Fam, is this even real? How can you submit such an analogous fallacy? To further hoodwink your followers into an uninformed bias that only deepens financial illiteracy and despondency? Men, this is discombombulating, I'm totally befuddled as to what you advise clients about.
You failed in your premise, to add that 2008/9 witnessed a worldwide economic melt down, one which negatively affected our reserves and thus put a dent on our fx rate. During this period, Oil price tanked and thus affected the general economy.
However, we had savings that assisted in absorbing "SOME" of the shock, not everything and thus companies suffered. However, we were able to recover quickly enough to maintain our growth trajectory. Some of the toxic debt also was lost on the stock market, as there were[....]
no regulations limiting the exposure of bank debts to the equities market. This is common place systemic growth, to adjust as the system grows, rather than prevent the entire system from growing at all.
Furthermore, you referred to the growth in the unemployment rate, but you failed to factor in, the fact that despite job creation, if the rate of increase in new entrants to the market is marginally > the rate of job creation, it will still trend positively, but at a slower rate.
This is why from your analogy, the rate of unemployment within the period under review was much slower, than what we are witnessing today. In fact, at some point, in 2011/2012, we had zero unemployment rate in the building and construction subsector, the records are there.
Your assertion, that because people within the private sector did not utilize the loans they received properly, the whole private sector is not trusted to engineer growth and we should thus abandon TDE, is just catastrophically wrong.
If Mr. A works in Company Z, Z pays A, he goes home and thus spends on his gf instead of his wife, does that give Z the right to withhold Mr. A's salary? Credit is the lifeblood of capitalism and business, lack of access to finance creates an anaemic economy which ultimately [..]
.... enters shock (recession) and ultimately death (collapse). This is why policies around corporate governance and business ethics exist, once violated should attract penalties, but should not lead to boycotting the whole system, in a bid to pursue socialist fantasies.
Now, let's look at TraderMoni; collateral free loan to traders. What's the yardstick for qualification? None. So, anybody who shows up and registers is given. These persons are usually found in the markets. Most of them, already trading, using one cooperative or the other.
You give them the loan, they pay back or not, doesn't matter. Let's assume they pay back, you scale up to N100,000 and deposit such a trader with BOI to manage. Do you honestly think this is not better served by MFBs? Who can closely monitor and recover bad debts?
Do you think this system is fundamentally set up for growth? Sustainable?
For the umpteenth time, sharing money has never fostered or engineered collective growth. Even if marginally, 400,000 people out of say 120m is so small, it is unable to even shake the needle.
For the umpteenth time, sharing money has never fostered or engineered collective growth. Even if marginally, 400,000 people out of say 120m is so small, it is unable to even shake the needle.
This is why we are not seeing the fundamentals of the economy responding to this initiative across the different sectors quarterly, so far.
Lastly, when you're in a whole, stop digging, unless your intention is really to go deeper. You're going deeper. Shalom.
Lastly, when you're in a whole, stop digging, unless your intention is really to go deeper. You're going deeper. Shalom.
