pato405:

are you thinking at all? you must be real confused.

as a matter of fact, this move will completely annihilate local production & Nigeria may have to depend solely on importation. 30% capacityty of our refineries may be reduced to 0%. the only advantage will be that since importation will be liberalised, market forces 'may' eventually (on the long run) reduce the pump price (tho insigniificantly -if they dont form a union or peg a price).

I'v been following this argument for sometime now. but I must confess that in as much as removing subsidy is not a bad idea, it is not at the moment a logical strategy in the Nigerian economy considering the paltry minimum wage. secondly, the endemic corruption within the system will only make things worse because funds generated will be grossly mis-managed. our leaders bask in ostentation, splurge money as they deem fit and I believe they will squander the funds as they have always done in the past. they are all cursed with extravagance. subsidy withdrawal will only generate more funds that will serve as water to the seed of corruption. you all sit back, watch, enjoy the ride and watch corruption soar as people will loot massively the proceeds from subsidy. contracts will be inflated, abandoned projects everywhere, many more contracts will not even be embarked on after more than half of the funds for such contracts have been allocated. favoritism, nepotism and god-fatherism will be the frame-work for the award of contracts. eventually, things will get tougher for Nigerians- as this projects will either not be executed or shoddily and shabbily done . only a disciplined and visionary government will utilize such proceeds judiciously. Nigeria has always been unlucky with rational leaders right from 1960. the deficiency continues till date with Badluck Jona (Gooluck Jona sorry) taking the cake.

He is here to extend his confusion like a contagious plague to the others. our government is VERY GOOD with projects and propositions appearing very sweet on paper, empty promises but when the time comes to deliver, you see them stuttering. dont be surprised when the proceeds from fuel subsidy is used to order for 3 private jets for each senator and double security votes for governors, e.t.c

dvee2:

Can anyone mention any country in the world were SAP/IMF/World bank policy work? Anywhere they go they leave the country impoverish and in hugh debt. A couple of years ago Argentina`s economy was bankrupt due to world bank policy. They have consistently tried to blackmail Malaysia to accept IMF policy by sponsoring former vice president Ahmed Ibrahim not until Malaysian Government under mahatir resisted them. Now ten years after Malaysian currency have been stable against the doller in ten years. 1 : 4.
If Malaysia have accepted their proposal their economy will have crumble by now.
Bottom line we must look inward and develop our economy base on our peculiarities not any world bank theorem. What IMF policy did china used? I believe in free market economy,but model from our own peculiarities. NO AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY OR DEREGULATION WILL SUCCEED IN NIGERIA IF WE DO NOT TACKLE CORRUPTION AND CUT ON GOVERNMENT EXCESSES.

Kudos to the posters of the above write up. I think the apologists here should take a minute or two to think deeply and not just support every government in power,which has been the stock-in-trade of some people because of what they will reap from the set up.They need to be truthful with themselves.Its only righteousness that will exalt this nation.I wonder why the government again had to hire people and pay them to demonstrate in favour of the policy if they truly meant well for this nation.

dvee2:

Can anyone mention any country in the world were SAP/IMF/World bank policy work? Anywhere they go they leave the country impoverish and in hugh debt. A couple of years ago Argentina`s economy was bankrupt due to world bank policy. They have consistently tried to blackmail Malaysia to accept IMF policy by sponsoring former vice president Ahmed Ibrahim not until Malaysian Government under mahatir resisted them. Now ten years after Malaysian currency have been stable against the doller in ten years. 1 : 4.
If Malaysia have accepted their proposal their economy will have crumble by now.
Bottom line we must look inward and develop our economy base on our peculiarities not any world bank theorem. What IMF policy did china used? I believe in free market economy,but model from our own peculiarities. NO AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY OR DEREGULATION WILL SUCCEED IN NIGERIA IF WE DO NOT TACKLE CORRUPTION AND CUT ON GOVERNMENT EXCESSES.

This is nonsense. The IMF only lends money to countries who have so much debt that they are no longer able to raise money by any other means. The IMF is therefore a lender of last resort. Blaming the IMF for the state of its borrowers is like blaming the Fire Service for fires because every time you see a building on fire, you see the fire service close by.

More thinking and less of the blame game will help Nigerians.

4 Play:

This is nonsense. The IMF only lends money to countries who have so much debt that they are no longer able to raise money by any other means. The IMF is therefore a lender of last resort. Blaming the IMF for the state of its borrowers is like blaming the Fire Service for fires because every time you see a building on fire, you see the fire service close by.

More thinking and less of the blame game will help Nigerians.

It is a known fact that IMF cripples a country. They start by advocating bad economic policies to a particular country just like they are doing Nigeria on this subsidy issue. Before the country knows it, they are bankrupt and will result to IMF for loans which will further enslave the country for years to come.

Where is your thought?

4 Play:

This is nonsense. The IMF only lends money to countries who have so much debt that they are no longer able to raise money by any other means. The IMF is therefore a lender of last resort. Blaming the IMF for the state of its borrowers is like blaming the Fire Service for fires because every time you see a building on fire, you see the fire service close by.

More thinking and less of the blame game will help Nigerians.

IMF lends money, thank you for the analysis! at what rate do those countries have to pay the debt?

@Funkymallam and @Beef: Please read SholaTech's comment. Read to understand.

4 Play:
Quote from: dvee2 on Today at 11:04:43 AM

Can anyone mention any country in the world were SAP/IMF/World bank policy work? Anywhere they go they leave the country impoverish and in hugh debt. A couple of years ago Argentina`s economy was bankrupt due to world bank policy. They have consistently tried to blackmail Malaysia to accept IMF policy by sponsoring former vice president Ahmed Ibrahim not until Malaysian Government under mahatir resisted them. Now ten years after Malaysian currency have been stable against the doller in ten years. 1 : 4.
If Malaysia have accepted their proposal their economy will have crumble by now.
Bottom line we must look inward and develop our economy base on our peculiarities not any world bank theorem. What IMF policy did china used? I believe in free market economy,but model from our own peculiarities. NO AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY OR DEREGULATION WILL SUCCEED IN NIGERIA IF WE DO NOT TACKLE CORRUPTION AND CUT ON GOVERNMENT EXCESSES.


This is nonsense. The IMF only lends money to countries who have so much debt that they are no longer able to raise money by any other means. The IMF is therefore a lender of last resort. Blaming the IMF for the state of its borrowers is like blaming the Fire Service for fires because every time you see a building on fire, you see the fire service close by.

More thinking and less of the blame game will help Nigerians.

My broda no mind them. In football anytime nigeria lose a major match everbody in nigeria becomes a football tactician they become mourinho or sir. Alex this subsidy removal has turn everybody into an economist,

Has anyone asked why Ngozi Okonjo Iweala would leave her World Bank job to work with the govt in power here only to get promoted when she goes back to her former job? I smell a rat. Who is she really working for or better who is she assissting?

Olodostein:

It is a known fact that IMF cripples a country. They start by advocating bad economic policies to a particular country just like they are doing Nigeria on this subsidy issue. Before the country knows it, they are bankrupt and will result to IMF for loans which will further enslave the country for years to come.

Where is your thought?

If it is a known fact, no one will listen to the IMF, never mind borrow from it and it's role will be redundant. It defies logic to claim that by asking that we cut spending, this will increase the possibility of us going bankrupt. Being miserly doesn't make you go broke. In the 70s, we spent to our hearts delight, was it not Gowon that said then that he did not know what to do with our oil revenues. We had the Udorji awards, FESTAC 77, e.t.c

By the 80s when oil prices crashed, we became bankrupt and had to resort to the IMF as we were shut out by other lenders. In an ironic twist, like someone who blames the fire service for fires, we blamed the IMF for our being bankrupt.

Try this thought experiment, if you lend money, is it in your interest that the people who borrow from you suffer hardship? You want your money back and that's only possible if your borrowers are successful.

Now, I know you're going say that a lender has a vested interest in keeping countries borrowing. Even using that line of reasoning, economically developed countries borrow more not less. The US, the king of all borrowers, owes 15 trillion dollars in sovereign debt. So even if the IMF wants us to keep borrowing, it is in their interest that we keep growing wealthier so that our lending needs will be more.

4 Play:
Quote from: Olodostein on Today at 11:18:34 AM

It is a known fact that IMF cripples a country. They start by advocating bad economic policies to a particular country just like they are doing Nigeria on this subsidy issue. Before the country knows it, they are bankrupt and will result to IMF for loans which will further enslave the country for years to come.

Where is your thought?


If it is a known fact, no one will listen to the IMF, never mind borrow from it and it's role will be redundant. It defies logic to claim that by asking that we cut spending, this will increase the possibility of us going bankrupt. Being miserly doesn't make you go broke. In the 70s, we spent to our hearts delight, was it not Gowon that said then that he did not know what to do with our oil revenues. We had the Udorji awards, FESTAC 77, e.t.c

By the 80s when oil prices crashed, we became bankrupt and had to resort to the IMF as we were shut out by other lenders. In an ironic twist, like someone who blames the fire service for fires, we blamed the IMF for our being bankrupt.

Try this thought experiment, if you lend money, is it in your interest that the people who borrow from you suffer hardship? You want your money back and that's only possible if your borrowers are successful.

Now, I know you're going say that a lender has a vested interest in keeping countries borrowing. Even using that line of reasoning, economically developed countries borrow more not less. The US, the king of all borrowers, owes 15 trillion dollars in sovereign debt. So even if the IMF wants us to keep borrowing, it is in their interest that we keep growing wealthier so that our lending needs will be more.

Ʊ don't have to be explaining to this olodos!!! Very soon they would call Ʊ a paid government agent!!

4 Play:

If it is a known fact, no one will listen to the IMF, never mind borrow from it and it's role will be redundant. It defies logic to claim that by asking that we cut spending, this will increase the possibility of us going bankrupt. Being miserly doesn't make you go broke. In the 70s, we spent to our hearts delight, was it not Gowon that said then that he did not know what to do with our oil revenues. We had the Udorji awards, FESTAC 77, e.t.c

By the 80s when oil prices crashed, we became bankrupt and had to resort to the IMF as we were shut out by other lenders. In an ironic twist, like someone who blames the fire service for fires, we blamed the IMF for our being bankrupt.

Try this thought experiment, if you lend money, is it in your interest that the people who borrow from you suffer hardship? You want your money back and that's only possible if your borrowers are successful.

Now, I know you're going say that a lender has a vested interest in keeping countries borrowing. Even using that line of reasoning, economically developed countries borrow more not less. The US, the king of all borrowers, owes 15 trillion dollars in sovereign debt. So even if the IMF wants us to keep borrowing, it is in their interest that we keep growing wealthier so that our lending needs will be more.

Good analysis. Now in Nigeria;s case, what assurances do we have from the fools in power that money saved from the IMF policy will not be used to fund elections,pay elected officers and their retinue of aides fat salaries,embark on white elephant projects? Thereby going to same IMF to borrow because i know the IMF know our leaders to be corrupt

All this conversation about the west is rubbish!

tjadeba:

IMF lends money, thank you for the analysis! at what rate do those countries have to pay the debt?

It depends on each country but it is always at a rate lower than a country would otherwise get were it to find a private lender. The real problem  with the IMF is not the rate that they charge but the conditions they attach to compensate for the risks they have taken to give you loans which no other person will give you at all or at the rate they're charging.

The key point is that countries should manage their finances in a sustainable so as not to go bankrupt. The popular option for Govts is to spend money - salary increments, subsidies, airports, e.t.c. This is all well and good until, especially for a country like Nigeria that lives off oil, when your fortunes change and you can't afford these things.

tjadeba:

Good analysis. Now in Nigeria;s case, what assurances do we have from the fools in power that money saved from the IMF policy will not be used to fund elections,pay elected officers and their retinue of aides fat salaries,embark on white elephant projects? Thereby going to same IMF to borrow because i know the IMF know our leaders to be corrupt

We need to be active in fighting corruption. For instance, I don't get why no strike actions are called when elections are obviously rigged or in response to embezzlement. I hear PENGASSAN is going on strike over subsidy removal, I can't fathom why they haven't gone on strike demanding that the thieving oil minister be investigated or at the very least resign.

The subsidy programme is in itself an avenue for embezzlement, which I feel is the only reason it's lasted this long. Money is stolen through spending programmes. Ending it does not in itself increase corruption. The energy used in demanding that we keep spending money at the risk of repeating our 1980s experience should be spent fighting corruption. That's where our focus should be.

4 Play:

It depends on each country but it is always at a rate lower than a country would otherwise get were it to find a private lender. The real problem  with the IMF is not the rate that they charge but the conditions they attach to compensate for the risks they have taken to give you loans which no other person will give you at all or at the rate they're charging.

The key point is that countries should manage their finances in a sustainable so as not to go bankrupt. The popular option for Govts is to spend money - salary increments, subsidies, airports, e.t.c. This is all well and good until, especially for a country like Nigeria that lives off oil, when your fortunes change and you can't afford these things.

Please re-phrase the emboldened part so i can understand properly.I seem not to get your logic there

4 Play:

If it is a known fact, no one will listen to the IMF, never mind borrow from it and it's role will be redundant. It defies logic to claim that by asking that we cut spending, this will increase the possibility of us going bankrupt. Being miserly doesn't make you go broke. In the 70s, we spent to our hearts delight, was it not Gowon that said then that he did not know what to do with our oil revenues. We had the Udorji awards, FESTAC 77, e.t.c

By the 80s when oil prices crashed, we became bankrupt and had to resort to the IMF as we were shut out by other lenders. In an ironic twist, like someone who blames the fire service for fires, we blamed the IMF for our being bankrupt.

Try this thought experiment, if you lend money, is it in your interest that the people who borrow from you suffer hardship? You want your money back and that's only possible if your borrowers are successful.

Now, I know you're going say that a lender has a vested interest in keeping countries borrowing. Even using that line of reasoning, economically developed countries borrow more not less. The US, the king of all borrowers, owes 15 trillion dollars in sovereign debt. So even if the IMF wants us to keep borrowing, it is in their interest that we keep growing wealthier so that our lending needs will be more.

It all sounds good in theory. You may be logically analysing this from a positive economic(describing "what is" point of view. The IMF are doing so from a normative economic (advocating "what ought to be" point of view. Behind theirs, there is an ulterior motive that has been going on for years. In addition to that, their rules of engagement with developed countries is very different from developing and underdeveloped countries.  

Whey are they not telling western countries to remove farm subsidies? Don't you know that is gravely affecting African countries? Who owns the IMF? Where do their profits go? Why do they posit themselves as being for the success of particular countries, yet, they charge exorbitant interest on their loans coupled with very strict conditions?

Our leaders and policy makers are not honest with us, because they are also out to profit from whatever shitty is going on underneath. The average joe's will be the ones to suffer. You may be typing this and advocating from your "comfortable environment". If you come say these things to those in the streets of Lagos, Kano and so on, who are feeding from hand to mouth and contemplating where the next meal or transport fare will come from. Just be ready for Mob justice.  

Do you think the protesters that have been killed by police so far are not humans?

4 Play:

We need to be active in fighting corruption. For instance, I don't get why no strike actions are called when elections are obviously rigged or in response to embezzlement. I hear PENGASSAN is going on strike over subsidy removal, I can't fathom why they haven't gone on strike demanding that the thieving oil minister be investigated or at the very least resign.

The subsidy programme is in itself an avenue for embezzlement, which I feel is the only reason it's lasted this long. Money is stolen through spending programmes. Ending it does not in itself increase corruption. The energy used in demanding that we keep spending money at the risk of repeating our 1980s experience should be spent fighting corruption. That's where our focus should be.

Means the time is not right to end subsidy on what affects us most (Petroleum) until corruption is at its barest minimum.That is the logic,if am right

karl max:

4 Play:
Quote from: Olodostein on Today at 11:18:34 AM

It is a known fact that IMF cripples a country. They start by advocating bad economic policies to a particular country just like they are doing Nigeria on this subsidy issue. Before the country knows it, they are bankrupt and will result to IMF for loans which will further enslave the country for years to come.

Where is your thought?


If it is a known fact, no one will listen to the IMF, never mind borrow from it and it's role will be redundant. It defies logic to claim that by asking that we cut spending, this will increase the possibility of us going bankrupt. Being miserly doesn't make you go broke. In the 70s, we spent to our hearts delight, was it not Gowon that said then that he did not know what to do with our oil revenues. We had the Udorji awards, FESTAC 77, e.t.c

By the 80s when oil prices crashed, we became bankrupt and had to resort to the IMF as we were shut out by other lenders. In an ironic twist, like someone who blames the fire service for fires, we blamed the IMF for our being bankrupt.

Try this thought experiment, if you lend money, is it in your interest that the people who borrow from you suffer hardship? You want your money back and that's only possible if your borrowers are successful.

Now, I know you're going say that a lender has a vested interest in keeping countries borrowing. Even using that line of reasoning, economically developed countries borrow more not less. The US, the king of all borrowers, owes 15 trillion dollars in sovereign debt. So even if the IMF wants us to keep borrowing, it is in their interest that we keep growing wealthier so that our lending needs will be more.

Ʊ don't have to be explaining to this olodos!!! Very soon they would call Ʊ a paid government agent!!

If you don't have something concrete to contribute; why not go to where you belong. It is quite ironic that the Original Karl max was fundamentally against institutions like the IMF. It is obvious that you haven't read his works.

Karl max must be rolling in his grave to see a Non-Entity like you who lack fundamental understanding of political economics idolize him.

Olodostein:

If you don't have something concrete to contribute; why not go to where you belong. It is quite ironic that the Original Karl max was fundamentally against institutions like the IMF. It is obvious that you haven't read his works.

Karl max must be rolling in his grave to see a Non-Entity like you who lack fundamental understanding of political economics idolize him.

You took that from my mouth.Cheers

Olodostein:
Quote from: karl max on Today at 11:40:41 AM

4 Play:
Quote from: Olodostein on Today at 11:18:34 AM

It is a known fact that IMF cripples a country. They start by advocating bad economic policies to a particular country just like they are doing Nigeria on this subsidy issue. Before the country knows it, they are bankrupt and will result to IMF for loans which will further enslave the country for years to come.

Where is your thought?


If it is a known fact, no one will listen to the IMF, never mind borrow from it and it's role will be redundant. It defies logic to claim that by asking that we cut spending, this will increase the possibility of us going bankrupt. Being miserly doesn't make you go broke. In the 70s, we spent to our hearts delight, was it not Gowon that said then that he did not know what to do with our oil revenues. We had the Udorji awards, FESTAC 77, e.t.c

By the 80s when oil prices crashed, we became bankrupt and had to resort to the IMF as we were shut out by other lenders. In an ironic twist, like someone who blames the fire service for fires, we blamed the IMF for our being bankrupt.

Try this thought experiment, if you lend money, is it in your interest that the people who borrow from you suffer hardship? You want your money back and that's only possible if your borrowers are successful.

Now, I know you're going say that a lender has a vested interest in keeping countries borrowing. Even using that line of reasoning, economically developed countries borrow more not less. The US, the king of all borrowers, owes 15 trillion dollars in sovereign debt. So even if the IMF wants us to keep borrowing, it is in their interest that we keep growing wealthier so that our lending needs will be more.

Ʊ don't have to be explaining to this olodos!!! Very soon they would call Ʊ a paid government agent!!


If you don't have something concrete to contribute; why not go to where you belong. It is quite ironic that the Original Karl max was fundamentally against institutions like the IMF. It is obvious that you haven't read his works.

Karl max must be rolling in his grave to see a Non-Entity like you who lack fundamental understanding of political economics idolize him.

What more can Ʊ say EWU subsidy

tjadeba:

Please re-phrase the emboldened part so i can understand properly.I seem not to get your logic there

Nigeria's main source of revenue is oil. History tells us that oil prices can stay static or even crash. If either happens, we will go bankrupt. We demand that the Govt keeps spending money on salary increments and subsidies even though this is financially unsustainable.

tjadeba:

Means the time is not right to end subsidy on what affects us most (Petroleum) until corruption is at its barest minimum.That is the logic,if am right

That argument is borne out convenience and is mere procrastination. This subsidy issue first came up in the 80s and we have done nothing to fight corruption. I can't recall one single instance of workers downing tools in response to corruption.

As the fuel subsidy policy is in itself a conduit for corruption and wouldn't have lasted this long if people in power didn't enrich themselves through it, I see no reason why we should retain it as a bizarre price for the failure to end corruption.

Olodostein:

It all sounds good in theory. You may be logically analysing this from a positive economic(describing "what is" point of view. The IMF are doing so from a normative economic (advocating "what ought to be" point of view. Behind theirs, there is an ulterior motive that has been going on for years. In addition to that, their rules of engagement with developed countries is very different from developing and underdeveloped countries.  

Whey are they not telling western countries to remove farm subsidies? Don't you know that is gravely affecting African countries? Who owns the IMF? Where do their profits go? Why do they posit themselves as being for the success of particular countries, yet, they charge exorbitant interest on their loans coupled with very strict conditions?

Our leaders and policy makers are not honest with us, because they are also out to profit from whatever shitty is going on underneath. The average joe's will be the ones to suffer. You may be typing this and advocating from your "comfortable environment". If you come say these things to those in the streets of Lagos, Kano and so on, who are feeding from hand to mouth and contemplating where the next meal or transport fare will come from. Just be ready for Mob justice.  

Do you think the protesters that have been killed by police so far are not humans?

Millions of Nigerians have died and will die because our country is not economically successful. If you think subsidising  fuel consumption is the path to economic growth, best of luck. We will learn the hard way.

IMF and the European union is looking for money to bail greece out of thier distress

4 Play:

Nigeria's main source of revenue is oil. History tells us that oil prices can stay static or even crash. If either happens, we will go bankrupt. We demand that the Govt keeps spending money on salary increments and subsidies even though this is financially unsustainable.

That argument is borne out convenience and is mere procrastination. This subsidy issue first came up in the 80s and we have done nothing to fight corruption. I can't recall one single instance of workers downing tools in response to corruption.

As the fuel subsidy policy is in itself a conduit for corruption and wouldn't have lasted this long if people in power didn't enrich themselves through it, I see no reason why we should retain it as a bizarre price for the failure to end corruption.

Millions of Nigerians have died and will die because our country is not economically successful. If you think subsidising  fuel consumption is the path to economic growth, best of luck. We will learn the hard way.

Dude, the cement industry is not regulated neither is textile industry, the furniture industry but imported product are cheaper than locally produced what makes you think removing subsidy will help the petroleum industry

norrisman rightly points out the answer to the OP. Sadly, most developing nations just roll over including Nigeria. Well done to Chavez and venezuela for standing up for their own people.

[img]http://s01.flagcounter.com/count/7uR/bg=FFFFFF/txt=FFFFFF/border=FFFFFF/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/pageviews=0[/img][img]http://s10.flagcounter.com/count/oH/bg=FFFFFF/txt=FFFFFF/border=FFFFFF/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/pageviews=0[/img][img]http://2.s01.flagcounter.com/count/7uR/bg=FFFFFF/txt=FFFFFF/border=FFFFFF/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/pageviews=0[/img]

Suppose you have not been worthy of trust in handling worldly wealth. Then who will trust you with true riches? Suppose you have not been worthy of trust in handling someone else's property. Then who will give you property of your own?” Luke 16:

He Who Is Faithful In Little Will Be Faithful In Much. Can this be said of Jonathan's Administration? There indeed exists a TRUST DEFICIT.

As I said earlier, either the Nigerians asking this kind of silly question are IMF/World Bank agents or simply toddlers. We all know how Nigerians suddenly begin to think like their oyinbo overlords as soon as they get employed by UN or IMF or World Bank; we call them Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas.

In any case for those who genuinely don't understand and ask what they have to gain, I will break it down using toddler analogies.

What did Shylock (in the book "Merchant of Venice" which I'm sure even toddlers have read) have to gain by Antonio dying, knowing fully well that if he cut out Antonio's heart as he sought he (Antonio) would die? Wouldn't he gain a lot more if he made Antonio rich so that Antonio can pay him more money? That's the logic some are trying to sell here, and it's a hard sell.

Of course we know only a fool will borrow money from a Shylock, but then it still does not change the nature of the Shylock, as a wicked soul; a sadist.

So, I borrow 12,000 from a Shylock and agreed to make 12 payments of 1500 each month (for the entire year). After making 2 payments, I start to default. So Mr Shylock comes to find out why he's not getting his money. I open up my books and he finds out my children go to school and I pay 1500 every month for school fees alone in total. He also finds out they drink Peak milk where as I could buy them the adulterated (and much cheaper) milk sold somewhere in Mushin. So what do you think Mr Shylock will advise? Of course he will tell me to stop sending my children to school, and/or show me how to locate that place in Mushin where adulterated milk is sold, so that my kids can be poisoned. It's really none of his business, as he has to get his 1500 monthly payment. Now ask again, what does IMF stand to gain? Answer the question yourself.

What the West gains: 1). Pry open our markets for Western Refineries 2). Reduce Government expenditure on subsidy and also reduce the exposure to movements in oil prices - as a result, IMF believes that Nigeria would be able to take on and service NEW debt.

I'm hoping for the day when Nigerian men decides to be MEN and take their destiny into their own hands. Per the West, you all ain't more than a muth fu, g one-page excel spreadsheet (maybe two)

Their is a bigger picture to this whole situation were in today , Nigeria's 'Elite' have sold out our country for their own 'share' , They are constantly giving silly reasons as to why we don't have our refineries running and as long as our refineries dont work and we are still importing IMF / Western counties will continue to benefit, Nigerian puppets of theirs ie . GEJ ,Ngozi keep them in the business of selling us our own oil by not repairing refineries and the IMF give them a token for their corperation, 2 things can happen when IMF / western countries propose their policy to oil rich 3 world countries : either you cooperate and receive your share , be their bich* / puppet or they label you something you are not and we all know the whats next,

...pls delete

logica:

As I said earlier, either the Nigerians asking this kind of silly question are IMF/World Bank agents or simply toddlers. We all know how Nigerians suddenly begin to think like their oyinbo overlords as soon as they get employed by UN or IMF or World Bank; we call them Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas.

In any case for those who genuinely don't understand and ask what they have to gain, I will break it down using toddler analogies.

What did Shylock (in the book "Merchant of Venice" which I'm sure even toddlers have read) have to gain by Antonio dying, knowing fully well that if he cut out Antonio's heart as he sought he (Antonio) would die? Wouldn't he gain a lot more if he made Antonio rich so that Antonio can pay him more money? That's the logic some are trying to sell here, and it's a hard sell.

Of course we know only a fool will borrow money from a Shylock, but then it still does not change the nature of the Shylock, as a wicked soul; a
sadist.

So, I borrow 12,000 from a Shylock and agreed to make 12 payments of 1500 each month (for the entire year). After making 2 payments, I start to default. So Mr Shylock comes to find out why he's not getting his money. I open up my books and he finds out my children go to school and I pay 1500 every month for school fees alone in total. He also finds out they drink Peak milk where as I could buy them the adulterated (and much cheaper) milk sold somewhere in Mushin. So what do you think Mr Shylock will advise? Of course he will tell me to stop sending my children to school, and/or show me how to locate that place in Mushin where adulterated milk is sold, so that my kids can be poisoned. It's really none of his business, as he has to get his 1500 monthly payment. Now ask again, what does IMF stand to gain? Answer the question yourself.

BIG FAT LIE! in this case, he had ulterior motives for borrowing the money. he never had the interest of his children at heart. he neither sent them to good schools nor bought them Peak milk. Rather he enrolled them in a lower standard school, never paid their school fees, bought more jeeps and SUV's for himself, fed on beaf (sorry beef) meat and milk while his children languished in hunger and yawned on empty stomachs all day. he hired lots of body guards for himslf while his children lived with the menace of insecurity (som even suffered bomb blasts). the money was simply used for his own selfish and insatiable quest for self-centred luxury.

now tell me why shylock wouldn't ask for a pound of flesh or his heart? answer the question yourself.

Right, except you have a problem with reading Shylock as I've pointed out is a sadist. And again except you have a hard time reading, as I pointed out, you have to be a fool to borrow from Shylock. The only benefit the man's children actually have has being withdrawn to pay Shylock, and not to make their lives better as the lie goes. No infrastructure will be developed.

Shylock has only come with spreadsheets with regression analysis showing such misleading things as the relationship between illiteracy and long life (to conclude that illteracy leads to long life), so your children shouldn't go to school. Shylock simply wants to be paid. As long as we agree on that (that the World Bank/IMF does have something to gain) I have no issues as you can make noise from now till infinity.

In other words, only a bunch of fools will believe the lie of "infrastructural development", and only fools will ask what the World Bank/IMF had to gain (as it appears some people can't seem to read well enough to know what this thread is about, so this is a reminder).

^ your logic is so bad there's no need to even begin to correct you.

mrjingles:

^ your logic is so bad there's no need to even begin to correct you.

Your refutation is a nonentity; it's best ignored (along with you).