---

Nigerian government and the Central Bank leadership ought to know that there are many hurdl...Read the full article.

---

---

Lack of infrastructure. Yar’Adua’s priority in the first year in office should be energy. Electricity generation and distribution will required a significant investment but the funds must be found. The nation has expanded so much that government coupled with Nigerians reluctance to more pay tax, cannot fund the expenditure from its current revenue base. Government can develop policies, including tax incentives, to encourage private investment in providing infrastructure. Some motorways could be financed by private capital and allow the financiers to collect tolls on these roads for an agreed number of years. The Nigerian Railway should be privatised and extended to run throughout out the country main cities. The same can be said of telecommunication system and water supply. Nigerian businesses cannot compete with their international counterparts if they are not operating on the same level.

---

I think Professor Soludo is in a hurry - Nigeria needs to learn to walk before it can run. The excerpted above is critical before he can pursue the aspiration of Lagos as an international financial centre. Nevertheless, laudable goal, but still many hurdles remain to be crossed. The highfalutin language used to express the goal has not taken into consideration the flipside of international - the prevaling domestic and local conditions.

These conditions are abysmal - a tale of two cities. The wretch, and over-rated elites living side by side in a city that has been called a "disgrace of a city." The state of public health and infrastructure is terrible and needs to be taken care of before embarking on the creation of an International Financial Centre. These represent part of the basic ingredients that investors look for in centres of such magnitude.

A quick scan of International financial centres around the world shows that these features and more predominate : five star hotels, multi-modal forms of transportation, skycrapers and all grades of office developments, waterfront developments, a stable political climate, good fire service, high class airport, thriving art scene, efficient service delivery culture in the city, a healthy environment , etc.

Interestingly, at first blush Lagos fails the test when searching for the features.

Could this Professor be overtly ambitious, or is he just one of them deluded professors again?

---

At the first instance, thinking of Lagos is a great idea for an IFC, it is adorable and wanted. To be patrotic it is not feasible by 2020, let Prof Soludo have a rethink.

An overview of the existing IFC citis reveals that we have a lot to do, policies and infastructure wise. From the book From 3rd World to 1st World on how Singapore got to acquire same status.

In recent times the ruling party's attitude to Lagos over developmental issues is not encouraging, a mega city without electricity supply, good roads, accomodation and council allocations.

Prof Soludo's greatest undoing will be working in a this direction and the Federal Goverment not fulfilling their part or responsibilities. I do not believe we need all those funded guests to identify the way forward. Nevertheless kudos to Prof Soludo, we need more of him in the system.

---

Proffessor Charles Soludo is a great economist and a great visionist, the strategy behind the IFC is to orhcestrate our economic growth, rather than leaving it to grow at a normal pace, a great project at a right time, people of shalow minds such as the contributors above will be surprised at the impact that the IFC will make on our economic system, thou ther is need for infrstructural development,no doubt, but the IFC,also has come at a very dire time, to support our Financial Services Sector.=, and our ailing SME's.

---

---

=katampe;186091>I think Professor Soludo is in a hurry - Nigeria needs to learn to walk before it can run. The excerpted above is critical before he can pursue the aspiration of Lagos as an international financial centre. Nevertheless, laudable goal, but still many hurdles remain to be crossed. The highfalutin language used to express the goal has not taken into consideration the flipside of international - the prevaling domestic and local conditions.

These conditions are abysmal - a tale of two cities. The wretch, and over-rated elites living side by side in a city that has been called a "disgrace of a city." The state of public health and infrastructure is terrible and needs to be taken care of before embarking on the creation of an International Financial Centre. These represent part of the basic ingredients that investors look for in centres of such magnitude.

A quick scan of International financial centres around the world shows that these features and more predominate : five star hotels, multi-modal forms of transportation, skycrapers and all grades of office developments, waterfront developments, a stable political climate, good fire service, high class airport, thriving art scene, efficient service delivery culture in the city, a healthy environment , etc.

Interestingly, at first blush Lagos fails the test when searching for the features.

Could this Professor be overtly ambitious, or is he just one of them deluded professors again?

---

Katampe:

You have made very good points by taking the account and stock that is necessary and required for IFC, but what you failed to do is point out how to achieve economic goals without IFC. Your point implied the saying: egg or chicken, which one came first? We have to cross many hurdles but not by standing stationary. We have to generate participatory economy but not without financier.

Yes, Saludo is in a hurry. But such hurry is also necessary if we are really clamoring for economic development. The dream and meditation is very good for the invention of motivation. Once motivation and material wealth are abounding, the idea of IFC is not far from realization. We have to understand that we are yet to identify our comparative advantages in the global economy. The mere talk of 20th economy is not enough until economic battery charger is in place. IFC can be thought of as a preliminary multiplier factor without which any economy cannot transform.

This is the time to start aiming high and beat everybody into it. I am not afraid of privatization as long as is done properly. It is a way of challenging ourselves and living by our sweat instead of no taxation and over-consumption. The idea of creating IFC can bring equity that is missing in Nigeria public for everybody to partake in privatisation process.

Katampe, let's give Professor Saludo a high mark on this.

Cheers!

---

---

=OsaroO;186157>Katampe:

You have made very good points by taking the account and stock that is necessary and required for IFC, but what you failed to do is point out how to achieve economic goals without IFC. Your point implied the saying: egg or chicken, which one came first? We have to cross many hurdles but not by standing stationary. We have to generate participatory economy but not without financier.

Yes, Saludo is in a hurry. But such hurry is also necessary if we are really clamoring for economic development. The dream and meditation is very good for the invention of motivation. Once motivation and material wealth are abounding, the idea of IFC is not far from realization. We have to understand that we are yet to identify our comparative advantages in the global economy. The mere talk of 20th economy is not enough until economic battery charger is in place. IFC can be thought of as a preliminary multiplier factor without which any economy can transform.

This is the time to start aiming high and beat everybody into it. I am not afraid of privatization as long as is done properly. It is a way of challenging ourselves and living by our sweat instead of no taxation and over-consumption. The idea of creating IFC can bring equity that is missing in Nigeria public for everybody to partake in privatisation process.

Katampe, let's give Professor Saludo a high mark on this.

Cheers!

---

OsaroO:

Thanks for your comments above.

The issue here is the grandiose scheme of events that would follow that makes me a bit sceptical.There is every reason to be anxious and to be in a hurry, but there is also the need to be realistic. Many failed economic policies especially during the SAP years were as a result of this attitude. I have started reading some of Soludo's writings prior to his current job and his arguments in many of his papers hammered on an african centric approach to policy. I think this approach makes sense.

Where I seem to depart from his theory is his ability to articulate in concrete or practical terms this african centric approach. I have a copy of his NEEDS document and there isn't anything original in the document.Wolrd Bank policies where recasted and sold as home grown solutions. Now having an IFC is not an issue and should be coveted, not on the short run but on the long term.

My question is has Nigeria reached the stage to embark on this kind of enterprise?

For example , Professor Sam Aluko (mind you i do not agree with his most of his arguments) has criticised the present economic policies of government that seeks to privatise almost everything in sight.He would have loved a phased privatization that still retains the commanding heights of the economy in the hands of the public. That argument is not original to Professor Aluko but to John Maynard Keynes who helped jumpstart the British economy after the World war 11.

Basically keynes advocates government controlls the economy in such a way that infrastructural development are embarked upon in a massive fashion and this was demonstarted to create huge jobs for the economy where it had been demonstrated that laissez faire can't create jobs for everyone. If you read Pat Utomi's campaign manisfesto, it was this sort of approach he advocated and he wanted to tackle job creation through massive public works program that would have had many unskilled people and semi-skilled people engaged.

Now , what is wrong with Soludo's approach?

It is artificial and at best peripheral. It hasn't taken into consideration the reality of Nigerian environment. It is a more sophisticated policy similar to the era of SAP ( Babaginda years) that created so much peripheral banking that threw yuppies into the Nigerian lexicon. But who benefitted during the yuppie era ? university teachers and graduates with strong academic credentials. 419 started during this era in a big way, dislocation of the educational system started during this era too.It made sense to leave the educational institutions for the banking sector. Strong students that should have been retained within the educational system to make the intellectual debate vigorous, rich and productive made instead for the banks.

Industrial production suffered. Many industries closed shop and it was an era of community banking- trading. Folks made money from trading in foreign currency. I remember some mortgage institutions were buying cars from phatom profits , some travel agents made a kill too. Religious institutions took over most of our warehouses in Lagos and the birth of religious production - saving of souls production was going on.

The policy Soludo is pushing is better for an already industrialized society/ economy that has developed a culture of efficiency, time management, engineering wizadry, enrmous human talent that tackles demanding societal problems , challenging environmental and physsical infrastructure problems with brutal efficiency. After that we can transit to a financial service oriented economy that requires white collar folks carry brief cases and travelling the world over. At this stage of our life, we need the production of blue worker jobs that will enable us get dirty. In Canada, blue collar workers earn better wages and sometimes better than white collar workers.

When you create a highly industrialized economy that has its capital in brick and motar , when there is a shock in the financial system like the crash that took place in Asia, the brick and motar can never be moved immidiately. Unfortunately, money /cash can be moved very quickly and within seconds in a digital economy.

One reason why we should be circumspect is the political environment as well , I mean ours is volatile. Riots can erupt at the slightest excuse. There is still ethnic distrust . How have we factored this into the equation or in Soludo's decision?

Another reason is the haphazard nature of development across the country. That portends danger for the country in terms of rural -urban migration.Unfortunately, this IFC would have no jobs for those moving to the city that has already been declared a megalopolis with terrible housing conditions where people live in abject poverty and unhealthy and trying conditions. Our rural areas that should be the heartland for agriculutural business will be desolate because we are busy creating international financial center.

It is not as easy as this man paints the picture, OsaroO. I might be wrong though, nevertheless my exercise is thinking beyond stage one - i.e the morning after it happens. who gains and who benefits ! You can be rest assured I will survive in that kind of economy and many folks that are cosmopolitan would too. But what happens to Nigerians without skills ?

Is it right to move resources to building financial centers when it can be concentrated building capacity for the educational sector that needs quality teachers to produce graduates that are problem solvers for the 21st century ? Or do we need some funny folks that knot tie and tell us they are bankers or are into investing banking that all what they do is move money around and trade currency and financial services ?

This sounds like baloney to me. It would be nice to know what you think.

---

Katampe

>>>>The issue here is the grandiose scheme of events that would follow that makes me a bit sceptical.There is every reason to be anxious and to be in a hurry, but there is also the need to be realistic. Many failed economic policies especially during the SAP years were as a result of this attitude. I have started reading some of Soludo's writings prior to his current job and his arguments in many of his papers hammered on an african centric approach to policy. I think this approach makes sense.<<<<

Unlike you, I have not read any of his writings and I would be surprised if his writing will deviate from African economist perspectives of Africa; more in particular Nigeria. There is no other way to approach African economic policy than reflecting the current environmental factors, which far different in contrast with other continental economies.

>>>>Where I seem to depart from his theory is his ability to articulate in concrete or practical terms this african centric approach. I have a copy of his NEEDS document and there isn't anything original in the document.The failed bank policies where recasted and sold as home grown. Now having an IFC is not an issue and should be coveted.<<<<<

I understand. Sometimes, when you read some theories of African economists it is like importer/exporter idea of mercantilism. Although, you cannot blame them, since they rarely have real contact with the factors they are projecting in their theories. But, the fact that Saludo is now privy to the facts; he is well disposed to make the right recommendation of theories on monetary policy.

>>>>But my argument is has Nigeria reached the stage to embark on this kind of enterprise?

For example , Professor Sam Aluko (mind you i do not agree with his most arguments) has criticised the present economic policies of government that seeks to privatise almost everything in sight.He would have loved a phased privatization that still retains the commanding heights of the economy in the hands of the public. That argument is not original to Professor Aluko but to John Maynard Keynes who helped jumpstart the British economy after the World war 11.<<<< I

Let’s pause for a second, at what time or when best to embark on privatization? Nigeria (from independence) is over 46 years old, and even before then, we have embarked on socialist economic policies and thrived well for sometimes; until corruption crept into the system and completely rendered it impotent. The question is do we leave it as is or explore other alternative? Since we are not a communist state, we tend to lean towards democratic capitalist principles, thus, with allowance of marginal error we are in the right direction.

Like Professor Aluko, I also don’t agree with economic policies of any government that privatize everything. There must be a gap from which to breathe into underprivileged. But, notwithstanding that absolute privatization is undesirable, there is no better method to accomodate and sustain our institutional public support beyond this time. The indication that Maynard Keynes boosted the economy through government expenditure did not mean he compromised the laissez-faire doctrine. The use of egalitarian policies (progressive taxation and anti-poverty programs) to finance infrastructure that cannot be handled through market system and that are massively involved an unending expenditure, which constituted a source used by Keynes to boost the economy, must be part of any economic policies that care about humanity. The following is the excerpt of one essay by Pat Utomi:

>>>The pathway to this state is massive job creation and infrastructure development which are twin components of the RG initiative and a second twin component of two securities- security of life and property, and food security. So it is simply about jobs, the rule of law, our values, and economic growth.<<<

I like Pat’s comments and that is because it rhymes with economic common sense. The only thing is that it looks nice on the paper, but I don’t know if Pat can vouch the achievement of it in the political time frame and constraints. Anybody can say it all, but as far as Nigeria is concerned it is not all achievable within the political span of a President. He (Utomi) cannot rely only on infrastructure development for full employment without complementary efforts of private sector. This means that his source of finance through limited revenue level, without aggressive tax revenue that private sector will generate, will also limit his ability to generate full employment. Again, this may precipitate the idea of IFC.

I have not yet seen Nigeria embarking on privatizing those things that affect or violate humanity. When a system becomes corruption laden the only way to get rid of it is to try to instill accountability (privation kills corruption).

>>>>>Now , what is wrong with Soludo's approach?

It is artificial and at best peripheral. It hasn't taken into consideration the reality of Nigerian environment. It is a more sophisticated policy similar to the era of SAP ( Babaginda years) that created so much peripheral banking that threw yuppies into the Nigerian lexicon. But who benefitted during the yuppie era ? university teachers and graduates with strong academic credentials. 419 started during this era in a big way, dislocation of the educational system started during this era too.It made sense to leave the educational institutions for the banking sector. Strong students that should have been retained within the educational system to make the intellectual debate vigorous, rich and productive made instead for the banks.<<<<<

I was not in Nigeria during Babangida era, I was here in USA. But I heard all these things before. I think, if I am not mistaken, Falae was the Finance Minister. He (Falae) admitted that the economic policy failed because the economic concept of the policy was wrong. In my view, this is where your question of timing: “has Nigeria reached the stage to embark on this kind of enterprise?” proved to be right for wrong idea.

The anecdotal reason is that global economy did not dominate the thought of economic policy. The corrupt military regime was intentionally injecting money into the economy without supporting the outflow of currency with tangible projects. His idea is to make everybody happy through free for all banking in order to gain national recognition and endorsement for President for life. The consequence demoralized the society.

In contrast, this time of civilian government is far different from that of military government. The global economy dominates the thought of economic policy and the frequency of involvement in international affairs exposes our readiness to take global economic role. There is no question in my mind that government role in Nigeria is aiming economic leadership in Africa. I don’t think that Saludo’s approach hinders the industrialization. As a matter of fact, the aspect of IFC will invigorate industrialization. The idea and principle of Laissez-faire only require government to devote its resources to infrastructures, security, Legislature and environmental regulation. The conflict of interest on government expenditure for the pursuit of the IFC and Industrialization is zero, since the role will create a congruent infrastructure, and it is complimentary. One stone will kill two birds.

>>>>Is it right to move resources to building financial centers when it can be concentrated building capacity for the educational sector that needs quality teachers to produce graduates that are problem solvers for the 21st century ? Or do we need some funny folks that knot tie and tell us they are bankers or are into investing banking that all what they do is move money around and trade currency and financial services ?<<<<

But we still need to move resources to build the same infrastructure that meet the standard of industrialization. The same infrastructure is also enough to serve the standard of IFC. From reading your writing about Saludo, I gained the impression that he is the right guy for the job as of this minute. The guy must be more aggressive than I thought. A conservative policy maker thinks more about progressive taxation to meet the budget, so, the educational sector will also get proper consideration as the economy hits the multiplier effect.

Cheers!

---

---

As a matter of fact, the aspect of IFC will invigorate industrialization. The idea and principle of Laissez-faire only require government to devote its resources to infrastructures, security, Legislature and environmental regulation. The conflict of interest on government expenditure for the pursuit of the IFC and Industrialization is zero, since the role will create a congruent infrastructure, and it is complimentary. One stone will kill two birds.

---

...in case of nigeria, we need to kill many birds with a stone...soludo is moving very fast, which is good.! how i wished we are all doing the same in our different fields...!:idea:

---

---

=OsaroO;186354>Katampe

>>>>The issue here is the grandiose scheme of events that would follow that makes me a bit sceptical.There is every reason to be anxious and to be in a hurry, but there is also the need to be realistic. Many failed economic policies especially during the SAP years were as a result of this attitude. I have started reading some of Soludo's writings prior to his current job and his arguments in many of his papers hammered on an african centric approach to policy. I think this approach makes sense.<<<<

Unlike you, I have not read any of his writings and I would be surprised if his writing will deviate from African economist perspectives of Africa; more in particular Nigeria. There is no other way to approach African economic policy than reflecting the current environmental factors, which far different in contrast with other continental economies.

>>>>Where I seem to depart from his theory is his ability to articulate in concrete or practical terms this african centric approach. I have a copy of his NEEDS document and there isn't anything original in the document.The failed bank policies where recasted and sold as home grown. Now having an IFC is not an issue and should be coveted.<<<<<

I understand. Sometimes, when you read some theories of African economists it is like importer/exporter idea of mercantilism. Although, you cannot blame them, since they rarely have real contact with the factors they are projecting in their theories. But, the fact that Saludo is now privy to the facts; he is well disposed to make the right recommendation of theories on monetary policy.

>>>>But my argument is has Nigeria reached the stage to embark on this kind of enterprise?

For example , Professor Sam Aluko (mind you i do not agree with his most arguments) has criticised the present economic policies of government that seeks to privatise almost everything in sight.He would have loved a phased privatization that still retains the commanding heights of the economy in the hands of the public. That argument is not original to Professor Aluko but to John Maynard Keynes who helped jumpstart the British economy after the World war 11.<<<< I

Let’s pause for a second, at what time or when best to embark on privatization? Nigeria (from independence) is over 46 years old, and even before then, we have embarked on socialist economic policies and thrived well for sometimes; until corruption crept into the system and completely rendered it impotent. The question is do we leave it as is or explore other alternative? Since we are not a communist state, we tend to lean towards democratic capitalist principles, thus, with allowance of marginal error we are in the right direction.

Like Professor Aluko, I also don’t agree with economic policies of any government that privatize everything. There must be a gap from which to breathe into underprivileged. But, notwithstanding that absolute privatization is undesirable, there is no better method to accomodate and sustain our institutional public support beyond this time. The indication that Maynard Keynes boosted the economy through government expenditure did not mean he compromised the laissez-faire doctrine. The use of egalitarian policies (progressive taxation and anti-poverty programs) to finance infrastructure that cannot be handled through market system and that are massively involved an unending expenditure, which constituted a source used by Keynes to boost the economy, must be part of any economic policies that care about humanity. The following is the excerpt of one essay by Pat Utomi:

>>>The pathway to this state is massive job creation and infrastructure development which are twin components of the RG initiative and a second twin component of two securities- security of life and property, and food security. So it is simply about jobs, the rule of law, our values, and economic growth.<<<

I like Pat’s comments and that is because it rhymes with economic common sense. The only thing is that it looks nice on the paper, but I don’t know if Pat can vouch the achievement of it in the political time frame and constraints. Anybody can say it all, but as far as Nigeria is concerned it is not all achievable within the political span of a President. He (Utomi) cannot rely only on infrastructure development for full employment without complementary efforts of private sector. This means that his source of finance through limited revenue level without aggressive tax revenue that private sector will generate will also limit his ability to generate full employment. Again, this may precipitate the idea of IFC.

I have not yet seen Nigeria embarking on privatizing those things that affect or violate humanity. When a system becomes corruption laden the only way to get rid of it is to try to instill accountability (privation kills corruption).

>>>>>Now , what is wrong with Soludo's approach?

It is artificial and at best peripheral. It hasn't taken into consideration the reality of Nigerian environment. It is a more sophisticated policy similar to the era of SAP ( Babaginda years) that created so much peripheral banking that threw yuppies into the Nigerian lexicon. But who benefitted during the yuppie era ? university teachers and graduates with strong academic credentials. 419 started during this era in a big way, dislocation of the educational system started during this era too.It made sense to leave the educational institutions for the banking sector. Strong students that should have been retained within the educational system to make the intellectual debate vigorous, rich and productive made instead for the banks.<<<<<

I was not in Nigeria during Babangida era, I was here in USA. But I heard all these things before. I think, if I am not mistaken, Falae was the Finance Minister. He (Falae) admitted that the economic policy failed because the economic concept of the policy was wrong. In my view, this is where your question of timing: “has Nigeria reached the stage to embark on this kind of enterprise?” proved to be right for wrong idea.

The anecdotal reason is that global economy did not dominate the thought of economic policy. The corrupt military regime was intentionally injecting money into the economy without supporting the outflow of currency with tangible projects. His idea is to make everybody happy through free for all banking in order to gain national recognition and endorsement for President for life. The consequence demoralized the society.

In contrast, this time of civilian government is far different from that of military government. The global economy dominates the thought of economic policy and the frequency of involvement in international affairs exposes our readiness to take global economic role. There is no question in my mind that government role in Nigeria is aiming economic leadership in Africa. I don’t think that Saludo’s approach hinders the industrialization. As a matter of fact, the aspect of IFC will invigorate industrialization. The idea and principle of Laissez-faire only require government to devote its resources to infrastructures, security, Legislature and environmental regulation. The conflict of interest on government expenditure for the pursuit of the IFC and Industrialization is zero, since the role will create a congruent infrastructure, and it is complimentary. One stone will kill two birds.

>>>>Is it right to move resources to building financial centers when it can be concentrated building capacity for the educational sector that needs quality teachers to produce graduates that are problem solvers for the 21st century ? Or do we need some funny folks that knot tie and tell us they are bankers or are into investing banking that all what they do is move money around and trade currency and financial services ?<<<<

But we still need to move resources to build the same infrastructure that meet the standard of industrialization. The same infrastructure is also enough to serve the standard of IFC. From reading your writing about Saludo, I gained the impression that he is the right guy for the job as of this minute. The guy must be more aggressive than I thought. A conservative policy maker thinks more about progressive taxation to meet the budget, so, the educational sector will also get proper consideration as the economy hit the multiplier effect.

Cheers!

---

OsaroO,

As persuasive as your arguments seem, I still beg to differ with your views. But instead of getting into a longer debate, I will borrow a quote from Thomas Friedman, some that is well schooled on the issues of globalization :

---

"Very often in petrolist states, not only do all politics revolve around who controls the oil tap, but the public develops a distorted notion of what development is all about. If they are poor and the leaders are rich, it is not because their country has failed to promote education, innovation, rule of law and entrepreneurship. It is because someone is getting the oil money and they are not. People start to think that, to get rich, all they have to do is stop those who are stealing the country's oil."

---

I think this distorted notion is what is at the heart of our problems. Now on which economy is Soludo building an International Financial Centre? On the oil economy that Nigeria heavily relies on , ain't it? It better be it because I am unaware of any other sector of the economy that is as hot as the oil sector.

And if that is the case we will have the IFC involved in transactions or clearing business deals that has to do with oil and other sundry stuff.Look around the world there are 2 world financial centers New York and London. They have historic architecture and are the heart of insurance and banking services for the world. Look at Tokyo similar, although the profile is not as huge as that of the London and NY, nevertheless it comes third and is a typical IFC .

When you look at the three together they have good schools with education, creative people that innovate , scholars and lawyers that know the rule of law, and smart businessmen that understand the essence of entrepreneurship , historic and modern architecture and all. The context in which you have all these, there is soft and hard infrastructure - high rise office towers, efficient transportation, thriving art communities , etc.

You can't will IFC into being by fiat - it has to be through people's will, enterprise and right government policies that creates an enabling environment and regulates the terms of engagement of foreigners fairly and transparently. I still think Soludo ambitious programme has left out the political sphere, the environmental context and urgent needs of Nigerians...global finance capital will come in and invest in where there is quick returns ( in this case oil and sometimes telecommunications) is on a wild goose chase!

Did you watch Ngozi Iweala canvassing for investors on IDEAS? It was ridiculous when she said a Nigerian woman used local materials in making dungarees, and more ridiculous when she said world bank purchased about 10,000 pieces of her materials.. Is that the market ? When your economy is doing well you don't have to sell it much - their representative through the consular offices are on ground to watch out for opportunities for their citizens.

What am I saying - Nigeria is a very poor country - oil has distorted the real picture even for an economist that was once a university teacher. A municipality in Canada votes more budget money for fewer people that the whole of the 140 million the federal government budgets for.

---

---

=ithinkbetter;186357>

...in case of nigeria, we need to kill many birds with a stone...soludo is moving very fast, which is good.! how i wished we are all doing the same in our different fields...!:idea:

---

Dear ithinkbetter,

I think you missed the issue here. The issue is, do we need to invite these highly sceptical people at this stage knowing what they will see on the ground when they come or we should invite them after we have put sufficient things in place to demonstrate our seriousness?

Put it this way, if you have one stone that you intend to kill two birds with, wouldn't you aim at the birds very well before you throw that stone?