Reply #48: I do not believe those are legacies directly from slavery, no.

[Rhythm and Blue]

Those are legacies of American xenophobia. When the Irish came over, they were treated more-or-less the same as their African-American contemporaries. Same with the Polish; same with the Italians. The difference is that a second-generation Irish immigrant does not appear any different from a seventh-generation American of English descent, whereas a fifth-generation African-American is still clearly distinguishable from that English-American

I already stated how I account for economic disparities. First, white people give preferential hiring to white people, depressing the financial situation of black people. Secondly, white people and black people begin living in different communities, due to mutual distrust (though with the "blame" lying far more heavily on whites than on blacks). This results in not only individual black poverty, but (crucially) regional poverty, in which blacks have fewer economic opportunities, as their local economies are absolutely shattered. Thirdly, whites pick up their houses and businesses and leave, further harming black communities. All the while, black educational opportunities are lower, at first because of segregation and later because of decreased tax revenue in black-dominated areas due to the above.

A one-time cash payout would not solve anything at all. Inner-city poverty is systematic. Suppose you give a black man $100,000. Suppose he then pays off his credit card bills, maybe buys a car, maybe buys a television, maybe socks some away for his kid's education, maybe improves his house. The first three just end up with the black guy having a new luxury and the white guy in another state having his money. The fourth is a benefit for him and his family, especially if his kid becomes a lawyer or businessman and practices in his old community--however, putting money towards African-American scholarships is more efficient. The last helps his community if he hires local workers--however, a more efficient way to solve *this* problem is to lower tax rates in impoverished areas for local businesses, provide preferential hiring for city contracting to local workers instead of large firms, and to increase the state burden on education to make up for the loss in revenue.

Now, all those uses of that guy's payout will result in a brief uptick in tax revenue, helping local schools. But a more efficient way of helping local schools would be, again, increasing the state burden on paying for education, and lowering local burdens. I'm honestly not sure why we still allow the poorest areas to have the worst schools. And, to briefly digress, why are schools purchasing all their services from nationwide vendors? Better to hire local businesses (provide a bit more funding to cover the cost difference) and kill two birds with one stone. Stimulating local business will increase local tax revenues in the long term, after all.

And no matter what the guy does with his money, for many it's probably gone within a few years; many, many lottery winners, athletes, and pop stars simply increase luxury spending end up destitute within a few years after the cash stops coming in, no matter their race or their background. Putting the money that would have gone towards reparations into an Urban Development Fund of some sort, and using that to fund inner-city business development, crime-elimination programs, after-school activities, and scholarships would be a much better use of that money, and I would be completely behind such a program.

(on edit: I see you've yet again simply left after peppering me with questions.)