ola olabiy:

You are right. Socalism will never work. And, by nature, we are not equal.

Let me give a good example here. The North of Nigeria has tried without any enduring results to bring the North at par with Southners, it has not worked.

They have tried to slow down the wheel of progress down south but it has not worked, either. Human beings need to compete. A blanket measure to support a region will only result in laziness and over-dependency on the State. This is why northerners look up to the State while Southerners are doing well, especially in the East, despite total negligence of the region by the State.
Human beings should not be spoonfed (at least, not always). Nobody would want to be creative, innovative or daring in a situation like that. How many families in th UK who have historically survived on benefits have 'escaped' poverty. Or attended unis.
Idle hands, they say, . . . . . ,

Hmm, I don't quite agree. Canada, Denmark and Sweden are reasonably viable socialist democracies. They're not expansionist, and are not super-consumers like the US or Britain, or even Nigeria. But generally, there is quality of life, access to all amenities, reasonable means of livelihood, etc,

I would rather live in a nation like Denmark or Sweden, than in a Nigeria of 150 million people struggling for access to amenities, a paper tiger. Or even in the US, where the evidence of imbalance of distribution, where infrastructure and national wealth is concerned, is glaring, and integration of multiple nationalities and ethnicities is still a pain in the neck.

Quite an informing post!i would like to talk about some of the problems we created for ourselves as African when we blindly sign up to the American style democracy which we never really practice anyway!firstly,we were made to believe that democracy cannot be complete without privatizing national assets which are quite subconsciously owned by every citizens,so to say,and who bought all these assets?guess who?the rich and powerful ones who can easily listen to partners and backers from outside the country.
My own opinion is that part of capitalism is evil,period.
it is unfortunate that the issue of power supply cannot be solved in Nigeria in the next five years,ask me why?
We do not manufacture Generating sets in the country,most of the factories supplying them are based in western europe,americas and asia,meanwhile creating employment for their citizens and increasing the GDP of the respective countries,do we as Nigerians seriously think that the countries would sit back and watch as their factories shut down because power is now stable in nigeria,one of the most profitable supply country?NAY!!!they'd rather bribe corrupt nigerian officials to derails it,hear me well,even Jonathan cant and wont do it.
Few years ago,Ghana signed a free trade agreement with the united states and one of the areas of concentration was chicken and poultry products,trust United states,they got back to their country and gave the poultry farmers a one billion dollars credit facility,which in effect made the production,and chicken farming so cheap.according to the free trade agreement,the US will open its economy to chicken products from Ghana and vice versa. the consequence is the fact that american imported chicken products in ghana became much more cheaper than the locals farmers own,and the citizens opted for the cheaper one ans thus effectively helped america kill off the poultry market in Ghana.
The same thing happened in Senegal but this time with the EU and in the area of Fishing,now Senegal is fighting to redraft the free trade rules with the Eu.i have tons of examples and evidence, its time we wake up to the fact that what works for the west,might not work for us!

Capitalism is supposed to about free competition and un-restrained  growth. why then does united states have anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. Does it mean, you are allowed to grow,grow and grow, but to a certain limit.

Capitalism promotes growth, then suddenly turns around with much vigour to restrain or break down corporations it deems are to big. e.g Standard oil owned by John D. Rockefeller. Which to me its  hypocrtical. If growth is good ,then why restrain it.

Another example is what microsoft is facing with anti-trust and anti-monoply laws. Capitalist countries have laws that refuse corporations to merge with others  or take over others. (where is the so called reward for hardwork)

Capitalism doesn't want Governments interference when the going is good, but welcomes it when things go rough. Recent government bailout for banks and financial institiutions worldwide, post economic crises

Capitalism doesnt have a human face. thats why you have the have phrases like have's and have not, get rich or die trying

Also most if not all capitalist countries have protectionist policies for their markets and enviroments.So all this talk about free market and growth is a fallacy.

@ poster who said there is no food for lazy man in a capitalist system. come to the UK and see people on welfare living in 4 bedroom town houses and collecting monthly income for doing nothing. While people are working their butts off paying of mortgage and other bills

A few weeks ago, i watched George Soros being interviewed. He was discussing the topic of Greece and its economic crises. The guy was saying he was against bail out for Greece's govt, because it would allow the Government to repeat its mistake of over spending,in-efficiencies and what he thought  caused the problem of Greece.
The interviewer then reminded him of the implications of the govt going totally broke.Greek citizens losing everything, civil strife and all. His response was the Greek govt needed to be taught a lesson, so it wouldn't happen another time. he also said the from the ashes the govt would be better and more efficient. the interviewer was flabbergasted.If he could response, he would called Soros cold and heartless. His look said it all

I wasn't suprised coming from someone who nearly crashed the british economy and that of the whole South East Asia. Thats capitalism at its finest.

Capitalism has its pros. it is full of so many inconsistensies and falls short of being perfect or close to perfect

kunlekunle:

katsumoto,
capitalism is an ideology of the west, socialism is of the east(russia), islamism is of the middle east.
they are all a way of life of a group of people. one giving way for the other is extermination.
most african countries dont have a defined ideology that can permeate or reflect our ways of live. ideology that can be studied, that is scientific - must be empirical, diagnose, hypotesis analysed and result are fed back to be studied. A system that is continuos.

what ideology in your own view should an african state (nigeria) adopt.
Obj once said, a white man told him capitalism was created for the west, that is why you are (nigeria) in that situation. that is you dont understand the system.

In my opinion, given the huge resources held by most African countries and the unpreparedness of the populace, State Capitalism would suit most African countries. The model should be quite similar to what obtains in China and Angola. However that should be a short to medium term philosophy. Natural resources get depleted and as such while an African country can start with socialist ideals it should inculcate Capitalist ideology for the long term. When resources get depleted and it does not have a free market system that promotes efficiency, innovation,and leanness, it will suffer. It can pursue one of two solutions

1. Develop a sovereign fund that will invest cash reserves in viable ventures similar to what Qatar, Libya, Saudi and other oil middle-eastern countries have done
2. Encourage innovation and efficiency similar to what obtains in China but which is being implemented wrongly. In China, employees of State parastatals are encouraged to submit patents and they get paid just for doing that. The problem with this model in China is that citizens are submitting patents that are very inferior because compensation is not on viability of patents. What should happen is that inventors should be paid a percentage of future earnings or something similar. Bottomline, there should be an incentive or motivation for people to submit good ideas and not just any idea. This compensation will spur competition and innovation.

In essence, an African country should start with the Chinese model and then transform into the model adopted by most Scandinavian countries. With the rewards of state Capitalism, the governments can proceed with welfarist programs and development of infrastructure which is lacking in most African countries. When African countries attain development levels that are similar to most European nations, then they should gradually wean their citizens of welfare. That may be difficult if they have been used to government providing everything; case in point - France.

Katsumoto:

In my opinion, giving the huge resources held by most African countries and the unpreparedness of the populace, State Capitalism would suit most African countries. The model should be quite similar to what obtains in China and Angola. However that should be a short to medium term philosophy. Natural resources get depleted and as such while an African country can start with socialist ideals it should inculcate Capitalist ideology for the long term. When resources get depleted and it does not have a free market system that promotes efficiency, innovation,and leanness, it will suffer. It can pursue one of two solutions

1. Develop a sovereign fund that will invest cash reserves in viable ventures similar to what Qatar, Libya, Saudi and other oil middle-eastern countries have done
2. Encourage innovation and efficiency similar to what obtains in China but which is being implemented wrongly. In China, employees of State parastatals are encouraged to submit patents and they get paid just for doing that. The problem with this model in China is that citizens are submitting patents that are very inferior because compensation is not on viability of patents. What should happen is that inventors should be paid a percentage of future earnings or something similar. Bottomline, there should be an incentive or motivation for people to submit good ideas and not just any idea. This compensation will spur competition and innovation.

In essence, an African country should start with the Chinese model and then transform into the model adopted by most Scandinavian countries. With the rewards of state Capitalism, the governments can proceed with welfarist programs and development of infrastructure which is lacking in most African countries. When African countries attain development levels that are similar to most European nations, then they should gradually wean their citizens of welfare. That may be difficult if they have been used to government providing everything; case in point - France.

Good post!

I grudgingly agree with state Capitalism on the short term.

Like you expressed, I will rather we adopt the type of mixed economic systems they have in the Scandinavians than state capitalism. Having said that, I do believe ours should take aspects of our culture and the reality of our environment into account. Now, I do see some of the merits of state capitalism and I think the Almighty Capitalist USA practices it to a considerable albeit stealthy extent with their protectionist tariffs, state support for the global expansion of American multinationals and massive Military budgets.

But I'm afraid that if we do not address the cultural/social inequalities we have in Nigeria, state Capitalism will create a new level of sanctioned oppression.

ola olabiy:

You are right. Socalism will never work. And, by nature, we are not equal.

L[b]et me give a good example here. The North of Nigeria has tried without any enduring results to bring the North at par with Southners, it has not worked.[/b]

They have tried to slow down the wheel of progress down south but it has not worked, either. Human beings need to compete. A blanket measure to support a region will only result in laziness and over-dependency on the State. This is why northerners look up to the State while Southerners are doing well, especially in the East, despite total negligence of the region by the State.
Human beings should not be spoonfed (at least, not always). Nobody would want to be creative, innovative or daring in a situation like that. How many families in th UK who have historically survived on benefits have 'escaped' poverty. Or attended unis.
Idle hands, they say, . . . . . ,

I disagree with that example. I don't think the North or any part of Nigeria for that matter has tried anything whatsoever, I actually think Nigeria(the area now called Nigeria) had a more capitalist, survival-of-the-fittest system of commerce and governance before contact with Arabs and Europeans.

By the way, although I think this should not be an either-or argument, I believe we are not comparing Capitalism with other Economic systems per se, Rather we are looking at the inadequacies of Capitalism but, I will indulge for a moment to counter some of the assumptions of it's die hard proponents. i.e wealth creation, Innovation and all the other mambo jumbo Capitalist jargon's.

Capitalism has failed to create diversified wealth even in countries where it's being practiced in the strictest sense(at least that is their claim)i.e the top 1% control about 40% of all wealth in the USA while the bottom 40% have just 1% of the wealth. Effing-unacceptable!!

A Scandinavian country like Finland in not bereft of innovation, Finland's per ca pita output is about equal to that of other European countries such as France, Germany, Belgium or the UK. Nokia took the mobile world by storm with innovative products and still leads in so many areas of that industry. Nokia is Finnish. Some of the best standards of living around the world (which I believe should be the goal of any sensible human society or Economic system) can be found in the Scandinavians with their mixed almost socialist economic systems. Lets not even mention Sweden or Norway.

Those facts, to my mind, tells me Capitalism as practiced at it's Mecca(USA) has got issues that needs to be addressed.

And everything should not be dissected and slaughtered on the altar of innovation and big business. Innovation that benefits only a small percentage of humans while impoverishing the rest is only fit for the dustbin IMHO.

Ask Congolese Villagers how wonderful their lives had been since the 1800s when Leopold and his Mercantilist friends(old school Capitalism) discovered they sat on one of the best real estate in the world.

Brutish, forceful, unbridled Capitalism is not fit for Civilized, evolved human beings. Don't believe the hype!

ola olabiy:

You are right. Socalism will never work. And, by nature, we are not equal.

Let me give a good example here. The North of Nigeria has tried without any enduring results to bring the North at par with Southners, it has not worked.

They have tried to slow down the wheel of progress down south but it has not worked, either. Human beings need to compete. A blanket measure to support a region will only result in laziness and over-dependency on the State. This is why northerners look up to the State while Southerners are doing well, especially in the East, despite total negligence of the region by the State.
Human beings should not be spoonfed (at least, not always). Nobody would want to be creative, innovative or daring in a situation like that. How many families in th UK who have historically survived on benefits have 'escaped' poverty. Or attended unis.
Idle hands, they say, . . . . . ,

Good you brought it home.
The lopsided implementation and policy summersaults that have characterized our political leadership right after independence will never allow any system work here. Even if it's a system used in heavenly utopia! ,  and believe me, its a sad reality.
As independent regions, we were vastly productive and the people equally reaped the fruit of their labour, Enter the oil economy; we all sat back and started reaching out for hand outs from the federal, that was the death of our productive spirit!

AjanleKoko:

Hmm, I don't quite agree. Canada, Denmark and Sweden are reasonably viable socialist democracies. They're not expansionist, and are not super-consumers like the US or Britain, or even Nigeria. But generally, there is quality of life, access to all amenities, reasonable means of livelihood, etc,

I would rather live in a nation like Denmark or Sweden, than in a Nigeria of 150 million people struggling for access to amenities, a paper tiger. Or even in the US, where the evidence of imbalance of distribution, where infrastructure and national wealth is concerned, is glaring, and integration of multiple nationalities and ethnicities is still a pain in the neck.

That same reason above is responsible for us still grappling with issues of basic infrastructure  and amenities, 50 long years after independence! and not because we are a capitalist economy. Do we even have a name for the voodoo economic system we run here      

The day our leaders decides to entrench accountability and genuinely punish perpetrators of graft, our infrastructures will spring up and serve us without epileptic fits. Then, even the Scandinavians will gladly come and take up residency here too.

M16:

Capitalism is supposed to about free competition and un-restrained  growth. why then does united states have anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. Does it mean, you are allowed to grow,grow and grow, but to a certain limit.

Government is playing its appropriate role in the US using Anti trust laws to intervene in the market place when necessary. Keynsian's economic theory dictates that They do have a role in creating balance where inbalance is detected i.e by providing an atmosphere of equal opportunity and eliminating barriers to entry. Monopolies on a whole stifle innovation as a result of lack of competition and holding too much power in terms of resource control.

M16:

Another example is what microsoft is facing with anti-trust and anti-monoply laws. Capitalist countries have laws that refuse corporations to merge with others  or take over others. (where is the so called reward for hardwork)

There isn't any so called "hardwork" involved in trying to wield more power in an industry. Monopoly's as in Microsoft are able to manipulate prices because they are the only producers of a particular product in a market place,they are able to dictate prices in the market place and swallow up most of the proift available in the market. Again restricting more entrants into an industry or a market place by dubious means is counter to the true concept of Capitalism which basically is the supply of money in combination with ideas, motivaton in an enabling environment todrive the efficient production of a particular good or service.

Microsoft accomplishes this through supply restrictions, bundling and the likes i.e when you buy your computer Microsoft requires all support for that PC from particular suppliers by binding them to certian contracts restricting them from other competitors, tery making theri product more expensive


The growth of companies is more of what you are alluding to.

M16:


Also most if not all capitalist countries have protectionist policies for their markets and enviroments.So all this talk about free market and growth is a fallacy.

Don't agree with you there Most socialist/communist countries have protectionist polices, Rarely to europe or the United states just look at Nafta and the European union.

M16:


@ poster who said there is no food for lazy man in a capitalist system. come to the UK and see people on welfare living in 4 bedroom town houses and collecting monthly income for doing nothing. While people are working their butts off paying of mortgage and other bills

Thats not capitalism at all

M16:


A few weeks ago, i watched George Soros being interviewed. He was discussing the topic of Greece and its economic crises. The guy was saying he was against bail out for Greece's govt, because it would allow the Government to repeat its mistake of over spending,in-efficiencies and what he thought  caused the problem of Greece.
The interviewer then reminded him of the implications of the govt going totally broke.Greek citizens losing everything, civil strife and all. His response was the Greek govt needed to be taught a lesson, so it wouldn't happen another time. he also said the from the ashes the govt would be better and more efficient. the interviewer was flabbergasted.If he could response, he would called Soros cold and heartless. His look said it all

Mr Soros arguement can be debated for its merits and are to some Degree a plausible solution. The system should correct itself to a certain extent and Governments should only get involvedin dire situations.

The 1929 depression in the US was a prime example of when government intervention was necessary however technically the market corrected itself and the deman generated by the government was as a result of WW2 and not necessarily any fiscal or monetary policies for that matter

Katsumoto:

In my opinion, giving the huge resources held by most African countries and the unpreparedness of the populace, State Capitalism would suit most African countries. The model should be quite similar to what obtains in China and Angola. However that should be a short to medium term philosophy. Natural resources get depleted and as such while an African country can start with socialist ideals it should inculcate Capitalist ideology for the long term. When resources get depleted and it does not have a free market system that promotes efficiency, innovation,and leanness, it will suffer. It can pursue one of two solutions

1. Develop a sovereign fund that will invest cash reserves in viable ventures similar to what Qatar, Libya, Saudi and other oil middle-eastern countries have done
2. Encourage innovation and efficiency similar to what obtains in China but which is being implemented wrongly. In China, employees of State parastatals are encouraged to submit patents and they get paid just for doing that. The problem with this model in China is that citizens are submitting patents that are very inferior because compensation is not on viability of patents. What should happen is that inventors should be paid a percentage of future earnings or something similar. Bottomline, there should be an incentive or motivation for people to submit good ideas and not just any idea. This compensation will spur competition and innovation.

In essence, an African country should start with the Chinese model and then transform into the model adopted by most Scandinavian countries. With the rewards of state Capitalism, the governments can proceed with welfarist programs and development of infrastructure which is lacking in most African countries. When African countries attain development levels that are similar to most European nations, then they should gradually wean their citizens of welfare. That may be difficult if they have been used to government providing everything; case in point - France.

Nigeria has always practised state capitalism anyway. It's only now, after the state has run all the corporations into the ground that we're talking about liberalization and deregulation.
For it to make sense, we need a stable, benevolent dictatorship, similar to what they've got in China.

AjanleKoko:

Hmm, I don't quite agree. Canada, Denmark and Sweden are reasonably viable socialist democracies. They're not expansionist, and are not super-consumers like the US or Britain, or even Nigeria. But generally, there is quality of life, access to all amenities, reasonable means of livelihood, etc,

I would rather live in a nation like Denmark or Sweden, than in a Nigeria of 150 million people struggling for access to amenities, a paper tiger. Or even in the US, where the evidence of imbalance of distribution, where infrastructure and national wealth is concerned, is glaring, and integration of multiple nationalities and ethnicities is still a pain in the neck.

What they have in Denmark, for example, is a mixed market capitalist economy and a large welfare state. Try that system where you have a lot of ethnic minorities and your welfare measures will get bigger than the State.
They will simply refuse to work.
Remember, Nokia is from Finland.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

Why do people on this forum keep saying that Microsoft is a monopolist? What makes them so? Is it Windows Operating System, or MS Office, or media player, or Internet Explorer, or hotmail, or what? Why would someone wake up one day and use Microsoft as an example of a monopolist?

ola olabiy:

What they have in Denmark, for example, is a mixed market capitalist economy and a large welfare state. Try that system where you have a lot of ethnic minorities and your welfare measures will get bigger than the State.
They will simply refuse to work.
Remember, Nokia is from Finland.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

Exactly.
Kind of lends credence to the perspective that Nigeria should split up, abi?

Come to think of it, I wonder how come nobody ever talks about the culture across the various ethnic groups as a factor. Capitalism as a model in itself, do the social and cultural factors play any role in the way the model plays out?

AjanleKoko:

Exactly.
Kind of lends credence to the perspective that Nigeria should split up, abi?

Come to think of it, I wonder how come nobody ever talks about the culture across the various ethnic groups as a factor. Capitalism as a model in itself, do the social and cultural factors play any role in the way the model plays out?

A blanket, poorly thought-out approach to Capitalism will not work in Nigeria. It will only create dynasties. This is what we have at the moment.

The State has to be very strong. And leaders must be prepared to challenge the status quo. And, upset the apple's cart (of dynasties).

Our type should be modelled after that of China. The State must not allow people to go wayward.

Nigerians (many) are stubborn by nature--greedy and oppressive!

AjanleKoko:

Exactly.
Kind of lends credence to the perspective that Nigeria should split up, abi?

Come to think of it, I wonder how come nobody ever talks about the culture across the various ethnic groups as a factor. Capitalism as a model in itself, do the social and cultural factors play any role in the way the model plays out?

And, as a model, what will likely work down south will be be impracticable, up north. We are diverse-culturally and and socially.
You are right about culture.
Culture defines a people not economic models. Culture is 'our we do things around here'.

I guess this original poster to this post did not intend it to be narrowed down to Nigeria, but since most of us are Nigerians lets do so.

1. People give examples with Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark. USA, China, UAE, Britain, Canada and Japan. These countries are practicing variant forms of mixed economies. That is to say, they are neither capitalists nor socialists. They just do what suit their citizens and their country as a whole.

2. The problem with Nigerian theorists, such as the ones on this forum is that they look so much on other succesful countries as models, without considering whether their system will be suitable to Nigeria, with all its dynamics. If travelling by boat is the fastest way in country AA, lets implement it in country BB without considering if coutry BB has rivers or if it is a mere desert

3.  Fela, the legendary musician was once asked what economic system best suited Africa. He said capitalism, socialism, communism dont suit Africa, what suits Africa is Africanism, which is Africans doing what works for them. In the case of Nigeria, Nigeria doing what works for her.

4. One needs to look at most of the laws in Nigeria, for instance taxation law, insurance policies and so many other things all copied verbatim from the British ones, thereby creating conflicts with our internal natural system

5. USA is successful and it doesnt practice the same system with Sweden. Sweden is successful and it doesnt practice the same system with Britain. Britain is successful and it doesnt practice the same system with China. China is successful and it doesnt practice the same system with Saudi Arabia.

7. Why can't Nigerian theorists stop using words like socialism, capitalism, state capitalism, communism, etc. and start talking of Nigerianism?

AjanleKoko:

Nigeria has always practised state capitalism anyway. It's only now, after the state has run all the corporations into the ground that we're talking about liberalization and deregulation.
For it to make sense, we need a stable, benevolent dictatorship, similar to what they've got in China.

I get your point but lets not deceive ourselves; what we had/have in Nigeria is chronic nepotism and cronyism.

malabite:

I guess this original poster to this post did not intend it to be narrowed down to Nigeria, but since most of us are Nigerians lets do so.

1. People give examples with Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark. USA, China, UAE, Britain, Canada and Japan. These countries are practicing variant forms of mixed economies. That is to say, they are neither capitalists nor socialists. They just do what suit their citizens and their country as a whole.

2. The problem with Nigerian theorists, such as the ones on this forum is that they look so much on other succesful countries as models, without considering whether their system will be suitable to Nigeria, with all its dynamics. If travelling by boat is the fastest way in country AA, lets implement it in country BB without considering if coutry BB has rivers or if it is a mere desert

3. Fela, the legendary musician was once asked what economic system best suited Africa. He said capitalism, socialism, communism dont suit Africa, what suits Africa is Africanism, which is Africans doing what works for them. In the case of Nigeria, Nigeria doing what works for her.

4. One needs to look at most of the laws in Nigeria, for instance taxation law, insurance policies and so many other things all copied verbatim from the British ones, thereby creating conflicts with our internal natural system

5. USA is successful and it doesnt practice the same system with Sweden. Sweden is successful and it doesnt practice the same system with Britain. Britain is successful and it doesnt practice the same system with China. China is successful and it doesnt practice the same system with Saudi Arabia.

7. Why can't Nigerian theorists stop using words like socialism, capitalism, state capitalism, communism, etc. and start talking of Nigerianism?

GBAM!

Katsumoto:


I get your point but lets not deceive ourselves; what we had/have in Nigeria is chronic nepotism and cronyism.

Don't break my ribs o

malabite:

I guess this original poster to this post did not intend it to be narrowed down to Nigeria, but since most of us are Nigerians lets do so.

1. People give examples with Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark. USA, China, UAE, Britain, Canada and Japan. These countries are practicing variant forms of mixed economies. That is to say, they are neither capitalists nor socialists. They just do what suit their citizens and their country as a whole.

2. The problem with Nigerian theorists, such as the ones on this forum is that they look so much on other succesful countries as models, without considering whether their system will be suitable to Nigeria, with all its dynamics. If travelling by boat is the fastest way in country AA, lets implement it in country BB without considering if coutry BB has rivers or if it is a mere desert

3.  Fela, the legendary musician was once asked what economic system best suited Africa. He said capitalism, socialism, communism dont suit Africa, what suits Africa is Africanism, which is Africans doing what works for them. In the case of Nigeria, Nigeria doing what works for her.

4. One needs to look at most of the laws in Nigeria, for instance taxation law, insurance policies and so many other things all copied verbatim from the British ones, thereby creating conflicts with our internal natural system

5. USA is successful and it doesnt practice the same system with Sweden. Sweden is successful and it doesnt practice the same system with Britain. Britain is successful and it doesnt practice the same system with China. China is successful and it doesnt practice the same system with Saudi Arabia.

7. Why can't Nigerian theorists stop using words like socialism, capitalism, state capitalism, communism, etc. and start talking of Nigerianism?

Does each country in the world have a name for the ideology and philosophy that it practices? It is not too difficult to understand; you are either right wing, centre right centrist, centre left or left wing. These are all mapped to the various names such as capitalism, socialism, democratic socialism, communism, etc.

Katsumoto:

Does each country in the world have a name for the ideology and philosophy that it practices? It is not too difficult to understand; you are either right wing, centre right centrist, centre left or left wing. These are all mapped to the various names such as capitalism, socialism, democratic socialism, communism, etc.

These terms are foreign to Nigerians. And, foreign to various administrations in Nigeia. Only in the West.

In nigeria, there's only one political ideology: Centre (hmmmm, is that lootocracy ).

They don't tend to lean to any other side. Muslims oo, Christians oo.

ola olabiy:

What they have in Denmark, for example, is a mixed market capitalist economy and a large welfare state. Try that system where you have a lot of ethnic minorities and your welfare measures will get bigger than the State.
They will simply refuse to work.
Remember, Nokia is from Finland.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

Are you suggesting that Ethnic Minorities are by nature lazy and unproductive?

Nigerians (many) are stubborn by nature--greedy and oppressive!

That can apply to any people. Stop playing into the hands of greedy, racist imperialists.

Any people can have a lot (many) of greedy oppressive people in their population. We do not have to call a dog a bad name just because we want to kill it.

Our people, all of our people. (Yes Hausa's and Northerners inclusive)got enveloped and overwhelmed by cultures and economic systems they did not choose or create. We are still trying to crawl our way out of it. it's a process.

My people are not greedier than anybody else.

Kilode?!:

Are you suggesting that Ethnic Minorities are by nature lazy and unproductive?

That can apply to any people. Stop playing into the hands of greedy, racist imperialists.

Any people can have a lot (many) of greedy oppressive people in their population. We do not have to call a dog a bad name just because we want to kill it.

Our people, all of our people. (Yes Hausa's and Northerners inclusive)got enveloped and overwhelmed by cultures and economic systems they did not choose or create. We are still trying to crawl our way of it. it's a process.

My people are not greedier than anybody else.

Human beings are by nature selfish. No matter the gender, colour, creed or race. I used 'NIGERIA' because we are discussing, our fatherland.

No offence intended!

Hmmm thread should be renamed eco 101.

KAI! see my head wan burst.  

ola olabiy:

Human beings are by nature selfish. No matter the gender, colour, creed or race. I used 'NIGERIA' because we are discussing, our fatherland.

No offence intended!

Point accepted, No offence taken My Brotha!

@ topic

Capitalism like Communism & Socialism is an economic system geared towards solving the ever-present & pervasive distribution of resources. One must understand that the bane of these economic systems and why they can never be perfect, no matter how they evolve parallelly or convergently, is that the humans who implement and constitute such systems are imperfect. They don't fully carry out or acheive what input is expected of them to make the system work.

That's my take on the issue.

capitalism is a predatory economic system which will eventually destroy life as we know it, a system which is predicated on appropriation of land, labour and natural resources at the expense of the poor, weak or disenfranchised is not a sustainable system. Capitalism's only preoccupation is to make profit at any cost, it does not have any humane aspects to it, human beings are merely components in a giant mechanism designed to amass wealth and at the same time keep others on a treadmill where they work endlessly to enrich the owners of the capital.

When i hear people praising the capitalist system it always makes me wonder - nigerians are very good at singing the praises of capitalism without appreciating who the real winners are under this system. First of all lets be clear on one thing - the main beneficiaries of capitalism are the elite or owning classes. These are people who do not actually have to work for a living, these are the Rockefellers, Du Ponts, Buffets, Gates and Bush's etc - these people's wealth is generated from investments like stocks, bonds, rents etc Then you have the employee classes ie people like you and i who have to go out to work or we'll end up on the street. There are some inbetweeners but the majority of people fall into the "employee class" .

People tend to think that capitalism is an equitable system which gives everyone a fair chance to compete in a "free market" system, but this is a complete fallacy because only a few giant corporations control the so called free market system. Take for instance a giant like microsoft can you think of any other software corporation which is capable of competing with it, its only competitors are other giants like IBM, Hewlett Packard etc .

Corporations operate like monopolies, they control huge market shares smaller businesses who try to squeeze onto their turf either get swallowed up or go bankrupt.

People are forever going on about how great these corporations are because they create jobs, but people never seem to talk about the massive downsizing that happens quite regularly with these corporations.
The thing is corporations have to make profit therefore layoffs become inevitable. Look at whats happening now, huge layoffs with many of these corporations relocating to countries where labour is dirt cheap in order to guarantee higher profits for their businesses and shareholders.

I dont agree with people who say socialism is not a viable alternative, it can work if applied properly, Cuba operates a socialist economy and education is free for all its citizens up to university level - Cuba also has a 98% literacy rate, health care is also free even the US cant boast of those two attributes.

Just wondering, are these systems not difficult to implement flawlessly in heavy populated countries?

Aren't Stable governments important too?

Capitalism is the best if implemented very well although there must be some balance. A 100% Capitalist economy is not advisable, again there has to be a balance but yes I support capitalism.

cap28:

capitalism is a predatory economic system which will eventually destroy life as we know it, a system which is predicated on appropriation of land, labour and natural resources at the expense of the poor, weak or disenfranchised is not a sustainable system. Capitalism's only preoccupation is to make profit at any cost, it does not have any humane aspects to it, human beings are merely components in a giant mechanism designed to amass wealth and at the same time keep others on a treadmill where they work endlessly to enrich the owners of the capital.

When i hear people praising the capitalist system it always makes me wonder - nigerians are very good at singing the praises of capitalism without appreciating who the real winners are under this system. First of all lets be clear on one thing - the main beneficiaries of capitalism are the elite or owning classes. These are people who do not actually have to work for a living, these are the Rockefellers, Du Ponts, Buffets, Gates and Bush's etc - these people's wealth is generated from investments like stocks, bonds, rents etc Then you have the employee classes ie people like you and i who have to go out to work or we'll end up on the street. There are some inbetweeners but the majority of people fall into the "employee class" .

People tend to think that capitalism is an equitable system which gives everyone a fair chance to compete in a "free market" system, but this is a complete fallacy because only a few giant corporations control the so called free market system. Take for instance a giant like microsoft can you think of any other software corporation which is capable of competing with it, its only competitors are other giants like IBM, Hewlett Packard etc .

Corporations operate like monopolies, they control huge market shares smaller businesses who try to squeeze onto their turf either get swallowed up or go bankrupt.

People are forever going on about how great these corporations are because they create jobs, but people never seem to talk about the massive downsizing that happens quite regularly with these corporations.
The thing is corporations have to make profit therefore layoffs become inevitable. Look at whats happening now, huge layoffs with many of these corporations relocating to countries where labour is dirt cheap in order to guarantee higher profits for their businesses and shareholders.

I dont agree with people who say socialism is not a viable alternative, it can work if applied properly, Cuba operates a socialist economy and education is free for all its citizens up to university level - Cuba also has a 98% literacy rate, health care is also free even the US cant boast of those two attributes.

Have you been there? Nigerians sha. They have some cars (bettles) you won't even find in a Volkswagen museum.

As Nigerians, you would complain again that your automobiles and developmental infrastructure are so last century.

Katsumoto said:

Because of cultural differences amongst nations. If a nation does not have the right balance of welfare system, a progressive tax system, and a blend of solid policy, then what you get is a very unbalanced wealth distribution like what existed in Brazil prior to Lula getting elected with 1% of the population controlling approximately 96% of the wealth. Besides, what ever gave you the impression that the US wants all nations to adopt a free market system? The US wants all nations to adopt democracy and not a free market system. With a free market system in all countries, how do the rich nations get their raw materials, labour, and land at well below market price? Western corporations did not move to China and India to develop free market systems but to take advantage of lax labour laws, cheap labour, and cheap land.

Capitalism when practised rightly can be good and it is for each nation to understand how to implement capitalism and it shouldn't be based on another's country's implementation of capitalism. For instance China and Brazil both practise State Capitalism while India and Russia practice feudalistic capitalism, Britain and most European countries practice capitalism with mixed socialism.

Im sorry bro but you dont know what you're talking about the US DOES WANT THE WORLD TO ADOPT the capitalist economic model because that is the economic model that has enabled the US to become the richest nation on the planet, it has also helped the US in its expansionist adventures abroad.  

The idea that capitalism can only operate successfully where according to you there is the right balance of welfare systems and progressive tax is laughable because in a capitalist economy the aim is to maximise profit not to assist the poor or weak.  Capitalism is all about downsizing in order to generate profit not the other way around!!!

Your example of Brazil is a joke!! Brazil is one of the most inequitable countries in the world BECAUSE it pracitices an undiluted capitalist system (just like nigeria) capitalism THRIVES in such economies, that is why major corporations and multinationals flock there to do business - becuase of its dirt cheap labour. As a matter of fact the Brazilian elite who are white upper middle class STILL control the Brazilian economy irrespective of the protestations of Lula and other pseudo socialists.  there is no welfare system, no safety net for the poor hence the high crime rate.  Prostitution is also a national export, many of the young women resort to prostitution as the only way out of a life of abject poverty and misery.  

YOur statement about america wanting countries to adopt democracy rather than capitalism is quite frankly the funniest thing i have ever heard in my life.

America is an imperialist power, it wages war on countries who refuse to bow to its economic model aka the washington consensus, IT DOESNT CARE ABOUT DEMOCRACY, its own system of govt is not democratic, ALL AMERICA CARES ABOUT IS GLOBAL DOMINATION OF WORLD MARKETS IN ORDER TO MAKE PROFIT.

America's last defence budget for 2010/11 was $1 trillion USD.  Why do you think they spend so much money on "defence" ?

America uses its enormous military advantage to intervene in countries all over the world that are not following its capitalist economic model and it forces stubborn nations into compliance - read up on what the US did to former Panamanian president Torrijos, Nasser of Egypt, Salazar of Portugal, Manley of Jamaica and Allende of Chile.

All of the above leaders were trying to implement economic policies which promoted wealth redistribution, land reform which would benefit ordinary working people as opposed to members of the elite.

Any govt which strives for wealth redistribution or attempts to use economic surpluses to benefit the masses soon finds themselves on the receiving end of america's aggression.

A free market system or capitalist economy guarantees limitless exploitation of weaker nations.

Look at nigeria, we are practicing an undiluted capitalist system in which workers have no rights, the poor are treated like sh.it, there are no environmental regulations to ensure accountablity, this is why shell and other multinationals flock to nigeria and this is why nigeria has never been on the receviing end of american aggression.  we are doing everythign they tell us to do.

People keep talking about China as if life there is heaven, have you taken the time to speak to any chinese people and find out how they live, many of them work back to back shifts in order to keep their heads above water, yes the corporations are amassing a fortune, but what is life like for the ordinary man on the street, as for India, i don t know if you know this but 45% of their children suffer from malnutrition.

cap28:

I dont agree with people who say socialism is not a viable alternative, it can work if applied properly, Cuba operates a socialist economy and education is free for all its citizens up to university level - Cuba also has a 98% literacy rate, health care is also free even the US cant boast of  those two attributes.

SMH!

The same socialism in Cuba that even Fidel Castro said has failed is what you are using as example as something that "can work"?

98% literacy rate? Where has that got them? What have they innovated? So just getting people to be able to read and write is the be all and end all?

Literacy rate means jack nothing except there is a mass of populace that are getting the best quality education money can buy.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

The bottomline is no model will ever work in Nigeria. Models are no robots. A good model has to be applied and implemented by men.

We have consciously refused to do it RIGHT.

A painstaking analysis of the country will reveal this to any descerning mind. That entity is ungovernable.

It is a mere geo-political expression. It is not set up to work, anyway. Fact.

I know I will take a lotof flak for this statement. But, by 2020, the status quo must have become better entrenched.

So, stories continue.