restore faith in the commercial paper markets. The U.S. government also bailed out key financial institutions, assuming significant additional financial commitments.
The subprime crisis has adversely affected several inputs in the economy, resulting in downward pressure on economic growth. Fewer and more expensive loans tend to result in decreased business investment and consumer spending. The initial leveling off in the housing market has become a downturn in many areas due to a surplus inventory of homes. The reduction and shift in demand versus supply has resulted in a significant decline in new home construction.
With interest rates on a large number of subprime and other ARM due to adjust upward during the 2008 period, U.S. legislators, the U.S. Treasury Department, and financial institutions are taking action. A systematic program to limit or defer interest rate adjustments was implemented to reduce the effect. In addition, lenders and borrowers facing defaults have been encouraged to cooperate to enable borrowers to stay in their homes. Banks have sought and received over $250 billion in additional funds from investors to offset losses. The risks to the broader economy created by the financial market crisis and housing market downturn were primary factors in several decisions by the U.S. Federal Reserve to cut interest rates and the economic stimulus package passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush on 13 February 2008. Following a series of ad-hoc market interventions to bail out particular firms, a $700 billion proposal was presented to the U.S. Congress in September, 2008. These actions are designed to stimulate economic growth and inspire confidence in the financial markets.

Thomson-Reuters Corporation Merger

Thomson-Reuters Corporation is the name of a media company that will be created when The Thomson Corporation and Reuters merger.


Company structure

The chief executive officer of the merged company will be Tom Glocer, currently the chief executive of Reuters, and the chairman will be David Thomson, currently the chairman of Thomson.

The divisions of the company are as follows:

Thomson's news and financial information arm Thomson Financial will be effectively merged with Reuters into Thomson Reuters Markets, which will then trade under that name.

The remaining divisions of Thomson Corporation (Thomson Healthcare, Thomson Legal, Thomson Scientific, and Thomson Tax & Accounting) will operate as Thomson Reuters Professional.

Market position and antitrust review

The market of financial data provision then will be dominated by two companies, Thomson-Reuters with a (combined) market share of 34% and Bloomberg L.P. with a market share of 33%.

The transaction was reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice and by the European Commission. On February 19, 2008, both the Department of Justice and the Commission cleared the transaction subject to minor divestments. The Department of Justice required the parties to sell copies of the data contained in the following products: Thomson's WorldScope, a global fundamentals product; Reuters Estimates, an earnings estimates product; and Reuters Aftermarket (Embargoed) Research Database, an analyst research distribution product. The proposed settlement further requires the licensing of related intellectual property, access to personnel, and transitional support to ensure that the buyer of each set of data can continue to update its database so as to continue to offer users a viable and competitive product. The European Commission imposed similar divestments: according to the Commission's press release, "the parties committed to divest the databases containing the content sets of such financial information products, together with relevant assets, personnel and customer base as appropriate to allow purchasers of the databases and assets to quickly establish themselves as a credible competitive force in the marketplace in competition with the merged entity, re-establishing the pre-merger rivalry in the respective fields."

These remedies are viewed as very minor given the scope of the transaction. According to the Financial Times, "the remedy proposed by the competition authorities will affect no more than $25m of the new Thomson Reuters group’s $13bn-plus combined revenues."

The transaction has also been cleared by the Canadian Competition Bureau.


Merger process

Historically, no-one single individual has been permitted to own more than 15% of Reuters, under the first of the Reuters Principles, which states that "Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group or faction.". However, that restriction was waived for the purchase by Thomson, whose family holding company, The Woodbridge Company, will end up owning 53% of the enlarged business. Robert Peston, business editor at BBC News, stated that this has worried Reuters journalists, both because they are concerned that Reuters' journalism business will be marginalized by the financial data provision business of the merged company, and because of the threat to Reuters' reputation for unbiased journalism by the appearance of one majority shareholder. Pehr Gyllenhammar, chairman of the Reuters Founders Share Company, explained that the Reuters Trust's First Principle had been waived for the Thomson family because of the poor financial circumstances that Reuters had been in, stating that "The future of Reuters takes precedence over the principles. If Reuters were not strong enough to continue on its own, the principles would have no meaning.". He stated, not having met David Thomson but having discussed the matter with Geoff Beattie the president of Woodbridge, that the Thomson family had agreed to vote as directed by the Reuters Founders Share Company on any matter that the trustees deem to threaten the five principles of the Reuters Trust. Woodbridge will be allowed an exemption from the First Principle as long as it remains controlled by the Thomson family