This is a lesson for Nigeria. There is no record of any country where removal of critical subsidies has ever worked. Argentina joins that case study: “More than half of Argentina’s 46 million people are now living in poverty, new figures indicate, in a blow to right-wing President Javier Milei’s efforts to turn around the country’s beleaguered economy” – BBC

I am a Democrat but a social conservative. I like how Democratic cities function in America. If you look at the records, everything is self-evident: more than 80% of top ranked US universities, largest cities, etc are run by Democrats. Even in conversative haven like Texas, check, their best universities are likely under Democratic city controls. 

Why? Democrats share the goodies, opening opportunities via public infrastructures which end up helping many. They build roads, train stations and many enablers which help everyone. Sure, taxes are high, but those rich people are not running away because they get value.

So, when the new Argentine leader came and focused on cutting out the “poor”, I felt that he did not get the memo. In America, from Republicans and Democrats, they subsidize and subsidize, and ramp up the national budget. Trump spent more than Biden (Committee for a Responsible Federal Budge data) even though some may think that there is a difference between a dozen and 12 when it comes to US federal government spending to drive the future:

“President Trump approved $8.4 trillion of new ten-year borrowing during his full term in office, or $4.8 trillion excluding the CARES Act and other COVID relief. President Biden, in his first three years and five months in office, approved $4.3 trillion of new ten-year borrowing, or $2.2 trillion excluding the American Rescue Plan. President Trump approved $8.8 trillion of gross new borrowing and $443 billion of deficit reduction during his full presidential term. President Biden has so far approved $6.2 trillion of gross new borrowing and $1.9 trillion of deficit reduction.”

If you visit China, it is the same thing. Russia, check it. Tell me a prospering country and I will tell you that you do not balance budgets by removing basic necessities from the poor. What you do is to find money, spend to ignite growth, but NEVER balance budgets on what keeps people going.

Just as it makes no sense to balance your bank account by asking for a thinner chequebook, you cannot fix a country by scaling poverty through austerity! 

During covid, America was falling into a rough poverty line as many lost their jobs. What did Trump do? The “conversative” leader printed cheques and sent them to millions of the citizens. Many state governors, from blue to red states, did the same. And when Biden took over, he repeated the party. 

But come to Africa, people think hunger will freeze, visiting families will pause, etc because you want to balance budgets. My position is clear: find ways to raise capital to ignite growth but do not put ordinary citizens under the bus. That is a lesson I share for Nigeria as we remove subsidies across industries. Subsidies are NOT bad; what is bad is the corruption in subsidies. Fix the corruption and you will see abundance for all.

Google won search business via innovation, but Google made a mistake by hoping to use money to sustain its position when it decided to pay $billions to Apple and other device makers for premium positions in their ecosystems. That is illegal and must be condemned.

That said, Google does not need to be broken apart as the US justice department is considering: “The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday proposed significant recommendations regarding Google’s search engine business practices, hinting at a potential breakup of the tech giant as a remedy for antitrust concerns.” Doing that will hurt many businesses and consumers. Let me return to business history.

In the 19th century, railroads played a pivotal role in shaping the American economy, with intense competition and financial struggles characterizing the industry. However, this era also saw the rise of monopolies like Standard Oil, which revolutionized the oil industry through efficient production and transportation methods. The Panic of 1873 further exacerbated economic challenges, leading to significant repercussions for both businesses and consumers. In response to concerns about monopolistic practices, the Sherman Antitrust Act was introduced in 1890 to regulate anti-competitive behavior and promote fair competition. Fast forward to today where tech utilities dominate.

For Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the real antitrust issue was not about crude oil. Standard Oil won via innovation in the oil industry, and became the category-king. What caused the problem was that it wanted to use railroads distribution pricing competitiveness, via bulk discounts, to keep its position. Those discounts provided asymmetric unfair positioning which other oil producers could not match. The government stepped in and helped, breaking the oil giant into pieces.

Today, breaking Google will not deliver any better result for consumers unlike what the government accomplished in the era of Rockefeller. If you live in our modern world, it is going to be nearly impossible to live a day without using a Google product, and that can happen at zero bill to you. No other company can boast of that feat. So, changing this equilibrium via breakup means consumers would be hurt.

What the government needs to do is to fine Google, and put a suspension on any contracted lead generation that offers exclusivity for a decade. We expect Apple to build a native search since it cannot be bribed out with $20 billion yearly from Google anymore. That is enough of a problem for Google besides what OpenAI ChatGPT is bringing along. Breaking Google is not necessary because that can reposition Apple once Apple Search goes live.

More so, Amazon runs a big search business now, and that means that Google has lost ad revenues from many SMEs since those firms prefer Amazon which puts their products before those actually in the spirit and process of shopping, unlike what Google delivers in the free web.  You can also put what Meta via Facebook and Instagram is doing in that sector. Google’s payment to Apple and others was out of panic, and not necessary out of strength. Stop that payment with a fine, and that will do it.

When it comes to technological innovation, entrepreneurs constantly face the question: adopt or resist? Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) are no longer confined to gaming and entertainment. Their potential in the workplace is growing, and businesses are faced with a critical decision: to embrace these technologies or cling to the tried-and-true methods that have served us well for decades?

AR and VR as a gamechanger in the Workplace

According to Frontier Economics, AR is a technology that blends real life and digital life by overlaying virtual sensory elements in the user’s physical environment, while VR uses headset-mounted displays to create an immersive audio-visual experience. The aim is to simulate the user’s presence in a virtual environment using images and sounds. Both AR and VR have unique capabilities that can reshape how tasks are performed in various industries. So, where do they fit in the professional space?

AR and VR have exciting potential applications across various fields.

In retail, AR is redefining the shopping experience. Customers can now try on clothes without entering a dressing room or visualize how a new sofa would look in their living room before purchasing. IKEA’s AR app, for example, allows customers to virtually place furniture in their homes before making a selection, enhancing decision-making and reducing returns.

In the tech and media sectors, AR and VR are transforming engagement. Media companies are using VR for immersive storytelling, letting audiences step inside a story or experience a documentary firsthand. Meanwhile, tech giants are leveraging AR for product demonstrations and interactive user manuals. A notable example is Microsoft’s HoloLens, which creates mixed reality experiences for both entertainment and practical applications, enhancing the way users interact with products and tools.

In manufacturing, companies like Boeing are employing AR to simplify complex assembly processes. Workers use AR glasses that project assembly instructions directly onto the parts they are working on, reducing errors and significantly increasing efficiency. This overlay of real-time data improves accuracy and speeds up production lines.

Healthcare is another sector experiencing the benefits of VR. Surgeons can practice complex procedures in virtual operating rooms, improving their precision and preparedness before performing them on patients. VR is also being used for pain management, offering immersive experiences that help patients find relief from chronic pain by distracting them from discomfort.

Where It May Fall Flat

While AR and VR technologies offer enormous potential, they aren’t a one-size-fits-all solution. For some industries, sticking to the status quo may make more sense. Take fine dining, for instance. High-end restaurants prioritize the sensory experience of dining. While AR might enhance menu presentation, extensive use of such technology could detract from the core dining experience.

Similarly, in professional sports, the fast-paced, physical nature of many sports limits the practical application of AR/VR during actual gameplay. However, these technologies are finding use in training and fan engagement.

There is also traditional craftsmanship. Artisans working with physical materials (e.g., woodworkers, tailors) rely heavily on tactile feedback and years of hands-on experience. While AR might assist in design visualization, it’s unlikely to replace the core skillset.

The performing arts is another example. Theatre, dance, and music thrive on the electric connection between performers and their audience. While AR and VR might revolutionize stage design or rehearsal processes, their use during live performances remains limited. In high-stakes environments like emergency services, the need for clear, unobstructed vision and immediate situational awareness makes current AR and VR technologies impractical.

Even in traditional sectors such as law, consulting, or certain areas of finance, AR and VR might seem out of place, or even distracting. Industries driven by personal, face-to-face interactions—like counseling or customer service—depend on human connection, which these technologies could inadvertently hinder rather than enhance.

To Adopt or Not?

The status quo may seem safe, but it carries its risks. Businesses that resist innovation could be left behind as competitors leverage AR and VR to improve efficiency, customer experience, and employee training.On the flip side, jumping into AR and VR without a clear strategy could lead to wasted resources if the technology doesn’t align with the business’s needs or industry standards.

Whether workplaces should adapt depends on the industry, business goals, and readiness to innovate. In sectors like retail, manufacturing, tech, and healthcare, AR and VR offer clear advantages and can help companies stay competitive. But in more traditional fields, they might seem excessive, making the status quo seem like a smarter option for now. The key is to recognize where these technologies can truly add value and where they might be more gimmicks than game-changers, and sometimes, for many businesses, the sweet spot lies somewhere between total adoption and complete rejection.