richardmurray
-
Posts
3,030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
109
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by richardmurray
-
-
Riker's island is legally a jail, functionally a detention center.
85% of those in Rikers are pretrial defendents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/nyregion/what-is-happening-at-rikers-island.html
The oldest jail on Rikers is a detention center for men
https://correctionhistory.org/html/chronicl/nycdoc/html/jailist1.htmlWhat you have to comprehend is that Riker's has grown and mutated over one hundred years reflecting new york city's population growth from the early 1900s to now, while because it has needed many manipulations to expand, it is under federal/state/city law . But NYC operates it. But the state and federal government have operational influence as well.
And to your point, it is a question of government officials thinking they are above critique/hypocritical.
New York City+New York State+The Federal Government have each assessed rikers a trillion times through the years.
The federal government has had an assessor for riker's island near ten years now. The department of justice is fully aware of everything that has gone on in rikers.
The reason why all three layers of government officials feel convinced that the assessing is enough and they don't warrant any critique on their actions or themselves is based on the role of riker's as part of many agendas.
The question is simple,what if Rikers went away, what about the parties involved who support it?
- The NYPD isn't going to change their mode of operation, the most common crime in nyc is domestic violence from a white man to a white woman but you don't get funding with that.
- I can't recall any black church who supported rikers or the adjacent war on drugs or war on crime admitting they were wrong, even after all the data proves rikers and said wars clearly were used to attack the black populace in nyc.
- Black elected officials in the usa have a heritage of not having black agendas that don't take into account the nonblack, even financial ones, so the fiscal poverty in the black populace that leads to the fiscal crimes will not stop.
- Non Black Elected officials have always loved the narrative of illegalities or crimes being centered about the black populace and never their own even though the truth is the non Black populaces have far more crime/illegalities in them, which their elected officials help to remove from the media eye or legalize in some fashion
Rikers is inevitable when you look at the New York City
-
I thought of you when i saw that cause i know you are a huge advocate for black nonviolent influence in the united states of america through collective purchasing power strategies. though i wish naacp would reveal how they calculated that number cause it doesn't quite add up per capita.
If the black populace of the usa is sixty million, I raised it up, the purchasing power is one trillion seven hundred billion per year then that means the average black person in the usa spends 28,333 per year. That isn't true but I can see how it weighs out. Beyonce + Jay Z live in New York City, many people in NYC of all demographics live on the street, they make no money. But for a hundred black people in nyc living on the street, you have Beyonce on one side so Beyonce + JayZ can average out two hundred or more homeless black people. So I can see how you can get 1.7 x 10EXP12 if you include all black people , but here is my problem financially with that approach.
Beyonce in her home in new york city is not the same as a homeless black person on the streets of new york city. Purchasing power is not the same for all financial levels in any populace.
I prefer to see the national association for the advancement of colored people tout the purchasing power of the black financial elite, and then focus on them.
Black people homeless in new york city, black people in a black town in the south absent water are not the black people who are even remotely able to have purchasing power as they can't earn or acquire the basics for themselves.
-
Economic Corner - the boundaries of spending side the demands of inheritance
The NAACP a white financed organization historically makes two points:
Black Dollars power in the united states of America
The Diversity Equity Inclusion goals.To Black Dollars...
Is spending a nonviolent form of power in fiscal capitalism? yes
Can Black people in the U.S.A. spend in such a way to avoid financing whites? no.
I have already mentioned the black farmer [ https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11483-economiccorner014/ ] in the united states of America.
Black Farms in the united states of America do not have the means to feed the black populace in the u.s.a. So, Black people in the usa can not feed themselves absent mandatory involvement with white farms which means the most important thing all humans do, eat, is something black people in the usa can not do absent supporting white business.
I live in New York City, the city with the most black people in it in the united states of America.
Black people in NYC can not grow enough food for ourselves, no one can. Urban life has its advantages but it also has its weaknesses. Urban populaces have to buy some things. You don't have land to grow vegetables. You don't have land to raise sheep. You don't have land to get natural resources from the earth.
I am not saying spending is impotent, it is not. But spending has limits as a tool. It is a myth to suggest this.
And I will use the internet.
The NAACP says one of the firms need to be banned from black buying dollars is Meta. That is a laughable call. Black people in the usa, who don't go to black owned websites because they don't have the widest userbases, will flock to them now and leave Facebook+ Instagram+ WhatsApp... I can't tell you how many black people have said, you not on facebook, you not on Instagram.. how many black people especially from the Caribbean or Africa or asia, all black, ask, you on WhatsApp. All three: facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp are so connected to black individuals in the usa, you can forget it being banned by all or most blacks in the usa.
And spending time on a website is your spending dollars online. The websites you spend time on profit because of the time you spend on them, your time is the spending dollars online. And the online environment is the one environment where black owned business/websites I think have the means to support the black populace albeit online populace. I wonder what @troy thinks to the following: if all the black people online went and operated on black owned websites, do enough black owned websites exist or have the collective memory/bandwidth/speed to support the entire black populace online?To Diversity, Equity, Inclusion(D.E.I. or DEI )...
I will begin the same way I began to an offline friend...
D.E.I. is needed, is warranted. But ... two problems exist. One is about the heritage of inherited fiscal capitalism in the united states of America, the other is about the heritage made of the legal relationship to failed business in the usa.To the heritage of inherited fiscal capitalism,
White people in the usa came from Europe in the same way all willing immigrants[not First People or Black Descended of Enslaved] came after, with a goal for financial betterment for themselves and to leave to their children as much as they can. This desire leads to nepotism.
Firms changing the lowest wage jobs demographic is doable, but firms changing the tribes or clans in the ranks of owner or administrator goes against the heritage of fiscal capitalism all willing immigrants have. The same latin americans who complain about DEI will hand their business over to their son miguel even if miguel is a fool. I myself have never thought , if I own a billion dollar firm, to hand it to anyone but loving ones on my death. And trust funds is a form of slavery, which i don't support. The lawyers in a trust fund will never publicly say they own anything, but they can deny your descendants in the role of protector you gave them. And why are trust funds really made.. failure. To protect firms from failure.To heritage of governments relationship to failed business in the usa,
When I think on it now, from the nineteen hundreds to today, the federal government of the united states of america , has given welfare checks of immeasurable value to completely failed industries in the usa: the banking industry multiple times, the automotive industry, the airline industry multiple times, the internet industry multiple times, the farming industry multiple times, the mineral resource industries[ oil/coal] multiple times.
Not just subsidies, the most common, or the rarest, to big to fails, welfare includes the tariffs to protect them, the readmittance to citizenship of the white enslavers in the confederacy, the ... when I think on it, the federal government has repeatedly saved the owners plus high ranking administrators of firms through all industries from their own failures, multiple times. Who are said owners? the whites the DEI initiatives are supposed to make in lesser quantity. But the heritage is not ownership by merit, it is ownership by phenotype. What is my point?
A law making no business to big to fail needs to happen.
In all earnest when I look at the financial history of the United States of America, the reason why the owners plus top ranking managers are mostly white in the usa's industries isn't merit, it is protection by the federal government.
When the next push by black people into an industry occurs will it be like:
the black farmers, who whose white counterparts were given 100% better subsidies or opportunities
the black music labels, whose white counterparts were denied no markets while they were blockaded or relegated constantly
the black small business, who unlike their white counterparts have a history of 100% rejection by banks or other fiscal operators including the governments tiers for loans in most geographic regions in the usa
My point is not that DEI isn't needed or warranted. Programs to push non white male christian hetero persons into the ownership or top management positions of firms in all industries is needed cause merit doesn't get non white male christian hetero persons into said positions. Programs to push non white male christian hetero persons into the ownership or top management positions of firms in all industries is warranted because examples of non white male christian hetero persons merting in said positions is on the historical record.
My point is that DEI's biggest aid will be allowing white male christian hetero persons in ownership or top management positions of firms in all industries to fail, to stop getting welfare, stop getting subsidies, stop getting loans, stop getting protections.
Failure isn't evil, failure isn't bad, failure is as human as success. But failure does something success rarely does. Failure opens up doors of change far wider.URL
https://naacp.org/campaigns/black-consumer-advisoryhttps://naacp.org/sites/default/files/documents/Black%20Consumer%20Advisory%202025.pdf
Specifics from the URL
...
The Power of Black Dollars
Many corporations continue to profit from Black dollars while simultaneously undermining commitments of diversity, equity, and inclusion. These rollbacks not only harm Black communities, professionals, and entrepreneurs but also erode the progress made toward creating equitable economic and social systems.
$1.7 Trillion
Black consumers possess immense economic power, with a purchasing power exceeding $1.7 trillion annually.
...
The Cost of Abandoning DEI
Walking away from diversity, equity, and inclusion programs threatens economic opportunities, workplace diversity, and community investments, directly impacting Black communities nationwide by:
Eliminating roles in diversity, equity, and inclusion
Reducing supplier diversity
Declining community investments
Shifting away from equitable hiring practices
These rollbacks reinforce historical barriers to progress under the guise of protecting "meritocracy," a concept often used to justify exclusion.IN AMENDMENT
Preach Brother Martin, preach [ The Kerner Commission : https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11488-economiccorner015/ ]
https://www.tumblr.com/arinzechukwuture/775786027242635264/rev-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-speaks?source=shareMLK on Fiscal Accountability
https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2532&type=status
Prior Edition: https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11502-economiccorner018/
-
Economic Corner - profitability of an artist
My Thoughts
From 70,000 to 80,000 was what jane austen made. Happy belated birthday to her. When I think of artist in general who have made more after death than alive the list is long and that includes many Black artist. I think Basquiat is the example that stings the most cause Jean Michel's artform, streetart by many blacks to this day is deemed inappropriate , evil, low quality, and yet , on the pieces of wood or metal , if you have a Basquiat original, you can earn millions in a sale. But the lesson from Jane Austen is clear, the financial value of an artist work is not determinable. It is completely relative to a time or place , so it can't be judged on even value or in comparison , only in the moment.NOTE
As a poet I enjoy phyllis Wheatley, though some of her messages or her style I don't care for as much.
late 1700s early 1800s black authors
https://blog.genealogybank.com/10-notable-african-americans-in-17th-18th-century-history.html+
https://www.nysoclib.org/blog/more-black-writers-1700sU.R.L.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/jane-austen-fans-honor-british-novelists-legacy-250-years-after-her-birthVIDEO
TRANSCRIPT
Geoff Bennett:
On this Valentine's Day, if you're looking for love, may we suggest you go dancing? After all, as the British romantic novelist Jane Austen wrote in her most popular work, "Pride and Prejudice," to be fond of dancing is a — quote — "certain step towards falling in love."
This year, Jane Austen fans are celebrating 250 years since her birth, and in her homeland of England, they're expecting a tourist boom, as special correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports for our arts and culture series, Canvas.
*
Actor:
Mr. Darcy, allow me to present this young lady to you.
*
Actor:
She is the most beautiful creature I have ever beheld.
*
Actor:
She's not handsome enough to tend to me.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
In this jubilee year, expect a resurgence of "Pride and Prejudice," widely considered to be Jane Austen's finest creation.
*
Kathryn Sutherland, University of Oxford: She's probably standing shoulder to shoulder with Shakespeare.
*
Actress:
The more I know of the world, the more I am convinced that I shall never see a man who might I can truly love.
*
Kathryn Sutherland:
They are works packed with emotional intelligence of the kind we get from Shakespeare, in fact.
*
Actress:
You are the loveliest girls I ever set eyes on. Can you not get them married Mrs. Dashwood?
*
Kathryn Sutherland:
She also was a pioneer of the novel. She developed the psychological novel.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
Kathryn Sutherland is professor of bibliography and textual criticism at Oxford University and a leading authority on Jane Austen.
*
Kathryn Sutherland:
She brought women into the novel in a probable and realistic way. Her achievements were huge.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
But Austen's genius wasn't properly recognized until long after her death. Jane Austen's six novels only earned her the grand total of between $70,000 to $80,000 in today's money.
*
Actress:
Look at them, five of them without dowry. What's to become of them?
*
Actor:
Perhaps we shall drown some of them birth.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
Her characters were consumed with the need to achieve financial security. And yet Jane Austen herself died in relative poverty. How ironic that she spawned an industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Visitors are expected to flock to this house, where Austen succumbed to illness at the age of 41. Richard Foster from Winchester College is preparing a commemorative exhibition.
*
Richard Foster, Winchester College:
Three days before her death, she dictated a poem to her sister, Cassandra . So even then she was well enough to carry on writing. And it's a very funny poem.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
Despite being impoverished and relatively obscure, Austen was buried in one of Europe's grandest cathedrals.
*
Canon Roly Riem, vice-dean, Winchester Cathedral: It's remarkable that Jane is buried in this cathedral because you wouldn't expect that to happen. But she is here and she's a focus of an amazing worldwide devotion to her and her writings and all that she's left us.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
Canon Roly Riem is vice-dean of Winchester Cathedral.
*
Canon Roly Riem:
When we have had a book to remember her, the last big anniversary we have had, they wrote sometimes pages in it just saying how much Jane had changed their lives, the difference it made to their outlook or even their career.
*
Lizzie Dunford, Director, Jane Austen’s House:
This house, Jane Austen's house, is hugely significant.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
Thirty miles from Winchester is the village of Chawton that was a haven for the young writer.
Lizzie Dunford runs this 19th century time capsule.
*
Lizzie Dunford:
So it's a huge period of intense creativity that is made possible and enabled by the creative sanctuary, the security that this house gives. So it has that intense literary significance.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
And it's in the dining room that Austen's disciples gaze upon the wellspring of her creativity, the writing table.
*
Lizzie Dunford:
Austen described her novels as her darling children, as her children. They come from this, from their nursery and their cradle, out into that wider world, and they're now read in every corner of the world.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
Another stop on the Austen trail is Bath, where Actress Lauren Falconer portrays the heroine of "Pride and Prejudice."
*
Lauren Falconer, Actress:
Jane Austen is an incredible female writer and she was so ahead of her time in what she was writing. I play Elizabeth Bennet, who is an obstinate, headstrong girl, but I also think Jane was very subtle in the ways that she was trying to make changes for women in her time period.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
Each summer, thousands of aficionados flock to Bath for the annual Jane Austen Festival.
Tourist chief Catherine Davies says this year's event will be spectacular.
*
Kathryn Davis, Managing Director, Visit West:
I think it's an opportunity for people to dress up, to feel that they're part of history maybe, and with a backdrop like this that looks like a film set, what better place to do it in?
*
Malcolm Brabant:
Actor Martin Williamson understands why, in these turbulent times, Austen devotees seek to escape into her world.
*
Martin Williamson, Actor:
It seems gentler then, a much gentler time, not as complicated as it is living today. But, of course, it was a very strict social structure, so if you were born at the bottom of the pile, there was no way you could really ascend like today. Especially in places like the United States, you can make it. You're encouraged.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
For vlogger and podcast host Izzy Meakin, the jubilee festival will be the highlight of the year.
*
Izzy Meakin, Podcast Host, "What the Austen?": You read her books and you can recognize people in your own life, so it doesn't matter that these were written 200-plus years ago.
You can still see people that you know. You're like, wow, I know someone like that all or I can see myself in those characters. I think that's the real — a real testament to her writing and how incredible she was.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
That enthusiasm is shared in Oxford University's august Bodleian Library, where Kathryn Sutherland examines Austen's only surviving manuscript of the novel she never finished.
*
Kathryn Sutherland:
She seems to work very frugally. As you will see, she writes onto small pieces of paper and she writes to the very limits of that paper, so she leaves very little space. So her assumption is that this is a draft that's going to work first time.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
The manuscript was bought at auction in 2011 for over a million dollars to preserve for the nation.
*
Kathryn Sutherland:
Oh, it's magical. It's absolutely magical just to think that Jane Austen touched this, that Jane Austen worked on this. It's a very intimate experience. A manuscript is like a writer's fingerprint, or it's like getting inside the laboratory and finding out how they create.
*
Actress:
Is he handsome?
*
Actress:
He's single.
*
Actress:
Oh, my goodness. Everybody behave naturally.
*
Actor:
Mr. Collins at your service.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
Given she was ahead of her time, how would Jane Austen have navigated the 21st century's complex romantic minefields with all their permutations?
*
Izzy Meakin:
I think sometimes it can seem like it's much more complicated now.
Zack Pinsent, Costume Designer:
Here's to you. And here's to me. May we never disagree. But if we do, to hell with you. And here's to me.
*
Izzy Meakin:
But I think something that Jane Austen would really celebrate is the choices we have now, the freedom when it comes to love. We can love how we want to and we can love who we want to.
*
Malcolm Brabant:
After all, the lesson that Austen imparts is that the path to true love requires overcoming pride and prejudice.
For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Malcolm Brabant in Chawton, Hampshire.
Prior Edition: https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11498-economiccorner017/
-
make sure you place the book in aalbc
use either of the following links
-
Thoughts
I have learned how time consuming the collage is. I am nearly done but I wasn't able to finish it as fast as I wanted. The biggest challenge is the need to go back and assess the characters I created to make sure they are designed correctly. Rereading works if necessary, takes time. The last week of Black History Month in the U.S.A. I think on my forebears enslaved in the United States of America and the future I still want. The flowers of the future will come in ways no one expects regardless of their planning.Coming Soon
02/24/2025 Mars appear stationary in the sky
02/25/2025 Mercury Saturn conjunction ; Pluto Moon conjunction
02/27/2025 New Moon,Venus stationary
02/28/2025 Mercury moon; Saturn move
MY LINKTREE
https://aalbc.com/tc/clubs/page/2-rmworkposts/RM WORK CALENDAR
CENTO Series episode 92
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/5-rmworkcalendar/week/2025-02-22/RM COMMUNITY CALENDAR
Economic Corner 15- Financial Federalism
Nina Simone , born 1933
Economic Corner 16- Minority Strength in fiscal capital allowance
Economic Corner 17- solar powered earth
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/7-rmcommunitycalendar/week/2025-02-22/Can you name one famous Black Inventor born in the city you live in?
I know of many Black inventors but none of the ones I knew were born in new york city, so I searched and I found
Thomas L. Jennings
url
https://www.thoughtco.com/thomas-jennings-inventor-1991311Biography of Thomas Jennings, First African American Patent Holder
He invented a dry-cleaning process called 'dry scouring'
Thomas Jennings (1791–Feb. 12, 1856), a free-born African American and New Yorker who became a leader of the abolitionist movement, made his fortune as the inventor of a dry-cleaning process called “dry scouring.” Jennings was 30 years old when he received his patent on March 3, 1821 (U.S. patent 3306x), becoming the first African American inventor to own the rights to his invention.Fast Facts: Thomas Jennings
Known For: First African American to be granted a patent
Also Known As: Thomas L. Jennings
Born: 1791 in New York City
Died: Feb. 12, 1856 in New York City
Spouse: Elizabeth
Children: Matilda, Elizabeth, James E.
Notable Quote: "Among the leading matters which would occupy the attention of the meeting, were several important documents lately received from Europe, expressive of the sentiments that a very considerable portion of the people of the British Empire entertained respecting the deplorable situation of the colored people in the United States."
Early Life and Career
Jennings was born in 1791 in New York City. He started his career as a tailor and eventually opened one of New York’s leading clothing shops. Inspired by frequent requests for cleaning advice, he began researching cleaning solutions. Jennings found that many of his customers were unhappy when their clothing became soiled. However, because of the material used to make the garments, conventional methods at the time were ineffective in cleaning them.Invents Dry Cleaning
Jennings began experimenting with different solutions and cleaning agents. He tested them on various fabrics until he found the right combination to treat and clean them. He called his method “dry-scouring,” a process now known as dry cleaning.Jennings filed for a patent in 1820 and was granted a patent for the "dry-scouring" (dry cleaning) process he had invented just a year later. Tragically, the original patent was lost in a fire. But by then, Jennings' process of using solvents to clean clothes was well-known and widely heralded.
Jennings spent the first money he earned from his patent on legal fees to buy his family out of enslavement. After that, most of his income went to his abolitionist activities. In 1831, Jennings became assistant secretary for the First Annual Convention of the People of Color in Philadelphia.
Legal Issues
Luckily for Jennings, he filed his patent at the right time. Under the United States patent laws of 1793 and 1836, both enslaved and free citizens could patent their inventions. However, in 1857, an enslaver named Oscar Stuart patented a "double cotton scraper" that was invented by one of the enslaved people forced to work for him. Historical records only show the real inventor's name as being Ned. Stuart's reasoning for his action was that "the master is the owner of the fruits of the labor of the slave both manual and intellectual."In 1858, the U.S. patent office changed its patent regulations in response to a Supreme Court case related to Stuart's patent called Oscar Stuart v. Ned. The court ruled in favor of Stuart, noting that enslaved people were not citizens and could not be granted patents. But surprisingly, in 1861, the Confederate States of America passed a law granting patent rights to enslaved people In 1870, the U.S. government passed a patent law giving all American men including Black Americans the rights to their inventions.
Later Years and Death
Jennings' daughter, Elizabeth, an activist like her father, was the plaintiff in a landmark lawsuit after being thrown off a New York City streetcar while on the way to church. With support from her father, Elizabeth sued the Third Avenue Railroad Company for discrimination and won her case in 1855. The day after the verdict, the company ordered its cars desegregated. After the incident, Jennings organized a movement against racial segregation in public transit in the city; the services were provided by private companies.The same year, Jennings was one of the founders of the Legal Rights Association, a group that organized challenges to discrimination and segregation and gained legal representation to take cases to court. Jennings died just a few years later in 1859, which was itself just a few years before the practice he so reviled—enslavement—was abolished.
Legacy
A decade after Elizabeth Jennings won her case, all New York City streetcar companies stopped practicing segregation. Jennings and his daughter had a hand in the effort to desegregate public facilities, a movement that lasted well into the Civil Rights Era a century later. Indeed, civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech in Washington, D.C., echoed many of the convictions that Jennings and his daughter had expressed and fought for 100 years before.And the "dry-scouring" process Jennings invented is essentially the same method used by dry cleaning businesses worldwide to this day.
Sources
Chamberlain, Gaius. “Thomas Jennings.” The Black Inventor Online Museum, Gaius Chamberlain.
“Thomas Jennings.” Ms. Darbus: Well Call It, Senior Year! Sharpay Evans: [Sarcastically] Genius., quotes.net.
Volk, Kyle G. "Moral Minorities and the Making of American Democracy." Oxford University Press, New York.wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Jennings -
China plan to build the biggest solar array in space.
why solar power in space?
the light from the sun , or any star, is manipulated , usually lessened when a planet's atmosphere is involved. The earth's atmosphere is why light from the sun doesn't arrive as potently as it is outside the earth's atmosphere, but this blockage maintains life on earth. Water or air would get too hot , the temperature cycle of earth would die without that atmosphere.
But in space, the unfiltered solar energy makes it the standard source for most or all human craft since the beginning of the human craft traveling outside earth with sputnik in the 1900s.
the Japanese will do a test of the concept, like nuclear powered aircraft, studies are done and based on their feasibility things will be continued. My opening question is, how can a high energy beam not negatively influence earth's atmosphere with the heat.
Basically, solar panels will charge a battery and the battery will emit microwaves to earth , because of the speed of the satellite + the lack of a more efficient pointing apparatus on the satellite, a set of arrays over 25 miles will be used to collect the energy. It will take several days for the battery to recharge.
They already tested the concept on earth with a plane using the same solar panel + battery, smaller in scale. Check the links below.
The first thing I notice is the lack of a focus beam. I think to make the atmosphere not manipulated they are emitting with less focus thus it needs a wide array , geographically, to transmit the energy. I think it is sensible for the earth which can't afford the atmosphere to get hotter by electromagnetic emissions. This is being sold as a green energy but I disagree. I think this will be how the moon bases or mars operations are powered because even though electromagnetic radiation that contact the surface of the moon or mars is less refracted or reflected than on earth, the electromagnetic radiation that travels across the stars is a higher energy an undistilled variant that will always generate more energy.
Contact for more information
yanagawa-hiroki@jspacesystems.or.jpCITATIONS
URL
https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/china-plans-to-build-enormous-solar-array-in-space-and-it-could-collect-more-energy-in-a-year-than-all-the-oil-on-earth
TEXTChina plans to build enormous solar array in space — and it could collect more energy in a year than 'all the oil on Earth'
News
By Ben Turner
published January 14, 2025
China has announced plans to build a giant solar power space station, which will be lifted into orbit piece by piece using the nation's brand-new heavy lift rockets.
Chinese scientists have announced a plan to build an enormous, 0.6 mile (1 kilometer) wide solar power station in space that will beam continuous energy back to Earth via microwaves.
The project, which will see its components lofted to a geostationary orbit above Earth using super-heavy rockets, has been dubbed "another Three Gorges Dam project above the Earth."
The Three Gorges Dam, located in the middle of the Yangtze river in central China, is the world's largest hydropower project and generates 100 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity each year. According to one NASA scientist, the dam is so large that, if completely filled, the mass of the water contained within would lengthen Earth's days by 0.06 microseconds.
The new project, according to lead scientist Long Lehao, the chief designer of China’s Long March rockets, would be "as significant as moving the Three Gorges Dam to a geostationary orbit 36,000km (22,370 miles) above the Earth."
"This is an incredible project to look forward to," Long added during a lecture in October hosted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), as reported by the South China Morning Post. "The energy collected in one year would be equivalent to the total amount of oil that can be extracted from the Earth."
Despite recent advances in the cheapness and efficiency of solar power, the technology still faces some fundamental limitations — such as intermittent cloud cover and most of the atmosphere absorbing solar radiation before it hits the ground.
Scientists have proposed a number of Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) technologies which would continuously collect and transmit energy from sunlight in space, where it is 10 times more intense than at Earth's surface.
But building an appropriately giant array would take many launches, meaning that most proposals failed to get off the ground.
To overcome this challenge, Long and his team are working on the development of the Long March-9 (CZ-9) reusable heavy-lift rocket, which will have a lift capacity of at least 150 tons (136 metric tons).
Besides being used for satellites, the rocket will also be key to China's plans to reach the moon — where it wants to build an international lunar research base by 2035.
China isn't the only nation eyeing plans for solar satellite arrays. The U.S. companies Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, the European Space Agency, and Japan's JAXA space agency have also been investigating the technology, with the latter scheduling the launch of a small, proof-of-concept satellite this year to assess its feasibility.
URL
https://www.space.com/japan-space-based-solar-power-demonstration-2025TEXT
Japanese satellite will beam solar power to Earth in 2025
News
By Tereza Pultarova
published April 19, 2024
Japan's upcoming space-based solar power demonstration will beam power to Earth next year.
LONDON — Japan is on track to beam solar power from space to Earth next year, two years after a similar feat was achieved by U.S. engineers. The development marks an important step toward a possible space-based solar power station that could help wean the world off fossil fuels amid the intensifying battle against climate change.
Speaking at the International Conference on Energy from Space, held here this week, Koichi Ijichi, an adviser at the Japanese research institute Japan Space Systems, outlined Japan's road map toward an orbital demonstration of a miniature space-based solar power plant that will wirelessly transmit energy from low Earth orbit to Earth.
"It will be a small satellite, about 180 kilograms [400 pounds], that will transmit about 1 kilowatt of power from the altitude of 400 kilometers [250 miles]," Ijichi said at the conference.
One kilowatt is about the amount of power needed to run a household appliance, such as a small dishwasher, for about an hour, depending on its size. Therefore, the demonstration is nowhere near the scale required for commercial use.
The spacecraft will use a 22-square-foot (2 square meters) onboard photovoltaic panel to charge a battery. The accumulated energy will then be transformed into microwaves and beamed toward a receiving antenna on Earth. Because the spacecraft travels very fast — around 17,400 mph (28,000 km/h) — antenna elements will have to be spread over a distance of about 25 miles (40 km), spaced 3 miles (5 km) apart, to allow enough energy to be transmitted.
"The transmission will take only a few minutes," Ijichi said. "But once the battery is empty, it will take several days to recharge."
The mission, part of a project called OHISAMA (Japanese for "sun"), is on track for launch in 2025. The researchers have already demonstrated wireless transmission of solar power on the ground from a stationary source, and they plan to conduct a transmission from an aircraft in December. The aircraft will be fitted with an identical photovoltaic panel as will be flown on the spacecraft and will beam down power over a distance of 3 to 4 miles (5 to 7 km), according to Ijichi.
From concept to reality
Space-based solar power generation, first described in 1968 by former Apollo engineer [ https://www.space.com/26175-peter-glaser-solar-power-satellite-obituary.html ]
Peter Glaser, has been considered science fiction. Although theoretically feasible, the technology has been seen as impractical and too costly, as it requires enormous structures to be assembled in orbit to produce the required power output.
But according to the experts speaking at the conference, that situation has changed as a result of recent technological advances and the urgency to decarbonize the world's power supply to thwart climate change.
Unlike most renewable power generation technologies used on Earth, including solar power and wind energy, space-based solar power could be available constantly, as it would not depend on weather and the time of the day. Currently, nuclear power plants or gas- and coal-fired power stations are used to cover demand when the wind stops blowing or after sunset. Improvements in technology could help partially solve the problem in the future. But some pieces of the puzzle are still missing to secure a seamless carbon-neutral power supply by the middle of this century as stipulated in international climate change agreements.
Developments in robotic technologies, improvements in the efficiency of wireless power transmission and, most importantly, the arrival of SpaceX's giant rocket Starship could allow space-based solar power to become a reality, the experts said at the conference.
Last year, a satellite built by Caltech engineers as part of the Space Solar Power Demonstrator mission beamed solar power from space for the first time. The mission, which concluded in January, was celebrated as a major milestone.
Many more space-based solar power demonstration projects are in the pipeline. The technology is studied by space and research agencies all over the world, including the European Space Agency, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the U.S. Air Force. Commercial companies and startups are also developing concepts, harnessing the availability of Starship and the emergence of advanced space robotics.
However, not everyone is enthusiastic about the potential of space-based solar power. In January, NASA released a report questioning the feasibility of the technology. The difficulty and amount of energy required to build, launch and assemble orbital power stations mean the energy they produce would be too expensive — 61 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with as little as 5 cents per kilowatt-hour for Earth-based solar or wind energy.
In addition, the overall carbon footprint of the power production and the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated by rockets taking those assemblies into orbit make space-based solar power much less climate-friendly than technologies used on Earth. For example, a gigawatt-scale spaceborne solar power station, such as the CASSIOPeiA concept plant proposed by the U.K. firm Space Solar, would need 68 Starships to get to space.
URL
https://www.jspacesystems.or.jp/en/news/4968.htmlTEXT
Can not copy and past. But check the URL immediately below, and if it doesn't work i have the pdf in my public folder linked immediately after that
URL
https://www.jspacesystems.or.jp/jss/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/1stTestReport_2024.12.24en-1.pdfURL
PDF Demonstration information in my public storage
URL
Video 1
Video 2
PAID ARTICLE URL- I couldn't see but may have better information
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3294091/china-plans-build-three-gorges-dam-space-harness-solar-powerThis is just for me to giggle:) but don't say nobody warned you
Prior edition: https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11497-economiccorner016/
-
White south africans making a public statement against immigration to the USA is interesting. In a humanity where most in south America/Africa/asia/western Europe/Caribbean are looking to travel to wealthier shores in USA or Western Europe, the white European minorities in lands with mostly non white European peoples want the opposite. To the white Europeans in South Africa, they are an ideal case of loving a convenient financial environment. While South Africa's growth is clearly to Black south africans, white south africans will rather the land or generational wealth their forebears took for them then to build up in even competition new lives in a usa absent first people/native American land to steal or black africans able to be ripped from their home and enslaved.
Many Black DOSers, not Black Willing Immigrants, in the United States of America, suggest the USA is the best country to build wealth but based on the white south African, is that true?
Now any can argue , white south africans are not in the same situation as Black Descended of Enslaved to the USA.
And, that is true, as said above white south africans forebears relationship to south Africa is as an unwanted willing immigrant by the first peoples of what will become south Africa and a financial allowance or opportunity supported by arms totally in their favor.
Black descended of enslaved to the u.s.a. relationship to what will become the u.s.a. is as a unwilling/enslaved immigrant by the invading peoples who took the land that will be the u.s.a. or the greater American continent from it's First peoples and were using said enslaved immigrants to support their financial grandeur.
No the two situations are not the same but to black descended of enslaved people who leave the usa to betterment, you can see why it is usually individual.
It is hard getting a group of people to financially prosper as a minority absent the ability to commit crimes legally.
When you look at whites in south Africa or white jews in Palestine or white jews/italians in the usa you see the modern examples of this ability of a minority populace to thrive aside the ability to commit crimes or abuses to a larger populace absent the said majority populace ability to violently retaliate. Whites in south Africa took black peoples land, forced black people to work for them. White jews in Palestine was given arms by the usa, was given a legal authority by the british against palestinean desires as Palestine was a british protectorate.White jews/Italians in the usa made the founding fortunes of their communities during prohibition, as whites being completely free to operate illegally and criminally in liquor sales or gang violence while white governments aided or abetted all their crimes while the same white governments hammered all attempts by blacks to operate illegally or criminally.
So, it is clear what blacks descended of enslaved from the American continent groups always lacked in the past making said groups financial reality in modernity inevitable.URL referral
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/africa/top-stories/no-thanks-white-south-africans-turn-down-donald-trump-s-immigration-offer/ar-AA1yKIns?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=da5dfcd61408487b9d92241179cc6bcd&ei=28
ARTICLE TEXT
'No thanks', white South Africans turn down Donald Trump's immigration offer
What you need to know:
Trump on Friday signed an executive order to cut US aid to South Africa, citing an expropriation act that President Cyril Ramaphosa signed last month aiming to redress land inequalities that stem from South Africa's history of white supremacy.
The order provided for resettlement in the US of "Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination" as refugees.
Thank you for reading Nation.Africa
US President Donald Trump's offer to rehouse white South Africans as refugees fleeing persecution may not spur quite the rush he anticipates, as even right-wing white lobby groups want to "tackle the injustices" of Black majority rule on home soil.
Trump on Friday signed an executive order to cut US aid to South Africa, citing an expropriation act that President Cyril Ramaphosa signed last month aiming to redress land inequalities that stem from South Africa's history of white supremacy.
IN AMENDMENT
a map of first people losses
https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2844&type=status
Prior Edition: https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11488-economiccorner015/
-
Financial Federalism
This edition of the Economic Corner has three articles in the following chronological order, after my thoughts
1) The legality of the Executive branch in the second term of Schrumpf
2) The need for efficiency in the Federal Government and how it became ever more inefficient in the nineteen hundreds
3) The failure of presidencies before Schrumpfs first term from elephants or donkeys to diminish the federal governments bureaucracy while make it a better operator.Financially, the Black populace in the usa has a heritage in the united states of America few mention; it is the following.
Only the federal government in the united states of America has been positive in some course of time to the black populace in the usa as a bureaucratic body. I restate, each town/city/county/state in the usa have provided negative environments, legal or communal, for black people, averaging out their history.
This means the federal government of the usa relates to Black people in the usa, especially Black Descended Of Enslaved (BDOS), other than non blacks, especially whites, in the usa. Whites of European descent talk of the usa, but tend to relate to the town, the city, the county, the state because even though the federal government protects/defends the overall system, the specificity of local law, the flexibility of local law, provided and provides to whites of European descent opportunity/safety/comfort. While for blacks , said towns/cities/counties/states provide horror/abuse/terror.Said heritage, led to a federalism in the black populace in the usa unlike any other demographic in the usa. Said federalism is an advocate of greater bureaucracy in the federal government to undo state/county/city/town governments negativity. The more the federal government can watch/penalize the lower ranked municipalities the better.
I think of two black women. Years ago, one said to me privately, she lives in the Midwest region, that only the federal government has ever supported the black people in her region. It isn't impossible to live there, she does, but it is never welcoming, never with ease, always with a barrier. And more recently, the other said on local news in NYC, that maybe the states need to go in the united states of America. The only person I ever heard publicly say the states in the union need to all go, was a black person, for honesty's sake said person is a she.When I think of these two points, it exposes why Whites despise or fear or dislike ever expanding federal bureaucracy. White people's local power requires local strength or local allowance. Black towns exist, but they exist in White counties. Black counties exist , but they exist in White States. So all majority black , in populace, municipal zones in the united states of America, exist within a larger municipal zone lower than the federal government majority white.
The situation of Black Farmers proves this reality more than anything else. [ https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11483-economiccorner014/ ] United States America system allows for local empowerment, but for Blacks who never had control of a state within the union, such local power has never existed.
So, with the Federalism in the Schrumpf era which is to diminish/lessen/delete any place where Black presence has been or can be aided. For example, the Department of Education is a large reason why in many states, the funds to Black schools exist. States like Mississippi had for years and some argue still now managed ways to have black schools non funded. Not underfunded, none funded. If a school gets no government money but is a public school it is financially a private school. But the problem is, the black populace in Mississippi for example don't have the financial means to support all that children need. Ivy League schools still get federal money and they have huge private endowments so federal money shouldn't be deemed a negative when given to all white organizations in the usa. But living under a state, like Mississippi, influences black financial reality.
The Question is simple, with no governmental aspect aiding Black people [no federal, no state, no county, no city], what does the black business owner in the usa do? Black buying power has a serious problem, most of the firms have always been white. I challenge any Black person in the usa to go one whole month without buying something from a white owned firm. How do you eat? How do you buy clothes? How do you wash clothes ? How can you do this in a city?
To the Articles below
1) I said to another the president of the usa already has a post at their privy, it is called the white house chief of staff which came from the Presidents Personal Secretary. So having Musk as a person at their privy isn't illegal. And the constitution doesn't say a limit exists to a person at the president's privy and by extension, the D.O.G.E. is equivalent to the Staff at the White House Chief of Staff. The issue isn't illegality but change. Not change you need believe in but change you are living in.
2) Again, a majority of whites in the 1960s despised the advance of federalism but the same whites local environments is what led the Kerner Commission, with only one black person in leadership, to suggest to Lyndon B Johnson, a complete overhaul of the usa is needed. Johnson wasn't amused but what the Kerner Commission exposed is the problem I say in hindsight. [ Kerner Commission- https://1drv.ms/b/c/ea9004809c2729bb/Ea852rXxcnFEteIzm8I5Y0IBOmiGCYl_rT1lsPKEio-5mg?e=OiDxRo ; https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2685&type=status ]
3) It is clear the impotency of Presidents from Reagan to Biden, old elephant or donkey, to make the government more efficient opened the door to Scrumptf. Many said they would and never did. They all kept growing the federal government and , yes made some important administrative elements, but the overall inefficiency grew and grew aided by a congress , which in reflecting the multiracial populace of the usa, became deadlocked.Is Trump Acting Illegally
U.R.L.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/constitutional-scholar-on-whether-trumps-actions-are-executive-overreachVIDEO
TRANSCRIPT
Geoff Bennett:
The first weeks of the Trump administration have brought dramatic changes to the shape, scope and function of the federal government.
Our new series On Democracy is taking a step back to look at big questions about the institutions, norms and laws that have shaped the country and the challenges they face today.
Ilya Shapiro is director of constitutional studies at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute and the author of "Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites."
Thanks for being here. Appreciate it.
*
Ilya Shapiro, Manhattan Institute:
Great to be with you.
*
Geoff Bennett:
Well, as we sit here and speak, we have got another case that is raising questions about the rule of law in this new Trump era.
At least seven prosecutors and officials have stepped down over the DOJ order to dismiss corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Danielle Sassoon, who was Manhattan's top federal prosecutor, she describes an explicit quid pro quo, whereby the Trump DOJ would dismiss the criminal charges against Adams in exchange for his support for President Trump's agenda.
What questions does all of this raise for you?
*
Ilya Shapiro:
Well, I think it's a disagreement of political judgment between different prosecutors. The U.S. attorney disagrees with what her superiors say. The principals are denying that there's a quid pro quo, so we don't quite have evidence of that. And Eric Adams, for the last year or so, has been moving in a direction to crack down on illegal immigration anyway.
So I don't know whether he'd be behaving differently in the first place. But, ultimately, this is a judgment call. And the U.S. attorneys, whether in the Southern District of New York, which sometimes thinks of itself as its own sovereign, Sovereign District, they sometimes call it, doesn't get to make that call at the end of the day.
And if the superiors decide that the underlying evidence is flimsy or the prosecution itself was politically motivated and doesn't serve the purposes of justice, that's their call to make. And, ultimately, the voters will evaluate that.
*
Geoff Bennett:
The deputy A.G. in his letter explaining why the case against Adams should be dropped, he cited the need for Adams to help with Donald Trump's immigration policy. And then Adams and the immigration czar, Tom Homan, were on FOX News this morning.
And Homan said: "If he doesn't come through, I will be in his office up his butt saying, where the hell is the agreement we came to?"
I mean, hardly anything about this is subtle. I mean, how is this not a breach of…
*
Ilya Shapiro:
I don't know if that agreement means the dropping of the prosecution. It might be an agreement of, here's how we can help New York, because clearly there's a crisis, a law and order crisis in New York, and Adams wants to prolong his political career in some way.
The primary is coming up, what have you, and he wants to clean it up. And so there's some agreement. It may involve the quid pro quo that everyone's talking about, but it could just mean here's what I will do, open up Rikers, what have you, and we will send you federal funds or we will send you more law enforcement. I don't know what the agreement might be.
But Adams wants to work with this administration on the illegal immigration problem.
*
Geoff Bennett:
So, in your view, this is not, so far as we know, a fundamental breach of justice?
*
Ilya Shapiro:
We don't have — there's no evidence in the record, a prosecutor would say, to say that. There are allegations, and you could make a case.
But on the face of what has come out, the dueling letters and what have you, this is just a disagreement on prosecutorial discretion.
*
Geoff Bennett:
President Trump, the Trump administration, they have frozen domestic spending, frozen foreign aid without congressional approval. They have dismantled USAID, threatened to dismantle the Education Department.
There are dispassionate observers who look at this and say that this is textbook executive overreach. How do you see it?
*
Ilya Shapiro:
Well, executive overreach is when you're creating new programs out of thin air, like Barack Obama with his pen and phone government with DACA or DAPA or all of these other things, or President Biden forgiving student loans that was blocked by the Supreme Court, said, I will do it another way, or vaccine mandates, all of these things that are creating new authorities that didn't exist.
Here, they're putting a pause on spending. They're reorganizing the executive branch, which is within the executive's power.
*
Geoff Bennett:
Why not go through Congress, as the framers intended? He's got a pliant House Republican majority, a Senate majority as well.
And if you legislate this, the impact would be enduring. Why not?
*
Ilya Shapiro:
Well, it depends what the "this" is. I do hope that the Trump administration goes to Congress and asks for restructuring of these various agencies and things like that, because if it's all done through executive action, then, as we see, you live by the executive action, you die by it, and the next Democratic president will just reverse it.
So it would take an act of Congress to eliminate the USAID or to eliminate the Department of Education, but reorganizing certain things, shifting funding priorities, auditing the accounting and the finances and things like that, that all is fully within the purvey of the government, including of DOGE.
*
Geoff Bennett:
I want to ask you about Elon Musk, because President Trump, by all outward appearances, has given him a fairly broad mandate.
Any cause for concern about the lack of checks on Musk's actions and the fact that he is in many ways the arbiter of his own conflicts of interest, given his very lucrative government contracts?
*
Ilya Shapiro:
Well, the conflict of interest is a political story. I mean, if the administration takes political hits for having a lax conflict of interest policy for President Trump himself, for example, that's a judgment call for the voters to make, ultimately, in the midterms coming up and what have you.
Musk is a special government employee, which means he has authority to run this. He has his tech gurus, these guys with spreadsheets and green eye shades and whatever else that are identifying money that looks like it's mismanaged, misspent. Again, not saying Congress had spent that on this, but we're not going to do that. That's not the case.
Whether it's discretion by the agency, they're looking at things that this administration might have different priorities.
*
Geoff Bennett:
There have been arguments, as you well know, that we are either in or that we're approaching a constitutional crisis. I'd imagine you would disagree with that.
But what to you would signal a constitutional crisis? What to you would signal that this democratic experiment is in peril?
*
Ilya Shapiro:
Well, it's interesting that you say democratic experiment, because when the executive branch, when the bureaucracy does not implement the directives of the political leadership that's responsible to the voters, that's a problem.
I mean, a constitutional crisis is something like one branch going and doing things that are not within its authority that courts are telling it to stop and to do, ignoring court orders. Trump has said he's not going to ignore court orders. He's going to appeal them and he's taking it to the Supreme Court. And, almost certainly, most of these things won't get to the Supreme Court.
Certain things, he might win on. Certain things, he might lose on, but that's the process. The American people are not buying this language that is simply an indication from the left that they don't like this restructuring of government, the new priorities, all of these certain things. Fair enough. That's a political argument to be had, but this is not any sort of a constitutional crisis.
*
Geoff Bennett:
Ilya Shapiro with the Manhattan Institute, thanks for coming in.
*
Ilya Shapiro:
Thank you.What should be made efficient in the federal government?
U.R.L.
https://www.pbs.org/video/philip-k-howard-and-will-marshall-awjvp6/VIDEO
TRANSCRIPT
- Are Donald Trump and Elon Musk dismantling the Deep State or doing something else?This week on "Firing Line."
- The people voted for major government reform.
And that's what people are gonna get.
They're gonna get what they voted for.
- We've already found billions of dollars of abuse, incompetence, and corruption.
- [Margaret] Some people are saying that Trump's newly-established Department of Government Efficiency is moving fast and breaking things.
- We have this unelected branch of government, which is the bureaucracy.
So it's just something we've gotta fix.
- [Margaret] But will this blitz on the bureaucracy really make government more efficient?
- So Musk is right, in my view, that it's broken, but he's not really focusing on fixing it.
- [Margaret] Attorney and author Philip Howard has championed the cause of government efficiency for decades, with books including "The Death of Common Sense."
- Well, the tragically-missed opportunity here is that Elon Musk could have done us a lot of good.
- [Margaret] Will Marshall is the founder and president of the Progressive Policy Institute, and has recently written that Democrats need a DOGE of their own.
I sat down with these two reform advocates before a student audience at Hofstra University to discuss what DOGE is getting right, what it's getting wrong, and whether America is careening toward a constitutional crisis.
- [Announcer] "Firing Line" with Margaret Hoover is made possible, in part, by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, the Fairweather Foundation, Peter and Mary Kalikow, Cliff and Laurel Asness, the Meadowlark Foundation, and by the following.
Corporate funding is provided by Stephens Inc. - Philip Howard and Will Marshall, welcome to Hofstra University, and this episode of "Firing Line."
- Thank you.
- Listen, Philip, in November, you called in the Wall Street Journal for Elon Musk, not to hobble government, but to make it work again.
Since Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk has moved to gut USAID, gained access to Treasury payment systems, and has worked to eliminate the employment of tens of thousands of federal workers.
You have spent your life thinking, and writing, and talking about how to make government work better.
Is this what you had in mind?
- No.
Musk is focusing on cutting what government does that he thinks is stupid.
He's not focusing on changing and improving how government works, which I think is the bigger opportunity.
Most of Americans think government needs major overhaul.
So Musk is right, in my view, that it's broken, but he's not really focusing on fixing it.
Efficiency means actually being responsive and delivering the goods to the public that the public needs.
- How do you know he's not focused on fixing it?
- Because that's not what he's doing.
He's focused on cutting costs, cutting people, which I don't think is actually going to add up to much in the way of cost.
Whereas, for example, if he changed the way the Defense Department procured new weaponry, he could save, pick a number, a third of the money that's spent, by getting rid of all the red tape processes that take years and deliver poor products with too much delay.
- Will, you have recently written in The Hill that Democrats need a plan for fixing government that's their own.
You said, quote, "Before Democrats dismiss DOGE as just MAGA trollery, it's fair to ask, what is their plan for making government more efficient and effective?
Inexplicably, that plank is missing from the platform of the party that believes in active government."
Should Democrats have their own version of DOGE?
- Absolutely, or not DOGE, they should absolutely have their own plan to make government work better.
The public demand for that is palpable and it's nothing new.
We all know that trust in government's been tanking, really since the '60s.
21% of people trust the federal government to do the right thing most of the time.
So to not have a set of ideas that is responsive to a public that wants deep change in government is a sort of political malpractice.
- Given the speed and ruthlessness, perhaps efficiency, at which DOGE is operating, or which Elon Musk is operating, will there be a government to reform?
(Will chuckles) - Yeah.
- When he's finished.
- It'll survive, I mean, what's happening now is that there are lawsuits proliferating all over the landscape.
There're gonna be a million checkpoints here, and I think this is going to slow down.
But this is the shock and awe phase, and I think we're gonna pass through it pretty quickly because reality is beginning to intrude.
These are real lives, these are real functions.
We have deep investments here.
I'm a government reformer, but this is not the way to go about it.
Elon Musk is a great entrepreneur, but this isn't the private sector, this is the government, and it's not an optional thing.
I don't have to buy a Tesla, but I've gotta get services from my government.
- This isn't something you can change, in my view, by pruning the jungle.
You can't just clip, here and there, the red tape.
You actually have to go back to a system which the framers contemplated in the Constitution, where law provides a framework of goals, and principles, and accountability, and checks and balances, but real people make choices, and they're politically accountable.
Today in Washington, you can't find a real person who has authority to give a permit.
And that's the reason we never get permits.
- How did we end up in a place where it was the process that hamstrung us?
- It was a change in legal philosophy.
We came out of the '60s feeling guilty for lots of good reasons.
We woke up to racism, pollution, lots of other things.
So we wanted to create a system where there were no more abuses of authority, and it just doesn't work.
Now you have no authority, and so you have a government that's increasingly paralyzed by the kind of stuff that Will's written about and others, by this red tape state.
And the goal is not to, in my view, to get rid of government.
The goal is actually to pull it back so we can do it, pull the law back so it can do its job.
- Your solution is for government to unshackle itself from laws and regulations to empower individuals to make decisions and use their judgment.
- Within the framework of law.
And courts would only get involved when an official transgresses those boundaries.
- So then, how are individuals held accountable?
- Well, any way you want, but by someone.
- For their judgment.
- By someone above them.
- No, no, no, that's where we get hamstrung by this process, right?
Because there's so much process, and the process is ultimately what takes any sort of agency away from individuals to make these decisions.
- That's right.
So if you go to a, say to give a permit for a transmission line, you can't have 16 agencies bickering over whether to give the permit.
One agency has to have the authority to make the decision, and that's subject to the approval of the White House in a democracy.
Today, you get 16 agencies bickering about it around the table, and it goes on for years.
- And it's unclear who has the ultimate authority.
- Well, no one has the ultimate authority.
- Well, so then isn't this what Musk is trying to fix?
And how do you keep Musk?
I mean, if the idea is to give an individual the authority to make the decision, isn't that what Musk is doing?
- Well, Musk is taking the authority himself to tear apart agencies, but he's not trying to change the operating structure to give anybody else the authority.
The problem with government is that the people inside it have been disempowered by all this process and all these procedures.
They're also not accountable, by the way.
So the American public is.
- Musk has a bad theory.
The theory is that there's waste everywhere, there's abuse, there's fraud.
He calls AID, our foreign aid agency, a criminal organization.
Now I have my criticisms of AID, they could be reformed, should be, but they're basically doing good humanitarian work around most of the world, they're not a criminal organization.
But why does this freelance billionaire get to come and superimpose his judgements on what's working and what's not?
There's no theory of change here.
There's no good analysis of where we're failing.
It's just he's bringing the entrepreneur's methodology, which is I'm gonna cut everything by 60%, wipe the slate clean, and we're gonna start over, and that'll yield efficiencies.
It's not the way it works in the public sector.
- Right, and what's, where's the vision for the day after these changes?
How's government gonna work better after Musk finishes going through all these agencies?
And so again, I think what's missing here is not the diagnosis that it's broken.
It is broken, it is paralyzed, and broken, and wasteful, and not delivering things.
But the proper cure is to actually let it do its job.
Pull back the red tape, let there be permits, let Defense Department officials use their judgment and be accountable up the chain of authority for whether they do a good job or not.
- We have fetishized process, and legal obstacles, and veto points, and everybody having their say.
And it all adds up to a retreat from the exercise of public authority.
But that's not what Musk is talking about.
He's just getting rid of whole agencies he doesn't happen to like.
It's all on a whim, there's no analysis, there's no predicate being laid for any of these changes.
- Both of you have been critical of certain processes, review processes.
One of them is environmental review processes.
You've both written about how environmental review processes actually have inhibited government efficiency, and in doing so, have actually made outcomes for the environment worse.
How do you account for environmental priorities in a more efficient way that doesn't inhibit a project from actually moving forward?
- Well, I mean, the problem here is more political.
We have a lot of folks on the Democratic side who do not want to take away the permitting.
They don't want to relax the permitting process because they think that's their best protection against environmentally ruinous things.
But what they don't understand is that if you can't upgrade and modernize your energy grid, you're building in higher pollution.
You're not laying the framework for a cleaner grid.
And that's happening all over the country.
It's not just the grid, it's everything on the environmental side.
- Well, delays are bad for the environment.
We need new transmission lines to take power from the solar, wind farms in the Midwest to Chicago.
Well, you can't get a permit for it.
And every permit is not, it's not a question of legal compliance, it's a question of trade-offs.
Are the benefits of the transmission line worth the harm of cutting through a pristine forest?
That's not a legal question, that's a political question.
- And it's a judgment question.
- It's a judgment call.
And we've, and so the purpose of environmental review, as it was initially enacted, was to have a few months of review in dozens of pages that would alert the public to the fact that there are these issues that are political in nature that are gonna be decided.
Instead, it's become this years-long, no pebble left unturned kind of process that virtually never, never ends.
And we have to make trade off judgements in order for the country to move forward.
- You've written, Philip, that, quote, "Rebuilding government requires not just a wrecking ball, but trust."
Polls suggests that Musk is losing the public's trust.
In a recent YouGov poll, only 13% of Americans, and 26% of Republicans, said they want Musk to have a lot of influence in the Trump administration.
So can an initiative like DOGE survive if it doesn't have the trust of the American people, Philip?
- One, no, and two, it also can't survive if he doesn't have the trust of people who work for government.
One of the biggest problems in government today is if you make a decision to give a permit, there's always somebody who doesn't like it.
- Yeah.
- So they will attack you.
So in my view, what senior civil servants need is, not to live in fear, but to have cover for important decisions.
They need to be, to feel that the people in charge, Musk or whomever, will actually protect them when they make decisions.
And so no organization works in an atmosphere of distrust, whether it's government or society.
- We need radical disruptors.
We need 'em in the entrepreneurial sectors of our economy, that's what we want.
But that's not what we, that's not how you fix government's problems, for the reasons we just talked about.
And Elon Musk doesn't really know what he's trying to do.
He wants to cut $2 trillion in spending.
Well, that's a nice goal.
If you got rid of every single federal employee, 2.3 million of them, you would cut 5% of public spending and you wouldn't come anywhere near that goal.
So he doesn't even really have an understanding, I think, of the end game.
The end game seems to be here just disruption for its own sake, sowing fear, telling employees they're no longer wanted, tell 'em to stay home, sort of putting down whole agencies as worthless.
And again, pretending that the problem is waste, fraud, and abuse, which is a really kind of simple-minded understanding of what's wrong with government.
He thinks that there's just waste in large quantities lying around that he's gonna excise through this radical surgery.
- There's one area with hundreds of billions of dollars in savings that requires major overhaul, which is in the healthcare administration area.
And if Musk and Trump really wanted to save big amounts of money, they would simplify the healthcare reimbursement and regulatory system, because 30% of the healthcare dollar goes to administration, which is over $1 million per every American doctor in red tape.
That system is crazy.
And it needs to be completely, basically replaced.
- Well, there is waste all across the government, okay.
But it isn't sitting there in large piles that you can just go into a room and find.
You have, it's like Elaine Kamarck, who was the re-inventor-in-chief for Bill Clinton, said, "It's like fat marbled in the steak."
And so the point is, you have to go and find it.
And the people that know where it is are the people who work in government.
So if you go in there and you attack them and say they're worthless, and they're idiots, and they have to get going and pack up, and we're gonna shut their agency down because we don't need it, and everything they've been doing for 15 years is worthless, well, they're not gonna be very cooperative to you.
So if you were serious about trying to find pockets of waste, or even fraud, these are the people that could help you find it.
So again, it's just a marker of seriousness to me.
If you were serious about changing government, you wouldn't go about it by attacking everybody in sight.
- As Will said, it can't be done by just by amputation.
It needs to be done somewhat more surgically.
And I will say that the biggest supporters of my somewhat radical reform efforts have been the senior civil servants.
They want more authority to manage the civil servants below them.
They want more authority to cut through the process and get permits.
They actually want to do these things.
And they exist in this red tape jungle that doesn't allow them to.
- Why do you think that is?
Why do you think they are the ones who are most eager to see reform?
- These are the senior executive service, which are the top civil servants, are people who have generally devoted their lives to public service and are experts in specific areas.
And they actually get, their life work is making.
- You're saying they're serious people.
- These agencies happen and deliver the goods, and they can't do what they feel is necessary.
- Over the course of American history, there have been several attempts to reform government, starting in 1883 with the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act that established the modern civil service.
And there was the Taft Commission, there were two Hoover Commissions, the Grace Commission under Ronald Reagan's presidency, and then of course, the National Performance Review, in which you participated, and you both contributed under President Clinton's presidency.
What can Elon Musk learn, if he wanted to learn from American history, from these previous efforts?
- Well, what I would hope he would learn is that he's right that periodically government has to be reorganized to look at if it's meeting its goals and to change how it meets its goal.
What's happened through history is, actually, you've had changes in operating philosophy over the years.
The last real change in philosophy was in the 1960s.
- So what was the change in that governing philosophy, Phil?
- The change in philosophy was don't trust anyone to use their judgment, because human judgment is fallible.
And we need to create a new system that will guarantee that all choices are correct.
Let everyone who complains have a hearing.
And the result of that is paralysis.
So I think the solution is to actually change our operating philosophy and go back to the one that the framers contemplated, which is one based on human responsibility.
Law sets goals, law sets guardrails, law sets a hierarchy of authority to make sure that people don't do stupid things, but people make decisions.
Law can't govern.
And we've created this massive system over the, only in the last 50 years, on the premise that actually we can make government into a kind of a software program.
- Will, do you agree with Phil's diagnosis of the governing philosophy that changed in the '60s.
- I think I partially agree with it.
It clearly did.
We got a lot more liberal process-oriented attempts to protect citizens against abuses of government power, which was, government was getting bigger, and it was intruding itself in more parts of American life.
And in the '60s, we radically expanded government under the Great Society, and we have been doing that ever since.
And so it just became a more intrusive thing with tentacles everywhere.
And that just built this kind of resistance, has built antagonism from the public that now saw government trying to do too much, trying to spend too much, and trying to direct them too much.
And so I do think it has to do with the scope of government's responsibilities, and we need to have a serious conversation about that.
- We have a question from one of our Hofstra University students, Mark Lussier.
- Hello, my name is Mark, I'm from Connecticut, and one of my senators, Chris Murphy, said that we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis.
I wanna know if you agree, and the step, and I also want to know the steps that the other two branches can take to address that, and their odds of succeeding at addressing it.
- Are we in a constitutional crisis?
Let me add to that, actually.
Where are the other branches of government?
We know that the judiciary is exerting itself, but why couldn't these reforms be legislated and then signed in by the executive branch?
- That's a very good question.
- Are we in a constitutional crisis?
- Oh, yes, we are.
I mean, I wrote a piece this week about ruling by decree.
It's un-American, there's no basis for it in American history and no basis for it in the Constitution.
The president can't just make policy willy nilly across the whole scope of what federal government does.
That's why the courts are getting involved.
We've got a raft of lawsuits.
I think a lot of this is gonna slow down.
But the point is the courts are doing their job.
Who's not doing its job is Congress, and it's because it's under Republican control.
He's got them absolutely cowed, and they're not raising objection to his taking over the power of the purse, which is clearly delegated to the legislative branch.
So yes, that's a crisis.
- Phil, do you think we're in a crisis?
- Well, we're certainly building towards one, and now we have Trump saying that maybe the courts don't have authority.
And if they really disavow court rulings, then we will have a constitutional crisis.
- Do you have anything you wanna follow up on with, Mark?
I wanna make sure you're fully answered because you had a couple of different questions.
- Actually, one piece was what's the likelihood of them succeeding and like being able to address those concerns of a crisis, if we get to that point?
- Well, hey Phil, you said we're getting there.
You think we're there, you said we're getting there, especially if they just defy the court orders, then we'll be there.
- Right.
- So then what?
- Well, here's what scares me.
Suppose he defies the courts, in other words, the court's are the only thing that are, is the only source of resistance now to Trump's imperial will.
What if he just says, "No, I'm not gonna do what the court's prescribed."
The other possibility is that the higher courts, the Supreme Court, might side with him on some of these issues.
- Well, you know, I do think they're gray areas, and I've written about this in large arguments and such about the scope of executive power.
But whatever gray areas there are, you still have to respect the rule of law in this country.
And I believe that the rule of law is a foundation that most Americans believe in, and that once you abandon it or disavow it, then we really are in trouble as a society, and we have to sort of come together and do something different.
- Let me ask you both this.
In 1990, William F. Buckley Jr's original "Firing Line" hosted a debate that was titled, "Government Is Not the Solution, It's the Problem."
And of course, borrowing from Ronald Reagan's line, listen to this defense of government from none other than George McGovern.
- This debate proposition reminds me of Groucho Marx's observation that marriage is the chief cause of divorce.
(audience laughs) The answer is not to abolish marriage, but to strive for better marriages.
And so it is with government.
Government has caused some problems, no question about that.
And I've spoken out against some of those problems.
But it has also come up with some inspired solutions.
- Right, so the question is, is DOGE's attempt to fix government an example of getting rid of divorce by abolishing marriage?
- I'd say, so far, yes.
And while it's true that, and Musk is right, the government isn't working very well, to the point that government is the problem, government should get out of people's daily lives.
I mean, much of the resentment that got Trump elected was government telling people how to talk, how to get along in the workplace, how you run the local school.
And I do think government is the problem when it gets in our daily lives.
But I think government, in a crowded, global, really fearful environment of warring powers and such, government is incredibly important to make government strong.
We can't be strong abroad if we're weak at home.
So we need to make government work better, not get rid of it.
- Will.
- Well, you know, the problem with what Mr. McGovern said is that it's not about whether you like government or you dislike government.
I mean, it's a necessary evil, as Jefferson said, we're gonna have it.
And so the question is how can you make it a better servant of the popular will, but also how you constrain what it does so that it doesn't try to do everything, which when it tries to do that, it doesn't do anything well.
- Last question to both of you.
If you had one piece of advice you would offer to Elon Musk to get it right, if there were still an opportunity for him to correct course, what would it be?
- I'd say focus on how government makes decisions.
If you can streamline government decisions, give people authority to take responsibility, you will save countless billions, probably hundreds of billions of dollars, and make government much more responsive to public needs.
- Will.
- Well, the tragically-missed opportunity here is that Elon Musk could have done us a lot of good.
If Trump had sent him over to the Pentagon, for example, and said, "Modernize this.
Let's get software, let's get modern IT, let's get AI working."
This is something he actually knows how to do.
And what he's been set on is tasks that he doesn't know how to do, doesn't understand even how to define the problems properly.
- Okay, so that's your analysis.
What's your advice for Elon Musk?
- Go back to the private sector and leave us a alone, please.
- All right, all right.
(laughs) With that, Will Marshall and Phil Howard, thank you for joining me on "Firing Line," here at Hofstra University.
- Thank you.
- Thank you.
(audience applauds) - [Announcer] "Firing Line," with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, the Fairweather Foundation, Peter and Mary Kalikow, Cliff and Laurel Asness, the Meadowlark Foundation, and by the following.
Corporate funding is provided by Stephens Inc. (intense music) (intense music continues) (gentle music) (peaceful music) - You're watching PBS.
Executive Power usage
URL
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/capehart-and-continetti-on-trump-pushing-the-limits-of-executive-power
VIDEO
must click the link above to see
TRANSCRIPT
Geoff Bennett:From Elon Musk gaining unprecedented access to sensitive government information, to Democrats trying to build what they call a bigger and better party, we turn tonight to the analysis of Capehart and Continetti.
That's Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart and Matthew Continetti with the American Enterprise Institute. David Brooks is away this evening.
It's good to see you both.
Matthew Continetti, American Enterprise Institute:
Good to see you.
Geoff Bennett:
So, Donald Trump and his allies are making quick progress toward their stated goal of the deconstruction of the administrative state. We have got takeovers and the hollowing out of major government agencies, offering severance agreements to government workers, pausing federal grants and loans, which, of course, is now tied up in the courts.
Jonathan, are the shockwaves being felt across the government signs of a super committed new administration shaking up the status quo, or are we witnessing the full assault on the limits of executive power?
Jonathan Capehart:
Both, Geoff. Both.
Remember, Donald Trump campaigned. He told us this is what he was going to do. Project 2025 is all about doing what is happening right now. And so they are trying to deconstruct, as I think of Steve Bannon, who said, the administrative state.
And they are — as I said last week, President Trump and Elon Musk, in particular, are taking a wrecking ball to the federal government by sowing, sure, chaos and confusion and fear. But he's following through on what he promised to do.
Geoff Bennett:
How do you see it, Matt?
Matthew Continetti:
I think Jonathan's right. This was a promise made, promised kept, as they like to say in Trump world.
And I think what's important to understand about Trump and how he's going about these initial weeks is, he wants to deliver results. Trump always feels as though the political class that preceded him talked a big game, but never accomplished anything.
So we had the Grace Commission during Reagan. We had Al Gore's reinventing government. We had the commissions dealing with the debt and taxes during the Obama years. Nothing happened. And so here he is. Elon Musk says he wants to treat the federal government like a new acquisition. Well, Donald Trump says, go for it. Let's see what happens.
Geoff Bennett:
What about the question Democrats are raising, Jonathan? Where are the guardrails? Who's going to stop any of this? Democrats in Congress obviously don't have any power. Republicans in Congress are moving in lockstep with this administration.
The courts have stepped in where they deem appropriate, but obviously can't keep up with the velocity of the Trump administration. Is there any guard against his instinct to wield, to really claim and wield expansive power?
Jonathan Capehart:
Well, see, here's the thing.
Right now, the courts are the only guardrail. And I think people need to understand that the courts operate on a timetable that is completely different than the rest of us. And we just have to appreciate that. The fact that citizens and lawmakers and organizations have gone to court to stop President Trump on a whole host of things, from birthright citizenship to the buyout plans, that is right now sort of the, for lack of a better saying, court of last resort.
In the old days, Geoff and Matthew, it used to be that Congress would be the backstop, would be the entity, the legislative branch standing up for its prerogatives and saying, Mr. President, no, we are the ones who decide what agencies come and go. We are the ones who decide what the budget will be.
But, instead, the MAGA Republicans who were there in Congress, from Speaker Johnson on down, they're happy. They're happy to go along with what President Trump and Elon Musk are doing, which is why they are silent on a whole host of things that even 10 years ago would have had Congress up in arms.
Geoff Bennett:
How do you view Congress really abdicating their role, ceding their power to the executive?
Matthew Continetti:
Well, I think this process of ceding power to the executive is decades in the making, and it's bipartisan.
Congress has really just become an investigatory body that delegates tremendous authority to the executive branch of government and the bureaucracy. And we now see the results when you have Trump come in his second term wanting to leave a profoundly changed government in his wake when he departs the Oval Office.
And you see that, because of acts of Congress, Congress' own denial of its role, the president has enormous power to wield. And let's remember, when President Obama said he had a pen and a phone, the first Trump administration used a lot of executive orders. Joe Biden tried to cancel student debt through executive order.
This process we're seeing is long in the making. And I think one reason Washington is stunned is that you have an outsider in Elon Musk actually punching the delete button on some of these programs.
Geoff Bennett:
Jonathan, Matthew raised the question I was going to ask you, because that's what I have heard from Republicans this past week, that Democrats can't in good faith criticize Donald Trump, when Joe Biden tried to unilaterally without Congress waive $400 billion worth of student loan debt. And when the Supreme Court said no, you can't do that, he basically shrugged and then tried to do it via piecemeal approach.
Jonathan Capehart:
This is like comparing apples and cannonballs.
What we're seeing coming from the Trump administration is executive orders uprooting and upending the federal government. And what makes this all the more galling and terrifying for a lot of people is that he has delegated a lot of power to someone who was elected to no office, to someone who was not confirmed by the Senate.
He is accountable to no one, except for maybe, except for maybe President Trump. And President Trump has already said, well, he will only do things that we want him to do. Well, so far, Elon Musk is doing everything that Donald Trump wants to do.
That is what is so terrifying about this moment, is that you have an unelected person, who also happens to be the wealthiest person in the world, and also the wealthiest person in the world who owns a huge social media megaphone, and is able to manipulate the information that the people on that huge platform receive.
That's what is so dangerous about what is happening now. And as we're trying to compare President Biden's executive order on student loans and what Donald Trump is doing, Donald Trump is destroying. President Biden signed an executive order and, yes, pushed the limits of executive action, but to the benefit of people who were drowning in student debt.
He did it in order to help people, not to destroy the government that the American people depend on for a whole host, a whole host of things.
Geoff Bennett:
Let's shift our focus back to Elon Musk for a second, because, Jonathan, we actually have the sound that you mentioned.
Here is how President Trump responded to a reporter's question about whether he gave Elon Musk any red lines.
Question:
Is there anything you have told Elon Musk he cannot touch?
Donald Trump, President of the United States: Well, we haven't discussed that much. I will tell him to go here, go there. He does it. He's got a very capable group of people, very, very, very, very capable. They know what they're doing. They will ask questions and they will see immediately if somebody gets tongue-tied that they're either crooked or don't know what they're doing.
Geoff Bennett:
So, Matt, it would appear that Elon Musk has a fairly broad mandate, in that it's not spelled out at all, I mean, if you take into account what President Trump is saying there.
Matthew Continetti:
I think President Trump has told Elon Musk, let's change the government, let's slim it down, let's dramatically reduce the federal work force. And if you need to go fast and break things, as they say in Silicon Valley, to do that, that's fine.
I will say that if Elon Musk were the health care czar or the energy czar coming up with big plans for government spending or to combat global warming, I'd think there'd be a lot less uproar in Washington, D.C. It's the fact that he has the goal of changing the federal government and limiting it, at a time when we have record deficits and debts, that I think is angering a lot of people who are invested in the current system.
Geoff Bennett:
In the time that remains, I want to return to this open question about the path forward for Democrats, because, Jonathan, you wrote a column for The Washington Post this past week, the thesis of which is that the Democratic Party's issue isn't rooted in policy. It's rooted in perception.
Tell us more about that and whether Ken Martin, the newly elected head of the DNC, can effectively change that.
Jonathan Capehart:
Well, the perception of the Democratic Party is it's filled with elites who only care about niche issues and don't listen to the rest of us.
And, as everyone knows, in a lot of instances, perception is reality. I was one of three people, MSNBC anchors, who hosted the last DNC forum. And there were two instances that happened that sort of put this perception in high relief. One was a question asking for a commitment to dedicated seats for transgender folks within the party to be — the serve within the party in the governing structure.
Another was protesters who were loudly screaming about climate change and getting big money out of politics, something that everyone on that stage was for. And yet no one wanted to listen to what they had to say.
And what was great about — good about those two moments that were instructive, Faiz Shakir, a friend of "PBS News Hour," was the only person the stage who did not raise his hand on the transgender question. There was also one on the question for seats for Muslim DNC members.
He said, I don't think we should be dividing people up by identity. We should focus on people who are up for the mission and the program of the DNC and have them bring their identity to the table.
He's absolutely right. And then with the protesters, Jason Paul said, this is the way people in the country view the Democratic Party, and that is our problem.
That's why I say the policy isn't the problem. Democrats have policies that address the American people's issues. It's the perception. And that is what Ken Martin has to do. And we're about to find out if he's able to do it, to change that perception.
Geoff Bennett:
Jonathan Capehart and Matthew Continetti, thanks again for being with us. I appreciate it.
Jonathan Capehart:
Thanks, Geoff.
Prior Economic Corner : https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11483-economiccorner014/
-
1
-
-
hhhaa @Pioneer1 no
this is why i call the series the economic corner.
In the culture race and economy forum I wanted a series that would focus on economics, i must admit i was thinking about the original wall street journal in nyc, and originally the wall street journal didn't say anything non financial, so for example, they originally would assess a laws financial value not whether it is moral or amoral, good or bad or any cultural element, so I said what if I try to make a series that focuses on finance more strict assessment, and over time get better at it
-
MY LINKTREE
https://aalbc.com/tc/clubs/page/2-rmworkposts/RM WORK CALENDAR
Flash Fictions February 2025
Candace Sulcus of the Sanawoc
Cento Series 91
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/5-rmworkcalendar/week/2025-02-15/RM COMMUNITY CALENDAR
13th amendment proposed, Juneteenth
Lord Dunham's report on Canada
Economic Corner 12- Black Individualism in the USA
Valentine's Day U.S.A.
Economic Corner 13 - Sports Franchise Investment
Economic Corner 14 - Black Farmers in the USA
Estimations of Change
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/7-rmcommunitycalendar/week/2025-02-15/ -
make sure it is listed in aalbc
https://aalbc.com/content.php?title=Submitting+Your+Book+to+be+Listed+on+AALBC
-
10 minutes ago, ProfD said:
I believe the US is heading in a direction that will force black folks to make investments in their own infrastructure out of necessity.
definitely possible amongst other things
-
5 minutes ago, ProfD said:
We'll have to wait and see how long it takes for Africa to become united and capable of offering a blanket citizenship to the entire continent.
yeah the sovereignty is the legal problem. Tiered sovereignty doesn't exist as it will need to for this. the biggest hurdle is what law is applied when one commits a crime. If you are a citizen of the african union and you commit a crime in nigeria against a mozambiquan nigerian law applies but does your african union citizenship get revoked? If you commit a crime in china and you are a citizen of the african union and the chinese legal system penalizes you by not being allowed in the country where do you go? It is legally intriguing. From those I know of working on this, it will work by being on top of citizenry to a member of the african union. That solves many legal questions but for DOSers how will that work,especially if someone cancels their usa citizenship which recently happened increasingly year by year, I haven't checked the numbers in a while.
6 minutes ago, ProfD said:I don't need a blanket citizenship to Africa. If sh8t goes sideways here in the US, I'm relocating to Burkina Faso. I'd be perfectly fine with being stateless too.
-
Economic Corner 14 - the black farmer of the usa
MY THOUGHTS
In 1920 , white records have 925,708 Black Farmers, this doesn't include Black people still share cropping or farming through prison labor. Remember Alice [ https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=1830&type=status ; https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=1925&type=status ] How many Black people were actually farming in 1920 that did not own their own land, but were entrapped in legal while criminal situations?
By 2017 the recorded number of Black Farmers in the USA is 48,697. That is 5.260514114602013%
Ten percent of 925,708 is 92,570.8 so it is clear the numbers are not false. As the brother in the video said, when the war between the states ended the biggest problem is black people in the usa had no where to go[no lands whites havent been to], no revenue or products to get there[no wealthy blacks that could invest in some long journey like white jews later], and had no government willing to ship them[ala the English government that shipped tons of undesirables to the place they called the new world]
So, Black people in the usa at the end of the war between the states had to live side their slavers... former slavers, now just abusers. It is illegal to enslave, but it isn't illegal to hinder or harm or stall or restrict as long as no shackles are involved or no evidence of physical harm can be found or will be found by the legal authorities who just happen to be nonblack.
But,the Black Farmers need two things primarily. They need more but I will speak to immediacy. 1) they need financial support 2)They need a venue they have access to alone.The numbers are clear, white power, white violence, attacked the black farming industry, from the end of the war between the states to today and the local/county/state governments of the south where DOS farms are, were and are completely complicit in the attacks, whether legal or not.
I could had argued Black Farmers need protection but here is the problem for the Black Farmer, specifically the Black DOS farmer. The federal government is the only aspect of government in the usa that is willing to help and that is only because of federal rules, the states/county/local governments are all against them. And you can't move a farm.
so even though I say money+an excusive market is needed, neither will keep Black Farms from being attacked.
Going aside other Economic Corners, Black Farmers could be given exclusive rights to producing the foods for the eateries in a black owned sports league or set of teams. but first the teams will have to be owned and they will have to be privately owned. I am 100% certain a publicly traded firm or a firm that earns government funds will be sued if it uses food exclusively from Black Farmers, simply because the history of white farmers is to lawsuit any gain by black farmers.
I saw the video below and a black farmer said he needed $20,000... where are the black one percent ? $20,000 is not some mountain of money for 2025 Black One Percent. Beyonce/Lebron/Oprah earn far more than $20,000 a day right?
So, the Black Farmers have been crying out for help since 1865, where are the Black One Percent to help them?
VIDEO
ARTICLE
Black farmers fight to keep their land, cultivate next generation
“It’s about fairness,” John Boyd Jr., a farmer and fierce advocate, said.
ByMonica DelaRosa, Alison Lynn, and Anthony Rivas
June 18, 2021, 10:47 AM
John Boyd Jr., a fourth-generation farmer, grew up close to his 1,000-acre farm in southern Virginia where he now grows soybeans, wheat and livestock.
Boyd, of Baskerville, Virginia, is also the founder of the non-profit National Black Farmers Association, which educates and advocates for Black farmers’ civil rights, land retention and access to public and private loans, among other initiatives.
Boyd and his father farmed together for 30 years and his grandparents were sharecroppers after the abolition of slavery in 1865.
“I know there were slaves and sharecroppers that helped build these barns here,” Boyd told ABC News. “You can see the logs were hand-carved by wooden axes. … Just looking at that reminds me of history, where I came from and where we have to go in this country.”
As part of his efforts with the NBFA, Boyd has worked to attract more Black people who are interested in farming, as well as to protect their rights and their land, even riding a mule-drawn wagon and driving a tractor to Washington, D.C., to lobby Congress.
“The most powerful tool you can possess, only secondary to Jesus Christ, is land ownership,” he said.
To be a farmer in the U.S. is to be part of an aging but crucial industry. Black farmers, especially, have seen their numbers plummet from nearly 1 million at the turn of the 20th century to only about 50,000 today, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. While the reasons are complex, they ultimately come down to economics, migration -- mainly to northern urban areas -- and discrimination and racism, according to the Duke Sanford World Food Policy Center.
In 2017, Black farmers were older than the overall population of U.S. farmers, according to the 2017 agricultural census, which said that their farms were smaller and the value of their agricultural sales were less than 1% of the U.S. total. Due to more complete data collection, the census found that the number of Black producers was 5% higher than in 2012, but the number of Black-operated farms dropped by 3%. In all, 57% of Black-operated farms had sales and government payments of less than $5,000 per year, according to the census, while 7% percent had sales and payments of $50,000 or more when compared with 25% of all farms.
A rich history of farming
Black people have a rich history in farming predating slavery. Leah Penniman, co-director of Soul Fire Farm in Petersburg, New York, said that the Mende and Wolof people of West Africa were expert rice farmers kidnapped from their homes and taken to the Carolinas.
“Our ancestral grandmothers had the courageous audacity to braid seeds into their hair,” Penniman told ABC News, adding that they were transported in slave ships with okra, cowpea, egusi melon, sorghum, millet and eggplant seeds.
Hundreds of years later, when enslaved people were given freedom, they were also promised no more than 40 acres of Confederate land along the Atlantic coast, a plan from the federal government that came to be known widely by the phrase “40 acres and a mule.”
The government’s promise was broken soon after President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, when his successor, Andrew Johnson, overturned the order and the land was given back to its original owners.
“If ‘40 acres and a mule’ had been a promise kept, that [land] would be worth almost $7 trillion today,” Penniman said.
Many of the former slaves became sharecroppers, often renting land from their former owners.
“It didn’t just stop when we were freed,” said Boyd. “Where were we free to go? We didn’t have any money. We didn’t have any resources. So, many Blacks stayed on these farms like my forefathers. … That’s how Blacks got land in the first place.”
Boyd said the challenge for Black farmers has been holding onto the land and believes the federal government has failed to adequately support farmers of color.
“The last plantation,” as he calls the USDA, is “the very agency that’s supposed to be lending me a hand up, [and it is] the very agency putting Black farmers out of business.”
Boyd said that even up until the 1980s, he would see the word “negro” on USDA applications and that at his area’s USDA office, the only day they would see Black farmers was on Wednesdays.
“We named it Black Wednesday,” he said.
The USDA said in a statement to ABC News that it did include the word "negro" on the application Boyd referenced until at least 1988 and that it used the terms "Black" or "African American" since then. It also said the "scenario" Boyd recalled with regard to Wednesdays "is a reprehensible one, but we have no information to support the claim."
"It is clear that for much of the history of the USDA, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian American and other minority farmers have faced discrimination -- sometimes overt and sometimes through deeply embedded rules and policies -- that have prevented them from achieving as much as their counterparts who do not face these documented acts of discrimination," the USDA said in its statement. "We are committed to building a different USDA, one that is committed to equality and justice, celebrates diversity and is inclusive of all customers."
Boyd said that since 1995, “a half-trillion dollars -- with a ‘T’ -- have been paid out to large-scale farmers in this country in the form of just subsidies” by the USDA.
"That doesn’t include farm ownership loans, farm equipment loans, any of those things, and little to none has went to Black farmers," he said.
In 1999, the USDA settled the class action lawsuit Pigford v. Glickman, and eventually paid more than $1 billion to Black farmers, who claimed they were unfairly denied loans and other government assistance.
“It’s about fairness,” Boyd said. “It’s about dignity and respect.”
For Black farmers, the tide is showing signs of turning. In March, President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act, a nearly $2 trillion law that directed $5 billion to farmers of color. Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat, co-sponsored the bill, which is meant to provide additional relief to Americans impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The COVID-19 pandemic both illuminated and exacerbated long-standing health disparities and economic disparities,” Warnock told ABC News.
Lestor Bonner, a Vietnam War veteran and fifth-generation farm owner, said that in 1893, his great-grandfather bought the farm that he now works on. He said there’s only 136 acres left and that he needs $20,000 to save it from foreclosure. The relief money, he said, could help jumpstart his business after a difficult year living through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Bonner said he thought he would have the money by now “so I could get a crop in the ground this year,” he told ABC News.
As part of the American Rescue Plan Act, the USDA had set up a loan forgiveness program that would have helped Bonner pay off his outstanding loans, as well as pay for supplies and equipment to help him continue farming. But this month, a federal judge in Wisconsin ordered the government agency to stop forgiving loans, saying the program unconstitutionally uses race as a factor in determining who is eligible.
Penniman says her organization’s mission is to help Black farmers hold onto their land, as well as to introduce young Black potential farmers to the occupation (the average age of Black farmers is over 60).
“We have between one and 2,000 folks who come through for these courses every single year at the farm to learn everything from taking care of the soil to planting a seed,” she said.
Penniman said that many important agricultural techniques, including many of the practices in organic farming, like raised beds, composting and cover-cropping “come out of an Afro-indigenous tradition.”
Boyd, for his part, said he’s “proud and excited to see young people” taking an interest in land ownership and farming.
“There’s a new generation of Black farmers. I love that win,” he said. “So, I welcome them to the fight and welcome them as farmers and stewards of the land and contributors to agriculture and the fruit base in this country. That’s what my fight is all about.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/black-farmers-fight-land-cultivate-generation/story?id=78338282
IN AMENDMENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWpUNrv6_P0
TRANSCRIPT
0:00
the systematic exclusion of the black
0:02
farmer has been an ongoing fight since
0:04
the days of lincoln
0:05
and no one knows that fight better than
0:08
the one man who's been in the trenches
0:09
for the last 30 years fighting the
0:12
united states government for the rights
0:14
of black farmers look at these yes you
0:17
guys do a big crop this is an ocean this
0:20
is a beautiful crop i don't think i've
0:21
had a crop like this probably in 20
0:23
years
0:24
meet john boyd jr a fourth generation
0:27
farmer and founder of the national black
0:30
farmers association
0:31
his 1993 lawsuit against the united
0:34
states department of agriculture led to
0:36
their first ever settlement with an
0:38
individual
0:39
and the subsequent class-action lawsuit
0:41
resulted in the largest ever settlement
0:43
from the federal government
0:45
but only a fraction of those represented
0:47
farmers have been paid out so i'm here
0:50
on his soybean farm in boyton virginia
0:52
to hear how the fight's going
0:55
they look brown well these are beautiful
0:57
i'm gonna get you to open one too okay
0:58
here i come what's your method you break
1:00
it right down the middle you hold it
1:01
like that okay
1:03
and you press it right down the middle
1:05
it's like a little pee you can actually
1:07
chew them
1:08
oh
1:09
you see our taste it's sort of nutty too
1:11
and it really is dense it's like almost
1:13
it's like it it like sticks in your
1:14
teeth in a good way
1:16
like fudge almost it's meaty
1:19
it is it's meaty and it's soy burgers
1:22
yeah yeah mixed soybeans up in
1:24
everything
1:25
if we're going to talk about soybeans
1:27
gotta talk about george washington
1:29
carfur because in the 19th century after
1:31
years of cotton and tobacco crop
1:33
cultivation the soil was completely
1:35
depleted so the hyper-intelligent george
1:38
washington carver taught farmers about
1:40
the importance of crop rotation and
1:42
showed them that planting peanut crops
1:44
will help replenish much needed nitrogen
1:47
in the soil
1:48
but then the southern farms were left
1:50
with a surplus of peanuts so george
1:53
washington carver had to come to the
1:54
rescue once again
1:56
dr carver went into his lab and didn't
1:58
come out until he published a paper
2:00
entitled how to grow the peanut and 105
2:03
ways of preparing it for human
2:04
consumption
2:06
the peanut was the new cash crop and
2:08
both he and the little legume were
2:10
credited as having saved the southern
2:11
farm economy
2:13
both white and black farms alike
2:17
so if black farmers like george
2:18
washington carver were innovative
2:20
preservationists why don't we see more
2:22
black farmers in america today
2:25
the decline in the black farmer
2:28
had a few facets to it one was the great
2:31
migration and then you had horrific laws
2:34
of jim crow
2:35
where blacks weren't able to uh
2:38
obtain credit oh
2:40
yeah uh under the dakar administration
2:43
they came up with the farmer's home
2:44
administration that was supposed to help
2:46
blacks get loans and it did it did the
2:49
opposite we're getting farm ownership
2:51
loans you work in farm operating loans
2:54
i take a step into the united states
2:56
department of agriculture and i stepped
2:58
back in time
2:59
387 days to process
3:02
a black farm loan request in less than
3:05
30 days to process a white farmer's loan
3:08
request
3:09
in the top 10 percent getters and u.s
3:12
farm subsidies get over 1 million
3:14
dollars per farmer
3:16
and the average subsidy to a black farm
3:18
is 222 dollars
3:22
no comparison we're not even in the same
3:25
uh league and we haven't even made it to
3:27
that book
3:28
and as that process became more more
3:30
difficult more blacks left left farming
3:33
you see both federal and local
3:35
governments have worked very
3:37
specifically to deprive obstruct and
3:39
prevent land ownership by black people
3:42
local banks can deny loans local
3:44
governments can write legislation that
3:46
bolsters those banks racist practices
3:49
and the same thing happens on a federal
3:51
level too which has resulted in
3:53
catastrophic losses within the black
3:55
farming community
3:58
so we experienced that from the
3:59
government and and banks
4:02
but we also faced that at local markets
4:05
there was a time period where tobacco
4:08
brought a higher price when i sold it
4:10
through my white neighbor than it did
4:12
when i sold it on my own
4:14
oh
4:15
are you serious yeah what year
4:18
ah this is in the 90s
4:20
yeah
4:21
and the i think you mad it makes me so
4:24
mad well it makes me it makes me mad
4:29
it gave me the drive and the motivation
4:31
to want to fix it yes
4:34
and
4:35
that's what i sought out to do and
4:36
that's what i've been doing for the past
4:38
30 years
4:39
when black farmers sued the usda for
4:41
racial discrimination in 1993 and won
4:44
they proved in court that the federal
4:46
government was systematically denying
4:49
loans and financial support to black
4:51
farmers
4:52
that led to the largest civil rights
4:54
settlement in u.s history but that
4:56
settlement money has only made it to
4:58
roughly 20 000 farmers of the 100 000
5:01
plus
5:02
that were represented in this suit
5:04
why
5:05
because bureaucratic red tape has caused
5:07
the proverbial can to just keep getting
5:10
kicked and rebundled under new bailout
5:12
packages
5:18
[Music]
5:32
you
English (auto-generated)
IN AMENDMENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO2kWD1EjuMTRANSCRIPT
0:02
we're back with more of the exploitation
0:05
of black farmers in America now several
0:08
of them have sued and recently received
0:10
back pay after it was discovered by the
0:13
U.S labor department that immigrant
0:15
workers white immigrant workers were
0:17
being given more money than the black
0:19
farmers and the black farmers were doing
0:21
the exact same job it's a disturbing
0:23
reality for many black American farmers
0:26
whose numbers are dwindling by the day
0:28
still with us is John Boyd Jr he's the
0:31
founder and president of the national
0:32
black Farmers Association now John when
0:36
you were here uh we wanted to address
0:38
some of the concerns we've had this
0:40
conversation but we want to go deeper
0:41
recently we saw that a federal judge
0:44
dismissed your lawsuit about the four
0:46
billion dollar debt relief program for
0:49
black Farmers essentially that was
0:50
President Biden including a specific uh
0:54
element of that package that was
0:55
supposed to provide relief to Black
0:57
Farmers he reneged on that promise you
1:00
uh and attorney cromp and others file
1:02
suit and now it's been dismissed where
1:04
do you go next in this case
1:07
well we have filed an appeal uh to
1:11
appeal that decision and and federal
1:13
court and I'm hopeful that the courts
1:15
will take a deeper look at I'm going to
1:17
use your words a deeper look into what
1:18
really happened uh to Black Farmers you
1:21
know every time uh that we're promised
1:23
something in this country uh as black
1:26
people and in this case black Farmers
1:28
they find a way not to get us through
1:31
the resources that are promised to us we
1:33
were promised a hundred and twenty
1:35
percent debt relief for that's for every
1:36
uh black farmer who is eligible and
1:39
other farmers of color uh that means 100
1:41
debt relief 20 uh to pay the taxes and
1:46
Congress repealed it under the
1:49
leadership of uh President Biden and and
1:52
recently he just we lost a big decision
1:55
and affirmative action people black
1:57
people going backwards we need to wake
1:59
up here we lost a big decision and on
2:01
affirmative action and the President
2:03
says he's going to dig deeper uh to come
2:06
up with something from on the stroke of
2:08
repent from from his desk to help get
2:11
around a possible on the actual debt
2:14
relief measure for for college tuition
2:17
and all of these things we need him to
2:19
use this stroke of the pen to help get
2:21
around the issues that facing America's
2:23
black farmers and uh you know why I
2:26
wasn't at the same outrage when this
2:28
Administration went back on its word to
2:30
do that we're always overlooked and the
2:34
fixed problem in this country and we
2:36
were the nation's uh first first black
2:39
occupation here in the country for black
2:41
people so I turned to I turned my fight
2:43
to the federal courts hoping that we can
2:46
get some uh resolve there if not I'm
2:49
going to take my fight to the upcoming
2:51
presidential election
2:53
and to let Americans know that we've
2:56
been left out and uh for people on the
2:59
hill telling me Boyd you got to take
3:01
this one on the chin uh you don't have a
3:03
way out on this uh I'm gonna take my
3:06
fight right out here to the American
3:07
people and let the American people make
3:09
the decision on how we were treated as
3:12
as voters in this country because we
3:15
voted probably 99 for our president uh
3:18
bidener hasn't been a sit-down meeting
3:20
with the president
3:21
and there hasn't been a seat a sit down
3:24
meeting with his act secretary I mean
3:26
come on people that's a given for a body
3:28
of people who voted in a block uh to
3:31
support this Administration well and
3:33
also John Boyd an Administration and a
3:36
president that said during his
3:37
inauguration speech that he did owe
3:39
Black America to your point of his debt
3:42
uh that he owes the black electorate uh
3:44
as to the result of him even being the
3:47
46th president of the United States
3:49
something else I want to bring up is
3:51
something you said in our previous
3:52
conversation before the break here you
3:54
said that Black America needs to realize
3:56
that we've got more work to do talk
3:59
about how important it is that black
4:01
America kind of connects the dots what's
4:03
happening and the distributment of black
4:05
Farmers what's happening with the
4:06
gutting of affirmative action what's
4:08
happening with black people
4:09
disproportionately caring more student
4:11
loan debt that they will not get relief
4:13
from in your
4:15
experience because you are a man of
4:17
significant lived American Experience do
4:19
you believe that what's happening right
4:21
now John Boyd is a backlash of what some
4:25
Americans some white Americans uh some
4:28
federal government leaders feel has been
4:30
too much quote progress of Black Folk in
4:32
this country
4:34
I believe it's a continuation a slow uh
4:40
drag now or takedown uh might I describe
4:43
it as what's happened to us as uh black
4:46
Farmers didn't just start with uh
4:49
President Biden where uh openly
4:52
supported him and got on early early on
4:54
it took a chance with this uh president
4:56
early on when there were many candidates
4:58
in the race I supported this president
5:00
from the administration to
5:02
Administration from Congress to Congress
5:04
we failed to fix the problem at the
5:07
United States Department of Agriculture
5:09
and his farm lending programs around the
5:12
country and and AG lending and the top
5:15
10 agriculture companies these are all
5:18
issues that we're facing every day we
5:20
are those big names that were that
5:23
haven't down you know my number to talk
5:25
about this get educated on it and to see
5:28
how they can lend their voice now
5:31
sometimes people is not your checkbook
5:32
sometimes it's your voice saying that I
5:36
support the the black Farmers Movement
5:38
we support uh the lawsuit we support
5:40
these black Farmers getting Justice well
5:42
listen John boy Junior what we know is
5:43
you are not going to take anything on
5:45
the chin you're not going to take
5:46
anything lying down nor should you and
5:48
here at the grill we look forward to
5:49
helping you amplify
IN AMENDMENT
In July of 2024, the National Black Farmers Association, helmed by President John Boyd, Jr., secured a $2.2 billion payout for discrimination in farm lending by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This victory is historic: it marks official acknowledgement and restitution for Black farmers, who for generations, have faced unrelenting discrimination in the farming industry.
https://www.brookings.edu/events/denied-no-more-a-conversation-with-john-boyd-president-of-the-national-black-farmers-association/Prior Economic corner : https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11479-economiccorner013
-
4 hours ago, ProfD said:
Despite that a huge portion of Black wealth comes from entertainment (sports and music), the only thing I can gather at this poimt is that Black folks aren't too interested in owning a sports franchise or starting our own leagues.
I have to apologize I forgot to mention two things.
First, in the sport of soccer the way it is designed globally, you have FIFA the global body, then under fifa are confederations, which are something like continents, and in confederations you have football associations which are like countries. Black ownership in soccer teams in black countries is very very high. Jamaica/Haiti[yes even fiscally poor haiti]/nigeria/south africa/ethiopia all countries with a majority black populace with a decent size, not city states or very tiny countries like a cape verde or similar have many football clubs 99% black owned. so, black owned sports leagues or clubs are common in the world, in the larger humanity, essentially in majority black countries.
Second , I forgot all about the Big 3 league I think Ice Cube owns it, I am certain he has black partners, though definitely white partners. It is the premier, 3 on 3 so it is a major league. I admittedly forgot. it isn't widely advertised but i know it has grown.
So black people in the usa aren't interested, but it isn't a global problem. as I say in sports groups online, black people complain about owning sports teams in white countries but we own a lot of sports stuff in black countries.
Making a bridge, since Black DOSers in the usa with money seem in love with investing in white owned sports team in the usa or elsewhere, considering black owned sports teams exist in black countires, they need to be convinced to making an investment in a black owned team/league outside the usa. I say South Africa is the best candidate.
First, the safest legal environment cause wealthy black DOSers are the most risk averse.
Second, not the most financial potential but in the top ten, arguably others have more but I can say top ten by some angles over all.
Third, english speaking, so communication isn't a problem
I end with the black populace in the usa is becoming a hyrbid of DOS with Modern Immigrant which in twenty years will yield a definitive comfort with the black populace outside the usa more than in the past which will change financial habits so...
-
52 minutes ago, ProfD said:
Do the DOsers who choose to be unattached to the USA have another homeland to which they can return and thrive?
Well I can give two answers to your question.
1)The simple but not complete answer is no
2) The complete but complex answer is, DOSers in the american continent , with forebears enslaved in majority non black countries have two aspects, one that is common to many peoples in humanity. and one that is a particular.
The one that is common is statelessness. The Romani in Europe are a stateless people. The HAbshi of India, fellow Black DOSers ,are stateless. Being Stateless is a condition . All human peoples have a heritage or culture, ways they carry from the past or grow to the future. But, not all human peoples have a state/ a government/ a land they control. This is why white european jews wanted israel. It wasn't for money. The white european jewish community didn't need israel for financial wealth, doesn't get most of their wealth from israel[that still comes from being allowed to do business as a tiny minority in other peoples countries]and most white european jews don't live in israel, but israel serves a function that white european jews can't get in any other country in the world, including the usa. It is the gap between influence and freedom. And to that end Black DOSers whose forebears were enslaved in the USA/Brasil/Mexico/Venezuela/or similar [not haiti or jamaica which are black DOS countries, Black Haitians or Black Jamaicans are Black DOSers but Black DOSers with enslaved forebears in the usa have no state to claim on birth ] are stateless.
The one that is unique is the homeland identity. The homeland of Black DOSers of the American Continent [Canada to Argentina] is actually Africa itself. This is why I have always been against Gates jr. genetic based genealogy. What his line of thinking tries to do is match Black DOSers to whites but that isn't the truth of Black DOS situation. For example, when someone immigrates to the usa from a state in africa today, what do they say? they are south african or nigerian or ethiopian but then they will say, I speak the language of X. Meaning a majority of people in Africa today see themselves as being of a specific people in a state. this is derived from recent african history, as the states were designed by white europeans while the peoples in africa have their own map, so you get this dual factor. But Black DOSers forebears didn't come from any of these modern states made by white europeans. If you I or any Black DOSer in the American Continent spoke to our forebears and asked them , how was senegal or ghana or nigeria or cameroon or dr congo, south africa, namibia, ethiopia, madagascar,algeria, morocco, oman, egypt, or another country in africa, most would have no idea what we are talking about because those countries didn't exist. The only four that they will recognize by name is egypt/madagascar/ethiopia/congo. And they wouldn't comprehend two congos, abyssinians would comprehend the greek name for their country, the various people of madagascar would comprehend the european name of their island , kemet was called commonly egypt at the time our forebears were enslaved, only Ethiopia then Abyssinia actually existed as a government. And Black DOSers tribal heritage is simply mixed African. When I went to various countries in Africa one thing I noticed is that DOSers tend to have a huge variance in our appearance locally unlike folks in Africa who tend to be similar in appearance in regions in a country. And that makes sense cause our forebears were mated to each other absent any demographic concern outside skin tone labeled Black. So, Black DOSers whose forebears were enslaved in the usa have only one possible homeland, which is the continent of Africa itself. I am 100% certain my forebears came from all over the continent, and not from any of these post european colonial governments.
Now looking forward, two questions.
1)can a stateless person join a state? yes. Which is why I said DOSers can or can not attach themselves to the USA. The key is the freedom DOSers have because of our unique heritage. IT is that simple. All others in the usa don't share our heritage with the usa and sequentially they are attached by their own heritage to the usa, while Black DOSers are free to choose. But Black DOSers have to choose. And if one doesn't, like myself, you are stateless and that isn't a bad thing. I can't see the future, maybe I will never have a homeland, a place I choose to call a home, that isn't uncommon in human history. But it is a choice I like all Black DOSers whose forebears were enslaved in the usa have.
2) Can continental Africa be a homeland? yes. The AFrican Union already exists, which is the government of the continent of africa. like the european union is the government for the continent of europe. Does the government of africa have a state for individuals? no. Does the ORganization for American States, the government of the american continent? no. so, it is not common for governments of continents to have the same citizenry functions as the countries that compose them, but in my own travels, I know many in Africa have considered this idea, for various financial or cultural reasons. And I admit , if the African Union had a citizenship path I would apply. South Africa or Nigeria or Tunisia I can't say is my home, but I knowing my forebears history, I can say Africa is my home. Now how does one be a citizen of Africa but not a citizen of a country in it is a question for another time:)
So, I have explained why the only land a Black DOSer whose forebears were enslaved in the USA can return to is Africa itself. Is it currently available? no. Is it possible in the future ? yes. Can an Individual Black DOSer whose forebears were enslaved in the USA thrive in Africa? Based on the definition of thrive yes, because I know Black DOSers from various places in the east coast who left to various place in Africa as individuals, not as a group, and are doing well. Are they billionaires ? no. So depending on what you mean by thriving the answer is no based on examples.
I know I can be verbose but all these words serve a function, to meet the particular realities of black dosers. Our forebears lost wars, that is why they were enslaved. Wars against fellow Black people+ Wars against Whites. Losing wars makes your history complicated.
Germany + Japan lost in two phases of the Global White Imperial Wars, Germany has two halves of itself that don't fit and no standing army bordered by england and russia. Japan don't have an army legally allowed to start wars while bordering china. The Russians lose the third phase, they are still trying to figure themselves out. This is what losing wars does to any peoples. The people who won imposed on you things that you can't simply whipe away with a magic wand because you lost the war. Black DOSers forebears lost many wars so....
2 hours ago, ProfD said:Several of my posts mention the fear Black folks have of whites which I believe contributes to an impediment in self-sufficiency.
Fear + Idolization. and I argue while fear was the majority deterrent in the past it is idolization today.
As eddie murphy talking to an audience, i paraphrase
"yeah I see you out there, nobody enslaving me, the first brother off the boat thought that, and then WHIP oh yes! MASSA! whatever you say! I'm TOBY! I'm TOBY!"
The fear blacks have to whites was and is well earned. But in modernity, it is idoltry to whites. and whites aren't the sole genesis to said idoltry. In the USA at least, I think the problem started once Black leadership made their choices in the war between the states. Once they decided to guide black people to integrate to whites in the usa they set the table for idoltry to set in the Black DOSer populace.
all things have positives + negatives.
The positives of integration is it allows an unarmed black people still being extremely terrorized by white people to have a nonviolent way to gain financial profit and with that a better quality of life, it also allows a black peoples who are constantly attacked the second they have any movement to arm themselves by whites to survive being protected by white presence while unarmed. I comprehend.
The negatives though is it requires careful monitoring in how black people apply their identity or goals to integration, especially as a minority populace, more whites live in the usa than blacks. People forget slavery is a form of integration. Jim crow is a form of integration. A black person in missisippi has a governor and two senators in a position of representation to them who are all white. county sheriffs in a position to protect or serve them who are all white and KKK members. Your not segregated because whites don't let you use a fountain, white people still come to your home to collect rent. white people are simply dictating the integration. Integration became for many black people the goal, and if integration is the goal then you don't need a self sufficient black populace because your goal is to be part of the already self sufficient statian/american populace. And to individualism, many blacks see their goal as being an integrated individual in the usa over being part of a strong nonviolent integrated black community with the rest of the populace in the usa.
Impediment to self sufficiency if the goal is communal, but not if the goal is individual.
3 hours ago, ProfD said:Here we go again. I didn't write that most Black people live in a positive environment. Many of them do.
Black peope do live in
even enough I miscomprehended, I tend to focus on majority, and your language focuses on positivity, which correctly, focuses on those that are doing positive, regardless of else.
3 hours ago, ProfD said:Where should Black people go in order to find the most positive environment?
Well, I will not speak robustly for Black DOSers who are stateless, like myself. To said black DOSers they have to find that place, and they may not find it. that is the reality/challenge of being stateless. It is nothing to be ashamed of and doesn't mean you don't have a heritage or culture.
But I will say for Black DOSers who have chosen the USA as their homeland their majority has already decided how they want to relate to the usa so the answer is straight forward but has not been reached.
The majority Black DOSers who have chosen the USA as their homeland, yes the whole thing like a tribe called quest, clearly want the ability to exist as individuals anywhere in the usa with full opportunity/freedom/protections from local/county/state governments anti black ways or the anti black ways of non blacks.
That is the positive environment goal they want. I base this on black people i have communicated to who live in the deep south, the midwest. This is why as I said before in this forum, Federalism is so popular in the modern Black populace in the USA. Federalism is the only thing that has protected black people in the usa from the texas rangers, the missisippi sheriffs, the small white town mayors. I argue Black people never forgot as long as the union army was in the south white violence against them existed but had some stoppage, once the union army left... welcome to hell.
So the most positive environment Black DOSers who have chosen the USA as their homeland can reach has to be made in the USA, not found outside the USA as with the stateless Black DOSers.
The greatest deterrent is whites in the usa have a complete history of violence against blacks in the usa, it is a constant of usa life for whites, abusing blacks, so it is a heritage and a strong heritage that is older than the usa itself. White Violence against Blacks is the second oldest heritage whites in the usa have, the oldest is killing first peoples, both are far older than the constitutional equality.
So, Black DOSers like yourself got one hell of a challenge that many other Black DOSers in the USA aren't apart of as stateless. let alone Black peoples who are not DOSers in the modern immigrant mode who have a duality with a country outside rare for a DOSer.
3 hours ago, ProfD said:I'd like to know your thoughts on why the two other groups choose to stay in the USA.
Well I will speak on those who fought against the USA first
In the war of secession from the english empire most free blacks , blacks who were not enslaved to whites, were taken to canada.
But in the war of 1812 which proves my point about tribes, most free blacks fought against the usa again, said blacks were hanged/killed/enslaved/ a few left the usa.
And the black populace has always had anti statians, if you will.
Now why didn't said black folks leave. I will split into two groups.
First, the originals at the secession from the english empire. If england would had won, no USA exist. and england based on their own actions in failure would had definitely demanded Black Citizenry, the english would not had ended slavery but they would had ended the block on black freedom, not for love to blacks but to empower a deterrent against the whites in the usa.
I think many blacks viewed the usa with a vendetta and wanted to destroy it, blood feuds work that way. while whites enslaved blacks for money, blacks didn't view their enslavement as financial. This is a blood feud and as such , only the shedding of blood can sate.
To why Black DOSers who are anti statian don't leave. Well... stateless people have the hardest time getting a homeland because a true homeland isn't about money or owning land, it is about an embrace to a place as tied to your soul, and well... that is one of the hardest places to find.
Second, to the enslaved black people. Well they were enslaved to whites. Slavery is a physical thing, they were not free to leave the usa, they weren't free to move about in the usa.
Now I will speak a little on the underground railroad focused on Black people who escaped slavery before the war between the states... It is known HArriet Tubman wanted black people to leave the usa, go to canada. But Frederick Douglass/most Black advocates before him and Black churches and white churches wanted Black people escaped from enslavement to stay in the usa. They each had their own reasons. White churches wanted congregants. Black churches wanted congregants especially as they couldn't move their church to canada. Douglass + the others like him before chose the usa to be their home and simply wanted other black people to do the same,. The heritage of getting other blacks to do your way is still strong in the black populace in the usa today. They didn't convince all but they convinced most to stay in the usa. I know it is cheap in hindsight but it is clear Harriet Tubman and blacks like her were correct. If all free blacks go to canada, that changes human history. For better or worse overall I don't know but it changes abolition in the usa or the greater north america. The reason being it gives abolition a focus. As a white southerner once said, i apraphrase:"you northerners speak of living equal with the negro but i never see your daughters with them"
White abolitionist wanted to end black enslavement to harm the business model of the wealthy white south but wanted black people to stay in the usa as a cheap labor source. If free blacks moved out more it would change Canada.
to Black people after the war between the states who became free without escaping, most of them, didn't have the courage to try to escape so they have a compiunded problem. They are anti white, very frightened of whites, have little to no history of communicating as an equal human to anyone so travel is dangerous, very frightened of leaving the slave grounds by white terror, need to find a place for their own comfort.
Did they want to leave? Yes. Did they have anywhere inviting them to come? no. Did they have anywhere to go regardless of invite where a penniless people could go? no. Did they like the USA or whites in the usa enough to embrace or choose the usa? no.
What you get is a stuck people. But they tried to give Frederick Douglass a chance, the black church a chance. Maybe if white violence or the union army could had waited twenty years , that may have been enough and history is changed , but in three years after the war between the states, whites are terrorizing black people so much so most white historians argue the violence by whites to blacks after the war between the states is worse than before. And so absent any time to settle in and believe in the usa, most Blacks are in the Jim Crow, the second phase of slavery.with all the problems they had before plus more, and thus no movement, no anything all based on honest expeirences, which leads to Black Individuals being the sole examples of success and the strenghtening of individualism to be the majority way of life for those in the black populace in the usa.
-
Economic Corner - what is the truth of investment in the sport industry in the usa?
Key points
One hundred and fifty million is the most recent value of starting a WNBA franchise , fifty million initially and then one hundred million through promised infrastructure plans.
The WNBA franchise in Chicago was started for five million dollars, in Oprah Winfrey's beloved town, by a white man who had less money than Oprah, and was absent any promises of future investment.
No major league, major league defined as a team determined the primary athletic tier, from the NFL to the National Women's Hockey League has a black owner. For example, baseball has a black owner in the minor leagues of baseball.
Opportunities to invest in the sporting world in the usa and become the owner to a franchise exist that are affordable. The Black populace in the usa through individuals or group of individuals have the annual revenue or saved wealth to make the investments.
Now some restrictions, most sport organizations in the usa, demand owners be single individuals. There are cases of ownership groups but they are not common. Sometimes investment firms or corporations are allowed to own a team, like RedBull owns RedBull NY but the process of a large set of individuals to become a corporation and then to own a team is a longer process time wise, and in that time will challenge the devotion of the members.
So based on womens sport leagues financial growth, black individuals of the highest financial caste have already missed out on financial growth of circa ninety six percent. That is financial failure.
*
Why aren't the Black wealthy, the black one percent, investing in sport to become owners of franchises in the usa?
What is the truth of investment in the sport industry in the usa?
*
If an opportunity to invest to become an owner exist, if you have the money to make the investment safely, then the question is why don't you ?
Only five answers exist, and I will list them first.
They aren't investing because:
1.they don't know the opportunity exist
2.they know the opportunity exist and want to but can't do it alone
3.they know the opportunity exist and want to but can't get a group
4.they know the opportunity exist and don't want to because they are interested in investing in other fields
5.they know the opportunity exist and don't want to because they are interested in investing in the sporting field but want a safer investment
*
All are possible.
1.I know of blacks who don't like sports for various reasons so I can believe some don't know , they have such a dislike of sport that the thought is away from them.
2.Five million is a lot of money and the average Black millionaire in the usa can't risk five million dollars. so I can see many can't do it alone. And adding the modern heritage, a lack of communalism in the black populace in the usa, reaching out to a financially wealthy black stranger does not seem common.
4. I know of a black former nba player who owns a tech firm another who owns a car dealership network. So, just because a black person is involved in sport doesn't mean they want to invest in sport and that is fine. Again, it is called free market capitalism for a reason. It isn't slave market capitalism. You are free to invest how or where you want, that is the point.
5. I don't have private financial data to the black wealthy, one million or more saved or earned, in the usa. But, from white owned media, most black sports investment is as shareholders, not majority owners. So based on advertising, most black wealthy seem convinced in safer bets in the sporting world. I will rephrase, black wealthy like hedging their bets where white wealthy can cover for them. The positive angle is Lebron James for example. He invested in one percent of Liverpool football club. Now, the investment group from boston that owns the red sox and bought Liverpool is looking to sell. Upon the sale, Lebron can cash in and earn more than he put in or keep it in and ride the growth for longer. I can think of many shareholder investments in sport by the Black wealthy. Looking to sell is a common tactic in modern sport, buy and wait for a few years and then sell where you cash in or keep your money in and have it grow. After a sale to some buyer somewhere for more money who has a similar plan, to sell after a set of years, or isn't looking to sell and has a non financial agenda. I have seen this with some WNBA teams with ownership groups who never want to sell the club , just want it is a long term investment to leave to the next generation it seems. The negative angle is the preaching from black millionaires or better to the black financial poor or common in the usa concerning becoming investors when black millionaires or better are not willing to invest? If Black financial speakers don't complain about black wealthy evading ownership and becoming shareholders, then said black financial speakers need to not speak on black poor or non wealthy not willing to risk their pennies. The bigger issue is, if you don't own , you don't control. Minority investment, minority shareholding , is a great way to make money off of others risk but a terrible way to control things, cause you can't control any firm unless you are a majority shareholder or owner.
3. you may have noticed I put this last. The one thing I rarely hear, i did hear about Tony Parker with a set of other athletes investing as a group into Olympique Lyonnais, is group investments in sport.
I remember when Isiah Thomas owned the remade CBA, and I wondered who else invested with him. I never found out but I do wonder about many black wealthy people and their collaborative abilities with other blacks. I can believe Oprah Winfrey can't make a group to easily cause it is public knowledge she has many who don't like her in the black one percent. But it is clear the Black one percent need more internal interlinking.
URL
https://www.thestar.com/business/edward-rogers-argued-against-a-toronto-wnba-franchise-but-tanenbaum-went-ahead-and-got-one/article_dde69db8-1dea-11ef-8828-3fa01376cfbd.htmlEdward Rogers argued against a Toronto WNBA franchise — but Tanenbaum went ahead and got one. Who was right?
Fifteen years after being denied a Toronto women’s team by the NBA, economic experts say Kilmer Sports Ventures’ $50 million purchase of a WNBA franchise will likely be a slam dunk.
Updated Dec. 12, 2024 at 1:47 p.m.
May 31, 2024
By Josh RubinBusiness Reporter
What did Larry Tanenbaum see in a WNBA franchise that Edward Rogers didn’t?Plenty, say sports business experts and women’s sports advocates, who argue the franchise granted to the Toronto businessman and sports industry investor will be a big success — at least off the court.
“I think it’s going to be a success. I think the franchise is going to be worth $100 million, $150 million in the next few years, pick a number,” said long-time sports industry executive Richard Peddie.
Tanenbaum, through his firm Kilmer Sports Ventures, was recently awarded an expansion franchise in the premier women’s pro basketball league in exchange for a franchise fee of $50 million (U.S.). As part of the deal with the league, Kilmer also agreed to other financial commitments — including renovations and building a practice facility — which a league source says brings the total value of the deal to $150 million (U.S.).
More than fifteen years ago, when he was CEO of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, Peddie was a big proponent of the organization’s push to get a WNBA franchise. He and Tanenbaum — who still owns a chunk of MLSE — were shot down by then-NBA commissioner David Stern.
Tanenbaum, said Peddie, never really gave up his hope of a team. That vision clearly wasn’t shared by Edward Rogers and Tony Staffieri, the chair and CEO, respectively of Rogers Communications, one of MLSE’s parent companies, along with BCE Inc. and Kilmer.
As reported by the Star, Rogers and Staffieri argued against MLSE bidding for a WNBA team, despite an internal MLSE business case which projected the team would eventually become profitable.
Expansion franchises in any league can have a shaky few years when they start. But there’s already ample precedent in Toronto for a new team proving to be a good investment, said Peddie.
“You think about Toronto FC. There were people who thought us buying Toronto FC for $10 million was crazy, was the stupidest idea going. Now, some people would say it’s worth $700 million. That’s where Larry’s coming from,” said Peddie. “When we bought Toronto FC, we weren’t projecting it to make any money right off the bat. But we were amazingly profitable in the first couple of years.”
Victor Matheson, a professor of economics at College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts who specializes in the economic impact of the sports industry, says there are plenty of reasons to expect Toronto’s WNBA team will be a financial success, including the precedent set by the NBA’s Raptors.
“Toronto certainly has a chance to be a good market for the WNBA. The reason we know this is that obviously it’s been a great market for the NBA — a lot of success with the Raptors,” said Matheson, who added that Toronto also has a track record of supporting high-level women’s sports. “The Canadian women’s soccer team has done fantastically. And there was just a spectacular inaugural season in the PWHL.”
So why wouldn’t those factors be obvious to other potential investors in addition to Tanenbaum? A failure of imagination, said Matheson.
“I think what a lot of owners and broadcasters have lacked is the imagination to realize what a hit women’s sports can be,” said Matheson. “They say ‘well, why should we even try to ask for a lot of money for TV rights, or why should even think about paying a bunch of money for TV rights. I can’t imagine anyone going and watching these games,’ so they don’t even try.”
Having the star power of rookie Indiana Fever point guard Caitlin Clark in the WNBA is helping everyone from sponsors, teams and the league itself get that spark of imagination, Matheson said. The season-opening game of the WNBA’s Connecticut Sun against Clark’s Fever was a sellout, with more than 9,000 fans, the team’s highest attendance in 20 years.
“They weren’t just paying the $10-$15 WNBA price, but scalping tickets for $50 or $100 apiece. As soon as people see things like that, they can start to imagine that ‘hey, this is something that really could work,’” said Matheson.
The fact that big-time sports investment has traditionally been male-dominated has also played a role in the failure of imagination, says Allison Sandmeyer- Graves, CEO of Canadian Women and Sport, an advocacy organization.
“It’s a safe bet that was a factor,” said Sandmeyer-Graves. “When you start from a place of not respecting women’s sports, it’s really hard to see the value in it.”
Recent surveys done for CWS, said Sandmeyer-Graves, give plenty of cause for optimism that Toronto’s as-yet unnamed team will be a financial success. Sandmeyer-Graves pointed to results which found that 17 million Canadians called themselves fans of women’s sports. And the gender breakdown wasn’t what some people might have assumed.
“What was really cool in the research we just released was to see actually, fans of women’s sports are almost 50-50 men and women, and it’s even a little bit higher for men,” said Sandmeyer-Graves.
And, she added, the surveys were done before the inaugural season of the Professional Women’s Hockey League, which has a franchise in Toronto.
“So it’s not just the novelty of the first season of this new league, said Sandmeyer-Graves. “There’s latent demand in Canada for women’s sports that hasn’t been fully met.”
Still, there will inevitably be bumps in the road, just like there are with any start-up franchise. Detractors, she argued, won’t be playing fair if they use those bumps to try and shoot down the team’s long-term prospects.
“I think we need to give this team the same grace and patience that we have given to other teams in the past. So often, when it’s not a success straight out of the gate, it’s seen as just more evidence that women’s sports just aren’t successful,” said Sandmeyer-Graves, adding that Tanenbaum seems like a patient investor who’s in it for the long haul.
“I’m not saying MLSE wouldn’t have been the right fit, but clearly, they didn’t feel like they were the right fit. … Where it goes in five years, we’ll see. But it seems like they’re starting off on the right foot.”
Josh Rubin is a Toronto-based business reporter. Follow him on Twitter: @starbeer.
Prior Economic Corner: https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11475-economiccorner012/
IN AMENDMENT
What is annual average cost [players/stadium/staff/utilities] of the least costly to operate professional, meaning paid athlete, sport team in the city you live in?
The following is content in normal weight font unverified . I did a general search, "average yearly cost of LEAGUE NAME team"
New York City has all the major leagues and many minor.
The cheapest team is a Premier Women's Hockey Alliance or Roller Derby, the womens football alliance team in nyc folded. Now, white people say Washington DC/Atlanta/Charlotte are the three cities with the most black millionaires. Jackson Missisippi is the only city in the usa with over eighty percent black population. But NYC has a larger population of black people than any city in the usa by a distance. So the question is are any of the sports franchises with the lowest annual cost cheap enough for a black multimillionaire in new york city to risk? i argue yes, but to each their own.
WNBA
The average yearly cost of an WNBA team is estimated to be around $13.2 million1. The average team is worth an estimated $96 million
Premiere Lacross Leauge
The average yearly cost of a Premier Lacrosse League team is estimated to be around $10 million1. The revenue per employee for Premier Lacrosse League is $203.2K2. The company operates in the Spectator Sports industry3.
Premier Womens Hockey League
The average yearly cost of a PWHL team is around $56,500 USD2. The league requires each team to average between $45,900 and $60,500 per contract in lieu of a salary cap1. The minimum salary for PWHL players is currently $35,000
USL League 2 team
The average yearly cost of owning and running a USL League 2 team ranges from $600K to $1M2. The initial franchise fee to buy into a USL 2 franchise is $75,000, which can be split into payments of ~$25K each year for three years3. Expansion fees in the USL Championship are $12 million in 20205.
Womens Football Alliance- the gridiron
The average yearly cost of a Women's Football Alliance (WFA) team is estimated to be around $20,0001. This budget covers expenses such as field rental, equipment, uniforms, videography, web hosting, and some travel. If teams participate in the playoffs, the cost can be higher2.
Frontier league baseball team
The average yearly cost of a Frontier League baseball team is around $75,000, with a salary cap of $72,000 per team125. Most players earn between $1,000 and $2,000 a month during the summer2. The highest paid players can earn up to $4,000 a month2.
Major league cricket
The average yearly cost of a Major League Cricket (MLC) team is estimated to be slightly above $1.1 million2. The salary cap per team is $1,150,000, of which $320,000 is spent on American players
Overwatch league
The average yearly cost of an Overwatch League team is approximately $1 million14. Team owners bought into the Overwatch League for $20 million per slot ahead of its launch in 20183. The average annual pay for an Overwatch League player in the United States is $121,7652.
Roller Derby
Travel costs: Gotham Girls Roller Derby $58,260 Gotham paid out 23,051 in 2011. Not sure where you got the other number from.
Websites that state cities with the large numbers of black millionaires
https://blackelites.com/top-cities-in-the-u-s-with-the-highest-number-of-black-millionaires/
-
9 hours ago, ProfD said:
Knowing the history of Liberia, there is a *trust* factor that would have to be fostered in order for them to accept FBA/ADOS coming there.
well... I am not going to go into the history of liberia cause it is complicated and is done a disservice with simplicity, but I will say that the DOS original immigrants brought by whites and other Black immigrants afterward brought by whites came to liberia with a unity in individual purpose, that being a free happy home for themselves away from whites while surrounded by blacks. But, they came with a high variance in communal purpose. That is where the chaos ensued. The indigenous inhabitants did actually make a legal agreement with DOSers alongside the whites who brought them but the DOSers lack , absence, of a common communal purpose is the source. While in the usa, the country of individualism, individualism is purposeful, vital, important, needed , warranted over communalism. But when a group leaves the usa, especially one that wasn't ever allowed to be a group in the usa, to a new place the absence of a common communal purpose will lead to pain, catastrophe. Liberia at the end of the day, has a minority made of the DOSers who are financial aristocrats.
9 hours ago, ProfD said:Same goes for all African countries really. They will accept FBA/ADOS as long as they're bringing a huge bag of money.
Historically that isn't true.
10 hours ago, ProfD said:If such is the case, FBA/ADOS might as well stay in America where we can make money and build in our homeland.
We who is we, I repeat, you are not speaking about me or DOSers like myself. Now I will speak a bridge which I have said before in this forum. DOSers unlike any other peoples in the usa based on our history have the freedom to say the usa isn't our homeland as well as is our homeland. The First People's must cause they were the first humans to these lands, they also have the right to say they have the first rights unlike any other. Non DOSers, including other black people can only say the usa is their homeland because they or their forebears in totality freely embraced this land. But, the DOSers is free to be attached to the USA or not.
That is a truth unique to DOSers, I think it unsettles many DOSers , especially those who embrace the usa and want DOSers to be like all others so to speak. But, I hope one day, all dosers realize all a unique freedom.
12 hours ago, ProfD said:Here is where we fundamentally disagree. I believe FBA/ADOS could pool money here and build anything we truly desire.
Therein lies the rub. FBA/ADOS don't *want* anything of our own badly enough to sacrifice for it.
We do oppose in this case. I must say DOSers in the usa have built towns/churches/communal places like the renaissance ballroom in harlem. I was speaking specifically about a website like tiktok. But I have accepted something that I think you either don't accept or don't want to accept. The communal nature of the black populace in the usa in the past is no longer a majority culture in the black populace of the usa today. And I don't think it is a negative. You say black people in the usa dont want anything of our own , but I don't think most black people in the usa are thinking of an our own in the first place. You are not accepting that white violence in the usa has broken the black communal desire in the usa most black people in the usa had in the past and that communal desire has been replaced with an individualism. Black individuals in the usa are sacrificing on their own for their own things, they are not trying to collaborate much. In small tribes yes, but nothing grand as in the past. And I think you see that as a problem.
13 hours ago, ProfD said:I'm not going tell you *again* where Black folks are thriving. I've accepted that you're laser focused on your bubble that is NYC
So in your opinion, most black people in the usa live in a positive environment. I am fortunate enough to communicate to various black people who live in various places in the usa. I don't think any of the fifty states in the usa are a positive environment for black people. Now if you are saying based on black people doing financially well that the negative environments don't matter, well ok. You are not the first black person I have spoken to who disregards the environment in the usa because of the existence of black people who are financially doing very well.
13 hours ago, ProfD said:I'm not sure of how the dialog became centered around websites. I merely used a Black-owned platform as one investment to rival white-owned. Especially since Black folks spend a ton of time using social media.
Example...when POTUS OJ got banned from Twitter(X), he immediately set up Truth Social. It has millions of followers.
Of course, now POTUS OJ is bosom buddies with the owner of Twitter (X) and some would argue that he's elevated him to co-POTUS.
The point is POTUS OJ didn't reach into his own pocket to put up the monies for his social media site. He did it through fundraising from millions of donors from poor to wealthy.
This whole thing started about black twitter remember. on Troy's post. and it went into a discussion on black owned websites, and you keep pushing it into the general field. And in honesty I comprehend why Profd. I get it. You are a black person, a DOSer who is an American, I don't know if you are proud, but you are American. And like the free black people who fought for the creation of the usa, even as most black people in the european colonies were enslaved and stayed enslaved on the usa's creation, you see in the usa a beautiful thing, a thing that you want to be a part of and you are willing, like those blacks who fought alongside the founding fathers of the usa, to fight blacks/non blacks or anyone else to strengthen the usa. But it will be nice if black people like you in the light of the free blacks who fought to create the usa, realized the two other groups: free blacks fighting against the creation of the usa + enslaved blacks who want nothing to do with whites or the usa survive in the DOS community today as well , regardless of the articulateness of DOSers.
-
10 hours ago, ProfD said:
It would be interesting to know how that money is being invested.
It would be revealing, I gamble most black churches in the usa are financially private clubs in 2025
10 hours ago, ProfD said:FBA/ADOS do not have another country they can claim.
I must say I don't claim liberia but i think an argument for liberia is valid. But since we both accept DOSers in the usa have no external land then the tiktok method is impossible cause the chinese were able to use government powers that DOS don't have in the usa and never will have, unless the black population in the usa becomes majority and that is never going to happen with the white europeans/white asians/white muslims/white arabs/white latinos
10 hours ago, ProfD said:it depends on which tribe of Black folks is offering its perspective on their environment.
well yeah, that has always been the unique problem with the DOSers in the black populace in the usa or the european colonies preceding it. Those perspectives range to wide to build a bridge. I argue that no group in the usa has such a variance, but that isn't a fault on DOSers, that makes since cause DOSers shouldn't be in the usa based on their own forebears desires. But I wonder how anyone Black can think the usa is a positive place for a majority of blacks at any time in its history.
In 2025, the black towns that are throughout the south, don't tell me black people think those towns are in a positive environment with the states governments of texas/missisippi/ or similar. I have to say Profd, can you provide links to a black person, any black person in the usa, saying a majority of black people live in a positive environment in the usa? I have never heard a black person say that offline but maybe online it happened. Please share, it seems you know someone or maybe you see it this way yourself.
10 hours ago, ProfD said:Banks are not the only investors in a start-up business venture.
No it is also venture capitalist firms, private investment and many others, but my point was none of these ventures will invest in a black owned losing business for years which is a reality of all popular websites, they are all losers financially, money pits really, until they are not or they are closed cause the money line has dried up.
11 hours ago, ProfD said:Investors come in different forms i.e. angel, grassroots, fund-raising, crowd-sourcing, etc.
I comprehend that, the problem with crowd funding or grassroots, is you need to come through and can that be guaranteed. I know of failed grassroots or crowd sourcing attempts by black artist that angered black people who invested. I admittedly, accepted the money can be lost but most will not . So the trust issue comes up, and websites are fickle historically, many love the good stories and forget, most websites fail. If the website fails black people will correctly never trust the designers of the project again and the black populace in the usa, correctly, has a short leash of trust.
11 hours ago, ProfD said:Maybe you're all ears because your eyes refuse to accept your reading of answers in the economic corners.
ok well:)
From what you have wrote,....why don't you start a crowd fund for aalbc then?
-
1 hour ago, ProfD said:
How do most Black folks become wealthy?
first I have to state the question I am answering. The question I am answering is
how do most black folks in the usa become financially wealthy, wealthy defined as the highest financial brackets among the black populace in the usa only?
I know it isn't your question but your question relates to the black populace in humanity, each country is its own field, you can't compare black people in brasil to black people in nigeria to black people in india to black people in phillipines to black people in spain to black people in the usa, each place has important variances. And I have to specify the financial field as well, black people in the usa for some reason like to compare our financial situation to whites which is unfounded.
Billionaire oil barons in Nigeria or their forebears had /have/will have opportunities black folks in the usa never had/don't have/will never have, white people in the usa murdered and killed blacks in the usa to make they didn't/don't /will not.
so...how do most black folks in the usa become financially wealthy, wealthy defined as the highest financial brackets among the black populace in the usa only?
The entertainment industry, owned or controlled by whites from before the war between the states, is the main engine of the black wealthy. Black people do legal nonviolent work and over time gain enough wealth, not as much as the white owners of the entertainment industry that predate the 13th amendment but...
2 hours ago, ProfD said:How do Black churches raise money?
Black Churches raise money through their members, but I don't know about where you live but I can tell you many black churches in harlem. harlem defined as all of northern manhattan, are dead/gone/empty... yes, some black churches are present or a little above water, but most or many are dead or dying.
2 hours ago, ProfD said:I believe America is our country too.
yes i know, that is one of the long standing points of contention in the black populace in the usa, older than the usa itself, started in the 1500s
2 hours ago, ProfD said:We don't have to wait on their acceptance or approval.
well my point was about the environment black people live in the usa. It was never and isn't a positive environment for a majority of black people. Now maybe in the future it will be but I think the odds are low, very low, on that.
2 hours ago, ProfD said:We can agree to disagree.
This is the economic corner liking to dislike is fine but I rather be informed, especially among financial affairs.
To the investment banking, please state the banks black people in the usa have access to that will invest in a losing financial venture owned by a black individual or group, which is how all websites in the usa started? Please name the banks. I am not ashamed to say I have no idea which banks will invest in a losing enterprise owned by blacks for years. I am glad you know, please inform in the economic corner.
And please state how black people in the usa can make a website incubated from non blacks in the usa or others outside, like the chinese in china, a nuclear powered country that is actually majority chinese, can to all outsiders? I am all ears.
I do not know is the beginning of all wisdom, since you seem to know then please inform.
2 hours ago, ProfD said:I'm not sure of what makes you think I want to own a website.
I never said you did but the topic is about a black owned website so since you have a fine tuned financial strategy, you should be able to apply it to any circumstance theoretically, and in the financial corner that theoretical finance is part of the message.
-
30 minutes ago, ProfD said:
I'll have to take your word on it because Pan-Africanism hasn't really popped off in my sphere.
I apologize... I didn't say Garveyism is the most today but to this day, meaning in history. Garveyism which is more than pan africanism, is not popular in the black populace today but no movement in the history of black people in the usa is more popular than garveyism at its height.
2 hours ago, ProfD said:If you're familiar with his work and what he was about, Neely Fuller Jr. in his modesty, always reminded listeners that he was not a leader by any stretch of the imagination. He was a teacher. There's a difference.
Well... a leader can be a teacher, can teach, a teacher can be a leader, can lead.
So a leader is someone who is in a position to influence a larger group. Leading or caring or nonverbal acting is not a prerequisite for being a leader.
A teacher is someone who is looking to teach another.
So, if a teacher is not a leader then what that means is said teacher is not in a position to influence. But is that true of Fuller or Charles barkley or Obama, all of whom have publicly claimed they are not leaders in the black populace in the usa. I argue Fuller is... was a leader, like Barkley or Obama. And like his contemperaries he decided not to lead/nonverbal act communally. And that is fine. Again, if a leader is unwilling to lead that doesn't mean they are not a leader, it just means they don't want to lead. If you know your Zen from China that is actually very acceptable. But I don't want to go away from the topic.
The Great Shirley Chisholm, one of my personal favorite black elected officials, never said she wasn't a leader, she admitted she wasn't leading. That is true wisdom, rest her soul. And Before her spirit flew she said black people in the usa need to focus on finance. She didn't say black people in the usa should be uncaring to government, that will lead to a return to most of white violence or terrorism to blacks circa 1865 to circa 1990.
Looking forward in the usa, not the black populace outside the usa which i see disconnected to the black populace in the usa while also significantly much larger even in parts, the black populace in its individualism needs a culture of "financial titanhood" I will explain. Since most black people in the usa are about the individual or a small tribe and not the black populace, the best financial model is one where black individuals have a financial ambition as part of their culture.
This is opposed to the careful financial culture that most black wealthy have. The Black financial poor can't afford to be ambitious as their financial level can't afford risk. In all financial activity risk exist but when one is financially poor, it is very dangerous to invest riskily. But without a heavy riskiness one can not be deemed financially ambitious, especially when one can not financially cheat. Again, many whites in the usa have cheats in their financial history that blacks will not be allowed or afforded as the usa is a white country so, risk is mandatory for ambition when one has to be within the rules.
And this connects to a black owned website becoming the most followed in the world or at least in the black global online populace.
Myspace/Yahoo/Google/Youtube/Facebook/Twitter all at one time or another were the most popular website in humanity or at least the usa by some measure.
But all of them started the same way, investment banks after the fall of the soviet union's global ambitions and before the rise of china financially, an environment that doesn't exist today. Said banks allowed all of said firms who were financial losers , some for many years, to hold on till they found a financial balance.
The problem with that model is , said banks would not do that for a black owned website.
Tiktok is the biggest now but its model is even more impossible for blacks of the usa. China through military power has an insulated environment, so they make their own websites in china and give them preference. Douyin was doing great and then they made the mirror of it and called it tiktok for outside china. it is the biggest website in the world today.
But black people in the usa:) would need to go back circa 1865 and change the path black leaders put us on. Most Black Leaders in the usa back then went against all the ideas that could lead to the governmental abilities to have protectionism like china. If the exodusters had succeeded , maybe today, but black people themselves, like frederick douglass, opposed the exodusters so...the way in which tiktok became what it is, isn't replicatable by blacks in the usa. Blacks in the usa, especially DOSers don't have a country of their own. The modern usa government can't even accept black happiness or positive history in media.
So... absent a powerful banking network that can commit financial crimes or their own country to be an incubator, black people in the usa who want a stronger website can't do what white europeans or white asians did for the most popular websites in history.
Profd, you talk about Fuller's method so much, your plans, well let us see some prose, adapt them to owning a website?
-
55 minutes ago, ProfD said:
Neely Fuller Jr. His teachings did not appeal to a huge segment of Black folks.
Well, appealing with humans is best nonverbal. A white german man admitted as a kid he loved the nazi's. Not because of hitler's speeches but because of the non verbal improvements by the nazi party in germany. The lesson which Fuller jr should had known as an academic, a student of human collective action, is that non verbal action always warrants being heeded while verbal action is at best an optional to humans, through out all human history, including the future on mars when humans will say similar about being abused by the terrans. It wasn't calling black people nigger or calling first peoples of the americas savage that appealed to whites, it was the free land most were able to get without getting their hands dirty, it was the access to large quantities of labor extrmest under market value to make the revenue to give to make the lives of their loving ones happy. This is why Garveyism to this day is the most potent movement in the black populace in the usa. Garvey spoke or wrote but at his core he was a non verbal doer. He emphasized non verbal action to black betterment , not words not gambles not lies, unlike many others in Black Leadership positions in the usa especially, including Fuller jr. Any human's speeches, whether condemning or calling out or praising or inspiring is impotent or negligent or dysfunctional in comparison to non verbal action; and that is why any human at any time who uses speeches is unheeded. They aren't delivering the best thing to heed, and that isn't visions but solid things, things you can grab, hold, treasure
-
This economic corner is a manipulation of a dialog between me side @ProfD side @Troy I felt it is warranted because the post it was started in is about Black Owned Websites and while the overall dialog with Troy maintained a focus on black websites, the dialog between me side profd did not. So I placed my replies to their post within the multilog, with no demand to a reply.
A majority of blacks in the usa are individualist and that isn't a negative thing. It is something born from being in majority terrorized by whites from the early 1500s to circa 1980. Black people have done everything possible in the usa to nonviolently grow. Everything possible. The failure was in who black people existed nonviolently next to, non blacks. Now in 2025 in the usa I think it is clear from the black 1% or the black financially wealthy, black elected officials, black places of worship, that the black people with the most financial wealth or access to power or resources are individualist. Actions speak louder than words. So, when it comes to group actions across 50 states, I argue all those are foolish endeavors in modernity. The old black populace in the usa is dead and is never coming back. And that is fine.
Black communalism in the usa isn't dead but it is local, tribal. So to a black website in the usa or any communal activity in the usa , they are all best as tribal acts. The faith in nonviolent communalism is silly, unwarranted.
I don't know if anyone notices but for a while I don't use the term "black community in the usa" cause for me that is a lie. The black populace in the usa exist. but the black populace is not a community. And I repeat, that isn't a bad thing. It is warranted. The Black populace spent a solid one hundred years in the usa , being communal like no other people on earth at the same time , or very few in human history, and white power crushed it all. yes, some will argue, try again, but that is silly or stupid. Black people in the usa repeated anything someone black says needs to happen multiple in the past as a community, white power crushed it all. No need for the black populace in the usa to try again all the things that failed in the usa by way of white power.
If you are black in the usa, embrace your small tribe, or embrace individualism but stop all the unwarranted talk about the larger populace doing communal action. Look positive to the future in a new road, a wise road, a financially more honest road.
IN AMENDMENT
Troy suggested the specific issue of black websites but it is a general affair so I placed it here alongside anything I have to say as it isn't specific to the black websites issue.
THE DIALOG BETWEEN ME SIDE PROFD SIDE TROY
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11462-is-black-twitter-still-a-thing/#findComment-71601
@ProfD
On 2/6/2025 at 11:02 AM, ProfD said:
find it mind-boggling that Black brain-power and wealth are not working together to create our own platforms.
I find it disturbing that Black folks are perfectly fine with enriching white folks at every level. Social media platforms is one example.
If individualism is the majority position among Black people with the revenue or resources to invest in owning a website fit for modern esocial activity, then it does make sense. I don't think an individualist sees it as enriching a community, they see it as an individual investment. If you are individualist, you don't see your actions as part of any populace in humanity, only the larger humanity itself.
@Troy
On 2/6/2025 at 5:30 PM, Troy said:
It takes a ton of money to run a robust social media platform capable of supporting even tens of thousands of users -- let alone hundreds of millions of users globally. So, any site we use will need serious funding and only comes from investors who believe there will be serious returns on their investment.
thank you, too often black folk seem to think investment in things just needs pennies from the black poor. Something require grand investment
To @ProfD + @Troy
On 2/6/2025 at 6:16 PM, ProfD said:
Black folks invest a whole lot of money in churches though. Maybe we need to call the Black platform Hallelujah
On 2/8/2025 at 11:25 AM, Troy said:
That is actually a Great idea man a Christian social media site, surely one most already exist.
I found on first page search only the following
http://www.blackandchristian.com/
Its funny facebook was started through colleges, Historical black colleges through the fraternities or sororities can idealistically do similar.
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11462-is-black-twitter-still-a-thing/#findComment-71607
On 2/9/2025 at 9:56 PM, richardmurray said:
I found on first page search only the following
http://www.blackandchristian.com/
That website is defaulted. It has not been maintained for years and the length to the forms is broken. The fact that it ranks well in search seems to indicate there is no active website in the space. I wonder if there’s even a desire for one. I suspect most church communities have their own websites and online social platforms.On 2/8/2025 at 12:00 PM, ProfD said:
Regardless of religious affiliation, I was thinking that could be the name of a Black-owned platform equivalent of Tw8tter (X)
Well, from the example that Richard provided the idea of a Black Christian website didn’t seem to work. As far as a black on website, the equivalent of what’s already out there we already know that won’t work at least not originating in the US.On 2/9/2025 at 9:56 PM, richardmurray said:
I don't think an individualist sees it as enriching a community, they see it as an individual investment.
Of course anyone buying in stock in Meta or Alphabet are doing so to make money for themselves. Now, while Facebook makes itself out itself as bringing in the world closer together people don’t invest in them for that they invest solely to make money.There are other businesses types that are mission, driven B corps and not for profits. people invest in them to improve society, but those aren’t the organizations that make all that make money for investors or create wealth.
It has been suggested buy some, that AALBC should become a not for profit.
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11462-is-black-twitter-still-a-thing/#findComment-71608
@Troy
On 2/10/2025 at 10:30 AM, Troy said:
The fact that it ranks well in search seems to indicate there is no active website in the space. I wonder if there’s even a desire for one. I suspect most church communities have their own websites and online social platforms.
Local Churches historically tend to be competitive to each other, they may share a similar faith but they rarely like to share prominence.
Well, youtube tried short videos before tiktok was created and it didn't catch fire. so, what that one scenario proves is, the packaging/algorithm/style of such a website is key. People like websites when it offers a simple straight forward interface while provides an aspect to communication online that they didn't have before, not necessarily as a tool , but in the style of the tool.
I think "HAlleluyah" can work, but imagination will be needed in how it operates.
I argue AALBC should stay for profit but it will be wise if you have a contingency plan for non profit upon your death or some bad situation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11462-is-black-twitter-still-a-thing/#findComment-71609
On 2/10/2025 at 10:30 AM, Troy said:
As far as a black on website, the equivalent of what’s already out there we already know that won’t work at least not originating in the US.
Again, I was not advocating for a Black Christian website or platform.
That's not my thing as the resident agnostic around here.
Half-Jokingly, I only used the name Hallelujah because many Black folks would check it out due to upbringing.
On 2/9/2025 at 9:56 PM, richardmurray said:
thank you, too often black folk seem to think investment in things just needs pennies from the black poor. Something require grand investment
Many poor people still give church offerings, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol and do drugs and shop. So, they can contribute along with other investors.
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11462-is-black-twitter-still-a-thing/#findComment-71610
@ProfD
On 2/10/2025 at 12:14 PM, ProfD said:
So, they can contribute along with other investors.
Can they?
I don't smoke cigarettes, but I know cigarettes cost money, so if a human being, likes smoking cigerattes and they are a financially poor person, they probably don't have money to invest in a website, even if what they can invest is not even a miniscule fraction of a percent of the funds needed .
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11462-is-black-twitter-still-a-thing/#findComment-71611
On 2/10/2025 at 5:55 PM, richardmurray said:
Can they?
Yes they can.
On 2/10/2025 at 5:55 PM, richardmurray said:
...so if a human being, likes smoking cigerattes and they are a financially poor person, they probably don't have money to invest in a website, even if what they can invest is not even a miniscule fraction of a percent of the funds needed .
Reads like you're making excuses.
Where I come from, I know for a fact that poor people know how find money.
Obviously, not enough money to become rich or wealthy in most cases. But, it's enough to maintain habits.
Many campaigns are funded by small money donors. Some churches operate the same way. It adds up.
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11462-is-black-twitter-still-a-thing/#findComment-71614
@ProfDnot an excuse, being happy isn't an excuse to anything.
if any human being does something that makes them happy, they want to do that more right. At least for me, i will rather be happy than sad and i think any other human will rather be happy than sad. So fi your happiness is an expense , you still need it and some investment into something that will not lead to you being happy will not be maintained for long.
yes example of consistent small donors to certain financial endeavors exist, but to be even, cause the dialog is swaying away from the theme of the topic... my original quotes were in concert with Troy's concerning black twitter, more specifically websites, online websites, it wasn't a generalization. and in an endeavor like a website big donors are mandatory , needed. Not one heavily followed website had small donors. throughout its history. That isn't laziness or an accident or something small donors can undo, it is the reality, big donors are needed for any website to grow a certain size. And to the current environment , many websites even after massive financial investment are failures. Look at china really. The blunt truth is that western european countries/japan/india/russia all have websites to their local markets but none were like china, willing to invest enough to get websites that are global brands. And it took money for that, not small donors of the chinese people. Rich chinese so I repeat my point to troy: too often black folk seem to think investment in things just needs pennies from the black poor. and I amend, that is not true.
Black pennies from the black poor is good for local, local defined as city region or town level investments. A house/ a community center/a retail shop/small scale operations. that are bounded to the region of a city or a town. But if you want industry leading firms across the usa, with over three hundred and fifty million people or moreover humanity, the black rich not the black pennies from the black poor have to be the primary investors.
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11462-is-black-twitter-still-a-thing/#findComment-71618
21 hours ago, richardmurray said:
@ProfDnot an excuse, being happy isn't an excuse to anything.
if any human being does something that makes them happy, they want to do that more right. At least for me, i will rather be happy than sad and i think any other human will rather be happy than sad. So fi your happiness is an expense , you still need it and some investment into something that will not lead to you being happy will not be maintained for long.
Right.
Reminds me of people who claim they want to lose weight but refuse to diet and exercise because eating makes them happy.
Instead of a gym membership, the overweight person who claims they want to lose weight would rather spend that money on more food and snacks.
A pack of cigarettes in NYC costs $13 dollars. That's almost 1 hour of minimum wage work.
If we're serious about it, 4 million Black people investing $25 dollars (2 packs of cigarettes in NYC or a large pizza) in a business venture adds up to $100 million dollars.
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11462-is-black-twitter-still-a-thing/#findComment-71621
@ProfD
21 hours ago, ProfD said:
A pack of cigarettes in NYC costs $13 dollars. That's almost 1 hour of minimum wage work.
it's funny, i haven't heard of a person buying a pack of cigarettes in a very long time in nyc. I see people buying singles at stores or asking for singles from their fellows or strangers. A pack? no one has money for a pack Profd. that fact that you suggested that ... you haven't been in a place like nyc in a long time have you? I don't get snap but many are complaining about snap benefits ending.
...I repeat, because it is important, black pennies will not do it. Do you know across the demographic board of NYC, if the school food program goes under, half of the children in nyc's schools, not just black, the non black as well whom you like to suggest so financially astute, will go hungry, across the board 50% , fifty percent of the children in public school.
21 hours ago, ProfD said:
If we're serious about it, 4 million Black people investing $25 dollars (2 packs of cigarettes in NYC or a large pizza) in a business venture adds up to $100 million dollars.
I will love to know who has bought two packs of cigarettes in a month in nyc ? only people with money in the first place are doing that. but you get to the nitty gritty.
Who is going to be in control fo that hundred million dollars? Profd? It will not be me. who? obama? sharpton? mrs obama? clarence thomas? who? historical black colleges?
I can't name one black individual or group in the usa who has the desire+ imagination+trust to do anything with 100 million. if it was gathered.
This goes back to our million man march dialog. Assuming someone had the trust or could gain the trust, trust must be earned, of five hundred thousand black men who attended the march , with your $25 dollar assumption, that twelve million and five hundred dollars? but who canthose 5000,00 trust? you? me ? iargue none class.
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11462-is-black-twitter-still-a-thing/#findComment-71627
19 hours ago, richardmurray said:
@ProfD
it's funny, i haven't heard of a person buying a pack of cigarettes in a very long time in nyc. I see people buying singles at stores or asking for singles from their fellows or strangers. A pack? no one has money for a pack Profd. that fact that you suggested that ... you haven't been in a place like nyc in a long time have you?
You're missing the point but it's OK.
I was just in NYC last year. Saw Black folks spending money too.
19 hours ago, richardmurray said:
n in nyc's schools, not just black, the non black as well whom you like to suggest so financially astute, will go hungry, across the board 50% , fifty percent of the children in public school.
NYC is the same place spending millions of dollars housing illegal immigrants. They could easily feed the children if ut was a priority.
19 hours ago, richardmurray said:
Who is going to be in control fo that hundred million dollars? Profd?
I can't name one black individual or group in the usa who has the desire+ imagination+trust to do anything with 100 million.
Right. Therein lies the biggest obstacle.
On one hand, you don't 1) believe Black folks can raise $100 million dollars through grassroot efforts and 2) can't trust any steward of the $100 million dollars collected.
But, you'll suggest folks like Oprah Winfrey and others put up $100 million dollars of their money.
My point is that Black folks can do both.
19 hours ago, richardmurray said:
This goes back to our million man march dialog. Assuming someone had the trust or could gain the trust, trust must be earned, of five hundred thousand black men who attended the march , with your $25 dollar assumption, that twelve million and five hundred dollars? but who canthose 5000,00 trust? you? me ? iargue none class.
It starts with having a solid plan/agenda, goals and milestones.
That requires a herculean effort of oorganization among Black folks especially in a climate of individualism and tribalism.
MY CONTINUATION
@ProfD
13 hours ago, ProfD said:You're missing the point but it's OK.
I was just in NYC last year. Saw Black folks spending money too.
I comprehend your point, it is that the financial poor in a populace can lead a populace, in fiscal capitalism, always.
13 hours ago, ProfD said:NYC is the same place spending millions of dollars housing illegal immigrants. They could easily feed the children if ut was a priority.
well I don't know about ease, I never say anything is easy. Nothing is easy.
Technically, NYC is spending federal money on housing illegal immigrants, thus appropriated money, thus money that must be used for specific reasons. I doubt the representatives of many states in the union will desire federal money for immigrants into nyc
13 hours ago, ProfD said:Right. Therein lies the biggest obstacle.
On one hand, you don't 1) believe Black folks can raise $100 million dollars through grassroot efforts and 2) can't trust any steward of the $100 million dollars collected.
But, you'll suggest folks like Oprah Winfrey and others put up $100 million dollars of their money.
My point is that Black folks can do both.
Well, I must first say, I call any populace in humanity foolish if they put up large funds without trust. You first have to have the trust before the money. It is rare but sometimes the number 2 comes before number 1 this is one of those times. You have 1 but 2 is a key element to why 1 exist with me.
Yes, Profd, here is a simple example. If I am a billionaire, no a multibillionaire, lets say I have ten billion. so ten percent is one billion. one percent is one hundred million.
So, now someone, like myself says, why don't Rich spend one hundred million, which is one percent of rich rich's wealth in this example right?
Now, that 100 million is Rich Rich's money right? Rich Rich can do what he want with his money right? So, if Rich Rich don't invest in the community that is perfectly acceptable because Rich Rich is free to not invest or invest with Rich Rich's. While, if rich rich is honest, if he is me he is, Rich Rich will publicly say he isn't helping the black populace in the usa and is responsible for not helping as one of the wealthiest black people in the usa. Cause that is the truth. If someone like Profd says in some forum, you guys want Rich Rich to invest his money , but can't trust a steward . and someone will say, Rich Rich said, as a fiscally wealthy black person in fiscal capitalsim that I have to invest first, before any fiscally poor black person, and if I don't invest, I am free to but anyone can tell me to shut the fuck up if I chime in on the village. Yes, if I was a billionaire and freely chose to not invest in the community but like to chime in on this show or that, any black person has the right to tell me to shut the fuck up.
To the obstacle of trust....
YEs in the past the black churches in the usa had the ability to garner grassroots, but the stewardship of the black populace in the usa by the black churches in the usa failed. From circa 1865 to 1990 the black churches in the usa had their time and it ended with the majority of the black populace in the usa correctly rejecting their stewardship from the black churches.
The black churches in the usa had three tenets: nonviolence/grassroots activity/be of the church.
Be of the Church is very interesting historically.
The black populace in the usa at one time was 99% christian. Comprehend the percentage of jews in the white european populace/buddhist in the white asian populace was larger than non christian blacks in the black populace. So, the entire advantage to black churches existed , in terms of maintaining a strong role in the black populace, and sequentially membership. But I think the 1950s, was the beginning of the end for the black churches in that be of the church mantra. Atheism/Islam/Buddhism/Belief systems or faiths older than christianity or islam or judaism while indigenous to africa grew in influence. The Black churches in all earnest, were never flexible enough when it came to the potential internal variance of cultures in the black populace in the usa. And their relationship to: Historic black colleges or universities, the NAACP, the garveyites, the black soldiers from the first two phases of the white european imperial wars W.E.I.W., black newspapers, the panthers, the nation of islam and many others all should had been integrated with black churches more but none were. The colleges or universities were initially 99% financed by white churches , black people had no money when the 13th amendment was signed because our populace was mostly enslaved not to long before. So I comprehend that white churches wanted the colleges to get black members to their churches. But black churches needed to merge with those colleges, comprehending that at their core they are places of learning not religion. The garveyites, again, malcolm's father was a pastor. But, not all churches supported garveyism. and that was foolish to me. The NAACP financed by white jews and has a black 1% workforce in it, but link to them. and they didn't. Black Soldiers, so many black soldiers in the first phase of the W.E.I.W. came back to the usa invigorated , but alot of times they organized away from the black churches, not through it. I comprehend that many soldiers don't share the position on violence many church folk will want but embrace these people. Newsppapers/Panthers/ Nation of Islam the black churches simply didn't make an effort to bind with black organizations or groups over the years. It isn't about people coming to them but they needed to lead and go to others, and they didn't and the results are easy to see. The modern internal multiracial reality in the black populace in the usa has left the black churches behind, but they never embraced it, even among themselves. What always knocks me out is how little black churches helped each other. Very individualistic black churches are.
Grassroots activity is huge, initially the most positive. Black churches were able to manage black money/time/muscle into building schools, being active in government affairs. Again the 1950s, was a time of change. Circa 1865 most black people in the usa were correctly, financially worthless, as they came out of enslavement. But by 1955, and moreso in 1965, you see the rise of what i call the black one percent. Nonviolently, evading or surviving or overcoming all sorts of white violence/attacks/bullying/terrorism some black people , with the help of the village cause no one does it alone no matter what they tell you, achieved financial wealth. Not white wealth levels, again, white people killed first people to take their land and enslaved black folk to till that land, so having access to land + labor that you are not paying at market rate or in various tax system or rulesets helps catapult financial revenue streams, which black people wierdly seem to think can be better legally. But the black wealthy circa 1950s had developed a culture started from 1865 that influenced black churches badly. The black wealthy all went to black churches and started manipulating how they operated , whereas circa 1865 black churches sought to help the black populace, circa 1955 black churches are telling black people to help themselves. Black business owners flipped the bill for alot of activities in the 1960s but the black churches should had by that time been more involved. But the death of grassroots activities from black churches to the larger black populace in their regions started to change how black people related to the churches. Kwame Ture, some know as Stokely Carmicheal, said it best himself, about Martin Luther King jr, can you imagine a black baptist preacher doesn't accept a cadillac. The Black Preachers by the 1960s in majority were not about the flock but themselves, that is why they never voted for MLK jr to be head of the southern black christian leadership conference. And in parallel, the wealthy black churches have survived well to this day each in their individual glamour while the fiscally poor churches said rich churches didn't even think warranted a grassroots activity to save died and with them a huge disassociation from the larger black populace in the usa.
Nonviolence:) I saved this last, cause i argue this was the biggest injury black churches had to their leadership position in the black populace in the usa.
So many black people were beaten , the tragedy of the usa, is alot of times, black people ourselves, focus on the hangings, the burnings, the action from whites that lead to death, but i think the violent actions from whites that are not lethal are more interesting.
How many black women were raped? I know in one town all the black women were raped by whites, a common knowledge around black people in that town.
How many black men were beaten by whites, unsheeted circa 1865 to anytime now sheeted circa 1875 to circa 1965 uniformed circa 1865 to anytime now.
The Black Churches circa 1865 had a vote where they decided a collective stance, an agreement between black churches on the stance towards violence [I am trying to find out all i can about this and add it to the DOS EARLY LITERATURE GROUP, it will be one of my best finds if I can] , to support nonviolence.
And I don't mind that, but here is the problem, when you promote nonviolence aside a communalism circa 1865 black individuals don't feel alone, but from circa 1950s to modernity the nonviolence is aside individualism. In the 1970s white people still enslaved black people straightly, albeit illegally, while black churches in the same 1970s are talking about bootstraps. Said enslaved black people: can't chew through metal, block a bullet to their arm or deal with a ax hit across their foot, can't attack an armed person with the power of faith. Black people needed armed protection, they needed guidance away from white violence. But all the black churches ever provided from circa 1865 to modernity, 2025, going from undoubted leaders to castaway organizations, is no guidance away from violence or no protection and black people, like any people with some sense, saw the nonviolent plea ended up with the black churches leaving each of its members alone, as black individuals against white communal violence and why go to church for that. I will never forget Sean Bell's father, he said he wanted the men who killed his son dead. Al sharpton, the pastor, and others made sure he wasn't heard much after in the media sphere, and that encapsulates the problem with non violence from the black church. It is a spit in the eye. The same Black Churches that shut up Sean Bell's father who said nothing wrong in my mind, will then turn to people with similar feeling to sean bell's father, all earned by white violence, and tell them about investing in some business, voting for some official, all of things that will not satisfy their warranted anger. Cause the black churches don't care. it is a philosophical desire that leaves black people alone in the affairs that matter most while demanding some unwarranted communal action by the same individuals.
And this goes to my point about Black leadership concerning the Black 1% in the usa, said 1% was brewed in Black Churches in the usa. The Black Churches developed an individualist culture that didn't even allow them to help fellow black churches, and made them private clubs whose members ingratiate themselves and have a heirarchy of wealth, dismissive of anybody outside. So when I suggest the black 1% put up their money, I don't do that hopefully. It is merely strategic assessment within a fiscal capitalistic environment where all major actions come through the fiscal aristocracy , no matter how they got their wealth, and uplifting the black populace in the usa is a major action.
PRofd you suggest in a climate of individualism that garnering the trust needed is a continent bridging act of organization. I concur. Possibility is not probability. Possibility ask can a thing happen or not. Probability ask what is the gamble, as a numerical value, a thing can happen.
It is possible, all things are possible actually. But the probability is very low in this case.
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11462-is-black-twitter-still-a-thing/#findComment-71630 (FROM TROY IN AMENDMENT- this came in after I had set up this post so I just placed it in )
21 hours ago, richardmurray said:
I will love to know who has bought two packs of cigarettes in a month in nyc ?
There are plenty of people. I was asked to buy a carton of cigarettes here in Florida for someone up in New York City who smokes two packs a day. My mother easily smokes a pack a day and has been doing that for the better part of 3/4 of a century.certainly, we as a people can do a much better job and investing in our own businesses.
We do have experience with this already. There are mega churches all over the country that are supported by relatively small contributions by large numbers of people. Some of those churches have schools and provide a wide variety of services for the community in addition to ensuring contributors get into heaven. But churches have all types of tax advantages that regular businesses don’t.
The real issue, I think, is creating wealth for the investors rather than lighting the pockets of some charismatic preacher. It is not just a matter of organizing the investors it’s coming up with the viable business.
Alternatively, people can be content in simply contributing to a business without expecting to be rewarded financially. People contribute to my business simply because they want to support what I’m doing, which is beautiful because it actually does help.
MY REPLY
@Troy
1 hour ago, Troy said:There are plenty of people. I was asked to buy a carton of cigarettes here in Florida for someone up in New York City who smokes two packs a day. My mother easily smokes a pack a day and has been doing that for the better part of 3/4 of a century.
Buy a carton in florida, not in NYC and Profd's point was about NYC, not buying in another state because of the cost in nyc...
1 hour ago, Troy said:certainly, we as a people can do a much better job and investing in our own businesses.
whose we? The black populace in the usa, not the world, not another country, the usa has no we. Yes, small tribes do this or that. But overall no we exist in the black populace of the usa. So I argue, the black populace in the usa is doing as it has been guided from internally as well as externally. And that is fine. Individualism has served black people in the usa well for those that want to integrate, to merge, to miscegenate, to become one with the non black in the usa.
1 hour ago, Troy said:We do have experience with this already. There are mega churches all over the country that are supported by relatively small contributions by large numbers of people. Some of those churches have schools and provide a wide variety of services for the community in addition to ensuring contributors get into heaven. But churches have all types of tax advantages that regular businesses don’t.
yeah, I mentioned black churches in my reply to Profd, yeah ok. but black churches are about themselves, again, they don't help each other, so...
1 hour ago, Troy said:The real issue, I think, is creating wealth for the investors rather than lighting the pockets of some charismatic preacher. It is not just a matter of organizing the investors it’s coming up with the viable business.
the time has passed on that. The culture of ingratiating the preacher is fully embedded, the time to unravel that was in the 1900s not 2025 and after
1 hour ago, Troy said:Alternatively, people can be content in simply contributing to a business without expecting to be rewarded financially. People contribute to my business simply because they want to support what I’m doing, which is beautiful because it actually does help.
your right. I never said there are not black people with money who give with no desire for financial returns. But the black fiscal poor can't lead a website to the kind of growth to become a "electronic freedom's journal".. not in my opinion. Can they be part of the journey yes, but not lead. That is asking the most from the poorest.
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11462-is-black-twitter-still-a-thing/#findComment-71635
Prior Economic Corner
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11447-economiccorner011/
EconomicCorner019
in Culture, Race & Economy
Posted
well @ProfD
Well, financially I argue it always matters how the numbers are calculated. and thank you cause I am busy with other things but you made me want to find out where this number that was not cited came from. I do like to cite, as you may notice.
And I found out and it reveals a problem. The historically white jewish funded national association for the advancement of colored people cites mckinsey a white firm and franklin templeton another white firm. I should had known that the numbers came from whites explaining to the negro about ourselves.
Though FRanklin Templeton admitted some of their data comes from taking a very small set of black folk and extrapolating data from them, I will say this, positively.
They all are correct that black owned firms suffer the same issues as black individuals.
Black Enterprise should be the firm assessing this data. A black owned firm doesn't even exist that can create independently make a financial assessment on the black populace of the usa.
February 28, 2023 - Archived
Dimensions & Insights: The US$1.7 trillion economic bloc that many miss
Filling consumers’ needs can bridge communities with entrepreneurs and companies, but biases can cause missed opportunities. Chief Diversity Officer Regina Curry discusses the increasing financial strengths of Black and African American communities, a projected US $1.7 trillion economic bloc in 2030.
Regina Curry
Chief Diversity Officer
Let go of blind spots to reveal limitless ideas.
Entrepreneurs, the business world’s dream makers, see many opportunities and needs from a consumers’ lens then imagine and manifest solutions. Filling consumers’ needs can bridge communities with entrepreneurs and companies, but biases can cause missed opportunities. Companies that have not viewed Black and African American consumers and investors as a priority demographic for generations have missed and underserved essential needs, such as food, housing, healthcare, broadband, banking, and investing.1 Yet, despite their financial invisibility to many, Black and African American communities and entrepreneurs continue to increase in financial strength:
At US$910 billion in 2019 to a projected US$1.7 trillion in 2030, Black and African American-buying power continues to grow in the United States as a powerful economic bloc, matching the gross domestic product of Mexico, Canada, and Italy.2
The Black and African American-buying power boost developed from a rise in cohort businesses ownership, population, and educational attainment with more college graduates, and the youth cohort yet to reach peak earning and buying-power years.3
Not a monolithic economic bloc, Black and African American consumers have shifting and diversifying preferences.4 The 2020 US Census reported that while the Black or African American population alone grew 5.6% since 2010, the multiracial Black or African American “in combination” population grew 88.7%.5
Black and African Americans hold more investments in cryptocurrency, real estate trusts, ETFs (exchange-traded funds), and college savings plans as compared to the US general public, according to respondents in our recent survey study.6
Entrepreneurial activity increased from Black and African Americans as the overall US rate of entrepreneurship declined over the past 30 years. Black and African American women and millennials rose as the fastest growing groups of US business owners.7
Black and African American entrepreneurs start businesses more than any other US community.8 Funding these businesses and real-estate ventures remains one of the greatest wealth-building opportunities.9 Companies and entrepreneurs will find that serving Black and African American consumers, investors, and communities will cultivate markets that may seem invisible. We all benefit when we eliminate biases and build bridges that connect communities with economic opportunities for generations to come.
Endnotes
Source: McKinsey Quarterly, “The Black consumer: A $300 billion opportunity,” August 6, 2021.
Source: McKinsey Institute for Black Economic Mobility, “Black consumers: Where to invest for equity (a preview),” December 15, 2021. [ https://www.mckinsey.com/bem/our-insights/black-consumers-where-to-invest-for-equity-a-preview ]
Source: University of Georgia, “Minority Markets Have $3.9 Trillion Buying Power,” March 21, 2019. [ https://www.newswise.com/articles/minority-markets-have-3-9-trillion-buying-power ]
Source: McKinsey Institute for Black Economic Mobility, “Black consumers: Where to invest for equity (a preview),” December 15, 2021.
Source: United States Census Bureau, “2020 Census Illuminates Racial and Ethnic Composition of the Country,” August 12, 2021.
Source: As of August 5, 2022, Franklin Templeton Investments, in partnership with Chadwick Martin Bailey, conducted a survey among a sample of 2,281 US adults ages 18 or older with at least $100K in investable assets. The sample includes key populations and audiences including: Millennials (298); Women 50+ (300); Latinx & Hispanics (295); Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders (299); Black & African Americans (595); LGBTQ+ (292); general population (502). Franklin Templeton Investments or any of its affiliates are not affiliated with Chadwick Martin Bailey.
Sources: Entrepreneur, “Entrepreneurship and Millennials Are Thriving in Emerging Markets,” September 6, 2017; blackenterprise.com, “The Best New Way for African Americans to Invest In or Start a Business: Equity Crowdfunding,” February 8, 2018; and U.S. News & World Report, "Why the Rate of Black Business Ownership Is Going Up," April 13, 2022.
Ibid.
Source: “The Best New Way for African Americans to Invest In or Start a Business: Equity Crowdfunding,” February 8, 2018.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS?
All investments involve risks, including possible loss of principal. The value of investments can go down as well as up, and investors may not get back the full amount invested. Stock prices fluctuate, sometimes rapidly and dramatically, due to factors affecting individual companies, particular industries or sectors, or general market conditions. Investments in fast-growing industries like the technology sector (which historically has been volatile) could result in increased price fluctuation, especially over the short term, due to the rapid pace of product change and development and changes in government regulation of companies emphasizing scientific or technological advancement or regulatory approval for new drugs and medical instruments.
Buying and using blockchain-enabled digital currency carries risks, including the loss of principal. Speculative trading in bitcoins and other forms of cryptocurrencies, many of which have exhibited extreme price volatility, carries significant risk. Among other risks, interactions with companies claiming to offer cryptocurrency payment platforms or other cryptocurrency-related products and services may expose users to fraud. Blockchain technology is a new and relatively untested technology and may never be implemented to a scale that provides identifiable benefits. Investing in cryptocurrencies and ICOs is highly speculative and an investor can lose the entire amount of their investment. If a cryptocurrency is deemed a security, it may be deemed to violate federal securities laws. There may be a limited or no secondary market for cryptocurrencies. The opinions are intended solely to provide insight into how securities are analyzed. The information provided is not a recommendation or individual investment advice for any particular security, strategy, or investment product and is not an indication of the trading intent of any Franklin Templeton managed portfolio. This is not a complete analysis of every material fact regarding any industry, security or investment and should not be viewed as an investment recommendation. This is intended to provide insight into the portfolio selection and research process. Factual statements are taken from sources considered reliable but have not been independently verified for completeness or accuracy. These opinions may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an offer for any particular security.
Any companies and/or case studies referenced herein are used solely for illustrative purposes; any investment may or may not be currently held by any portfolio advised by Franklin Templeton. The information provided is not a recommendation or individual investment advice for any particular security, strategy, or investment product and is not an indication of the trading intent of any Franklin Templeton managed portfolio.
URL
https://www.franklintempleton.com/articles/strategist-views/dimensions--insights-the-ususd1.7-trillion-economic-bloc-that-many-miss
Black consumers: Where to invest for equity (a preview)
December 15, 2021 | Report
Despite the unevenly distributed human and economic devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic, Black consumers’ collective economic power is set to expand dramatically, from about $910 Billion1 in consumption in 2019 to $1.7 trillion (in nominal dollars)—equal to the projected GDP of Mexico—in 2030. Even so, Black Americans are more likely than their non-Black counterparts to live in consumer deserts.
Inequities in Black consumers’ experiences, such as higher prices in predominantly Black communities for the same products sold elsewhere, are the result of historic and systemic failures to meet the needs of Black families.2 Consumer research shows that Black Americans think they don’t receive fair or equitable treatment as consumers.3 For instance, 25 percent of Black survey respondents are dissatisfied with products and services that support their financial health and security. Only 15 percent of non-Black respondents feel the same way. These inequities stem from factors such as ongoing disinvestment in Black communities,4 and—crucially—they hinder human development, an integral system for driving economic mobility and sustainable inclusive growth.
In this report, we argue that many consumer-facing companies lack credibility with Black consumers because their offerings do not adequately meet Black consumers’ tastes and needs. According to our research—based on surveys of 1,565 Black consumers and 1,932 non-Black respondents in 2021—the quality of offerings and experiences, and the channels through which they’re offered, is more important than price for Black consumers. But many companies are failing to deliver good value for the price. This is a problem for both consumers and companies, because Black consumers are highly engaged researchers and recommenders. Black consumers are a growing economic bloc—but not a monolithic one—and their preferences are shifting and diversifying as they attain increasingly high levels of education.
Addressing these challenges requires consumer-facing companies to make visible, authentic, and effective commitments to focus on—and meet—Black consumers’ needs, an increasingly fundamental part of their strategic agendas. Indeed, our research suggests that Black consumers’ hearts, minds, and spending power can be won and kept by recognizing and serving their aesthetic, social, and cultural needs. In other words, serving Black consumers well is socially and civically valuable—an investment in companies’ social license to operate.
Black consumers in all seven segments and 12 neighborhood archetypes we identified are underserved (without a grocery store or retail location within a mile),5 but investments in Black consumers can help create Black wealth and community-level prosperity. In addition to increasing access to Black-owned brands and supporting their growth, we estimate that the grocery and retail sectors can gain $45 billion in additional revenue by opening 10,000 new stores in predominantly Black metropolitan communities and—crucially—can provide access to consumer options for 10.5 million consumers of diverse races.
In this report, we will show in broad strokes that integrating broad racial-equity goals into consumer businesses has both social and commercial benefits. It builds on our existing work on meeting the increased demand for products and services from Black-owned brands and serves as a preview of upcoming in-depth explorations on topics that affect Black consumers.
We first outline Black consumers’ spending patterns, demographics, and geographic attributes by identifying 12 community archetypes.
In the second section, we discuss Black consumers’ preferences and shopping experiences in key areas of consumption and highlight unmet needs. The discussion addresses categories across four themes: living necessities (such as groceries), modern and working essentials (such as consumer technology), financial health and income security (such as banking), and culture, expression, and connection (such as beauty). Brand equities—factors that affect purchasing decisions—vary for different consumption themes and categories. However, we have found that Black consumers are distinguished by their emphasis on brands’ trustworthiness, stated social mission, credibility among Black communities, and clean or healthy products.
In the final section, we outline the scale and types of investments consumer-facing companies should make—with the help of a variety of stakeholders—to better serve Black consumers and win their loyalty. Companies can start by applying the principles behind broad racial-equity goals to address consumer pain points that disproportionately affect Black Americans. To be sure, the actions of consumer companies are only one piece of the long-term work of dismantling the structures that constrain Black Americans’ experiences and lives. But getting to know Black consumers with the goal of understanding how and where to invest in them is a start.
To meet Black consumers’ needs, companies should first understand these consumers’ current position in the economy and where they live. In forthcoming publications we will explore the interplay among Black consumers’ growing economic power, their geographies, and the consumer segments in which they fall. For now, these factors serve as context for our exploration of Black consumers’ unmet needs and the actions required to meet them.
More consumption dollars up for grabs
Black consumers’ economic might is projected to mushroom from about $910 billion in consumer spending in 2019 (Exhibit 1, part 1) to $1.7 trillion (in nominal dollars) in 2030. Geographically, this spend is spread out across the country, with the top 30 markets representing $250 billion or over 25 percent of Black consumption (Exhibit 1, part 2).
Income growth among Black consumers has been 0.6 percentage points higher than that of their White counterparts and is fueled by the simultaneous growth of the Black population (measured by the number of households) and the growing number of households headed by people with higher levels of education.6
Twelve neighborhood archetypes
Using US Census data from 2010 to 2019,7 we identified 12 distinct types of neighborhoods where Black consumers live and divided them into categories based on access to consumer options and population density (Exhibit 2).
Commercial urban spaces
1. Young cosmopolitan districts have above-average household incomes and inclusive growth. They have the highest rate of net income growth from 2010 to 2019 of all the neighborhoods we identified (including for Black residents) and among the highest numbers of storefronts per census tract. These neighborhoods also have the most educated residents (across racial groups), who also tend to be young. These factors also mean that these formerly redlined neighborhoods are the most expensive to live in and have seen the fastest displacement of Black residents. Examples include the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY, and South Loop in Chicago, IL.
2. Young, economically inclusive neighborhoods are middle-class neighborhoods distinguished by their potential for inclusive growth—Black and non-Black households hold very similar levels of income, and these neighborhoods have supported continued household and income growth for Black residents. They also trend young and retail-oriented, with high numbers of storefronts per census tract. Examples include Brooklyn Center in Minneapolis and Western Gwinnett County, GA, outside of Atlanta.
Retail-oriented greater metro areas
3. Affluent and exclusive communities are high-growth, retail-oriented neighborhoods with high average household incomes and accompanying characteristics, such as high broadband penetration and high rates of homeownership. However, these neighborhoods are notable for their low levels of economic inclusion; they have the highest rents and disproportionately low numbers of Black residents, in part because of high levels of displacement from 2010 to 2019. Examples include many of the localities in Middlesex County, MA, in Greater Boston or Westchester County, NY, in Greater NY.
4. Vibrant multicultural districts stand out for their diversity, economic growth, and economic outlook. They have grown their Black populations and—significantly—support high rates of Black social mobility as measured by the percentage of children from these areas who reach the top income quintile as adults. Examples include parts of Prince Williams County, VA, and Northwest Montgomery County, AL.
5. Exurban areas & commuting zones are lower density communities with developed commercial areas, lower-than-average Black populations, and a lack of indicators of Black economic vibrancy, such as high Black household incomes, levels of education, and broadband penetration. Examples include parts of Southeastern, KY, like Knox County.
Noncommercial urban spaces
6. Urban and Black economic growth centers are less commercially developed urban neighborhoods whose residents are economically successful and have above-average levels of education, income, and household wealth. These neighborhoods are split between higher-than-average shares of Black residents and lower diversity areas. However, they have the highest levels of housing costs and one of the largest Black-White gaps in economic mobility. Examples include, the Flatbush neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY, or parts of neighborhoods in northwest Washington, DC, including Takoma Park and Brightwood.
7. Stable up-and-coming working-class areas are middle-income neighborhoods with high levels of inclusive growth, demonstrated by increasingly educated residents, strong income growth for Black residents, and modest growth in their Black populations from 2010 to 2019. However, these neighborhoods also have relatively low levels of access to consumer options. Examples include the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago, IL, and the North end neighborhood in Detroit, MI.
8. Households in emerging urban working-class locales are younger than those in other neighborhood types and have the lowest incomes. However, Black and non-Black households have comparable incomes, and economic mobility for Black residents is relatively high. These neighborhoods’ Black populations have grown by about 13 percent from 2010 to 2019. Examples include the Spanish Harlem neighborhood in New York, NY, and the neighborhood of Little Haiti in Miami, Florida.
9. High-potential urban core neighborhoods have the lowest incomes and have seen their Black populations decrease from 2010 to 2019. However, these communities show a hint of potential in that the incomes of Black residents who remain have grown faster than those of other groups. Examples include the neighborhood of Englewood, Chicago, IL or Red Hook in Brooklyn, NY.
Greater metro areas with less commercial access
10. Upwardly mobile Black communities are marked by significant growth in their Black populations from 2010 to 2019, the highest rates of Black social mobility and wealth, and comparable levels of education and household income between Black and non-Black residents. Other signs of wealth building and upward mobility are above-average rates of broadband penetration and a high number of storefronts per census tract. Examples include Baldwin Hills in Los Angeles, CA, much of Prince George’s County in MD, and North Fort Worth, TX.
11. Small town areas & urban hideaways are very low-density neighborhoods that combine some of the highest numbers of storefronts per census tract with the lowest score for Black social mobility among all the neighborhood types. These neighborhoods have the highest incomes for low-density areas and are affordable, but population-growth rates are low. Examples include places in Macomb County outside of Detroit, MI, and Allegheny County outside of Pittsburgh, PA.
12. Rural (and low-density) outskirts have low numbers of storefronts per census tract, with no significantly favorable signs of economic growth. These neighborhoods are relatively affordable for lower-middle-income residents, but Black households earn significantly less than their non-Black counterparts. These neighborhoods have lost population from 2010 to 2019, with slight increases in their Black populations. Examples include southwestern Montgomery County in Alabama and Southern Mississippi.
These geospatial insights can help companies understand the needs and challenges of Black consumers at the neighborhood level.
Our research revealed that Black consumers’ unmet needs along the dimensions of access and quality—not including future growth—are worth $300 billion per year in consumer spending: $260 billion that consumers are willing to reallocate and up to $40 billion in new spending.
Black consumers’ high willingness to explore new products and services—81 percent of Black survey respondents are willing to switch brands—suggests that dissatisfaction with their current options is widespread. We found that the leading cause of dissatisfaction among Black consumers was a lack of evidence of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, such as marketing and outreach that do not feature people they recognize as representative of them (Exhibit 3).
However, sources of delight for Black consumers are authoritative brands and products that are associated with cultural cachet and credibility, that are inclusive, and that inculcate feelings of trust, pride, and affinity based on cultural values. In search of these attributes, Black consumers are more likely than non-Black consumers to conduct in-depth research (56 percent do) and to value personal recommendations, including one-on-one discussions with sales professionals (53 percent prefer to shop where they can get help).
Capturing the attention of Black consumers can lead to long-term loyalty: 68 percent of survey respondents reported that they’re loyal to brands that satisfy them. Significantly, commercial outperformance with Black consumers can help brands win outsize market share with that population (Exhibit 4).
Despite their desire to patronize culturally resonant products and services offered by Black-owned companies, Black consumers are actually less likely than their non-Black peers to be aware of and to purchase products from Black-owned companies. These companies face obstacles when scaling, growing, and thriving, struggles that mirror the obstacles facing Black Americans in the wider economy.
Finally, convenience is a persistent driver of dissatisfaction across categories. Despite the growth of online shopping, geography-based issues of access and availability continue to plague many neighborhoods where Black families live. This reinforces the pivotal need to frame geography and consumer needs together to ultimately create workable solutions.
For a more in-depth view of Black consumers’ needs and priorities, we examined our survey respondents’ preferences in four consumption themes: living necessities, modern and working essentials, financial health and income security, and culture, expression, and connection. (Of course, Black consumers are not monolithic. For more on our analysis of Black consumer segments, see sidebar, “Seven Black consumer segments.”)
Living necessities
Living necessities support physical health and safety and enable basic civic engagement. For this consumption theme, we focused our analysis on food that is consumed both in and outside the home.
The brands that outperform in this category are distinguished by healthy options, large assortments, and efforts to reflect Black consumers—in the form of Black leaders in their companies and public commitments to combat racism.
Our research found that compared with 2019, Black consumers are seeking healthier, better-quality options for food—consumed both in and outside the home—that also fulfill their need for convenience (including availability) and affordability. Black survey respondents listed “the freshest possible ingredients” and “good value for money” in their top ten considerations and culturally relevant concepts. Non-Black respondents did not. Further examination of Black consumers’ research and switching behaviors is needed to better understand and engage them.
Indeed, Black respondents are more eager to explore healthy and upmarket grocery options—including organic and specialty ingredients—than their non-Black counterparts. Significantly, the availability of organic foods at the grocery store was rated as important by 43 percent of Black respondents, compared with 36 percent of non-Black respondents. Black respondents are also more likely to be excited to explore products that are new to them.
Health considerations are also prominent in decisions around restaurant selection. We found that Black consumers value fresh ingredients and variety above other considerations. Sixty-two percent of Black respondents said they select restaurants based on the availability of healthy ingredients, compared with 47 percent of non-Black respondents. Indeed, 44 percent of Black respondents who reported spending less over the past two years on fast-casual and quick-service restaurants said the change was due to increased health-consciousness. By contrast, only 34 percent of non-Black respondents had the same feedback.
To be sure, convenience—especially accessibility—and affordability are evergreen considerations that still often win out over healthfulness. Consider that 37 percent of respondents think eating at fast-casual restaurants is less costly than eating at home, and 43 percent think these establishments offer the same product that full-service restaurants do at lower prices. Fast-casual restaurants are perceived to serve food that is less healthy than freshly prepared foods, but Black respondents still patronize them: Black consumers are eight percentage points more likely than their non-Black counterparts to have ever spent money at a fast-casual restaurant. This suggests that affordability and convenience sway Black consumers. Significantly, Black consumers are 13 percentage points more likely to expect to spend more on fast-casual restaurants in the future.
Compared with their peers, Black consumers are more enthusiastic about researching and trying new restaurants. Consistent with their behavior in other categories, Black consumers perform more research on their options than non-Black consumers do, leaning on the recommendations of friends and family; 60 percent of Black consumers consult friends and family before trying a new restaurant, compared with 51 percent of non-Black consumers.
Black consumers are also 11 percentage points more likely to switch restaurant brands. This behavior may be linked to the enjoyment they derive from discovering new restaurants. Depending on the type of restaurant, Black consumers are nine to 12 percentage points more likely to say they enjoy trying new dining options. In fact, a greater share of Black consumers said they are likely to be the first of their friends to try new restaurants. These pioneers make up 33 to 39 percent of Black respondents, compared with 22 to 23 percent of non-Black respondents.
Modern and working essentials
Working essentials are products and services that help people manage their productivity, the flow of information, and physical and digital connectivity between home and work. Product categories within working essentials include consumer technology, transportation, and non-luxury clothing. While satisfaction in these categories tends to be greater than 80 percent for all consumers, companies can capture a greater share of Black consumers’ future spending by improving Black consumers’ access to goods and perception of value. Our research shows that Black consumers diligently research their options and care deeply about value for money—the quality and fit, both figurative and literal, of their purchases—far more than about price alone. They make sure to resolve any questions they have about prospective purchases to confirm their quality. They also seek distinctive customer experiences and brands that reflect their identities and values.
Consider consumer technology. We found that Black consumers are more likely than other groups to have increased their spending on consumer technology in recent years, but consumer-technology companies should invest in securing their loyalty. Specifically, Black consumers are more focused than other respondents on tangible product benefits such as screen quality, and they are willing to switch brands if they can either get better value for money or see themselves in the brand.
Then there is transportation. We found that Black consumers research their options diligently and are generally open to considering a variety of vehicles, but tend to make their ultimate purchasing decisions based on affordability and financing.
During the shopping process, 35 percent of Black consumers do not have a target brand in mind, compared with 28 percent of non-Black respondents. However, the drive for affordability often makes the difference between making a purchase and extending a search; 57 percent of Black respondents said their most recently purchased car was preowned, compared with 47 percent of non-Black respondents; 91 percent of Black respondents who purchased used cars cited affordable pricing as the top reason, compared with 83 percent of non-Black respondents. The majority of Black survey respondents said they purchased their cars through the sales channel that offered the best financing terms. Only 61 percent of non-Black respondents did the same. Despite these efforts to achieve the best possible financial outcome, the average Black consumer spends $2,000 more on auto financing than the average White consumer.8
When it comes to apparel, Black consumers are interested, but apparel brands have not always returned that interest. Black consumers are more aware of established brands—including designer brands—than non-Black consumers are. However, Black consumers are also dissatisfied with current offerings, particularly business attire, swimwear, and formalwear. In fact, Black survey respondents said that current offerings from the apparel industry are low quality and untrustworthy.
Poor customer experiences reinforce this negative perception. Black consumers say the quality of customer service is often inadequate, staff may not be knowledgeable about products, and, in the case of discount retailers, the shopping experience may be poor. Many Black consumers conclude that online shopping is better. They are more likely than non-Black consumers to engage directly with brands online—browsing their sites, social media accounts, and written reviews.
One apparel brand that currently has an 85 percent satisfaction rate among Black respondents (compared with 70 percent among non-Black respondents) has a history of publicly supporting Black cultural figures. The company is further investing in Black communities by launching an initiative for youth from marginalized communities. It’s also tying executive compensation to achievement of the company’s workforce diversity and inclusion goals.
Financial health and income security
Financial health and income security support income smoothing, wealth building, and insurance against economic shocks and risks. Black consumers are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to wealth building, because they are historically underserved—and sometimes discriminated against9—by financial-services companies; dissatisfaction with insurance products is widespread, and 32 percent of Black consumers were underbanked as of 2019,10 the most recent year for which we could find data. Such households stand to lose $40,000 over the course of a lifetime in higher fees.
These discrepancies contribute to a historically fraught relationship between the sector and Black consumers, who experience these products as untrustworthy, low value for the cost, and not attuned to their needs. By contrast, Black survey respondents say that some digital-payments services have won them over with their accessibility, ease of use, and trustworthiness.
Increasing access to mainstream financial products and advice is socially, economically, and morally critical. But first, financial institutions should invest in establishing credibility and trust with Black consumers and draw on lessons from adjacent sectors such as fintech, whose products are considered more accessible and easier to use, especially on mobile devices.
Black consumers who do want to use traditional financial services face structural hurdles that make these products and services hard to access. Black households are 50 percent more likely than non-Black households to live in areas with limited broadband service, which presents obstacles to online banking.
A few mainstream financial institutions are making strides toward more equitable experiences for Black communities. One credit-card issuer offers zero-fee cards and made a commitment to invest $500 million in services, products, and spending in Black communities. Another major bank opened branches to provide underserved communities with resources and tools, and publicly committed $30 billion toward racial-equity goals.
Culture, expression, and connection
Products in this category foster expression and connection and support individuals’ and communities’ well-being, enjoyment, and happiness. Crucially, these products help people replenish their mental, spiritual, and emotional energy. Because these products are often personally significant, credibility, trust, and getting the offerings right—making them a good personal and cultural fit—are key. A solid product section, including local options, can be valuable.
Finally, another theme is connecting through community via referrals and through trusted spokespeople via digital channels.
The significance of this theme may be one reason why 70 percent of Black respondents say finding the right product is more important than price. In search of the right fit, more than 75 percent of Black consumers are willing to switch, even though this category has the highest level of satisfaction out of the four consumption categories.
Even where Black consumers are more satisfied with beauty products, 83 percent are still willing to switch brands. Our research found that the attributes Black consumers value in beauty products are generally centered on the products’ ability to foster positive feelings about themselves (confident, beautiful) and about the brand (trust). Endorsements from trusted figures such as friends, family, and reputable celebrities are more likely to sway Black consumers’ purchasing decisions than those of non-Black consumers.
The dissatisfaction Black consumers feel is related to the quality of products (a concern all consumers share), their environmental impact, and their ability to meet the needs of consumers’ racial group. Black consumers’ complaints about shopping channels generally focus on in-store pricing and assortment and on customer service—including a failure to cater to Black consumers.
Another sector in which consumables are important to Black consumers is health and wellness. Black respondents prefer consumables, such as dietary supplements, to experiences such as fitness classes. Black consumers are 15 percentage points more willing than non-Black consumers to switch brands, especially for lower prices and promotional offers. In fact, branding is less important than product quality.
As an overall consumption theme, quality is an important consideration in expression and in connection. One successful beauty brand—whose products were purchased by 50 percent of Black respondents in the past year, 29 percentage points higher than by non-Black consumers—optimized its products for price to value, channel, and social mission. The CEO of the brand is a Black woman.
The brand’s parent company created a racial-equity task force in 2021 and committed to spending more than $2 billion per year with suppliers owned and managed by marginalized groups by 2025.
Sustainably addressing Black consumers’ pain points requires immediate and ongoing investments in racial equity, particularly in organizational capabilities. Done right, those efforts can meet Black consumers’ needs, earn their trust and loyalty, and unleash economic value for historically marginalized communities. Anything short of that is likely to result in failure. We have identified ten broad actions for consumer-facing companies based on our framework for building inclusive organizations (Exhibit 5).
1.
Employ a workforce that is representative of—and personally and culturally connected to—the communities and places served. This means not only hiring from the communities in which companies operate, but employing decision makers, leaders, and marketing professionals who understand and can speak to Black consumers’ communities.
2.
Champion the hiring and promotion of Black workers into roles with decision-making power,*particularly profit-and-loss responsibility. Over time, these habits and norms should produce more inclusive and equitable workplaces where Black workers feel a sense of belonging and are valued and respected as much as their White counterparts.
3.
Align environmental, social, and governance (ESG) agendas and lobbying and philanthropic efforts with the goals of sustainable and inclusive economic growth. For example, companies should raise or commit capital to help scale equitable commercial development in underserved consumer markets.
4.
Ensure that offerings are consistent with ESG commitments. For instance, companies should discontinue products and services—such as high-interest loans that can become functionally predatory—that have been shown to harm Black communities.
5.
Institute policies and guidelines to ensure that Black communities are treated fairly and with dignity. For instance, abolishing in-store monitoring policies that disproportionately target Black shoppers can help restore trust between communities and the companies that want to serve them.
6.
Ensure that a full range of products, especially offerings that offer good value for the price and affordable offerings, are accessible to Black communities.
7.
Ensure supplier diversity, and stock products from Black-owned and Black-focused brands in all channels.
8.
Invest in growth and consumer access in underserved and disinvested Black communities by expanding the presence of physical stores and points of distribution to facilitate e-commerce.
9.
Ensure inclusive and diverse marketing content that is free from bias and fluent in Black cultures and Black narratives.
10.
Invest in R&D, M&A, and product design to develop offerings and acquire capabilities to meet Black consumers’ needs.
Nick Noel is a consultant in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office; Sara Prince is a partner in the Atlanta office; Sara Providence is a consultant in the New Jersey office, where Shelley Stewart III is a partner; and Brian Rikuda is an alumnus of the Bay Area office, where Ammanuel Zegeye is a partner.
The authors wish to thank Jane Brennan, Brian Cooperman, Golden Daka, Gabrielle Halaby, Kori Hill, JP Julien, Mohanaditya Karampudi, Aaron McGee, Alison O’Connor, Duwain Pinder, Soyoko Umeno, Zooey Wilkinson, and Monne Williams for their contributions to this report.The most direct way to execute on these goals would require an investment of $6 billion (in 2021 dollars) in the grocery sector and $8 billion in the retail sector. Working in partnership with various stakeholders across sectors, these investments would help to open about 10,000 new stores and distribution points that facilitate e-commerce over a decade—still less than 10 percent of new retail store openings every year—in Black metropolitan communities. Significantly, we estimate that the investment would benefit about 3.5 million Black consumers and 7.0 million non-Black consumers.11
In addition, this investment—combined with the pursuit of the racial-equity goals we outline above—can drive spillovers that support economic mobility across the different areas of economic activity. These investments can help sustain at least 79,000 additional Black-owned businesses, 314,000 more Black decision makers, and $26 billion in wages from decision-making roles alone, in addition to other fiscal resources that these can generate that can further drive benefits for communities. These investments to improve consumer participation can also advance participation for savers and investors, workers, business owners, and residents.12
A revamp of the relationship between consumers and the companies that want to serve them is a crucial part of the larger work of building a social and economic environment that fosters equitable human development. The benefits will ripple throughout communities and economies. Companies should take the lead. We will explore how they can do that—and related topics that affect Black consumers—in upcoming articles.
URL
https://www.mckinsey.com/bem/our-insights/black-consumers-where-to-invest-for-equity-a-preview#/
Minority Markets Have $3.9 Trillion Buying Power
21-Mar-2019 8:55 AM EDT, by University of Georgia
Newswise — Every racial and ethnic minority group in America is making financial gains but not at equal rates, according to the latest Multicultural Economy Report from the University of Georgia.
The annual report calculates the consumer buying power—or total income after taxes—for minority markets in the U.S.: African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans. The Multicultural Economy Report is published by the Selig Center for Economic Growth, a unit of UGA’s Terry College of Business.
The sustained growth of the U.S. economy culminated in an estimated $14.8 trillion of buying power nationally in 2018, an increase of 100 percent since 2000 and 30 percent since 2010, with the biggest percentage gains occurring in minority markets.
The combined buying power of blacks, Asian-Americans and Native Americans is estimated to be $2.4 trillion, while the nation’s Hispanics command $1.5 trillion in spending power—larger than the GDP of Australia.
“The economic expansion has been quite good in recent years, and we’re still seeing the benefits of that for every group in America,” said Jeff Humphreys, Selig Center director and author of the report. “While minority markets are certainly enjoying more buying power than ever before, the rate of growth differs. We find the largest percentage increases in the Asian and Hispanic markets, followed by relatively slower rates of growth in the African-American and Native American populations. Whites comprise the largest share of the U.S. market, but have the slowest percentage rate of buying power growth.”
While buying power is increasing across the country, the biggest gains come from Western states. The top 10 states with the largest percentage increase in total buying power since 2000 are Utah (156 percent), North Dakota (150 percent), Wyoming (143 percent), Texas (137 percent), Washington (131 percent), Arizona (131 percent), District of Columbia (130 percent), Montana (125 percent), Nevada (122 percent) and Idaho (118 percent).
The five slowest-growing states since 2000 are Michigan (57 percent), Illinois (71 percent), Ohio (74 percent), West Virginia (75 percent) and Missouri (76 percent).
Black buying power
African-American buying power has seen impressive gains since the end of the last economic downturn, jumping from $961 billion in 2010 to an estimated $1.3 trillion in 2018. Since 2000, the African-American market has seen a 114 percent increase in buying power.
The boost is the result of a surge in black-owned businesses, increased educational attainment and booming population growth. The percentage of African-Americans who completed college continues to rise (23 percent in 2017, up from 17 percent in 2000), and the population is growing at 22.7 percent since 2000, faster than the national average of 16.3 percent. The youthfulness of the African-American population skews the group’s buying power downward, as a larger share of the population have yet to hit their peak earning years.
The 10 states with greatest black buying power growth since 2000 are North Dakota (1,051 percent), South Dakota (502 percent), Idaho (375 percent), Wyoming (339 percent), Vermont (320 percent), Arizona (265 percent), Montana (255 percent), Maine (243 percent), Utah (235 percent) and New Hampshire (226 percent). All have flourishing African-American consumer markets, but none is among the nation’s 10 largest black consumer markets.
Native American buying power
Although comprising only 1.3 percent of the country’s population, the buying power of Native Americans is estimated to be $115 billion in 2018, a 185 percent increase since 2000. The gains are due in part to rapid population growth, which has increased 55 percent since 2000, and is projected to grow another 7 percent by 2023. Entrepreneurial activity also played a key role in boosting the Native American market. For example, American Indian- and Alaska native-owned businesses grew 15 percent from 2007 to 2012—five times more than the total number of all U.S. business growth.
Ranked by the growth of Native American buying power since 2000, the top 10 states are Texas (279 percent), Rhode Island (264 percent), Pennsylvania (247 percent), New York (241 percent), Maryland (234 percent), Massachusetts (233 percent), Illinois (230 percent), Virginia (228 percent), Delaware (225 percent) and Utah (224 percent). Many of these states have relatively small, flourishing markets, but Texas and New York stand out as the third- and fifth-largest Native American consumer markets in the nation, respectively.
Asian-American buying power
Asian-Americans command an estimated 6.2 percent of the nation’s total buying power, roughly $1 trillion. The 267 percent increase since 2000 makes the Asian market the fastest-growing minority market in the country, with a buying power greater than the gross domestic product of Turkey.
Indian Americans comprise the largest subgroup of the Asian-American market and account for $283 billion (28 percent) of the group’s buying power. Chinese-Americans (except Taiwanese) are second in terms of buying power, making up 23 percent of the U.S. Asian market ($233 billion) but are the largest population. Filipino-Americans constitute the third-largest group both in population and buying power, accounting for $146 billion or 14.4 percent of the market. The fifth most-populous group is Korean-Americans, who rank fourth in terms of buying power with $81 billion or 8 percent of the U.S. Asian market. Vietnamese-Americans are fifth in terms of buying power ($73 billion), but fourth in terms of population.
The Asian-American market is buoyed by booming population growth, which includes strong immigration, high educational attainment, increased entrepreneurship, and an overwhelmingly urban population.
Ranked by the rate of growth of Asian buying power since 2000, the top 10 states are: South Dakota (497 percent), North Dakota (479 percent), Arkansas (449 percent), Vermont (445 percent), North Carolina (422 percent), Texas (414 percent), Arizona (387 percent), Georgia (369 percent), Nevada (361 percent), and Indiana (357 percent).
While Texas is the only state that also ranks among the nation’s 10 largest Asian consumer markets (at third), Georgia (13th) and North Carolina (15th) are also among the nation’s most rapidly emerging Asian markets.
Hispanic buying power
The $1.5 trillion Hispanic market is the largest ethnic market in the U.S., and includes more than one out of every six Americans. It is the second-fastest growing minority market in the U.S., rising by 212 percent, or $500 billion, since 2000.
Mexican-Americans comprise the largest of the Hispanic subgroups, accounting for $881 billion in buying power or 57.2 percent of the Hispanic total. Puerto Ricans are second-largest group in terms of buying power, commanding $158 billion or 10.3 percent of the Hispanic market. Central Americans are the third largest, with a $137 billion market share or 8.9 percent of the total. South Americans rank fourth, with 8.7 percent ($135 billion) of the U.S. Hispanic market, and Cuban-Americans are fifth, accounting for $83 billion.
The 10 states with the greatest Hispanic buying power growth since 2000 are North Dakota (656 percent), South Dakota (513 percent), Arkansas (370 percent), South Carolina (368 percent), Tennessee (351 percent), Maryland (340 percent), Oklahoma (332 percent), Montana (330 percent), Pennsylvania (327 percent) and Kentucky (322 percent). Of those, only Pennsylvania (No.12), Maryland (No. 17) and Oklahoma (No. 24) are among the nation’s 25 largest Hispanic consumer markets in 2018.
The Selig Center for Economic Growth
Created to convey economic expertise to Georgia businesses and entrepreneurs, the Simon S. Selig Jr. Center for Economic Growth at the University of Georgia conducts research on economic, demographic and social issues related to Georgia’s current and future growth.
Through its range of projects—major economic impact studies, economic forecasts, information services and data products—the center’s efforts help inform business decisions and public policy directions. In doing so, the Selig Center has become the Terry College of Business’s most visible public service unit.
URL
https://www.newswise.com/articles/minority-markets-have-3-9-trillion-buying-power
And your correct, though i have proof above to doubt the financial evaluation, cause mckinsey/frnaklin templeton have a vested interested in positive financial assessment. the government or major financial firms in the usa historically give positive assessments based on short data , it is usa propoganda style.
But, one percent of 1.7 trillion is seventeen billion.
If one million black men were to invest in seventeen billion that would be seventeen thousand a head. yeah ok. I think a million black men exist who can get seventeen thousand each from their own personal investment or through loan.
Now what kind of website?
... that is a whole other animal, many websites have failed, and replicas rarely do. Meta is a collection of facebook/instagram/whats app/threads/+others.
and just like in our prior dialog, who to trust is another question?
I have no idea who in the black populace, individual or organization, in the usa can be trusted with seventeen billion. That is a lot of money.
And it matters, any body black can complain black dollars not being collectively used but if said complainer can't provide a black person to trust with the money then said black complainer is being dysfunctional.
My last point is, this is a one time scenario. If a black person or organization is found who is trusted by the black masses in the usa + the million black people put seventeen thousand a head, if the website fails, I can't see why a similar call is warranted. Success breeds continuity. Failure breeds termination.