₦airaland Forum

Nija4Life:
It may well be based on European culture but many nations have applied it in their on way and become succesful. Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, USA, India etc are all hardly European countries. We don't have an alternative and we don't look to come up with any either. We might as well make do with what we've got and run with it, the world has left us behind.

This is not an issue with geographical location, its more complicated than that. It is a tendency to see the world from a European point of view and USA is at the core of that . . (USA is the leader of this Eurocentric view) so is every single country you mentioned . . The word 'education' is based on European culture . .  wheather its education in the States or China , SO is human right corpus and universal convention . .

@nolongTing

I agree with you that "western education cannot be easily applied to African problems . ,   because it is based on European culture". My fear though is that education itself is based on European culture. So is religion, morality the list goes on. I think we just just have to accept it because the world is more eurocentric that we realise.

@nolongTing . .

You took my words off context and misinterpreted my comment . . . I see you also did it to someone else .

playmode:
Africa is blessed and cursed at the same time.We are blessed with resources but cursed with selfish people.The average African is not his brother keeper.We fight ourselves over everything and we always want to dominate over our brothers.

Once an african gets some small change he wants to be called a chief and he wants his relatives and peers to bow down to him.It is the "big boy" syndrome which almost all Africans and blacks suffer from and that is why we are the most backward race on the planet.Bottom line we are a selfish race.In Yoruba we say : "Imo tara enikan"

Until we adjust our mentality and learn to selfless, Africa will always will be backwards.Just take a look at The Dangotes ,The Adenugas ,our minister ,our president,our Nass members,Oprah e.t.c They are all selfish people who only care about the bank accounts,their power and their fame.They do not genuinely give back to society.Every thing they do ,they do for show and for their personal benefit, That is the general mentality of the black man.

This is the reason why theirs is NO SINGLE black nation that is successful on the planet.South Africa which i once hoped will be the shinning light of Africa and the black race is starting to turn into a banana republic since the current government out of greed is planning to nationalize the private sector and turn the country into a mordern day U.S.S.R.

There are too many square pegs in our race that we will never fit into the round holes in Africa.I am on standy and hoping that one day i will meet like minded people and we can start a real revolution that will be driven by our concern for fellow Africans and not greed.Once we get rid of the selfishness in our blood ,then we can begin to talk about leadership.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL. good point though

No one has said in terms how the heterogeneous nature of Nigeria prevented electricity or any meaningful development. I know the ethnicity argument, it's very hard to go against it . . its a cul-de-sac- a dead end,' since we share no common heritage we cannot progress together' PERIOD (how can you go against that?). What the proponent of such position fail to grasp is the meaning of development and how it is acquired . . The ethnicity argument is only useful in a conflict debates it has nothing to do with development i.e ethnic differences may cause war and disagreement which prevents development, however in a 40 year period of peace the problem cannot be ethnicity but decisions taken by the leader . . . (This is my take)

In specific: i think oil is an obstacle to development in Nigeria, the structure of government is another impediment (we need parliamentary system), counsel from IMF and World bank is the biggest one on my list.

Tayo-D:
@yeswecan,
I proclaimed muted support for two White Women and you accuse me of identity politics?  You wanna go search out what that phrase means?

You are a slowpoke if you think 'identity politics' is exclusive to race, There is nowhere in the States where identity politics is more powerful than in the Tea Party, in short, tea party is the definition of identity politics. In your head identity politics means supporting your race, sorry its more complicated than that. "Its a tendency for people of a particular religion, race , social background, etc, to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics". Thats tea party . . . without the bolded part there is no identity politics . . This is specific not the common parlance.

Tayo-D:
I will let you continue in your delusion that Obama is anywhere conservative.  What I will want to know is why you voted for someone who's track record if any, does not reveal who he really is?  Could your identity politics have influenced your initial support?  Are the facts and reality now pushing you further away from an earlier stance?

You are not making any sense, i presented specific arguments to support the proposition that 'Obama is a moderate conservative' by his actions; you need a counter-argument to talk back. I supported Obama because i thought he was a true liberal that is willing to discard traditional values. Now i know i thought wrong juding by his actions, it has nothing to do with his colour. And for your information my support for Obama means nothing i am Nigerian and proud. Debating US politics is like playing a video game to me, its nothing personal, i'm a mere visitor in the western world.

Deputy governor's wife with sirens . . LOL

Emperoh:
Subsidy should be removed, but not after they muist have fixed all the refineries and improved local refining capacity
That way, fuel and other by products will be cheap and easily accessible.

Save this is done, then they should prepare for more wars with NLC!!

Thank you ! ! you saved my typing time.

@ Tayo-D

No one is playing identity politics but you. From the inception of this thread you declared your support for two Tea party members only because, in your words, they "inspires liberal rage" - so it is clear. The puzzle is the question of identity on your part.

For your information my support for Obama came to an end somewhere along the extension of Bush tax cut - borrowing from pre-elect 'He's Useless To Liberals'. I do not see why he keeps getting support from the Liberal camp since he is more conservative than Mccain can ever be (in his actions): He put forward a health plan almost identical to those that had been supported by Republicans, pointedly rejecting the single-payer option favored by liberals;  he extended bush tax cuts;  the recent debt-ceiling deal came with cuts on social services and no tax increase for the rich. The guy is making the poor poorer,  he even continued Bush’s war and national security policies even though they are the main causes of US debt.  The guy is more useful to conservatives, this is also why i do not get the teabaggers  . . .

I do not denounce tea party because they are predominantlt whites i denounce them because it is a RACIST organisation. You do not need a pair of binoculars to see that . .

Obama is actually useless to Liberals, he has governed from the conservative front; he extended bush tax cut.

  @ Tayo-D. They hate you, trust me, if they have the chance (I mean tea party) you will be deported.

At this point it is very easy to see through the Teabaggers. They claim to be against Obama's tax policies only the president is yet to increase taxes, he actually extended the Bush tax cut. Technically (in tax policies) this is an extension of Bush era so the real question is this: where were tea party's ardor during the Bush years? where were the Teabaggers - a black man came on board and suddenly a movement was created - the inspiration appeared. First it was birth certificate then its what i cannot even comprehend- Big government - Well America industrialisation was laid on the backdrop of huge government intervention.

There is more to this Boko Haram new obsession. I am not buying the official line - "Al-Qaeda to use Nigeria as HQ by- British Intelligence. The same intelligence that told us there was WMD in Iraq . . . the way folks go with the official story is disturbing

I doubt this story . . . $1 billion is completely unreasonable for a speaker.

sirjec:
There is nothing wrong if USA want a military base in Nigeria. If Nigeria is a sovereign state, why did they kill inocent citizens just like that.

Pls America if you are still contemplating, don't go and develop bp, just come and establish your military base here.

Nigeria is forked, too much sectional and tribal sentiments has killed the nation. Imagine ppl calling for NYSC to be scrapped and senate president is saying it should be made to last for 2years to show people they are wasting their time. Since our military cannot protect them during this 2years nysc, usa should come and do it for us(we that don't have connection to decide where we'll serve)

Are u serious?

DaLover:
Excuse me yeswecan,  where have I ever said that corruption is the problem? please kindly identify that write up,
All my post have been about how the political and governmental structures existing today encourage corruption, I hope you are not interpreting this to mean I said that corruption is the source of Nigerias'problems,  I advice you re-read my post again,

Honestly i read your post for the theme - not the direct message. I will provide you with the quotes :

2-With an improved political and governmental structure that reduces corruption, removal of subsidies is necessary because the monies can channeled to areas with much greater long term effects,

In this case your rationale for improvement of the our political structures is for reduction of corruption - this trend is common in your messages.

DaLover:
@ bolded, are you really sure about this I think this is lame talk, especially comming form someone you ought to know better,
Agreed that their policies may not favour us, because thay are generally made to favour the powerfull western interest,
But think about it, China, Taiwan, South Korea, India Brazil, etc where all in the same boat as Nigeria (On may be not exactly the same level) but are now emerging as strong economies. [/b]Are you going to say that these western sponsored bodies "WTO, IMF and World Bank"  didn't make the same unfavourable policies towards them

You are missing a serious point. As a capitalist i am sure you are familiar with the theory of comparative advantage - comparing Asia with Sub-Sharaha Africa is pointless because we have different advantages. On the surface, China is explioting its advantage with production of immitated and cheap goods  through 1)[b] cheap educated laborers . One of India's comparative advantage is garment production ; if you have any knowledge of the Britsih  textile industry you should probably know that. Africa's comparative advantage[b] is Agriculture[/b] - Get that - not manufacturing or banking,

If you agree that Nigeria has to divert from just Oil to a different sector - then what would that be ? I say Agriculture - don't hold your breath - hear my story

I will try to provide reference for every claims -

Africa after independent witnessed very high growth rate like Botswana immediate growth rate was 14.7 percent, Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoir, Kenya and Zimbabwe achieved more than 8% growth rate (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2000 4). Agriculture was the sole driver of these figures. Some Africa countries were able to expand their agricultural products and export to Europe and Asia back in 60s and 70s thence increasing state revenue. For instance Hydén (2005) notes that “between 1966 and 1970 net agricultural export from the region averaged 1.3 million tons per year” (148). This trend was however reversed to complete closure of Agricultural export and dependency on Agricultural import by the Structural adjustment program. Agriculture was at the core of national policy in countries like Gambia, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Ghana and even Nigeria (before the discovery of Oil).The growing Agricultural sector in Africa at the point of independence was suppressed and reversed to the negative by aid conditionality mostly regarded as Structural adjustment program which Oxfam has described as “a disaster to development” (2002, 165).

I do not think IMF and World Bank purposely destroyed our economy, i don't. I however think they did destroy Africa social sector in an attempt to sell neo-liberal policies, or rather experiment Washington consensus. Even a chief economist of World Bank accepted that the program was a failure, in his words, “We did not think that the human costs of these programs could be so great, and the economic gains would be so slow in coming” (You can Google that)

Recently - Mark Malloch Brown, former head of the United Nations Development Program said, in his words, "It is the extraordinary distortion of global trade, where the West spends $360 billion a year on protecting its agriculture with a network of subsidies and tariffs that costs Sub-Saharan Africa about US$50 billion in potential lost agricultural exports " (Malloch Brown, 2002 in CEA Conference Oxford, July 2010). Mark Malloch Brown underestimated the figures

DaLover

Your grand design does not actually say where we can lead the world - i say Agriculture- you say what?. In the current game of globalisation the real competition is for market share. There is no way any country will develop in real terms without having a strategic advantage in production of a particular product - except you need a soviet-like socialist union.

DaLover:
The problem appears deeper than I thought,
Hope you will acknoledge that the most industrilsed countries produce the highest amount of food, Agriculture can be a big advantage if we harness it with technology, we must industrialise to move forward,

There has to be a motive for harnessing our agriculture with technology – and that motive is market. If there is no market no matter what you produce it is useless. The market is closed. In the United States and European Union, if a farmer experience loss the government pays for the lost product how can we trade in such climate?

My main argument is the closure of market by western government and closure of our domestic production capability by Breton Woods institutions.

You said "we must Industrilise" who can dissagree? but what do you mean by industrialize ? thats a loosed term- i take it to mean "develop industries". It is not the government that develope industries according to you, it is the private, yet you said "we must industrialise". Industrilization comes when there is market for a particular product and domestic producers go out of their way to increase production capacity through technology and the rest of them. .

DaLover:
It then means that you have failed to see the following points in my previous post or you fail to realise that subsidy discussion is multi-dimensional and cannot be solved in isolation
1-With the present political structure on ground, I don't support removal of retroleum subsidies
2-With an improved political and governmental structure that reduces corruption, removal of subsidies is necessary because the monies can channeled to areas with much greater long term effects,

These two points are the summary of what I have been saying, to be honest I haven't read what the IMF guy is saying because I don't care, as for the one size fits all theory you think I am proposing, check again! I am actually proposing that Nigeria takes a radical path towards development by concentrating first on deeping the economy and then latter come back to create sensible welfare schemes? not the other way round.

That is why I have said lets reduce curruption first by restructuring how we go about goveranance in nigeria.

The problem with Nigeria is not corruption ! !  You hide your points behind grand words "present political structure on ground" and "reduce corruption",

It is too simple to say Corruption is the problem with Nigeria, in fact it is intellectual laziness to resort to that simple, and all too familiar answer to Nigeria questions. Don't tell me corruption is the reason for our closed Agriculture sector - mind you - before we discovered Oil we had growth figures that were from agricultural exports. Africa as a continent has to look beyond the corruption debate to understand where its problem lies - as far as i am concern.

Corruption is a tactical issue - we have a structural problem in Africa at large.

If i launch a review into a phase of Nigeria's problem i might bore you - but check this out. Africans are traditional farmers - the real problem with Africa i tell you is WTO, IMF and World Bank. Yes they are, and also US and EU agricultural subsidies which has been used intentionally to lockup Africa farmers. If there is really free trade i would be exporting cattle.s to England because beef here is highly demanded, highly subsidised (2 pounds=500 Naira subsidy to every cow a day) and yet very expensive. If there was a freedom of movement the whole Europe beef market would have been taken over by Africa farmers. Our advantage is farming - not banking. We have the highest arable land on planet earth (Africa i mean) and US subsidy on cotton alone is bigger than five Africa country budget combined to avoid us from taking over their market. As if that was not bad enough, the IMF and World Bank came and asked us to open up for remnant of EU and US subsidy dumping which subsequently kept our peasants of farming.

Agriculture is the advantage in Africa - not banking, manufacturing or technology.

haka_nai:

1. In Anambra State, PDP scored 1,145,169 which is 98.96% of the total votes cast.

2. In Enugu State, PDP scored 802,144 which is 98.54% of the total votes cast.

3. In Akwa Ibom State, PDP scored 1,165,629 which is 94.58% of the total votes cast.

4. In Imo State, PDP scored 1,381,357 which is 97.98% of the total votes cast.

5. In Ebonyi State, PDP scored 480,592 which is 95.57% of the total votes cast.

6. In Bayelsa State, PDP scored 504,811 which is 99.63% of the total votes cast.

7. In Abia State, PDP scored 1,175,984 which is 98.96% of the total votes cast.

8. In Delta State, PDP scored 1,378,851 which is 98.59% of the total votes cast.

9. In Rivers State, PDP scored 1,817,762 which is 98.04% of the total votes cast.

ekt_bear:
No, it does not. Pay should reflect whatever the market price is. If my profit goes up, but the market price for your labor hasn't gone up, I'm under no obligation to pay you more. Put it this way. . . if my profit goes DOWN, but the market price for your labor hasn't gone down, then should I also pay you less?

The market price of your labor is to some extent independent of how much profit your labor makes.
People can organize and unionize if they want. I have no problems with that. If I want higher pay and I convince my co-workers to all unionize and strike, then that is perfectly acceptable as a strategy. Of course, the company in question is also free then to utilize tools available to it to protect itself.

Yes, pay does reflect market price - my specific point to you was that in a somewhat tacit way, pay reflect the financial profit weight of the company in question. It makes no sense for a company counting billions to dish out peanut to its staff, by the way they helped create the profit.

ekt_bear:
OK.

I am a rice farmer. Every month I produce a unit of rice.

I search around looking for who wants to buy.

One guy offers me N1000, another N1100, another N2000.

So once a month for two years I sell to the guy for N2000. Now, eventually over time I don't like this price. I want to sell the crop for more than N2000.

The guy refuses to raise the buying price. Now, if I search around and find someone else willing to meet my new price of say N2500, then fine, I simply stop selling to him.

But if I cannot find anyone willing to pay more, then I'm in no position to b1tch about the price he is offering, am I? And I'm certainly in no position to demand more, or guilt-trip/force him into paying more, right?

Why is he obliged to pay me more money for the crop I'm selling than what others are willing to pay?

Minimum wages have never made sense to me. If you don't like the salary at your job and think you deserve more money but they are unwilling to pay it, then it should be easy for you to quit and find a higher-paying job. And if you are NOT able to do so, then it should tell you you aren't underpaid at all.

You keep making the error

Sun of god:
The company has an obligation to its shareholders to maximise profits - even if it means exploiting people.

That's Capitalism.

There has to be a balance - pay have to reflect the level of profit. That's just the way it is. That's why oil companies pay  so well in Nigeria.

ekt_bear:
I've always been anti minimum wage. It makes no sense to me.

Trade unions are fine. Organize and strike if you want. But if the company then decides to let the strikers/unionists go and replaces them, then that is fine too.
What is wrong with that? No one will accept a wage worse than they can get elsewhere, right? So if I offer someone X/day as a salary, I'm beating whatever other offers they have.

And so if I'm beating the other options they have, then why are they b1tching? If you don't like my offer, then reject it and go work somewhere else.

How can you say trade unions are fine when you have already declared that it is peoples choice to take jobs no matter how dire the condition is - why trade unions then ?

If the world works the way you just described it to be - then i can only imagine . . there is no such thing as freemarket or capitalism  - folks should be careful trowing out those words.

ekt_bear:
Wtf. Nobody is pointing a gun at anyone's head to work there. They were told how much they'd be paid before they got hired, right? They agreed to the salary structure, right?

So what is all the b1tching about?

If they feel that they can earn a higher salary elsewhere, then they should quit. Simple as that.

It is a free market. . . everyone gets to sell their labor for as much as they can, and people try to buy labor for as cheaply as they can.

Labor is just like any other thing being sold/bought.

Let me test your argument -   No need for trade union or minimum wage from the government because if people are willing to take 2k a month - which i am sure folks in Nigeria will be ready to take - then lets go for it. . .

No need for performance related pay - a company that earn billions can use its staff as long as there is an agreement - That's the absurdity of your position

Kobojunkie:
The pay comes to about Naira 12,000 a month. [b]No need DEMONIZING Coca-Cola [/b]when the Government has been slow on INCREASING base pay for a while now.  Many other companies, including Government used to pay, and some still pay way less than that amount each day.

Actually there is a need to demonize Coca-cola on this one  - what has government pay got to do with this? The rightful way of bringing in the government would be for not holding MNC in check.

Sun of god:
That's Capitalism for you.

Yeah and it needs control - if you leave the system uncurbed in extort from everything

texazzpete:
If you believe this, you'll believe anything.

Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Imphal-Kohima among others, all campaigns in which the US forces routed the Japanese decisively.
A mainland invasion would have been bloody and costly, but by no means an insurmountable task. In terms of manpower, equipment and supplies, the US was clearly ahead.
Abeg go and read history books first before commenting.

PS: The atomic bomb had been tested before in the New Mexico desert. They knew very well its destructive power and its capability to produce deadly radiation.

You have a one sided account. There is no way US would have won Japan with boots on the Ground -

@DaLover

I have read all your comments - your reasoning is subtle and often specious - the cleverness of your argument conceals the fact that you are arguing for a "one size fits all" capitalistic policy.  I agree with you that government run business is the cause of so many problems - be it healthcare, education, power, transport etc . .  they should all be privatised and keep the government as little as possible.

The issue i have here is the subsidy case  - i am a disciple of John Maynard Keynes and also a capitalist - mind you. The tacit message of IMF - that we should not worry about building refineries but remove subsidies instead - is not only vicious but also Silly - How can a major oil producer ship raw material oversea to refine and buy refined product back to its country . . .

But that's not the main point - Oil is free from the ground - if we take them and refine for domestic use then how will the govt not be able to control the price? The IMF guy is silly - we can exploit oil for domestic use and sell even 20 naira per gallon . The reason for subsidy in the first place is because we have to re-buy already refined products.  That is the point.

DaLover:
The reason you feel that the government has not done anything is because of the way nigerians interprete the bolded,
Government tries to provide everything either free or at a subsidised rate
-Primary, secondary and university education, transportation busses, airlines, airports, power, telecommunications, fuel, water, loans, NNPC petro stations, pipelines, chuches, morsques, pilgramages, football and sports, radios stations, tv stations, etc, etc etc, I can go on and on,
Government is involved in almost everything you can think off, and what is it they say about a jack of all trades Master of none,

I so much agree with this post.

Government is the problem not the solution, i made that argument several times and it does not refute Oil subsidy. Subsidizing petroleum products places the economy in a better position because every other thing is linked to it.

It is funny how the core message of Scott Rogers's presentation is "don't bother about Refinarry ". IMF, World bank and WTO are dangerous triad. . Don't take advice from them

@DaLover no doubt your made some important argument but the core of your presentation - removal of subsidy- is trash.

And Scott Rogers of IMF knows nothing - he said "i[b]f all refineries are made to work as people have been canvassing for, the onus will still be on the owners of these refineries to decide whether to sell at the local price or take it outside the country to make more money[/b]" Hence saying we do not really need refineries to get down the price. He is wrong. If we have working refineries at least for domestic consumption the level of subsidy will reduce  drastically - not to mention the waste.

But let me come to your point on the removal of subsidy. This will not only be a blow to 90% of Nigerians but worst the negative effect will be felt in the market. Rise in the general level of prices of goods and services cannot be avoided, rise in transportation and a weaker naira.

Oil subsidy is the best thing Nigeria govt has ever done - and am not a socialist. In fact i am the biggest capitalist there is - but there is no such thing as pure capitalism. The united states subsides her farmers with a commitment that's twice bigger that the Nigeria budget.  The European union uses 40% of her budget for only farm subsidies. UK cattle receive 2 pounds subsidy each, everyday - - - - -subsidy has always been part of the game . .  don't be fooled by IMF Scott Rogers . .There is no plain field. this same people overturn Africa agriculture to the negative and caused hunger in Africa farmers with anti-subsidy sermons

Foolish people. Like it solves anything

bk.babe97y:
Wow. . . .

In other unrelated news Bigfoot, Santa, and the Loch ness Monster were seen strolling down Santa Monica Blvd holding hands and singing "Kumbaya".

Perhaps you need a smack of history to understand my contribution.

Americans formed the organization - named it Al Qaeda and named Osama Bin Laden the leader. Then America supposedly killed the named leader and proposed its successor . . .

LOL  Let me try to uncap this . .  Buhari won the election and Jega bamboozled Nigerians by declaring Goodluck the winner !! ! What a joke

That’s what I call a wife material - not the normal girl whose concern circles around how to look good and boyfriend issues.