Untitled

The People's Economy — Article 1

There is a woman who has sold provisions from the same corner stall for over twenty years.

She opens before six. She closes after the street has gone quiet. She has raised children on that stall, paid school fees from it, buried a parent with what it earned. She has never once, in twenty years, failed to show up. If diligence alone built wealth, she would be a wealthy woman by now.

She is not. She is exactly where she started; a little more tired, a little more experienced, no closer to owning anything beyond the goods currently sitting on her shelf.

She is not unusual. She is, in fact, the rule. Walk through almost any market, any industrial cluster, any strip of roadside workshops in Nigeria, and you will find thousands of versions of her; people who have worked with genuine discipline for decades, and have almost nothing to show for it beyond their continued ability to keep working.

This is the puzzle worth sitting with, because the easy explanations don't hold up.

The Problem

The usual story we tell about poverty is a story about individuals. Not disciplined enough. Not smart enough with money. Too generous with relatives, too tempted by short-term spending, not educated enough to "manage" what they earn.

It's a comfortable story, because it locates the problem entirely inside the person, and leaves everything else; the structure around them, unexamined.

But the comfortable story doesn't survive contact with people like the woman on the corner. She is disciplined. She has managed scarcity for twenty years without ever missing a payment or losing her stock. Whatever is keeping her poor, it is not a personal failure of character or effort.

Something else is going on. And once you see it, you start seeing it everywhere.

Why It Exists

Here is the actual mechanism, stated plainly: effort produces income. Income, by itself, produces nothing further.

Every day the woman works, she converts her time and skill into cash. That cash pays for food, rent, school fees, restocking; and then it is gone. Tomorrow, she starts again from zero. Her labour never accumulates into anything that keeps producing value after she stops supplying it.

Contrast this with ownership. A person who owns a share of the building her stall sits in earns something in addition to whatever she personally does that day; rent, or a portion of it, keeps arriving whether she is at the market or not. A person who owns equity in a productive venture earns a share of what that venture produces, independent of her own hours.

This is the entire difference between a life of labour and a life of wealth. It is not effort versus laziness. It is income versus ownership; and the tragedy of communities like the one around that market stall is that almost everyone is optimizing for the first, because almost no one was ever taught, or given the structure, to convert into the second.

A Historical Perspective

This is not a uniquely Nigerian pattern, and it is not new. Go back far enough into the history of almost any economy now considered wealthy, and you find long stretches where the same problem existed; hardworking populations, minimal collective ownership, and correspondingly little durable wealth.

What changed, in every case worth studying, was not that people started working harder. They were already working as hard as human beings can work. What changed is that they began organizing their effort collectively, through institutions built specifically to convert scattered individual income into shared, productive ownership.

Farmers who could never individually afford a grain mill pooled their resources and built one together, then owned it together. Workers who could never individually qualify for credit formed societies that pooled their savings and lent to each other on terms a bank would never have offered any one of them alone. None of this required anyone to work harder than they already were. It required a structure that didn't exist before; and once it existed, the same hours of labour started producing a different kind of outcome.

Lessons From Other Countries

Denmark, in the late 1800s, was a poor agrarian country by the standards of its neighbours. Its farmers were smallholders, individually too small to compete with larger estates elsewhere in Europe. What changed Denmark's trajectory wasn't a new crop or a technological leap; it was the widespread adoption of agricultural cooperatives, through which smallholders pooled processing, distribution, and credit. Individually poor farmers, collectively organized, became one of the most productive agricultural economies in the world within a few decades.

Japan's post-war recovery leaned heavily on cooperative credit associations at the community level; pooled savings institutions that gave small manufacturers and farmers access to capital long before formal banking reached them broadly. Kenya's savings and credit cooperatives (SACCOs) today mobilize a scale of domestic savings that dwarfs what any individual saver could achieve alone, funding everything from school fees to small business capital for millions of members who would otherwise have no access to affordable credit at all.

None of these stories are about a single visionary who worked harder than everyone around them. They are all stories about ordinary people, already working hard, who built a structure that let their effort compound instead of resetting to zero every single day.

The Nigerian Context

Nigeria is not short of the underlying discipline this requires. If anything, it may have more of it, per capita, than almost anywhere else; visible in something we rarely credit properly: the informal savings culture that runs through nearly every market, workplace, and neighbourhood in the country.

Ajo. Esusu. The thrift collector who visits every single day without fail. These are, in essence, community-built financial institutions; informal, but remarkably disciplined, often running for years without a single default, entirely on trust and mutual accountability. This is not a country lacking financial discipline. This is a country whose financial discipline has, for the most part, never been given a large enough structure to compound inside.

Most of these arrangements stay exactly the size they started at. They rarely graduate into owning a shared productive asset; a building, a piece of equipment, a stake in a growing venture. The daily thrift contribution becomes the school-fees payment or the emergency fund, and then it resets. The discipline is extraordinary. The structure around it has simply never been built to convert that discipline into ownership at scale.

The Principle

Which brings us to the actual principle underneath all of this, the one this entire series will keep returning to in different forms:

Communities become prosperous not when individuals work harder, but when they convert collective effort into collectively-owned productive assets, through institutions built to outlast any single contributor.

This is not a call to work less. The woman on the corner should keep opening at six. It's a call to notice that her hours, and the hours of everyone around her, are currently flowing entirely into consumption and restocking; with no structure in place to divert even a portion of that same effort into something the community owns together.

Practical Examples

Picture the same market, twenty years from now, organized slightly differently. A portion of what each trader already sets aside; money that today goes into an individual thrift collector's bag and comes back out unchanged; instead flows into a shared fund that, over time, purchases the building the market operates from. The traders who once paid rent to an absentee landlord now collectively own the asset generating that rent.

Picture a cluster of roadside mechanics who already share tools informally, occasionally lending a welding machine or a compressor to a neighbour; now pooling savings to jointly own the very equipment they already share access to, so that the value each machine generates accrues to the group that maintains it, not just to whichever member happens to own it individually today.

None of this requires new income. It requires redirecting a portion of income that already exists, through a structure disciplined enough to hold it, protect it, and grow it collectively rather than letting each person's contribution reset to zero every month.

Why This Is the Work I've Chosen

I did not arrive at this from economics. I trained as an engineer, and the questions I've always found most interesting are structural ones; why some systems keep functioning reliably long after the people who built them have moved on, while others collapse the moment attention shifts elsewhere.

At some point, I started asking that same question about communities instead of software. Why do some places keep producing opportunity across generations, while others; full of equally hardworking, equally capable people seem to reset back to the same starting point every single time?

I don't think the answer is a better work ethic. I have never met a community that needed to be told to work harder. I think the answer is institutions; deliberately built structures that take individual effort and convert it into something owned, something durable, something that keeps producing value long after any one person's shift has ended. That conviction is the foundation of everything I build, in every form it takes.

Reflection

It is worth sitting, honestly, with a simple question: of everything you earned this year, how much became consumption that has already disappeared, and how much became ownership of something that is still quietly working for you today?

For most of us, the honest answer is uncomfortable. Not because we failed to work hard enough; most of us worked plenty hard but because no one ever handed us, or the people around us, a structure built to hold onto what that effort produced.

A Question, Not a Conclusion

I don't think this is a problem any individual solves alone, no matter how disciplined they are. I think it's a problem communities solve together, or not at all.

So here is the question I'd genuinely like to leave you with, the same one that's been sitting underneath everything I've written above: what would have to be true about the community you grew up in, for the discipline that was already there; the ajo, the thrift, the twenty years of showing up at six every morning; to have compounded into something owned, rather than resetting every single month?

I don't think there's one correct answer. I think it's worth each of us actually sitting with the question.

The People's Economy — Article 2

He checks his alert the moment it comes in, most months, and there's a small satisfaction in seeing the number land on time.

He has a good job. A proper salary, the kind his parents would have called a real career; paid monthly, paid on time, with a title that means something at family gatherings. By most conversations he'd have about money, he is doing well.

Ask him a different question, though; not what he earns, but what he owns; and the answer thins out fast. A car still being paid off. Furniture. Clothes. Whatever is left in the account by the twentieth of the month, which most months is not much. Nothing that would still be producing value for him if his salary stopped arriving tomorrow.

He is not reckless with money. He is, by any reasonable standard, doing exactly what he was taught to do; get a good job, earn a good salary, live within it. He has simply never been taught that earning well and being wealthy are two different achievements, measured two completely different ways.

The Problem

We have a language problem, and it's not a small one. "How much do you make" gets used, casually and constantly, as a stand-in for "how well are you doing financially"; as though the two questions had the same answer.

They don't. A high earner with nothing set aside is not wealthy. A modest earner who has spent a decade quietly converting a portion of every paycheck into something owned can be considerably better off, in every sense that matters over the long run, than someone earning twice as much and keeping none of it.

This confusion isn't a minor semantic issue. It shapes how people plan their entire financial lives; toward earning more, almost exclusively, and rarely toward owning more. And it shapes how entire communities and even countries measure their own progress, usually by income figures alone.

Why It Exists

The confusion exists because income is visible and immediate, and wealth is invisible and slow.

A salary shows up as a notification. It has a number attached, arrives on a schedule, and produces an instant, legible feeling of progress or stagnation. Wealth doesn't behave that way. It accumulates quietly, in the background, often without a single dramatic moment that announces "you are now wealthier than you were." There's no alert for a decade of patient asset accumulation the way there is for a payday.

Add to this what economists sometimes call lifestyle inflation; the tendency for spending to rise in step with income, so that a raise rarely changes what's actually being kept, only what's being spent. The number people watch every month is designed, almost perfectly, to make them feel like they're progressing even when nothing durable is being built underneath.

A Historical Perspective

It's worth remembering that "earning a salary" as the primary unit of economic life is a fairly recent invention, historically speaking.

For most of human history, wealth was not measured in wages at all. It was measured in what a family or a community actually held; land, livestock, tools, a share in a guild, a stake in a trading venture. These were the things passed down, fought over, and protected across generations. A wage, where it existed at all, was often treated as a lesser, temporary form of income; something a person without assets relied on, precisely because they had nothing yet to own.

The rise of large-scale wage labour during industrialization changed this, gradually and thoroughly, until earning a salary became the default measure of a "good" economic life for most people, in most places. What got lost in that shift wasn't the value of a wage; a wage is genuinely useful; but the older, more fundamental understanding that a wage was supposed to be a means toward ownership, not a substitute for it.

Lessons From Other Countries

Singapore offers one of the more deliberate modern corrections to this drift. Its Central Provident Fund doesn't simply let income arrive and disappear into consumption; it mandates that a substantial portion of every wage earner's income is redirected into accounts explicitly built for housing, healthcare, and retirement ownership.

The effect, over decades, has been striking: a country with no significant natural resources has one of the highest home-ownership rates in the world, built almost entirely on a policy insight that income, left to its own devices, mostly gets spent; and that lasting wealth, at national scale, requires a structure that forces a portion of it into ownership before it has the chance to disappear.

Nobody in that system was told to earn more. They were given a structure that made sure a fixed share of what they already earned became something owned, automatically, every single month.

The Nigerian Context

Nigeria has its own, very specific version of this confusion, and it shows up constantly in how success gets displayed rather than how it gets measured.

A car, a wardrobe, a well-attended owambe; these are often read, socially, as proof of financial arrival, because they are visible in a way that a savings account or a share certificate never will be. Meanwhile, a large share of even well-paid civil servants and private-sector professionals reach retirement with a pension that barely covers a fraction of what their working income once was, and no other asset base beneath it. The income was real, often for decades. The wealth, in most of these cases, was never actually built.

This is not a story about irresponsibility. It's a story about a financial culture that has, for understandable historical reasons, spent far more energy teaching people how to earn than how to convert what they earn into something that outlasts the paycheck.

The Principle

Economists have a clean way of stating this distinction, and it's worth borrowing directly: income is a flow. Wealth is a stock.

A flow, no matter how large, passes through and is gone unless some of it is diverted into a stock along the way. A stock, even a modest one, remains; and given enough time, it grows on its own, independent of whether the flow that originally built it continues.

This is the entire distinction, stripped of jargon: what you earn is what passes through your hands. What you own is what stays. Financial progress is not measured by the size of the flow. It's measured by how much of it you've managed to convert into something that stays.

Practical Examples

Picture two people on the same salary grade, in the same organization, for ten years.

The first spends according to their income each month; comfortably, reasonably, nothing extravagant; and finishes the decade with a slightly better wardrobe and no meaningful asset base beyond whatever severance or pension the organization itself provides.

The second redirects a fixed, modest share of every paycheck; the same kind of disciplined, unglamorous contribution behind every ajo and esusu; but into something structured to convert into ownership over time: a stake in a cooperative venture, a shareholding scheme, a piece of jointly-owned productive property. Ten years later, this second person's income has not necessarily been higher at any point along the way. Their financial position is entirely different, because a portion of every flow, month after month, was converted into a stock that kept compounding quietly in the background.

The gap between these two people was never about how much either one earned. It was entirely about what happened to the earnings after they arrived.

Why This Distinction Sits Underneath Everything I Build

I keep returning to this distinction because I think it's the single most consequential piece of financial thinking most people were never taught, and it's the quiet foundation of the larger argument I'm making across this whole series.

A community measured only by its average income can look prosperous on paper and still own almost nothing collectively; no shared productive assets, no institutions holding wealth across generations, nothing that survives a single bad year. That gap between income and ownership, multiplied across an entire community rather than one household, is the actual structural problem I think about constantly in my own work: not how to help people earn more, but how to build the institutions that convert what's already being earned into something that stays.

Reflection

It's worth doing, honestly, once: pull up your last bank alert, and next to it, write down what you actually own; not what you earn, what you hold. Not the salary. The stock, not the flow.

For most people, that second list is far shorter than the first number would suggest it should be. That gap is not a personal failing. It's the natural result of a financial culture that taught earning far more thoroughly than it ever taught converting.

A Question, Not a Conclusion

If income is the flow and wealth is the stock, the only question that actually matters, month after month, is a simple one: how much of this flow became something that stays?

I don't think most of us have ever been asked that question directly, let alone taught how to answer it well. I'd like to know; has anyone reading this built a habit, formal or informal, that reliably converts a piece of what you earn into something you still own years later? I'd genuinely like to hear how.