It was very painful reading the New York Times which ran a cover piece on Nigeria, titled “A resourceful nation buckles”. This section is tough for a nation:

“The pain is widespread. Unions strike to protest salaries of around $20 a month. People die in stampedes, desperate for free sacks of rice. Hospitals are overrun with women wracked by spasms from calcium deficiencies. The crisis is largely believed to be rooted in two major changes implemented by a president elected 15 months ago: the partial removal of fuel subsidies and the floating of the currency, which together have caused major price rises.”

Good People, there is no need to fight the press. We need to respond with a better outcome, and that means improving the state of the economy. That said, Nigeria can stop this bleeding tomorrow by announcing that the Naira is now pegged at N1,000/$1 and once that is done, you attain equilibrium making it possible for companies to operate. What we have now is too stochastic that no meaningful business modeling can happen, and that is why this bleeding is escalating.

Focusing on the two factors the Times noted, I have provided suggestions in the past:

Reverse Naira Floating: The biggest challenge today is not that the Naira is exchanging at N1,500 or N1,400 to US$1, the issue is that the volatility will make it impossible for companies to plan and investors to invest. The exchange rate stresses the traders and speculators, but for investors, volatility kills their plans. So, pegging Naira will deal with that volatility immediately.

Stabilize Energy Cost. Nigeria must bring full subsidy for industrial customers even as it allows commercial and residential to pay the full rates. Understand that if we do no deepen the industrial base, the vicious cycle will continue. So, to tame inflation and help companies make things, we need to assist them on energy costs which have gone up significantly. But do not give them money, use rebates so that only REAL industrial customers will benefit. 

Comment on Feed

Comment: We can’t afford to subsidize the dollars. Nigerians wasted the opportunity to spend dollars on everything except productivity. We cannot go back to bleeding our treasury without productivity. If we had exports today we would be here. You failed to mention how to fund $ subsidy.

My Response: The black market rate was about N700/$ before the floating.  Largely, the government was not funding the black market rate. Today, the “official nafem” rate is about N1,300 while the new black market rate is at N1,500. Does it occur to you that Nigeria was better at that N700/$ which was “unofficial” instead of the official which is now N1,300. In other words, if the equilibrium was not disturbed, you would have saved N600/$ compared to the official rate today.

Now, by moving the equilibrium, billions of corporate tax vapourised. Using MTN Nigeria; it paid about N100 billion in tax in 2022 (see the PBT and PAT). After the float, MTN Nigeria lost (pre tax) N575.69 billion in 3 months! (Q1 2024). So, if you run the numbers, since the floating is not stabilizing the economy, Nigeria has lost those tax revenues. What does it mean? Nigeria has to find money to cover what those tax revenues would have done. The number is massive with 800 companies under.

Simply, you may not be funding and defending Naira (as you noted)  but now you have to find money to cover corporate tax  losses the policy triggered. I do not even concede that Naira had to be defended (in the past) because there was no reason for that.

Remember: a bird which leaves the ground and perches on the ant-hill is still on the ground. Nigeria may not be defending Naira but today is defending inflation, corporate tax loss, minimum wage, etc which might NOT have happened (at scale) without the policies.

In recent years, the intersection of robotics and military technology has led to significant advancements in unmanned systems. One of the latest developments in this field is the introduction of armed robotic dogs by China’s military. These machines represent a new era in the technology-driven arms race, showcasing the potential for robotics to play a crucial role in future combat scenarios.

The robotic dogs, unveiled during a joint military exercise with Cambodia, are equipped with machine guns and are designed to perform various military tasks, including reconnaissance and combat support. The robots’ design and capabilities are reminiscent of science fiction, yet they are very much a reality in today’s rapidly evolving military landscape.

China’s display of these robots is not just a demonstration of technological prowess but also a strategic move in the global competition for military dominance. The United States and other nations have also been exploring similar technologies, indicating a trend towards increased automation in warfare.

The use of such robots raises important questions about the future of warfare and the ethical implications of autonomous weapon systems. As these machines become more sophisticated and capable of making decisions, the line between human and machine control in combat situations becomes increasingly blurred. This shift necessitates a discussion on the rules of engagement and the legal frameworks governing the use of autonomous weapons.

The technical specifications of these robotic dogs reveal their sophistication and potential on the battlefield. One model is equipped with an assault rifle and weighs approximately 50 kg, designed primarily for direct combat roles. Another lighter variant, weighing around 15 kg, is tailored for reconnaissance missions. Both models are outfitted with a 4D wide-angle perception system, enabling them to navigate and respond to their surroundings effectively.

These robotic dogs are capable of mimicking the movements of real dogs, including walking, hopping, lying down, and moving backward. This agility allows them to be versatile participants in various military scenarios, from leading infantry units in urban assault simulations to performing complex drills.

The integration of off-the-shelf technology with standard military equipment, such as the QBZ-95 assault rifle, indicates a strategic approach to leveraging existing technologies for rapid deployment and scalability. The robotic dogs’ ability to carry out tasks autonomously or under remote control by an operator adds a layer of tactical flexibility to military operations.

Moreover, the deployment of robotic dogs in military operations could potentially change the dynamics of combat, offering advantages such as reduced risk to human soldiers and increased operational efficiency. However, it also poses challenges in terms of command and control, as well as the potential for unforeseen consequences in complex combat environments.

As the world watches these developments unfold, it is clear that the integration of robotics into military strategy is not a question of if but when. The armed robotic dogs are a testament to the changing face of warfare and the ongoing innovation in military technology. As nations continue to invest in and develop these systems, it is imperative to consider the broader implications for international security and the rules of war.

The conversation around armed robotic dogs is just beginning, and it will undoubtedly continue to evolve as these technologies advance. It is a topic that not only concerns military strategists and technologists but also policymakers, ethicists, and the general public. The future of warfare is being shaped by these innovations, and it is crucial to engage in thoughtful discourse on how to navigate this new terrain responsibly.