₦airaland Forum

9jaganja:
@ deepsight

You talk about oil building lagos but you don't wanna talk about Lagos paying back whatever it owed FG with the seaport!!! 600billion bucks a year!!! Are you being serious right now? If Lagos can have that to it's self, things will be good!

Lagos was built with cocoa money uptill the 60s while all tribes in Nigeria were using the seaport to transfer their goods, Are you being serious? Lagos owes you all nothing!! You owe Lagos, if you keep having that mentality of it was the capital for whatever, you are a sore loser who wants what ain't yours even though it is shared with you already!!!!

The whole nation was feeding off the seaport and you can still open your stooopid mouth to say Lagos was built with oil?

Who said all Nigeria built Lagos? When all Yorubas were making their land habitable while the brits and Portuguese were playing racism, where were you "Lagos is a no man's land eeediots?" Where? yeah that's right, in your village, Now the Yorubas collectively built a successful city, you nut jobs want to come and "rule" ? Live in Lagos, die in Lagos or anywhere in Yoruba land, just stay out of Yoruba politics, Your people can be sacked if your we must rule mentality continues,

"oil built lagos" why can't oil build another Lagos? "Igbos built Lagos" why can't they build it in Enugu? The sea port has helped Nigeria by more than 60% of it's fake existence, yet no credit to the people who weren't boko haraming your asses, Instead of credit you think they should be dominated in their own land, We are talking of a people coming from civilization to civilization,

The entire Yoruba race is made up of the people they accomodated and became Yoruba not those who want to rule! nut jobs!!

My dear, I am sure there was nothing insulting in anything that i wrote to you, and so I wonder why you are dripping with so many insults for me.

If you believe that Lagos is the exclusive product of Yoruba resources and industry, and that its role as Nigeria's Federal Capital did nothing to develop it, I will leave that up to you.

Cheers.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=729980.msg8879728#msg8879728 date=1312806137]<quote>

Are you aware that there are Nigerians occupying political positions in the United States and Britain.

</quote>

. . . . .And[/quote]So why on earth can they not occupt political positions in their own country? ? ? ?

If I am born in the US and live my whole life there, I can become President of the United States.

So if I am born in Lagos and live my whole life there, why can I not become Governor of Lagos State?

Nicolas Sarkozy is not even French by origin, you know? He's Polish.

There's also Arnold Swazzeneger, who became Governor of Carlifornia. He's Russian.

Let's quit the tribalism son. It's small-minded.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=729980.msg8879673#msg8879673 date=1312805741]We don't care whose money was used. You need to go sue British for making Lagos the capital and then you sue Azikiwe for not removing it to somewherelse after Independence

That's not Lagosians problem that you left the capital here. You had the choice to relocate it and you did not.

So that's your loss! Tell Gej to move capital from Abuja to SE. You have the oportunity now while your man us the president. What r you waiting for?[/quote]Lol, keep decieving yourself. Oya, na your land, carry am for ya head, go keep am for your wardrobe now?

Reality: Lagos is a melting pot for Nigeria, having been the Federal Capital for almost a century.

This does nothing to take away the pride of the original native Isale-Eko indigene. That pride remains forever.

Get your mind away from the tribalistic trajectory son.

Senatorkolade:
Why are we always myopic in our approach to issues?
Removing the State of Origin is tantamount to collapsing the federal character.

Nobody is "removing" state of origin per se. It cannot ever be removed. What is being done is simply to affirm the right of every Nigerian to naturalize with full legal rights whereever he resides in Nigeria.

If we can naturalize even in foreign countries and become full citizens of such countries, why can we not naturalize in our places of residence within our very own country? Think about that friend.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=729980.msg8879591#msg8879591 date=1312804953]Given an example of a Ijaw becoming governor in Anambra state. What stops the governor from creating policies that impact employment and land ownership rights in favor of Ijaws in Anambra state?[/quote]Are you aware that there are Nigerians occupying political positions in the United States and Britain.

Is it not absurd that we can naturalize and occuppy government positions in such far off countries and yet we cannot do so right here within out own country. Does that make sense to you?

kofoshi:
Really? How so? Do you have the proof to support that claim?

Dont make me laugh. What city was the Federal capital during the 1970s oil boom. What funds constructed the major infrastructure in Lagos, such as the International Airport, the National Stadium, the national Theatre, the expansion of the Lagos Port, the 2nd and 3rd mainland bridges, the principal expressways, the whole of Lagos Island, Ikoyi and Victoria Island.

Federal funds. And that was oil money.

Look, it is tiresome to hear all this tribalistic talk expecially regarding Lagos. It is the former Federal Capital and as such there was massive FEDERAL INVESTMENT in it. Denying that is simply playing teh Ostrich.

kofoshi:
No okoro would come and preside over Lagos, tufiakwa!

But you have no problems with the fact that most of the major infrastructure in Lagos was built with Oil boom funds, eh?

Come on. Drop the tribalistic garb. Its meaningless.

9jaganja said -

The only way to unite us is by protecting all the identities and making it mandatory to become one with host tribe so an Hausa man can be Yoruba if he lives in Yoruba land, An Igbo man will be Hausa if he lives in kano etc, This is how you can unite the nation not by committing cultural genocide!!

Funny thing is despite arguing vociferously against the idea, you fail to recognise that your statement in this quote exactly supports the idea and is the very same thing as the idea espouses.

Funny.

No Sir -

This is what the social contract is about -


Of The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right (Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique) (1762) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is the book in which Rousseau theorized about the best way in which to set up a political community in the face of the problems of commercial society which he had already identified in his Discourse on Inequality (1754).

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.[1]

The Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, acts only by means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will, the Sovereign cannot act save when the people is assembled.[2]

Every law the people have not ratified in person is null and void — is, in fact, not a law.[3]

The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone.[4]

The Social Contract was a progressive work that helped inspire political reforms or revolutions in Europe, especially in France. The Social Contract argued against the idea that monarchs were divinely empowered to legislate; as Rousseau asserts, only the people, in the form of the sovereign, have that all powerful right.

The heart of the idea of the social contract may be stated simply: Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_social_contract

It is the timeless, free and inalienable understanding whereby people rent their sovereigty to a government for the pursuit of common goals. As we have said, such is codified under Constitutions, especially through the words - "We the people. . . ."

That is different from what is referred to as a dominant culture in the context of a multi-ethnic society. In these terms, by "Dominant Culture" we refer to the idea that disparate ethnic peoples have a common worldview and common culture which forms the stamp of their identity.

That world-view is based on the ideals of freedom and capitalism.

Can you tell me what the common ideological pillars of Nigerian nationhood are - which are denominated by all Nigeria's peoples in the same way as all Americans subscribe to these ideals?

So the statement from 9jaganja to the effect that such common cultural denominators are needed remains unimpeachable.

To be honest, it surprises me that anybody would contest such a self-evident truth, much less in the way that Dede1 insulted the poor fellow for so saying.

Beaf:
What you are attempting to describe is a contract between citizen and state, not a dominant culture. It is a contract that establishes the responsibilities and duties of both parties (state and citizen) in concrete. In the US, it is a legal document they lean on, their constitution. If Nigeria is able to generate changes in the areas the govt is thinking about, in such a way that the people, their ethnicities, religions etc are carried along, then Nigeria would have successfully forged a citizen-state contract that engenders a sense of belonging in every citizen. Today, there is nothing to point at as the definition for the word, Nigerian; the place is just a piece of land our parents happened to be born on.

No sir.

It appears that you are leaning so heavily on the fulcrum of the tone you had set at the outset of this thread; whereat you sought to discuss constitutional amendments. It seems to me that that initial tone may have influenced your failing to grasp that which I set out in terms of the comments of the poster with the handle "9jaganja."

A contract between citizen and state is altogether a different matter from that which i touched upon. A contract between citizen and state devolves upon the fundamental idea of THE Social Contract which governs all human societies from the beginning of time. That contract is indeed encapsulated in today's world in written documents such as a Constitution.

With respect, that is an altogether different affair from the question of the culture and ideology of the disparate ethnic peoples within a nation state. The surmise I derive from 9jaganja's comments is that for an ethnically diverse nation-state to succeed, the diferent ethnic nationalities must have some common views and common ideas about their worldview and their union. That is what is referred to as the dominant culture - and not the question of social contract.

And that point remains unimpeachable.

^^^ To the extent that he speaks of a dominant culture, he has a point, and you have misunderstood him. He specifically stated that that culture must be a pot pouri of the various ethnic cultures.

It is beyond cavil that every coherent nation-state must have a dominant culture. By this I believe he refers to a supervening national world view which stamps the nation state with a given identity.

As a simple example: The United States comprises people from every part of the world, immigrants, decendants of conquistadors and slaves, few indigenous tribes, etc. However the United States remains a coherent nation-state because there is a supervening common world-view and culture that stamps the US with its unique identity as a nation-state. That world-view is based on the ideals of freedom and capitalism.

Thus that forms the plank for the dominant culture. If there were no dominant culture, the nation-state would lack cohesion, would lack direcvtion and would also lack an identity. It would have a personality crisis and would be schizophrenic. Such is the dilemma Nigeria has, and the gentleman had a strong point in so saying.

Part 2

ANY staff within these banks will easily tell you how life has been taken out of these banks where CBN installed its own management. For almost two years, all the eight banks under CBN have seen their financial situation deteriorate into critical states. Most members of the CBN installed management were failed managers in their various institutions until the CBN picked them up to come and manage institutions that were far bigger than any institution they have ever managed before their appointment.

What has emerged in the two years of CBN installed management are banks without direction and staff that are highly demoralized. Figures obtained from the CBN clearly show that at the close of 2010, all the CBN taken over banks were highly dependent on the interbank market. Of the N900 billion inter-bank takings as the close of 2010, the eight CBN managed banks accounted for over 90 per cent of these takings. These were the same banks that when the CBN took over, he told the world that their indebtedness to the interbank market stood at N247 billion. Now even after pumping in N620 billion into these banks, after they have sold their toxic assets, their net interbank indebtedness is now in excess of N800 billion more than thrice the figure when the CBN took over these banks.

From when the CBN management took over these banks till date, while other banks not managed by CBN engaged in aggressive loan recovery drive, the CBN installed management sat patiently, waiting to offload toxic loans at significant discount to the AMCON. In two years, none of the CBN managed banks was able to recover up to 10 per cent of the non-performing loans they inherited. Insiders in these banks will tell you that the CBN managed banks did not consider it their mandate. So what was their mandate? Nigerians should ask. To sit down, earn fat salaries, and wait for AMCON to bail them out while they negotiate the sale of the banks to their cronies or CBN preferred cronies. How sad.

Recapitalisation of rescued banks: Two years of motion without movement, Sanusi has not been able to achieve the recapitalisation of a single bank. Sanusi would want Nigerians to believe that this is due to the intransigent attitude of the Boards or shareholders of rescued banks. But the truth is that these banks have not been recapitalized because of Sanusi’s arrogance and fear of being exposed for what he really is, someone out to destroy viable businesses borne of a deep hatred of capitalism. Since Sanusi took over the banks, he has consistently insisted that shareholders have lost their stakes in these banks. This lie he has been repeating consistently hoping that it will become the truth. But everyone knows that no matter how a lie is repeated, it cannot become the truth.

This lie was punctured by Sanusi himself recently when he was forced to admit that Oceanic Bank, one of the banks that he forcefully took over has “vital assets.” One of the assets he named is a 10 per cent holding in Airtel. Is it not interesting that Sanusi was willing to sell Oceanic Bank to his preferred core investor despite this vital asset. We all know how valuable Airtel is. Bhati Airtel had to pump in $10 billion to buy over the African assets of Zain. Nigeria is the biggest asset that Zain had and by implication, Nigerian assets will worth a significant part of this $10 billion.

Definitely, any financial analyst will tell you that 10 per cent stake in Airtel, if sold today will go a long way in recapitalizing Oceanic Bank even if it does not recapitalise the bank fully. So, why the insistence that Oceanic Bank should be sold by all means? Why the lie that shareholders have lost their stakes when Sanusi knew all the while that the 10 per cent stake in Airtel was acquired with shareholders’ funds? Globally, when businesses are in trouble, they sell noncore assets. Why is Sanusi standing in the way of Oceanic bank selling noncore assets to recapitalise itself?

It is not only Oceanic that has vital assets that can be sold. It is also known that Bank PHB has the majority stakes in Spring Bank and significant stakes in Afribank. In an arm’s length transaction, controlled by the shareholders of these banks, they could easily negotiate the sale of these noncore assets to preferred investors and use the proceeds to recapitalise their operations. But the CBN would rather stand in the way of these deals for some strange reasons best known to Sanusi.

Credit growth: For two years, Sanusi has not been able to unlock credit growth to the Nigerian economy. Credit growth in the banking system has stalled. In taking over the banks that Sanusi took over, he made Nigerians believe that the banks’ managements were reckless in their lending. This simplistic explanation of a more complex problem has led to the pursuit of the diversionary ego-driven desire to jail a few individuals and the neglect of the fundamental wider challenges facing the Nigerian financial system. Any keen observer of the Nigerian banking industry will tell you that it is not just reckless lending that creates N3 trillion in toxic assets.

There are wider challenges within the financial system like the legal framework for recovering loans that has not been tackled. There do exist structural challenges that direct bank lending to a few sectors and a few individuals within the economy engenders. There are infrastructural challenges and there human challenges. Sanusi’s explanations of these challenges have been simplistic and thus the solutions have been pedestrian.

Capital: In two years of Sanusi’s reform, both the so called healthy and the unhealthy banks are not in a position to raise fresh capital. The real sector is also strapped for fresh capital as no fresh capital raising has succeeded in the capital market in two years. Instead of the CBN action breeding confidence in the financial system as touted by Sanusi, confidence in the Nigerian financial system has taken flight.

Once more, SEC and CBN, both regulatory authorities in the financial system will tell you to blame this challenge on individuals within the system rather than the system. But this is another simplistic explanation of a more complex problem. Retail investors who were the biggest source of funds in the Nigerian capital market have been deeply wounded by the fall in the capital market. But their confidence in the capital market have been further bruised by Sanusi’s statements claiming that they have lost their stakes in the banks.

In tackling the CBN-inflicted banking crisis, the regulatory authorities in both the capital market and banking have shown great disrespect for retail investors who have sustained the market in the last 40 years. This attitude may hurt capital market activity for years to come and may stretch into generations if repair mechanisms are not put in place to restore the confidence of retail investors in the Nigerian capital market.  The consequence of the neglect of Nigerian retail investors is the current dominance of trading activities on the floor of the exchange by foreign hedge funds, which now control more than 60 percent of trading on the floors of the exchange. The impact of this trading on the stability of the capital market is obvious to any discerning player in the Nigerian capital market or financial sector.

No confidence in the financial sector: The evidence of the lack of confidence in the financial system is obvious. The pressure on the Naira has been unprecedented in Nigeria’s history. In two years, the CBN Governor has spent more than $40 billion trying to prevent the depreciation of the Naira without any success. It has led to a massive run down of the country’s external reserves in a period when earnings from crude oil sales have been at a historic high.

Even after a widely acclaimed and credible election, the Naira has remained under pressure showing that the uncertainty over elections had nothing to do with the pressure on the Naira. There is a total absence of confidence in the Nigerian financial system engendered by the wrong-headed reforms of the CBN. The style of reforms has shown absolute disrespect for ownership rights creating fear in the owners of private capital.

The CBN governor’s tactics and antecedents show he has no respect for capitalism. He is a socialist to the core who by accident has been made the manager of capitalist institutions with enormous powers in a capitalist economy. His goal is to use capitalist institutions to destroy the very fabrics of capitalism in Nigeria and therefore promote his socialist tendencies.

His efforts at breaking down the promoters of business in Nigeria are a clear evidence of this tendency.

Sadly in his blind urge to destroy capitalist institutions in the country, he has also left the Nigerian economy exposed. Nigerian banks, now largely prostrate, are no longer in a position to finance indigenous players wanting to take advantage of the emerging opportunities in Nigeria’s oil, gas and power sectors of the economy. This has left the commanding heights of the Nigerian economy exposed, to be taken over by foreign companies, compromising ability of Nigerian youths to take over the commanding heights of the Nigerian economy in future.

Leadership Newspapers in honouring Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as their man of the year 2010, described him as an “Islamic scholar with deep convictions.” That is what Sanusi is. Any other appellation is a misnomer. His continued stay at the CBN is a death knell for the survival of the Nigerian economy. Nigeria should take stock now, and make the right decisions.

Last line: Just as I was getting this material ready for the press, my attention has been drawn to the alarmist statement by the CBN Governor, Sanusi, on The Guardian front page of Tuesday, May 31, 2011: “CBN gives banks date to recapitalise or face liquidation”.

According to the report, based on an exclusive interview with The Guardian, “the license of any rescued bank that is yet to recapitalise by October 30, this year will be revoked by CBN, which will subsequently hand it over to the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) for liquidation.” This announcement alone would create panic in the industry and lead to massive run on deposits in the affected banks, further weakening the banking industry as I argued above, sending many more thousands of Nigerian youths to the crowded labour market, causing more social unrest, and above all worsening an already weakened economy that has suffered from lack of access to credit in the last two years. Nigerians should reasonably be worried now!

http://ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51302:cbns-banking-reforms-pains-for-economic-agenda-2&catid=72:focus&Itemid=598

Part 1
Almost two years into his stewardship at the apex bank, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi receives a down-to-earth appraisal of his banking ‘reforms’ by AKPABIO UMOYEN-ESSIEN, an Ontario, Canada-based financial analyst and consultant to leading international financial and development institutions.

CURRENT Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi chose the Bayero University, Kano in February 2010 to outline his vision for Nigeria’s banking sector reforms, eight months into its implementation. He said his strategy for the Nigerian banking sector (if he still remembers, given that there is yet no documented Blueprint) will be based on four pillars namely:

• Enhancing the quality of banks;

• Establishing financial stability;

• Enabling healthy financial sector evolution; and

• Ensuring the financial sector contributes to the real economy

He was full of fire and zeal and high on the euphoria of public praise after sacking the managing directors of eight banks. Two years on, how has the CBN Governor fared on his outlined goals for the Nigerian banking sector? Few discerning analysts were quick to point out that the reform agenda as outlined above was vague.

The quality of banks: The question is: What are the criteria to measure the quality of a bank. Is it quality of services, quality of the bank’s board, management and staff, quality of financial reporting or all of these combined. The CBN Governor never defined the criteria of quality of banks so it is quite difficult to measure him on this goal.

But we want to assume that when he said quality, he meant all the criteria we outlined above. So we look at quality of services of banks under two years of Sanusi. What policies have Sanusi put in place to enhance the quality of services of Nigerian banks?

Forgive us, but we cannot find anything Sanusi has done to increase the quality of services of Nigerian banks. What we find is that Sanusi’s actions have actually compounded the quality of service delivery in the banking sector. What Sanusi’s hasty reforms have done is to reduce the banking options in the Nigerian banking sector putting pressure on a few banks. Several reports, including banks’ returns to CBN for 2009 compared with 2010 have shown that four banks now control nearly 50 per cent of the market in the banking industry from ten banks that controlled this same share of the banking industry before Sanusi. On deposits, for instance, these four banks have N4.5 trillion out of N10.7 trillion deposits in the banking system.

The significance of this concentration of the Nigerian banking space is obvious on the impact this has had on the quality of service delivery. Beside poor services, customers are also subjected to pay all forms of charges by these leading banks as customers have little choice.

The four leading banks also now control more than 70 per cent of banking industry profit (Q1 2011 Reports). What Sanusi’s reform has done is to create four banks that are now too big to fail and 20 banks that are too fragile to offer meaningful support to the economy.

The current structure of Nigerian banks, a result of Sanusi’s reforms has created the biggest single threat to his second stated goal of ensuring financial stability in the Nigerian banking space. How do you enhance financial stability when a few banks have become financial monopolies?

How do you ensure a healthy evolution of the Nigeria financial sector, Sanusi’s third stated goal in the financial sector, when just four banks are now in charge of the Nigerian economy? Where is fair competition in the Nigerian banking sector? How do you strengthen the remaining 20 banks when they have been boxed into an uncomfortable corner in the Nigerian banking industry?

The quality and strength of majority of Nigerian banks have significantly dropped in two years of Sanusi. This is basically because Sanusi’s methods have damaged the ability of many Nigerian banks to compete in the Nigerian banking space. Sanusi’s hasty reforms has not had a damaging effect on just the so-called rescued banks, it has also damaged even the banks that were not rescued.

Non-rescued banks also sick?

The impact of Sanusi’s hasty reforms on even the healthy banks can be easily seen when the AMCON announced its intention to buy toxic assets from the rescued banks. It soon turned out that it was not just the rescued banks that rushed to AMCON to sell these toxic assets. Even the so-called non-rescued banks eventually sold significant amounts of toxic assets (without coercion) to AMCON. And interestingly even after the non-rescued banks sold toxic assets to AMCON, their 2010 financials show that most of them still made significant provisions for non-performing loans.

Why are the non-rescued banks still making significant loan loss provisions? Sanusi’s hasty actions on the so-called rescued banks, the publication of the names of entrepreneurs in national papers just because they took loans from banks, impacted negatively on the capacity of several of these entrepreneurs to either refinance or get fresh loans from banks resulting in many of the existing loans of these banks to go bad. Many bankers will tell you that the disruptions Sanusi’s actions caused in the financial system are still reverberating today.

The 2010 financials of many of the non rescued banks showed that many of them are still making significant provisions for non-performing loans while even some of them that claimed not to have significant non performing loans are now engaged in public disputes with their customers over non- performing loans in excess of N200 billion, which obviously were not previously provided for.

Businesses have been destroyed and many Nigerians have been thrown out of their jobs because their employers can no longer get new loans from banks. Nigerians should not be deceived. Nowhere in a capitalist economy are loans not the normal norm of running a business. What Sanusi’s actions have done is to create the perception that borrowing money to run a business is bad. It is not. In all places all over the world, businesses run basically on bank lending. Lending is the fuel for a capitalist economy.

Creating unemployment: Sanusi recently admitted that the rate of unemployment in Nigeria has hit 49 per cent of employable Nigerians. After making that statement, Nigerians should not forget that Sanusi in two years has contributed significantly to this level of unemployment in the country.

His activities in the banking sector have contributed to about 40,000 jobs being lost in the banking sector in two years. The disruption that he caused the banking sector and the subsequent starving of funds to the real sector from the banks has resulted in some manufacturing companies either closing down completely, or reducing their production capacity significantly. This act has also led to significant job losses in the real sector of the economy.

A good example of what Sanusi’s reform has done to the real sector is what is happening in the aviation sector of the economy. Most airlines are currently struggling to remain in business primarily because their existing loans have been cut off and they are also not getting fresh loans. Today, a good number have stopped flying and the few that are flying are doing so at great risks to their passengers. Yes, the CBN has stepped in by providing financial support to the aviation sector, in the same way it has done in many sectors of the economy.

The illogic of CBN special funds: But the illogic of the CBN various special funds intervention in the economy however is like the logic of the executioner who deliberately cuts off your legs and then hands you artificial legs, but then goes around telling the world of the good he has done to you by giving you artificial legs forgetting that you would not have needed those artificial legs in the first place, if he had not cut off your legs. It is also known that artificial legs can never be as effective and flexible as your original legs. It is the same with the CBN intervention funds. They are not as flexible or effective as bank loans though they are cheaper.

As any businessman will tell you, for any business to succeed, you need consistent access to finance.

The CBN funds are one-off intervention funds which do not give the businesses benefitting consistent access to working capital. That is the challenge with these funds. Most insiders will tell you that the CBN, in a few years will have the biggest portfolio of toxic assets in the banking system. This is primarily because the intervention funds they provided to the real sector has either been used to pay-off existing loans or have been used to buy inputs that had stalled because the businesses were not getting fresh loans from the banks. After the funds have been used for these initial purposes of refinancing existing loans or getting new inputs for production, the lack of fresh loans from banks has resulted in most companies not being able to continue production.

AMCON: In as much as the setting up of AMCON (first proposed by Prof. Chukwuma Soludo) is a good idea, Nigerians should watch the activities of AMCON carefully. What is clearly emerging is that AMCON is going to be used to do the dirty works of the CBN. The CBN has positioned AMCON to take over these loans that it has given that would most likely go bad. This is to cover the back of the CBN and prevent public outcry.

AMCON currently has over N3 trillion of toxic assets in its custody bought at prices that were negotiated with CBN appointed managers of rescued banks. This could not be described as fair pricing as being touted by those positioning to benefit from these huge assets now in possession of a government controlled body.

What determined which assets the rescued banks will sell to AMCON? Could some of these assets that were sold have been restructured and recovered and written back into the books of the banks? What value of assets that could have been recovered has been sold at significant discount to AMCON?

AMCON is also said to in future buy all bank toxic assets above five per cent of the banking industry. What does this mean? Besides encouraging reckless lending in the banking sector, it is also careful camouflage to ensure that the CBN creates an impression that the banking system is healthy. I challenge the CBN Governor to tell us where else in the world, where you have a body standing by to buy off toxic loans above a certain percentage from banks?

AMCON is an emergency bank rescue vehicle. Everywhere it is set up in the world, what it does is intervene just within a period of time to resolve banking challenges and not to be the toxic loan laundry arm of the CBN or the existing commercial banks.

The state of the banks the CBN took over: For close to two years, the CBN has installed its own management in eight banks under the pretext that these banks were about collapsing and need good management to survive. But how have these banks fared under the management of the CBN?

http://ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51201:cbns-banking-reforms-pains-for-economic-agenda-&catid=72:focus&Itemid=598

This has been a fine thread. Katsumoto - Well done.

Charles Soludo

Academia

Dr Soludo has been visiting scholar at the International Monetary Fund, the University of Cambridge, the Brookings Institution, the University of Warwick and the University of Oxford and a visiting professor at Swarthmore College (USA). He has also worked as a consultant for a number of international organizations, including The World Bank, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, and the United Nations Development Programme.[1][2][3][4][5]

Soludo is a core professional in the business of macroeconomics. He obtained his three degrees and then professorship at the University of Nigeria in Nsukka, Enugu State. He graduated with a First Class Honors degree in 1984, an M.Sc. Economics in 1987, and a Ph.D. in 1989, winning prizes for the best student at all three levels.[1][5][6]

He has been trained and involved in research, teaching and auditing in such disciplines as the multi-country macro econometric modeling, techniques of computable general equilibrium modeling, survey methodology and panel data econometrics, among others. Soludo studied and taught these courses at many Universities, including Oxford, Cambridge and Warwick. He has co-authored, co-edited and authored about ten books on this subject matter.[6]

In 1998 Soludo was appointed to the position of professor of economics at the University of Nigeria; the next year he became a visiting professor at Swarthmore College in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, US.[1]

Government

Soludo joined the federal government in 2003. Prior to his May 2004 appointment to the bank chairmanship, he held the positions of Chief Economic Adviser to former President Obasanjo and Chief Executive of the National Planning Commission of Nigeria.[1] In January 2008, in a speech to the Nigerian Economic Society, he predicted consolidation in the private banking industry, saying "By the end of 2008, there'll be fewer banks than there are today. The restructuring of the banking industry has been attracting funds from local and foreign investors, which have increased banks' ability to lend to customers".[7] He hopes to see Nigeria become Africa's financial hub,[8] and considers microfinance important to the federal government's economic policies.[9]

Publications

1992
"North-sorth macroeconomic interactions: Comparative analysis using the MULTIMOD and INTERMOD global models", Charles Chukwuma Soludo, Brookings discussion papers in international economics, Brookings Institution (1992)

1993
"Implications of alternative macroeconomic policy responses to external shocks in Africa", Charles Chukwuma Soludo, Development research papers series, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Socio-Economic Research and Planning Division

(1993)
"Growth performance in Africa: Further evidence on the external shocks versus domestic policy debate", Charles Chukwuma Soludo, Development research papers series, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Socio-Economic Research and Planning Division (1993)

1994
"The Consequences of U.S. Fiscal Actions in a Global Model with Alternative Assumptions about the Exchange Regime in Developing Countries”, Ralph C. Bryan and Charles Chukwuma Soludo. Chapter 13 in David Currie and David Vines, eds., North-South Linkages and International Macroeconomic Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Centre for Economic Policy Research. (Brookings Discussion Paper in International Economics No. 103. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, February 1994.)

1995
"Macroeconomic adjustment, trade, and growth: Policy analysis using a macroeconomic model of Nigeria", Charles Chukwuma Soludo, AERC research paper, African Economic Research Consortium (1995) ISBN 9966900268 ISBN 978-9966900265

1998
Soludo, Charles Chukwuma (1998). Macroeconomic Policy Modelling of African Economies. Acena. ISBN 9782114294.

1999
"Our Continent, Our Future: African Perspectives on Structural Adjustment", T. Mkandawire and C.C. Soludo, Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa, Dakar, 1999, in Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 1:2, 1999.

2002
"African Voices on Structural Adjustment: A Companion to Our Continent, Our Future", Edited by Thandika Mkandawire and Charles C. Soludo. At least three editions: IDRC/CODESRIA/Africa World Press 2002, ISBN 0-88936-888-0, 280 pp.; Paperback, ISBN 978-0-88936-888-0 Jan 2003; Africa World Press 2003, ISBN 0865437793
Okonjo-Iweala, Ngozi; Charles Chukwuma Soludo and Mansur Muhtar (2002). The Debt Trap in Nigeria: Towards a Sustainable Debt Strategy. Africa World Press. ISBN 1592210015.

2004
"The Politics of Trade and Industrial Policy in Africa: Forced Consensus", Edited by Charles Chukwuma Soludo, Michael Osita Ogbu and Ha-Joon Chang, Africa World Press (January 2004), ISBN 159221164X, ISBN 978-1592211647 (Also International Development Research Centre, ISBN 1592211658)

2006
"Potential Impacts of the New Global Financial Architecture on Poor Countries", Edited by Charles Soludo, Musunuru Rao, ISBN 9782869781580, 80 pages, 2006, CODESRIA, Senegal, Paperback

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Soludo

^^^ Perhaps its more apt to weigh him against former Nigerian CBN Governors or Governors of Central Banks in other third world countries.

I had previously on this forum indicated my view of the handling of the Bank MDs removal and the so called "bail out". . . these represented a shocking approcah to financial sector regulation and gross illegality in terms of the "bail out". . . .

Excerpts -

There are two cardinal aspects of this mess that the CBN Governor got disastrously wrong. You see, when laws, regulations and procedures are laid down, the purpose is to avert anarchy. If we continue to act with disregard for regulations, we will continue to be a disjointed and directionless society. That forms the plank for the emergence of a failed state.

The two critical bits that Sanusi got wrong: Regulatory Discretion & Procedure and Approprition of Public Funds.

If you are familiar with the Fundamentals of Regulatory Oversight in any industry, you will be aware that the cardinal function of the Regulator is to guarantee a healthy industry and in so doing, the Regulator has various tools of intervention. The tools are to be excercised progressively in such a manner that correction of anomalies is effected with minimal disruption to the system. The ultimate sanctions are only reserved for irreversible situations and even at that ONLY after the application of intermediary measures which have failed.

Sanusi did not apply any intermediary measures whatsoever before wielding the big stick and he failed to note the likely ripple effects of loss of local and international confidence and run on deposits that attend such public shows of regulatory might.

It is therefore clear that as a Regulator he acted hastily, and without discretion, which is scandalous considering that this is a post he has held for less than two months. Clear measures availed him in taking gradual steps to correct the anomalies.

Furthermore a Regulator must be impartial - and in this he has manifestly failed by implicitly giving the other banks more time to tidy up their books while dragging the first lot into the mud.

The Second major point is Appropriation of Public funds.

Under the Constitution of Nigeria ALL FUNDS - HOWEVER SOURCED, PRODUCED OR DERIVED, accrue FIRST, AND AUTOMATICALLY TO THE CONSOLIDATED FEDERATION ACCOUNT, AND NO FUNDS MAY BE WITHDRWAN THEREFROM WITHOUT APPROPRIATION FOR SUCH PURPOSE BY THE PARLIAMENT (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY).

Accordingly, once monies are printed (which is at all events a questionable approach to creating wealth) such monies accrue first to the Federation Account and must be appropriated before being touched at all.

Sanusi made two infantile arguments in his attempt to evade this. He stated that it was not an expenditure but a loan. This is irrelevant because the Constitution does not make a distinction. It states that ALL monies must be appropriated before being withdrawn. Thus it does not matter what you are withdrawing the money for: it must be appropriated before being withdrawn. Secondly he stated that the money was not from the Federation Account. What a laugh - the law states that ALL monies should go to that account!

His action sets a very dangerous precedent: In future the CBN Governor may print trillions of naira and disburse as he pleases since in his argument, its a loan. So perhaps he can print 100 trillion naira and give out as loans without the proper process of legislative approval? Also, if the other banks he is still auditing are found to need help, what will he do? Go back to his back yard and print more billions?

Aside from the illegality pointed out above, as an economist he should be aware that such reckless printing of monies is a key cause of inflationary trends within the economy.

Recall that both the US and UK effected similar bail-outs last year at the height of the recession. It may interest you to know that in both societies the actions were carried out by the Central Banks through Acts of Parliament.

So you see, my dear brother - we cannot carry on with our scattered, gra-gra approach to doing things just any how in this country.

Quote from Ekt Bear -

It did. But the Gwari agreed to cede the land to Nigeria and allow it to become a no man's land, yes? No Yoruba have ever agreed for this regarding Lagos.

You are being absolutely unfair. The Gwari's never acceded to any such thing. A military decree was enacted and embedded in a constitution for the whole of Nigeria and there was never any consultation with the Gwaris. It was made law by fiat. Simplicito.

The natives were relocated by fiat to locations they had no input in determining. How's that for disposession?

So you see, my dear friend, there cannot be one law for the goose and another for the gander.

@ OAMJ4, the arguments all touch on the history of Lagos - if you read the posts, you will see that clearly.

Ekt bear -

You have not answered these questions please -


1. What ethnic group does New York belong to?

2. Whilst Lagos was the Federal Capital, did it belong exclusively to the Yoruba?

3. Does Abuja belong exclusively to the nativegwari tribe indegenous to it?

4. If Abuja ceases to be the Federal Capital in a hundred years time, would it be right for the Gwari's to then state that it belongs exclusively to them?

And Finally -

5. I was born in Lagos, I have lived my whole life in Lagos, I schooled in Lagos, finished university in Lagos, work in Lagos, pay taxes in Lagos, vote in Lagos elections, and today I am proudly leading capital development projects in Lagos.

Please tell me whether or not I am a Lagosian?

Thanks

[quote author=tpia@ link=topic=705689.msg8648545#msg8648545 date=1309796416]@ deepsight

are others the ones to tell you whether or ont you're lagosian?

If you dont know or feel you're lagosian, then its for you to decide what you want to be.[/quote]Lol, I have already stated that as far as I am concerned, I am firmly Lagosian. I only wish to know if I am a second-class Lagosian since I am of Niger-Delta parentage.

Just look for example and this sort of statement -

step1:
We true lagosians are only grateful to the Ekiti's, Awolowo and other yorubas for using there cocoa to develop Lagos. No drop of crude oil from both the SS and SE touched Lagos land.

Is this not the height of self-deceit? And what point does it serve to indulge in such imagination anyhow? The tribal sentiment is way too strong and wholly unnecessary. Perhaps Nigeria was still earning cocoa dollars when the third mainland was built?

I really would not want to be drawn into such a debate where the prime concern is tribal affiliation. I simply wish to make the point that Lagos is home to many more people than just the ethnic indigenes. As you pointed out, this is also true of many cities. However in the case of Lagos, its status a commercial and legal capital in the past has intensified its status as a multi-ethnic melting point.

[quote author=ekt_bear link=topic=705689.msg8648369#msg8648369 date=1309794999]This is false, for several reasons. It was capital at independence until 1976 (or so?) officially, then the early 1990s in fact. So 30 years or so. And not the entire Lagos State, but just a small part of it. That is the most can be claimed belongs to all. And of course, I reject that claim.[/quote]You are really odd. The historical fact is that Lagos was declared the capital of Nigeria upon amalgamation in 1914. It remained the capital up till 1991. That is 77 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagos

It is strange to imagine that a city that is the legal and commercial capital of a Nation for 77 years can still be claimed to be the exclusive preserve of one of its tribes. That makes no sense sir: and you know it.

This will require documentation for me to believe. The more I look into the tax and financial info of Nigeria shortly after independence, the less I'm willing to accept this as a given.

With what resources were the bridges built, and the central infrastructure upon the capital area of Lagos Island and Lagos Mainland?

Taxes from Isale ko, perhaps? Dont even be funny sir.

Have a look this -

Lagos was a war camp for the Benin Empire who called it Eko.[5][6] The Yoruba still use the name Eko to refer to Lagos. Lagos was a name given to the settlement by the Portuguese meaning "lakes". The present day Lagos state has a higher percent of Awori, who migrated to the area from Isheri along the Ogun river. Throughout history, it was home to a number of warring ethnic groups who had settled in the area. During its early settlement, it also saw periods of rule by the Benin Kingdom.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagos

With the foregoing, if we are to follow your approach, the Benin People equally have a legimate claim, no?

Please do answer me on these questions -

1. What ethnic group does New York belong to?

2. Whilst Lagos was the Federal Capital, did it belong exclusively to the Yoruba?

3. Does Abuja belong exclusively to the nativegwari tribe indegenous to it?

4. If Abuja ceases to be the Federal Capital in a hundred years time, would it be right for the Gwari's to then state that it belongs exclusively to them?

And Finally -

5. I was born in Lagos, I have lived my whole life in Lagos, I schooled in Lagos, finished university in Lagos, work in Lagos, pay taxes in Lagos, vote in Lagos elections, and today I am proudly leading capital development projects in Lagos.

Please tell me whether or not I am a Lagosian?

Jason123 -

You are gravely mistaken when you assert Lagos to belong to the indigenous lagosians or Yoruba only. The reason is simple: Lagos was the Federal Capital of Nigeria for almost a century, and during this time became home to all the disparate peoples of Nigeria: indeed, the nation's melting pot. Lagos was built and developed within that context and with Federally derived revenues accruing from every part of the country. For this reason it is unique: it is a melting pot of the whole country and remains its commercial capital.

Thus the CITY of Lagos is indeed a commercial melting pot which belongs not to any one tribe, but to the generality of Nigerians. This may exclude rural areas within the state which are not part of the urban area which served as Federal Capital for almost a century.

Now, calm down and think about it logically - would it make any sense for the tribe indigenous to Abuja city to insist today that Abuja is "theirs?" - no it would make no sense because Abuja is today the Federal Capital and is home to all Nigerians. Now although Lagos is no longer the Federal capital, I submit that it is disingenous to wish away almost a century of its status as such - the pale truth is that during that time Lagos had indeed become the nerve centre of the whole of Nigeria.

Please before you insult me needlessly, reflect on the facts, and if you disagree, let me know your reasons in objective terms. And for the record, I am not Igbo - I am south-south - and having been born in Lagos and lived my entire life in Lagos, I find it absurd that anyone would imagine that I am not a Lagosian, or that any yoruba person is by reason of his tribe any more lagosian than I am. In truth, I am an Omo Eko, through and through, notwithstanding that I have my parentage in the Niger Delta.

Reflect again: If Abuja today remains the Federal Capital of Nigeria for the next eighty years, and as such is built and developed for Nigerians as a whole with Federal resources, and thus becomes another melting pot of all Nigerians within such extended years - let;s imagine that at the end of eighty years the federal capital is now moved elsewhere - perhaps to Calabar. Do you think it would be proper for the native gwari tribe indigenous to the Abuja land to at that time then claim that "Abuja is theirs?" - that would be a fallacy - for in the period spent as a Federal Capital, the city effectively became the melting pot of all Nigerians. Your Calabar example is quite different because Calabar was never the capital for such a period as to make it a melting point, and was certainly not developed as such.

It is really strange that we have Nigerians and indeed people from all over the world who today legitimatley call themselves Americans, and have places like New York and Chicago as home to them in every sense of the word, being citizens therein, and we in Nigeria can look at our commercial melting point   -  the  city of Lagos -  and strive to assert that it belongs to one tribe only. That is really really odd, my friend.

I was born in Lagos, I have lived my whole life in Lagos, I schooled in Lagos, finished university in Lagos, work in Lagos, pay taxes in Lagos, vote in Lagos elections, and today I am proudly leading capital development projects in Lagos. Who dares say I am not a Lagosian?

^Criticism, I have abundantly lived with - you know that. No worries there. But this new turn of insults based on revelations of private communications is just beneath all dignity and gentlemanliness. As it happens, the communication is open above. I just can't believe anyone would do that, and its clear that participation here has become unhealthy. That is the reason. Enough said.

Sir; if that is your reason for the publication of my email above, and the abuse and invective thereon, and if that sits well with you, fine - so be it. I have elected to set out the email itself for the objective to judge if there was anything untoward or objectionable about it. As you know, you did not respond, and I never once followed up on that or contacted you again.

But peace. I have elected now to cease posting on this board. I see now it is unhealthy, and breeds contempt, especially for one such as me who is prone to disagreement with convention.

Thank you for the many posts in the past in which you have educated and enriched myself and others. I can assure you I will try to remember the good, and not the ill. Good bye.

Pastor AIO:
I can tell you why I am particularly closed off to Deepsight, but it would involve exposing private communication. I made it clear here that I am not interested in meeting anyone on NL privately, in the real world. However when someone asks repeatedly, banging on and says that there is something really private they want to ask you . . . , Well, knock and it shall be opened to you, Jesus said.
So I create an email account to find out what this very important private communication is all about. Only to be met with a sulking disappointment that I am so determined to maintain my privacy. No important communication was presented. It all turned out to be guile. It is always Guile. Guile, guile and more guile with this guy.
'Like rat dey do, corner corner, passi passi, in i in i, out-i out-i'.
What is so difficult about respecting the position that I've openly declared that I want to maintain regarding my privacy? I find it astounding that someone should decide that they will not respect that and try to find a way around it.

This is truly beyond tragic. Words cannot express my shock. I see we have descended into a whirlpool of a sort that beats comprehension.

Given that Pastor AIO has elected to publicise an email i sent to him; I will - ONLY in order to keep the record straight and open and clear: and to avoid any undue smear on my name, and also to rebutt the claim that I had no inquiry in mind therein, I reproduce below the FULL TEXT of the email I sent to him. I do this because he has already told a full story about that email, making unsalutary accusations therein.

It reads -


Hello Pastor AIO! The Dynamo!

How are you doing? A Happy thnaksgiving to you (if you are in the states).

I see you are obsessive about your privacy. That is understandable: but neednt always be the case.

I find your mind most interesting and engaging: and your insights more so - and would very much want to be acquainted: to the extent that you might not imagine this to be a terrorist plot of some advanced sort liable to bring about the end of the free world.

Particularly I would be interested to know if you have ever practiced IFA.

Cheers bro.

This is the ONLY email I have ever sent to Pastor as far as I know.

This email was sent in November 2010 while I was visiting with friends in the States during Thanksgiving. I have similarly made contact with, and indeed established some friendship with some persons on this forum whose minds I respect. If there is anything untoward within the email that warrants this publication and abuse thereon, I leave that you the conscience of he who decided to ridicule me on that account.

Particularly regarding the claim that I had no inquiry, you will see above that I wished to know whether and to what extent Pastor AIO had ever practiced IFA; given his vast knowledge of the topic. I fekt he might not wish to discuss too much further detail on the forum in that regard.

I see that this has become an irretrievable and unncessary mess. I really must finally resile from this forum. I never believed this day would come.

Thank you.

@ Dare2think - unfortunaltely, in order to ensure that there is no confusion in identity between myself and the user ^^^ above who parades a mocked-version of my username, It is best I resile from commenting on this thread.

Apologies.

JeSoul:
^Zikky, how body now?
Honestly, I am skeptical about the "innocence of your intent" . . . considering how you've made your contempt for the christian faith well known around here. Pleading for tolerance & longsufferance in this case seems to me inconsistent and that your defending of Jo is perhaps a silent 'attack' on the virtue your known doctrinal opponents like Enigma and Nuke.

You will never know just how deeply tiring it is - this stream of continuous imputations of motives from you all. Its sickening, and wearies the spirit.

I have been more than clear and direct on my doctrinal disputations, and it is more than fantastical for you lot to think that I would need to plead tolerance for opposing views as a method to ensnare "christianity". Its laughable actually. I have more than condemned that which I see as wrong in Christian ideas for this sort of suggestion to be repeatedly made. If you are also of the view that the methods that have been adopted by your friends here are salutary, then - - - so be it! Go ahead - expose private communication as they have done. Open threads to create compendiums of the wrongs of other posters as they have done. Hurl insults as they do.

Whatever jaare.

Good night. (O, please do verify it is actually night, because since it is ol evil DS saying "Good night," he just might have an ulterior motive for that salutation, which might be directed at undermning your religion).

JeSoul:
^is this user ID meant to jab Deepsight? (DS who did you vex lately?) you're def not a newbie. Spill the beans dude, who are you?

Zikkyy:
You probably achieve better result torturing DS himself i also believe he is not a newbie, appears friendly though probably won't do much damage to the site.

I have no idea who the person is, or what he seeks to acheive. Nor could I be bothered.

aletheia:
Ðip▓§hïtë = Deepsight

No please, I have no idea who that user is.

dare2think:
@deepsight,

I have been following this thread and have really witnessed a variety of emotions. I saw how you tried to apply the "gentle-man" dose to a situation that has been brewing for a while, personally I dont feel it is right to single out a person for his views or stand, (However riduculous it may seem). In that respect, I'm with you. However you failed to realise that there are two sides to a coin and out of the innocence of your intent, you risked sounding bias. Anyway I applaud you for your attempt to apply reason.

I thank you. I am glad that you do recognise "the innocence" of my intent, and you noted that that risked making me appear biased. I was and remain all too aware of the risk of that appearance, for most people would jump to the conclusion that one agrees with Jo, whereas one does not.

A lie repeated over and over again will eventually start sounding truthful.

To the variable mind perhaps, but not to the lamp of conscience.

I dont want to use this thread for my interaction with you, but if you are ready, we can have a useful and educative chat on the role religion plays in our everyday lives on a saperate thread. .

Sure, let's do it.

Again the bolded also reasserts my belief that God looks beyond race, sexuality, denominations and other human attributes, but he looks at the content of your heart- that I feel is an un-biased way of judging everyone accordingly. then again no-one knows how God works. Its funny how some people claim they do. (forgive my typos)

I could not agree more.

Οι άνθρωποι νομίζετε ότι είστε οι μόνοι που μπορούν να χρησιμοποιούν μια ελεύθερη μεταφραστή

σταματήσει αμέσως!

InesQor:
My gripe is "any soul that is lost can only blame itself" but I guess you have clarified now by showing that you MEAN that anyone who allows religious debates on doctrine to sway their beliefs , can only blame themselves. In such a case, I might agree with you because the conviction lies in each heart at the end of the day.

Good, agreed.

Jesus said a blind man leading the blind, they will both fall into a pit.

There is no soul that was created blind. The living conscience implanted in each and every soul by the creator is a living lamp which guides the soul.

The soul tht discards the lamp, does so at its own peril.

There is no influence that this lamp is not sufficient to judge and reproof for the benefit of the soul.

Nobody suddenly starts out as "a soul that has the unction of love and charity." 

O yes they do. In fact, we all do. We start out with the golden gift of the lamp of conscience. If anybody ignores his lamp, his guide: then he will fall into certain perdition. There is no "influence" that the lamp is not sufficient to guard against.

Indeed it is sad if anyone here thinks that his "attacks" against any church here is "saving souls." It is the gift of the lamp of conscience that will and does save souls everyday.

I have no intentions to boast, but any objective reader can compare my posts as mavenbox to my recent posts. A whole serious lot has advanced in less than 2 years, and it almost all came from here - from these same discussions and "arguments" that "dont win souls".

While I cannot know anything about your inner spirit, I must remind you to distinguish between mental development and spiritual development. One may not argue about certain things on account of an expansion of the mind: this does not mean that one did not always and already have the unction of love and charity within. It was always my sensing that you did.

InesQor:
The point I'm even stressing to Deep Sight is that: THIS is what makes us human. Our abilities to influence one another for good and evil. We are not programmed robots using a synchronized hivemind of sorts, neither are we totally free agents that cannot be influenced in thought and lifestyle.

I believe I have addressed this above, but simply for emphasis let me repeat that I never said that influence does not exist. I said very specifically that a spirit that bears the unction of love and charity within it cannot be lost on account of any exxagerated discussions here. And that is just the fact.

You talk about influence. Let me make it clear for you. Would you be influenced against your conscience? If you are, then you bear the responsibility for that: for going against your conscience. The truth is that if a spirit bears the unction of love and chariy within it, it will not go against its conscience, and as such it will not be lost.

This is what I stated and it certainly remains true. We live in the world of influences but no one can influence you against your spirit. Whatever influence you allow yourself to come under, you bear responsibility for that. Because there is no influence that will remove a child of God from the hands of the Light. That is my view.

See again my statements and note them carefully -

"There is not one single soul that will be lost if such a soul has the unction of love and charity. And in that regard, God, and not man, is the judge."

"Any soul that is lost can only blame itself. No soul that has the spark of love within it will be lost."

As far as I am concerned, these remain true. You may quibble about details about the oil and water analogy, but the spiritual principle remains clear: each spirit will align itself in terms of its intrinsic weight and consistency. This is an unavoidable spiritual law, which will justly hand to each human spirit its rightful place within God's creation.

Also you need to put in context the discussion. People contended that they have been willing to take steps such as hurl insults, fight, expose private communication, and even open threads dedicated to creating "compendiums" of the supposed odium of Jo and co. These are unsalutary acts - but they justify their actions with the claim thatr souls are at stake.

I say that that is a wrong contention because the arguments here do not put any souls at stake. Whether you believe it or not, there are atheists, agnostics, buddhists, muslims, christians, deists and even CEC members that will all find favour with the most High God. And this will be because of the unction of love in their spirits. The arguments of dogma here imperil no soul. Such arguments only imperill the temporal dignity of the discussants.