₦airaland Forum

Hello everyone,

I am looking for anyone who can share some information about the Nielsen company in Lagos. Does anyone have any information about the working condition, career prospects, average compensation etc at this company? Specifically for a role of a senior associate position.

Many thanks

Obalende:
its not excessive friendship.... london is quite isolating for someone without a family. even platonic acquaintance could help a guys hustle. tbh i think church is not good advise. I would recommend retaining ur friends in nigeria thru social media eg whatsapp. they will be more reliable as london is a transitionary town for hustlers which i think is a bad culture.

Moreover its best to move to these western countries as a couple... as a singleton is a bad idea as the loneliness can even adversely affect ur career.

I agree with this poster's points. I am not sure why you think church is not a good advise though, considering that it offers the most reliable way of meeting new people.

Generally, i think you need to work on retaining relationships with the people you meet. Once you meet someone, see if you can buy them a beer or something at a later date. You need to understand that London is actually quite isolating, so the onus is actually on you.

Divay22:
It's too late

it's never too late, you know.

^^

You are looking from bae from Sambisa? no problem

I'd go first


m, London.

For those who are hoping to leave the singles zone this year. There's still enough time left

The rules are simple, all you need to state your sex and current location.

Please lets keep things civil.

Bae, the story here >> https://www.nairaland.com/3547646/two-nairalanders-getting-married-check >> could be us! You never know.

.

Are there any working professionals in London looking to share a flat?

This is a chilling zone for all the foreigners in this section. There is a precedent already for something similar on the politics section.

It's summer time here in London, and summer time = time to explore the inner child in you. Might as well do so while making a few new friends.

So come on in, boys and girls, tell us where you are located and what you are up to this summer.

damiso:
LOL lots of good tips from others cant really add much.

On the train issue it really depends on what time you travel. I tend to travel before the peak rush hour times and yes I have even made a friend who notices when I am not the train. However, after a really annoying commute to work this morning though rush hour I can feel the OP on not being in the mood for chit chat or chatting up people when travelling during peak times.

Tearoses is spot on the Pure Gym bit as well.

Join a gym and attend classes . Spin especially There tends to be a lot girls in Spin class and so the few bros dotted will be noticed. the girls might not be Nigerian though but you can never know

If you are really bent on the Nigerian gal angle though, the surest( not necessarily the best) bet is to attend a 'Happening' Nigerian Church.

What 'Happening' Nigerian churches would you recommend? I am in similar situation as the OP

.

I am looking to meet London based single ladies that are interested in casual friendships that may perhaps lead into a relationship. If interested, please drop me a message.

coogar:
only heaven knows what black women love doing. i must have used 50 different gyms in the last 5 years, the highest number of black women i see there at any point isn't more than 2.

it's always black males & white folks striving to keep fit. when health issues start creeping up on them in their 40s, you see them running from one spiritualist to another for help. all they do is sit in one spot, gossip, eat and fart like a constipated buffalo.

I think this is dis-respectful. You can simply judge all black females from your own unique experience.

FOREXMARTS:
Ur too late. Things will stabilize in six months before Easter. Check history.

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go short on the dollar right now? LOL!!!

I promise you will get smoked by summer!

"Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked" - Warren Buffet

Winter is coming people, brace yourselves.

SirShymex:
I somewhat agree with your postulation based on the current realities of Russia. However, why I disagree is basically because you never factored in why the country is the way why it's. Once you consider the fact that this is a country that hasn't enjoyed a long stretch of economical stability (since the end of Soviet Union in 1991) - due to the two economic crisis that plagued it, in 1998 and 2008. Then you'll understand why it has always struggled and, also the brain drain. However, what you can't deny are the potentials. The country certainly still has the black clouds of the Soviet Union hovering over its head - and if it can effect a structural change, and move away from that, like Putin is trying to do now - don't you think it will get it right on the long run? The tools are there, it just needs the right policies.

How's Yukos any different from Madoff? However, did that stop potential investors from investing in America? Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a Russian oligarch and a product of the Yeltsin era fraud. He got nailed for trying to serve foreign interest in lieu of the Russian one politically. So, I honestly don't see how that's a red flag for foreign investors who have no business in interfering in the politics of the country - apart from cheap propaganda in the western media. Also, how has the Yukos problem stopped BP, Exxon Mobil et al from investing heavily in the Russian oil and gas sector? Ditto EU countries, especially the Germans who have more investments in Russia than any other country?

With patriotic mentality: I was alluding to industrialisation, which is undeniable the nucleus of diversification. You have to move your country to a certain level for economic interests to thrive - unless you want to create a dysfunctional economy like Nigeria's, whereby investors just exploit the huge population, without giving anything back in return. The relationship between China and the US is a symbiotic one, and China needs it cos of its huge population. While the US is init for cheap labour. However, Russian doesn't really need the US to thrive, especially when what the US wants is Russian domination.

I think that our positions converge in a number of places already. I might be less inclined to continue, but overall, i think it has been a thoughtful debate.

I don't deny that the potential exist - for the simple fact that it is resource rich, has a huge population and a strong technological base. But as i have mentioned several times - I think you also highlighted this in your post - structural change must occur for the current Russia to thrive. I think the Russian authorities are not addressing the necessary preconditions just for the simple fact that achieving the required structural change might demand some political costs. The following specific factors must work:

1) Savings and Investments of households within Russia:
Russia must thrive on its savings rate and bridge the gap between the top 20% of the population and the lower 20% of the population. It's current average household disposable income is well below the OECD average. A low disposable income >> leads to a low savings rate >> which leads to low investment >> which leads to low capital per worker >> which leads right back to a low disposable income. In other to break this vicious cycle, Russia must attract Income from abroad, which should bridge the low savings rate. Russia will only attract investment from abroad if investors in those countries have faith in russia as a sound place to invest.

2) Political stability, Rule of law and Property Rights:
A stable and effective government, a well developed legal and regulatory system and respect for property rights are key ingredients if Russia were to structurally redefine itself. Clearly established property rights create incentive for domestic households and companies to invest and save. Russia's economic potentials will always remain untapped if Investors continue to get the feeling that the courts and the legislative arms of the government are essentially mouthpieces for Vladmir Putin. Additionally, you may choose to believe this or not - but Russia does not gain much in engaging in a propaganda battle with the West. This may surely fan some nationalistic flames within Russia and also yield some political capital, but in the end, much of the World's media are Western leaning, and the information they promote are actively or passively considered by anyone looking at Russian Investments. I spoke with a pal the other day about investments in Russia and she pretty much just relayed reasons why she thinks Russia is a risky place to invest. Her reasons are closely aligned with what you will see on media channels daily. It doesn't matter if these are right or wrong - it is just what it is.

3) Education and Health care system -
I think Russia will probably be more in line with most of Europe with regards to this two factors. To thrive, it must improve the global brand of its schools. This is one of the reasons the US has remained an innovative country for several years. Because it can attract the best minds around the world who simply want to study at either Havard, MIT or Stanford

4) Embrace Free Trade:
Russia must set aside its seige mentality and embrace more free trade. This is how you separate politics from business. Russia CAN develop a symbiotic relationship with the West and STILL retain its political clout. This is the point I am trying to make. I don't subscribe to the idea that Russia doesn't need the US - Russia can employ the chinese model as long as it has comparative advantage. Here's is the scenario..

A computer software programmer earns 12,000 ruble per month, equivalent to 200 dollars for a job that is worth 3000 dollars per month in the US. Some guy in the US employs him for 800 dollars per month to do that same job - his monthly salary is now worth 4 times as much. His disposable income is now higher, which means, he can now invest that extra cash or save it in a bank that lends it out to someone else for investment. The multiplier effect of that extra cash is huge and it represents a huge factor in economic growth. But by flaming all that anti-western rhetoric, Russia places a constraint on its own households and its own economy.

The relationship between China and the US is not necessarily symbiotic. It's taking Jobs away from the US and killing the US manufacturing sector. Peharps one thing to note is that China does not promote an anti-US rhetoric in China despite the political rivalry with the US.

Did you read all the links I posted? The big companies in shale industry, who control the largest shale basins in the US also aren't profitable. They need oil prices to be at least $80pb for it to be profitable. And that doesn't include interest payments. So, regardless of how you look at it, low oil prices spell doom for everyone - it's risky business and a game of Russian roulette.

I never said the US was influencing the shale industry - the oil prices was driven down by the Saudis and gulf countries, with the US playing a big role in it. Remember John Kerry and his now infamous meeting with the Saudi King, before the price crash? Yes, the Saudis and Gulf countries are well protected from the economic shock due to huge investments. However, my point is that: the US shale industry is also at risk. So, is it really worth it? You might think as a consumer it won't affect you - but when deflation kicks in, everyone will be affected. Deflation is about to hit Europe, and the forecast is scary.

I have read of John Kerry's meeting with the Saudi King, one could draw some correlations of this meetings with the fall in prices, but this ultimately fall in line with those many other theories.
Additionally, the US shale may be at risk, but this risk is more than offset by US household spending which should rise due to lower oil prices. If you consider that the US economy is 70% household consumption driven, the impact on the shale industry is really not that significant.

As a consumer, I am not that worried about short term deflation. UK houses are overpriced anyway, if i can buy a flat in London for cheaper than it is right now, why should i be worried? Overall, the ECB will expand its balance sheet and stimulate the economy with monetary measures in about a month or so. If wage growth in Europe can rise at a faster pace over the cause of the year, i will expect that deflationary risk should be short term

America's foreign policy since the Clinton era, led by Zbigniew Brzezinski, has been an utter failure. It has failed so bad, that even Henry Kissinger, the father of RealPolitik has been very vocal of late about a rethink.

The success or failure of America's foreign policies depend on which side of the argument you wish to support.

If the EU, which has almost (or probably a bigger) the same GDP as the US is already feeling the curse of the low oil prices, what makes you think the US would be able to handle the shocks? Norway is already in economic crisis right now. Germany is moving closer to recession. Ditto all of EU - with deflation hovering over its head. And the US is almost $20 trillion in the hole.Apart from the Federal Reserve printing more dollars cos of the FIAT system - the shock is going to hit hard. The total value of the shale industry debts should be between $1.6-4 trillion depending on how you calculate the interests. That's a lot of money.

It is not about just the GDP, it is more about the composition of the GDP. America is less susceptible to external shocks because its GDP is mostly domestic driven which contrast with a country like Germany or China.

I don't have data for the total value of the shale - would you mind sharing your source?

I am not denying that OPEC could really bankrupt shale producers, but i think sophisticated actors that have not employed too much leverage and that have the right skill set can hedge their exposure to falling oil prices using futures contracts, options and other derivatives. the systemic risk of a collapse in wall street is really minimal

RUN for your life my dear. RUN!!!!

Don't try to change him. Don't fast and pray and hope he will change. Don't listen to him if he promises to change. Don't hope, just RUN away from him as far as you can.

Pshycos don't change. They never have, they never will.

https://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4n3acifJ71qihztbo1_500.gif

SirShymex:
De-offshorisation isn't the long term solution to Russian problem - I believe it's a short measure to combat the economic quagmire it's in now. And I think I alluded to that in my previous posts. Obviously, it needs a structural change on the long term, and that isn't going to happen overnight. It'll require a long and sequential process, with continuity. Also, I think it has the required environment for it to happen, due to the nationalistic/patriotic mentality of the average Russian. The demographics is alright, but it's currently being improved with a lax in immigration implemented during the Putin era. Rule of law is subjective - the Chinese didn't change much, however, that didn't affect the growth of the country. Global competitiveness is also subjective albeit somewhat relative since it has most of Euroasia on lock and, two friendly big neighbours, with over 1 billion heads each. Ditto a few friendly countries scattered across the globe. The Russian outlook has never been about global domination like America's - so it'd be alright cos it's resource rich and has no need to source that much from other countries.

Which environment does ideas/business has complete independence? - I don't know of any. Some are just more superficial than the rest. Did Yukos oil acquire its assets the right way? Ditto BP et al? Those were products of extreme corruption induced by IMF/World Bank during the Yeltsin era and the creation of oligarchs - and they got their just due, in favour of the Russian people. Additional, did these companies disagree with the government - or were they serving foreign interests in lieu of Russian interests?

The points I have made are not necessarily a debate. They are actual realities, which may or may not defy a suggested logic.

For example, Russia is resource rich, has a huge population, geographical advantage and technological density, but it has struggled to to grow its economy meaningfully, struggled to attract investments or retains its home grown talent - These are realities.

The case of Yukos et al may be justified as you have stated, but their justification does not change the realities on ground - that Investor's sentiments are affected by these peculiar cases and Russia's reputation as a friendly investment hub is badly damaged. No one likes uncertainty. Someone with 200 billion dollars to invest does not really care that Yukos was guilty or not, he looks at this cases and he sees a pattern. He sees business risk, what happens if 10 years down the line, he becomes the next Yukos?

A patriotic mentality has no correlation with economic interests. A Russian entrepreneur/investor knows he can live and make money in the West while still remaining patriotic about Russia's national interests. Russians love their country, but they will follow the money wherever it leads. At the end of the day, CASH is still king.

Friendly government will translate to Political capital, it may not necessarily have much impact in the economic development. Japan lost a decade, while she had a cordial relationship with the US government. The US and China are political rivals, but the volume and value of trade between the two countries is one of the highest globally.

Furthermore, it doesn't need to compete with China - it has technologies far superior to China's and can get a head-start by catering to its own people, before branching to friendly countries. Singapore never needed to create anything cos its economy is interwined with the west for domination - a country as big as Russia can't use the model of a puppet state. As for Sweden, in as much as it relies a lot of oil export, it also has a decent/medium military industrial complex, coupled with the fact that its economy is intertwined with the west. Regardless, economically, in terms of the financial sector - Sweden also isn't a good model for Russia.

I think one consistent theme i have observed across your post is a tendency to believe that governments can directly drive economic outcomes. I believe that this notion is false. Russia cannot become a strong economic actor by mixing politics with business, i.e friendly vs unfriendly countries. Neither can it become a strong economic actor by playing the political sentiments of big vs puppet states.

China realized a long time ago that you don't have to be friends with someone to take their money, so the Chinese model is simply to separate politics from Business. China and Japan are probably one of the biggest geo-political rivals, this contrasts with the simple fact that China is actually Japan's biggest trading partner.

Military technologies and civilian technologies are like bread and butter hence most components of military hardware are built by companies also involved in civilian technologies. Boeing, General Electric, Rolls Royce etc... to even computer software. You can also go back in time to the British industrial revolution, and the development of its empire status. You can't really separate the two cos they're are like Siamese twins.

You may be right.
But i think that this may often be the case in countries where big powerful businesses have strong and established links with the military and they become more militaristic in their offerings as is the case with Google. But in all, i really don't think this is a try and tested model for sustainable economic development.

My deduction has to do with the projection by analysts that the shale industry should peak by 2020 (I posted the link in my previous post and there's another one by International Energy Agency). Evidently, the window of opportunity is very limited - just 5 years from now. Coupled with the fact that technology takes time to develop. I also cited the processes involved in drilling Canadian oil (which is somewhat similar to the process involved in frackig), and how despites decades of researches, it hasn't really reduced the cost of production. So, regardless of how it evolves - it isn't going to change much. And that effectively makes the extremely low oil prices unsustainable on the long run.

I think you're conflating two issues here. The dark clouds about the prediction of shale revolution had to with the oil prices back then vis-a-vis cost of fracking. No one knew oil prices would ever be as high as over $100pb. And since the prices have gone down now, it has effectively put the shale industry in a very tight corner. However, this forecast has more to do with the reserves, with are raw figures, and not dependent on any other factors. Also, you can't really correlate the banking industry which deals with numbers (more or less like gambling) and forecasts in the financial sector can be a bit hit-and-miss" - mostly unreliable.

You are right, many shale oil companies are having difficulties with the current oil prices, some have even stopped production, others will cut down expenses and lay off some workers. But i still don't think it implies the death of shale. I think the most successful cost effective companies will simply survive and play better.
As for the peak oil, well, i will keep my fingers crossed and see.

With the "US cutting its nose to spite its face" analogy, I wasn't alluding to just the shale industry per se. I was just trying to draw correlation from all the counter-productive US foreign policy blunders, in which the country only cared about achieving minimal short term gains, while it loses big in mid/long term - on how it may not care about whatever happens to its shale industry as long as it brings Russia to its knees and effect regime change (highly impossible). That's classic America since the Clinton era (we can even stretch back to the Reagan era).

I think it will be wrong to believe that America is directly influencing the shale industry just to bring Russia to its knees. This will be implying that that the success of shale is not in the economic interests of the US government. The success of shale does not have to be about Russia - it could just be an America that is looking to lose itself off from the chains of the OPEC cartel.

In any case,low oil prices are a good thing for me as a consumer. It implies cheaper holidays and more money in my pocket.

America's foreign policy has hardly changed in the last 50 years. It's success or failure in the long term cannot be reliably measured today. But history has shown that underestimating the survivability and the influence of the the US is not always a wise thing.

Trillions of dollars worth of debts will break the back of the financial base of wall street. If you're interested in analysis by experts - you can check these links:

1). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11231383/Oil-price-slump-to-trigger-new-US-debt-default-crisis-as-Opec-waits.html
2). http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2014/4150oil_trigger_crash.html
3). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-11/fed-bubble-bursts-in-550-billion-of-energy-debt-credit-markets.html
4). http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03afc19e-7979-11e4-9e81-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3OUFq67Mz

The entire US GDP is 16.8 trillion dollars - i certainly don't think these shale oil guys are trillions of dollars in debt.
That said, I am convinced that the economy is much more robust to handle shocks to its shale oil an gas business

For Bill Gates, I don't think Wikipedia is a good source for information. Here is an excerpt from Telegraph UK:
He and his wife Melinda have so far given away $28 billion via their charitable foundation, more than $8  billion of it to improve global health.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/bill-gates/9812672/Bill-Gates-interview-I-have-no-use-for-money.-This-is-Gods-work.html

^^^From that, you should be able to deduce that it's money spent. Also, the foundation is separate from his net-worth/asset.

I think the disagreement here may really be just how terms are used for accounting purposes - it could certainly mean that in real terms his actual net worth is much lower.

SirShymex:
1). Agreed Russia can't simply diversify its economy overnight, due to the malaise that has been the nucleus of its economic policies - from the Soviet days, to the early post-soviet era, with Yeltsin and the creation of oligarchs. Also, the subsequent integration with Europe, during Putin's first era, ditto Medvedev's. Hence I cited long term, in my post. However, you'd agree with me that country has all the tools required for a shift into diversification. It's an intellectual property, with one of the most sophisticated military technologies on the planet. And I believe you'd agree with me that military industrial complex is intertwined with industrialisation - which is the nucleus of economic diversification. Then agriculture and other miscellaneous things on the peripheral. Coupled with the fact that it's resource rich. Evidently, the economic collapse will obviously provide a leeway for the country to re-structure and explore other things it has been lackadaisical about in the past, due to certain interests. It'll be tough at the beginning - but they'll be better for it on the long run. I guess that's why Putin's approval ratings haven't collapsed, despite what's going on.

The government cannot achieve diversification on its own - It must enable an environment that allows for this to happen. Russia is constrained by several structural factors including demographics, rule of law and its weak global competitiveness. Hence why i feel that the de-offshorization law is superficial at best, what Russia needs is a radical structural change.

Ideas/Businesses can not flourish in environments where the courts/legislature seemingly lack independence and there is a real threat that the government could directly interfere in private businesses to settle scores or for political arm twisting. Privatization of Yukos Oil, BP's issues with TNK, McDonal's arm twisting, and the arrest of Sistema's CEO are all cases that bear distinct similarities - Someone disagrees with the government and then their business begin to experience problems.

Russia must either position itself as a huge success story in terms of innovation or position itself as a low cost manufacturing economy. Somehow i don't see it winning a competition with China as a low cost manufacturer and there is a long list of competition where innovation is concerned. I also don't agree that a huge military industrial complex bears a direct correlation with innovation or economic growth. Countries like Singapore and Sweden have very little military capabilities but highly advanced economies. Their economies were backed by a strong human capital, high incomes, high productivity and a friendly business climate.

Military technologies are often developed on an 'as needed' basis, and are often not adaptable to the civil sector. Although i agree that some of the common modern technologies evolved from military roots, - these tend to be revolutionary, but they are often exceptions rather than the rule

2). With the shale oil and gas industry, the window to keep evolving is too limited - it's either it evolves now, or go bust. Analysts already predicted that the industry would peak by 2020 (reference: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/How-Long-Can-The-Shale-Revolution-Last.html). Evidently, if they don't make the best out of it in short term, it won't be sustainable in the long haul. Err, this isn't the first time the US has cut of its nose to spite its face to achieve short-term foreign policy gains, and it won't be the last time. And regardless of how the shale industry evolves (which I doubt), the processes involved in drilling are just too tedious for the fracking technology to drive down cost of production by a very big margin. The Canadians have been in the oil business for decades, and despite the evolution of oil exploration/exploitation methods - the cost of drilling Canadian oil is still one of the most exorbitant on the planet, due to the processes involved. And it's somewhat similar to the fracking process.

- I don't understand why you insist that the shale industry either evolves now or go burst? Oil & Gas companies invest hundreds of millions in R & D as part of their going concern expenses. These resources are dedicated to continuously seek out ways to reduce cost of exploration and increase bottom line profits. Companies, Universities etc, are all doing a huge amount of research, for the simple fact that the pay-off is always massive for whoever builds a better mousetrap. I disagree that there is a time limit on innovation or evolution. This is an industry that is just at the embryonic stage of development, the possibilities of what can be achieved is potentially endless.

- I am a skeptic when it comes down to Analyst predictions. I don't think anyone can accurately predict what will happen in another 5 Years regardless of how educated they are, so i attach low probabilities to these sorts. I am a realist, i focus on the likely effect of the current reality on the near future. 5 years ago, very few predicted the evolution of the shale industry, even fewer predicted its chances of success. No one predicted the Lehman collapse. 5 years is a really long term, their are potentially millions of things that could either affect ore revolutionize the shale industry. One thing we do know for sure is that low oil prices are here to stay, and OPEC no longer has the pricing power.

- i don't understand what you meant by the US cutting its nose to spite its face, as related to shale, could you explain?

3). That isn't my model . I was alluding to the cost of business driven by profit, with a capital base that's mostly from bank loans - in a capitalist country/economy driven by the financial market. With a set-up like that, any financial crisis on wall street will definitely lead to an economic melt-down - yes or no? And also regardless of whatever scrutiny is required for tier 1 capital, the loans were given out based on investments in a commodity with profits of a very high ceiling - and once it fails, the ricochet effects will also affect the banks. Hence the low oil prices are not sustainable to all the parties involved, on the short/medium/long term.

Shale oil and gas collapse is unlikely to lead to financial crises on wall street. Some investors will lose a lot of money - Some banks will write off some debts, but there is very little chance that this could lead to some sort of financial crises. The market cap of the shale industry as a % of overall oil and gas market cap is really small.

Nigeria is a very weird place/case and everything going on there defies logic. The economy of the country is so weird/illogical that you can't really measure anything there based on the standard indices. Furthermore, you can't even call it a bubble cos there's nothing to burst, with the dysfunctional way everything is. Nevertheless, no matter what happens, I honestly don't think the people would lose much since they're used to the hardship, and they'll always find ways to survive. But the elites on the other hand would see a huge chunk of their net-worth get wiped out from time to time - just as Dangote just lost a few billions. Also, do you understand how Dangote's net-worth moved from $2.1 billion in 2010, to $24.5 billion in 2013?- that's a mere three years difference, with over 1200% increment. That also defies logic.

The economy is grimly, but you are probably a little more exaggerated on your pessimistic note. Of course, Nigeria has some standardized indices, although i would agree that there is a big technological shortfall that can be filled here. On the economic front, the country has certainly made some advancement in the last 3 or 4 years. The financial system is healthier, and there is a more robust and sustainable flow of foreign direct investment into infrastructure projects. The share of agriculture as a percentage of GDP has also increased a lot in recent years.

So everything is not necessarily dysfunctional

I honestly worry more about the security situation. People are becoming de-sensitized to human tragedy that its becoming really scary. I discussed the Baga incident with a friend about a day ago, she simply sighed and responded with the usual "God will help us o" - 2000 people just died and it is simply considered one of those bad days? scary stuff!


Dangote's networth surged mostly from the listing of Dangote Cement which alongside with Benue cement, account for about 25% of the market value of the Nigerian stock exchange.

4). For Bill Gates, you underestimate the power of money, how it makes people insatiable. The whole vaccine thing doesn't look too much like a crime enterprise on the surface - and the ruse presents a philanthropic cause no one would want to shy away from. I guess that's why Bill and his wife are directly involved. If you read the link I provided in my first post,you'd get an insight into how it works. It's basically about investing to provide experimental drugs to disadvantaged illiterate folks in the backwater of the planet, to be used as guinea pigs, for the eventual drugs. And with that, they'll also get the government of those countries to invest in the vaccines, albeit with claims that they'll help in subsidising overall cost. Once they achieve that,it will enable them recoup whatever money they invested, while also having a stake in the profits the pharmaceutical companies make when the final vaccines get to the global market. Also, it's no secret that the Gates' family have always been involved in Planned Parenthood (eugenics). Heck, his father, William Gates who's also a philanthropist, and co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - served on the board of Planned Parenthood, with Margaret Sanger in the 40s.

Bill gates is 59 Years old, he is the richest man in the world so he can afford ANYTHING. I have about the power of money, but when you are the richest man, extra money has no utility to you. I somehow doubt that Bill gates will pop champagne if he makes an additional 10 billion dollars in profit on any venture - I honestly just don't see a money motivational angle here, it defies any rational logic.

I am studying more about some of these projects hopefully, i will learn more. For now, i will stick to my base theory that his intentions are genuinely philanthropic in nature. when i learn more, my views will either completely change or become more reinforced

Also, with the $28 billion - that 's the total money he said his foundation has spent thus far for philanthropic gesture. And that's completely separate from Warren Buffet's. Obviously, I wasn't alluding to single-cash flow, just as his net-worth isn't about single-cash flow. However, if as a businessman/capitalist you $28 billion hit on your investment(s) - your net-worth should drop drastically - especially when you're no longer the majority owner of your primary source of income, in a market that's more competitive than ever. Evidently, you have to start asking questions about the exponential increment of his net-worth (he's worth over $90 billion now).

I saw this on Wikipedia:

as of May 16, 2013, Bill Gates had donated US$28 billion to the foundation

If this refers to the money donated to the foundation, as opposed to money spent, then it could still very well be a Bill gate's asset if the foundation is not legally separated from him or if due to accounting, the foundation is regarded as some sort of special purpose vehicle attributable to Bill Gates.

SirShymex:
1). Why do you think this is Russian propaganda, when Russian and Nigerian interests aren't intertwined? Also, the artifical deflation of oil prices, is more of a two-way street and not sustainable by both sides. In the short term, you have got the Russian economy which is heavily dependent on oil and gas crumbling. However, it's looking more like a blessing in disguise since it'll help the country diversify the inertia of its economy on the long term - and it has also enabled Putin to start speeding up a lot of polices he was held back from implementing in the past. A classic example is the deoffshorisation and nationalisation of the elites' money, and with this, it'll hurt a lot of countries that are dependent on the Russian elites' money - and we might start seeing capital flights from major world capitals in the next few months. Ditto the offer of currency swap and the use of Yuan by the Chinese.

Then you have got a shale industry which is US' holy grail that won't survive if oil prices remain at what it's right now. It costs between $50/60-100 to drill shale gas. Evidently, it isn't sustainable on the long run with the current oil price. Bear in mind that the investors involved in the shale industry took out trillions of dollars of loans from major banks - and once they go bust, all these banks will also go bust. And these are the biggest banks in the west - so who's going to bail them out, in a world economy that's yet to fully recover? The Chinese did the last time, but would they do that again?

As for Nigeria, the deflation of oil prices added credence to what I've been saying for time that the Nigerian GDP is just pure bunkum, and Nigeria has no formal economy, to judge/measure any indices. If the country had a proper economy, it should be in financial crisis right now. However, the only people affected are the corrupt elites looting the country's money - and it only reduced the amount they can loot in real-time.

The article bore a lot of similarities with the ones i have seen on itaar-tasss, rt and sputniknews. But you are right, it is probably not the best judgment that this is definitely a Russian propaganda - From a foreign policy perspective, the value of such a propaganda to the Russian government will be probably be too low to be considered.

Russia cannot simply diversify its economy overnight by policy changes. You can't unwind years of inefficiency is such manner. I don't see the deoffshorization policy working effectively in the short or medium term unless Russia itself undergoes major structural changes which is unlikely to happen. Those crooks who stashed their loots abroad are unlikely to be attracted by the mere promise of an amnesty - there would have to be an added premium for this to happen. Think about it this way - a Russian investor who stashed his loot into London Property markets and earns a comfortably return on monthly rents simply cannot be convinced to sell off his properties overnight and move his money back to Russia. There will have to be attractive opportunities to earn good premiums on their cash investments above what they could earn in London and they would have to feel safe with the control of their own investments as opposed to the real possibilities that the government may at some point in the future privatize their assets.

The currency swaps by the Chinese would go a long way to help stabilize the Russian currency markets by providing cheaper debts, and providing an effective hedge against currency fluctuation, but this cannot be a sustainable alternative to investment capital flows.

America's shale oil and gas industry is still very much an evolving process. Somehow, i doubt that the American government are keen to see these industries die off, this will be disastrous from a political perspective. If Shale Oil companies collapse under Obama's watch, Democrats may not see the White house for a really long period of time, so it is likely that America will do all it can to keep them in business through fiscal policy. Additionally, lower oil prices may not necessarily mean the end of Shale, it will most likely just see the industry evolve. The most efficient cost effective players will survive at the expense of the least efficient ones, new fracking technologies will emerge and it will simply be business as usual.



Your model for the debts from the shale company is far too simplistic. The companies don't necessarily fund all their operations with bank debt, there's a huge amount of Equity capital going in there as well. Banking regulation in the US, the UK and developed Europe has gone through the roof post Lehman period. The banks are subjected to higher scrutiny and they are required to hold more tier 1 capital. It is highly unlikely that the Banks will go burst in the event of a shock within the Oil and Gas markets. Finally, although as your put it, the shale oil is some sort of "Holy Grail", the US economy is actually less dependent on it. The US economy is 70% internal consumption driven, a lower oil price by aggregate will only serve to boost further growth in the US by putting extra cash in the pockets of households. A higher oil price on the other hand will simply mean that the Shale oil industry survives much longer, thus you end up with a win win outcome.

Nigeria is pretty much messed up. The productivity per capita of the country is pretty much one of the lowest in the world. The over-reliance on oil revenues puts it in a spot where it is now forced to drill and export more oil for cheap and stack up more foreign debt. The outcome of this on the Naira is not going to be particularly pleasing if oil prices stay low for another year or two. The effect of this is more pronounced on the common people than the elites. The smart elites probably have an offshore diversified portfolio holdings, like houses in Dubai or foreign stock investments. The common people will see their real savings wiped out from further devaluation of the naira.

2). Erm, everyone should know the piece was talking about Bill Gates - it's that glaring/conspicuous. So, is Bill Gates really who he claims he's? Is he a really a philanthropist or a capitalist bootlegger involved in diversifying his source of income, with all kinds of ponzi scheme, while using vulnerable disadvantaged folks in 3rd world countries as guinea pigs - under the philanthropic ruse? For a man who claimed to have given out over $28 billion in philanthropic gestures, yet his net-worth never took a hit, however it keeps growing in a stupendous way. Also, bear in mind that Microsoft has a lot of competition these days, and it isn't as dominant as it used to be when it monopolised the market. And he's no longer the individual largest shareholder of Microsoft - Steve Ballmer is. So, where is all his money coming from despite the billions he keeps giving out in philanthropy? This is a lawsuit against Bill Gates and his vaccine business in India: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1170073 and this is the whole article http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-08-31/news/53413161_1_hpv-vaccine-cervarix-human-papilloma-virus

If I was Bill Gates, and i needed to take advantage of disadvantage folks in 3rd World countries, the rational thing to do will simply be to hire someone who will in turn hire hundreds of people......You get the drift?

Why risk your reputation to achieve disingenuous goals when it can be far cheaper and more effective to hire someone to do just that and you can afford to stay in the shadows? I am not well informed of the vaccine issues in India and I have only just started looking deeper into it, it seems that there are some very dark sides to the project. Of course, I am open to revising my beliefs and assumptions the more i learn about it.

The 28 billion dollars that was pledged does not have to be a single cash outflow out of pocket - this could be in forms of Microsoft Shares, and Royalties. You also ignore a fact that a huge component of all that money comes from grants by Warren Buffet in Berkshire holdings. Warren Buffet started donating to that fund in 2006. In 2013 alone, Warren Buffet granted class B Berskshire shares worth an estimated 2 billion dollars to Gates and Melinda Foundation . From Jan 2013 till now, those shares have gained in value by close to 60%, which imply that the shares that was worth 2 billion dollars only in 2013 should now be worth 3.2 billion dollars.

3). It's no secret that Africa has always been the playing ground for guinea pigs to be used for biological experiments. It's well documented, especially in East Africa - with Congo Kinshasa as one of the biggest victims. So, if it's something that has been happening unbridled for decades on the continent - why do you think it's not plausible in this case?

P.S: not saying the whole story is real - I just want to gauge what you think. I await your reply.

I don't deny this.

For Bill Gates, I am simply anchored by the question of motives - what would he gain from such? Money? His got more money and fame that could last a generation.
But then of course, there is the issue of ego - Could be that he simply wants to be known as the man who made fortune and gave it all away by wiping out problems in third world countries. - For example, the man who solved Africa's Polio Problem -

In which case, his motives may not necessarily be dark ones, but probably not sincere ones as well.

yaskarahyelhope:
Bros wake up from ya update slumber. Did is no brouhaha. Euthanasia and Eugenics didn't start today. Obama once said "Nigeria is a fertile land". U think he was praising Nigeria for its resources? That guy hates Nigeria for its success in everything that he doesn't want to be in power while we keep succeeding and prospering in all ramifications. As for d boko, dem sabi d genesis gbam! They won't succeed. Bill Gates who tried to push d signing is a staunch member of illuminati even though he's a humanitarian. That's d way they keep deceiving people who feel they are hungry but are not

Of course, you have nothing to show for all your trash talking besides more innuendos, and crap!

You people are so dumb in your thinking that you will believe the first reason to blame external factors for your personal misfortune. You failed to elect intelligent leaders who have the country's best interest at heart - you get impoverished further and your best excuse was some boogeyman illuminati in the United States who is trying to destroy Nigeria?

Here's the thing - Bill Gates is probably richer than more than 65% of Nigerians combined. He doesn't have to give a shyt about your miserable life if he doesn't want to. Yet he dedicates himself to important causes such as malaria eradication - You should be worship him like he is some god. Those who you elect to represent you have failed! It is a shameful thing to print rubbish about those who are merely trying to help.

berem:
that has been the game plan. If you are an American,I don't expect you to agree with me.

Americans are evil and can never be trusted.

This is as stup1d as it is outrageous. Bill Gates is a man that is down on the road to his final days on earth. He could really buy himself a spacecraft and jet away to Mars without giving a toss what happens to everyone else on earth.

Why should he be interested in some grand collusion with the US government to subjugate Nigeria?

Let's face it, Nigeria really doesn't have anything to offer the world - besides Oil and an impoverish population. The US can really afford to ignore Nigeria. A populous country with what will seem to be a below average IQ. The country's productivity is so low it is beyond belief - 100 years from now, it is unlikely that Nigeria will ever present a credible threat to US interest, why should the US seek to subjugate her further and drive her into further hellhole?

The accusations leveled against Bill Gates on this thread are disgraceful and shameful.

Bill Gates has done more for the sake of this countries than many of your Kinsmen, Senators, House of Rep members and Pastors combined. You should be ashamed of your self for peddling such outrageous atrocities against such a man.

Nigerians are by far some of the dumbest people I have yet met. They tend to be so gullible that it defies common sense!

Your economy has been ruthlessly plundered and mismanaged - and you are told to point accusation fingers elsewhere - and you did without question, you are a f00l!

Of course, this is just pure Russian Propaganda, aimed at Nigerians that are really too dumb to believe just about anything

The Russian economy is going down the shít hole real fast, so their strategy is to to blame it on west.

NairaMinted:
My bad. Next time i will look from an article from an expert that writes for the likes of CNN, BBC, Faux News, etc. Most importantly I will make sure that he/she isn't paid

If you could also ensure that he/she isn't a complete m0ron, that will be great.

NairaMinted:
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, the Voice of Russia, now Ria Novosti, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.

So in other words, he was paid to write this pure rubbish - no surprises there!

The writer displays so much ignorance about economics that makes one conclude that his former role at the World Bank is most likely not economics related. In other words, he is John Snow and he knows absolutely nothing.

Trading in local currencies offer very little consolation. Money is fungible. If the Chinese accept Ruble from russia as a means of payment in the place of dollars, they will simply immediately convert their Ruble to USD or buy gold with it - no central bank in the world will hold an Emerging markets currency in its foreign reserves. Even Belarus, one of Russia's biggest trading partners , no longer want to be paid in Rubles. Ironically, even Russia itself is clinging on dearly to its US dollars!

Russia is becoming increasingly isolated by the day. Other so called BRICS countries are secretly cutting their deals with Washington. India will be hosting Obama as the grand chair for its major Republic day event. China cut deals on technology, climate and long term Business Visas.

Russia is no longer dictating terms. Most countries realize how desperate Russia is, and are now taking advantage of it. China is set to buy some of its most advanced technologies - a deal Russia would have flatly rejected a year ago. In the next year or two, China may begin to manufacture its own S400 missile systems - Probably even field something more technologically advanced than the ruskies.

The US on the other hand is far stronger than it was 3 or 4 years ago. It's economy is growing faster than any other developed market, its trade deficit has continued to shrink, and it has now emerged as a major rival to OPEC.

The biggest tip in winning an economic cold war is picking your opponent carefully - By taking on the US, Russia made a strategic error. The US is too much of a formidable foe. The Ruskies underestimated Washington's ability to form and keep an European coalition together or the potential harm from its booming shale oil industry.

Obama pretty much hanged himself with his response to Islamic State threat. His idea of playing golf right just after an American was beheaded is nothing short of political suicide

SirShymex:
No, you're the one conflating so many issues, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the US shambles of a foreign policy, since the Clinton era. It's about your claim that China can never project itself as a military superpower like the superfluous American military power, which as been lousy at best - without any real achievement. I'm just questioning what's insurmountable about the American military projection that can't be toppled. We're talking about the only military super-power in history that has never been tested in a conventional war, by any strong country - and that hasn't been able to win one asymmetry war, against minnows. I'm just telling you to get real, and stop peddling propaganda.

I think America's status as a super-power is not just about its military strength but also its ability to shape events in other countries. This could be through civil society, military or economic means. Ironically, it applies to the protests/unrest across the middle east, the toppling of several regimes, and in many cases dictating the foreign policies of individual countries or blocs! Hell, it managed to get 100 countries at the United Nations to condemn Russia's policy on crimea and even forced Europe to impose self-harming sanctions.

Why fight a war with Syria, if you can simply wait for the right opportunity to hijack simple protests and cause massive havoc?

In addition to its large military, It is this ability to influence governments or shape events in other countries that defines its super-power status.

Thanks for opening this thread. I am currently speaking with some firm in UAE and if offered the role, i may need to consider relocation from my current job in London to Dubai/Abu dahbi.

I will be glad if you could help with some questions.

1) What is the cost of living like in dubai? How much should you be earning if you plan on saving approximately 6,000 dollars monthly after basic costs?

2) Do you have some idea how much a mid-level employee in Investments/Finance/Banking could earn in dubai?

3) What is the Nigerian community like in Dubai? What are the kind of events/networking opportunities that are available to meet like minded people?

NairaMinted:
You addendum on a multipolar world, I agree with entirely BUT on the matter of China/Russia striking a possible alliance with each other to counter the West, seems we will never share similar views.

One question though: If Russia were to be attacked By the West, do you suppose China will seat aside or would it find a way to either overtly or covertly assist Russia knowing fully well that it would surely be next? Bear in mind that China's military isn't as formidable as Russia's..

A fee days ago, the US and Japan signed a security pact/treaty to counter the threat of China in the Pacific/South Asia

In the unlikely event of a military conflict, China has more to gain by staying neutral and watch both sides slug it out. - This will leave both sides weaker and that can only mean a good thing for China.

China's military may not be as formidable yet - but this is only a matter of time. And china is usually in no hurry. It has the economic strength - which is the most important.