The Megacity of Lagos, the future World's largest city - Impressions?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Segun

Your opinion is outdated. The news is showing something else.

Is it? Nigeria to this day still has a north/ south dichotomy that results in ethnic and religious conflict. Plus there's Boko Haram trying to establish sharia nationwide.

[Segun]

Originally Posted by JManc

Is it? Nigeria to this day still has a north/ south dichotomy that results in ethnic and religious conflict. Plus there's Boko Haram trying to establish sharia nationwide.

To what intensity in comparison to before? Last year, the Taliban were engaged in a conflict with the US right?

[Segun]

Follow Nigerian news, you'll see that story prominent, but it's prominence sits in a whole list of news stories. Now if someone wants to cherry pick that story, they'll make it seem like that is the entire conflict of Nigeria. It is but one.

[jigglysquishy]

We've entered a period where the world's largest cities are no longer the wealthiest.

Until 2010 city size and size wealth were interchangeable terms. But the rise of impoverished megacities has changed that.

[dc_denizen]

As an example, Manila

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Segun

Disclaimer: Numbers can't fully express the complexities of trends, you have to think outside the box and see all angles.

I'll probably get some flack for saying this but don't underestimate Nigerians and their legendary scheming (it's a running joke among Nigerians too, but it has root in some truth). When Nigerians scheme, they don't stop, they'll keep going and going, they'll pretend you don't exist, play stupid, and keep finding ways to scheme and get over, everywhere they go. How the blue hell did Nigerians end up running a section of vice in Tokyo for instance?

If you have street smarts, you know that those who run vice have hella intel on how things work. Mouths get to moving, secrets get revealed. It's how the mob slowly integrated into our political system in the US. Nigerians are doing it Worldwide.

So the future global power route to prosperity is vice and to out scheme everyone else.
That’s the first I heard of that economic theory.

[Bailey]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The Dutch in the 1600s weren’t barely on the radar of the wealthiest nation in history—the Mughal Empire. (Have you even heard of the Mughal Empire?)

You should learn your history. Once again, you are terribly misinformed and stuck on current biases

I've done extensive research on the Dutch, at the time of their expansion into North America. They were a super power in the 1600s...they fought and liberated themselves from the mighty Spanish Empire and then used what they learned from them to colonize parts of the world...including New Amsterdam (New York City).

They were definitely a threat to the WEAKER English, at that time. So much so, that it took THREE Anglo-Dutch Wars to force the Dutch off of the Atlantic seaboard. More and more about the American New Netherlands is coming out as they are finally translating the Dutch records but YES they were a super power.

In fact, I'll go as far as saying that that Americans adopted the "Dutch" attitude when forming their new nation..more so that the "English" way.

Ever wonder why NYC is the Alpha power of the Unite States...just might have something to do with how the Dutch initially created the city and what it was supposed to do..it was a capitalism first religion second type of city. They celebrated diversity and free thought from the beginning. This was in stark contrast to the rigid Puritan New England cities.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

As an example, Manila

Manila, Lagos, and Jakarta are the three that come to mind.

Compare that to 50 years ago when New York, London, and Tokyo were the three largest and three wealthiest.

[JManc]

The British pretty much purged all things Dutch from NYC and NYS when they muscled the Dutch out in the mid 17th century...and the few remaining hints that the Dutch were even there are some place names scattered throughout NYC and the Albany area plus the street grid of lower Manhattan.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Segun

There's a global superpower march towards the Motherland now, that should hint at something going on.

What these superpowers are not considering (or maybe they are), is a rise in Global Pan-African business and thinking. Pro-Africa, Pro-Black is becoming a philosophy shared by many cultures in different countries, and now with our global connectivity, people's in these various places can collaborate.

Oh dear.

It’s a nice dream, but it isn’t happening.

There’s a lot of investment in Africa, and lots of money to be made (mostly by the Chinese), but it is a long, long way away from catching up with Asia let alone the West.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by 10023

Oh dear.

It’s a nice dream, but it isn’t happening.

There’s a lot of investment in Africa, and lots of money to be made (mostly by the Chinese), but it is a long, long way away from catching up with Asia let alone the West.

Not too mention much of Africa is pretty much allowing China to take over in lieu of all that investment.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

We've entered a period where the world's largest cities are no longer the wealthiest.

Until 2010 city size and size wealth were interchangeable terms. But the rise of impoverished megacities has changed that.

Urbanization is still the best indicator of a society becoming wealthier. If Lagos is rapidly urbanizing, it is definitely getting wealthier.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Manila, Lagos, and Jakarta are the three that come to mind.

Compare that to 50 years ago when New York, London, and Tokyo were the three largest and three wealthiest.

Actually, by 1970, London wasn't even in the top 5 largest cities in the world (it dropped to number 6).

They were:

#1 Tokyo
#2 NYC
#3 Shanghai
#4 Osaka
#5 Mexico City

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Bailey

Ever wonder why NYC is the Alpha power of the Unite States...just might have something to do with how the Dutch initially created the city and what it was supposed to do..it was a capitalism first religion second type of city. They celebrated diversity and free thought from the beginning. This was in stark contrast to the rigid Puritan New England cities.

Exactly. NYC wouldn't have become NYC if it were founded by the British, French or Spanish. It wasn't an accident that it was founded by the mercantilist superpower (of that era).

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Perhaps. I think a lot of this thread displays a lack of understanding about how exactly western European empires got rich, or even the definition of "rich" itself. The brief explanation is that western European empires derived their wealth by controlling and exploiting resources around the globe (hence, the colonial era). Pre-colonial era, there wasn't a natural advantage in western Europe. Almost everybody in Europe-Africa-Asia thought that western Europe was the edge of the world. But Spain and Portugal wanted to establish direct trade routes with India without having to go through hostile territory in eastern Europe and in the Mediterranean, and it was this disadvantage that led them to accidentally stumble upon the Americas. Most people don't seem to know this, but Christopher Columbus went to his grave believing that the Americas was actually Asia.

How did Japan or China get rich? South Korea? Taiwan?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Segun

Follow Nigerian news, you'll see that story prominent, but it's prominence sits in a whole list of news stories. Now if someone wants to cherry pick that story, they'll make it seem like that is the entire conflict of Nigeria. It is but one.

Having a terrorist/separatist organization in your country that controls land is not just a cherry-picked story.

Also, the US is fighting the Taliban thousands of miles away. We can walk away tomorrow. If we were fighting them in Alabama, we would have a lot harder time.

[the urban politician]

This notion that NYC wouldn’t have been America’s alpha city without the Dutch is the biggest bunch of horse’s ass this side of Texas

And I’ve studied NYC’s history, quite extensively. I know where that idea comes from, but I still don’t see it.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Perhaps. I think a lot of this thread displays a lack of understanding about how exactly western European empires got rich, or even the definition of "rich" itself. The brief explanation is that western European empires derived their wealth by controlling and exploiting resources around the globe (hence, the colonial era). Pre-colonial era, there wasn't a natural advantage in western Europe. Almost everybody in Europe-Africa-Asia thought that western Europe was the edge of the world. But Spain and Portugal wanted to establish direct trade routes with India without having to go through hostile territory in eastern Europe and in the Mediterranean, and it was this disadvantage that led them to accidentally stumble upon the Americas. Most people don't seem to know this, but Christopher Columbus went to his grave believing that the Americas was actually Asia.

and a reminder, this only happened because the eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium was finally conquered by the muslims (only took them 800 years), shutting the Europeans off from profitable trade routes to Asia (and depriving them of their largest and most populous city, Constantinople).

Europe was as much on the edge of the world as China. Its population was smaller due to wars and a colder climate (only one growing season).

You also can't ignore the technological progress made by Europe after 1500 - Galilleo, Newton, Euler, etc. which gave Europe an enormous and growing advantage in conquering and retaining empires.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

and a reminder, this only happened because the eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium was finally conquered by the muslims (only took them 800 years), shutting the Europeans off from profitable trade routes to Asia (and depriving them of their largest and most populous city, Constantinople).

Europe was as much on the edge of the world as China. Its population was smaller due to wars and a colder climate (only one growing season).

You also can't ignore the technological progress made by Europe after 1500 - Galilleo, Newton, Euler, etc. which gave Europe an enormous and growing advantage in conquering and retaining empires.

No, it was all exploitation only.

This is the dominant narrative now. It pretty much discounts all of our current society based on a lie. Also, ignore the fact that the US became much more dominant over Europe at the same time that Europe expanded aggressively into Asia and Africa. Just like we are to believe America only became so powerful because of slavery. Forget that our real economic boom didn't start until after slavery, these are strong narratives that have a lot of followers because hating your country/culture is very in vogue.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

How did Japan or China get rich? South Korea? Taiwan?

Aligning with the west. You do know that South Korea was a very poor country less than two generations ago, right?