I think this discussion is turning to be interesting and actually  
focusing on what is important. I agree the decision for a nation 
to increase its savings or not is simply social or political. If 
a nation does have a high savings rate then certain benefits are 
shifted to future generations. If a a nation has a low savings rate 
then benefits are given to the present generation. But there is 
nothing in economic theory that says that one is more optimal than 
the other. And so the argument we give for increase savings is to 
think about our children, etc. And not saying this is bad or good. 
But it is a normative question, which we sometimes miss. 
And again, I simply cringe when I hear people talking about "Keynes's 
consumption theory" and using it for this and that. But unfortuntely 
for the last forty years ( and I would imagine that for most people 
on this list this is the time period you studied economics) textbooks 
and also government policies have focused on the consumption function 
as the heart of Keynes's economic theory. If you look at intermediate 
macro text and they talk about Keynes they first start with the 
consumption function and if you ask students what Keynes is all about 
they most likely will say something about mpc. And then you get to a  
chapter about investment which is usually pretty small compared to 
the chapter on consumption. And here you have something about 
interest rates and "animal spirits". And folks, for Keynes that's 
where is all at those funny "animial spirits" where entrepreneurs 
need to make investment decision in a world of uncertainty, etc. 
that Keynes found all the action. Yes, it's aggregate demand that's 
important but the consumption function plays a passive role while 
investment is dynamic.  
Another issue that Keynes gets dumped on is government spending, 
and part of the problem, again, is focusing on Keynesian economics 
as something to do with consumption to keep aggregate demand up.  
As Elba K. Brown-Collier and Bruce E. Collier have pointed out 
in their article "What Keynes really said about deficit spending" 
in JPKE, Vol. 17.: For Keynes, " Deficits in the current or ordinary 
budget were a sympton of insufficient private and public investment. 
They were not a cure for unemployment. Borrowing to finance public 
investment was justified on the grounds that the capital acquired 
provides a real return over time. Further, such borrowing was to be 
associated clearly with the cost of the particular services to be 
provided and amortized with scheduled payments from tax revenues."(p.354) 
And now let's look at what Keynes said: 
    "The more socialised we become, the more important it is to  
     associate as closely as possible the cost of particular services 
     with the sources out of which they are provided even when a  
     grant-in-aid is alo required from general taxes. This is the only 
     way by which to preserve sound accounting, to measure efficiency, 
     to maintain economy and to keep the public properly aware of 
     what things cost." Keynes, Collected Works, vol. XXVII, pp. 224-225. 
 
-Ric Holt