It hit me like a ton of bricks yesterday. We all hear terms like recession, depression, etc, and never think that it's possible for a country to be in one economic state while a specific group (Black, Muslim, Christian, Women, etc) could be in another state.

I haven't completed researching and reflecting on this but here's what I presently find:

Use America as an example: While America as awhole may be experiencing prosperity or a recession, the Black community (for example) has been in a depression ever since slavery!! Thus Black unemployment is always high, and all the signs that the larger American community saw during the "great depression" are in the Black community continually. Now, one must then ask: How could a country be in one economic state, but a specific ethnic group be in another. My thoughts are when there is inequality in a country or region, the natural extension of this is for the controlling group to establish economic guidelines and principles that keep them empowered at the expense of the oppressed group (imperial economics).

Similarly in the Bahamas even when the economy is strong, the Haitian community tend to be in perpetual financial flux and state of crisis.

Any thoughts and feedback would be greatly appreciated. Email me at: DoctorCreator@Yahoo.com

I've got a hectic 3 months or so ahead of me. Popped in to put this concept in your brain and hopefully, you'll reflect on it, and in your wisdom, bring fresh ideas and empowerment to our globe!!

Love

It hit me like a ton of bricks yesterday. We all hear terms like recession, depression, etc, and never think that it's possible for a country to be in one economic state while a specific group (Black, Muslim, Christian, Women, etc) could be in another state.
I haven't completed researching and reflecting on this but here's what I presently find:
Use America as an example: While America as awhole may be experiencing prosperity or a recession, the Black community (for example) has been in a depression ever since slavery!! Thus Black unemployment is always high, and all the signs that the larger American community saw during the "great depression" are in the Black community continually. Now, one must then ask: How could a country be in one economic state, but a specific ethnic group be in another. My thoughts are when there is inequality in a country or region, the natural extension of this is for the controlling group to establish economic guidelines and principles that keep them empowered at the expense of the oppressed group (imperial economics).
Similarly in the Bahamas even when the economy is strong, the Haitian community tend to be in perpetual financial flux and state of crisis.
Any thoughts and feedback would be greatly appreciated. Email me at: DoctorCreator@Yahoo.com
I've got a hectic 3 months or so ahead of me. Popped in to put this concept in your brain and hopefully, you'll reflect on it, and in your wisdom, bring fresh ideas and empowerment to our globe!!
Love

Here's my thoughts.

You are a jack*ss. Don't post anymore. Thank you.

...an economy is shared. Its not like one group can experience the economy and another group cannot - unless both groups are completely isolated. And in neither instance you presented are either groups completely isolated. You can have two groups having different experiences during a specific point in an economic cycle. But you cannot say that there is a recession for african americans while whites are properous.

Here's my thoughts.
You are a jack*ss. Don't post anymore. Thank you.
...an economy is shared. Its not like one group can experience the economy and another group cannot - unless both groups are completely isolated. And in neither instance you presented are either groups completely isolated. You can have two groups having different experiences during a specific point in an economic cycle. But you cannot say that there is a recession for african americans while whites are properous.

Ting-um, I forgot just how rude and arrogant you tend to be. You are one of the reasons why I focus less on online forums, do you have a way to communicate without coming off like a complete "fool".

Secondly, you always seem to think that you are smarter than just about everyone else out here. Come down to Earth and have a reality check.

Besides, even those of us that may think we know a topic, owe it to others to teach and not act like "asses". You must be a very lonely person or have found some poor soul to marry you because you seem like a "dictator" and a mean human being.

NOW ONTO MY POINT.

My point was that while a country like America may have had a Great Depression, the Black community in general, is in a perpetual Great Depression. Now if you would put your arrogance and ego down and read the posting below, by a learned scholar, then put some common sense into the equation and put the Black experience into the equation/formula, you may just learn something. But I'm not expecting you to learn anything because as far as you go, you are God and the rest of us are your ignorant slaves. You are truly a sad excuse for a human.

--

British economist John Maynard Keynes argued in General Theory of Employment Interest and Money that lower aggregate expenditures in the economy contributed to a massive decline in income and employment that was well below the average. In this situation, the economy might have reached a perfect balance, at a cost of high unemployment. Keynesian economists called for governments during times of economic crisis to pick up the slack by increasing government spending and/or cutting taxes.

Massive increases in deficit spending, new banking regulation, and boosting farm prices did start turning the U.S. economy around in 1933[citation needed], but it was a slow and painful process. The U.S. had not returned to 1929's GNP for over a decade and still had an unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940—down from 25% in 1932. The unemployment problem was not solved until the post-World War II decontrolling of the command wartime economy in 1946. The advent of World War II, when about 12 million men were forcibly drafted into the army and taken out of the labor market wasn't a true long-term "solution" to massive unemployment in the civilian marketplace, or to create real wealth for the masses with consumer goods. Multiple war good production programs reduced unemployment technically to under 2% and brought in millions of new workers to the labor markets, although as noted before it was strictly to making war goods (armaments) which only benefitted the war-making sector of the economy.

Inequality of wealth and income

Marriner S. Eccles who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November, 1934 to February, 1948 detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs, Beckoning Frontiers (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1951):

As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation s economic machinery. [Emphasis in original.] Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.

That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spending by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929.

The time came when there were no more poker chips to be loaned on credit. Debtors thereupon were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin that could be applied to the reduction of outstanding debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds and brought on what seemed to be overproduction, but was in reality underconsumption when judged in terms of the real world instead of the money world. This, in turn, brought about a fall in prices and employment.

Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus closing the circle in a continuing decline of prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds in the wages, salaries, and time of those employed. And thus again the vicious circle of deflation was closed until one third of the entire working population was unemployed, with our national income reduced by fifty per cent, and with the aggregate debt burden greater than ever before, not in dollars, but measured by current values and income that represented the ability to pay. Fixed charges, such as taxes, railroad and other utility rates, insurance and interest charges, clung close to the 1929 level and required such a portion of the national income to meet them that the amount left for consumption of goods was not sufficient to support the population.

This then, was my reading of what brought on the depression.

Keynesian economics has been largley debunked as impractical. The last major Keynesian was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada. While he was wildly popular, his Keynesian driven ideas built up Canada's debt so fast, that it is taking generations to pay it off.

Keynesian economics has been largley debunked as impractical. The last major Keynesian was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada. While he was wildly popular, his Keynesian driven ideas built up Canada's debt so fast, that it is taking generations to pay it off.


First off Lurker, I like talking to you. Because even when you disagree, you communicate rather than SHOUT.

Now regarding Canadian debt, America also has huge debt. Isn't it possible that there are other variables affecting the growth of debt?

For example; people often come up with so-called communist countries that have dictators and use this as the excuse to why Communism doesn't work. Similarly, isn't it possible that it's not Keynesian economics that's wrong, but the inappropriate use of other economic variables, etc?

I like talking to persons like you online, we get to take a discussion to a higher level, and come out the other side without "cussin". Anyway, keep talking with me generally, you're a straight shooter, but you're also civil, smart and have some very good ideas. :-) Don't get a big head nah, you ain't all that lol

Some of you have responded and probably haven't seen the posting that Ting-Um typed. See it below:

-----
Ting-um stated:

Here's my thoughts.

You are a jack*ss. Don't post anymore. Thank you.

...an economy is shared. Its not like one group can experience the economy and another group cannot - unless both groups are completely isolated. And in neither instance you presented are either groups completely isolated. You can have two groups having different experiences during a specific point in an economic cycle. But you cannot say that there is a recession for african americans while whites are properous.
--

Now regarding his rudeness, we can all agree that it's totally unnecessary!
Regarding his effort at economic dialog: a) He is attempting to describe the economy of a country without paying any regarding to microeconomic forces. Besides, he may not be aware that there is a Black economy, etc. And yes, there are people, even more intelligent than Ting-um (lol) who find that Black people in America, have been living an "economic Great Depression" for hundreds of years, even when America flourishes financially. That was the point, that we are able to extrapolate the economic condition of the Black community, evaluate it, and then see that the larger American economy often operates without regard for the upliftment of Black people! In fact, there is a strong argument that the larger American economy benefits from the negative state of the Black economy/community ($billion for jails in rich/suburban communities, low income jobs for poorly educated Blacks, crime leads to larger police forces, jobs for lawyers, etc. On a global scale, it could be argued that the Bus_h administration and most American administrations get to funnel $Trillions of dollars to large interest groups (military plan manufacturers, etc) by allowing terr_orism to exist!

I await some constructive responses that can force us all to grow and defend our positions. Hey, we may all learn from each other. No need for us to fight or "sit on high horses and cuss and scream". Anyway, we'll see....

Dese Bahamasign threads will implode before noon today! IMO! :hammer:

going back to bed to get over my overhang!

It hit me like a ton of bricks yesterday. We all hear terms like recession, depression, etc, and never think that it's possible for a country to be in one economic state while a specific group (Black, Muslim, Christian, Women, etc) could be in another state.
I haven't completed researching and reflecting on this but here's what I presently find:
Use America as an example: While America as awhole may be experiencing prosperity or a recession, the Black community (for example) has been in a depression ever since slavery!! Thus Black unemployment is always high, and all the signs that the larger American community saw during the "great depression" are in the Black community continually. Now, one must then ask: How could a country be in one economic state, but a specific ethnic group be in another. My thoughts are when there is inequality in a country or region, the natural extension of this is for the controlling group to establish economic guidelines and principles that keep them empowered at the expense of the oppressed group (imperial economics).
Similarly in the Bahamas even when the economy is strong, the Haitian community tend to be in perpetual financial flux and state of crisis.
Any thoughts and feedback would be greatly appreciated. Email me at: DoctorCreator@Yahoo.com
I've got a hectic 3 months or so ahead of me. Popped in to put this concept in your brain and hopefully, you'll reflect on it, and in your wisdom, bring fresh ideas and empowerment to our globe!!
Love

This is a crock of BS if I ever heard one.:tdown:

This is a crock of BS if I ever heard one.:tdown:

Thanks for your eloquent response :-)

Now, would you consider posting something substantive that could lead to debunking my thoughts/theory.

Besides crock, there's nothing for me to learn from your post.

Often you post rather thoughtful responses, and I wish that you'd do that same here.

Humanity needs to discuss matters and respond factually as opposed to just blanket "ad hominem" responses. No one learns a thing unless you're willing to add to the conversation.

Here's my thoughts.
You are a jack*ss. Don't post anymore. Thank you.
...an economy is shared. Its not like one group can experience the economy and another group cannot - unless both groups are completely isolated. And in neither instance you presented are either groups completely isolated. You can have two groups having different experiences during a specific point in an economic cycle. But you cannot say that there is a recession for african americans while whites are properous.
Thanks Ting-um, as always the voice of reason. I get so tired of this "the white man does keep us poor Negroes" down crap and it's just an excuse for us to not look to ourselves.

Thanks Ting-um, as always the voice of reason. I get so tired of this "the white man does keep us poor Negroes" down crap and it's just an excuse for us to not look to ourselves.

The point of my posting wasn't simply that white man this or that. The facts are that the world is controlled by the Imperial countries.

This doesn't mean that those that are oppressed cannot rise up. That's what MLK, Malcolm X, Patrice Lamumba were stating also.

So, am I saying that there is extreme racism and economic and political forces at work to hold poor and Black people down. Hell to the yes.

But I'm also agreeing that if Black people united they could overcome it all. However, like the Palestinians, it will be a hard struggle with many casualties and most Black leaders either don't want to fight for their people, or they are educated but brainwashed or simply want the $$$.

In closing, yes things could change, but only when we change things. So I agree, but many of you don't want to admit that the economic system in the West is designed to oppress. It's called Western Democracy.

Long live the revolution; power to the people, by any means necessary!!!

Keynesian economics has been largley debunked as impractical. The last major Keynesian was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada. While he was wildly popular, his Keynesian driven ideas built up Canada's debt so fast, that it is taking generations to pay it off.

Keynesianism worked too well.....it DID help people, to help themselves. No one in the enlightened world, thought that Keynesianism, was going to last forever- in fact, it is a model for hard times.
:)

Thanks for your eloquent response :-)
Now, would you consider posting something substantive that could lead to debunking my thoughts/theory.
Besides crock, there's nothing for me to learn from your post.
Often you post rather thoughtful responses, and I wish that you'd do that same here.
Humanity needs to discuss matters and respond factually as opposed to just blanket "ad hominem" responses. No one learns a thing unless you're willing to add to the conversation.

Please refer to Tingum and hobo's responses. What more can a reational person say? I agree totally and will not be baited into participating in a worhtless debate on this subject,nuff said :dunce:

MALWARE!!!!!! :hammer::hammer:

It hit me like a ton of bricks yesterday. We all hear terms like recession, depression, etc, and never think that it's possible for a country to be in one economic state while a specific group (Black, Muslim, Christian, Women, etc) could be in another state.
I haven't completed researching and reflecting on this but here's what I presently find:
Use America as an example: While America as awhole may be experiencing prosperity or a recession, the Black community (for example) has been in a depression ever since slavery!! Thus Black unemployment is always high, and all the signs that the larger American community saw during the "great depression" are in the Black community continually. Now, one must then ask: How could a country be in one economic state, but a specific ethnic group be in another. My thoughts are when there is inequality in a country or region, the natural extension of this is for the controlling group to establish economic guidelines and principles that keep them empowered at the expense of the oppressed group (imperial economics).
Similarly in the Bahamas even when the economy is strong, the Haitian community tend to be in perpetual financial flux and state of crisis.
Any thoughts and feedback would be greatly appreciated. Email me at: DoctorCreator@Yahoo.com
I've got a hectic 3 months or so ahead of me. Popped in to put this concept in your brain and hopefully, you'll reflect on it, and in your wisdom, bring fresh ideas and empowerment to our globe!!
Love

You dead wrong on the Haitian community.EVEN THOUGH THEY LIVE IN SHANTY TOWNS,you do not see any Haitians on the street here in the Bahamas homeless.The majority of Haitians have more money on them than what teeth you have in ya mouth.