Hezzyluv:
It's sopoz to be a blessing, but greedy Nigerian politicians mishandling it, so it became a curse

isaiah4life:
If you know you are tired of analysing Nigeria problem, can you say ayee! If you know you are not tired, can you say nay!

The Ayees have it. Naija problem don tire me.

Vulcanheph:

My brother... Na True you talk oh, Naija matter don tire me too

isaiah4life:
Brother, I no want dey even see any post about naija. Abegi! Everyday different wahala. May God bless your hustle my brother.

SmartPolician:
Sincerely, I think crude oil has been a mix of blessing and curse. If we accuse our government of being reliant on crude oil, what about us the people?

I don't consider Nigerians as creative people. For instance, the Chinese government doesn't really do much for its people but those guys are amazingly creative and self-reliant.

Nigeria without crude oil will be worse than Niger Republic.

Arda1000:
oga u didn’t made a single sense and to worse it off u mentioned that Chinese government doesn’t give much to their people,please what type of government do China run?,do you know Chinese government control almost everything in China?.
Nigerians especially the Igbo people are one of the most creative people on Earth and Nigeria without oil would have opened a lot of possibilities for every region remember before oil,palm oil and coal boomed the economy of the south

Vulcanheph:

You made a lot of sense .. without crude oil nigeria would have been better off in terms of development.

The northerners would have concentrated on livestock and agricultural products like cotton, onions, tomatoes, groundnuts etc and would have used it for development.

The Western region would have concentrated on industrialization, exportation, tourism etc.

The Eastern region would have concentrated on commerce, agricultural, exportation, tourism etc.

Basically agriculture would have been our major source of revenue (after all the green in our flag represents agriculture).
So yes, I personally believe this country would have been better without crude oil

Arda1000:
truly dependent on oil is why Nigeria is this bad today,it’s a very big curse that will take a long time to break especially if the country continues as one

Vulcanheph:

True... Many countries without oil are doing much better than Nigeria

thebosstrevor1:
It is a blessing.

If not for crude oil, many places in Nigeria would have been looking like a proper african village

Vulcanheph:

My point exactly... Personally I feel Nigeria would have been a much better place if we never had Crude oil.

CyberHustle:
does south Africa or Ethiopia have oil? Finland has brains and that's all. They buy raw materials process them and make profit that's sustaining them from it. No oil.

Vulcanheph:

You made a lot of sense .. without crude oil nigeria would have been better off in terms of development.

The northerners would have concentrated on livestock and agricultural products like cotton, onions, tomatoes, groundnuts etc and would have used it for development.

The Western region would have concentrated on industrialization, exportation, tourism etc.

The Eastern region would have concentrated on commerce, agricultural, exportation, tourism etc.

Basically agriculture would have been our major source of revenue (after all the green in our flag represents agriculture).
So yes, I personally believe this country would have been better without crude oil

Corden and Neary (1982) have demonstrated how Dutch disease occurs in an economy. According to them, in a country experiencing "boom" in the export of a commodity, the economy can be divided into three sectors: the "booming" export sector, the "lagging' traditional export sector and the non-export sector. [b]The Dutch disease occurs when the traditional export (tradable goods) sector is crowded out by the booming export sector and the non-tradable goods sector. The lagging traditional tradable goods sector may include cocoa, palm produce, cotton, rubber, coal, copper, textiles and some manufactured goods while the booming export sector may be crude oil, coffee, gold, etc. The non-tradable (non-export) goods sector covers all those goods that are produced for domestic consumption only, e.g. staple food items, clothing, building materials, locally-assembled cars. Where crude oil (and gas) is the booming export sector, the non-oil export sector may be crowded out by the oil sector and the non-tradable goods sector of the economy. This can happen when the oil revenue windfall increases domestic demand for non-tradable goods and pushes up domestic prices leading to an appreciation of the real exchange rate which in turn reduces the competitiveness of the non-oil export sector. This will in turn lead to a reduction in non-oil exports in both quantum and value terms. The oil windfall may also lead to movement of the factors of production in the economy. For instance, capital and labor (and land) may shift from the non-oil export sector to the oil sector (in order to maintain or increase reserves and production) and the non-tradable goods sector (to take advantage of the growing domestic demand). This explains why the increase in oil prices and the subsequent oil revenue windfall in many oil-exporting countries have tended to depress their non-oil export sector while at the same time generating a boom in both the oil and the non-tradable goods sectors[/b]. With capital and labor shifting from the non-oil export sector to the oil-sector and non-traded goods sector, firms in the non-oil export sector are forced to either close down or reduce their scale of operation. The boom in the oil and non-traded goods sector increases the demand for imported goods. This may not be a problem in the short-term so long as the country has enough foreign exchange to pay for the imports. The depression in the non-oil export sector and the boom in the other two sectors have medium to long term implications for the economy because the oil windfall will not be permanent given the volatility, unpredictability and exhaustibility of crude oil. For instance, if there is a decline in oil prices and oil revenue, the lagging and collapsing non-oil export sector will not be able to compensate for the drop in oil revenue while domestic demand for the non-traded goods and imports remain sticky. Consequently, the country will be forced to borrow from the international financial market to compensate for the decline in oil revenue. Over time, external debts will increase and so will the debt service obligations. Even when oil prices go up later and there is another round of oil windfall, it is difficult to correct the earlier damage or distortions created by the initial or previous oil windfall. In some cases, the oil exporting country may be forced to adopt some form of structural adjustment program (SAP) to correct such distortions or imbalances. Some of these SAPs are painful and may increase the prevalence, depth and severity of poverty.

In an extreme case, the Dutch Disease can lead to "Immiserising Growth" syndrome - a situation where increase in the output of exported commodity by a country leads to a deterioration of the country's welfare (Bhagwati, 1958). This happens when the effect of export-led growth on a country's terms of trade is strong enough to more than offset the direct benefits of growth. It is an extreme case of self-defeating growth. Although the theory of Immiserising Growth was not originally developed for oil-exporting countries, its tenets apply to many oil-exporting countries in the sense that despite the substantial increase in their export revenue, they have suffered significant decline in general welfare due largely to mismanagement of their oil revenue. Thus, the Dutch Disease syndrome confirms the assertion by a Spanish writer in the 16th Century that "the gratification of wealth is not found in mere possession or in lavish expenditure but in its wise application". Although the main manifestation of the Dutch disease syndrome in an oil exporting country is the decline or depression in the non-oil export sector, other "collateral" manifestations include appreciation of the real exchange rate at the onset, increase in corruption, increase in external debt and increase in poverty. However, an oil-exporting country must not suffer from the Dutch Disease. Furthermore, not all oil-exporting countries suffering from the disease have all "collateral" manifestations at the same time. Country experiences vary considerably depending on their political economy

backbencher:
Is oil a blessing or a curse.

1.Nigeria's problem is that the main source of our income is exporting raw materials. The problem is, we don't control the prices of those raw materials, nor do we set their prices. And the prices are always never at a level that can sustain us.

2.That is the problem with oil.

3.When we got independent, agriculture and mines were the main source of our income. Oil was just one of many sources. However, the problem was that our agriculture and minerals were not profitable enough by the 1970's. The sudden increase in oil prices in 1973 was what helped us hide our problems.

4. Even then, oil as I said , suffers from the issues of a) price never being at sustenance level b) it isn't enough for all of us.(Saudi has 1 oil barrel for 3 persons. Nigeria has 1 oil barrel for 80 OR MORE persons)

5.Ultimately our issue is that we don't use our raw materials for industrial development, and making exportable industrial goods and services. We export oil, and import things we should be making, at a higher value than our export revenue...which is why we are in debt.

6. At the end of the day, oil is a curse because it prevents us from using our talent and our brains and our resources from making stuff that would earn us a lot of money at a price that we can set. That is how china went from being behind many African countries in 1972 to being the lender of the world right now.