₦airaland Forum

@mazaje

Rudy and Romney have real world experience.Maybe I shouldn't have included Clinton in that list.

For instance,compare Obama to Romney.Romney matches and surpasses Obama's academic credentials.In addition,Romney is a successful businessman who was former CEO Bain & Company.He has been a successful Governor of a liberal state,that is experience in the executive branch of Govt.He started and ran a succesful private equity firm.

Rudy Guliani,good academic credentials and long history of public service.He was a highly successful public prosecutor and he was also highly successful in private practice.As mayor of New York,executive experience running the world's financial capital,he excelled himself.

Obama has little real world experience by comparison.This guy has just about 10 years work experience.Most of his adult life has been either spent in the legislative branch or as a student.His actual achievements are few and far between.What major legislation has he sponsored as Senator? How does his CV compare to Rudy and Romney's stellar achievement?

The most capable in the presidential race are Rudy Guiliani,Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton .Obama represents good soundbite but has little to offer in terms of well thought out policy positions.

If you are into superficiality-skin colour and wonderful rhetoric-go for Obama,for those less superficial than the rest;Clinton,Romney and Rudy offer more than nice soundbites.Rhetoric and skin colour won't put food on people's tables nor will it safeguard US national security interests.

doyin13:
Even America, the cynosure for capitalism is not run along these lines of ''small Govt., lower taxes, lesser regulation, lower trade tarriffs''

Sadly because political necessities get in the way of good economics.However,Govts are much "smaller" than previous.Gone are the days when the US and UK Govts were responsible,in pursuit of Keynesian ideals,of providing a comprehensive range of services from-telecoms,water,electricity,air travel to steel,ship and mining of natural resources.

Does anyone still believe that the British Govt,through state owned BT,should be providing mobile phone services? Ask people who had to wait for months for a landline from BT in the 70s and 80s.

Like any "do gooder" Keynesisan,the idea behind Govt involvement in the above was that the Govt could provide more affordable services and thus,ensure wider access.

Govt regulation restricted competition in the industries State enterprises were involved in, thus start-up companies faced a mountain of regulatory barriers designed to protect the advantages of the State run monopolies and ostensibly the "common good". Gone are the days when your choices for a land line phone was either BT or BT.

With respect to taxes,do you realise that the top rate of income tax used to be 90% in the UK? Corporate taxes were also in a similar range.The result was higher tax avoidance.Is it a coincidence that the more the top rate of taxes are lowered,the more the wealthy bear a higher proportion of Govt tax receipts?

In 1979 when the top rate of income tax was 83%,the top 1% paid share of income tax receipts was 11%.The lower this was cut,the higher their share went up.Today with a top rate tax of 40%,their share is now 21%http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.pdf Same phenomenon can be observed in the US.

On average,trade tarriffs are much lower than at any time since the 20th century.Organisations such as the WTO and the various free-trade agreements binding the EU and NAFTA,embody a recognition of the advantages of free trade.

Reagan did boost spending on defence but free trade advocates are not against this. As Friedman noted,it is partly the US's pre-eminent national security strengths that encouraged foreigners use of the dollar as the world's reserve currency and also foreign investment in US assets.

The policy revolutions that led to privatisation,deregulation,lower taxes and many of today's free trade agreements reflect a greater acceptance of Friedman's philosophy.

It would be better that the project was never built in the first place than for it to be built and end up economically inviable.$340m could go a long way in developing infrastructure in Nigeria.

Is that supposed to be bad? Economic meltdown cost lives!

To make exceptions doesn't in itself undermine the free market case.You and I know that there are no actual free market economies in the idealised sense.No economy operates without some measure of government intervention whether in the form of taxation or regulation.


You have to recognise that free market proponents concede that the Govt can intervene in certain special circumstances-where the market is not operating at its optimum.If the Nigerian Govt for instance,protects textile producers through the use of tarriffs, due to competition from Chinese textile producers who have Govt subsidies-that would be a mere recognition of market failure resulting from the Chinese Govt's actions.

Ideally,in the best case scenario,there would be no dumping from China and thus no need for tariffs.

New Deal policies were inspired by Keynesian economics,they represent the practical application of Keynes' theories.The idea that economic malaise can be alleviated by boosting the demand side of the economy.New Deal was about a Govt spending binge designed to boost demand,the idea being,the more money pumped into the economy by the Govt through its infrastructural projects and welfare policies,the more available to stimulate investment and consumption.

We all know that nobody spends your money in the manner of a drunken sailor like the Govt.In the bid to raise money for the priming of demand,the Govt competes for scarce capital with a private sector which could spend the money more efficiently.Taxes are raised to finance this spending.It was Keynes' ideas that inspired the IMF's warped solution to economic difficulties-raising taxes.

Friedman was never against using monetary policy to fight inflation or recession!That is the exact opposite of his views.He was always said that inflation was a monetary phenomenon-a function of money supply-in sharp contrast to the fiscal weapon wielded by Keynesians to fight both ailments.

My view is that the ideas of Friedman-smaller Govt,lower taxes,lesser regulation,lower trade tarrifs-have gained greater acceptance than Keynes.The economic reforms implemented by Thatcher and Reagan in the 80s-particularly the privatisation policies-have been the foundation of the subsequent expansion of the economic cycle,with recessions getting shorter and rarer and expansions lasting longer.

subject to correction, Show me where did i even imply that?

Here:

Three years among the Cuba people and hearing their side of the story has really given me a new leash on what I was originally fed

3 years University study in Cuba,the Cuban Govt never allows foreigners to access the full depth of Cuban public opinion,wouldn't undermine the validity of the criticisms of Castro's regime.

I appreciate that there are 2 sides to every story and some of the demonisation of Castro is unfounded.Nevertheless,the regime remains a despotic regime that continually fails to respect many basic freedoms of its inhabitants who,unlike you,cannot just pick their bags and leave the country.

Why do many Cubans have to risk their lives to come to the US?-because the Cuban Govt tries to stop many from leaving.Can you imagine if the Vincentian or Nigerian Govt stopped people from leaving with the result that many have to risk their lives just to exercise a basic freedom,freedom of movement.Remember,its not the American embassy visa restrictions that forces Cubans to undertake life-risking journeys,it is the Cuban Govt that stops its own people from leaving.We won't accept that in our countries,why accept it for others?

My point is that the state of the cuban economy is directly related to the embargo that the US placed on the country. Transportation is one of the major issues affecting Cubans. Getting from point A to B is a hassle. Why? the cars there were manufactured before 1959( american cars) and since there is no way of getting equipment in, then it created a problem.

You misunderstand the essence of the embargo-in simple terms-the US has refused to trade with Cuba.If I refuse to trade with you,I'm not responsible for your poverty.Cuba is free to trade and does trade with other nations on the planet.There is no Naval blockade that stops them importing or exporting their goods.They can buy or sell easily to any other nation,the US simply says,you are not going to do that with us.

Once again I ask,isn't the US fully entitled to determine who and how it conduct its trade relations.Remember,the embargo was passed as a result of Cuba's policy restrictions on US businesses.So Cuba can conduct whatever economic/trade policies it deems fit but the US can't?

Given that Cuba operates a communist economic model and given that all other nations operating same model have been proven failures,what are the chances that Cuba would have been an exception to the rule sans the US embargo excuse? Are Cubans any more intelligent or skillful than Russians,East Germans,North Koreans,Hungarians,Poles,Bulgarians,Yugoslavs,Czechs,e.t.c-all who operated a similar model and all who ended as failures.The difference with Cuba is that they didn't have the US embargo excuse to deploy every time their economic misery is mentioned.

No one is saying Fidel is a God. However, I repect and admire his stance against the USA. They need to know that they cannor run every body's show. I believe when the time for him to leave he will. Until such time, let him show Bush and his crew that size has nothing to do with it,

You can admire a particular stance without extending praise to the person adopting the said stance.When the time comes for him to leave?He is almost dead,hasn't such time arrived since 1959? You mean that in 49 years in power,the time for him to leave hasn't yet arrived?

For one person to hold on to power for 49 years is an insult to the intelligence of the Cuban people.Are they saying no one amongst the 12 million Cubans is capable of doing what he is doing?No one of will accept,in our own nation,having a leader who stays in power for 5 decades,not even 2 decades,yet we find no problem in accepting same for others.

I guess that is the difference between staying briefly at the pleasure of the Cuban Govt and having to live in that country as an ordinary citizen with little say on how the Govt determines your destiny.

The success of a model is best judged by its outcome.We know for certain that Klein's model has been an abject failure but free market economies have been a roaring success.There is a proven link between the extent of economic freedoms adopted by a nation and its economic growth.

To put free market economies on the same level as communist economies is ridiculous.

How many developed countries still adopt Keynesian policies? Very few people still believe that Roosevelt's New Deal policies are the elixir for economic stagnation.

The lessons of Friedman-lower taxes,lowering barriers to trade,lesser economic regulation-have been behind major economic success stories like Ireland and Singapore.

Of course,not all of MF's ideas are agreeable-removing all trade barriers can render developing nations industrial sector's vulnerable to collapse owing to imports from stronger economies.The early history of the Asian Tigers-Taiwan,Japan,S.Korea,e.t.c illustrated that some measure of import barriers may be necessary to protect embryonic industries.However,lowering trade barriers,as opposed to a total barrier-free import policy,does help countries concentrate on where they have comparative advantage instead of coddling wasteful inviable industries .

Islander:
FYI, I know the difference between the two. And yes I lived in Cuba for three freaking years while studying at Universidad de Matanzas and San Jose.

I guess 3 years of studying in a Cuban University,as part of some Cuban Govt programme, makes one the definitive expert on the views of 12 million Cubans.Case closed then.

Yes Cubans are risking their lives to leave, and who wouldnt?, Afterall, the "God" (USA) has an embargo, which by the way only harms the poor Cuban people. Given the bleak economic status there, many flee NOT so much for hatred of Fidel, but rather as a means of survival. In any country, communist or democratic, socialist , whatever, there will always be people who oppose that system. Does that mean the system is not appreciated?

This is absolutely stunning. Isn't the US perfectly entitled to determine who it can have have economic relations with? If the US decides not to trade with Cuba,why should any one blame the US for Cuba's current problems? If I decide not to trade with a person,the person has no business attacking me for his poverty.

This misses a larger issue.How many nations run on a communist economic model were successful? None,even Cuba's benefactor,Soviet Union,collapsed.Cuba's problem lies with its adoption of a model proven to be a failure throughout the world.I know economic illiterates will point to China but if you think China's economic model is still communist,you need enlightenment!

I just hate when people, instead of being realistic, jumps on the freaking bandwagon and glorifies anything USA does. Yes! the USA has afforded many immigrants the opportunity to achieve much more than they would have otherwise done in their native countries. That does not, however, means we should all turn "ass-lickers" and swallow whatever principles were brought up on,

Alternatively,we can lick the asses of Commies Its better to lick the ass of a successful system than to lick one of a known failure.

The irony is that most of the reports you get in the West about Cuba are actually sympathetic to Castro.

The simple issue is-between a communist dictator who has held on to power since 1959 and can't provide his people a world class standard of living,on one hand,and a free market democracy which we all flock to,lining up like desperate people applying for a visa,I know which one is much preferable.

We can do all the paeans to Castro we like but nobody,including many Cubans,wants to live in a dictatorship that offers little economic opportunity and even lesser civil liberties protection.

Milton Friedman v Naomi Klein-Lucidity v Twaddle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2kTy7glZ9s

@TOH

How many re-runs of Titanic and The English Patient have you mustered?

Islander:
@richy
I couldn't agree with you more. Che was killed for all those very reasons you mentioned. They have tried for years to wipe out my man Fidel, but so far he has proven untouchable. I remembered growing up in the islands and hating Fidel, thanks to the poison we were fed by the mighty USA. It wasn't untl in 1998 when I went to Cuba to study that I was really enlightened on the USA-Cuba saga. Three years among the Cuba people and hearing their side of the story has really given me a new leash on what I was originally fed.

You spent 3 years in Cuba? Or did you happen to visit Cuba for a 3 year period ?

Fidel has been in power since 1959.Surely,if the Cuban people loved him,he would have no problem putting his,and his party's popularity,to a vote by organising regular elections.

Why do Cubans keep risking their lives to emigrate to the US when they have a "paradise" back home and things are "hunky dory"?

Going back to Che,thank God nobody has argued that he was a democrat.Nor has anybody actually proferred any actual example of how he changed the lives of people for the better .What did he actually achieve?

It is very easy for people to spit on a system,free market democracies,that affords them the freedom and the opportunity to criticize their host Govt and exploit their talents to the fullest .Something,in which Che's version of the Animal Farm,would have been impossible.Hey,there is a good reason we all live or emigrate to the West as opposed to the Communist bloc.Action speaks louder than words

I have met and heard from enough people from the Communist bloc of Eastern Europe to appreciate the horrors of communism.I guess 40 million dead bodies from Stalin and Mao's policies haven't changed minds.

@doyin13

What has scaled new heights is your penchant for twaddling from thread to thread

Nani has more assists than any Utd player and people are saying he has underperformed.He has also chipped in with 2goals from midfield.Please,compare that to Walcott

Mariory:
I have no doubt that if you were a black German national in the 1930s, you really would have loved Hitler's policies.
Next time take this garbage to a white supremacist forum. No doubt you have a very fulfilling conversation there.

*rolleyes*

If he were a "Black German national" in the 1930s,he won't be producing such driveling commentary.I'm sure there wouldn't have been internet access in the concentration camps where he would have been interned for being black.

naijaking1:
Can you imagine George Bush or Tony Blair going into some alliance with someone they "prefer" to take over after office?

Of course they can do that.The difference with Nigeria is that they can't manipulate the system easily to ensure their anointed person ascends into power.

I believe one of the reasons our leaders "anoint" successors is to protect their private interests which they have acquired while in power.Its also a way for the power hungry to continue to exercise power even beyond their term limit.

OBJ,his family and friends are vulnerable to criminal investigations and prosecutions so having a favored succesor shields them from this.

The "correct" approach from OBJ should have been simply to obtain an assurance that Yar'Adua that he will be shielded from legal proceedings or any other Govt investigations and leave things at that.It is when the "Master" tries to continue excercising power as if he is still in office that things backfire

tboy1:
Madam, you're still on this issue.If you like don't cook 4 your man, like i said earlier there are other ladies outside who will do the cooking for you

Leave am na,she is only a teenager and will eventually wisen up

Death toll is now estimated at 300 people:

More than 300 people have been killed in Kenya since the election, and last night there was no sign that security forces were willing, or able, to bring the rampaging mobs under control. Gangs of machete-wielding men set up roadblocks along the main road out of Nairobi to the west, pulling Kikuyus from their cars.

The Kenyan Red Cross said that 70,000 people had fled the violence, and some Kikuyus had reportedly crossed into Uganda for safety. “This is a national disaster,” said Abbas Gullet, the agency’s secretary-general. Aerial footage taken by the Red Cross showed farms and hundreds of houses on fire and roadblocks every ten kilometres (six miles). Only those from “the right ethnic group” were allowed through the barricades, Mr Gullet said.

A police spokesman told a news conference in Nairobi: “We never expected the savagery to go so far.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article3118970.ece

texazzpete:
@mamajama
paragraph 3 of your article states that che guevara oversaw the executions of hundreds of millitary and civillian prisoners accused of being part of the deposed governments, yet you're asking what people he killed?

It pays to read your own articles.

That was culled from Wikipedia.If he had bothered to read it,he will see things like this:

"During the guerrilla campaign, Guevara was also feared for his ruthlessness, and was responsible for the execution of a number of men accused of being informers, deserters or spies. "

and this:


"José Vilasuso, an attorney who worked under Guevara at La Cabaña preparing indictments, said that these were lawless proceedings where "the facts were judged without any consideration to general juridical principles" and the findings were pre-determined by Guevara.[32][33] It is estimated that between 156[34] and 550[35] people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time."

There are many more accounts of executions told by Che himself.He was definitely no democrat and hardly the saintly figure people now paint him.

Mamajama:
I do not condone political killing r killing in any fashion, but did you read enough to find out what kind of people he claimed he killed?

In Politics especially in the guerilla war, its either kill or be killed

He shot local peasants because he suspected them of disloyalty.Even little boys were subjected to mock executions,"We blindfolded them and subjected them to the anguish of a simulated firing squad."

Like any personality cult,the facts of Che's life have little correlation to the perception of Che.The man,in his own writings,chronicled and glorified some of the killings he conducted.

babasin:
was same not given to FRANCE/UK/Norway etc? why are they not best economy in EU?

Germany doesn't have the best economy in Europe,it has the biggest economy by virtue of the fact that among developed Europeans nations,it has the largest population.

For instance,Switzerland,Luxembourg and Liechenstein have higher per capita incomes than most Western European nations but they don't have the largest of economies.

That being said,Hitler has nothing to do with the current state of the German economy.

Mamajama:
@I-man Please do your research before you contribute to this topic. The people he Killed?

Che himself proudly wrote and talked about people he shot.Are you saying he was making that up?

@Uche

If you purport to accurately represent the views of 140m Pakistani people,then you are NL's Mr Gallup

@doyin13

With Time's Man of the Year,the title connotes positive qualities but arguably less so than [i]great man[/i]I think Hitler has also been Time's Man of the Year.

I think both sides of the argument are technically equally plausible but in common ordinary usage,greatness tends to be used in respect of "good people."

Can the epithet,great ,be applied to a person whose contributions were decisively destructive?

I guess its a semantic question but greatness is more appropriately applied to people whose contributions were largely positive.Someone can have a greatly destructive effect to humanity but that doesn't qualify such a person as great.Greatness as applied to persons is different from its application to actions


To hold otherwise would entail describing folks like Cho,David Koresh and even Anini as great men

Its quite sad to see the state of Kenya today.It seems to me that Kibaki rigged the election,he was far behind in the vote counts announced by the media until the electoral commission stepped in and events took a more farcical turn.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/kenya/story/0,,2233855,00.html[/url]

The Che Guevara memes is one of the most nauseating in today's world.To paint this cold blooded killer as some sort of Latin American version of Ghandi or the Dalai Lama smacks of historical illiteracy.

Go tell the families of the men who he personally excecuted while boasting of it.He was nothing but a brutal Stalinist goon crassly romanticised in the West .

We dey in 2008,some people still dey in 2007

@2007ers

I am in the new year and there is nothing special,just like the old one really

babasin:
he may be murderous but not slowpoke.

ummm. Germany is the Biggest economy in EUROPE.

They generate Biggest power 587,000GW while your country generate 3000MW. doom and tragedy indeed.

Volkswagen is one of the BEST car markers in the world.

Hilter was not the one Bombing HIS OWN country but US, UK RUSSIA.

That Germany is the biggest economy today in Europe has nothing to do with Adolf Hitler.

Na this thread wey remind me say today na new year What is all the fuss about? Today is the first day of the rest of our lives.

debosky:
Busta hun, I'm done with all this. . .I don't want to be a player no more.

That is definitely Tuface Idibia!

debosky:
I-man aka one minute man abeg comot for hia, your lecherous 250kg female groupies are calling for another dance

Never underestimate the power of liposuction.The problem with the people you dance for is that you need an entire sex change operation to make them mildly attractive.

debosky:
Doyin e be like say you have to wait for toyin to turn 18 first oh, no show for you hia

Is Toyin blind enough?