Subsidy is no sin; it is an economic and spiritual necessity

Wikipedia defines subsidy as ‘’government expenditure for individuals and households, as well as businesses with the aim of stabilising the economy. It ensures that individuals and households are viable by having access to essential goods and services while giving businesses the opportunity to stay afloat and/or competitive. Subsidies not only promote long-term economic stability but […]

Wikipedia defines subsidy as ‘’government expenditure for individuals and households, as well as businesses with the aim of stabilising the economy. It ensures that individuals and households are viable by having access to essential goods and services while giving businesses the opportunity to stay afloat and/or competitive. Subsidies not only promote long-term economic stability but also help governments to respond to economic shocks during a recession or in response to unforeseen shocks’’.

I took the liberty of looking out for the meaning of subsidy across other platforms and dictionaries and what they have to say is similar to the above. The bottom line is that subsidy is nothing negative or pejorative as we have been made to believe.

So where and how come our pseudo-economists and government officials get the idea that subsidy is a bad thing akin to heresy or sin, justifying its removal from the economy? For good measure let us look at how subsidy is applied in other countries.    

In the United States, the highest temple of capitalism, the economy runs on subsidies take it or leave it. All the leading military-industrial complexes like Lockheed Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics etc that form the bedrock of the American economy and life are heavily subsidised by the American government variously through tax breaks, waivers, and other incentives. This is in addition to above-the-odds sweetheart military contracts which ensure the advancement of American foreign policy objectives.

Without massive subsidies, those Boeing commercial jets would not roll out of the assembly plants at Everett or Chicago, let alone fly. Lockheed will not produce the cutting-edge Raptor F-22 fifth-generation stealth aircraft and Raytheon will not produce the Patriot missiles. By the same token, General Motors would find it had to produce the Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT) in the American military arsenal.

Coming to Education, Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (MIT) Yale, Princeton and all the other Ivy League American institutions depend on subsidies in form of grants and endowments either directly or indirectly from the American government to maintain their world-class status.

In the Oil and Gas sector, American oil companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron and others enjoy subsidies and waivers on environment taxes, pioneer status, exploration and production exemption, export etc.

For years, American major oil companies pointedly refused to explore the vast shale oil deposits in America because they did not consider the even generous incentives to explore the deposits enough. It was only with the coming of President Barrack the Obama administration that relaxed laws on environmental requirements, taxes and exemptions as well as waivers on exploration and production, riding roughshod over fierce resistance of environmental activists that persuaded the oil companies to begin to get involved.  And in agriculture, American farmers enjoy the most subsidies which take the ridiculous extent of even destroying excess agricultural produce or keeping them in silos somewhere in the Midwest of America just to protect American farmers against foreign competition and keep them in business.

And the European Union is a gargantuan subsidy operation in industry, agriculture, education, transportation, health etc. The popular Airbus jets produced by France, Germany, Britain and Spain jointly require subsidies to stay afloat. Indeed Airbus has still not broken even and without generous incentives from these governments, the Toulouse, France-based Company will go belly up.

Long and short of it, subsidy is the lifeblood of the advanced economies of the world and should any of them dare remove it the social chaos this will cause will be unimaginable. Indeed subsidies are bound in their constitutions and no economist or government official will contemplate voicing out any suggestions on withdrawing them because the consequences are too dire.

Even in the spiritual realm, the relevance of subsidies to our existence is evident. The air, water, land and other elements which we need and use for our sustenance were provided to us by our Creator. Think about how vital air and water are to our livelihood; from the use of air not just to breathe but also through which we make transactions daily running to trillions or more daily and fly through by airplanes from one end of the world to the other free of charge. Is this not subsidy by our Creator out of His abundant mercy and grace to humankind? It follows, therefore, that whoever removes this basic incentive to our existence freely given by God is ungodly and will incur His anger.

If the same people who compel us to implement the withdrawal of subsidies see the necessity and reality of its economic and spiritual benefits why then do we listen to them when we know that it is economically and spiritually injurious to us? Why do we find it difficult to look them in their blue eyes and tell them to first remove their layers of subsidies before they ask us to do the same? If as they say subsidy is inefficient, why do they not withdraw it in their economies?

The reality is that the issue of subsidy withdrawal is tied to racial economics. Notice how in America and EU subsidies are not used as terms in reference to their economies. They use terms like ‘’tax breaks’’, ‘’incentives’’, ‘’waivers’’, ‘’exemptions’’ etc to mask the humongous subsidies in their economies. But in economies such as ours, our pseudo-economists have been drilled and tutored to use and apply the term subsidies much as a four-letter word to justify its removal from our economies. Most times they do not even have the guts to ask why should subsidies be removed in Nigeria but retained in America and Europe.

Well, there we have it. Against better judgement the Tinubu administration having decided to go full steam and remove subsidies, we are all in it. And those who persuaded him to implement the policy to attract ‘’foreign investors’’ are not around to help him out. Indeed some of their companies are pulling out and more will follow suit.     

And as we are all now ‘’chopping breakfast’’ from the administration’s impulsive, ill-thought-out policies, we await the certain judgement of our God and Man for breaking his spiritual Covenant on His provision of the means of sustenance to our livelihood and existence.