$2000 Million People Marches - Economic Corner

[richardmurray]

Let's say Congress allows SCrhumpts $2000 a head plan , I will argue it is the begining of Universal Basic Income cause if SCrumpft does it once, each president going forward will be able to do it and thus it will grow into an expectancy and UBI will be implemented, even if the name is other. But anyway...

If $2000 a head happens. 

Question, where is the place you have the greatest comradery offline with black people? or where offline are you part of the largest black group?

The answer to the questions above is A.

B= Number of people who get $2000( A)  equivalent to how many people in A get $2000

C=B*financial sharing per head. Financial sharing per head is how much each person in A who got $2000 will give, an equal value per head. 

C is the money your group offline can have for a cause. 

Now, in my economic corner edition 28 I suggest an even way to implement how to use, but implementation is a varied thing so I will not state here.

But, I argue a lot of potential little million people marches in the black populace in the usa can occur. Start one. 

 

So few seem to be talking about doing something in a group anywhere. I  think it is interesting how many in the usa, seem to be open to the money to use for self but few for a collective anything.  While the people who will have nothing to do with a collective action will then suggest individuals need to make the collective better... 

 

Economic Corner Edition 28

https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/600-economic-corner-28-11232025/

 

[ProfD]

Money is meaningless if it is not put to good use. 

 

1) Needs have to be identified before a dime is spent.

 

2) A plan including actions and milestones has to be drawn up and agreed upon to accomplish the goals that address those needs.

 

Since AI will eventually turn the labor market upside down, some type of Universal Basic Income (UBI) i.e. expanded welfare will have to be instituted in order for Americans to survive. 

 

Otherwise, handing out $2,000 per person especially those who don't have it already will lead to more consumerism.

 

Look no further back than those pandemic stimulus checks. 

 

Most folks will spend the money putting it right back into the economy instead of making the money work for them.

[Pioneer1]

I haven't followed this $2,000 story much because I don't think Trump is serious about it.
richarmurray talks about Universal Basic Income....so is he talking about giving it to people MONTHLY or is this just another one time deal kind of like the stimulus checks for Covid?


I think it's just a gimmick to keep the poor and working class people who actually NEED the money wishing and hoping for some sort of "present" they can waste away on weed and liquor.

Low intelligence people are easily "bought off" with cheap gifts and trinkets, while more intelligent people look at the LONG TERM aspect and what offers the most benefit in the long run.

Don't cut off people's SNAP benefits for a month and jack insurance rates up sky high or kick them off of medicaid and other service which will cost them TENS of thousands of dollars this year....but then give them $2000 back.

Most people don't think.
They don't care how many jobs are lost or how how many illegal immigrants have just be let go because some "judge" said they couldn't be detained and now will take THEIR jobs....as long as they can get a little quick $2000 and run down to the nearest weed dispensary. 

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I haven't followed this $2,000 story much because I don't think Trump is serious about....so is he talking about giving it to people MONTHLY or is this just another one time deal kind of like the stimulus checks for Covid?

This carrot would be a one-time payment similar to those pandemic checks. 

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I think it's just a gimmick to keep the poor and working class people who actually NEED the money wishing and hoping for some sort of "present"...

Definitely a gimmick to make people feel better.

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Don't cut off people's SNAP benefits for a month and jack insurance rates up sky high or kick them off of medicaid and other service which will cost them TENS of thousands of dollars this year....but then give them $2000 back.

Right. The net benefit is zero especially if folks are going to spend it on BS instead of investing it in something that actually makes more money.

[Pioneer1]

 

ProdD
 

 

This carrot would be a one-time payment similar to those pandemic checks.

Ok, just as I figured...another gimmick or publicity stunt.

 

 

 

 

 

Right. The net benefit is zero especially if folks are going to spend it on BS instead of investing it in something that actually makes more money

And the REAL kicker is they're probably going to put up all kinds of limitations and exemptions on it to where half if not most people wouldn't even qualify for that money anyway.

If you're a felon...can't get the money.
If you owe back taxes....can't get the money.
If you owe child support...can't get the money.
If you have outstanding parking tickets...can't get the money.
If you didn't vote Republican....can't get the money.
If you aren't working...can't get the money.
How tall are you?
What was your highschool GPA?
How long is your dick?
Do you put rum in your egg nog?

Lol.....any excuse.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

On 11/23/2025 at 2:20 PM, ProfD said:

1) Needs have to be identified before a dime is spent.

Well concerning my suggestion in the original post, the needs can't be identified first cause the money is reliant on an unknown. The organization can come first and then if the money comes then, the gathering of funds, ala trust, and then those who have placed funds in the trust can vote, ala what I stated in the larger post, I don't know if you read it.

 

On 11/23/2025 at 2:20 PM, ProfD said:

Otherwise, handing out $2,000 per person especially those who don't have it already will lead to more consumerism.

 

Look no further back than those pandemic stimulus checks. 

but that is the point of Universal BAsic Income, it is just welfare, just expanded. Consumerism isn't evil, it is what the usa has always been, starting wiith the white murdering colonist. Remember, the british colonies had become a huge buyer, consumer, not a producer, but a consumer. the best producing colonies were in the caribbean with over 90% black populations which led to them all having a different phenotypical history to the english colonies n north america, having a white european populace , ever growing, became big consumers. I recall france did stimulus checks and it was all used, the french were wiser in that they gave guidelines for where to spend. but the usa from a financial philosophy perspective historically likes to allow a freer market, that is how financial cheating and other things can thrive, it is up to the individual in the usa, against france's communalist, government guided economy through the fiscal capitalist free market.

 

@Pioneer1

23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I haven't followed this $2,000 story much because I don't think Trump is serious about it.

nyc 80s white businessmen's fiscal culture isnt about planning, it is about shark hunting, short term gains. 

shark hunting is buying things, breaking them up and selling them into the market, crows work. that is what the socialist financial models never have. This is why too big to fail was huge, cause the usa did a piss poor variant of socialism in saving the banks. they saved the banks like in a socialist model but unlike a socialist model didn't demand they plan, so the banks haven't improved. 

And short terms gains isn't about seriousness, in schrumpfts case they are wild gambits. they shake things up which was his original premise and I don't he has ever left that position.

23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

richarmurray talks about Universal Basic Income....so is he talking about giving it to people MONTHLY or is this just another one time deal kind of like the stimulus checks for Covid?

I apologize for confusing you. This is a one time thing, but I think as this is the economic corner. that if he succeeds this is a huge step to universal basic income becoming in some form or fashion. Cause if he can do it once, he can do it again and the next president can as well and with the executive order culture reaching new heights, all the precedence is present for it to become something that happens at a greater frequency.

 

well... gimmick, the usa is over three hundred and fifty million people. half of that is one hundred and seventy five million so if that is the count of adults

two thousand multiplied by one hundred and seventy five million is three hundred and fifty billion dollars. I don't see 350,000,000,000 as a gimmick. 

I think you and Profd have a very low view of others financially, that I don't have. 

I never forget one winter past, real cold, and a homeless person asked for money and I gave it cause i had it to give. And a black person of you and profd's philosophical race said I shouldn't have did that cause that person will spend it on liquor. And I replied to them that i didn't give the money as a test or because I judged or critiqued them in any way, I gave the money because I could and I wanted to, the way in which they use it is up to them, and considering it is cold, I think it wise to warm your belly with liquor if you live in the cold. 

 

I have always found the voice of black people like you and profd who chime in that helping others, especially black folk, shouldn't be done, to be very ugly. If you don't want to help other black people. Don't. I have no problem with that. But chiming in that people shouldn't be helped because you feel they are unwarranted based on your critique of them or your evaluation of what they will do... well ok. You two plus the many other blacks I have heard do it are free to do it, I have no problem with none of you doing it, but it is an ugly act. That kind of talk in the village needs to be stated for what it is, ugly. 

 

9 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

And the REAL kicker is they're probably going to put up all kinds of limitations and exemptions on it to where half if not most people wouldn't even qualify for that money anyway.

I don't think so, like the stimulus checks this is meant to go wide. I will say this, SCrumpft wants this to go wide, I Think the problem is the congress... the congress in the usa is a mess in terms of what is produces legislatively.  IT rarely is well constructed and all to often has alot of dysfunctional complexity to maintain agendas against the purposes of the laws.

I think many of the limits and exemptions may happen but largely because of two things

1. the multipheonotypical naysayers to UBI. For some reason many in government fear UBI. I have listened to their arguments and none hold water. The non black naysayers talk about the merit of work but the usa wasn't built on the merit of work it was built on murdering others for land and enslaving other human beings. the northern colonies were extremely poor compared to the southern. the northern colonies were the most eager to cede from the english empire as they were poorest in north america+caribbean in terms of wealth making and could use to not pay taxes to england, but virginia to the carolinas were only interested for the opportunity to avoid taxation and gain more money. Hard work had nothing to do with it.  The black naysayers talk about their pseudo prescient view that people will spend the money negatively which has no basis in truth. All the people in the usa who had home bills to pay or children to feed spent some or all of each stimulus on bills and care. homeless and other very fiscally poor people don't have homes or others to care for usually, so they spent as they wanted. but commerce is not bad, usa business retained all that money so it wasn't wasted it was fueled right back into the economy of the usa. which is the point of welfare, the impoverished get to feed themselves , the market gets fuel. 

2. the donkeys, the part of andrew jackson were the ones who stopped the stimulus checks from continually coming. They felt it wasn't feasible which is interesting cause the donkeys love government spending. The problem with stimulus checks is the donkeys can't use stimulus checks for favors of big firms. the thousands to millions of homeless people getting stimulus checks going to the liquor store, buying a sandwich , maybe a new pair of shoes isn't influencing big business through government spending. But spending money on the affordable care act, which then goes to insurance companies, is an example of how to influence the big firms. So I can see the donkeys trying to stop it though with the shutdown result I imagine a  number of donkeys may disregard schumer and others which will make it easy to happen. 

[Pioneer1]

 

 

37 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

a homeless person asked for money and I gave it cause i had it to give. And a black person of you and profd's philosophical race said I shouldn't have did that cause that person will spend it on liquor

 

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

I have always found the voice of black people like you and profd who chime in that helping others, especially black folk, shouldn't be done, to be very ugly. If you don't want to help other black people. Don't.

 

 

 

Not sure what to say........................

[richardmurray]

hahah @Pioneer1

why did you bring eddie murphy in this?:) 

[ProfD]

3 hours ago, richardmurray said:

 

Well concerning my suggestion in the original post, the needs can't be identified first cause the money is reliant on an unknown. The organization can come first and then if the money comes then, the gathering of funds, ala trust, and then those who have placed funds in the trust can vote, ala what I stated in the larger post, I don't know if you read it.

I read it.

 

From reading your posts, I don't get the impression you have started businesses and/or managed a lot of money.

 

As a result,  our perspectives are vastly different when it comes to financial management.

 

3 hours ago, richardmurray said:

I think you and Profd have a very low view of others financially, that I don't have. 

Clearly, you have misread or misinterpreted what I've written around here. However, your misinterpretation is consistent with our differing perspectives especially as it relates to money and investing. 

 

3 hours ago, richardmurray said:

And a black person of you and profd's philosophical race said I shouldn't have did that cause that person will spend it on liquor.

Again, you have misread something I wrote.

 

I do recall writing that if people have enough money to buy cigarettes they can invest a few dollars in a Black business. 

 

3 hours ago, richardmurray said:

I have always found the voice of black people like you and profd who chime in that helping others, especially black folk, shouldn't be done, to be very ugly.

Yeah bro...you're going to have to readjust your line of thinking when it comes to what I've written. I believe those people who need the most help should get it.

 

I do not believe irresponsible people should get help just because they wanna do their thing.

 

As we say in my 'hood...you've got me f8cked up Slim. Don't know how you've read so much wrong into my writings here.

 

In the future, remove those dirty, rose-colored glasses when you read my posts.

 

I'm the biggest advocate for Black folks winning by any means necessary.

[Troy]

@richardmurray don't worry about those brothers just are projecting what they would do with the money

 

That, or you, as @ProfD said, you are misinterpreting what he wrote.  Clearly you left @Pioneer1 speechless -- no small feat.

 

I think UBI is the last thing on his mind. It is not a pillar of the Republican party.  They are motivated by the acquisition of wealth not distributing it.  They are about exploitation period.

 

Back to the $2K there are people who need work on their car, would like to zero out a credit card balance to improve their credit, or maybe take a little vacation for their mental health and if they buy an ounce of weed -- so what. 

 

The real problem is one-time payment is a short-term measure, not a solution.  If the US somehow decided to pay a UBI you can forget about reparations forever.

[Pioneer1]

 

Troy
 

44 minutes ago, Troy said:

Clearly you left @Pioneer1 speechless -- no small feat.

I'm still getting over the shock of being straight up LIED on.

 

 

ProfD

You actually took time to address that?

As I told Troy, I'm still trying to get over a blatantly false accusation that came out of nowhere.
I haven't followed the conversation between you two very closely, but I said nothing REMOTELY CLOSE to what he just accused us of.

Don't want to help other Black people????
WTF????
 

 

 

richardmurray

Are you prone to hallucination or delusion?
Serious question.

Has anyone ever accused you or seeing or hearing things that others don't see or hear?
Or making up scenarios and events that didn't actually happen?

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

I read it.

 

From reading your posts, I don't get the impression you have started businesses and/or managed a lot of money.

 

As a result,  our perspectives are vastly different when it comes to financial management.

Even point, our experiences are different, we are two strangers, you don't know me and i don't know, we both have levels of assumption ,but our experiences have clearly  led to varying perspectives.

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

Clearly, you have misread or misinterpreted what I've written around here. However, your misinterpretation is consistent with our differing perspectives especially as it relates to money and investing. 

par the course, I dont' think so. when a person says that giving money to another person will be wasted in their opinion and they are opposed to it, even when the money will not be there own, I see my position as in even response to your words which are said similar.

 

@Troy

1 hour ago, Troy said:

don't worry about those brothers just are projecting what they would do with the money

well the post wasn't about what individuals would do but what will a group do , each a portion of their funds. Now if either had said they wouldn't put their dollar in the pot   to the stated concept then fine. I have no problem with that. But that wasn't an element of their discourse. It was  

from Profd  The net benefit is zero especially if folks are going to spend it on BS instead of investing it in something that actually makes more money

from Pioneer Low intelligence people are easily "bought off" with cheap gifts and trinkets, while more intelligent people look at the LONG TERM aspect and what offers the most benefit in the long run.

I think my response was even to both. What does either of those projections serve a group action as I suggested? 

And I will be blunt, I have been blessed to be around many types of Black people, various generations, various religious associations, various language types... being a black kid in NYC depending on where in the Black woods you live can be very open to how varying black people can be. And so I have always heard black people talk like profd + pioneer when it comes to the qualities of other black people or when it comes to how other black people behave from their view, when it comes to how other black people whom they view lesser than or negatively in some fashion should be treated. and... I have never cared for it.  I have also always heard black people not talk like profd + pioneer when it comes to said similar values or perspectives or judgements. 

Many black people are not going to act or behave the way any one black person thinks, but when a group action is called, that isn't just about a black individuals views, or when one sees another black person helping another black person, that isn't about what said one would do, it is about two others. 

And I have witnessed black individuals in a group offline, chime in just like those two, when all in a group were asked to help and the projections of the philosophical peers to profd or pioneer offline were... didn't help.  

 

1 hour ago, Troy said:

They are motivated by the acquisition of wealth not distributing it.  They are about exploitation period.

You think UBI will be a distribution of wealth? I don't think so. It is welfare, expanded but welfare. Like the stimulus checks that money will mostly go into paying bills. 

 

1 hour ago, Troy said:

If the US somehow decided to pay a UBI you can forget about reparations forever.

well, as the discourse in my post in this forum have proven, even a small set of black people can't even come to a collective accepted position on what reparations is defined as for Black DOSers let alone how it shall be implemented. Are Black DOSers owed reparations? 100% historical fact, financially. Are reparations that Black DOSers owed beyond money? 100% true too.  But, absent collective acceptance , the Black DOS populace in the usa  can's decide what reparations is, and it has to be decided on first before it can be implemented. It can't be what Profd wants or pioneer wants or Rich wants or Troy wants. It has to be what the group wants. 

And thank you Troy , cause this economic corner, outside my intentions has reinforced the truth of Reparations problems in the Black populace in the USA. 

If four black men :  me you Profd Pioneer have this much collective unacceptance on financial matters, how can the tens of millions of black people in the usa find a collective acceptance with reparations? 

 

@Pioneer1

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Are you prone to hallucination or delusion?

whichever answer is the worst in your mind, pick it. 

[ProfD]

59 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

wasn't an element of their discourse. It was  

from Profd  The net benefit is zero especially if folks are going to spend it on BS instead of investing it in something that actually makes more money

Oh, if you see that in a negative light,  I'm fine with it. People will never get ahead if they're spending money they don't really have on BS. I stand on that opinion.

[Troy]

7 hours ago, richardmurray said:

You think UBI will be a distribution of wealth?

It is not a matter of what I think. It is a simple fact; the government takes money from some people and distributes it to others