BlackEconomics.org®
Purpose: To scrutinize three important economic considerations that should underlie Black Americans’ (Afrodescendants’) thought processes as we contemplate prospects for economic engagement with Afrikan People on the Continent.
Introduction
This “BlackEconomics.org Insight #3” features three elements:
- A novel approach for considering the economic health of nations. Instead of “real growth” (inflation adjusted) in gross domestic product (GDP), or the growth in income and wealth, we recommend a more nuanced or refined approach that differentiates between autonomously or naturally arising economic activity versus new economic output produced using Schumpeter’s “Creative Destruction” model.i
- A discussion of selected nations’ Current Account Balances vis-à-vis the Afrikan Continent and ask: “What does it mean for Black American (Afrodescendants)?
- Recognition of the forthcoming seasons of Worship, Thanksgiving, Joy, and Praise while taking a glimpse at the Road Ahead.
Assessing the Economic Health of Nations
As a setup for this first “BlackEconomics.org Insight #3” element, since Simon Kuznets and his team of economists developed a national economic accounting system during the late 1920s and early 1930s, most nations and their governments, enterprises, and households have relied on real GDP growth, and growth in incomes and wealth as metrics for identifying economies’ health. However, BlackEconomics.org’s recent emphasis on Western World reliance on a highly respected Schumpeterian model to drive growth clarifies that economic growth can be driven by a “creative-destructive” process. That is, existing goods can be destroyed to produce growth in output and, at a later point, output can be expanded further by reconstituting/rebuilding that which was destroyed.ii
In addition, inherent in a creative-destructive growth model is the likelihood that it may reflect considerable economic inefficiency. For example, we should enquire whether the destructive and creative aspects of the process reflect optimal timing; i.e., are the useful lives of the destroyed goods or assets fully exhausted (depreciated)? Also, is there coordination of the creative production process such that prices are optimal when rebuilding after the destruction? If Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” model reflects economic inefficiencies, then are there better, more economically efficient models for ensuring and/or accelerating growth? A logical answer is that there are more economically efficient processes; they may be similar to the Schumpeterian model; and they may also reflect operational timing factors that might limit their cost (economic) efficiency.
On the other hand, as opposed to clinging to fundamental features of the Schumpeterian model and adjusting the timing of economic activities ordered by the model to make them economically efficient, should we not consider inverting the Schumpeterian model altogether? Would the following outcomes be more productive and more economically efficient, ceteris paribus: e.g., economic policymakers promulgating economic policies that prohibit the production and consumption/use of products that are, in and of themselves, destructive? Only products that contribute favorably/positively to human wellbeing should be produced and sold. At least theoretically, such policies would increase output without producing negative spillovers.
Hence, this first “BlackEconomics.org Insight” element reveals that, as with evolutionary processes generally, we should continue to explore improved methods/metrics for assessing the economic health of nations.
Afrika’s Largest Beneficiaries
Continuing in the same economic vein, this second “BlackEconomics.org Insight” element enquires about the nation that is the largest “beneficiary” of the Afrikan Continent’s economic resources and operations from a Black American (Afrodescendant) perspective? For simplicity and tractability, we use the “Current Account Balance” (CAB) that is available in Balance of Payments or International Transactions statistics.iii The CAB reflects trade in goods and services and cross-border flows of primary and secondary receipts and payments.
It is common knowledge that the largest world economies are among the largest players in the Afrikan Continent’s economic game: China, the U.S., Germany, France, and Japan. China’s top role in Afrika is an artifact of its own path to modernity since U.S. President Richard Nixon’s visit in 1972. China requires vast quantities of raw materials from Afrika that it transforms into products and then sells them back to Afrikans. Although the U.S. has a long history of political and economic involvement in Afrika, it is a relatively recent widespread and deep player on the Continent. Today’s U.S. intensified economic engagement with Afrika commenced with Pres. Jimmy Carter, who established and strengthened ties with Afrika, in part, because of Black American (Afrodescendant) linkages with the Continent. Germany’s and France’s roles reflect vestiges of colonialism. Japan began, and subsequently intensified, its economic connections with Afrikan nations after it became a high-powered producer of some of the world’s highest quality and economically efficient manufactured goods during the 1970s and 1980s: e.g., vehicles and other equipment that was and is used to produce health, entertainment, communications, and information technology services.
Without over simplifying and limiting our references to the top two players (China and the U.S.), these nations report that for 2024, China’s Current Account Balance vis-à-vis the Continent was $163.8 billion (unadjusted for inflation).iv The U.S., on the other hand, reported a Current Account Balance vis-à-vis Afrika of -$29.5 billion (unadjusted for inflation) for 2024.v This wide chasm in outcomes, with China seemingly getting the better end of the bargain as part of its “economic cooperation” with Afrikan nations relative to the U.S. should be considered on a deeper level. For the U.S., the 2024 “deficit” resulted mainly from a high volume of Secondary Income flows in the form of transfer payments ($30.5 billion; most likely resulting from sizeable official transfers from the U.S. Government via grants, development assistance, and other types of aid flows to developing African nations). China’s $163.8 billion Current Account “surplus” vis-à-vis the Continent, however, results primarily from its large goods trade surplus. For 2024, China’s goods trade surplus was $249.8 billion, its services trade deficit was $47.4, and its combined primary and secondary income accounts reflected a $38.6 deficit.
The current upsurge in interest by Black Americans in participating in Afrika’s economic game should be tempered by the level of economic activity ongoing by nations with a long and deep history of engagement with the Continent. Today, even with about two handfuls of Black American billionaires and our $2 trillion-plus so-called spending power means that we have a limited financial portfolio from which to invest in the Continent’s economy—especially when compared to the nations already discussed. That is not to say that efforts to invest and cooperate economically with Afrikan economies should not go forward. However, there should be realistic expectations concerning what the Black American (Afrodescendant) impact will be on Afrika’s economy. The reality is that we should not hesitate to plan to engage economically with Afrikan People now and in the future.
The Road Ahead
While the three are extant, human perception of the time continuum places the past last in importance, the present as second and effervescent (we feel good in the moment), and the future as first in importance and as a set of “unknown” outcomes to be revealed. Some say that defining time as a “three-part” continuum is not a tripart phenomenon at all, but a unified existence akin to the Father-Son-Holy Spirit concept in the Islamic-Judeo-Christian Religious Traditions. Importantly and relatedly, this “BlackEconomics.org Insight” concerns a tripart consideration for Black Americans.
First, we now know that we can go beyond the regularly prepared metrics readily available to measure economic health. Economists around the world are increasingly downgrading consistent and persistent economic growth as an ideal policy mandate, while also questioning the methods used to measure growth. Second, we now know the primary economic players on the Continent. Therefore, how do we use this two-part information set to assist in our consideration of the third of the tripart phenomena; i.e., the best approach for engaging economically with Afrikan People?
We have stated elsewhere that Black Americans (Afrodescendants), inter alia, should become much more intimately familiar with African History, Culture, and Traditions so that all forms of engagement between Afrikan People and Black American (Afrodescendant) Returnees are successful.vi Without detouring from this point, we are reminded that those in the Sixth Region have our own invaluable histories, cultures, and traditions. They are rooted in “Afrikaness,” yet they are at least slightly different from those of Afrikans’ on the Continent. Specifically, a very important Black American wisdom that emanates from our own economic development experience should not be discounted as we consider initiating economic investment efforts on the Continent.
As we consider returning to the Continent, we should ensure that our base from which we depart is strong. All of us cannot, and will not, return simultaneously. Therefore, our base should be able to flourish in our absence, and we should be prepared to make significant contributions to development efforts on the Continent. Booker T. Washington emphasized using what is available where you are first to build a strong economic base. Otherwise, outward forays may fail.
Turning Washington’s idea or philosophy slightly leftward or rightward, one could arrive at the following important strategic action for assisting with economic development in Africa. It is a two-part strategy: (1) Black Americans (Afrodescendants) should discount/minimize to the extent possible reliance on the Western World’s new flavor of the month strategy for economic development because it may prove to be problematic; and (2) we should identify, promulgate, and implement the soundest possible long-term integrated strategic plan for economic engagement between Diasporans (“Sixth Region”) and Afrikan People.
Conclusion
Within the last score years, “tricksters” who may recognize the fallacy of delivering an ideal world from the hands of inanimate entities (computers, artificial intelligence, and robotization) have made the specter of doing so fair seeming as part of a mainly self-enrichment process.vii They have enticed many to pour a tremendous amount of the full range of possible resources into the idea, and there is now realization that a financial bubble may have developed that may “collapse.”
Therefore, Black Americans (Afrodescendants) should pause, deliberate, communicate, and plan strategically the road ahead being certain to make every effort to avoid pitfalls that result when the purpose and intent of actions, economic or otherwise, or not in the long-term best interest of humanity and that take no account of the need to preserve our Earth home—a home to which we know that we certainly belong. Life and home on distant planets are not an assured outcome.
©BlackEconomics.org®
11/16/25
Endnotes
i Brooks Robinson (2025). “Leveraging Schumpeter.” BlackEconomics.org. https://www.blackeconomics.org/BELit/be_org_is2_scdfcstc101025.pdf (Ret. 111625).
ii For example, food manufacturers may be permitted to produce (creative) and sell harmful food products to consumers. When consumers become sick (destructive) after consuming harmful food products, they seek healthcare assistance that can be a costly (high prices) service that contributes positively to GDP (creative) growth.
iii Balance of Payments (older) and International Transactions (more recent) represent titles used to describe international statistical frameworks for estimating detailed and summary (balances) values for accounts that reflect the movement of goods, services, labor, incomes, and financial and nonfinancial assets across national borders. Volumes with the titles indicated are available at: https://www.imf.org (Ret. 111425).
iv China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE, 2025). “SAFE Releases China’s Balance of Payments for the Fourth Quarter and for the Year 2024.” https://www.safe.gov.cn/en/2025/0328/2295.html (Ret. 111625).
v Bureau of Economic Analysis (2025). “Table 1.3.–U.S. International Transactions, Expanded Detail by Area and Country.” www.bea.gov (Rev. 111525).
vi Brooks Robinson (2025). “A Critical Juncture for Black Americans (Afrodescendants).” BlackEconomics.org: https://blackeconomics.org/BEFuture/acjfba050925.pdf (Ret. 111525).
vii We believe that computers, AI (artificial intelligence), and Robotization are not likely to produce the new world that many have envisioned as ideal and optimal. The fallacy of it is inherent in the language that describes the power and potential benefits of the systems that are discussed: “We do not know its limits.” Read strictly without inference, the latter statement could be interpreted as “AI’s capacity exceeds all upper bounds, or that it is near some lower bound.” At the same time, there is a hope and/or fear that AI can become “sentient.” Unfortunately, the “sentient fear” is that “if AI becomes sentient, then it may destroy human life.” Given this fear, it seems unwise to continue pursuit of the new AI world until the fear has been resolved; i.e., research should only continue on aspects of AI that can clarify prospects for “AI’s sentientness.” Today, we hear of no such limits to research.
Hence, the following thoughts come to mind about AI’s benefits and efficacy. There are undoubtedly important benefits of AI at the lower end of its capabilities that will not be discussed here. The remainder of this Endnote relays thoughts about AI’s potential upside future sentientness and what it poses as questions and answers concerning possible outcomes from this sentientness.
Consider the following idea/concept that is rooted in the Islamic-Judeo-Christian Religious Traditions. Creator → Humans (→ means “produces”); bodies made of earth; mental/mind capacity operational through the human brain; and a spirit-life (consciousness or sentientness) that is believed to come from a Creator (God). Man → a New AI world (controlled by computers, AI computer programming code, Robots [AI sentientness evolves autonomously]). Consequently, the thought is that the New AI World is produced as follows: Creator → Humans → New AI World; Not Creator → New AI World.
Man’s success in sustaining human life and the Earth’s environment has been very much contingent on humans identifying solutions to problems that arise. [Nation of Islam Min. Louis Farrakhan is said to have coined the phrase: “All human problems have been solved/resolved through the womb; i.e., a human is born with, or acquires the knowledges, skills, and abilities to solve problems.] However, if Humans → New AI World that is designed to ensure the perpetuity of favorable human life, it is highly likely that human problems will arise. However, if humans have relinquished their role as vicegerents of creation (maintainers and sustainers of human life), and have conceded that role to an AI system that controls the New AI world, can we be assured that AI will enable the arising of a solution to human problems through the womb? (That is, AI might establish a hurdle or constraint on human procreation and, thereby, might prevent the production of humans born with, or who can develop, the capacity to solve specific human problems. Therefore, the New AI World → Disaster.
Otherwise, if the AI left to manage the New AI World achieves sentientness, then the fear of human destruction is a very logical consideration.
Therefore, continuation of development of the New AI World should be halted unless or until it is explicitly clear that: Without sentientness, the New AI World will enable solutions to human problems (including through the womb); and with sentientness, the New AI World will include a “poison pill.” That is, the New AI World should only be allowed evolve if AI is designed to monitor itself vigorously and its systems for potential disaster, including any efforts by AI to terminate humans. The latter requirement must be accompanied by a full protocol for unwinding the New AI World should the latter point be reached, and for returning humans to our “natural existence.” These requirements go far beyond what we read, hear, or know to be occurring today inside the world of those developing AI to produce a New World.