The government claims and reality.

[letteredhub]

In my country they are also removing subsidies on electricity and petrol (on the latter, in august 5 cents more per litre, in september 10-15 cents, I think) after a time of financial aid. For the time being, discounts on public transport are maintained, but everything indicates that at any time they will also be eliminated. I think it is a more global policy, countries are realising that with these measures they can soften the impact of inflation at first, but that they are nothing more than patches, that they are not sustainable over time.

The government are indirectly pushing the cost of governance on the citizens without even cutting their own expenses on long  entourage, salary/perks/bonuses that are all attached to political offices. Than adjusting their expense to mitigate high cost due to the global inflation they rather introducing policies that gradually cuts edges for goods and services that are covered under subsidy.

How an oil producing nation is having one of the highest cost of petrol per litre and with a high cost of electricity is what really needs to be studied independently.

I don't think that's a problem that can be fixed simply with a change of government

I thought this as well because it's all like having an old wine in a new bottle, so we just shouldn't expect any much changes with a new set of government.

[danherbias07]

I believe the same thing is happening in our country. Not the subsidies or the tax reduction, but the way the government thinks.

They always see that the country is gaining when it comes to the economy, but their people are not feeling it. I don't know how they do that. Lie through their teeth. If a country really has a good economy, it is the people who are in the poor places who should be the ones who feel it. But why is it that most people, even the average ones who have an income that should suffice for a family of 3 or 4, cannot even start saving and cannot buy their own house?
Heck, they are even renting a very small apartment (room) just to survive. Maybe they see something that the common people do not see. They feel something we don't feel. Or is it just to make themselves look good, even though the people are holding rallies left and right?

[Yeesha]

In fact, the truth is that the way the government has structured the economy, the government's calculations and the people's standard of living and purchasing power are working against each other. The reason for this is repeated government changes and corruption, many may say that there is no corruption in countries where there is no democracy? Yes, there is, but in comparison, the condition of the people of those countries is lower based on inflation. When the economy of a country is tied to another superpower, the economic basis of that nation is the tax money of the people, due to which the purchasing power of the people decreases and inflation increases. So it seems to me that Bitcoin can be considered as one of the many tools to solve these problems. Which is a hedge against inflation and a store of value and borderless.

There’s no corruption in a country where there's no democracy, that's true, but the question is, is there any country without government? All the countries that are recognised as a state has the authority that is governing them, so surely they must be corrupt individuals among them. Some government will not allow the legalisation of bitcoin because of its decentralised nature, and it will be difficult for the government to regulate it, and the fact that governments will not have control over it will weaken their interests in legalisation.

[BTC FutureKing]

In my country they are also removing subsidies on electricity and petrol (on the latter, in august 5 cents more per litre, in september 10-15 cents, I think) after a time of financial aid. For the time being, discounts on public transport are maintained, but everything indicates that at any time they will also be eliminated. I think it is a more global policy, countries are realising that with these measures they can soften the impact of inflation at first, but that they are nothing more than patches, that they are not sustainable over time.

The government are indirectly pushing the cost of governance on the citizens without even cutting their own expenses on long  entourage, salary/perks/bonuses that are all attached to political offices. Than adjusting their expense to mitigate high cost due to the global inflation they rather introducing policies that gradually cuts edges for goods and services that are covered under subsidy.

The government can only bear the burden of 10 percent of the people.If the burden is more than that, the people will have to bear this burden alone.For example the government reduces electricity slightly and reaches the people.There are also many facilities that are provided to the people for less money.But it is also true that the government cannot provide much relief because they cannot reduce their expenses and the most impact of this inflation is on the common citizens.They are burdened with high inflation according to the citizens and the government adjusts its expenses so that everything can be balanced.But it is not known that at the same time the people of the lower classes are crushed under the burden of inflation.

[justdimin]

Why remove subsidy if you don't have a solution to stabilize the market price? This is one of the very few things you observe from a government that has no plans for their masses, all the money that was removed from subsidy, can a record be kept on where it went and how it was used?

The same government removing subsidies is still the one taking more loans than any other government, to an extent we had to beg the World Bank to refuse granting further loans, a government that isn't accountable for how the country's funds are managed.

This is not a concern of the president alone, governors are given a cut, what are they doing with the money? This sort of corruption runs through all chains of the government, the easiest way to resolve this issue is to vote in a competent government that has the country at heart.

Because you could regulate. It means that, for example let's say that oil is subsidized, and that means we are going to have oil companies getting relax regulations and not really get too much heat from the IRS, because a nation needs energy, and if you are spending money to go find it somewhere, you just stop paying taxes all together, and you are getting even help from the government in tax forms just so that you could go search for more. In the end, if you do find it, then you are going to end up giving the nation a lot more energy, and that is what a country needs.

This causes the situation to be a bit different, because in the end, those companies do not give that oil for free; they sell it and make an insane amount of profit from it, but they are allowed to basically get it nearly free. Hence, some people will say "it is good for the nation to do this, to give them subsidies, so they can give us more energy" but others will say "I also sell stuff, but I have to pay taxes, so why don't they?" both sides could make sense depending on what you believe, I am just telling you why people want to stop with subsidies, and why they do not want tax payer money to go to billion dollar companies.

[ZAINmalik75]

An increase in the government's revenue is in no way an indicator of an improving economy, because an improving economy should be visible through what the general public endures on a daily basis. If inflation keeps rising, the prices of goods and services haven't been reduced or aren't going down at all, then the economy has not improved even a bit, which means that even if there is an increase in the government's revenue, the government is not using that money for the country or its people, but the money is going straight to government officials and is being used for their own good only.

Even in our country, the same things happen from time to time. You will often see announcements and statements from the government and government officials about how things are improving and how the economy is getting stabilized, but in reality, things are going in a completely opposite way. Inflation keeps rising day by day, there are no proper basic facilities for the people, there is no improvement in government-run hospitals, educational institutions, and any other facility available for the public. So, these claims are mostly just fabricated.

[Rabata]

In my country they are also removing subsidies on electricity and petrol (on the latter, in august 5 cents more per litre, in september 10-15 cents, I think) after a time of financial aid. For the time being, discounts on public transport are maintained, but everything indicates that at any time they will also be eliminated. I think it is a more global policy, countries are realising that with these measures they can soften the impact of inflation at first, but that they are nothing more than patches, that they are not sustainable over time.

The government are indirectly pushing the cost of governance on the citizens without even cutting their own expenses on long  entourage, salary/perks/bonuses that are all attached to political offices. Than adjusting their expense to mitigate high cost due to the global inflation they rather introducing policies that gradually cuts edges for goods and services that are covered under subsidy.

The government can only bear the burden of 10 percent of the people.If the burden is more than that, the people will have to bear this burden alone.For example the government reduces electricity slightly and reaches the people.There are also many facilities that are provided to the people for less money.But it is also true that the government cannot provide much relief because they cannot reduce their expenses and the most impact of this inflation is on the common citizens.They are burdened with high inflation according to the citizens and the government adjusts its expenses so that everything can be balanced.But it is not known that at the same time the people of the lower classes are crushed under the burden of inflation.

In general terms, it can be understood that if governments subsidize fuel, the cost of transporting and producing goods in that country decreases to a large extent. This is definitely a positive aspect for the general public. If fuel subsidies are given, the concerns of the common people about inflation are reduced and those with low incomes can certainly be free from pressure.

But it should also be understood that the financial capacity of the government of the country whose government purchases oil at a high price and then subsidizes it should be taken into consideration. If the government subsidizes fuel, its impact will definitely be on the budget of that government. The government will have to pay that money from some other source. Which will definitely hinder the overall development of the country. However, an important point is that if a country does not commit corruption, then such subsidies will not cause much problem. Therefore, it is always better to go on its own strength rather than giving subsidies.

[L E G E N D A R Y]

There’s no corruption in a country where there's no democracy, that's true, but the question is, is there any country without government? All the countries that are recognised as a state has the authority that is governing them, so surely they must be corrupt individuals among them. Some government will not allow the legalisation of bitcoin because of its decentralised nature, and it will be difficult for the government to regulate it, and the fact that governments will not have control over it will weaken their interests in legalisation.

Well if you ask me, I’ll say that the main issue here is less democracy and more about power and control. As long as there are people in authority in any system, corruption can easily erupt at any point, irrespective of how the authority was actually chosen. And the existence of Bitcoin threatens this structure because it operates completely without the need for any centralized or third party control and interferences. So the reason a lot of governments are resistant to the idea of Bitcoin isn’t necessarily because they dislike the whole idea or don’t believe in it, but simply because of its decentralized nature and their inability to control it.

[tabas]

They always see that the country is gaining when it comes to the economy, but their people are not feeling it.

This feels deep. I hate it when a country boasts records, numbers of how well they are in terms of economic growth and yet, a normie can't even feel it. Struggles to juggle in a day to day life and can't do that much with what they earn in a day. Because a good government should have been helping the way of living of its people and ease things. Prolonging the balance for them and make everything affordable and accessible. When their people are not feeling it, that shows that the government doesn't care for the lowest in their society. The most taxed people are from that bracket up to middle class.

[Smartvirus]

In my country they are also removing subsidies on electricity and petrol (on the latter, in august 5 cents more per litre, in september 10-15 cents, I think) after a time of financial aid. For the time being, discounts on public transport are maintained, but everything indicates that at any time they will also be eliminated. I think it is a more global policy, countries are realising that with these measures they can soften the impact of inflation at first, but that they are nothing more than patches, that they are not sustainable over time.

Somehow, every government comes into power and how their agenda all drawn up but, we would very well soon come to the realization that they are just as you’ve described, patches.

The subsidies would have proven beneficial if after a time, it was reflected on the standard of living within a country but the reverse is what you see in my part of the world. At the very least, you find the government taking even more loans within short periods with some outrageous refund policies and interest.

Government has failed most citizens but, what can we do, just hope some visionary leader comes into power and truly does make necessary changes in governance.

[Franklyn-wood]

It's very true that the president of Federal Republic of Nigeria has removed petrol subsidy but he hasn't removed electricity subsidy, Bola Ahmed Tinubu made Nigerians known his intention of removing electricity subsidy in 2027, so if he eventually wins the upcoming Nigeria presidential election come 2027 he will implement it. Deep down Tinubu knows that his government brought hardship and sorrow but he won't admit it because he knows if he does, it might jeopardy his chance of winning his major opponents, which are Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar in Nigeria presidential election.

The leadership of the current president if Nigeria has put a lot of pressure on it citizens, despite the fact that the citizens are enduring the pains as if nothing is happening to them.
He is working on more a more things to implement if he eventually enters in as president the second time and then, he will be able to add other laws that increases there pocket rather than helping the citizens it making life more difficult for them.

[CryptoBuds]

When people in developing country are struggling to buy daily necessities, telling stories of GDP or revenue growth in government statistic cannot be economic development. Although government consider it as economic development, in my opinion it is nothing more than a one sided process of filling the state coffers by cutting pockets of people.

Real economic reform must always be two pronged. money that government saves by removing subsidies must be immediately invested to deal with the shock on common people. Then the pressure on masses will be somewhat less.

A surplus budget obtained at cost of people's extreme hardship can in no way be called successful economy? It is something like humanitarian crisis hidden behind the cover of books and pens.

[Cookdata]

In my country the government has made subsidy removal on petrol, electricity and a other things I can't remember right now. Some economic reforms has being made and implemented for three years still going, and the government claims that this decisions has helped improved the country's economy by making the government save billions that were spent on subsidy and the currency gaining strength. On their part the economy has improved and better than how they met it.

I'm not sure how to defend this, I will give my opinion based on the politic aspect, the economy consequences and how this government has handle this economy reform.

I know the government you are talking about, the snatched and grab government. They thought it were going to be easy but it turn out that the battle is bigger than what they prepared from the beginning. However, whatever this government has planned from the beginning bad or good, know that you can't develop a country that is corruption rooted in every household and beside, all economy policy has a significant effect, most likely the bad side before the good side and it take years to make it possible.

But from basic economic indicators can we say a government economic reforms is actually successful because it has increased the government net income. Meanwhile households living standard isn't affected in any positive ways. The quality of living standards for the citizens has rather reduced, price of products (unstable) skyrocketing on a daily.
An example, in this 3 years a product that was sold for $1 is now sold for $4 with citizens struggling to afford what was once common products for every home, yet the government by their balance of higher net income into the federation account claims the economy is now better than how they met it, coming into political power. Is the government just being insensitive? If it were in your country what would be your opinion on this even with the figures the government are showing to have gained for the country.

Let's not even lie to ourselves, there is no way the government is going to make the changes in 3 years, it's not possible. How do you even expect a country that is run in discount to change for good. They have defended the currency for how many years, the central bank was concerned about it and has voice out for a change and change subsidies but we enjoyed it until it become part of us and now that the real economy where you have to do 1+1 before we spend is affecting us. If this government can enforce those reform and we can endure, it will be for all good.

[Solokan]

If that's the case, it's certainly not easy to live in your country due to the extremely high inflation. In my opinion, if the government removes subsidies, it should be able to improve the welfare of its citizens, as there are no more subsidies, as you mentioned. The multiple increases in prices of goods and daily necessities will undoubtedly make things difficult for the people, especially those with low incomes, who will undoubtedly suffer even more. If the government removes subsidies, it shouldn't allow citizens to suffer like that. Hopefully, your country will be more prosperous in the future.

It seems the right approach to a situation like this is that we should do our best to improve our respective economies, as high inflation requires a higher income to feel comfortable.

[Hewlet]

But from basic economic indicators can we say a government economic reforms is actually successful because it has increased the government net income. Meanwhile households living standard isn't affected in any positive ways.

In reality, the average masses can only relate with how government policies affect Thier lives and wether or not it makes them better in the way they are living or makes them worse. The government in her bid to score high in Thier leadership structure will always claim they are doing fine but if it's not reflected in the loved of an average citizen after three years of subsidy removal, then the stand of the government should be questioned.

The subsidy removal is supposed to help in some sectors but from a Nigerian context, we can't really point out any sectors that's better. What we can generally agree to is the fact that with the subsidy removal, government just succeed in devicing a means through which they stand to steam from the masses.

[Umulala-alala]

Nigeria has not been a good country since a long time ago, it is only getting worse every time. The recent government just like everyway to tax their citizens and inflation did not stop.

If we compare Nigeria before and now you will know that Nigeria was better before, during the time Olusegun Obasanjo, Umaru Musa Yaradua and Goodluck Jonathan we enjoyed a better economy, prices of things wasn't high as it is now so if you begin to cheek then and now you will see that Nigeria was a better country before. Although i still understand what you mean by saying that Nigeria was not good long before now, a country with natural resources is supposed to give her citizens a more better life then, but when you look at the past and now you will prefer we still be in the past.

[Hyphen(-)]

Nigeria has not been a good country since a long time ago, it is only getting worse every time. The recent government just like everyway to tax their citizens and inflation did not stop.

If we compare Nigeria before and now you will know that Nigeria was better before, during the time Olusegun Obasanjo, Umaru Musa Yaradua and Goodluck Jonathan we enjoyed a better economy, prices of things wasn't high as it is now so if you begin to cheek then and now you will see that Nigeria was a better country before. Although i still understand what you mean by saying that Nigeria was not good long before now, a country with natural resources is supposed to give her citizens a more better life then, but when you look at the past and now you will prefer we still be in the past.

The economy of the country has completely changed, this current government has made the citizens suffer because they have made everything in their favor because of selfishness, they don’t want the improvement of their citizens wellbeing which is why the citizens is suffering and now the new government have decided to make it looks like slavery.

The new government removed fuel subsidy in their first day in office, they didn’t make any changes in the progress of the youth and the citizens; they also removed other subsidies which include fertilizer for farmers and so on, this has made everything worse for even farmers meanwhile food is the main thing citizens want, and the food is expensive while the minimum wage is very low to afford what a common needs.

[MArsland]

In my country the government has made subsidy removal on petrol, electricity and a other things I can't remember right now. Some economic reforms has being made and implemented for three years still going, and the government claims that this decisions has helped improved the country's economy by making the government save billions that were spent on subsidy and the currency gaining strength. On their part the economy has improved and better than how they met it.

But from basic economic indicators can we say a government economic reforms is actually successful because it has increased the government net income. Meanwhile households living standard isn't affected in any positive ways. The quality of living standards for the citizens has rather reduced, price of products (unstable) skyrocketing on a daily.
An example, in this 3 years a product that was sold for $1 is now sold for $4 with citizens struggling to afford what was once common products for every home, yet the government by their balance of higher net income into the federation account claims the economy is now better than how they met it, coming into political power. Is the government just being insensitive? If it were in your country what would be your opinion on this even with the figures the government are showing to have gained for the country.

The success and failure of a country in managing the economy can be seen from inflation conditions. If the price of an item used to be $1 and now it is $4, it contradicts the statement made by the government. They cannot be trusted at all, covering up the dilapidated system for the sake of maintaining the country's image in the eyes of investors. Now if the government alone is not transparent about its performance then why do we continue to pay taxes obediently? This is not about the anti-tax movement, but about the right that must be returned to society for its contribution to the state.

[maydna]

I don't know but if there still poor people around the country, that means the government are not yet success fixing the problem. They can say the economic indicators are better but they must to check all things happens in their country and compare the data with the reality. The government including their officials can manipulate the data just to convince their boss that everything running well based on their campaign.

If the government check on all areas and asking to their citizen, they will know the truth but I don't think their citizen will telling the truth, they might threatened by some people who don't like the real data. You can see what happens around you, if the economic really better based on the government claims and citizen satisfied, that data could be right.

[pusaka]

I don't know but if there still poor people around the country, that means the government are not yet success fixing the problem. They can say the economic indicators are better but they must to check all things happens in their country and compare the data with the reality. The government including their officials can manipulate the data just to convince their boss that everything running well based on their campaign.

If the government check on all areas and asking to their citizen, they will know the truth but I don't think their citizen will telling the truth, they might threatened by some people who don't like the real data. You can see what happens around you, if the economic really better based on the government claims and citizen satisfied, that data could be right.

My question is, do those in power in a country truly care about their people? Or are they just pretending to?

The fact is, there are still many corrupt officials, and even in my country, for some reason, officials who should be reporting the true situation to the President seem to be covering up what's really happening.

They say the economy is improving, but the situation at the grassroots level isn't the same. In fact, I've noticed that purchasing power has declined. I say this because I have a family that owns a business, so the impact is quite noticeable when income decreases. The problem is that when people's purchasing power decreases, the prices of basic necessities continue to rise.