Newt Gingrich, 5G, China, and Capital: Nationalist policy doesn’t contribute to long-run Black community sustainability in the long run.

The Eye Catcher …

In an opinion piece posted earlier today, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia), proposed that the U.S. government provide for a national 5G wholesale network, constructed by a private party. The network would be “carrier-neutral”, according to Mr. Gingrich, and help the U.S. beat China in the race for 5G wireless dominance.

Mr. Gingrich and the Trump Administration are concerned that China through state-subsidized firms such as Huawei and ZTE will be able to continually extend their smartphone and telecommunications manufacturing ability globally.

Mr. Gingrich sees a number of benefits flowing to America as a result of a nationalized 5G network, including the spurring of microelectronics manufacturing; accelerated deployment of next-generation networks; and the demonstration that China’s dominance in 5G is not a foregone conclusion.

It amounts to a nationalism play … that benefits capital

Based on his article, Mr. Gingrich would like to see a national 5G network in place so that telecommunications device and hardware makers can test drive new offerings.  If Huawei, ZTE, or other Chinese firms can get their product to global markets first, the United States will be in a hard place competition wise, trying to put 5G technology in the markets of multiple countries that may not have a problem with ZTE’s relatively inexpensive Android phones, subsidized, in part, by the Chinese government.

The above point is made in an article by Vlad Savov in The Verge.  Citing data from Canalys, a market analysis firm, Mr. Savov describes Europe as a market ready for price competitive wireless products offered by Huawei and sister Chinese firms Oppo and Xiaomi.  The political antipathy held by the United States toward China is not apparent in Europe with roughly 32% of smartphone shipments to Europe coming from Chinese firms.

But let’s suppose that a nationalized 5G network was built in the U.S. Who would gain the most from Mr. Gingrich’s proposal? I believe the greatest benefit would go to the wealthy, primarily those holding shares in telecommunications companies, other internet core companies, and internet edge companies.  A significant number of Blacks would not see the spoils that would flow to shareholders.  The vast majority of Blacks do not own stocks directly.

According to 2002 data by the Social Security Administration, the percentage of Blacks owning stocks directly was approximately nine percent compared to 36% of whites.  By 2014, the percentage of Blacks owning stocks had fallen.  According to data collected by the United States Census Bureau, approximately 5.2% of Blacks owned stocks or mutual fund shares.

Reduced access to components means greater difficulty for Black communities to innovate …

Google Fiber has been in Atlanta for a few years now, but they never deployed in my neighborhood which has a high Black population. Atlanta has its share of Black engineers as well as a few Black entertainers, businessmen, and investors capable of developing and deploying innovative communications technology.  Ideally, Black communities like those in Atlanta should be designing their own technologies, especially given their access to local teaching and research universities.  But if a nationalist policy toward Chinese telecommunications manufacturers limits access to affordable devices and hardware, that would only put a strain on Black community capacity to be resilient, self-sufficient, and sustainable.

Conclusion …

With all the talk of the negative impact of the digital divide on the Black urban community, “telecommunications nationalism” does not serve Black people well. Telecommunications nationalism does not send more capital to Black communities and does not facilitate technological sustainability.  It is not a policy that Blacks should get on board with.

 

Advertisements

Gentrification is white nationalism that may be vanquished by monetary and fiscal policy

The Eye Catcher …

This morning I listened a bit to an interview conducted on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal with Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.  Ms. Clarke’s purpose for appearing on the show was to discuss the rise in white nationalism in the United States.  As I listened to the discussion I found no new foundation for Ms. Clarke’s concern.  The concerns regarding white nationalism, as expressed by Ms. Clarke and other civil rights advocates, have always come from a place of fear, pain, and suffering: the fear of physical violence perpetrated by a racial majority on a racial minority; the pain of past and perceived current wrongs; and the suffering endured as a result of discriminatory practices in housing, financial services, the labor markets, and the legal system.

Another eye catcher was the diverse group of constituents Ms. Clarke’s organization represents.  About 25 years ago, I visited a friend who worked for Lawyers’ Committee.  She proudly showed me around the office, sharing a little of the history of the organization’s founding; sharing with me that its roots stemmed back to a civil rights initiative by the late President John F. Kennedy to strengthen the legal protections for black people.  That initiative seems to have changed and all for the worse for blacks.

Today, the Committee’s agenda seems to have expanded.  Their agenda has broadened to include every group under the sun that claims to be marginalized: white women, the LGBTQ community, Asians, etc.  I would hazard an ironic guess that if you looked at the wealth accumulated by each of these groups in comparison to blacks that blacks would still be on the bottom of the totem poll.

When this expanded agenda combines with the factors of fear, pain, and suffering, they create a weak platform from which to launch any initiative toward black empowerment.  The platform is weak because of the limits it places on blacks. Fear does not embolden. It causes you to hesitate.  Worse, it may cause you to rely on others, particularly those others who claim that they, too, suffer from inequality, but whose agenda, history, and lineage differ from yours so drastically that when they, these other groups, see progress, they will quickly abandon you.

Most times I believe this “We are in the same boat” argument is nothing but a delay tactic, keeping the weaker group distracted long enough until the weaker group is not even left with crumbs.

Blacks are too easily distracted by emotional buzzwords ….

Groups like the Lawyers’ Committee, National Urban League, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have played expertly on the fear, pain, and suffering of the black community.  They have defined “white nationalism” in emotion-invoking terms, where minorities are expected to shudder in the face of hateful language or crime.

It is expected that threats of physical harm would invoke fear, but what social justice organizations and white liberals fail to accept is that blacks can effectively defend themselves against white nationalism, and that the United States was founded on the principle of acquisition by discovery where European philosophy was deemed so superior that indigenous tribes in North America could be cleared away like so much brush.  White nationalism is global and has been handed down over the last 520 years from the original European settlers of North America to their descendants via various institutions that create the platform for this current political economy.

Yes, white nationalism is about members of the “white race” asserting their dominion over a particular political and geographical space.  But if this behavior is so offensive to blacks to where changes in that behavior is requested, then becoming emotional about whites yelling hateful words and expressing a desire for a “whites only” country won’t get blacks very far.  It is time for blacks to apply critical thinking and develop and promote legal and public policy frameworks for addressing white nationalism.

Gentrification is white nationalism …

One form of white nationalism that Blacks can cut their teeth on is the concept of gentrification.  Gentrification is more than just whites and other non-blacks moving into formerly black neighborhoods.  Gentrification is the result of favorable monetary policy that has driven down interest rates making cheap credit available while increasing the value assets such that these assets support the issue of new debt.  Rising home values and the increased down payments required for mortgages squeeze blacks out of home ownership.  The result is the creation of an environment where whites can leverage cheap capital to increase wealth through property ownership while blacks are forced, via higher property values, rents, and property taxes, to move out.

Toward a legal framework to battle poor monetary policy … 

Rather than having existing black members of Congress lead fruitless emotional belly-ache charges in the media about affordable housing, private citizens should explore and initiate where feasible the legal action necessary for modifying how the Federal Reserve, the Congress, and the Executive are regulating the economy.

For example, the Full Employment Act of 1946 as amended by the Humphrey Hawkins Act of 1978 places the responsibility of managing the American political economy in the hands of the Federal Reserve, the President, and the Congress.  Are these institutions meeting their goals pursuant to the Act? Have fiscal and monetary policy as implemented by the Federal Reserve, the President, and the Congress resulted in increased burden on black citizens?  Should there be remedies?

Conclusion: It will take bravery …

The current initiatives by so called civil rights groups are not aggressive enough.  They are driven by emotion and aim more for symbolism than substantive results.  A more robust legal approach to wealth creation is necessary if blacks are to carve out a sustainable economic niche in America.

 

 

Blacks need a new political law game

The political battle between the Executive and the Congress has been intense to say the least over the last twenty-seven months since Donald Trump took office.  With post-Mueller report hearings ramping up next week, the saga only promises to continue way into campaign season.

My friends and family have expressed varying degrees of interest, with a significant number of opinions fueled more by emotion and less by critical thinking.  For example, the constant reference to “collusion”, a term that has no legal meaning, is disconcerting because it provides an example of how people are ignoring the particulars (even when readily available for examination) and rolling with the globs of misinformation thrown onto the plate most times by the mainstream media.

Black congressional leadership wasting political power …

What should also be disturbing is how two of the highest ranking blacks in the Congress, Maxine Waters and Elijah Cummings, are spearheading the charge in the impeachment debate.  Their distaste for the sitting president is evident, but what is less evident is how the use of a potent political law instrument as impeachment is supposed to translate into any increase in political power, wealth, or capital for black people.

If anything, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has expressed caution about pursuing impeachment, appreciating the argument from some inside her party that pursuing impeachment could have a negative impact on the Democrats’ ability to oust Donald Trump from the Oval Office in November 2020.  Mrs. Pelosi’s hesitancy on impeachment should have provided Ms. Waters and Mr. Cummings an opening to show leadership and go against the impeachment grain, not because it would be in line with Speaker Pelosi’s sentiment, but as a signal that the energy expenditure behind impeachment does nothing for their prime constituency: black people.

When you are marginalized, you agitate …

With at least 51 voting members in the U.S. House, blacks in the Congress are in a position to be the pivotal swing vote on a number of issues including impeachment. Numerically, black members of the House, where articles of impeachment would originate, could clog the wheel by holding back approximately 20% of the Democratic vote.  With this leverage, black congressmen could attempt concessions from either the House leadership or from President Trump, though it is less likely that the black caucus would try to negotiate with the President for fear of becoming a pariah in the Democratic Party.

Therein lies a telling dilemma. If the premier block of black congressmen cannot leverage numerical strength without fear of reprisal, what good is their strength?  Another irony is that for a group of congressman that represent a marginalized group, their fear of marginalization within Congress does not put them in a position to do more for their black constituents.

Maybe the answer is to stay outside the box …

On the other hand, maybe blacks, particularly those who embrace their status as marginalized, need an approach to political law that allows them to carve out their own independent niche; one that unapologetically finds the seams or openings in the political economy in order to access capital or create substantive platforms for constructing true communities. Current black leadership is too afraid to do that.