HOW TO MAKE NIGERIA RICH

There is no country that was born rich. All rich countries today were once poor. Who made them rich? Their governments. What did their governments do? It's a thread.

How do we know that a country is rich? According to the United Nations Development Programme, a country with a per-capita income of at least US$12,000 is said to be rich. Less than that, the country is not rich. Far less, the country is poor.

Currently, the per-capita income of the US is $65,000. UK, $42,000. Germany $46,000. Canada, $46,000. Finland, $48,000. Qatar, $64, 000. Luxembourg, $114, 000. So they say these countries are rich.

The per-capita income of Malawi is $400. Yes, four hundred. Niger Republic, $500. Togo, $600. South Africa, $6,000. China, $10,000. And Nigeria is .......... $2,000. The source of these figures is the World Bank. The approximations are mine.

Don't let's say Nigeria is poor, let's just say we are not rich. You consider that a deception? OK, Nigeria is poor. Clearly, we are far from the benchmark.

Back to what the rich countries did? They did just one thing: they were conscious of richness.

If you don't pursue a goal, you hardly get results. We also need to pursue richness and we will get there. The consciousness begins by knowing the definition of richness. Per-capita income that we said above is equal to income over population.

For simplicity, let's call per-capita income X, Income Y and Population Z. So X = Y/Z. To increase X, we need to increase Y or decrease Z or do both.

Is that a hard maths? Look at it in words: to increase the share of pie of each person, we have to increase the pie or decrease how many people share the pie or do both.

The countries that are rich today began their journey with Z. They were conscious to control their population. In the list of 10 most populous countries (of which Nigeria is 7th), only one is rich (the US). In the top 20, three are rich (US, Japan and Germany).

That says that being populous is a signal that a country is not rich. The US and Japan are exceptions, not the rule. Today, there is no rich and developed country with population growth in excess of 1%. It is 0 point sth. Some have negative growth (e.g Japan, Italy and Portugal)

Should Nigeria emulate rich countries on the population path? I'm not sure about that. There in no consensus yet. Population is both a blessing and a curse. It depends on how it is used. China that was aggressive towards cutting its population is gradually relaxing the policy.

Let's look at Y, the income. This is where most challenges lie. How do we increase national income?

Historically, countries differed on their journey. Some believed that the government should grow the national income itself (socialism). Others preferred the government should grow the national income through its people (capitalism).

Both were into war of ideology. The socialists were in the left wing. The capitalists were in the right wing. Later, the two camps decided to leave each other. The axiom was: do as you like and let's see the results. Live and let's live.

The capitalist group was headed by the US. The socialist group was headed by the Soviet Union (most part of which is today's Russia).

Few years later, the results came. The capitalist group was successful. Not only did their incomes increase massively, their per-capita incomes increased so much as well. But the socialist group was not seeing comparable achievement.

The facts are still there till today. Most countries that were dominated with socialist doctrine were not rich. Russia today is not a developed country. Its per-capita income is still below the $12,000 benchmark (though only slightly).

The greatest triumph of capitalism was in the 1970s. Since then, all countries have switched to capitalist doctrine. But not all countries are doing the right thing.

That is where the first lesson is for Nigeria. If we want to be rich, we need to first sincerely understand and appreciate the definition of capitalism as practiced by rich countries. Let's turn to that...

First, the government is not active in production. It leaves the affairs in the hands of the people. It guarantees them freedom to pursue their interests. But it produces what the people will never produce: defence, security, road, railway, foreign policy, etc.

It is the private firms that produce most things that generate incomes. When these incomes are added together, we call it national income. To increase the national income, all the government does is find a way to increase what the firms produce so that they generate more incomes.

But the firms do not own themselves. They are owned by the people. If people have more incomes, the firms will have more incomes and the country will have more income. Under capitalism, that is the only approach to grow the national income. No other way.

What do you observe? Government simply finds a way to make firms produce more. In the language of economists, government gives the firms incentives to produce. And it starts with the people that own the firms.

In short, government is passive physically but active intellectually. Government overseas everything. It designs policy that works. It defines framework that brings results. It rewards brilliance. It makes the people love their country.

Do you now see why rich countries don't toy with who lead them? They always want people blessed with skill and ability to give them direction. To give them hope. To give them light. To help them grow themselves. To lie to them for their own good.

Their elections are shaped with hot debates. The essence is to guage the intellectual wellness of the candidates on how to handle difficult issues. Presidents are not elected to solve simple problems. That is why they and their family are paid highly in office and after office.

In rich countries, people are conscious that whoever is their leader determines how they think and what they do. To make Nigeria rich, we need to look for leaders with intellectual brilliance to lead us.

In conclusion, prosperous countries are mounted on correct foundations. And correct foundations come from appreciating who we are. How we see ourselves is a result of ideas that are sold to us by our governments.

I'm not sure of the exact ideas that will work wonders. But I'm certain the starting point should be that we need leaders that will plant the doctrine that our brain, skin, food, hair and language are not inferior and ugly.

End.

@aoteh @FinPlanKaluAja1 @henryshield @iSlimfit