Leaderboard

It all began with Get Out, a movie, written and directed by a black person and starring a number of Black people in the top roles. A fantasy film. It made a ton of money. Disney then made Black Panther, a huge budget fantasy film directed and written and mostly starring black people based on a character originally written by a white man. That film made a ton of money.. So all the white producers noted it but didn't react. And I said then, this is the beginning of a genre. White producers want the money of Black PAnther. Then came Black Panther 2 and Sinners. Black PAnther 2 made a ton of money and showed a big budget fantasy film [not urban romance aka just wright or urban drama aka soul food or black southrern drama aka tyler perry films ]written/directed/mostly starring blacks can have a financially successful series Sinners showed fantasy film with a potent but small budget, written/directed/partially financed by blacks /with no white protagonist character or all the white characters were antagonist, can make a ton of money. All three films directed by Ryan Coogler. So white producers know, it is possible for films produced by whites while in all other ways Black can be huge financial victors. Thus Children of Blood and Bone from Tomi Adeyemi is paramounts answer. ORiginally Disney bought the rights. But they held on. Disney in my view wanted to hold on to Adeyemi's work till after Black Panther 2 or 3. But, the delay allowed other white producers to bid for the work. So, Paramount, who weren't able to utilize the Star Trek brand to keep their company from receivership or being sold to Skydance , in their dire desires , paramount also owns Black Entertainment Television, wanted to have their own black panther, and felt Tomi Adeyemi's work can be as financially profitable as Black PAnther, hopefully even better. PAramount was so desperate they gave Adeyemi more money for the rights but also gave her the screenwriting credit alongside the mulatto female director BLythewood , [blythewoods biological mother is white , but she was raised by two whites as an adopted child, who knows her black father]. The cast seems to include no one white, with a minority of mulattos/yellas/light skinned folk, all of whom call themselves black. I wish the film the best, not for the producers who are all or mostly white but for the writer/director /thespians/ and other blacks in the creative process being paid by the producers to make the work. But I see the problem financially, that no one is addressing. The problem with the modern art world isn't that Black people have money. I rephrase, black people throughout humanity have money. Black people in Africa are billionaires, not all, a minority, but they are not one person. Black people in south america, like Brasil have many millionaires, yes through sport, but that is honest money, it isn't killing native americans through germ war fare or slaughtering weapons. Black people in north america, like the USA have many millionaires. Black people in continental europe have a number of millionaires. Black people in India and throughout asia have millionaires. So. the global black populace has money and thus can pay to see themselves in media. But the problem is that the white producers of the arts , correctly, aren't going to over finance these films. Unlike the 1970s film industry in the united states of america, where many white producers for small budget films were willing to provide black thespians with opportunities, barely any black directors or writers got opportunities then, The Get Out to Black Panther era is demanding significant financial stimulus from any producer for these films. Thus the opportunities are still few, although with large checks. The only way more Black fantasy films will be made is when Black Money will be willing to risk. The problem, also correct, is that Black Money, unlike White Money, in modernity is majority warranted. Majority of white money in modernity comes from white militaristic power killing non white europeans for land or enslaving non white europeans for labor or legalizing white crimes through a legal system supported by white militaristic power. Black Money in modernity ,does not come from genocides or enslavements or military might allowing a legal framework to support. Sequentially, Black Money is far more cautious about investing. Black Money doesn't have military power to recover financially , to lose all money and still recover all wealth. But the only way Black art in film will grow is when black money invest more., and it has to start with black artist themselves. The lesson in Get Out plus Sinners is that the black artists in question put their own money up. Like Baum, who made the first Wizard of Oz movie with his own money, Black Artists must invest in the multimedia expression in their art. Unlike the world of art auctioning, which has become a boon for black painters/sculptors and other craft arts. Movie making investment can not build on itself. Basquait's paintings value grow with each auction , with each resale, but a film can become a deadly investment .This is why , so many film studios go bankrupt, United Artist/MGM/Warner Bros./ PAramount /New Line Cinema and many others get sold , not because they are making money but their owners can't afford to make any more films and use their film vaults as investment to sell themselves and get one last financial boost before becoming part of another firms portfolio. As for Adeyemi.... again, Baum, who wrote the Wizard of Oz financed the first Oz film from his own pocket. She could had done likewise as her book is a bestseller. But she decided to sell the film rights and cut a deal. The only way an writer can control a film based on their work is to finance it themselves. But writers like getting paid and have residual earnings by selling rights. Once rights are sold, you lose control, so whether you are Alzburg with Jumanji or Ende with Neverending story or Adeyemi with Blood and Bone, a writer has to blame themselves for signing their film rights, when they could had paid to make the movie themselves, but that is a gamble. Toni Adeyemi and children of blood and bone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPP0QblvsE my comment I see , so tomi promised to use nigerians in the casting. I knew about the phenotypical elements in the story. I will love to know the background of casting. I think children or blood and bone is also suffering from being one of the few films with so many black thespian roles in a high budget context. So, a fight is over the film. yeeesshh thanks for sharing the situation. the author is online supporting it and then hate it. good point on Colleen Hoover , if Children and Blood and Bone financially fail, it will end her book series going into movies. The more odd scenario, is what if children of blood and bone becomes financially the next black panther, what will Adeyemi do? what will paramount do? studios want to milk the breast, and they will want the next book and the next book. the video if you want to see here POST URL https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12862-thoughts-to-tomi-adeyemi-and-the-children-of-blood-and-bone/ POST CONTENT I think Tomi Adeyemi's scenario with The Children of Blood and Bone film is interesting. She is a black writer, very successful financially. And film producers cause of the fiscal results of black panther, want black fantasy that can yield big dollars. Many black thespians in the story are making good money and it has the potential to be a series. But, Adeyemi has spoken for it and against it, variably. I don't think she comprehended that the film making business isn't like writing a book by yourself. The film making process is a collaborative art work project. And in that collaboration mamy things happen you don't like. You have to accept this truth. Adeyemi will not be the first or last writer not to, but I hope the film does well and she can take the lessons from here and have a better relationship to the film making business. What say you/ Economic Corner 45 Economic Corner 45 08/16/2026 - RMCommunityCalendar - African American Literature Book Club PRIOR EDITION https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/795-economic-corner-44-08122026/ NEXT EDITION https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/798-economic-corner-46-08282026/

a post about the populace in the usa was presented https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12856-nilf-neetpeople-who-are-voluntarily-unemployed It is based on the following article https://www.aei.org/commentary/what-do-prime-age-nilf-men-do-all-day/ The following are excerpt response pairs, excerpts from the article and responses from me Thanks to the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we have detailed, self-reported information each year on how roughly 10,000 adult respondents spend their days—from the moment they wake until they sleep. so they are supporting their position based on a study of ten thousand in a country of three hundred and fifty million. One percent of three hundred and fifty million is three million and five hundred thousand. A thousandth of one percent is three thousand and five hundred. so ten thousand is three thousandth of one percent. Why is a study of three thousandth of one percent adequate to make any position toward any populace. Just how and why so many men in the prime of life should now be swept up in this flight from work is a matter of continuing scholarly research and debate. So they admit they don't have any position that has been researched adequately to comprehend the processes that are leading to or the causes to the choices in the populace to labor. But they suggest Universal Basic income will be a negative. I see job fairs in New York City where usually hundreds but sometimes thousands of people are looking to land one job, putting on suits and preparing all sorts of papers to pitch themselves, but at the end of the day, one person will get a second interview or perhaps accepted for employment while ninety nine to nine hundred and ninety nine will have to continue. The articles argument is that the labor market in the usa is adequate to employ all in the usa, if they would gain more education or apply themselves to more job opportunities. I don't know. The problem with labor in the usa is historically the labors that generated the most human involvement were labor intensive. When I look at NYC the biggest job markets are not in engineering but in nursing- the aging populace in the usa needs workers, law- the city always needs lawyers to fill the low paying legal jobs. Jobs in design or engineering are not enough, to restate if everyone in NYC not employed had the experience in various engineering disciplines, they would not all be hired in 48 hours. And the article criminalizes those in college as unlabored, when I know many people in the city university of new York have lived their entire lives as scholars. The reality is ever since circa eighteen hundred and sixty five ( 1865 ) white people in particular have complained about the viewpoint citizens have in the usa to the idea/role/value of fiscal capitalistic labor. Before circa 1865 whites never complained, post circa 1865 whites have never stop complaigning until now it is silly. The reality is, technology has always deleted human labor , from the cottin gin doing it before 1865 till various assembly lines to electronic computers to computers called artificial intelligence deleted human labor to the USA has a very powerful mechanical or electronic labor force that allows the fiscal wealthy to maintain plus grow their financial fortunes with no need of human laborers. The funny thing is in the countries so media labeled hard working or grandly educated populaces you see signs they are going through it. Japan is inviting students from the likes of Africa to have lives in Japan and build population growth. Many Japanese business are going out of business as Japanese are not coming in to run the business, either as younger Japanese don't want to or the population simply can't support the maintenance of the firm. China still has tons of people leaving china to find financial happiness outside china, even though many say china has more engineers than anywhere else. But clearly not all. The reality is, technology has ended in the rich or powerful countries the need for masses of human laborers. But who is the American Enterprise Institute? their founding statement is the following to promote "greater public knowledge and understanding of the social and economic advantages accruing to the American people through the maintenance of the system of free, competitive enterprise." I restate, maintaining a set of studies for willing elected officials to support legislation or legislative acts that allow for complete fiscal capitalism, complete fiscal capitalism defined as fiscal capitalism where all can fail or succeed, allowing criminality in any firm, demanding legal systems penalize. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was founded by an asbestos maker who proudly admitted he saved money while making his workers sick. AEI doesn't mind any business at any size being allowed to go bankrupt, they don't mind any business making money in any way; they don't mind laborers failing, being fired, not having enough money to afford where they live. Thus Universal Basic Income is opposed to how they feel fiscal capitalism should operate. MORE INFORMATION Lewis H. Brown founded the American Enterprise Association (AEA) in New York, a think tank which later moved to Washington, D.C., and was renamed the American Enterprise Institute. He served as AEA's chairman until his death. Brown also co-founded the Tax Foundation and served as chairman. [ https://web.archive.org/web/20090708195505/http://www.aei.org/history , look below for the content ] [[ modern aei webpage doesn't refer to what the link above does https://www.aei.org/about/ ]] In 1984, thirty-three years after Brown's death, Johns-Manville was alleged to have prioritized profits over the health and safety of employees during the time of his leadership. According to testimony given in a federal court by Charles H. Roemer, formerly an employee of Unarco, describing a meeting between Unarco officials, Lewis H. Brown and J-M attorney Vandiver Brown in the early 1940s, "I’ll never forget, I turned to Mr. Brown, one of the Browns made this crack (that Unarco managers were a bunch of fools for notifying employees who had asbestosis), and I said, ‘Mr. Vandiver Brown do you mean to tell me you would let them work until they dropped dead?’ He said, ‘Yes. We save a lot of money that way.'" [ Testimony of Charles H. Roemer, Deposition taken April 25, 1984, Johns-Manville Corp., et al. v. the United States of America, U.S. Claims Court Civ. No. 465-83C, cited in Barry I. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, 4th edition, Aspen Law and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1996, p.581 ] CONTENT [ History of AEI The American Enterprise Association (AEA) arrived in Washington in 1943, in the thick of World War II. In Congress there was talk of making wartime price and production controls permanent to prevent another Depression when peace finally arrived. The tiny AEA, a business group formed in New York City in 1938, was horrified; it resolved to open a Washington office to advocate rapid postwar economic demobilization and, more generally, to improve Congress's understanding of the economic consequences of its actions. The new AEA office, which eventually became headquarters and graduated from "association" to "institute," was the avant-garde of two momentous developments of the decades to come, both responding to the growing size and power of the federal government: the migration of business and trade associations from commercial centers to the nation's capital and the emergence of the policy "think tank." AEA was a partnership of top executives of leading business and financial firms (Bristol-Myers, General Mills, Chemical Bank) and prominent policy intellectuals (Roscoe Pound of the Harvard Law School, economic journalist Henry Hazlitt, and disillusioned New Dealer Raymond Moley). From the beginning, however, the Association's spirit was libertarian and conservative rather than simply "probusiness." Its founding mission statement would still serve well: to promote "greater public knowledge and understanding of the social and economic advantages accruing to the American people through the maintenance of the system of free, competitive enterprise." So, too, its academic and empirical commitments: AEA was to be "nonpartisan and nonpolitical," was to "express no opinion of its own," and was to produce "accurate, impartial, and objective" research. Following the highly successful dismantling of wartime economic controls, the AEA Washington office began preparing analyses of legislative proposals and publishing studies on subjects that remain AEI staples today--Social Security reform, government health insurance, the effects of trade on domestic employment, and the effects of productivity growth on wages and income. In 1950, a fan letter from freshman congressman Gerald R. Ford began a long and happy relationship with the late president. AEA also produced philosophic tracts portraying private enterprise as a form of voluntary social cooperation undergirding strong communities and democratic self-government--intellectual sprouts that would later blossom in such landmark works as Michael Novak's The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism and Irving Kristol's Two Cheers for Capitalism. The arrival in 1954 of William J. Baroody marked the beginning of the modern AEI. The son of a Lebanese immigrant stonecutter, Mr. Baroody gave up a secure job at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for the chance to lead a small, financially strapped organization. He was an entrepreneur and risk-taker, a strong political conservative, and a widely read intellectual convinced of the potential for ideas to move practical politics. During his twenty-six years at AEI, he demonstrated singular gifts for spotting important academic talent and for promoting dense--and often contrarian--policy-reform ideas for busy public officials, business executives, and journalists. Mr. Baroody expanded the legislative analyses, commissioned original research by leading scholars, and raised the money to pay the bills. Within a year of his arrival, reviews and excerpts of AEA publications began appearing in the Wall Street Journal and Barron's. By the early 1960s, economists Milton Friedman, Paul McCracken, and Gottfried Haberler had joined his academic advisory board. Mr. Baroody conceived for AEI a brilliant slogan that combined the Institute's commitment to freedom and competition with a forthright challenge to the liberal orthodoxy of 1960s Washington: "Competition of ideas is fundamental to a free society." Mr. Baroody's leadership produced a period of astounding growth in the quantity and quality of the Institute's output, making it one of the busiest and most productive centers of policy research in the nation and heralding the sea change in American politics to come. In 1972, Gottfried Haberler was appointed AEI's first "resident scholar," to be joined the following year by Yale's William Fellner; the arrival of such renowned scholars signaled the Institute's intention to become a first-rate research institution in fact and name. When the voters prematurely retired President Gerald R. Ford in 1976, he became AEI's "distinguished fellow" and brought with him a dozen colleagues to pursue work begun in his administration; among those who would subsequently return to public service were Arthur Burns, Robert Bork, Laurence Silberman, Antonin Scalia, James C. Miller III, John Snow, Rudolph Penner, and David Gergen. As AEI achieved critical institutional mass, it was able to attract several of America's most influential thinkers, including neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol; economists Herbert Stein and Marvin Kosters; sociologist Robert Nisbet; political scientists Robert Goldwin, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Walter Berns; theologian Michael Novak; and author Ben Wattenberg. Having begun the 1970s with a budget of $1 million and a staff of ten, AEI at decade's end had a budget of $8 million and a staff of 125. AEI had become a hotbed of innovative ideas--on deregulation, tax reform, trade policy, social welfare problems, and revitalization of defense and foreign policy--that were about to debut on the political stage. The 1980s were great years for AEI's ideas but troubled years for the institution itself. President Ronald Reagan appointed several dozen AEI scholars and fellows to his administration and to federal judgeships, where they helped him to achieve monumental improvements in economic, regulatory, and legal policy and to deploy the more assertive foreign policy that dispatched Soviet Communism by decade's end. But Mr. Baroody died just months before Reagan's election, and his successor, son William Baroody Jr., struggled to maintain his father's legacy in a transformed political environment. With so many prominent AEIers in government, and with the emergence of several energetic new think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, AEI's reputation and finances suffered. Still, many exceptional scholars remained busy and productive at AEI and began work on audacious new projects--such as producing a new liberal-conservative consensus on welfare reform that eventually produced the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. AEI's trustees appointed a new president in 1986--Christopher DeMuth, a lawyer and economist who had served in the Nixon and Reagan administrations and taught at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Mr. DeMuth revamped the Institute's program of foreign and defense policy studies and focused its domestic research agenda on traditional strengths: public finance and tax policy; government regulation; U.S. politics and political institutions; and cultural, philosophical, and social welfare issues. He also instituted major managerial and financial reforms and a new and variegated publications program. Donors responded with alacrity; by the early 1990s, AEI had paid off its debts and was growing mightily in financial resources, in the size of research staff, and in the quality and influence of its output. Soon, the Institute's eminent senior scholars were joined by a new generation of economists, social scientists, foreign policy and trade experts, and students of social and cultural problems. To name only two recent accomplishments, Institute scholars, and particularly Peter J. Wallison, provided prescient warnings about the problems of the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In foreign policy, Frederick W. Kagan is credited with providing the intellectual and practical rationale for a change in strategy in Iraq in 2007, which came to be known as the surge. Today, the Institute has a staff of 185, including seventy scholars and fellows. It also has a new president. In 2008, after twenty-two years at the helm, Mr. DeMuth stepped down as president and moved down the hall to do research. His successor, Arthur C. Brooks is a classical musician by training. He came late to the world of public policy, influenced by the innovative and daring social science research of Charles Murray. After seven decades, AEI continues to serve a vital role in the intellectual life of the nation. The Institute furnishes policymakers with ideas to meet the pressing challenges of today based on the resilient principles of private liberty, individual opportunity, and free enterprise. ] https://www.aei.org/commentary/too-big-to-fail-or-succeed/ CONTENT [ Too Big to Fail, or Succeed Author by Peter J. Wallison Date June 18, 2009 ECO-Mon-0017-Stock iStockphoto/DNY59 In a speech at the White House yesterday, President Barack Obama outlined what he envisions for future regulation of the financial system. He called his plan “a new foundation for sustained economic growth . . . a transformation on a scale not seen since the reforms that followed the Great Depression.” Indeed it is. His plan, if adopted, will fundamentally change the nature of our financial system and economy. The underlying concerns and assumptions are clear, and they are made clearer by considering other ways that his administration has dealt with the consequences of competition–particularly the faux bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler and the impending change in antitrust policy. Although the president said in his speech that he supports free markets, these initiatives confirm that the administration fears the “creative destruction” that free markets produce, preferring stability over innovation, competition and change. According to the administration white paper circulated prior to the president’s speech, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to create a special regulatory regime–including requirements for capital, leverage and liquidity–for any firm “whose combination of size, leverage, and interconnectedness could pose a threat to financial stability if it failed.” In addition, if a large financial firm is failing, the Treasury is to be given the power–in lieu of bankruptcy–to appoint a conservator or receiver to “stabilize” it. Despite all the talk about credit priorities, the fundamental point is that the administration used taxpayer money to overturn the market’s verdict. Designating particular financial firms for this kind of special regulatory treatment clearly signals to the markets that these institutions are too big to fail. It will reduce the perceived risk of lending to them, enabling them to raise funds at lower cost than their smaller competitors. In other words, the administration’s plan would create what are essentially government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in every sector of the financial economy–insurers, securities firms, finance companies, bank holding companies, and hedge funds–where these specially regulated firms are to be designated. The result will be devastating for competition. Larger firms will squeeze out smaller ones and aggressive small companies will have less opportunity to overcome the government-backed winners. Moreover, the administration’s proposal to provide a special bailout mechanism for large firms confirms the likelihood that these firms will never be closed down or liquidated. Citing the market turmoil that followed Lehman’s collapse, the administration will argue that failures like this are “disorderly.” But failure comes from risk-taking–the very source of our economy’s strength–and it is ultimately risk-taking and its consequences that the administration’s plan is intended to prevent. The turmoil following Lehman’s failure occurred because market participants expected, after the rescue of Bear Stearns, that any larger firm would also be rescued. When Lehman wasn’t, all market participants were required to recalibrate the risks of dealing with all others, causing a freeze-up in lending and hoarding of cash. Lehman’s failure itself did not cause any substantial losses, and within two weeks of its bankruptcy filing Lehman’s trustee sold its brokerage, investment banking, and investment management businesses to four different buyers. Contrast this with AIG, the administration’s paradigm, which was saved by the government because it was allegedly too big to fail. That firm is gradually wasting away under government control, with the taxpayers footing the bill. The administration’s fear of competitive outcomes is not reflected solely in financial-sector policies. Consider General Motors and Chrysler. They were defeated in the marketplace. Simply put, they failed to build automobiles enough Americans wanted to buy. Their disappearance would not have threatened the stability of the financial system, although it would undoubtedly have been disruptive for suppliers, dealers and employees. Yet the administration wouldn’t allow them to fail, either. Despite all the talk about credit priorities, the fundamental point is that the administration used taxpayer money to overturn the market’s verdict. If we want a preview of what the administration will do with the resolution authority it wants for large financial companies, we need look no further. The same pattern with regard to competitive markets can be seen in the Justice Department’s new antitrust policy. Christine Varney, the new assistant attorney general in charge of antitrust policy, has said that U.S. policy should be more like Europe’s. Until now, U.S. antitrust policy has tried to protect competition. Europe attempts to protect competitors. Protecting competitors means blunting the skills of superior players, allowing inferior managers and business models to remain in business and thus preventing better managements and business models from emerging. Again, stability wins out over change and progress. The president has said on several occasions, including in yesterday’s speech, that “I’ve always been a strong believer in the power of the free market.” But his administration’s prescriptions tell a different story. In AIG, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac we can see the future that the administration envisions for our economy–a sclerotic and unchanging structure of big companies working with, protected by, and relying on big government. Peter J. Wallison is the Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies at AEI. ] POST URL https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12856-nilf-neetpeople-who-are-voluntarily-unemployed/#findComment-83003 POST CONTENT content I read the article... The one thing I notice it doesn't concern itself with is the imprisoned or former imprisoned populace. Do you know circa forty thousand women in the usa are blockaded from labor because they had traces or marijuana in their babies when born and the states they were in labeled them as endangering a child/child abusers. These women , most of whom have had multiple children and have no criminal record are blockaded from work because of a situation in which their child had a drug in them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX-kDnO6GSI what is my larger point? How many people in the usa are blockaded from labor because of their criminal record? A criminal record whcih often is based on the criminal intent of law enforcers applying their activities to specific communities for a fiscal or governmental policy agenda. But the reason why said populace isn't mentioned is because of the fiscal capitalistic philosophy of the AEI , which i argue is a faith based position toward fiscal capitalism which in Universal basic income is seeing the death of their faith as they know it. https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/795-economic-corner-44-08122026/ PRIOR EDITION https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/794-economic-corner-43-08042026/ NEXT EDITION https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/797-economic-corner-45-08162026/ COMMENTARY