The Power of Facebook aka 50 Billion dollars trekking at yaba..2016 is indeed wonderful

AnonyNymous:
I hope they don't kidnap him

Guy u read my mind. no be small billa d bad boys for demand for him release oooh

wheesin:
youngest billionaire in the world. no gold chains, no gambling, no expensive ride, no unnecessary girlfriends and babymamas. All simple and decent. He donates heavily to charity emulating Bill Gates who has donated over 45% of his wealth to charity since he became a billionaire. yet Carlos Slim still isn't able to dully meet-up with him. This is what separates the rich from wealthy. my billionaire mentor I will quit school just to follow your footsteps

Not true, Bill Gates has not donated over 45% of his wealth to charity but he has said upon his death, virtually all his personal fortune would go to charity, likewise Warren Buffet and also Carlos Slim actually became richer than Gates a few times in the past....
Your overall message isn't lost on me though.

wizzakosh:
you cannot make fun of me, cos all this ur writes up are junks. Check ur grammar. Av done my part 4 u. If you like take it. Shalom.

you really need to look into yourself if these are the kind of things that get you angry o, and thank you,I've taken it...I hope you check yours too , cheers

Kaycee7:
Part of me suspects he didn't really trek alone. Undercover bodyguards were probably hanging around and a surveillance team was in the shadows. I mean, the guy can't be that stupid. He's a billionaire for crying out loud. And we're not exactly famous for our security. But then, who knows?

My thoughts exactly !

Benjom:
I just like Mark's simplicity. T-shirt on jeans.

Most people wey dey wear tie as if them wan hang themselves na them dey hustle pass with little to show financially.

No mind dem. Dem go come dey enforce useless dress code wey neva epp anybody. So mark Zuckerberg no dey well-dressed lyk ds abi? Along oponu oshi. Make we continue dey carry suit and tie mata 4 head wen oda pple dey find development.

Dronedude:
I can't find him there but I'm happy he chose Nigeria even though he isn't that important but his presence with aspiring n existing entrepreneur in the tech industry will be a motivation. Kudos Mark you r doing a great job.

Who isn't important? U Sabi who mark Zuckerberg b? D youngest billionaire in d world, owner & founder of Facebook (dt owns instagram & oda online ventures), D man who donated more dan half his fortune 2 charity nt too long ago, 1 of D top richest pple in d world ... IMO dt dude is more important Dan buhari, Jonathan, obj put 2geda. Infact d only pple wey I fit even rank pass am na dem bill Gates. Gv honour 2 whom honour is due. because say im b underG person no mean say Im no powerful. E sure me say if na wizkid, Davido or 1 of those Lau Lau pple, u 4 don nearly kill self on top dem mata.

musicwriter:


Well, the truth is I have issues with capitalism as an economic system.

In a fair world, young businesses should've been protected by law, and such mergers should've been illegal. Because, the goal of humanity should've been how to make the world a better place, not how to acquire more wealth or competitor companies.

Example; would you prefer XYZ to buy up all emerging cement factories in Nigeria and set cement price at his chosen price or would you prefer a world where XYZ have no legal right to buy up competitors, therefore, cannot determine cement price in Nigeria?

And, be informed that acquired companies aren't always happy or even proactively wanting to sell out. Most a times bankrupcy or situation that could be saved, but a predator company would come in instead to exploit them. The latest case is Nokia who their CEO cried on live TV after it's acquisition by microsoft.

Again, this emanates from my dislike of capitalism, and of course this's not a popular opinion. The legality of capitalism doesn't make it morally right or even economically sound, in my opinion.

You have a very skewed idea of how capitalism runs. The goals of making the world a better place and generating capital are not mutually exclusive, they can be pursued concurrently and I would argue that indeed Capitalism is the only system that has the greatest capacity of improving world conditions when compared with the other types of economic systems.

Capitalism is by no means perfect but is the only system that offers society and consumers the most choices. What this means is that more innovative ideas, services, and businesses flourish under capitalism. People have more chances of improving their economic lot, generating wealth and living a better life here than in any other system. Just take a quick look at nations that have tried other economic systems and compare them with those that have for the most part remain capitalist.

In your example the society where XYZ is not allowed, because of some law, to buy up emergent cement factories even when said emergent factories are faced with critical challenges which could lead to their bankruptcy or collapse leaves that society worse off. Those companies are denied the help that would come from a buy-out from an established player (in this case XYZ) who has the resources and wherewithal to keep that business in existence in one way or another. They will without this option most likely close shop and this means loss of jobs or employment for many people, loss of revenue for the state, and fewer cement producers for the market.

Monopoly and price fixing does not always result from mergers and acquisitions in any case proper regulation by the government can check such issues.

I think your reading of the Microsoft acquisition of Nokia a few years ago is completely off. MS was anything but a sinister predator that you have made them out to be. Nokia was in dire straits and needed to get in on the game with the leading mobile players in the industry. Now it continues to be debated that going with MS was not the best choice, that they should have gone the android route but what is certain is that they needed help fast and selling the company was one way to get that help and avoid a total collapse. That MS has still not established itself in the mobile space even after the Nokia acquisition is a totally different kettle of fish. BTW bros, when did the Nokia CEO cry out on live TV ?

[quote author=wheesin post=48937734]youngest billionaire in the world. no gold chains, no gambling, no expensive ride, no unnecessary girlfriends and babymamas. All simple and decent. He donates heavily to charity emulating Bill Gates who has donated over 45% of his wealth to charity since he became a billionaire. yet Carlos Slim still isn't able to dully meet-up with him. This is what separates the rich from wealthy. my billionaire mentor I will quit school just to follow your footsteps [/quote
Nor dey deceive yourself. A Havard dropout is equivalent to a PHD holder in Nigeria.

ApexTitan:


You have a very skewed idea of how capitalism runs. The goals of making the world a better place and generating capital are not mutually exclusive, they can be pursued concurrently and I would argue that indeed Capitalism is the only system that has the greatest capacity of improving world conditions when compared with the other types of economic systems.

Capitalism is by no means perfect but is the only system that offers society and consumers the most choices. What this means is that more innovative ideas, services, and businesses flourish under capitalism. People have more chances of improving their economic lot, generating wealth and living a better life here than in any other system. Just take a quick look at nations that have tried other economic systems and compare them with those that have for the most part remain capitalist.

In your example the society where XYZ is not allowed, because of some law, to buy up emergent cement factories even when said emergent factories are faced with critical challenges which could lead to their bankruptcy or collapse leaves that society worse off. Those companies are denied the help that would come from a buy-out from an established player (in this case XYZ) who has the resources and wherewithal to keep that business in existence in one way or another. They will without this option most likely close shop and this means loss of jobs or employment for many people, loss of revenue for the state, and fewer cement producers for the market.

Monopoly and price fixing does not always result from mergers and acquisitions in any case proper regulation by the government can check such issues.

I think your reading of the Microsoft acquisition of Nokia a few years ago is completely off. MS was anything but a sinister predator that you have made them out to be. Nokia was in dire straits and needed to get in on the game with the leading mobile players in the industry. Now it continues to be debated that going with MS was not the best choice, that they should have gone the android route but what is certain is that they needed help fast and selling the company was one way to get that help and avoid a total collapse. That MS has still not established itself in the mobile space even after the Nokia acquisition is a totally different kettle of fish. BTW bros, when did the Nokia CEO cry out on live TV ?

The article on nokia CEO crying on TV was featured here on Nairaland. You may look for it.

Of course, there're alternatives to capitalism. If only you know capitalism is an offshoot of slavery and that it was forced down the throats of humanity by greedy colonialists, you'll understand it can't be the best for humanity. I mean, if you go and look at the history of capitalism you'll understand those talks of innovation driving capitalism don't hold any water.

Greed, agressiveness, exploitation, might are the driving force of capitalism. Otherwise, you wouldn't argue its right for an XYZ to control cement production in a country at the expense of other producers. How about a system where XYZ is suppossed to finance the weak get back on their feet without disposessing them of ownership? Remember, the goal here is a better world for everyone. Of course, capitalism closes such window and enforces itself as the best alternative!. Totally showing its incompatible with an idea of a much better world where the weak is carried along.

And I expect you know this already proved itself to be the case in the US in 2008. Few companies preyed on entire US housing and mortgage, majority of the populace became poor and lost their homes to predators. Capitalism indeed collapsed until the US government intervened!.

Guess what? When the US government intervened, it gave out bailouts (more money) to the predatory capitalists, while the poor victims got nothing. In fact, the poor were made poorer cause they got evictions out of their homes. This, once again, clearly shows capitalism is not compatible with an idea of a better world for everyone.

musicwriter:


The article on nokia CEO crying on TV was featured here on Nairaland. You may look for it.

Of course, there're alternatives to capitalism. If only you know capitalism is an offshoot of slavery and that it was forced down the throats of humanity by greedy colonialists, you'll understand it can't be the best for humanity. I mean, if you go and look at the history of capitalism you'll understand those talks of innovation driving capitalism don't hold any water.

Greed, agressiveness, exploitation, might are the driving force of capitalism. Otherwise, you wouldn't argue its right for an XYZ to control cement production in a country at the expense of other producers. How about a system where XYZ is suppossed to finance the weak get back on their feet without disposessing them of ownership? Remember, the goal here is a better world for everyone. Of course, capitalism closes such window and enforces itself as the best alternative!. Totally showing its incompatible with an idea of a much better world where the weak is carried along.

And I expect you know this already proved itself to be the case in the US in 2008. Few companies preyed on entire US housing and mortgage, majority of the populace became poor and lost their homes to predators. Capitalism indeed collapsed until the US government intervened!.

Guess what? When the US government intervened, it gave out bailouts (more money) to the predatory capitalists, while the poor victims got nothing. In fact, the poor were made poorer cause they got evictions out of their homes. This, once again, clearly shows capitalism is not compatible with an idea of a better world for everyone.

Like I said earlier, you have a skewed view of capitalism.

Greed and exploitation are NOT the driving force of Capitalism. Capitalism is driven by the primary desire to generate profit. This quest for profit is completely amoral, i.e, it is neither good nor bad in and of itself, it is when greed or selfishness overrides the quest for profit that capitalism takes on a bad dimension. I will already concede that it is by no means perfect and can/has been exploited in times past and even to this day. However, you are completely wrong when you deny that innovation and development thrive better under capitalism than in any other system.

The one question I throw to people who take your position, a question that they consistently fail to answer logically and satisfactorily is this: What economic system provides the best opportunity for generating wealth and improving the lot of society?

P.S: I very closely followed the Nokia acquisition by MS and nowhere was it reported that Stephen Elop the CEO at that time regret or cry out about selling the company to MS. Please provide links of what you say transpired.

[quote author=ApexTitan post=48963878]

Like I said earlier, you have a skewed view of capitalism.

Greed and exploitation are NOT the driving force of Capitalism. Capitalism is driven by the primary desire to generate profit. This quest for profit is completely amoral, i.e, it is neither good nor bad in and of itself, it is when greed or selfishness overrides the quest for profit that capitalism takes on a bad dimension. I will already concede that it is by no means perfect and can/has been exploited in times past and even to this day.

In same way you have a skewed view of a better world that could exist without capitalism.

Of course, you have to be greedy to want to generate profit. What of a world where the goal is not to generate profit for self, but instead to create happiness for everyone? Why must profit be the only essence of labour? What of a world where we replace the quest for self profit with quest for satisfaction for everyone?

Yes, of course, greed and selfishness must override everything else for capitalism to even exist or survive as a system. Remove greed and selfishness and capitalism collapses like a pack of cards.

However, you are completely wrong when you deny that innovation and development thrive better under capitalism than in any other system.

I already gave you the US example where underdevelopment happened instead of development. What do you say about a system that created few Billionaires, but millions of poor people? There's nothing innovative about preying of people. Innovation emanates from the quest for more wealth. What difference does the iPhone6 released few years ago make in the life of someone with the new iPhone7?

Capitalism by it's greedy nature creates unnecessary needs for people!.

The one question I throw to people who take your position, a question that they consistently fail to answer logically and satisfactorily is this: What economic system provides the best opportunity for generating wealth and improving the lot of society?

First of all, capitalism is just one of so many of the socio-economic systems that have evolved with man. There've been other economic models before capitalism- from hunter food gatherer, communalism, feudalism, before we got to capitalism. Problem is capitalism enforces itself as the be-all-and-end all. This position is what lead to the first and second world war, unfortunately, the western capitalist government won the war, otherwise, if Russia had won the war we probably been living in a socialist world. Not that I'm advocating for socialism, but just want to inform you capitalism is not the final destination of human economic models, its just that the capitalist networks that have hijacked the world's wealth is not allowing for continued evolution of other economic models- because capitalism and it's inherent greed and selfishness is not allowing for other models to surface. So, that's why you can't have a functioning alternative for now.

If the US people have fought and stopped their government from bailing out capitalist predators, we probably would've had a new angle to capitalism. In fact, the people of the US continued fighting in the "occupy wall street" but it was already late, cause they should've done that in 2008. Clearly, the "occupy wall street" has proved humanity do want to free ourselves from capitalism!.

On the alternatives to capitalism, so many suggestions have been made over the years, including the suggestion I have hammered since.

Mr. Noam Chomsky; for instance have been hammering for years that humanity can do better without capitalism. Note that Mr. Chomsky is not your average professor, but a man that has been voted by so many institutions as the most intelligent person alive.

See below videos of Chomsky- the people's hero.

Noam Chomsky: Is There an Alternative?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztzp0M7WvI0

Noam Chomsky on Capitalism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FHNMZbnvYU

Noam Chomsky on The Alternative to Capitalism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUzquEya6Lw

Noam Chomsky on Corporate State-Capitalism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BivNJBhaqdQ

You can as well follow Chomsky cause he have provided all the answers over the years.

P.S: I very closely followed the Nokia acquisition by MS and nowhere was it reported that Stephen Elop the CEO at that time regret or cry out about selling the company to MS. Please provide links of what you say transpired.

Yes, the Nokia executive did weep. In a conference he told his staffs amid tears, saying "We Didn't Do Anything Wrong, But Somehow, We Lost".

Feanah:
you really need to look into yourself if these are the kind of things that get you angry o, and thank you,I've taken it...I hope you check yours too , cheers

angry you say, lol. I never got angry, just telling you the fact.

wizzakosh:
angry you say, lol. I never got angry, just telling you the fact.

ok, but do look very well at the way you corrected him...I'm sure you'll see your mistake,cheers

jmichlins:
If I ever get the opportunity of meeting this man, I will cherish it for the rest of my life. These are the kind of people I wish to meet in life and not some half naked people wearing chains meant for dogs suffering from rabbies.

Nice coment

musicwriter:


LOL!.

The owner of google, Mr. Larry Page is the simplest of them all, and he's the real genius. I consider Zuckerberg a lucky guy. Mr. Page is the person I would like shaking his hands one day and I will. I used to like Bill Gates very much too, until he became a predator buying up up-coming businesses and young competetors.

While you commend Mr. Page, I hope you don't forget Sergey Brin as I consider him to be the genius of the lot. Brin singlehandedly crunched the mathematical algorithm (page rank) that Google used in their early days. It takes a level of intelligence to do that. I recommend "Life in the Plex". A great book about Google's early days.
N.B: I'm not in anyway undermining nor denigrating the achievements of the rest.

wizzakosh:
english. 'He doesn't', 'not don't'. Sent not send.

You are the kind of guy that use the same English used in KJV.

When I said "don't", I was trying to tell you he does not. And how can you say " He doesn't reply the messages I sent him? Is it not better to say "he didn't / hasn't reply the messages I sent him?

I was trying to let you know that I'm still sending the. Messages.

So Mr. Lecturer, Buckle up your ass. I know you're one of those guys who just wrote WAEC.

Goldenokey:


You are the kind of guy that use the same English used in KJV.

When I said "don't", I was trying to tell you he does not. And how can you say " He doesn't reply the messages I sent him? Is it not better to say "he didn't / hasn't reply the messages I sent him?

I was trying to let you know that I'm still sending the. Messages.

So Mr. Lecturer, Buckle up your ass. I know you're one of those guys who just wrote WAEC.

lol, me just wrote WAEC, definitely, you are still in your primary 4 den, never even prepared for common entrance. Actually, I knw u were trying to say he does not. Look @ ur blunder. u need to go and learn the different between don't and doesn't, do and does ane when to use them. And don't forget to learn more about concord and stop disgracing urself here.. That will help you the more kid. One more correction 'kind of guy that uses' not ' kind of guy that use'. U see why u need to knw what concords mean?