Tabon:

76% of Nigerians that support subsidy back are fools and lazy. There is nowhere in d world where fuel is subsidised except Nigeria. Things are difficult but very soon it will be better. If Gej does not tackle this issue now, then we have mortgaged d future of our children.

Ozin:

Remove the gadem subsidy once and for all and let us hold the executive to their promise with same determination we used in the political protest instead of the phases that will bring about different challenges

Tabon:

76% of Nigerians that support subsidy back are fools and lazy. There is nowhere in d world where fuel is subsidised except Nigeria. Things are difficult but very soon it will be better. If Gej does not tackle this issue now, then we have mortgaged d future of our children.

seunlayi:

in this case, their is no winner or loser if the price of fuel is returned to 65. But we should be ready to return to the era of fuel scarcity as govt will want to reduce the rate of import of the product, most of the marketers will loose their right to import the product which were given to them to ease fuel scarcity (least we have forgotten) then.  In addition to these, marketers will now form the habit of hoarding and reckless pricing of the product in view that the subsidy will certainly be removed at a certain date. Therefore, be ready to queue to get your petrol.

Tabon:

76% of Nigerians that support subsidy back are fools and lazy. There is nowhere in d world where fuel is subsidised except Nigeria. Things are difficult but very soon it will be better. If Gej does not tackle this issue now, then we have mortgaged d future of our children.

Tabon:

76% of Nigerians that support subsidy back are fools and lazy. There is nowhere in d world where fuel is subsidised except Nigeria. Things are difficult but very soon it will be better. If Gej does not tackle this issue now, then we have mortgaged d future of our children.

tojos:

Lets get this clear:
Those protesting the subsidy removal are either the CABALS or their supporters, and are enemies of the country.
Returning the subsidy would continue to further enrich these CABALS (including Boko Haram).
Phased removal of the subsidy would still favour these CABALS and would also result in panic buying.

benzion72:

There is no subsidy in Nigeria what we have is corruption. How come it is only nigeria of all crude oil producing nation that does not have functional refinery. How can you subsidise oil being dug up from the land in Niger Delta. It is like telling me you are subsidising yam planted in Ekiti or groundnut planted in kano it is all fraud

[size=14pt]Subsidies and the China Price[/size]

by Usha C.V. Haley and George T. Haley


Many assume that China’s cost advantage in manufacturing comes from cheap labor. But in China’s burgeoning steel industry, our research suggests, massive government energy subsidies, not other factors, keep prices down. These subsidies have broad implications for how companies compete and collaborate with Chinese businesses.

In 2005, Beijing designated steel as a pillar industry for the Chinese economy. China was the world’s largest producer of steel, with 27% of global production, but until then it had imported 29 million tons of steel annually. That year, China suddenly transformed itself from a net steel importer to a net steel exporter. In 2006, the country became the world’s largest steel exporter by volume, up from the fifth largest in 2005. Today it remains the world’s largest consumer and producer of steel, with 40% of global production. How did China make these astonishing gains so quickly and manage to sell steel for about 19% less than steel from U.S. and European companies? Labor accounts for less than 10% of the costs of producing Chinese steel, and Chinese steel doesn’t appear to rely on scale economies, supply-chain proximities, or technological efficiencies to lower its costs.

Let’s look in detail at the probable source of this cost advantage. In research conducted with funding from the Alliance for American Manufacturing—work that draws heavily on our decade-long previous study of Chinese industry—we found that total energy subsidies to Chinese steel (from 2000 to midyear 2007) reached $27 billion. (See the exhibit “Energy, Subsidies, and Steel.”) About 95% of that amount was for coal. (These numbers are conservative best estimates, based on data from Chinese, U.S., and international agencies, industry associations, individual Chinese companies, and other sources.) Our analysis of the relationship between the increase in energy subsidies and the growth of Chinese steel production and steel exports showed a powerful statistical correlation; this is not a chance association.

Our research revealed that energy subsidies to the steel industry were paid to the energy sector and passed on through lower energy prices, which suggests that the energy supplied to China’s other manufacturing industries is subsidized as well. The steel industry may benefit disproportionately from energy subsidies because of its voracious appetite for coal, but the energy subsidies obviously help other industries too.

Foreign companies doing business in or with China or competing against Chinese rivals need to recognize a few things about subsidies. First, they can be abruptly affected by political forces. For example, the November 2007 World Trade Organization subsidy-reduction agreement between the U.S. and China cut export subsidies to foreign companies located in China but maintained subsidies to Chinese companies. This shows how subsidy-based cost advantages of foreign companies located in China can suddenly evaporate.

Second, companies that offshore to, or source or import from, China may suffer price shocks if they don’t discount fluctuating, subsidy-based cost advantages. Our research showed that under scrutiny, subsidies from Beijing often dry up, only to be replaced to varying degrees by subsidies from provincial and local governments, which use them to support employment, build self-sufficiency, and promote import substitution locally. Companies should establish relationships with industry and government officials in China so that they know the source of subsidies and can gauge the risk of reduction and subsequent price increases.

Before foreign companies cut other suppliers loose in favor of lower-priced Chinese sources, they should be mindful that Chinese firms’ prices may fluctuate abruptly as subsidies shift. Foreign firms should therefore retain some original supply relationships until Chinese suppliers prove reliable over the medium term.
,

Usha C.V. Haley (uhaley@asia-pacific.com) is a professor of international business and the director of the Global Business Center, and George T. Haley (gthaley@asia-pacific.com) is a professor of industrial marketing and the director of the Center for International Industry Competitiveness, at the University of New Haven in Connecticut. The full report is available at www.americanmanufacturing.org.

Am I to believe that, once again, rather than negotiating with ALL groups out there that comprise the Nigerian people, the Government has instead chosen to only negotiate this with the NLC?

If this is the case, then it is in the interest of every single Nigerian out there to inundate NLC with their requests and to demand the group make no groups with the Government that the people, as a majority, do not agree on.  ASUU, Market women's unions, Trade Associations, Professional Groups, etc, all ought to be at that negotiations table and all ought to be able to equally vote, since they are also groups that represent, to a degree, the Nigerian people.
I am not certain exactly when NLC became the only voice of Nigerians and it would it be sad if the Government has chosen to see it that way.

TopAnalyst:

It's obvious you're out of touch with the reality on ground in the country. When last did you visit the country? Did you see poverty everywhere? If you did see it, you won't suggest a removal of subsidy.

Mayflowa:

Apart from NLC/TUC, there are other organised civil society. This is call representation. Oh! Everyone can't be there.