Nigeria is operating far below its productive potential. If the country were anywhere near optimal efficiency, its GDP should be closer to $3 trillion, not the roughly $400 billion we see today. That gap tells a simple story: Nigeria requires at least a 7× economic expansion to approach equilibrium.

Yet, nearly 90% of existing companies are structurally incapable of delivering that kind of scalable growth even. Yes, even with effort and goodwill, many are anchored to outdated assumptions, weak foundations, and legacy business models that cannot be redesigned for exponential leverage.

Only new species of companies, built on fresh business models, enabled by smarter policies, and energized by modern technology, can unlock that growth. That reality explains why insurance penetration remains below 2%, why electricity companies deliver more darkness than light, why access to clean potable water is still elusive, and why we deploy nearly 65% of our workforce yet still struggle with hunger and low productivity. You can add many more items to that list.

It is tempting to blame customers, but history teaches us otherwise. Recall the 1990s, when new-generation banks emerged and convinced Nigerians, many for the first time, that banking services could be trusted and valuable. That same level of redesign is now required in insurance, power, water, education, healthcare, and beyond. The companies capable of driving those transformations are still too few.

I noted recently that South Africa runs a national budget about $100 billion larger than Nigeria’s, despite having less than 30% of Nigeria’s population. That is not magic; it is the outcome of productivity, structure, and effective enterprises. Their stock market is worth at least $1 trillion more than Nigeria’s. That is not luck; it is a translation of an economy from money to capital. Nigeria needs that to happen; move from money and capitalize the economy!

Get it: Money is a subset of capital, and nations which allow money to dominate their thinking inevitably underperform. In Nigeria, we are excessively focused on money. But until Nigerian policymakers reorient our priorities toward capital formation and evolution, our economic struggles will persist, because without capital, money only scales poverty!

Satya Nadella chose his moment carefully. Just weeks after Merriam-Webster crowned “slop” its word of the year — a shorthand for the flood of low-effort, AI-generated content clogging feeds and search results — the Microsoft chief executive stepped in with a counter-narrative for 2026.

His message was not delivered through a keynote or earnings call, but through a reflective blog post that sought to reframe how the public, policymakers, and the tech industry itself should think about artificial intelligence.

Nadella urged readers to abandon the idea of AI as slop and instead see it as “bicycles for the mind,” borrowing and extending Steve Jobs’ famous metaphor for personal computing. In his telling, AI should not be framed as a replacement for human capability, but as scaffolding that amplifies it.

“A new concept that evolves ‘bicycles for the mind’ such that we always think of AI as a scaffolding for human potential vs a substitute,” he wrote, before calling for a new equilibrium in how humans relate to one another when equipped with “cognitive amplifier tools.”

Strip away the philosophical language, and Nadella’s core argument is that he wants the debate to move away from whether AI output is crude or sophisticated, and away from the more existential fear that machines are here to replace people. Instead, he is pushing the idea of AI as a productivity companion — a tool that works with humans, not instead of them.

The problem is that this framing sits uneasily with how AI is being sold, deployed, and discussed elsewhere in the industry. Much of the marketing around AI agents and automation tools leans heavily on the promise of replacing human labor. That promise is not just rhetorical; it is central to how these tools are priced and how companies justify the cost of deploying them at scale. Savings are often calculated in headcount terms, not in abstract notions of “human potential.”

At the same time, some of the most influential voices in AI have been sounding increasingly stark warnings about job losses. In May, Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei said AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, potentially pushing unemployment to between 10% and 20%. He reiterated that concern in a subsequent interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes. Such statements have helped entrench the idea that AI is not just a helper, but an imminent labor-market disruptor.

Yet the empirical picture remains far murkier than the rhetoric suggests. As Nadella implicitly acknowledges, most AI tools today are not replacing workers outright. They are being used by workers — often cautiously, and usually with a human still responsible for checking accuracy, tone, and judgement. The fear is loud; the evidence is mixed.

One of the most frequently cited attempts to quantify AI’s impact is MIT’s ongoing Project Iceberg, which tracks how much of human labor can be offloaded to machines. The project estimates that AI is currently capable of performing about 11.7% of paid human labor. That figure has often been interpreted, and reported, as meaning AI can replace nearly 12% of jobs.

The researchers themselves stress that this is not what the number represents. What they are measuring is the share of tasks within jobs that can be automated, and then attaching wages to those tasks. Their examples — automated paperwork for nurses, or AI-generated code assisting programmers — are less about replacement and more about redistribution of effort within roles.

That nuance is often lost in public debate, particularly as some professions do feel sharper pain than others. Corporate graphic designers and marketing bloggers have seen demand erode as companies turn to generative tools, according to analysis from the Substack Blood in the Machine. New-graduate junior programmers are also facing a tougher market, with fewer entry-level roles and higher expectations. These are real pressures, not abstract fears.

At the same time, evidence is emerging that those who already have strong skills often become more productive — and more valuable — when they use AI effectively. Highly skilled writers, artists, and programmers consistently outperform less experienced peers when armed with AI tools. For now, creativity, judgement, and context still belong firmly to humans, even if machines can accelerate parts of the process.

This helps explain a striking finding in Vanguard’s 2026 economic outlook. The investment firm reported that the roughly 100 occupations most exposed to AI automation are actually outperforming the rest of the labor market in both job growth and real wage increases. In other words, the jobs most often cited as “at risk” are, so far, doing better than average. Vanguard bluntly concluded that workers who master AI are making themselves more valuable, not obsolete.

There is an irony here that Nadella cannot entirely escape. Microsoft itself played a role in fueling the AI-jobs anxiety he is now trying to soften. The company laid off more than 15,000 employees in 2025, even as it posted record revenues and profits for its fiscal year ending in June. AI success was cited as part of the broader context. Nadella later wrote a public memo acknowledging the layoffs, saying Microsoft needed to “reimagine our mission for a new era,” with AI transformation named alongside security and quality as a core strategic pillar.

He did not explicitly say that internal AI efficiency caused the job cuts. Still, the juxtaposition of mass layoffs and booming AI investment was hard to miss, and it reinforced the perception that automation was directly displacing workers.

The reality, as Vanguard and other analysts point out, is more prosaic. Many of the layoffs attributed to AI in 2025 had less to do with machines replacing people and more to do with familiar corporate behavior: cutting back on slower-growing businesses to redeploy capital into areas with higher expected returns. AI was the destination for that capital, but not necessarily the direct cause of each job lost.

Microsoft was far from alone. Challenger, Gray & Christmas estimated that AI was linked to nearly 55,000 layoffs in the United States in 2025, a figure cited by CNBC. The cuts spanned much of big tech, including Amazon, Salesforce, and Microsoft itself, as companies reshaped their workforces to chase growth in AI-related businesses.

Against that backdrop, Nadella’s plea to stop calling AI “slop” reads as both aspirational and defensive. He is trying to steer the conversation toward augmentation at a moment when public trust is being tested by layoffs, misinformation, and a deluge of low-quality content. And yet, even as he argues for a higher-minded view of AI, the internet continues to embrace slop in its own way.

Memes, absurdist videos, and intentionally low-effort AI creations remain wildly popular, suggesting that, for better or worse, slop is also one of AI’s most entertaining outputs.

Shares of major U.S. oil companies surged in premarket trading on Monday as investors began to price in the potential long-term consequences of Washington’s dramatic military intervention in Venezuela, a move that could eventually redraw the global oil supply map even as near-term uncertainties remain high.

Chevron led the rally, rising 6.4% by 7:40 a.m. ET, reflecting its entrenched footprint in Venezuela and perceived first-mover advantage. Exxon Mobil gained 3%, ConocoPhillips advanced 5.5%, and oilfield services heavyweight SLB climbed 8.5%, as markets reacted to the possibility of renewed access to the world’s largest proven crude reserves.

The gains followed a surprise U.S. operation over the weekend that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, an audacious escalation that has reverberated across diplomatic, security, and energy circles. President Donald Trump has since said the United States would “run” Venezuela until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” is achieved, placing the country’s vast oil wealth at the center of Washington’s stated objectives.

Venezuela is a founding member of OPEC and holds an estimated 303 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, roughly 17% of the global total, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Years of mismanagement, underinvestment, and sanctions have crippled its oil industry, slashing production from about 3.5 million barrels per day in the 1970s to well under 1 million barrels per day in recent years.

Trump has made clear that reversing that decline is now a strategic priority. Speaking from his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, he said U.S. oil companies would be encouraged to pour billions of dollars into repairing Venezuela’s “badly broken” energy infrastructure.

“Let’s start making money for the country,” Trump said, framing the intervention as both a geopolitical and economic reset.

Oil prices, however, showed only a muted response. Brent crude futures for March delivery were up 0.5% at $61.03 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate for February delivery rose 0.6% to $57.64. The modest move underscores a key tension in the market: while Venezuela’s reserves are enormous, any meaningful increase in supply is widely seen as a long-term prospect rather than an immediate shock.

Analysts say Chevron stands out among U.S. majors as the most immediately exposed to potential upside. The company has maintained a presence in Venezuela through joint ventures even during periods of heavy sanctions, giving it institutional knowledge and operational footholds that rivals lack. Allen Good, director of equity research at Morningstar, said Chevron appears best positioned to benefit from any U.S.-backed effort to revive Venezuelan production.

At the same time, the intervention could open the door for Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips to re-enter the country after years on the sidelines. But Good cautioned that optimism should be tempered. Venezuela’s oil sector, he said, will require tens of billions of dollars in fresh investment to achieve meaningful production gains, and companies are unlikely to commit capital without clear regulatory and contractual frameworks.

“Oil companies will need to be cautious about deploying capital until there is greater certainty,” Good said, adding that while Chevron may be able to add incremental barrels in the near term with U.S. approval, large-scale volume increases are likely years away.

In that context, he warned, the idea of rapidly unlocking Venezuela’s oil riches remains far from assured.

Energy veterans echo that caution. Neil Atkinson, an independent analyst and former senior figure at Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA, said restoring the industry goes far beyond reopening wells. He pointed to deep-rooted structural challenges, including weak law and order, unreliable electricity supplies, and shortages of basic goods such as food and fuel.

“If you want to get Venezuela’s oil industry back up and running, you need stability,” Atkinson said in an interview on CNBC. “That stability simply does not exist right now. A lot has to happen, and it cannot happen without the consent of the Venezuelan people.”

Atkinson also noted that Venezuela’s crude is predominantly heavy and costly to process, requiring specialized infrastructure and sustained investment. With oil prices relatively low by historical standards, he said the calculus for U.S. companies is less about short-term returns and more about long-term strategic positioning.

“For long-term strategic reasons, yes, companies would be interested,” he said. “But this is a long-term play.”

Signs of that long-term interest are already emerging. The Financial Times reported on Monday that Ali Moshiri, a former top Chevron executive, is seeking to raise $2 billion through his investment firm, Amos Global Energy Management, to kick-start Venezuelan oil projects. Moshiri told the newspaper that investor sentiment had flipped almost overnight following Maduro’s capture.

“I’ve had a dozen calls over the past 24 hours from potential investors,” Moshiri said. “Interest in Venezuela has gone from zero to 99 percent.”

That surge in interest reflects a broader market belief that Trump’s intervention, if it holds, could eventually reset the oil market by unlocking supply that has been effectively stranded for years. Greater Venezuelan output, over time, could add downward pressure on global oil prices, offering relief to consumers and energy-intensive industries while reshaping OPEC dynamics.

However, markets are balancing excitement with realism for now. The rally in oil stocks suggests investors see strategic optionality and long-term upside, not an immediate production windfall. Some analysts believe that although Venezuela represents potential energy abundance on a grand scale, turning that potential into barrels on the market will be measured in years, not weeks.