Ki-Katanga:


http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/The%20Middle%20of%20the%20Pyramid_The%20Middle%20of%20the%20Pyramid.pdf

The source for that study.

The 23% figure includes the "floating class" defined as people earning $2-4 per day, i.e. not technically in poverty. To me that's not the middle class.
Without the $4 and under per day (how $4 a day is middle class, I have no idea) the figure is 9.9% compared to 19.8% for South Africa.

If you took the middle class as being $10,000 per annum, I think you'd have something representative, but those figures aren't there.

Thanks. Anyway, the size of middle class has been changing recently, so new studies will probably be carried out in the near future.

Katsumoto:

I am not sure I get your point, please explain.

Switzerland is a fifth of South Africa but has almost double of SA's GDP.

I was responding to a specific query, I do not think it is relevant, either.

Just thought I'd better add this into the mix with data I put up last night:

GDP (PPP) per Capita for Nigeria and South Africa.

When Looking at Nigeria's 10x growth, I'd failed to factor in that the Nigerian Naira had gained in value disproportionately and that the Nigerian population had grown by 70% (or by one and a half South Africas)

Anyway here's the data, consider it as you will.

Like I said before only a fool like u would argue like that. U bring up 2009/2010 stats about south africa's hiv rate and want me to accept that outdated facts as the truth about what is currently happening in South Africa.

If u were so informed and updated with current affairs u would have noticed that there is a W.H.O 1month ago that proofed that South africa is actaully revercing its hiv infection rates we currently have one of the worlds least mother to child affection rates due to all pregnant hiv positive woman receiving anti retrovirrals. It Just shows how foolish u trully are in still thinking that aids is such a big problem cause hiv/aids is treated like a lifestyle desease in S.A not a chronic desease burden u bafoon.

3.3% of population the size of Nigeria who doesn't even have a proper public healthcare system and who's stats can't even be trusted according to the World Health Organisation is nothing to be proud about.

That same south african presedent ur talking about is the same one who is also responsible for the worlds biggest hiv treatment and prevention program to date.

People living with aids in S.A is 5,6 million of our total population and the prevellence rate is decreasing year on year so I don't know where u got ur info from.

The question was about development u bring up sideline issues to hide ur mental retartness let's state proven well researched facts not that bull u just got out that Tree u just jumped out of.

Furthermore the world health organistions also claimed in recent reports that some Nigerian states are notorious for non co operation and that's why the world don't have accurret stats on your countries hiv prevellence statistics.

Nigeria is still rated the most corupt country in africa 3rd in the world and that is a fact u can't deny, so just go and inform yourself about a topic before u feel the urge to rubish other peoples fact backed opions.

snydergp: Like I said before only a fool like u would argue like that. U bring up 2009/2010 stats about south africa's hiv rate and want me to accept that outdated facts as the truth about what is currently happening in South Africa.

If u were so informed and updated with current affairs u would have noticed that there is a W.H.O 1month ago that proofed that South africa is actaully revercing its hiv infection rates we currently have one of the worlds least mother to child affection rates due to all pregnant hiv positive woman receiving anti retrovirrals. It Just shows how foolish u trully are in still thinking that aids is such a big problem cause hiv/aids is treated like a lifestyle desease in S.A not a chronic desease burden u bafoon.

3.3% of population the size of Nigeria who doesn't even have a proper public healthcare system and who's stats can't even be trusted according to the World Health Organisation is nothing to be proud about.

That same south african presedent ur talking about is the same one who is also responsible for the worlds biggest hiv treatment and prevention program to date.

People living with aids in S.A is 5,6 million of our total population and the prevellence rate is decreasing year on year so I don't know where u got ur info from.

The question was about development u bring up sideline issues to hide ur mental retartness let's state proven well researched facts not that bull u just got out that Tree u just jumped out of.

Furthermore the world health organistions also claimed in recent reports that some Nigerian states are notorious for non co operation and that's why the world don't have accurret stats on your countries hiv prevellence statistics.

Nigeria is still rated the most corupt country in africa 3rd in the world and that is a fact u can't deny, so just go and inform yourself about a topic before u feel the urge to rubish other peoples fact backed opions.

^^^ Where did this one crawl out from? na ya papa jump out of tree, olodo.

Your effeminate emotionalism cheapens the points you are making. Get lost if you have no home training and don't know how to be cordial. Egbe ndi Israeli piafuka gi isi. Ewu can beer.

The fact that he is emotional means he is proud of his country and all that is done. And his facts are still correct he is not lying.

snydergp: Like I said before only a fool like u would argue like that. U bring up 2009/2010 stats about south africa's hiv rate and want me to accept that outdated facts as the truth about what is currently happening in South Africa.

If u were so informed and updated with current affairs u would have noticed that there is a W.H.O 1month ago that proofed that South africa is actaully revercing its hiv infection rates we currently have one of the worlds least mother to child affection rates due to all pregnant hiv positive woman receiving anti retrovirrals. It Just shows how foolish u trully are in still thinking that aids is such a big problem cause hiv/aids is treated like a lifestyle desease in S.A not a chronic desease burden u bafoon.

3.3% of population the size of Nigeria who doesn't even have a proper public healthcare system and who's stats can't even be trusted according to the World Health Organisation is nothing to be proud about.

That same south african presedent ur talking about is the same one who is also responsible for the worlds biggest hiv treatment and prevention program to date.

People living with aids in S.A is 5,6 million of our total population and the prevellence rate is decreasing year on year so I don't know where u got ur info from.

The question was about development u bring up sideline issues to hide ur mental retartness let's state proven well researched facts not that bull u just got out that Tree u just jumped out of.

Furthermore the world health organistions also claimed in recent reports that some Nigerian states are notorious for non co operation and that's why the world don't have accurret stats on your countries hiv prevellence statistics.

Nigeria is still rated the most corupt country in africa 3rd in the world and that is a fact u can't deny, so just go and inform yourself about a topic before u feel the urge to rubish other peoples fact backed opions.

1. The reference to the prevalence rate was for adults from age 15-49 and is based on South Africa's own National HIV Survey of 2008 and the UNAIDS report on South Africa from 2010 which gives very similar statistics. The South African Department of Health study of 2010 gives even worse (more scary) statistics but is a less general survey so I ignored that one. If you wanted the HIV and AIDS prevalence for all of the population from age 2 and above in SA in 2008, the number is around 10.9% based on the aforementioned studies but all the estimates from WHO, UNAIDS, etc. that put HIV/AIDS at around 3% to 4% for Nigeria are referencing the data for adults (see: http://www.unaids.org/en/Regionscountries/Countries/Nigeria/) aged 15 to 49, so the comparison was made using the 15-49 adult prevalence rate as the standard.

If I had compared the total population, not just those aged 15 to 49, I would have got a rate of around 2% (assuming the population of Nigeria was 154.7 million in 2009 as claimed by the UN), which would still be slightly less than one fifth of that of SA's 10.9% for 2009. It made no difference whether I used the stats for age 15 to 49 or included children because the ratios between the stats for the two countries would still be very similar as 3.6% (for age 15 to 49, going by the UNAIDS estimates) is still one fifth of 18%. If you have better data from 2011 that gives significantly different statistics for the two countries than those available you can provide that data.

I was never attempting to compare AIDS rates in the first place. But it's ironic that you state that 5.6 million are the number living with HIV and AIDS in SA when that statistic is from the exact same source that gives the adult 15 to 49 prevalence rate that I cited earlier (see: http://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/southafrica/) and then go on to claim that you don't know where I got my statistics from.

On supposed underestimates of those living with or dying from AIDS, South Africa isn't infallible either:

"The survey had also had a fairly high rate of non-response with just 64% of all eligible participants agreeing to an HIV test. The effect of non-response on accuracy is uncertain. It is difficult to conclude whether those who refuse to be tested are more or less likely to have HIV. The only certain effect of the low response rate is that it increases uncertainty." - This is a description of South Africa's National HIV Survey of 2008, just google this if you need the source.

To suggest that the disparity in the stats would be due merely to alleged non compliance of some states in Nigeria is a weak argument. Anyone who looks at the stats for African countries knows that AIDS is generally far more serious in the southern part of the continent as far as percentages of the population than in West Africa. This is glaringly obvious and it almost doesn't matter which West African and Southern African countries one is comparing.

Of course Zuma is doing something significant to combat AIDS, he has to given the situation or he would be seen as grossly incompetent. Nigeria has been attempting very seriously to combat HIV/AIDS from the Obasanjo administration to the present as attested to by the WHO but is not doing that successfully due to a lack of adequate finances (even with outside support from international developmental agencies) at the current time, not any lack of initiative. Both countries are trying to combat the problem and SA is doing relatively better with its more serious problem given its more developed status, but I can at least say that no president of Nigeria was daft enough to confuse the issue and promote ignorance about HIV with statements about showers, unlike certain other presidents:

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/zuma-s-shower-theory-causing-confusion-1.273500

Moving on. . .

2. The fact is, your country voted into power a man that thought showering affected HIV yet you're claiming some kind of superiority because the current ruling party in South Africa was able to build off of the cushy, more comfortable developmental position established by the previous regimes.

You were also very silly to suggest that Nigeria had a developmental headstart over South Africa in 1960. There are no "well researched proven facts" in the world that could suggest such a ridiculous idea and no sane person could promote a so called "fact backed opinion" like that, but being the clown you are, you would make that claim shamelessly.

andrewza: The fact that he is emotional means he is proud of his country and all that is done. And his facts are still correct he is not lying.

He actually said it was foolish to think that "aids is such a big problem" in SA because "hiv/aids is treated like a lifestyle desease in S.A not a chronic disease burden."

That emotionality is messing up his sense of reason.

In the case of Nigeria, I can say that HIV/AIDS is a big problem in Nigeria regardless of how HIV/AIDS is treated and viewed there. I can say that unabashedly, because I'm not messing up my ability to reason over the AIDS issue in regards to Nigeria.

andrewza: The fact that he is emotional means he is proud of his country and all that is done. And his facts are still correct he is not lying.

Oh yeah. Ok, let me give you some truthful facts: The 2012 Olympics were held in London and I watched all the soccer matches.

Now all of una from South Africa be biris (monkeys). How do you like that! sebi my facts are accurate and I'm not lying. mumu

PhysicsQED:



1. The reference to the prevalence rate was for adults from age 15-49 and is based on South Africa's own National HIV Survey of 2008 and the UNAIDS report on South Africa from 2010 which gives very similar statistics. The South African Department of Health study of 2010 gives even worse (more scary) statistics but is a less general survey so I ignored that one. If you wanted the HIV and AIDS prevalence for all of the population from age 2 and above in SA in 2008, the number is around 10.9% based on the aforementioned studies but all the estimates from WHO, UNAIDS, etc. that put HIV/AIDS at around 3% to 4% for Nigeria are referencing the data for adults (see: http://www.unaids.org/en/Regionscountries/Countries/Nigeria/) aged 15 to 49, so the comparison was made using the 15-49 adult prevalence rate as the standard.

If I had compared the total population, not just those aged 15 to 49, I would have got a rate of around 2% (assuming the population of Nigeria was 154.7 million in 2009 as claimed by the UN), which would still be slightly less than one fifth of that of SA's 10.9% for 2009. It made no difference whether I used the stats for age 15 to 49 or included children because the ratios between the stats for the two countries would still be very similar as 3.6% (for age 15 to 49, going by the UNAIDS estimates) is still one fifth of 18%. If you have better data from 2011 that gives significantly different statistics for the two countries than those available you can provide that data.

I was never attempting to compare AIDS rates in the first place. But it's ironic that you state that 5.6 million are the number living with HIV and AIDS in SA when that statistic is from the exact same source that gives the adult 15 to 49 prevalence rate that I cited earlier (see: http://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/southafrica/) and then go on to claim that you don't know where I got my statistics from.

On supposed underestimates of those living with or dying from AIDS, South Africa isn't infallible either:

"The survey had also had a fairly high rate of non-response with just 64% of all eligible participants agreeing to an HIV test. The effect of non-response on accuracy is uncertain. It is difficult to conclude whether those who refuse to be tested are more or less likely to have HIV. The only certain effect of the low response rate is that it increases uncertainty." - This is a description of South Africa's National HIV Survey of 2008, just google this if you need the source.

To suggest that the disparity in the stats would be due merely to alleged non compliance of some states in Nigeria is a weak argument. Anyone who looks at the stats for African countries knows that AIDS is generally far more serious in the southern part of the continent as far as percentages of the population than in West Africa. This is glaringly obvious and it almost doesn't matter which West African and Southern African countries one is comparing.

Of course Zuma is doing something significant to combat AIDS, he has to given the situation or he would be seen as grossly incompetent. Nigeria has been attempting very seriously to combat HIV/AIDS from the Obasanjo administration to the present as attested to by the WHO but is not doing that successfully due to a lack of adequate finances (even with outside support from international developmental agencies) at the current time, not any lack of initiative. Both countries are trying to combat the problem and SA is doing relatively better with its more serious problem given its more developed status, but I can at least say that no president of Nigeria was daft enough to confuse the issue and promote ignorance about HIV with statements about showers, unlike certain other presidents:

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/zuma-s-shower-theory-causing-confusion-1.273500

Moving on. . .

2. The fact is, your country voted into power a man that thought showering affected HIV yet you're claiming some kind of superiority because the current ruling party in South Africa was able to build off of the cushy, more comfortable developmental position established by the previous regimes.

You were also very silly to suggest that Nigeria had a developmental headstart over South Africa in 1960. There are no "well researched proven facts" in the world that could suggest such a ridiculous idea and no sane person could promote a so called "fact backed opinion" like that, but being the clown you are, you would make that claim shamelessly.

1 has been mentioned before. This is 2012. We have a low rate of new infection. We can not remove the current infected people so we will remain the highest for a long time since thanks to free treatment you can now live a long life even though you have HIV or AIDS.


In south africa you don't vote a man in to power. You vote a party. Each vote gives that part a certain number of seats in parliament. Then parliament chooses a president. Most people will vote ANC regardless of who the ANC president is.

PhysicsQED:

He actually said it was foolish to think that "aids is such a big problem" in SA because "hiv/aids is treated like a lifestyle desease in S.A not a chronic disease burden."

That emotionality is messing up his sense of reason.

In the case of Nigeria, I can say that HIV/AIDS is a big problem in Nigeria regardless of how HIV/AIDS is treated and viewed there. I can say that unabashedly, because I'm not messing up my ability to reason over the AIDS issue in regards to Nigeria.

What wrong with that statement. HIV/AIDS is not the super life destroy it is any more. With treatment it is like nothing is wrong. Although there is no cure it can be managed with medication. People with HIV/AIDS live normal lives these days.

ndu_chucks:

Oh yeah. Ok, let me give you some truthful facts: The 2012 Olympics were held in London and I watched all the soccer matches.

Now all of una from South Africa be biris (monkeys). How do you like that! sebi my facts are accurate and I'm not lying. mumu

I did not watch the women's football game and I don't know nothing about the SA female football team. I do know we won 6 medals witch is 6 more than you.

andrewza:

What wrong with that statement. HIV/AIDS is not the super life destroy it is any more. With treatment it is like nothing is wrong. Although there is no cure it can be managed with medication. People with HIV/AIDS live normal lives these days.

The part about how it's seen as a "lifestyle disease" (it's not, by the way) is not wrong, but the part about it "not being a big problem" is nonsense. Even apart from the issue of people dying from opportunistic infections associated with HIV, there are still other issues caused by it:

http://www.avert.org/aids-impact-africa.htm

PhysicsQED:



1. The reference to the prevalence rate was for adults from age 15-49 and is based on South Africa's own National HIV Survey of 2008 and the UNAIDS report on South Africa from 2010 which gives very similar statistics. The South African Department of Health study of 2010 gives even worse (more scary) statistics but is a less general survey so I ignored that one. If you wanted the HIV and AIDS prevalence for all of the population from age 2 and above in SA in 2008, the number is around 10.9% based on the aforementioned studies but all the estimates from WHO, UNAIDS, etc. that put HIV/AIDS at around 3% to 4% for Nigeria are referencing the data for adults (see: http://www.unaids.org/en/Regionscountries/Countries/Nigeria/) aged 15 to 49, so the comparison was made using the 15-49 adult prevalence rate as the standard.

If I had compared the total population, not just those aged 15 to 49, I would have got a rate of around 2% (assuming the population of Nigeria was 154.7 million in 2009 as claimed by the UN), which would still be slightly less than one fifth of that of SA's 10.9% for 2009. It made no difference whether I used the stats for age 15 to 49 or included children because the ratios between the stats for the two countries would still be very similar as 3.6% (for age 15 to 49, going by the UNAIDS estimates) is still one fifth of 18%. If you have better data from 2011 that gives significantly different statistics for the two countries than those available you can provide that data.

I was never attempting to compare AIDS rates in the first place. But it's ironic that you state that 5.6 million are the number living with HIV and AIDS in SA when that statistic is from the exact. same source that gives the adult 15 to 49 prevalence rate that I cited earlier (see: http://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/southafrica/) and then go on to claim that you don't know where I got my statistics from.

On supposed underestimates of those living with or dying from AIDS, South Africa isn't infallible either:

"The survey had also had a fairly high rate of non-response with just 64% of all eligible participants agreeing to an HIV test. The effect of non-response on accuracy is uncertain. It is difficult to conclude whether those who refuse to be tested are more or less likely to have HIV. The only certain effect of the low response rate is that it increases uncertainty." - This is a description of South Africa's National HIV Survey of 2008, just google this if you need the source.

To suggest that the disparity in the stats would be due merely to alleged non compliance of some states in Nigeria is a weak argument. Anyone who looks at the stats for African countries knows that AIDS is generally far more serious in the southern part of the continent as far as percentages of the population than in West Africa. This is glaringly obvious and it almost doesn't matter which West African and Southern African countries one is comparing.

Of course Zuma is doing something significant to combat AIDS, he has to given the situation or he would be seen as grossly incompetent. Nigeria has been attempting very seriously to combat HIV/AIDS from the Obasanjo administration to the present as attested to by the WHO but is not doing that successfully due to a lack of adequate finances (even with outside support from international developmental agencies) at the current time, not any lack of initiative. Both countries are trying to combat the problem and SA is doing relatively better with its more serious problem given its more developed status, but I can at least say that no president of Nigeria was daft enough to confuse the issue and promote ignorance about HIV with statements about showers, unlike certain other presidents:

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/zuma-s-shower-theory-causing-confusion-1.273500

Moving on. . .

2. The fact is, your country voted into power a man that thought showering affected HIV yet you're claiming some kind of superiority because the current ruling party in South Africa was able to build off of the cushy, more comfortable developmental position established by the previous regimes.

You were also very silly to suggest that Nigeria had a developmental headstart over South Africa in 1960. There are no "well researched proven facts" in the world that could suggest such a ridiculous idea and no sane person could promote a so called "fact backed opinion" like that, but being the clown you are, you would make that claim shamelessly.

There u go again like I said u should use current upto date statistics when u try to assert your primative anti south african view which I've found in great numbers on this forum, like i said go to the latest stats that was released last month by the W.H.O and the south african health ministry

I'm not on this site to rubish everything that people do in Nigeria but what I have a problem with is the blind patriotism and unfounded comments of some of ur country men and even u have stated on this forum.

It seems to me that on this current topic that people think south africa was build by whites and that black South Africans had nothing and no hand in its developement.

I'm not in denial that south africa is one of the world's most unequil sociaties. We know that white people still holds most of the country's economic wealth but that doesn't change the fact that they are considered under the S.A constitution as south african citizens so that point that some of u make that whites in south africa who are majority Afrikaner/Boers are europeans is actually outdated.

Yes most of our industries are still dominated by whites but that's changing, but the picture you're painting who don't even know anything about south africa's affirmative action policies are totally not true.

On the flipside Nigeria is actually over populated for its geographical size and that's not something to be proud of. South africa who is less populated and who is also bigger in terms of its geographical size compared to Nigeria will for obvious reasons offer better infrastructure and standards of living to its people of 50million

Nigeria is africa's most populated and most poluted country but will never be the wealthiest, that one will eventually go to Congo DRC because of its size and proven natural resources only if they can stop there tribalist tendencies and the western medilling to keep it unstable so that they can milk its resources.

Stop this foolishness cause were all educated not just u my Blind Patriotic brother still trapped in tribalist tendencies.

Don't Believe In The Hype!!!

PhysicsQED:



1. The reference to the prevalence rate was for adults from age 15-49 and is based on South Africa's own National HIV Survey of 2008 and the UNAIDS report on South Africa from 2010 which gives very similar statistics. The South African Department of Health study of 2010 gives even worse (more scary) statistics but is a less general survey so I ignored that one. If you wanted the HIV and AIDS prevalence for all of the population from age 2 and above in SA in 2008, the number is around 10.9% based on the aforementioned studies but all the estimates from WHO, UNAIDS, etc. that put HIV/AIDS at around 3% to 4% for Nigeria are referencing the data for adults (see: http://www.unaids.org/en/Regionscountries/Countries/Nigeria/) aged 15 to 49, so the comparison was made using the 15-49 adult prevalence rate as the standard.

If I had compared the total population, not just those aged 15 to 49, I would have got a rate of around 2% (assuming the population of Nigeria was 154.7 million in 2009 as claimed by the UN), which would still be slightly less than one fifth of that of SA's 10.9% for 2009. It made no difference whether I used the stats for age 15 to 49 or included children because the ratios between the stats for the two countries would still be very similar as 3.6% (for age 15 to 49, going by the UNAIDS estimates) is still one fifth of 18%. If you have better data from 2011 that gives significantly different statistics for the two countries than those available you can provide that data.

I was never attempting to compare AIDS rates in the first place. But it's ironic that you state that 5.6 million are the number living with HIV and AIDS in SA when that statistic is from the exact. same source that gives the adult 15 to 49 prevalence rate that I cited earlier (see: http://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/southafrica/) and then go on to claim that you don't know where I got my statistics from.

On supposed underestimates of those living with or dying from AIDS, South Africa isn't infallible either:

"The survey had also had a fairly high rate of non-response with just 64% of all eligible participants agreeing to an HIV test. The effect of non-response on accuracy is uncertain. It is difficult to conclude whether those who refuse to be tested are more or less likely to have HIV. The only certain effect of the low response rate is that it increases uncertainty." - This is a description of South Africa's National HIV Survey of 2008, just google this if you need the source.

To suggest that the disparity in the stats would be due merely to alleged non compliance of some states in Nigeria is a weak argument. Anyone who looks at the stats for African countries knows that AIDS is generally far more serious in the southern part of the continent as far as percentages of the population than in West Africa. This is glaringly obvious and it almost doesn't matter which West African and Southern African countries one is comparing.

Of course Zuma is doing something significant to combat AIDS, he has to given the situation or he would be seen as grossly incompetent. Nigeria has been attempting very seriously to combat HIV/AIDS from the Obasanjo administration to the present as attested to by the WHO but is not doing that successfully due to a lack of adequate finances (even with outside support from international developmental agencies) at the current time, not any lack of initiative. Both countries are trying to combat the problem and SA is doing relatively better with its more serious problem given its more developed status, but I can at least say that no president of Nigeria was daft enough to confuse the issue and promote ignorance about HIV with statements about showers, unlike certain other presidents:

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/zuma-s-shower-theory-causing-confusion-1.273500

Moving on. . .

2. The fact is, your country voted into power a man that thought showering affected HIV yet you're claiming some kind of superiority because the current ruling party in South Africa was able to build off of the cushy, more comfortable developmental position established by the previous regimes.

You were also very silly to suggest that Nigeria had a developmental headstart over South Africa in 1960. There are no "well researched proven facts" in the world that could suggest such a ridiculous idea and no sane person could promote a so called "fact backed opinion" like that, but being the clown you are, you would make that claim shamelessly.

There u go again like I said u should use current upto date statistics when u try to assert your primative anti south african view which I've found in great numbers on this forum, like i said go to the latest stats that was released last month by the W.H.O and the south african health ministry

I'm not on this site to rubish everything that people do in Nigeria but what I have a problem with is the blind patriotism and unfounded comments of some of ur country men and even u have stated on this forum.

It seems to me that on this current topic that people think south africa was build by whites and that black South Africans had nothing and no hand in its developement.

I'm not in denial that south africa is one of the world's most unequil sociaties. We know that white people still holds most of the country's economic wealth but that doesn't change the fact that they are considered under the S.A constitution as south african citizens so that point that some of u make that whites in south africa who are majority Afrikaner/Boers are europeans is actually outdated.

Yes most of our industries are still dominated by whites but that's changing, but the picture you're painting who don't even know anything about south africa's affirmative action policies are totally not true.

On the flipside Nigeria is actually over populated for its geographical size and that's not something to be proud of. South africa who is less populated and who is also bigger in terms of its geographical size compared to Nigeria will for obvious reasons offer better infrastructure and standards of living to its people of 50million

Nigeria is africa's most populated and most poluted country but will never be the wealthiest, that one will eventually go to Congo DRC because of its size and proven natural resources only if they can stop there tribalist tendencies and the western medilling to keep it unstable so that they can milk its resources.

Stop this foolishness cause were all educated not just u my Blind Patriotic brother still trapped in tribalist tendencies.

Don't Believe In The Hype!!!

snydergp:

There u go again like I said u should use current upto date statistics when u try to assert your primative anti south african view which I've found in great numbers on this forum, like i said go to the latest stats that was released last month by the W.H.O and the south african health ministry

The only statistic I referenced was the prevalence rate. You and andrewza have both referenced the rate of new infections. Since the rate of new infection is going down that's good, but don't suggest that I made claims about the rate of new infections that I never did or that I claimed South Africa was not seriously tackling the problem.

I'm not on this site to rubish everything that people do in Nigeria but what I have a problem with is the blind patriotism and unfounded comments of some of ur country men and even u have stated on this forum.

lol, blind patriotism and unfounded comments like "Nigeria had a headstart in 1960." Whatever man.

It seems to me that on this current topic that people think south africa was build by whites and that black South Africans had nothing and no hand in its developement.

I'm not in denial that south africa is one of the world's most unequil sociaties. We know that white people still holds most of the country's economic wealth but that doesn't change the fact that they are considered under the S.A constitution as south african citizens so that point that some of u make that whites in south africa who are majority Afrikaner/Boers are europeans is actually outdated.

Yes most of our industries are still dominated by whites but that's changing, but the picture you're painting who don't even know anything about south africa's affirmative action policies are totally not true.

I haven't commented on what the role of blacks was in South Africa's development or economy, though I see that some other people have.

I've only alluded to and pointed out that many of the comparisons you were making on development to elevate your group over others were misleading and not in context simply because the history of the two countries is so different, especially regarding where each one started from in terms of their economy and infrastructure. South Africa definitely did not start only in 1960.

On the flipside Nigeria is actually over populated for its geographical size and that's not something to be proud of. South africa who is less populated and who is also bigger in terms of its geographical size compared to Nigeria will for obvious reasons offer better infrastructure and standards of living to its people of 50million

Who was bragging about Nigeria's population density (which isn't even that bad, by the way)?

Nigeria is africa's most populated and most poluted country but will never be the wealthiest, that one will eventually go to Congo DRC because of its size and proven natural resources only if they can stop there tribalist tendencies and the western medilling to keep it unstable so that they can milk its resources.

Stop this foolishness cause were all educated not just u my Blind Patriotic brother still trapped in tribalist tendencies.

Don't Believe In The Hype!!!

Being called a blind patriot or tribalist by you is silly. I think that applies more to you than myself.

you think SA is doing something about its problem and nigeria isnt doing anything about her own abi? What an insinuation to portray not only your ignorance of current affairs but also your ignorance inspired 'i am bigger than you' character. The ignorance about nigeria among you couldnt be more embarrasing than someone saying we still battle with yellow fever!

Some one boasted that SA spends twice more on education than nigeria spends on her own education. This still goes to show the ignorance. While i do not know what is spent in SA education and education related matters, i think we spend so much on education. If there are reasons you believe other wise, state them pls.

In nigeria, most people are not in public schools but private where tuition fees are so high! Those private schools have relativly high standard.
Taking WAEC, NECO and JAMB each year, gulps so much money. waec and neco each have over 200,000 candidates in a year.thats an underestimate anyway. JAMB has 1.5m candidates this year, 1.4 last year and 1.2m the year before that. Each JAMB candidate will have to pay at least 4000 naira while waec and neco pay at least 5000 naira separately for the two exams

all jamb candidates will still have to sit for a post UTME. By the nature of the JAMB, a student chooses at least 3 schools. A uni (1st and second choices), polytechnic (1st and 2nd choices), a college of edu (1st and 2nd choices) all of which he will have to sit for a post UTME if he wants to max his chances of geting admission. He will have to travel all over the country to sit for these exams if the schools he chose are in diff parts of the country. Traveling around naija can be pretty expensive!

I have not mentioned post gradute studies. neither have i mentioned predegree, diploma courses and dist learning. Some unis in nigeria have more part time students than there are full time. The part time are far more expensive than full time. From the eclipse i have given you, do your maths and get an idea of how much we spend on education AT HOME, i am not talking about abroad yet!

According to SLS (he knows how much goes in and out of the country so his figures can be relied upon), nigerians spend 1bn dollar in tuition fee in ghana alone. What about that which we spend in your country, SA. What about the UK, US, canada, ukraine, malaysia.

We spend so much on ourselves when it comes to education and you cant take that away from us.

someone said foreign oil companies are the only ones drilling oil in nigeria. Thats not true. There local companies also in it. They even have oil wells. We also have shares in the foreign oil companies operating in nigeria. We are not that dump and foolish to allow people drill oil in our land without taking from them. Even if other nigerians are foolish, the igbos are definitely not foolish to allow that to happen. Btw, i am not igbo

someone was trying to mock us by saying we do not have electricity. Yes, we embarrasingly produce below 4000MW of electricity compared to your 40000MW but the truth is, when you come to our places of businesses, there is always light! How do we do it? We buy generators and fuel them. It is our gen fueled economy that is said to over take your in 4 or 5 years time according to experts. So yes, we may be generating only 4000MW of electricity to our national grid, but we use far more than that! Or how else do you think we are making progress?

Pls dont say its the oil that is piloting our economy because that would be another ignorance on your part.
For 8years now, the oil sector has never being the most active sub-sector on the lagos stock exchange not even for a day! Neither has the oil companies dominated top gainers list.

So pls dont sit down there at the base of the continent, watch the BBC and think we are nothing.

souldust: you think SA is doing something about its problem and nigeria isnt doing anything about her own abi? What an insinuation to portray not only your ignorance of current affairs but also your ignorance inspired 'i am bigger than you' character. The ignorance about nigeria among you couldnt be more embarrasing than someone saying we still battle with yellow fever!

Some one boasted that SA spends twice more on education than nigeria spends on her own education. This still goes to show the ignorance. While i do not know what is spent in SA education and education related matters, i think we spend so much on education. If there are reasons you believe other wise, state them pls.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/04/2012-education-budget-and-its-implications-analysis/

VanguardNGR: According to a breakdown of the 2012 budget, the sum of N400.15 billion, representing 8.43 per cent of the budget has been allocated to education. ...
Nigeria spends less than 9 % of her annual budget on education. Botswana spends 19.0 %; Swaziland, 24.6; Lesotho, 17.0; South Africa, 25.8; Cote d’Ivoire, 30.0; Burkina Faso, 16.8; Ghana, 31; Kenya, 23.0; Uganda, 27.0; Tunisia, 17.0; and, Morocco, 17.7%.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

souldust:
In nigeria, most people are not in public schools but private where tuition fees are so high! Those private schools have relativly high standard.
Taking WAEC, NECO and JAMB each year, gulps so much money. waec and neco each have over 200,000 candidates in a year.thats an underestimate anyway. JAMB has 1.5m candidates this year, 1.4 last year and 1.2m the year before that. Each JAMB candidate will have to pay at least 4000 naira while waec and neco pay at least 5000 naira separately for the two exams

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/nigeria/school-enrollment-primary-private-percent-of-total-primary-wb-data.html

Percentage of Students in Private Primary schools: 5.6%
Percentage of Students in Private Secondary schools: 13.7%

souldust: someone was trying to mock us by saying we do not have electricity. Yes, we embarrasingly produce below 4000MW of electricity compared to your 40000MW but the truth is, when you come to our places of businesses, there is always light! How do we do it? We buy generators and fuel them. It is our gen fueled economy that is said to over take your in 4 or 5 years time according to experts. So yes, we may be generating only 4000MW of electricity to our national grid, but we use far more than that! Or how else do you think we are making progress?

Two things:
a) this means you are paying more for electricity than anywhere in Europe.
b) Nigeria has a population 3.24 times the size of South Africa's, but an economy 1.75 times smaller. Even when it catches up in GDP terms it will still be less than a third the size per capita.

souldust:
Pls dont say its the oil that is piloting our economy because that would be another ignorance on your part.
For 8years now, the oil sector has never being the most active sub-sector on the lagos stock exchange not even for a day! Neither has the oil companies dominated top gainers list.

So pls dont sit down there at the base of the continent, watch the BBC and think we are nothing.

http://www.indexmundi.com/nigeria/economy_profile.html

IndexMundi:
Exports
$101.1 billion (2011 est.)
$73.7 billion (2010 est.)

Exports - commodities
petroleum and petroleum products 95%, cocoa, rubber

brother kitanga, yes the government spends just about 9 percent. What i am saying is; we the people spend more. Obviously that 400m dollar (which is so small for us) cannot educate the people who are in school at present. But so many of us are in school. At least 50m are students at one level or the other. You can see we do every thing for ourselves. Put all of our efforts together and you will se that we are more than the national budget suggests. I am not comparing us to any one. I am only correcting some wrong impressions

brother kitanga, yes the government spends just about 9 percent. What i am saying is; we the people spend more. Obviously that 400m dollar (which is so small for us) cannot educate the people who are in school at present. But so many of us are in school. At least 50m are students at one level or the other. You can see we do every thing for ourselves. Put all of our efforts together and you will see that we are more than the national budget suggests. That the national budget doent describe us in any form of measure.

I am not comparing us to any one. I am only correcting some wrong impressions

souldust: brother kitanga, yes the government spends just about 9 percent. What i am saying is; we the people spend more. Obviously that 400m dollar (which is so small for us) cannot educate the people who are in school at present. But so many of us are in school. At least 50m are students at one level or the other. You can see we do every thing for ourselves. Put all of our efforts together and you will see that we are more than the national budget suggests. That the national budget doent describe us in any form of measure.

I am not comparing us to any one. I am only correcting some wrong impressions

I really don't want to be rude, but the impressions are right - and unless Nigerians accept it and fight for better they will continue to be right.

Ki-Katanga:


I really don't want to be rude, but the impressions are right - and unless Nigerians accept it and fight for better they will continue to be right.

are you saying all i posted are wrong? Are you saying that we do not spend so much on education as i posted? You are making me to wonder if you actually live in nigeria or that you are observant of the plight of students when it comes how much education takes from us.

And yes we are rejecting all negativities and we are doing something about it. that is the truth that you are not accepting even though you have seen nigerians in some threads on this website condemning aggressively negativities in the country

How many are able to afford private schooling.

souldust: are you saying all i posted are wrong? Are you saying that we do not spend so much on education as i posted? You are making me to wonder if you actually live in nigeria or that you are observant of the plight of students when it comes how much education takes from us.

And yes we are rejecting all negativities and we are doing something about it. that is the truth that you are not accepting even though you have seen nigerians in some threads on this website condemning aggressively negativities in the country

I've posted all of the figures and all of the links for corroboration, I'm not sure what more I can do, except explain the facts:

Nigeria spends 8.3% of its Budget on Education.
The Budget of Nigeria is $30 Billion
Therefore the education budget is around $2.49 Billion

South Africa spends 25.8% of its Budget on Education.
The Budget of South Africa is $109 Billion
Therefore the education budget is around $28.1 Billion

However, there are more students in Nigeria than South Africa:
NG - 27,319,677
ZA - 12,092,005

So the spend per student is
NG - ~$92 per child per year
ZA - ~$2,340 per child per year

So a child in South Africa, on average gets 25 times as much investment in their education.

Private schooling is more common in Nigeria, however is still a small minority
5.6% of primary children in Nigeria are privately educated compared with 2.5% in South Africa
13.7% of secondary children in Nigeria are privately educated compared with 3% in South Africa

That's the best data I can find. Please see the sources for verification.

[u]Sources:[/u]______________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/nigeria/school-enrollment-primary-private-percent-of-total-primary-wb-data.html
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/south-africa/school-enrollment-primary-private-percent-of-total-primary-wb-data.html
http://data.worldbank.org/country/nigeria
http://data.worldbank.org/country/south-africa
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/04/2012-education-budget-and-its-implications-analysis/
http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2012/ene/FullENE.pdf
http://www.dailytrust.com.ng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=149837

my dear, are you in nigeria? If you are, where do you live? I need to know the answers to those questions

the calculations you did is based on the ratio of individual country's edu budget and it school population. But i pointed out in one of my earlier posts that we, on our own, invest in education. We spend more, WAY MORE, than the country's budgets for edu. Any one who is in nigeria and doesnt live in glass house and is a student would agree with me when he reads my earlier posts.

There are MORE nigerians in private schools at the basic and secondary level than there are in public. How many are the public schools? They are not many. If you walk through the streets of nigeria, you will know what i am saying.

Forget that stat you are refering to. Politicians lie about figures like that so as to attract more intervention funds to their states so that tey can steal.

souldust: my dear, are you in nigeria? If you are, where do you live? I need to know the answers to those questions

the calculations you did is based on the ratio of individual country's edu budget and it school population. But i pointed out in one of my earlier posts that we, on our own, invest in education. We spend more, WAY MORE, than the country's budgets for edu. Any one who is in nigeria and doesnt live in glass house and is a student would agree with me when he reads my earlier posts.

There are MORE nigerians in private schools at the basic and secondary level than there are in public. How many are the public schools? They are not many. If you walk through the streets of nigeria, you will know what i am saying.

Forget that stat you are refering to. Politicians lie about figures like that so as to attract more intervention funds to their states so that tey can steal.

souldust, the bolded above is key to understanding your position. Ki-Katanga is ignorant of this important information hence his assumptions and conclusions are dead wrong. I believe Ki=Katanga means well but is simply ignorant of the aforementioned facts.

souldust, you are spot on.

I doubt that private education is enough for every one. How many are not going to school.

andrewza: I doubt that private education is enough for every one. How many are not going to school.

Children out of school

NG - 8,653,439
ZA - 500,966

[u]Sources:[/u]______________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/nigeria/school-enrollment-primary-private-percent-of-total-primary-wb-data.html
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/south-africa/school-enrollment-primary-private-percent-of-total-primary-wb-data.html