Brother, are you a Republican?

The below article was written by Bro. Cedric Muhammad, the publisher of BlackElectorate.com, on August 10, 2005.



"Brother, are you a Republican?", was the question I heard from a Black man on my left, with a hat on, leaning on the counter, as I handed my money to the store clerk. The question came as I purchased a copy of The Wall St. Journal in a small Black town. Incidentally, it took me six months of lobbying this store, in between travels, before finally persuading it to begin carrying the most influential financial newspaper in America and probably the world. They now get two copies each day, and usually only one is purchased. This store is the only one in this town of over 50,000 people, that carries The Wall St. Journal.

"No Brother, I am not a Republican. I am an Independent. Why do you ask?", I replied. "Oh, I was just asking because most Black people who buy the Wall St. Journal are Republican," he answered, with a Caribbean accent. I told him, "I think every Black person should read The Wall St. Journal." Detecting his accent, I asked him, "Where are you and your family from, Brother?" He replied, "Haiti." I said "Whether you agree with its editorial page or not, the Wall St. Journal covers a lot of what goes on in Haiti's economy and the things that affect it in America and all over the world. You should read The Wall St. Journal and learn more of what goes on in politics, economics and finance that affects your country."

I then went off and rattled some statistics I knew about the fall in the Haitian currency, the gourde, how much the country had in dollar reserves, how much it needed to purchase imports, and some of what was affecting the Caribbean economies. The Brother looked at me in apparent amazement and gratitude and told me, "You are right. I am glad to see that young Brothers like you know what is going on in Haiti." We wished each other a nice day. I have been thinking about that exchange ever since it took place, almost a month ago.

This is not the first time I have been approached like this by a Black person. For years I have been buying The Wall St. Journal, and sporadically I am questioned about my political leanings. I try to use these instances as opportunities to teach about the relevance an understanding of financial markets and economics has for our everyday condition, our ambitions, aspirations and our culture. So as soon as I can spot what interests the inquisitor, I make a connection to how learning about finance and economics affects what they care about. Invariably it works, whether the subject is Hip-Hop, Haiti, or Hollywood. To me, reading The Wall St. Journal and other forms of financial media has little to do with partisan affiliation.

Then, of course, there are the instances where a White person sees me reading a financial newspaper and they become curious about my motivation for doing so. An interesting example of this took place around five years ago when I was on a train from Washington headed to Philadelphia and was reading a copy of Investor's Business Daily. A White gentleman seated near me saw me reading the paper and with great enthusiasm struck up a conversation about what I was reading, why, and for how long. I answered a very little bit of what he asked before getting to the bottom of his investigation. It turns out that the man I was speaking to was John Berlau, a writer for Investor's Business Daily. And we talked for over an hour about politics, economics and the Black community. He followed me around in the Philadelphia train station to keep the conversation going. He too, was amazed that a young Black person knew as much as a I did about the subject. We kept in touch for the next year or so and would speak and e-mail off and on. Last Monday morning I was very pleased to hear Star, of The Star and Buc Wild morning show, state that he had great respect for Investor's Business Daily and had just purchased a copy of it. He then recommended it to his audience.

Financial literacy is not just an issue in Black America. As anyone seriously involved in the financial media, business academia, or politics can tell you, people of all races and colors in this country have problems understanding the stock market, financial instruments, economic statistics, and the role the Federal Reserve plays in America's political system. But, because of some of the unique circumstances and events in the history of Black people in America, the problem is especially acute, within the Black community. I have written about this over the last couple of years, frequently referencing an excerpt of an interview of Minister Louis Farrakhan conducted by Minister Jabril Muhammad, to make a point about the fact that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught that Business was one of three sciences that Whites did not ever desire for Blacks to be taught. In personal research that I have conducted at the Library of Congress, I have found articles that refer to this fact, particularly in the banking business. I have an article from a newspaper in the late 1800s that mentions how out of all of the disciplines pertaining to business, banking was the most important and last field that Blacks were maliciously kept out of and prevented from learning about.

I thought about all of this yesterday, as I watched CNBC, waiting for the news of the Federal Reserve announcement regarding interest rates. As I watched nothing but White men and women discuss this important decision, I wondered how many Black people, aside from financial professionals, were even aware of what was happening. I wondered how much of an impact my consistent attention to Federal Reserve monetary policy at BlackElectorate.com was having on our viewers. I thought about some things that I could do in the future to help drive this and other points home about the need for greater literacy, and its practical utility in the worlds of personal, private, and public finance.

So, after watching some analysis on CNBC after the Federal Reserve announced that it would be raising interest rates for the tenth consecutive time, I watched Kudlow and Company and Mad Money - two programs that I have publicly recommended at BlackElectorate.com, for specific reasons. And then I thought of some other sources of good information for Blacks interested in in increasing their financial literacy to read. What mixture of materials could a person read for one year that would not only make them financially literate but in a way that is relevant and applicable to their people and personal and professional ambition?

I thought that the following routine, regime and syllabus - combined properly, for a full year, along with some important supplemental material - could lift a person with no knowledge of private and public finance not only into financial literacy but into a level of mastery and professional and entrepreneurial success that would support self improvement and community development:

- Regular reading of the USA Today business section, Investor's Business Daily, The Wall St. Journal, and Black Enterprise magazine

- A study of the Economic Blueprint of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad contained within Message To The Blackman; and a study of Powernomics written by Claude Anderson

- Consistent reference to "Business: The Ultimate Resource" encyclopedia.

- A study of The Secret World Of Money by Andrew Gause; The Way The World Works by Jude Wanniski; The Jewish Phenomenon by Steven Silbiger; and The Force of Finance by Reuven Brenner

- A Study of the Music Business and Hollywood finance

- Regular viewing of Kudlow and Company and Mad Money

- Regular Reading Of Michelle Singletary's , "The Color Of Money" column in The Washington Post"

So, I have decided that we will be updating and bringing back Black Electorate Economics University, with a unique emphasis on personal, private, and public finance; entrepreneurship; and community development and their unity.

Expect an announcement soon...





Cedric Muhammad

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Economics-less Socialism

For over a decade, I have been actively involved in issues of economics in terms of education, discussions, research, debates, writings, analysis etc. In this time period I have had the opportunity to interact with persons and groups of different schools of Economic thought. From Supply-Siders, Austrians, Libertarians to Socialists of varying degrees, I have interacted with them all and all do have valuable insights. As an African, however, I took an added interest in the Socialism advanced by Pan-Africanists. This brings me to the subject matter of this post.

If you read the heading of this post and thought to yourself “oxymoron” you would be right. After all, Socialism is an economic system so how could it be devoid of economics?

However, when it comes to the Socialism espoused by many in the Pan-African community or movement, from Africa to America, there seems to be a common feature – the lack of economics concepts.
I continue to be at a loss, how extensive and passionate discussions of Socialism and its merits relative to Capitalism, is rarely to never based on concepts of economics. In my interactions with Pan-African Socialists, from Accra to Harlem, concepts such as Supply and Demand, Money, Prices, Capital, Markets, Labor and Unemployment among others are only mentioned as a means to demonstrate what they perceive to be the fatal flaws of Capitalism. But they do not utilize these and other economic concepts in their arguments for Socialism.
It is as if, they actually believe these concepts to be the exclusive preserve of Capitalism and have no role in a Socialist economy. Rather, their preoccupation is on promoting what they believe is the end result of Socialism – a state of utopia where people live in harmony and contentment. But the means of achieving this state of utopia by understanding and applying economic concepts to an economy is not of importance.

How, for example, do they intend to set prices or wages? If they engage in International trade, how is the exchange rate set? How is unemployment, inflation, deflation or the cost of healthcare dealt with? What about the aged, the sick and disabled who cannot work, where will the resources to cater to these groups come from?

They simply do not provide a framework of economics through which these and other issues will be tackled.

Now, just to be clear, this is not about the fake and superficial debate of which is better, Socialism or Capitalism. I don’t believe in artificial dilemmas, especially, since in this case the fact that not a single exclusively Capitalist or Socialist country exists, puts an end to that debate.

The tendency, however, to completely ignore or to grossly downplay the need to incorporate concepts of economics to support ones embrace of an economic system, in my view, is a symptom of confusion.
The term Socialism when used by a Pan-Africanist, is often times a misnomer
Prof. Kwame Gyekye of the University of Ghana gives brilliant analysis of this when he writes in Tradition & Modernity:

“African Socialism suggests a deep conviction that the African advocates of the ideaology of Socialism understand it in terms of the original sense of the latin word socialis, which means “belonging to companionship, or fellowship”… This meaning of Socialism is unambiguously social or ethical but has hardly anything to do directly with an economic arrangement, such as a centrally planned economy”

The use of the term socialism, by Pan-Africanists, is then not in the sense of a system of economics which requires knowledge and application of intricate economic concepts but rather as a socio-ethical ideology.

In the name of Aid (Addendum)

When I wrote my last blog entitled “In the Name of Aid” I thought I had sufficiently covered that topic and that a revisit of that topic would not be necessary for some time to come. How wrong I was. It turns out, there is another interesting dimension to the Aid saga.
According to a new report by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) - a prominent Think Tank that monitors international arms transfers- 90% of Air Cargo Companies with links to arms trafficking have also been used by the UN, Western Countries and International Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to transport humanitarian aid.

The report singles out the Sudan as the worst case where many of the air cargo companies are owned by the country’s political and military class who are profiting from both the war and the humanitarian efforts. In Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, humanitarian agencies regularly use air cargo companies owned by Warlords involved in mining activities.
In Somalia, Dyncorp – an American private security company – which is contracted by the US government has used an air cargo company accused of transporting arms to Al-Shabab, an extremist militia with alleged ties to Al-Qaeda.

The question which, as far as I know, the report did not ask is “where do these arms come from?”

In the Name of Aid

No continent is, perhaps, as closely associated with the term – Aid, as Africa is. I am even convinced that the ‘A’ in ‘AID’ stands for Africa (Smile). From Live Aid to Band Aid to USA for Africa to Bi-lateral to Multi-lateral Aid, Africa has received it all. In fact, an entire industry of Non-Profit Organizations, is sustained and a source of employment for millions of people worldwide, on the basis of African Aid. By some estimates, since the 1970s close to $1 Trillion has been transferred to Africa in the form of Aid. The proponents of Aid argue that Aid helps alleviate poverty, supplements national budgets, and even facilitates economic growth and development.
Certainly, Aid has provided Africa with short term benefits and many of the Aid workers and agencies operate from genuine motivations and concerns.

However, after decades of Aid, the proportion of Africans living in squalor and abject poverty is too great to let the issue of Aid pass by without a thorough scrutiny of its effectiveness and moral foundations.
The concept of Aid is advanced by resorting to arguments of morality and when that is insufficient it is clothed in questionable theories of development economics.
In terms of its moral basis, the question that needs to be asked is what should a moral compass place greater value on – a just or moral motivation or a just or moral end result? More importantly, what about having good or moral motivations behind an act when available evidence suggests that the act may even contribute to an evil condition?

One need only look at the quality of governance in Africa to understand how Aid undermines its own intentions. Large percentages of African national budgets are funded by Aid. For instance, many national healthcare budgets are less than 50% funded through internal resources the rest comes from international funding like aid. Other budgets like education and social services have similar funding ratios. This situation transfers government accountability from the electorate to donors.
In addition, aid effectively serves as a form of subsidy of government incompetence.
The need for competence is greatly reduced since the lack of results and the inability to provide minimal levels of basic services is concealed. African governments and Non-Profit agencies are so used to Aid that they claim it with a defiant sense of entitlement. When Pres. Obama recently made public his $63 Billion Global Health budget, health activists groups expressed their disappointment with the amount.

Nonkosi Kumalo of the Treatment Action campaign said:

"The broken promises and skewed priorities of governments and
donors have reduced the right to health and access to treatment to
unattainable rhetoric. In the last few months, we have seen
trillions of dollars spent on financial 'bailouts' to stimulate
economic recovery…a tiny portion of this sum could have bought quality,
sustainable healthcare for millions of people."

Said Paula Akugizibwe of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern
Africa (ARASA):

"We need to ensure that African lives do not become
a silent casualty of the global financial downturn. Our lives are
not cheap or expendable. We expect health to be prioritised over
weapons, sports and lavish politics."

The above sentiments, in my view, are quite representative of the sense of entitlement that aid recepients and activists harbor. African leaders, not Western leaders, should be held responsible for the deplorable conditions under which Africans live. These leaders have direct responsibility to improve living standards, provide basic amenities and ensure security, afterall, these are the very things they swore they would deliver during their electoral campaigns. Is it not to provide these very things, that taxes are insituted? More importantly, is it not to provide these very things that aid has been given for decades and still these amenities are in short supply if present at all?

The country now called Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as Zaire), in 1982 had accumulated a foreign debt of $5 Billion, whilst the then President Mobutu Seseko had a personal fortune of about $4 Billion. Where do you think Zaire’s Aid went?

All of these evil conditions all come about in the name of Aid.

Will Obama "Change" Africa Policy too?

President Obama campaigned and probably won the election on the basis of his promise and vision of change. He eloquently painted a picture of what ‘Change’ looked like and Americans fell in love with that mental picture. Within his first 100 days, Pres. Obama has taken America’s domestic and foreign policies in directions that do contrast with the administration of Pres. George Bush. However, one area of his foreign policies that post 100 days still, in substance, resemble the policies of his predecessor, is his Africa Policy.
Granted, his nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Mr Johnnie Carson was only officially sworn in two days ago on Wednesday the 6th of May. Thus, one could argue that an assessment of his Africa policy should now commence.
However, I do think that certain events, within these first 100 days, have permitted us to catch a glimpse of what Obama policy toward Africa, might look like, and it doesn’t not materially differ from that of Pres. Bush, in my opinion.

The Somali “Piracy” issue is a case in point. Certainly, armed robbery in high seas of US vessels is an act against US interests. But the story is much bigger than that, although mainstream media has not made sufficient ‘noise’ about the untold other side of the story.
I find it hard to believe that Pres. Obama, being one with a probing mind and a careful examiner of all facts available, would be unaware that since the early 90s reports of toxic dumping and illegal fishing have been taking place off the coast of Somalia by Western and Asian nations. These nefarious and clandestine acts, have for nearly 20 years, threatened Somali fishermen’s ’ source of livelihood and caused diseases.

Understandably, timing is of great importance and when an American Captain is being held hostage with guns pointed to his head, that is not the time for a history lesson of geo-political events. But, the American Captain is now freed, and the issue of “Piracy” is being talked about by all the media pundits. Now, is the time for the untold story to be injected into the public debate as an issue that needs to be addressed as part of the solution.

There is also no sign that the AFRICOM idea has been scrapped. I intend to write about what specific changes I would like to see the Obama administration effect, in my subsequent postings.

What Obama’s policy toward Africa will look like is not clear. At this point, we can only make inferences, and the conclusion they lead me to is not change but continuity. But the jury is still out on this one.

World Conference Against Racism & Obama

The Durban Review Conference, which was held in Geneva, Switzerland generated a lot of buzz globally. This conference is of course, not a stranger to controversy. The first conference, which was called World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related Intolerance, was held in Durban, South Africa in 2001, and it too was mired in controversy.
At the center of the debate was language included in the document that singled out Israel and which resulted in Israel and the US to leave the conference. But that was then, under Pres. Bush.
Now, the US, under Pres. Obam,a, together with other Western Nations boycotted this year’s conference. This position by the Obama administration, of course, infuriated many, especially Blacks in America.

I have to admit, the irony in this matter, led me to initial disappointment as well. I am still disappointed but not for the reasons that others are.

However, after a more thorough scrutiny of the issues, especially the unspoken ones, my disappointment has waned.

Many in the African-American community, especially activists and grassroots organizations, were disappointed in Obama because they felt that the participation of the US, under an African-American President, should have been a given. They also felt disappointed because they perceived the decision to boycott the conference to be a result of the Obama administration succumbing to the objections of certain interest groups. I think both of these reasons form valid basis for disappointment.
However, one of the major reasons why my disappointment has waned is the gross exaggeration of the relevance and effectiveness of this conference to resolve the grievances of those who are still disappointed.

A major handicap of the strategies and methodologies employed by these many grassroots and activist groups is that they are stuck in the realm of symbolism. These groups seem to relish events where histrionics is not a means to a meaningful objective but an end in itself. The more virulent the rhetoric, the more ‘for the people’ one is perceived to be.
Never mind that a check list of concrete achievements for these ‘for the people’ individuals very rarely has any checks on it.
This brings me to the Review Conference against Racism. As much as the goals of the conference are noble and certainly relevant, its ability to move countries to enact domestic policies and affect social attitudes to eliminate or significantly reduce these ills is very close to if not completely zero. So, why so much fanfare about a conference with a lot of bark but no teeth?

Furthermore, Pres. Obama touched on a highly important but ignored truth, which I have personally found troubling about this conference. Pres. Obama noted that the conference, in part, was being conducted in a “hypocritical” manner. Like I stated, some of the grievances have merit and calls for more critical assessment of policies advanced by the US and Israel are appropriate. But, I cannot help but acknowledge the hypocrisy by some of the most vociferous leaders who sling the most accusations but preside over countries with some of the worst human, race, gender rights in modern times.

Yes, the US has a legacy of slavery and discrimination, the effects of which are evident even today. But even so, Blacks in America enjoy more rights, privileges, and societal inclusion than Blacks in Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Brazil or even Cuba! Blacks in America form only 12% of the population but now one of us has been elected President of the country. Blacks in America feature prominently in US society albeit with a heavy concentration in sports and entertainment. Compare this to Brazil, a country of 160 million people and has the largest Black population of any country outside of Africa. 50% of Brazil’s population is Black, yet blacks are almost totally absent from positions of power - from all levels of government, from congress, senate, the judiciary, the higher ranks of the civil service and the armed forces.

In Cuba, where by conservative estimates, 30% of the population is Black, they to experience discrimination and societal exclusion. The most lucrative sector in Cuba, the Tourism sector, is virtually the exclusive preserve of White Cubans. Black Cubans experience racial profiling, and a higher incarceration rate .
In the Middle East, Blacks and Women are treated as second class citizens, without a channel to transmit grievances. In Iran and Iraq, Blacks, referred to as Zanj (from which the Island Zanzibar derives its name) live in poverty, discrimination and segregation.

I could go on and list countries that are leading the charges against some countries at the conference but who themselves have worst records when it comes to dealing with and eliminating institutional racism, sexism and xenophobia.
As African-Americans, we need to stop giving passes and making excuses for leaders and countries who treat their Black, Female and minority populations with the same disdain that we encountered and fought against, just because that leader makes strong rhetorical attacks on the governent of America. The philosophy of “My enemy’s enemy is my friend” is a fallacious philosophy and even a hypocritical one if your enemy’s enemy is practicing the same type of discrimination you are rebelling against.

Ultimately, the conference has no real power, and in the end racism cannot be eliminated through a conference. Racism may always exist but the ability of racism to limit and confine the object of racism is only possible when that object is an economic underdog. Thus, our ‘escape’ from the restrictive effects of racism lie in our ability to create a parallel examples of healthy and functioning communities. This entails adopting the discipline required to obtain advanced education, start and expand businesses, set up indigenous pools of capital etc. All these conferences, where we gather to engage in verbal dramatics is nothing but Def Jam Revolution on HBO.

Obama vs Chavez: Sign of Change?

Obama’s “ Change “ slogan may be more far reaching than the campaign had foreseen. It will probably not be limited to a change in policies advanced by the Bush administration. There are a lot of things that will “change” because of Obama’s assumption of the US Presidency. A recent development on the international political scene will probably expose another resultant change in the making. A few days ago, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, in a reaction to Obama alluding to his alleged support of the Columbian FARC rebel group, likened Obama’s ‘odour’ to that of President Bush. In 2006, President Chavez spoke at the UN’s General Assembly after Bush addressed the body and, alluding to Bush being the devil, claimed that he could smell the odour of sulfur that Bush had left at the podium.
President Chavez, and other so-called leftist leaders such as Fidel Castro of Cuba and Lula Da Silva of Brazil, have long enjoyed the support of the global Black community in particular and liberals in general. So his comments about President Bush were amusing and probably garnered him more support among a section of the Black and Liberal communities.

This support grows out of their polemic rhetoric which is directed towards governments and individuals who, coincidentally, are also perceived by a large section of the Black community to have acted, on many occasions, against its group interests. Thus, these leaders and the Black and liberal communities have been in a marriage of convenience, brought together by little more than a perceived common ‘enemy’. Their respective conditions reinforced the relevance of the other.
The shallow nature of this relationship is evidenced by the fact that the section of the Black community that supports these leaders, know relatively little about them beyond their so-called revolutionary rhetoric. Their Black supporters have employed a single criterion by which these leaders have been assessed, namely, their ability to verbally confront the governments and individuals who are perceived to be maintaining the status quo that these Blacks and Liberals reject as undesirable. But although this ‘marriage’, at first glance, may seem strong and healthy it is in reality pretty precarious because it is based on perception and not necessarily reality. The relationship is fuelled and kept intact by the perception that both parties face a common enemy. But what happens when one side no longer shares in that perception?
To bring the point closer home, what happens to the ‘marriage’ when the face of Bush is replaced with the face of Obama?
Will these leaders continue to enjoy the more or less automatic and largely uncritical support of the Black community?
It was amusing and perhaps even felt a little empowering when President Chavez called President Bush the devil but now that he virtually called President Obama the same, I don’t think the Black community is laughing. Obama promised “Change” and change is sweeping through even this relationship. To be fair, Chavez, in his characteristically fitful manner, a few days after his negative remarks about Obama, did a 180 degree turn around and called Obama “a man with good intentions”

Clashes between Obama’s administration and leaders such as Chavez will more likely than not lead to a greater degree of scrutiny of Pres. Chavez’s rhetoric and broaden the criteria by which such leaders are assessed. Perhaps then, their leadership will not only be adjudged by how boldly they stand up against undesirable world leaders and governments within the international arena but also by the domestic conditions under which their respective peoples live. For in truth, the fundamental desire of any electorate or people is not to have a leader whose main pre-occupation is verbally tearing other leaders down rather than enacting policies that raise the peoples quality of life. Once the Black community begins to exercise greater scrutiny of these leaders, some stark realities will be exposed. For one thing, they will realize that in many of the countries which these leaders preside over, race relations are such that Blacks experience similar levels of marginalization and discrimination as their counterparts in America.
Take Cuba as an example. Although Fidel Castro has enacted several policies aimed at eliminating racism and the inequalities it produces, significant discrimination still endures even from the government. Castro's own Communist Party and government fall short on the race front. Only four recognizably black faces sit on the party's 21- member Political Bureau, and only two sit on the government's top body, the 39- member Council of Ministers. And yet, black faces populate Cuba's political prisons. Racial discrimination is also a significant reality in Venezuela and Brazil.

Obama’s win, I hope, will introduce a change in the way these leaders are viewed and assessed by the Black community.