November 7, 2009
Of Mayor Bloomberg and New York City
Not so many city mayors are as well known as Michael Bloomberg, the incumbent mayor of New York city. Mayor Bloomberg is, these days, known to be an Independent, which is a sort of oddity, given that every other political affiliation in the United States appears to be either for the Democratic or Republican Party.
Mr. Bloomberg himself has toyed with being a Democratic Party supporter and a Republican Party politician. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bloomberg marketed himself as a Republican when he ran for office in 2001 and 2005. It was only in 2007 that he decided to adopt the label of Independent, according to his Wikipedia profile.
Close to the end of his second tenure as mayor of New York came a surprise when Mr. Bloomberg began pushing the New York City Council to vote in favour of an amendment to the law permitting him to run for a third term. The existing law allowed for a two-term limit.
Now, to those of us on the this side of the Atlantic, the phrase “third term”, especially in politics, is enough to send shivers down one’s spine. Names of people like Olusegun Obasanjo, one-time Nigerian president who sought a third-term but failed, comes to mind. So does Mamadou Tandja, the president of Niger who recently secured a third term in a way thought dubious by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) that his country was suspended from the organization (see Xinhua report on the issue).
The United States is, to a large extent, respected and somewhat envied for its supposedly strong legal system and New York city is meant to be an embodiment of modern and forward looking America. What recently happened in New York city is quite surprising, to say the least, moreso given that no public referendum was held on the issue.
Mr. Bloomberg narrowly won the election, according to the New York Times, and would now serve as mayor of New York for the third time. Having spent close to $100 million on his election campaign, it is not surprising—according to the New York Times, he outspent his rival, Bill Thomspon by 14 to 1.
One could only sit back now and wonder if Mr. Bloomberg may someday be interested in a fourth or even a fifth term—after all, one reason he has chosen to hang on is because he believes the city of New York needs him, especially in these post-global recession days.
The United States did away with absolute [British] monarchs long ago for the very simple reason that absolute power not only corrupts but so does power when allowed to reside in the hands of one person for too long. One may argue that Mr. Bloomberg is no absolute ruler, given that he governs with the City Council of New York. But the final word does reside with him.
The Chinese government understand the dangers of absolute power in the hands of one individual (think Mao Tse-Tung). Though it claims to run a communist system, the communist party refreshes its leaders every now and then and for good reason. At the higest level of politics in China, money is much less important than it is in the United States.
Photo: Manhattan skyline from Lsuza's Flickr Photostream.
Labels: Democracy, New York City, Politics, United States
>>Go to HomePage
November 5, 2009
Downstream Deregulation Followup
Nigeria's current 'installed' refining capacity
This is a follow-up to an earlier post on this blog entitled 'Downstream Deregulation', in which arguments were put forward on the need for deregulating the downstream oil sector in Nigeria. I would like to present a few facts on the current state of Nigeria's oil refining sector based on publicly available information.
There are four refineries in Nigeria with a total refining capacity of 445,000 barrels/day. The four refineries are:
Port Harcourt Refinery I: Completed in 1965. Original capacity of 38,000 barrels/day. Debottlenecked in 1973 to refine 60,000 barrels/day. Located in Alesa-Eleme near Port Harcourt.
Warri Refinery: Engineering contractor was Snamprogetti Spa of Milan , Italy. Contract awarded in 1975 and construction completed in 1978. Original capacity of 100,000 barrels/day. Debottlenecked to 125,000 barrels/day in 1985. Cost = $478 million
Kaduna Refinery: Engineering contractor was Chiyoda of Japan. Contract awarded in 1976 and refinery commissioned in 1979. Capacity of 100,000 barrels. Half of this is fuels and the other half is waxes, asphalt and lubes. Debottlednecked to 110,000 barrels/day in 1985. Cost = $525 million.
Port Harcourt Refinery II: Engineering contractors were JGC Corporation/Marubeni Corporation of Japan and Spibatignolles of France. Contract awarded in 1985, with the refinery commissioned in 1989. Capacity of 150,000 barrels/day Cost= $850 million.
Some key points are: (1) Since 1989 no additional refining capacity has been added in Nigeria. (2) Investments required are so huge that no local private company could undertake to construct a refinery.
The data above were gleaned from the Nigerian business publication BusinessDay and are based on a lecture delivered by Alex Ogedengbe, a former managing director of Port Harcourt Refinery.
Nigeria's Petrol Consumption and Population Growth
Petrol consumption in 1998 was 18 million liters/day or 113,000 barrels/day. This had almost doubled by 2009 to 35 million liters/day or 220,000 barrels/day. Figures are from ThisDay Newspaper, republished on AllAfrica.com.
As of 2003, the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) was importing as much as 70% of petrol consumed locally, according to Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections, an authoritative site on oil and gas issues. This is indicative of poor refinery utilization.
And finally, it appears that the rate of increase of petrol consumption in Nigeria (assuming linear growth) is higher than the rate of increase in population. It means that, on average, each Nigerian resident consumes more petrol in 2009 than he/she did ten years ago, directly or indirectly. It also means that the cost of subsidy per person also increases. To what extent such subsidy would be sustainable in the long term is the big question.
Nigeria's current 'installed' refining capacity
The data above were gleaned from the Nigerian business publication BusinessDay and are based on a lecture delivered by Alex Ogedengbe, a former managing director of Port Harcourt Refinery.
Labels: Nigeria, Oil and Gas, Refining
>>Go to HomePage
November 4, 2009
Business and Morals
The past year and a half has been difficult for many across the globe. We watched as some of the most powerful financial institutions on the planet came close to collapse, literally going with bowls in hands to governments, begging for cash to stay alive. It didn’t matter whether it was in the United States, Ukraine, Britain, Hungary, Latvia or Ireland. The very core of key players in the world’s financial system was shaken and if not for the intervention of governments, we would likely have seen unimaginable social unrest, anarchy and homelessness in countries as far apart as the United States and Russia.
Every other person has an opinion as to what caused what the mainstream media has come to dub “the Global Financial Crisis”, though I doubt the bulk of people in Papua New Guinea or indigenous groups in the Amazon noticed that there was a crisis in the first place. Investment banks and their uncontrolled appetite for risk, would undoubtedly bear the brunt of the blame. So would other banks and financial institutions. But governments, whose regulatory arms were either lax, ignorant or complicit would not go scot free either.
What was initially known as the sub-prime crisis (in relation to mortgages given out to sub-primers or people who would barely have been able to pay back) evolved into something so huge that the very foundations of capitalism and the free market system it advocates were called into question. But, could the problem really be said to be capitalism or the human appetite for risky reckless behaviour, especially when the rewards at the end of the day could be enormous.
One word hardly heard these days, especially in financial circles, is morality. Yes, morality. That old-fashioned religious sounding word that requires of one to question whether what he or she is doing is just and fair. In the opinion of this blogger, the financial crisis cannot be discussed without bringing in a moral context. The more philosophical ones may opt to refer to it as ethics for fear of sounding like vicars or preachers. The Financial Times has been reviewing what role morality/ethics could play in brining bankers, traders and businesses as a whole back on a sane footing.
This blog is of the opinion that capitalism, as a system, brings out the best in human creativity and productivity, allowing people to modify their neighbourhoods, cities and countries in ways that would be unimaginable if such a system were not in place. Ideas are transformed to products that make life better, thanks to capital made available by...well, banks or the markets. But, modern day capitalism is developing one deep flaw—a flaw that could come to hunt it three or four generations down the line. That flaw is short-term uncontrolled greed at the expense of long-term survival.
Greed, when controlled, is undoubtedly a good thing. It fires the spirit within us and brings out the best of our competitive nature. But uncontrolled greed is dangerous and like a explosive device that has been set off, ends up destroying not just itself but every other thing around. The growing desire for quick, and sometimes outrageously high returns on investments is, to say the least frightening. Thus, was Bernard Madoff able to successfully con his clients, individuals and institutions—some to the tune of millions of dollars. So also did pension funds across the world see billions of dollars worth of investments vanish in the past year and half, even in funds or businesses they thought were relatively safe. The global financial system is becoming so interconnected that hedging ones risks would only get more difficult in future—the safe investment fund you run to is deeply linked to probably hundreds of risky ones.
Profits are great and so is wealth. Everyone and every business should be free to strive for them. But, if the cost of making that 50% return on an investment is the pollution of ground drinking water, or the deposition of toxic metals into rivers, or the making credit readily available to hundreds of thousands of individuals with poor credit histories who would most likely never pay back, or permitting financial institutions that promise outlandish savings interest rates to operate in ones domain, or the degradation of land and forced displacement of powerless people, then we could only be said to be poorer.
The people of Iceland may not be starving or running short of bare necessities, but they certainly feel less wealthy today (on average) than they did say, three years ago. What goes around comes around. Every business decision taken today of which morals or ethics are pushed aside could likely be subject to litigation in future. The law of karma holds true, whether in the Seychelles or in China. Unethical practices, lucrative as they may seem in the short term, more often than not have disastrous long term consequences.
>>Go to HomePage
November 1, 2009
Dambisa Moyo: Aid Isn't Working for Africa
Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian-born economist and author of the widely acclaimed book 'Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is Another Way for Africa' was recently interviewed by Forbes in its Thought Leaders series.
Dead Aid makes for a refreshing read for a number of reasons. First of all, it is represents the voice of a young, highly educated and confident lady (whose resume boasts stints at Goldman Sachs and the World Bank) on a workable way forward for the African continent. Secondly, it puts forward strong and coherent arguments as to why African governments should listen less to people like Bono (of the U2 rock band) and more to well trained and knowledgeable economists on how to build their economies. In Dambisa Moyo's words, no European government would take lessons from Michael Jackson (now of blessed memory) on how to structure their economies.
Ms. Moyo is of the view that aid, rather than enhancing development, stifles it. She also thinks it breeds corruption, undermines democracy (though she is of the view that Western-style democracy shouldn't be a priority in Africa today--a view somewhat shared by this blogger) and makes the receiving governments less accountable to those they govern. Aid, in this case, could be bilateral aid (between two countries) or World Bank multilateral aid/loans. NGO and charity aid are of different matter altogether and are not criticized in Dead Aid.
When a significant part of a government's income is based on foreign aid or long-term low interest multilateral loans, such a government cannot be truly accountable to its citizens. After all, come what may, there would always be some cash in the coffers of government--to the benefit of the ruling class. Dead aid makes strong arguments for the issuance of sovereign bonds (local or international) as proper ways through which African governments should source for funds. In other words, African governments, like the rest of the world, should strive to make use of capital markets to fund development. In so doing, these governments would open up avenues for the private sectors in their economies to also source for funds. And then comes development.
A great problem in much of Africa today isn't the shortage of business or innovative ideas. Rather, it is the absence of capital, i.e. credit. Lack of credit stifles growth and aid only makes it worse. A number of African countries have made use of the international capital market to issue bonds recently--Ghana and Gabon, for instance in 2007. Attempts by some African countries to raise funds in the markets three decades earlier turned nasty as most ended up defaulted on their debts. Though the cost of borrowing remains relatively high for most African nations, it keeps coming down as time progresses.
Almost twenty sub-Saharan African countries are credit rated and most have ratings high enough to tap the international bond market. If African countries are to survive, new financing models must be sought. These are models that gradually rid them off dependency and make them more of equal partners on the global stage with those nations that provide them aid.
Cutting back on aid should mean striving to build up trade with important emerging economies (China, for instance), attracting Foreign Direct Investment, issuing bonds in the capital markets and putting remittances (monies received from citizens resident abroad) and domestic savings to good use. These, in Dead Aid's opinion, are the way forward. An analogy, in this blogger's opinion, would be of a child, who, from birth is entirely reliant on parents or guardians. Such reliance is a metaphor for aid, just as the child is a metaphor for most African nations at independence. As the child grows, he/she becomes more independent and less reliant on parental finances. And, as an adult, the 'child' becomes totally weaned off parental finances and is able to find his/her place in the world.
One could only hope that African governments are listening to the likes of Ms. Moyo. John Kufuor, former president of Ghana, recently stated that people like Dambisa Moyo do not speak for Africa, based on a report in the Dutch online newspaper NRC Handelsblad International. In other words, Africa still needs aid. But a good thing is that, even Mr. Kufuor
...agrees with [the] Rwandan president Paul Kagame, who believes the ultimate goal of development aid should be to make itself redundant.
Unfortunately, the NRC Handelsblad report is fraught with an error when it states:
...[Ms.] Moyo says aid to Africa should be cut entirely because it only leads to inertia and corruption.
What Dambisa Moyo advocates is a gradual moving away from aid dependency in as short a time span as possible. And that makes a whole lot of sense, especially if Africa is ever to develop and compete on the global stage.
Labels: Africa, Aid, Economics, Government, Zambia
>>Go to HomePage
October 26, 2009
On the British National Party
The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right, whites-only political party in the United Kingdom, formed as a splinter group of the British National Front by John Tyndall in 1982. The party's current chairman is Nick Griffin, himself a former national organiser of the National Front. -- Wikipedia introduction to the BNP
In the past week there has been quite some focus in the British media on the BBC's decision to allow the chairman of the British National Party (BNP), Nick Griffin, to participate in the prime-time television discussion program Question Time. Protests were held outside the BBC Television Center by anti-BNP demonstrators, who felt that the BBC was legitimizing the face fascism in Britain by allowing someone like Griffin airtime on what ought to be a respectable television program.
For information about the BNP and what it stands for please consult Wikipedia. Worthy of note is that while the BNP currently has no seat in the British parliament, it has two European parliament seats.
Most nations of the world have their extremes when it comes to politics and the United Kingdom is no exception. However, when, in today's world there exists a political party that publicly advocates for policies that would favor sending away people of foreign decent (read 'non-white' and for no other reason that the fact they are of foreign descent) away from Britain, albeit through 'generous grants', one is left wondering to what extent such a party understands how much some foreigners have contributed to British businesses and society. Would such foreigners also include the wealthiest man in Britain, Lakshmi Mittal, who happens to be Indian?
The BNP, knowing that it could soon become an illegal organization as a result of an upcoming equality bill, would soon be left with no choice but to admit people irrespective of ethnic or racial background. And this would undoubtedly be the beginning of its end. You can read more on the equality bill from the British government website. But for now, fueled by the ongoing recession in Britain, it thrives by playing the age old game of the politics of segregation--them and us.
At a point in recent history, Britain was an empire. Its influence stretched from India to much of the African continent. British colonies adopted the English language and some British customs. And Britain took in fine spices and culinary delights of some of its colonies, leaving out the raw materials that fueled British industrialization. And, imperial Britain moved some people between its colonies--like Indians to East and Southern Africa to work. Some people from the colonies moved to the United Kingdom for various reasons. Empires are breeding grounds for a degree of ethnic mixing and the British Empire was no exception.
Down the line, the descendants of these people have become British. For the BNP to label them foreigners, when they know no other home but the United Kingdom is an insult. At this point in our human history, our efforts should be targeted at solving critical issues facing our world today--environmental pollution, climate change, potential energy shortages. These are global issues that require global solutions. And one cannot think globally when not veiled by the myopic, parochial and self-serving interests of the BNP. It is indeed unfortunate that such a party rubs shoulders with the mainstream in the United Kingdom today. But then, its death is imminent. And the sooner it happened the better.
The video below is from YouTube and, according to its maker, shows that the BNP is an openly racist party. Under its policies, a talented person like Barack Obama would never become British, let alone prime minister.
Down the line, the descendants of these people have become British. For the BNP to label them foreigners, when they know no other home but the United Kingdom is an insult. At this point in our human history, our efforts should be targeted at solving critical issues facing our world today--environmental pollution, climate change, potential energy shortages. These are global issues that require global solutions. And one cannot think globally when not veiled by the myopic, parochial and self-serving interests of the BNP. It is indeed unfortunate that such a party rubs shoulders with the mainstream in the United Kingdom today. But then, its death is imminent. And the sooner it happened the better.
The video below is from YouTube and, according to its maker, shows that the BNP is an openly racist party. Under its policies, a talented person like Barack Obama would never become British, let alone prime minister.
Labels: Immigration, Politics, Race, United Kingdom
>>Go to HomePage
October 25, 2009
The Truth About Dinosaurs
Found this online via Google Reader and loved it. Original image from this blog.
Labels: Humor
>>Go to HomePage
October 24, 2009
Doing Business in China
Selling to the dragon
The Economist recently ran an article on the difficulties of selling foreign goods in China. As expected, this publisher on the virtues free-market economics complained about the 'Chinese walls' companies face when trying to open up new markets in China. Companies, in this case, refers to European and American domiciled multinationals like Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Bayer, Unilever and Dell.
There is little doubt that China is a huge market to which all of the world is eager to sell--especially as it gets richer. Difficulty in getting in due to cultural hindrances, poor understanding of Chinese society or Chinese government policy, could be frustrating.
Sometimes though, one wonders what special value a company like Procter & Gamble could add in China. Okay, it brings advanced manufacturing techniques, global management principles, knowledge on integrated product development etc . But, there are Chinese companies producing the sort of products it makes at lower and more affordable prices. And therein lies the dilemma.
Of the large number of comments I came across following the Economist's publication, one in particular left me thinking. Based on it, one could put forward the following criteria for ANY foreign company or government planning to get into the Chinese market today:
1. Got Valuable Raw Materials? You're Welcome: Crude oil preferably but natural gas could be just as good. China would also be willing to open its market if you've got coltan, cobalt, iron-ore, bauxite, platinum, coal, lithium and copper. Expect therefore to see more friendly gestures between China and the resource-rich nation of Russia as well as between China and several African nations.
2. Got a Nice Brand? We'll Buy: Guccis, Rolexes, Ferraris, for example. But then your market would be limited to the hyper-affluent upper class (which, even in the emerging economy that China is, would be tens of millions of people), who are able to afford such luxury items. You could still make good money though, as the market grows. Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Marlboro etc are brands that the not-so-affluent segment of society can afford and would rush to.
3. Got high Value Technology? We're Interested: General Electric, Boeing, Airbus, Philips etc. Companies with specialized high-tech know-how that takes years or decades to perfect. But watch out. While Airbus now assembles some A320s in China, Chinese aviation is not that far behind with its ARJ21. Some of these companies fully understand that while enjoying good market share in China today (Airbus and Boeing come to mind), they may really be living on borrowed time in that market.
The picture may indeed start changing two decades down the line. The ability for companies like Boeing and Airbus to stay one step ahead of the game will be crucial for their survival in the Chinese market. But then, eventually, technologies will converge globally and it may indeed become a race built on competitive collaboration rather than one built exclusively on competition.
The Economist recently ran an article on the difficulties of selling foreign goods in China. As expected, this publisher on the virtues free-market economics complained about the 'Chinese walls' companies face when trying to open up new markets in China. Companies, in this case, refers to European and American domiciled multinationals like Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Bayer, Unilever and Dell.
There is little doubt that China is a huge market to which all of the world is eager to sell--especially as it gets richer. Difficulty in getting in due to cultural hindrances, poor understanding of Chinese society or Chinese government policy, could be frustrating.
Sometimes though, one wonders what special value a company like Procter & Gamble could add in China. Okay, it brings advanced manufacturing techniques, global management principles, knowledge on integrated product development etc . But, there are Chinese companies producing the sort of products it makes at lower and more affordable prices. And therein lies the dilemma.
Of the large number of comments I came across following the Economist's publication, one in particular left me thinking. Based on it, one could put forward the following criteria for ANY foreign company or government planning to get into the Chinese market today:
1. Got Valuable Raw Materials? You're Welcome: Crude oil preferably but natural gas could be just as good. China would also be willing to open its market if you've got coltan, cobalt, iron-ore, bauxite, platinum, coal, lithium and copper. Expect therefore to see more friendly gestures between China and the resource-rich nation of Russia as well as between China and several African nations.
There is little doubt that China is a huge market to which all of the world is eager to sell--especially as it gets richer. Difficulty in getting in due to cultural hindrances, poor understanding of Chinese society or Chinese government policy, could be frustrating.
Sometimes though, one wonders what special value a company like Procter & Gamble could add in China. Okay, it brings advanced manufacturing techniques, global management principles, knowledge on integrated product development etc . But, there are Chinese companies producing the sort of products it makes at lower and more affordable prices. And therein lies the dilemma.
Of the large number of comments I came across following the Economist's publication, one in particular left me thinking. Based on it, one could put forward the following criteria for ANY foreign company or government planning to get into the Chinese market today:
1. Got Valuable Raw Materials? You're Welcome: Crude oil preferably but natural gas could be just as good. China would also be willing to open its market if you've got coltan, cobalt, iron-ore, bauxite, platinum, coal, lithium and copper. Expect therefore to see more friendly gestures between China and the resource-rich nation of Russia as well as between China and several African nations.
2. Got a Nice Brand? We'll Buy: Guccis, Rolexes, Ferraris, for example. But then your market would be limited to the hyper-affluent upper class (which, even in the emerging economy that China is, would be tens of millions of people), who are able to afford such luxury items. You could still make good money though, as the market grows. Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Marlboro etc are brands that the not-so-affluent segment of society can afford and would rush to.
3. Got high Value Technology? We're Interested: General Electric, Boeing, Airbus, Philips etc. Companies with specialized high-tech know-how that takes years or decades to perfect. But watch out. While Airbus now assembles some A320s in China, Chinese aviation is not that far behind with its ARJ21. Some of these companies fully understand that while enjoying good market share in China today (Airbus and Boeing come to mind), they may really be living on borrowed time in that market.
The picture may indeed start changing two decades down the line. The ability for companies like Boeing and Airbus to stay one step ahead of the game will be crucial for their survival in the Chinese market. But then, eventually, technologies will converge globally and it may indeed become a race built on competitive collaboration rather than one built exclusively on competition.
Labels: Business, China, Emerging Powers, Globalization
>>Go to HomePage
October 23, 2009
While I was not blogging
Most bloggers believe they have an audience, and that is one reason they write. Of course, there are blogs that are barely visited, except by their authors, but that shouldn't be a reason to stop blogging.
While it is certain that no blog would last forever, I'm often left wondering what the average blog lifetime might be. How many blogs ever make it beyond the first year? This blog has been in hibernation thrice—for various reasons—but never for once did I contemplate permanently shutting it down. My greatest fear was that Blogger (my blog host), having detected significant inactivity, may have decided to shut it down. This, of course, depends on what is legally permitted in Bloggers Terms of Use. Good enough though, that didn't happen.
The latest hiatus on the blog has been the longest so far (well over a year and a half). Between February 2008 to September 2009, not a single post was published. Furthermore, I decided to put the blog under lock and key—meaning it couldn't be accessed by those whom I hadn't granted prior permission.
The effects of this weird, though necessary, policy was obvious. This blog vanished from the blogrolls of various bloggers. Indeed, I kept reading blogs even while I wasn't blogging. One by one, I watched as Blogger A, and then Blogger B and then Blogger C deleted this blog from their blogroll. I guess it was only natural. There was no need hoping that my blog would be resurrected from its seeming eternal death. It was safer to believe it was gone for good. What's the point keeping a blog on your blogroll which you couldn't even access.
Once in a while, I received an email from someone I hadn't previously known concerning my blog (sometimes through Global Voices, an organization I once contributed to, and other times from my private email account). I received a total of about ten such mails while my blog was inaccessible. The mails may have been different, but the requests were literally the same: "Do you still blog? Could I please have access to your blog? I used to be an avid reader."
Within the past one year and eight months of silence, I did wonder if blogging itself had a future. Every other person seems to be on Mark Zukerberg's Facebook, or a regional equivalent. Onliners not on Facebook are probably using the microblogging site Twitter—in the Indo-Western half of the world, that is. A large chunk of China-resident onliners may stick to their bulletin boards (BBS), which works just fine for them. Facebook remains blocked in China, since July 2009, according to the website Inside Facebook.
Not wanting to sound conservative, I'm of the opinion that while Facebook is great for online social networking, it not the sort of place where one could share ideas to a global audience—non-Facebookers simply can't access or join in the conversations on Facebook and I see this as a huge limitation.
Twitter, I equate to a world gone mad on SMSes. I'm still trying to understand how one could adequately link blogging and Twitter and wonder if I may have to wait till Google buys up Twitter, as it increasingly does to startups that threaten its financial future.
And finally, there's the ever-present Main Stream Media (MSM). Corporate or government driven, it hovers over New Media (Blogs, Wikis, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace) like the proverbial Goliath over David (a giant over a youngster). Neither would be vanishing any time soon. But huge corporate-driven media, like Rupert Murdoch's empire, already feel the pinch of government-sponsored media and New Media. Maybe it's time it changed its business model and understood the reality of the new world we now live in.
>>Go to HomePage
October 21, 2009
Evolving Evolution
The creation stories found in myriads of belief systems across the world are not scientific and should be viewed for what they are—allegories.
From Teenagers to Dawkins
The two fourteen-year-olds were busy arguing. One was of the opinion that evolution was a fact of life—all living things evolved from simpler life forms. The other rejected this notion but agreed that all living things adapted to their environments. "What is evolution", asked the first "if not adaptation over a long period of time?" The year was 1990, somewhere in the sub-temperate and hilly tropical city, not long after the two students had just been introduced to the theories of genetics, adaptation and evolution in biology class.
Gregor Mendel, Jean Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin featured prominently in classroom discussions. The teacher, an atheist at heart—which was a rarity—once stated that after his lecture, church going Christians would have no reason to worship any Divine Being. Life, he explained, propagated itself without any divine intervention. But most fourteen-year-olds in the class couldn't be bothered. Impressing the opposite sex, getting through exams and getting hold of the latest pop, rap or R&B chart releases seemed more appealing than whether or not the giraffe had a long neck due to continuous stretching over eons.
As teenagers, some found it relatively easy reconciling evolution to religious faith. Others couldn't be bothered. But somehow, teachings learned in childhood have a way of following us all the way through life. Few dare to question what they have been taught and even fewer dare to reject them out rightly, when in doubt as to their veracity or value. Societal norms more often than not dictate the need for conformity. And conformity sometimes stifles free thought, without which modern society would barely have made it to where it currently is.
I recently had the opportunity of viewing a speech delivered by Richard Dawkins in the United States—thanks to YouTube. Addressing a 'highly educated' audience, Professor Dawkins challenged them by daring to say that most of them were probably atheists, even though they may refuse to accept it. Now, if you happen to be unfamiliar with Richard Dawkins, he is a man with a mission to rid the world of mythical beliefs, which in his view includes all forms of superstition and religious beliefs. In his words, he is a "militant atheist", and like militant believers, has a gospel to spread—albeit one whose creed centers on rationalism, science and provable facts.
Why do I choose to bring Professor Dawkins into the picture? At one end of the evolution-religion debate are the hyper-religious, consumed by dogma and unwilling to give in to any ideas not 'divinely revealed' such as, well, evolution. At the other end are the hyper-rationalists, who advocate a scientific explanation for every aspect of life. Thank goodness that the bell-curve distribution of ideas and beliefs holds true here, meaning that most people fall somewhere in-between these extremes. Or, do they?
Believers who choose not to believe
Let us focus on two friends who are very 'well educated'. Both have advanced university degrees in the sciences. But evolution is one thing they would never consider as a possibility. The reason is simple. Evolution is in contradiction to God's Word, which, to them is the ancient Judeo-Christian collection of texts called the Bible. As one of them once put it: "Society may see me as stupid because I believe man and woman were fashioned from dust, as stated in [the Biblical book of ] Genesis. But I don't care. This is what God's Word says and it must be absolutely true. We certainly did not evolve from apes."
Dogma, it appears, can be a stumbling block that restricts the mind from digging deep within and finding out what it really thinks of its surroundings. It comes in many forms: cultural restrictions, religious absolutisms, blind political affiliation or bigoted nationalism. But then, what should our children be taught at school? While Americans cannot agree on whether prayers should be allowed in public schools, in a place like Nigeria, this calls for practically no debate—God must be glorified everywhere, even at schools, would by the typical expectation. For now though, let’s leave out the semantics related to 'God' and what exactly 'glorification' means.
This blog advocates evolution
This blog strongly advocates for the teaching of scientific explanations to the origin of life to children in schools (from as early an age as they are able to grasp these concepts). In its opinion, few other explanations are as beautiful, well thought of or logical as those that state that all life forms are interlinked, evolved from simpler life forms, driven by natural selection, and are still evolving today. Better still, there is plenty of evidence of continuous adaptations over time—evolution—which have resulted in intricate and diverse life forms all across the globe.
The next question probably becomes what happens to the myriad of religo-cultural interpretations being taught to children, in many parts of the world, concerning the origin of life? In some nation states of Western Europe, children are taught about Zeus and Hercules as myths derived from the ancient Greeks. In some schools in Nigeria, children are taught about Olorun, the Yoruba Deity, and how he oversaw the creation of the world. Some Indian children undoubtedly learn about Lord Brahma and his role in creation. And once again, they are told these are just mythical stories.
It shouldn't be too difficult confining the creation stories found in the myriad of religious texts across the world to the realm of—for lack of a better word—allegories. The story of Adam and Eve undoubtedly fits better alongside those of Olorun, Hercules, Zeus and Lord Brahma than beside evolution and natural selection. When allegories are confined to allegories and scientific theories or facts to science, the mind should be free to explore, unconstrained and unrestricted, yet guided by an intrinsic quality, present in all humanity, which we call morality.
Related: From One God to One Theory (April 2007)
Image above courtesy of Wikipedia.
>>Go to HomePage
October 18, 2009
Downstream Deregulation
In September 2005, this blog featured an article on the seemingly never-ending fight between the Nigerian government and the Nigerian Labor Congress. The fight at that time centered on the partial removal of subsidies on petroleum products. The view of this blog was clear: Fuel subsidies, though beneficial in the short term, are unsustainable in the long term. At that time, the price of 'partially-subsidized' petrol (better known as gasoline to Americans) had just shot up 20% to 65 Naira per liter (or $0.5 per liter at the exchange rate at the time), equivalent to $1.9 per gallon.
Fast forward to October 2009 and Labor is putting up another fight. This time around, it centers on its objection to the full removal of subsidies on petroleum products scheduled for later this year. A lot has happened in Nigeria in the span of four years, most notably the 'democratic' change of government in 2007 (with power remaining firmly in the hands of the ruling, though increasingly unpopular, People's Democratic Party).
The subsidizing of fuel products in Nigeria is an emotional, contentious and deeply political issue. For a nation with immense crude oil and natural gas reserves, it is only logical that people demand access to affordable fuel and fuel products, which are readily available. However, reality couldn't be further from the truth.
An epileptic downstream refining sector (of which all four refineries are controlled by the National Oil Company) has come to mean that in order to satisfy the market for gasoline, kerosene and diesel, downstream fuel marketers in Nigeria have had to largely resort to buying refined products from the international market. But, one need not be a student of economics to know that buying at international rates and selling at subsidized rates requires that the subsidizer compensates for your losses and 'anticipated' profit.
This is precisely what the Nigerian government recently failed to do, resulting in an embargo on fuel importation by marketers and a scarcity of fuel products earlier this year. Fuel imports only resumed when the Nigerian government agreed to pay outstanding money owed in subsidies to the fuel marketers, according to Global Insight.
The deregulation of the downstream oil and gas sector in Nigeria has not only become necessary for but also key to the development of a functional outlet able to not only refine crude oil but also ensure that refined products are available all year round. Years of government monopoly in downstream refining has resulted in mismanagement, underperformance and the absence of vision or ability to compete regionally or internationally.
A key question though remains: what would the real market price of petrol be in Nigeria? In July this year, the Nigerian Vanguard reported that 94 Naira a liter (or $0.63 per liter at the July 2009 exchange rate) seemed like a market-based price for Petrol, based on leaks received from the Nigerian Presidency. This is equivalent to $2.4 per gallon. Other media outlets have reported slightly higher prices of recent. In a market-driven system, prices would vary across the country as marketers factor in transportation and storage costs.
The Nigerian Labor Congress remains vehemently opposed to downstream deregulation. Its views are clearly expressed on its website: "...Previous attempts at deregulation [] peaked at the full deregulation of kerosene and diesel products [and] clearly demonstrate that whatever the arguments advanced by the Nigerian government, deregulation cannot and does not reduce the hardships faced by the Nigerian consumer; it only increases it. We therefore need no prophet to tell us what will happen when the most important of the petroleum products– premium motor spirit (PMS) or petrol – is fully deregulated as the government has now decided to do from November 1, 2009..."
Indeed, while Labor is right in regard to the difficulties experienced by Nigerians, it also grossly misses the point as to the underlying causes. Labor is spot on that partial deregulation has so far failed to reduce the hardship faced by the Nigerian consumer. But it gets it wrong when it ascribes this hardship to deregulation. Markets–when properly regulated—work better than governments. And the problem in Nigeria is not with the markets but with government. If Labor were really after the interest of the Nigerian consumer, the best it could do is to try to influence—to the best of its abilities—the Nigerian political process, ensuring that mediocrity fails to ascend to the most coveted political office in the country. That is where the real problem lies.
Labor's latest battle with the Nigerian government may only just be beginning. After the deregulation exercise (this blog is in no doubt that market forces would eventually prevail), there is talk of a fuel taxation "when the market matures" according to the Nigerian Vanguard. While some may think of fuel taxation as a burden imposed by governments of more industrialized economies on their citizens, South Africa and Ghana do the same. 23% of what South Africans pay for petrol is a fuel tax. In China though, according to Wikipedia, there has, however, been strong opposition to the introduction of a fuel tax out of concern for poor farmers.
The deregulation of the downstream oil and gas sector in Nigeria falls within the premise of a so-called Petroleum Industry Bill, currently being debated in the Nigerian legislature. It aims to overhaul practically every aspect of the oil and gas business in the country. But the Petroleum Industry Bill is a story for another day.
Labels: Labor Union, Nigeria, Oil and Gas
>>Go to HomePage
