₦airaland Forum

When do they show 'True Calling' on TV? On what station?

Yahoo is the most successful website

I'll ask again:
How do you know that Yahoo is the most successful website? How do you measure website success?

i'm ok with their fighting because they are not polluting other threads. It's like a game, please let them play it to the end so they can kiss, make up, hug, and <<snip: bad boy!>>

Welcome to Nairaland, brother. I can see that you're having fun!

Can you give us the names of the companies involved in these wireless services, so we can patronize them?

Can you please briefly introduce us to Dan foster, IBK, Nnenna, Olisa, Kemi, Uchechukwu and co? Thanks!

In months to come, every other payment system in Nigeria shall be integrated into eNaira which will become an eGate for Nigeria.

Isn't yet yet another government-imposed monopoly? That's not fair!

Do you think I am as arrogant as you feel I sound? If not, why does my 'arrogant' style bother you?

In the situation you highlighted, the little guy still has the means at least in principle to cause the senate to amend the law to a lower fee.

Before he listens to the little guy, the senator going to listen to the large corporations that 'donated' their money towards his campaign. The little guy exporting palm oil from his farm is not likely to have donated any significant amount of money. The little guy is not likely to be able to influence his state to recall a senator that doesn't represent him properly. Theretically, the little guy has power, but in practice he has no power at all!

Interventionist governments provide large corporations and rich individuals with easy means of amplifying their dominance (getting richer at the expense of the small but enterprising businessmen and businesswomen) and maintaining the status quo (making it easy for the rich to remain rich and the poor to remain poor). 

If large corporations are not able to drive there competitors out of business by manipulating the government, they'll be forced to provide better services in order to retain their dominant position.  That is what competition is really about.  Competing to serve the customer better (Mr. Biggs?).  Competing to provide lower prices (Walmart).  Competing to create the coolest gizmo (Apple).

I believe in pragmatic welfarism. Pragmatic welfarism basically proposes that basic healthcare and basic education should be provided for all citizens. A healthy and educated citizen will therefore, all things being equal, contribute to the growth and development of the nation. This works all over the world. It is not without its limitations.

I don't disagree with you, but we may not necessarily agree about what's "basic".

There is no absolute free market and it is pratically impossible to have one! Except for the stock market. but in terms of governing a country's market/economy no such thing as absolute free market.

All I want is for markets to be made as free as possible, which no government is even attempting!  All they do is mount arbitrary roadblocks before us. Even the most well-intentioned proposals tend to limit competition.  Without fair competition in the marketplace, privatization and all that nonsense won't be beneficial. 

Politicians have no interest in freeing up markets for a simple reason: their power consists of the ability to interfere in our lives. Why should a politician go through all the trouble of campaigning to win expensive elections and maintaining an unrealistically clean image if she is not going to have power to do and undo when she finally gets there? Power corrupts, regardless of how it's obtained. Nobody ever wants to let go of it!

We lack an incentive mechanism that rewards politicians for achieving more with less. Politicians are expected to do what's best out of the goodness of their hearts. What a joke! Representative democracy is flawed.

What is there to explain? I've made myself perfectly clear. I expect loyalty and acceptance from my friends, and I supply the same. You need to give my type a trial before concluding that friends are meant to be jerks.

Of course, when someone is collecting 10% of the income of all the members of a network of churches, that person is going to be very very rich! And what's more? They don't pay tax on this income! Can't you hear the divine call?

How I can convince all Nairaland members that I have the right to collect just 1% of their incomes? 

we don't need a fuel subsidy. What we need are local refineries that are free to compete with each other!

You can take them to Olumo Rock. Just make sure they don't jump off!

I'm sure it can be profitable, but of course you'll need to choose what to sell based on demand.

I heard that www.alibaba.com is a very important site for exporters. You should probably check it out .

How do you know they are the best? Is it not simply because they claim to be the best?

I just watched 2/3rd of it!
- "Igi Ita Gbigbe" -> Igi gbigbe means dried stick referring to Monique's slim 'cousin'.
- "where is your meat" "eat, sister, eat!"

You're welcome. It's a pity my idea wasn't useful to this particulr person. Ouch!

Yes, that's probably what he means. Any ideas?

Nobody owes anybody any job, because jobs do not fall from the sky. Every job that exists was created by someone, so please go and create your own!

Do you have the information now?

Love.

Yes, there's one. It is called self employment!

Mariory: Your're right but, free markets need to be heavily regulated and monitored

Government regulations tends to favor big business because of corruption. The little guy always suffers more. Recently our senate approved a law that requires palm oil exporters to obtain a 6,000 euro license. In a free market, anyone who has palm oil would be free to export it. The biggest players tend to benefit from government 'regulations'. 6000 euros is nothing to them!

Mariory: as [free markets] tend to encourage corruption.

This is simply wrong. Can you give an example? I need examples to demonstrate why this is so wrong.

nferyn: freedom can only be defined in relationship to others, there is no such thing as absolute freedom

I agree with this, but we should try to maximise individual freedom. There are so many missed opportunities for this, partly because we rely on governments that have no incentive to promote individual liberty.

in a capitalist economic system, the main actors strive to eliminate the freedom that markets provide, there is a definite need of regulation in order for that not to happen

In practice, it takes the cooperation of the government or the use of force for markets to be made less free. In real life, the main actors strive to eliminate competition by pushing the government to 'protect' the market from their competitors. For example, our CBN governor is 'protecting' us from banks that seek to compete with the existing 25 banks by imposing an arbitrary capitalization rule. Labour unions 'protect' employed, highly educated workers against unemployed, less skilled workers by violently pushing in minimum wage legislation.

freedom means nothing without opportunity. It is up to society to ensure that those opportunities exist, a laissez-faire capitalist society actually destroys these opportunities

That is simply not true. A laissez-faire capitalist society makes it easy for people to start businesses. This way, even if you can't find a job that suits you, you can start your own businesses. In heavily regulated countries, it's very hard to start a business. This makes youths to be dependent on government to "secure jobs" for them. It also ensures that those who own large businesses will continue to control the economy.

For example, it takes 50,000 euros to incorporate in Germany. How is a young person going to get that kind of money? Not to talk about what it will cost to maintain workers that can hardly be fired, will not work more than 40 hours a day, and whose health and retirement must be catered for? Free markets are best at providing opportunities for people who are ready to provide value to others. In a free market, even when jobs are not available, if you are willing to provide what others want you'll be able to gain wealth. In a heavily regulated market, its very hard for dependent people to gain economic independence from their 'masters' the right way: creating value.

how to handle externalities (e.g. pollution) in the absence of a regulating body

If no-one is willing to pay for something, it might not be so important. If someone's body or property is damaged by pollution by a class of industries, legal bodies can intervene to exact just compensation for the victims. If this is known by the industries beforehand, they would be very careful about how they pollute the environment.

to provide wants and needs in free market system, one assumes that economic actors behave rationally. This an absolutely ridiculous and ungrounded assumption.

Markets work quite well when most of the participants behave rationally. Those who don't behave rationally will likely lose money, which translates to loss on influence in the market. Example: people who participate in pyramid schemes even though they know how each one is likely to end. The minimal welfare government will keep them alive while they try to figure out a more rational way to make money so they can purchase life's pleasures.

individual rational behaviour does not imply collective rational behaviour. Even when it is perfectly rational to do something as an individual, the collective consequences can be disastrous. Maximisation on an individual level does not automatically result in a maximisation on a societal level.

I agree. I believe that the government should intervene to prevent economically disadvantaged individuals from death, serious illnesses, serious disabilities, and serious injuries. However, a lot of what real life governments do is very unfair and unecessary. They are not committed to efficiency in their redistribution of wealth. This is only natural because no competition within their territories (governments do compete with each other).

Government does enjoy competition, it's called elections.

Elections are not equivalent to government competition any more than elections within the board of directors of Microsoft would constitute competition in the PC market! Elections are about who controls that uncompetitive entity called Government.

Competition is more like people having the choice of which police unit to patronize and paying for their protection services. Competition is when a bad police unit is driven into bankruptcy because people refused to demand and pay for their consistently inferior service, while a rival unit with better performance prospers and grows.

People are not naturally selfish, we do all have a selfish component to our being, but we cannot e defined as selfish

Everything we do is done to benefit us in some way. Either by providing tangible benefits like wealth or power, or by making us feel better about ourselves. I think the right term to use is self-centered, not selfish. You can be primarily interested in what's best for yourself (as we all are) and still have the capacity to feel and act for others in order to feel good about yourself or get respect or future favors from those people.

Do you mean Nigerians abroad or those living in Nigeria?

Welcome to Nairaland and I hope you find a sweet Nigerian lady to be your wifey.

Em, Ono, you must have a lot of experience with breaking up countries to be able to make this claim.

Loved it. What happened in that final episode, please?

If you are treated unfairly by the men you can always use the 'report to moderator' feature.

These are the things our young people should be doing to transform the country instead of "i need a job, job".

Well, the link you supplied doesn't address my own beliefs or why I believe what I believe.

So, what do I believe? I believe that human beings exist to make themselves feel happy and fulfilled during their short lives. In the pursuit of this happiness, they need goods and services provided by others, who also need goods and services provided by yet others. Their wants are unlimited.

Free markets are intensely competitive, and in the absence of widespread fraud they tend to concentrate more resources in the hands of those who contribute more to the satisfaction of the desires of others within the market - the happiness of others. So I see the free market as being by far the most efficient system for getting as many goods and services produced to satisfy as many human needs or wants as possible to people.

Believing that, I want all providers of goods and services (or as many as possible) to be made to partcipate in efficient markets where they get compensated based on how well satisfy the needs of others. Since the government does not enjoy that sort of competition, I want as many services as possible to be moved into the private sector. I like free market systems because they give naturally selfish people an incentive to serve others.

Ok, that's some of what I believe. Any questions so far? Anything unreasonable so far? I have more to say!

Finally, i got you interested. Yes, I'm interested in examining libertarianism, though I'm more concerned about how practical or useful the ideas are than about whether they constitute absolute truth or something. I expressed my own concerns about how a completely free market would affect people here: http:///g6quw

So I'm going to check your own link while you go through mine. Are you a liberal? (so I can google the objections against liberalism and supply you with a link)