There’s a national debate in classrooms, courtrooms, at policy conferences, and at kitchen tables about what to do with economic disadvantaged American people, if anything at all.
Take note of the discussion and perspectives of Professor Lester Spence, on staff at Hopkins in Baltimore.
See – https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/bill-cosby-obama-and-mega-preachers-sold-economic-snake-oil-to-black-america
In short, there are many positive correlations between perspectives he espouses and the research posted herein.
Example — “things like downtown development.”
These things just don’t happen without wealthy people striving to ‘be perfect’ and put their cash to work in local communities.
Example — “What’s wrong with entrepreneurialism? LS: Empirically speaking, it doesn’t tend to work.”
It doesn’t work because in part, you often need an external source for funding, aka, HNW people who are willing to ‘be perfect’.
Example — “There are a whole host of rhetorics that become naturalized, making it seem as if black poverty is solely the product of black decisions.”
This perspective is highlighted here.
Wherein, the perspective is shared throughout pH14 Plan that cultural appropriation still often leads to poverty, and that American poverty has little to do with ‘solely’ looking at decisions of economically disadvantaged people. Instead, reduction of the volume and proportion of economically disadvantaged people requires and is largely dependent on HNW people who independently choose (not forced) to willingly ‘be perfect’.
Also shared here:
Wherein, it is described why we do not focus on ‘making money’ — in part because we are not allowed to “make” it. A Federal Reserve Board controls money supply. They then issue it to banks who per public discourse do not equally distribute the resources. Instead, it would appear that historic disparities remain entrenched even in 21st century America.
Example — “Again, it argues that the reason they are at the bottom end economically is solely the function of culture. It has no structural dynamics at all.”
As written all throughout pH14 Plan, the ‘structural’ component is broadly labeled ‘philanthropic investing’. See here:
Example — “Bible as a kind of self-help guide and promote the prosperity gospel,”
LS harshly critiques the ethic he ascribes to certain large churches that the Bible says ‘get rich’ for the sake of ‘getting rich’. Fully agreed. Instead, if anyone is rewarded financially for their talents and gifts and abilities, Jesus clearly instructs such persons to “sell everything and give it to the poor”. Jesus’ view of economic development certainly depends on the willing participation of HNW people who have been willing to acclimate themselves over time to the concept of benefits of mobilizing their resources.
Example — “People who work in churches don’t know how to deal with poverty”
The same can be said for most non-profits, that often actually depend on the perpetuation of poverty. Note, Jesus didn’t say sell what you have and give “food, clothing, or housing” to the poor. Certainly, there was no mandate from Jesus to raise taxes to provide a safety net of social services. Instead, Jesus issued a structurally different model: sell what you have, and give the cash to the poor. Churches and most non-profits do not operate like this. Again, see:
Yes, find viable mechanisms to give it all way if possible to low wealth American people directly, if for no other reason than because the U.S. government needs your service.
Example — “What that charismatic leadership cannot do is build deep, enduring institutions to build the political capacity of regular folks.”
The beauty of people like this 96-year old woman, is that she embodies the essence of “regular folks” who Spence describes are so critical. The vast majority of our work with pH14 Plan centers on identifying “regular folks” who quietly aim to identify contemporary and viable methodologies to implement the “be perfect” directive that coincidentally was originated by Jesus.
Example — “we need to connect the argument about state violence to a larger argument about economic violence.”
This message aligns with a long ago posted commentary pertaining to urban / suburban centers such as Baltimore and Ferguson.
Comparative Yield of Businesses Owned by Economically Disadvantaged People
…which says, the ROI of investing into enterprises owned by economically disadvantaged people, has more to do with pursuing the stabilization and sustainable growth of our great American civil society, more than it has to do with any actual finances themselves.