Nigeria Content Online

It is becoming more
and more frightening to grow old in a country where elderly people are
treated like rags and sometimes as spiritually dangerous creatures.
Indigenous traditions in Africa and elsewhere invite us to honour the
elderly and make provision for their upkeep. Old age is understood as a
blessing from the maker, a reward for some good work, though sometimes
re-explained as an opportunity given to individuals to mend their ways
before it is too late.

In whichever way
old age is conceptualized, the fact remains that it is considered a
great abnormality for a community to lack the elderly. In recent times
life expectancy in Nigeria seems to have fallen and one can find the
most elderly in a local community being just 55 years or even less,
people shrug their shoulders and snap their fingers, saying the
situation is much like a curse. A community that lacks the elderly
lacks a store of wisdom and wealth of experience for.

In spite of the
growing tendency to look towards new ways imposed by modernity, there
are always occasions to turn to the elderly to seek advice on how to
handle challenging situations. In a modern Nigerian society that is not
sure about how to use the past, or that is uncomfortable with memory,
have the elderly not become stereotyped as witches and wizards whose
presence is a danger to the progress of the very children and grand
children they have always craved to have? Have their children and
grandchildren not abandoned them, believing that if they get closer,
these elderly ones would take ex their younger souls in exchange for
theirs?

What about the
government of the day? How friendly are its policies to the senior
citizens of the country? How much attention is paid to how housing,
environmental planning and social activities affect the well being of
the hoary-haired among us? The attitude of the government to the
elderly at best seems to be that of indifference.

Perhaps the
unfortunate idea is that these elderly ones do not contribute much to
society, that they are rather a liability. With the exception of the
efforts made by religious groups, one does not see any significant
community welfare programmes designed to cater for the psychological,
medical, or physiological well-being of elderly people in a 50-year old
country where elected politicians spend billions on entertainment,
buying several fleets of cars and airplanes.

We seem to live in
a society that prefers eternal youth and which sees the elderly as
signifiers of what it does not want to be.

As a beginning
“nation” we are to be excused as learners and we keep promising that we
will learn. Give us time. Give us the chance to burn and then resurrect
from our ashes. Give us the chance to take ourselves to Hell before
getting to Heaven. Give us the chance to bury our elderly ones first
and then come back to follow the rest of the welfare-oriented world.

Nigeria at 50 is
nothing but “Oke wie aji o buru akakpo oke” (The rat that renews its
hair becomes a midget rat). It will never grow up or grow older. It is
satisfied with being akakpo oke! Even when it is 2000 years old as
akakpo oke, it will still prefer playing in the sand like a toddler,
asking to be given more time to grow up. As a country that prefers to
be eternally young, why would it bother to have laws or policies that
help to ensure that the rights of elderly are not violated?

In public places
like banks, post offices, does one ever see separate queues reserved
for the elderly, to prevent such occurrences as sick or tired ones
slumping and dying? Even when out of frustration such elderly ones try
to jump the queue, does one not hear very inconsiderate remarks about
how this “old baba” or “old mama” does not want to respect him or
herself? A callous and insensitive crowd that we have become, we hardly
think about how we would want to be treated if we were that old and
made to wait in a long queue.

Very soon the 2011
elections will take place in a country that is 50 years old but would
have wished it were 50 years young. That akakpo oke country will issue
the very elderly folks it does not cater for with voters cards and ask
them to queue up for hours to vote in an akakpo oke president or
governor or senator, or other distinguished akakpo oke politicians of
the nth republic. The votes of the elderly count too, but against them.
Some will definitely slump and die where akakpo oke politicians have
brought them to use them as stools to stepping into the saddle of a
future that cannot run as fast as its past.

Indeed, growing old in a country eternally young is a very regrettable encounter with citizenship.

Juan Martin del Potro, Robin Soderling and Tomas
Berdych all stand at least 6 feet 4 inches. Each bombards opponents
with powerful groundstrokes from the baseline. Each moves, when
healthy, with speed and athleticism atypical of men their size.

Each also toppled Roger Federer in a Grand Slam
event in the past year, three defeats on three surfaces – U.S. Open
(del Potro), French Open (Soderling) and Wimbledon (Berdych) –
highlighting the evolution of men’s tennis, a game in which the tall
and mighty once survived on serve alone.

“That’s what you have to do against Federer,” said
Justin Gimelstob, a Tennis Channel commentator and retired pro. ‘`You
have to put pressure on him. You have to put power into his backhand.
You’ve got to match his athleticism and movement. That’s where the
sport is going.

‘’I call those players the new hybrid.”

Pros were once divided more easily into two
categories: big men who pummeled tennis balls but moved clumsily, and
smaller men who played with elegance and artistry, a backhanded way of
saying they lacked a certain power. There were exceptions, sure. Now,
few players hit harder than the 6-foot-1 Rafael Nadal.

But he is surrounded by the evolution, by del
Potro (6-6 and recovering from injury), Berdych (6-5) and Soderling
(6-4), and by the next wave of American talent, players like Sam
Querrey (6-6) and John Isner (6-9). They are elite young pros – or the
makings of an undersize NBA frontcourt.

This trend, an infiltration of taller, stronger
players with athleticism to match, mirrors developments in women’s
tennis and changes across sports. It also forecasts a different game.
Even Nadal recently said that he must play more aggressively to contend
at important tournaments, and he did so in winning the French Open and
Wimbledon.

‘’These guys all have the ability to dictate
whether they’re going to lose a match,“ said Darren Cahill, a retired
player turned ESPN analyst. ”They all hit the ball a ton. They all move
gracefully. Tennis has become more of a big-man game.”

Gimelstob noticed the change before he retired in
2007. In a recent interview, the 6-5 Gimelstob described taller players
like him as ‘’big and slow“ back then. The 6-3 Boris Becker, nicknamed
Boom Boom, was once regarded as a hulking force on tour, but he would
not stand out for size alone today.

‘’The boys are so powerful off of the baseline
now that they don’t have to come to the net to finish points,“ Becker
said. ”That’s the reason we went to the net. To finish the point.
Nowadays, even the big guys can hit winners four feet behind the
baseline.”

But that explains only part of the evolution. As
far back as when rackets switched from wood to graphite, purists have
fretted that power would take over tennis. Artistry ultimately won out
for years.

Becker, like many, said that more recent advances
in string and racket technology were also influential. Extra spin
helped shots once seemingly headed for the fence land safely within the
lines. As Cahill conducted a recent interview, Berdych walked down the
hallway at the Rogers Cup in Toronto

‘’Look at how big he is,“ Cahill said. ”He can
stand behind the baseline and take huge swings. With that ability,
players can unload on shots you never could have 20 years ago, 15 years
ago.”

As Federer said in Toronto, serves of more than
200 kilometers an hour (about 125 mph) once registered as big. Now they
are normal.

Average second serves, meanwhile, have increased
by about 25 mph, in Federer’s estimation. Returns have therefore also
gotten faster, and with fewer players approaching the net, placement
has become less important.

Racket technology, Federer added, allows for different angles, shorter and more varied for shots smacked at maximum speed.

All of which, Federer argued, lowered the margin for error.

‘’Guys are hitting the ball bigger than ever,“ he
said. ”I’m very good, but I don’t have the margins like maybe exist in
women’s tennis that you can just come out and dominate an opponent
every single time. That just doesn’t happen in the men’s game.”

Paul Annacone, the coach who started working with
Federer recently, described him as a forward thinker more than willing
to adapt. He pointed to the championship Federer secured in Cincinnati
and his ‘’commitment and belief.”

Cahill even argued that the serve-and-volley style
considered a tennis dinosaur in some quarters would eventually return.
Such is the cyclical nature of all sports, including this one. Others
advocate simpler rackets and strings, a limit to evolution.

Perhaps tennis’ next superstar will stand tall and serve big and play with a Federer-like elegance.

‘’There’s still room for flair and artistry and
playing a game that’s going to confuse people,“ Cahill said. ”Federer
has proven that, time and time and time again. Even with the new string
technology, which has been around for 10 years. He still won 16
majors.”

Regardless, the next wave has arrived. Call it the hybrid generation.

© 2010 New York Times News Service

He lied, went
behind her back and had multiple affairs with many women with no regard
for the home they had built together or the impact it would have on
their children. He went totally against the vows he made in front of
friends and family and in the eyes of God. So she decided to walk away
because trust, that bedrock upon which her marriage stood had been
irrevocably broken.

And now she is the
bitch, vilified and demonised. I am talking about Elin Nordegren, the
much-maligned wife of golfing king, Tiger Woods. After maintaining a
very dignified silence throughout the sordid sex scandal she gave an
interview to People Magazine in which she talked about the emotional
difficulties she faced when she found out her husband was cheating.

For Woods fans
particularly the Nigerian ones, this was too much. So on Facebook and
other social media websites, abuse of all sort has been heaped on
Nordegren’s head. Some of the more colourful phrases used to describe
her include “ f***king bitch, stupid woman, bloody nanny, gold digger
and whiner.” Her crime according to them is that she refused to
forgive. After all they argue she was just a nanny when Woods married
her and now she is walking away with a fortune. It seems Nordegren’s
refusal to play the “ dutiful” wife who stands by her man makes her a
horrible person. In all this only a handful of commentators even made
reference to the behavior that precipitated the divorce – Woods’ serial
cheating. Even those people insisted that their commentary on Nordegren
had to be isolated from their commentary on Woods’ behavior. As one
commentator put it, that is “a topic for another day”. The commentator
didn’t see the irony in trying to pass judgment on Nordegren’s action
in isolation from the behavior that led to it.

Throughout these
discussions, one theme that kept re-emerging is that Woods married the
wrong girl. He should have married a black girl or even better, a
Nigerian woman. The implication was that if that were the case, he
would still be married. Nigerian women were ‘ strong’ some
commentators said and therefore capable of forgiving these sorts of
transgressions and indeed do so on a regular basis. It is almost as
if Nigerian women have a gene that makes it easy for them to tolerate
cheating.

This simplistic
analysis of course does not delve into the socio-cultural issues that
mean the average Nigerian woman has very little choice when it comes to
walking away from a cheating husband. Our laws and traditions are
largely skewed in favour of men.

Children belong to the man;
inheritance is not always automatic for women and in many parts widows
do not automatically inherit from their husbands. If there was a more
even playground and women could take some of the wealth they helped
create, just how many Nigerian women would stay? There are too many
who remain in unsatisfactory marriages, with all the tensions inherent
in that union because they have no options, making it impossible for us
to conclude that those who stay are making a willful decision not
determined by economic and cultural circumstances. Evidence for this
can be gleaned from the high rate of sexual infidelity and support for
polygamy, which makes it difficult for women to go against the tide.
There is also discrimination against unmarried women and the stigma
attached to childless women. Increasingly too, and perhaps because of
circumstances, Nigerian women are becoming more materialistic, focusing
on what economic gains they can get from a relationship rather than all
the other things the union is supposed to provide. There are of
course women who decide to reach an accommodation with their spouses
even though they recognize the marriage has failed. Such couples remain
together for the sake of their children, the higher good, so to speak,
takes precedence over personal happiness.

A lucky few are able to
completely salvage their unions after a spouse has cheated. These are
the ones who genuinely forgive. This is also laudable because
forgiveness is important not just in marriage but in every sphere of
human interaction. A few studies have even found that this sort of
turbulence if handled properly can lead to a more meaningful
relationship between the couple.

The point however, is that circumstances vary and people will make decisions based
on their own personal situation, a state of affairs that many a time we
on the outside are not privy to. So those who decide to walk away also
deserve understanding. Speak to anyone who has gone through a divorce,
it is a tough, heart wrenching process that is life changing for all
those involved, from spouses to children to the wider extended
family and friends. It is not a step taken lightly.

Instead of passing judgment, join me in wishing Woods and Nordegren
the best. While her settlement will mean Nordegren won’t worry about
money, she now has the task of building her self -esteem and learning
to trust again; these are no easy feats. As for Woods, he has to deal
with the fact that he helped dismantle a home he worked to build,
disrupting everything but especially the lives of his children whom he
must love dearly. Woods must find a way to forgive himself, if he is to
move on, and that too is no mean feat.

Do you sometimes in your “alone”
time take your thoughts back to things that have happened in your life? I
believe most people do. Sometimes you think of the interesting things, at other
times you think of stuff that may have annoyed or intrigued you, sometimes even
the downright funny ones that make you laugh out loud to yourself.

Well, I had that “alone” time
recently and this is what popped into my head. Six years ago during my campus
days, I walked into the room of a girlfriend who happened to live in the same
building as me. There were at least four guys and my friend. I greeted the
dudes and sat down. I was not prepared to leave the room just because she had
visitors.

I had been completely bored in my
own room and soon I joined in the discussion at hand. We ‘gisted’ for a while
and soon one of the guys who was called Jyke (short for Ejike) stood and walked
out the room. He came in shortly and asked if I stayed upstairs. When I nodded
in the affirmative, he asked if I knew a certain Enkay.

Again, I said I did. The girl lived
just few rooms away from mine. What Jyke said next did not take me by surprise.
He said ” E get wen I bin dey nail that babe o.”(If you do not get what he
meant, he was saying that he used to be sexually involved with the girl).

When he said that, the dudes in the
room were all interested and started asking questions which would make even you
cringe if I wrote them down here, but please, just imagine the sort of
questions they were asking Jyke and the answers he gave to them, if you can.

I was not surprised by this turn of
the conversation but I was embarrassed. I knew people talked about their
sexcapades to close friends (at least I know one or two who do) but the reason
some make it a topic for discussion with every friend they know, even perfect
strangers eludes me.

Growing up, I knew sex to be an act
practiced by two consenting adults. I also knew that if there was no respect
attached to it, it would not have been a “behind closed doors” act.

But these days, we kiss and tell.
We “nail” someone and shout it out to willing listeners. Where is the respect
then? I spoke to some guys and girls about the reasons for this and got a few
responses.

A friend told me that guys like to
show off to their friends that they still have the swagger. It is an “ego”
thing. If as a guy, your friends know you are not getting any, they will
ridicule you. So when you get some, you make noise about it.

Again I was made to understand that
not all guys boast about their sexcapades for that reason. I heard some guys
even lie about it just so they would come across as some hunk with a swagger.
That is really lame and funny.

The guys I spoke with also made
sure to tell me that not all girls are spoken about like that. They say that
when a guy really cares about and respects a woman, he does not speak about his
sexual moments with her to anyone, even his close friends.

They believe that some women do not
respect themselves and so deserve to be spoken about while some must have made
too much “shakara” so that when a guy finally gets to sleep with her, he makes
sure to tell his friends of his conquest.

While this is behaviour that is
prevalent with the male folk, the females also show off but according to my
friend, they do it in a wickedly subtle way when they want to let their
girlfriends know that the guy (who they believe may’ve been full of himself) is
not “all that.”

One of the guys I spoke to asked me
to stop attacking men because women are worse than men in that they do not even
“nail” and tell, they sometimes “chop” and run… meaning that some girls
actually weave deceptive techniques to get a guy’s money without giving him any
and when they do, run without a backward glance; that my friends, is definitely
a gist for another day.

There may be many reasons for this
act of “kiss and tell” but do you really think any of them is justified?

Recent figures from the Federal Ministry of Health
indicate that the death toll from the most recent cholera epidemic to
hit Nigeria has risen to 350.

The numbers are still rising, and the ministry has
warned that “the entire country is at risk.” This latest epidemic has
hit at least eleven states, most of them in Northern Nigeria.

In August 2009, a similar epidemic broke out in Adamawa, Borno, Taraba and Jigawa states, claiming hundreds of lives.

Only a month ago, a Reuters’ news report said that
77 persons had died from cholera in Northern Cameroon, since the
beginning of June.

Reuters quoted an unnamed official of the Red
Cross as saying, back then: “There is the fear that if nothing is done
urgently, the epidemic might expand rapidly with uncalculated
consequences in Cameroon and neighbouring countries like Nigeria and
Chad.” Now it is clear that those fears were not unfounded. The ticking
time-bomb has exploded in Nigeria, and there is an understandable level
of panic in the land.

It is disheartening to imagine that in the 21st
century, Nigeria, with all the billions of dollars from oil at her
disposal, cannot save her citizens from a disease as preventable as
cholera.

In November 2009, barely a year ago, this paper lamented as much in an editorial.

“It is lamentable that despite the huge sums of
money allocated by our government for water supply to every part of the
country, many of our citizens still have to die due to lack of potable
water. The question then is: where does all the money go?” we said.

One year later that question still hangs
accusingly over the land. Where indeed does all the money go? Where do
all the promises by the government go?

Why are we saddled with a government that can only
react to tragedy, but will not do anything to prevent it from happening
in the first place? Following every outbreak of cholera – a scenario
which has now become a fixture on the calendar, such that it would not
be out of place if some state governments included “provision for
cholera” in the recurrent expenditure sections of their annual budgets
– governments fall over themselves to announce emergency measures.

Huge sums of money are released, isolation camps created, press conferences set up, assurances dispensed with reckless abandon.

A short while later, everything is packed up, the government returns to its standard state of slumber, to await the next epidemic.

And cholera is not the only epidemic to regularly hit Nigeria – the Northern part especially.

Meningitis and measles are regulars as well.

While the country succumbs to the menace of
cholera, our state governors appear more concerned with asserting their
powers as stakeholders in the politicking and horse-trading gaining
ground in the build-up to 2011.

When the Governors of the worst hit areas –
Northern Nigeria – gather under the aegis of the Northern Governors’
Forum, it is not to deliberate on the persistent threat posed by
cholera, it is to make silly declarations about “zoning.” What of the
local government authorities, whose primary duties it should be to
ensure the availability of potable water in communities, as well as
that citizens are adequately enlightened regarding the importance of
personal hygiene, since cholera is caused by the ingestion of food and
water contaminated with bacteria. We have come to the conclusion that
our local government authorities might as well not exist; such is the
extent of their abdication of governance that there is no point even
bothering to censure them. They are in most cases no more than huge
drain-pipes on the nation’s resources. Indeed, it may be argued that
the billions currently wasted on them would be better spent shared in
cash to the citizenry.

The health authorities have already wasted no time
in telling us what we already know: that this latest epidemic should be
blamed on contaminated water and a disregard for personal hygiene. But
what Nigerians, and presumably the world at large, would like to know
is this: While other countries struggle — and learn to cope — with
unavoidable natural disasters, like hurricanes and flooding, why does
Nigeria maintain its penchant for creating and perpetuating avoidable
ones?

While I was away in
the South East I was pleased to get an sms from my good friend Volker
Treichel that he is back in town. Volker had been Chief Economist of
the World Bank in Nigeria for several years. A German national, Volker
understands the Nigerian political economy rather well.

Towards year’s end
last year he had spearheaded a study on Growth and Employment in
Nigeria. His basic message was a simple but alarming one: the economy
is trundling along okay, but the people are not.

This message was
reinforced at last week’s seminar on the new Growth and Employment Pact
initiative where finance minister Olusegun Aganga reiterated the
government’s determination to mainstream job-creation within the
country’s economic growth paradigm. The minister noted that the economy
had been growing at an average of 6 percent during 2005-2009 even as
unemployment has continued to rise.

According to the
National Bureau of Statistics, unemployment increased from 11.5 percent
in 2005 to 19 percent in 2009. With our current estimated population of
145 million,

this means that
27.5 million Nigerians are without jobs; a figure that is more than the
total population of Ghana (23.35 million) and Mozambique (22.38
million). If one also considers the sober fact that an estimated 94
percent of the employed are in the informal sector, then one gets a
grim picture of our national tragedy.

To be sure,
unemployment is an increasingly worrying trend the world over.
According to Angel Gurria, Secretary-General of the Paris-based OECD,
unemployment in the richest countries has risen from an average of 5
percent to the current 9.9 percent. Within the 27-member European
Union, the jobless stand at 23.06 million, a figure that significantly
less than Nigeria’s. What is more, in the advanced welfare democracies,
every unemployed citizen has access to social benefits.

In Britain, this
would include a free council flat and a monthly allowance of £400
(120,000 naira). A Scottish friend who was visiting at our home
recently told me that some of his unemployed nephews and nieces have
virtually no incentive to work, since their welfare benefits are only
marginally lower than what is on offer on the lower-skilled jobs market.

Contrast this with
Nigeria, where there are no welfare benefits to speak, within an
economy that Nobel laureate Paul Krugman would describe as one of
“diminished expectations”.

Over the past
decade, the billions of dollars of inward investments that we have
witnessed have been predominantly in the oil and gas sector, telecoms
and banking – sectors that do not generate a great deal of jobs.

Our manufacturing
sector has been virtually comatose, with several firms having relocated
to Ghana and other neighbouring countries, thanks to lack of
electricity, the high rate of criminal violence and a generally
inhospitable business climate. With an inflation rate that has averaged
more than 10 percent and with all the prevailing structural bottlenecks
in our economy, things have never looked more hopeless. Our youths are
understandably angry, with an army of unemployed that are large enough
to stage a violent national uprising. We are sitting on a time bomb.

It is an irony that
international development agencies have been more concerned about the
unfolding drama than succeeding Nigerian governments. The UK Department
for International Development (DFID) in collaboration with the World
Bank recently launched the Growth Employment in States (GEMS)
programme. GEMS seeks to boost the productive sector by improving the
business environment so as to accelerate private investment while
creating jobs and boosting incomes.

The two agencies
have contributed a total of US$300 million to the project, which will
initially cover four selected states of Lagos, Kano, Kaduna and Cross
River on a pilot basis. Among the sectors to be covered are wholesale
and retail trade, meat and leather, hospitality (hotels and tourism),
entertainment (music, films, Nollywood) and construction and real
estate.

The Growth and
Employment Pact opens up a new window of opportunity to resolutely
address one of our nation’s gravest development challenges. It calls
for action, not rhetoric. We must work across the three tiers of
government to launch a massive programme for the rebirth of the non-oil
sector while boosting jobs and getting our people back to work.

We have to think
outside the box. If we could put aside 200 billion naira every year for
the next 5 years we could take an average of some 1 million youths off
the streets by engaging them in the construction of rural roads, rail
tracks and other such direct labour public works. It would have such a
huge impact on the economy; restoring hope, boosting aggregate demand
and giving a massive push to growth and long-term sustainable
development.

During the 1930s
Great Depression in the USA, President Franklin Roosevelt applied this
public works approach in his New Deal strategy, with impressive
results. President Barak Obama is following the same philosophy, with
modifications. The long-suffering people of Nigeria expect nothing less.

During the first half of this year, German and
American political leaders engaged in an epic debate. American leaders
argued that the economic crisis was so bad, governments should borrow
billions to stimulate growth. German leaders argued that a little
short-term stimulus was sensible, but anything more was near-sighted.
What was needed was not more debt, but measures to balance budgets and
restore confidence.

The debate got pointed. American economists
accused German policymakers of risking a long depression. The German
finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble countered, “governments should not
become addicted to borrowing as a quick fix to stimulate demand.” The
two countries followed different policy paths. According to Gary Becker
of the University of Chicago, the Americans borrowed an amount equal to
6 percent of GDP in an attempt to stimulate growth. The Germans spent
about 1.5 percent of GDP on their stimulus.

This divergence created a natural experiment. Who was right?

The early returns suggest the Germans were. The
American stimulus package was supposed to create a “summer of
recovery,” according to Obama administration officials. Job growth was
supposed to be surging at up to 500,000 a month. Instead, the U.S.
economy is scuffling along.

The German economy, on the other hand, is growing
at a sizzling (and obviously unsustainable) 9 percent annual rate.
Unemployment in Germany has come down to pre-crisis levels.

Results from one quarter do not settle the
stimulus/austerity debate. Many other factors are in play. For example,
Germany is surging, in part, because America is borrowing. Essentially,
we Americans borrowed from our kids, spent some of that money on German
machinery, and ended up employing German workers.

But the results do underline one essential truth:
Stimulus size is not the key factor in determining how quickly a
country emerges from recession. The U.S. tried big, but is emerging
slowly. The Germans tried small, and are recovering nicely.

The economy can’t be played like a piano – press a
fiscal key here and the right job creation notes come out over there.
Instead, economic management is more like parenting. If you instill
good values and create a secure climate then, through some mysterious
process you will never understand, things will probably end well.

The crucial issue is getting the fundamentals
right. The Germans are doing better because during the past decade,
they took care of their fundamentals and the Americans didn’t.

The situation can be expressed this way: German
policymakers inherited a certain consensus-based economic model. That
model has advantages. It fosters gradual innovation (of the sort useful
in metallurgy). It also has disadvantages. It sometimes re-enforces
rigidity and high unemployment.

Over the past few years, the Germans have built on
their advantages. They effectively support basic research and worker
training. They have also taken brave measures to minimise their
disadvantages. As an editorial from the superb online think tank e21
reminds us, the Germans have recently reduced labor market regulation,
increased wage flexibility and taken strong measures to balance budgets.

In the United States, policymakers inherited a
different economic model, one that also has certain advantages. It
fosters disruptive innovation (of the sort useful in Silicon Valley).
It also has certain disadvantages – a penchant for overconsumption and
short term thinking.

Over the past decade, American policymakers have
done little to maximise their model’s natural advantages or address its
problems. Indeed, they’ve only made the short-term thinking problem
worse, with monetary, fiscal and home ownership policies encouraging
even more borrowing and consumption.

Nations rise and fall on the intertwined strength
of their cultures and governing institutions. Despite all the normal
shortcomings, German governing institutions have functioned reasonably
well, ushering in painful but necessary reforms. The U.S. has a
phenomenally creative culture, but right now it’s an institutional
weakling.

If you look around the world today, you see that a
two-class system is coming into being. Some countries are undertaking
fundamentals reforms. In these places, weaknesses have been exposed.
Orthodoxies have been shattered. New coalitions have formed.

This is happening in Britain, where a centre-right
government is reining in a government that had spun out of control.
It’s also true in Sweden and other consensus-based countries, where
there is so much emphasis on consistent, long-range thinking.

In other countries, political division frustrates
long-range thinking. The emphasis is on fixing things for next month or
next quarter. The U.S., unfortunately, is struggling to get out of
Group 2.

© 2010 New York Times