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

[Crawford]

I don't see how that supports any of these claims.

India probably had 20-30 times the population, so if had 20-25% of the world economy, that would mean the Dutch would be wealthier with just 1% of the world economy.

But the Dutch were the dominant global power, with the Dutch East India company and near-monopoly on shipping/slavery. They likely had a very large share of global wealth. They had inroads on practically every continent.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You're telling me the Mughal Empire was wealthier, on a per household basis, than the Dutch in the 1600's? Total revisionist bullshit.

The Dutch ran the world that century, and produced vast wealth. The Germans were barbarians compared to the Dutch. Even the French and English were far behind the Dutch.

There's no way the Dutch were more prosperous than the Spanish or Portuguese in the early 1600s, let alone places in other parts of the world. They were just at the beginning of their economic rise.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The Dutch ran the world in the 17th century?

God you are just something else.

Economically, who were more powerful per person?

[muppet]

Don't forget that when China embarked on its economic rise in the late 80s its GDP per capita was on a par with Nigeria and 15% below that of Kenya.

What Africa is waiting in the wings for is the demographic dividend - when a large and young population bulge suddenly has far fewer children (and whose parents are young enough to have to be cared for) - read: a huge workforce with few dependants and more spending. This is one of the reasons why China instigated its One/ Two Child Policy in urban areas.

Africa's demographic rise will likely start in the next generation (Ethiopia is the one to watch), though not the current one, so maybe another 10-15 years, although fertility has halved already. The one winning tact to decreasing births is of course increased medical care, which allows people to actually plan their lives as opposed to having lots of kids in a hope a handful of them will survive long enough to look after them in retirement.

This demographic dividend manifested itself after WWII, in the US it was the Baby Boomers 1945-54, in Europe it was Les Trentes Glorieuses 1946-64, in Japan the Miracle Generation 1964 -88, and in China the Golden Rise 1980-2010.

It can of course become squandered by exploitation or neglect, as in the Lost Generation of Latin America during the 1980s and early 90s. The Arab world has seen its own come of age in 2010, but this has only resulted in the 2011-onwards Arab Spring so far, whereby a generation fed up without jobs and economic freedom demand change, but no unified voice allows extremists to step into the void.

India's is just starting now, where fertility rate has fallen to 2.2 (Bangladesh 2.0), below replacement level of 2.4. Thus although fertility falls there will still be a huge age bulge, and even if those people are only having 1 or 2 kids, that's still hundreds of millions more, which is why India will likely continue to grow to 1.6 billion despite having below levels fertility. By the turn of the century Nigeria will be approaching China's population.

In the future all this may be up in the air anyway and made obsolete. We're making the mistake that in a few decades that any given economy will still be reliant on working age humans, natural resources and services, as opposed to AI.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't see how that supports any of these claims.

India probably had 20-30 times the population, so if had 20-25% of the world economy, that would mean the Dutch would be wealthier with just 1% of the world economy.

But the Dutch were the dominant global power, with the Dutch East India company and near-monopoly on shipping/slavery. They likely had a very large share of global wealth. They had inroads on practically every continent.

I’m not saying the Dutch weren’t prosperous, I’m just saying that you are simply exaggerating their importance, likely due to your biases—the whole point we are arguing.

I still would like to see your evidence

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Economically, who were more powerful per person?

There is a difference between describing per capita incomes in 1600, which nobody so far has even showed any data for, and making the preposterous and obviously false statement that “the Dutch ran the world in 1600”

[Segun]

Originally Posted by muppet

Don't forget that when China embarked on its economic rise in the late 80s its GDP per capita was on a par with Nigeria and 15% below that of Kenya.

What Africa is waiting in the wings for is the demographic dividend - when a large and young population bulge suddenly has far fewer children (and whose parents are young enough to have to be cared for) - read: a huge workforce with few dependants and more spending. This is one of the reasons why China instigated its One/ Two Child Policy in urban areas.

Africa's demographic rise will likely start in the next generation (Ethiopia is the one to watch), though not the current one, so maybe another 10-15 years, although fertility has halved already. The one winning tact to decreasing births is of course increased medical care, which allows people to actually plan their lives as opposed to having lots of kids in a hope a handful of them will survive long enough to look after them in retirement.

This demographic dividend manifested itself after WWII, in the US it was the Baby Boomers 1945-54, in Europe it was Les Trentes Glorieuses 1946-64, in Japan the Miracle Generation 1964 -88, and in China the Golden Rise 1980-2010.

It can of course become squandered by exploitation or neglect, as in the Lost Generation of Latin America during the 1980s and early 90s. The Arab world has seen it's own come of age in 2010, but this has only resulted in the 2011-onwards Arab Spring so far, whereby a generation fed up without jobs and economic freedom demand change, but no unified voice allows extremists to step into the void.

India's is just starting now, where fertility rate has fallen to 2.2 (Bangladesh 2.0), below replacement level of 2.4. Thus although fertility falls there will still be a huge age bulge, and even if those people are only having 1 or 2 kids, that's still hundreds of millions more, which is why India will likely to continue to grow to 1.6 billion despite having below levels fertility. By the turn of the century Nigeria will be approaching China's population.

In the future all this may be up in the air anyway and made obsolete. We're making the mistake that in a few decades that any given economy wil still be relaint on working age humans, natural resources and services, as opposed to AI.

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.

For instance, Black American millionaires are investing in Ghana, and leaving the US to move to Africa and partner with Ghanian businesses (if you want to start a business in Ghana, the stipulation is that you have have a Ghanian partner), which means they may very well gain political power in the country. This Pan-African thinking is a deterrent to exploitation from outside, especially if countries get rid of corrupt leaders, which is happening via protests around the continent. We may see African politicians making more demands from the West and China, and taking back the exploitative businesses run by outside countries. That would give them control of the region with greatest wealth of natural resources in the World, and create a pan-African network wherever you find descendants of Africa.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Economically, who were more powerful per person?

The Dutch were not. The Dutch East India Company, which is the mechanism through which The Netherlands became a rich society, was founded in 1602. Before that, The Netherlands was a backwater. It was not a center of power in either Europe or the World.

[jtown,man]

EDIT: Response to Segun.

Yeah, what you just described sounds like someone presenting a presentation in like a second year college course on geopolitics.

Ain't gonna happen.

Pro-black ain't enough to propel a whole continent to global economic power.

Some spotty examples of Americans investing in Ghana mean nothing when Americans invest all over the world.

How many black American millionaires are moving to Ghana, could you please give a source?

"making more demands from the West and China, and taking back the exploitative businesses run by outside countrie"- Yeah this is always super successful. A country takes a functioning industry, nationalizes it and then it becomes shit.

Africa isn't the place with the "greatest wealth of natural resources in the World."

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

1820...We can look at economics. Industrial activity. Governmental system. Take your pick.

Even those very topics you've chosen are such an American (and capitalist) way of looking at things, as if those are the only benchmarks that make something great. And again, those are things that are easily parroted by someone who was brow-beaten to death growing up with "Rah rah America yeah! USA! USA!"

And fine. In 1820, we were the best economy in the world? No. Industrial activity? Hello, the industrial revolution started in Europe. The UK alone probably had way more factories than the US in 1820. Most Americans were farmers in 1820. Governmental system? Haha! Are you saying that the US had the best government in 1820? And do you think the US government is the best in the world today?

To paraphrase a quote, for some people, perception is real, and the truth isn't. Very profound statement, because it's so true. Perception is actually very subjective; one person's experience is obviously not gonna be the same as another's. And you can lay out the objective truth to people, but there will be some who still won't accept it.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Please name me countries that were so much better than the US in 1820?

In 1820? British Empire much?

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yes, they did, what is your point? In any case, that is STILL colonial mentality, since Europeans did 99% of the colonialism, what is your point again?

That the US was a backwater in 1820.

And to add, the US only became an economic world power after WWII.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Let's recap:

You said the US was a backwater. You failed to mention that the rest of the world was too.

In other words, you can't accept that the US was ever a backwater; but the only way you can is to tell yourself "well everyone else was too!" Because NOOOooo, if we were a backwater, then it's because everyone was also.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

2. You said we have a "colonial mentality"(which outside of activist and academic settings, will get you laughed at). You said this because we think the US and Europe were doing good relative to the rest of the world 200 years ago. You have no proved us wrong.

My mention of "colonial mentality" was the way many were framing Lagos. This quote alone: "Investments in Africa will likely deliver nice returns as the middle class there expands. Ignorant westerners that think of Africa as a charity case probably won’t see this opportunity. Not a bad idea" and the general agreement of it, as if people in Nigeria can't get it together and be productive and create an economy on their own. It's like "Africa can be a GREAT investment and will deliver nice returns." Outsider exploitation? Colonial mentality... get it?

Originally Posted by jtown,man

In the end, your freaking signature shows you have zero awareness in your views. Hugo's economy was made on oil yet he makes such a statement? The hypocrisy is out of this world, yet you think it is profound enough to show everyone it every time you post. That says a lot.

*I* have zero awareness in my views? Again, perception is real, the truth isn't.

And, that's actually a humorous and nuanced signature. But I guess everything is black and white to you? You take everything literally, maybe?
You know how it is, when you have to explain a joke or something humorous, then the humor is lost.

But here goes: The US being the US bailed out and saved the banks, instead of letting them fail because of their own fault; the US government is even willing to bail out private for-profit corporations over providing a true social safety net for its own people. Get it? So uh, if the climate were a bank, the US would have already saved it. Get it? You don't think that's funny? And a commentary on the American government?

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Edit: Yes, the amount of immigration to the US does kind of prove we weren't some backwater compared to the rest of the world. Also, current immigration to the US, Canada, and Europe proves they are the best places in the world today. But that isn't politically correct to say. WE MUST BASH OUR COUNTRIES AND OUR HISTORY.

A lot of the western hemisphere, not just the US, were big places for immigration during the 19th century. Yet Americans think that it was only the US that took in immigrants. Nothing exists in a vacuum; many newly formed "New World" countries... Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Brazil... they also encouraged immigration, because they wanted bigger populations (and cheap labor), just like the US did. This is why Argentines are mostly of European descent; this is why Germans immigrated into Mexico and influenced Mexican music. This is why Peru has Japanese and Chinese-influenced cuisine, as well as even people of Japanese and Chinese descent.

But yeah, Lagos. Will it ever become the world's largest city? I say "Yes, why not?"

[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.

[iheartthed]

Speaking of rich countries in the medieval era, the Mali Empire, which included parts of present day Nigeria, was one of the richest empires on Earth at the time. The former Malian King, Mansa Musa, is believed to have been the single richest person in the history of humanity.

[Segun]

FTR, I'm purposely ignoring all "It's not going to happen" talk. I don't have time to placate someone's snide, pompous, arrogance. If it's so laughable, stay out the damn subject and thread. I'm not causing you any harm. Bye!

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Even those very topics you've chosen are such an American (and capitalist) way of looking at things, as if those are the only benchmarks that make something great. And again, those are things that are easily parroted by someone who was brow-beaten to death growing up with "Rah rah America yeah! USA! USA!"

And fine. In 1820, we were the best economy in the world? No. Industrial activity? Hello, the industrial revolution started in Europe. The UK alone probably had way more factories than the US in 1820. Most Americans were farmers in 1820. Governmental system? Haha! Are you saying that the US had the best government in 1820? And do you think the US government is the best in the world today?

To paraphrase a quote, for some people, perception is real, and the truth isn't. Very profound statement, because it's so true. Perception is actually very subjective; one person's experience is obviously not gonna be the same as another's. And you can lay out the objective truth to people, but there will be some who still won't accept it.




In 1820? British Empire much?




That the US was a backwater in 1820.

And to add, the US only became an economic world power after WWII.




In other words, you can't accept that the US was ever a backwater; but the only way you can is to tell yourself "well everyone else was too!" Because NOOOooo, if we were a backwater, then it's because everyone was also.




My mention of "colonial mentality" was the way many were framing Lagos. This quote alone: "Investments in Africa will likely deliver nice returns as the middle class there expands. Ignorant westerners that think of Africa as a charity case probably won’t see this opportunity. Not a bad idea" and the general agreement of it, as if people in Nigeria can't get it together and be productive and create an economy on their own. It's like "Africa can be a GREAT investment and will deliver nice returns." Outsider exploitation? Colonial mentality... get it?




*I* have zero awareness in my views? Again, perception is real, the truth isn't.

And, that's actually a humorous and nuanced signature. But I guess everything is black and white to you? You take everything literally, maybe?
You know how it is, when you have to explain a joke or something humorous, then the humor is lost.

But here goes: The US being the US bailed out and saved the banks, instead of letting them fail because of their own fault; the US government is even willing to bail out private for-profit corporations over providing a true social safety net for its own people. Get it? So uh, if the climate were a bank, the US would have already saved it. Get it? You don't think that's funny? And a commentary on the American government?




A lot of the western hemisphere, not just the US, were big places for immigration during the 19th century. Yet Americans think that it was only the US that took in immigrants. Nothing exists in a vacuum; many newly formed "New World" countries... Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Brazil... they also encouraged immigration, because they wanted bigger populations (and cheap labor), just like the US did. This is why Argentines are mostly of European descent; this is why Germans immigrated into Mexico and influenced Mexican music. This is why Peru has Japanese and Chinese-influenced cuisine, as well as even people of Japanese and Chinese descent.

But yeah, Lagos. Will it ever become the world's largest city? I say "Yes, why not?"

1. Yes, having enough food to eat and some money left over is my biased view. Also, a functioning government is so capitalistic of me.

2. You are horrible at this. This all started because you said we all had a COLONIAL MINDSET yet all you can do is boast about how awesome Europe is. Jesus.

3. Backwater compared to...Europe? Certainly not South America. Certainly not the Middle East. Certainly not East Asia. Certainly not Africa. So the US was a "backwater" compared to Europe. Once again, can you get out of your "colonial mentality?''

4. I think you mean super power after WW2. I am pretty sure we overtook England around 1900 in economics.

5. You have zero historical contextual thinking. Why was the US a backwater? No plumbing? Farmers? If the rest of the world was the same, then it is not a backwater, it is simply the same as the rest of the world. The USA isn't a backwater today because we don't have flying cars everywhere, yet YOU in the year 2300 would state we are, because of that fact.

6. How the hell do you think economies grow? OUTSIDE investment is what Nigeria needs. If you think that is colonial, fine. It just shows how little you know about economics.

7. Re hugo. You are obviously a socialist. So why would I take your signature literally? I WONDER WHY lol Oh yeah, I get it, duh. I just think the person saying it is very stupid to be saying that. Also, you are so quick to hate on America...it's getting tiring.

8. You say "yes why not" because you don't view the world in rational terms. You view it in some anti-capitalist/anti-colonial crusade of oppressed people overcoming all their oppression by solidarity alone. It's a fantasy. Outside investment is needed. Nationalizing everything isn't the answer. Racial solidarity is the road to ruin.

Lagos will not be an economic powerhouse in the next 40 years, without a doubt.

[Segun]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Speaking of rich countries in the medieval era, the Mali Empire, which included parts of present day Nigeria, was one of the richest empires on Earth at the time. The former Malian King, Mansa Musa, is believed to have been the single richest person in the history of humanity.

In 2020, resources are becoming scarce and now countries are desperately looking to Africa for relief. Russia is the latest "courter". Putin has been all over Africa as of recent. This is not a trend or an argument, this is happening. The path of the future of Africa depends on whether countries have decided to end exploitation and corruption. There is a new level of cooperation across the continent, summits, meetings, deals, etc. Africa is slowly becoming a union.

[Segun]

Opinion: The next decade belongs to Africa as technology ripples through the continent

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ent-2019-12-14

You’ve heard of fast advancements in Asia’s economy. Now get ready for Africa’s.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted about his plans to move to Africa in 2020, saying he wants to live there for up to six months. Africa may be the last continent to undergo rapid economic development, but Dorsey nevertheless believes it has a lot of potential.....

- Jurica Dujmovic, Marketwatch.com, 12/17/2019

They mention Nigeria's crazy increase in GDP in the article.

[JManc]

Much of Sub-Saharan Africa is too fractured; culturally and politically to compete with the West and Asia for the time being. Which is what happens when European powers drew arbitrary borders with little regard of who will reside within them. The Brits slapped together northern Nigeria and southern Nigeria and pretty much told everyone to figure it out. They haven't.

[Segun]

Originally Posted by JManc

Much of Sub-Saharan Africa is too fractured; culturally and politically to compete with the West and Asia for the time being. Which is what happens when European powers drew arbitrary borders with little regard of who will reside within them. The Brits slapped together northern Nigeria and southern Nigeria and pretty much told everyone to figure it out. They haven't.

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

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Segun

In 2020, resources are becoming scarce and now countries are desperately looking to Africa for relief. Russia is the latest "courter". Putin has been all over Africa as of recent. This is not a trend or an argument, this is happening. The path of the future of Africa depends on whether countries have decided to end exploitation and corruption. There is a new level of cooperation across the continent, summits, meetings, deals, etc. Africa is slowly becoming a union.

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.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yes, having enough food to eat and some money left over is my biased view. Also, a functioning government is so capitalistic of me.

You're implying that the US's government is the only functioning one, and that makes it great? What?

Originally Posted by jtown,man

You are horrible at this. This all started because you said we all had a COLONIAL MINDSET yet all you can do is boast about how awesome Europe is. Jesus.

Jesus?

I didn't boast about how awesome Europe is; you told me to name a country that was better than the US in 1820. It happened to be a European one. And I mentioned how Europeans looked down on the US for nearly a century and a half; that doesn't give them an awesome factor in my book. It only speaks of arrogance.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Backwater compared to...Europe? Certainly not South America. Certainly not the Middle East. Certainly not East Asia. Certainly not Africa. So the US was a "backwater" compared to Europe. Once again, can you get out of your "colonial mentality?''

You have zero historical contextual thinking. Why was the US a backwater? No plumbing? Farmers? If the rest of the world was the same, then it is not a backwater, it is simply the same as the rest of the world. The USA isn't a backwater today because we don't have flying cars everywhere, yet YOU in the year 2300 would state we are, because of that fact.

Wow, the possibility that the US was ever a backwater really makes you come unglued. I seriously wonder why?

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I think you mean super power after WW2. I am pretty sure we overtook England around 1900 in economics.

Yes, that is what I meant.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

How the hell do you think economies grow? OUTSIDE investment is what Nigeria needs. If you think that is colonial, fine. It just shows how little you know about economics.

Parroting Econ 101 again?

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Re hugo. You are obviously a socialist. So why would I take your signature literally? I WONDER WHY lol Oh yeah, I get it, duh. I just think the person saying it is very stupid to be saying that.

The person who was able to provide a social safety net for his people is stupid for saying that the US government would rather bail out banks? I agree he was stupid for not diversifying Venezuela's economy.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Also, you are so quick to hate on America...it's getting tiring.

Calling out the US for what it is, is hating it? I'm not allowed to say that things could be better in the country I live in?

Your parroting is getting tiring.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

You say "yes why not" because you don't view the world in rational terms. You view it in some anti-capitalist/anti-colonial crusade of oppressed people overcoming all their oppression by solidarity alone. It's a fantasy. Outside investment is needed. Nationalizing everything isn't the answer. Racial solidarity is the road to ruin.

Lagos will not be an economic powerhouse in the next 40 years, without a doubt.

I went with the notion of the possibility of Lagos being the world's largest city. It's already the 12th largest city in the world, no? And isn't Jakarta the 2nd largest? And Jakarta isn't considered an economic powerhouse; I wasn't equating the "largest" with "economic powerhouse."