Category Archives: Economics

The Federal Reserve: Democracy’s Unexpected Guardian

Posted on January 12, 2026 by | Leave a comment

Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country. – President Franklin D. Roosevelt

On January 11, 2026, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell delivered a stunning statement that crystallized a question many Americans may not realize they should be asking: Is the Federal Reserve the last major institution genuinely defending democratic principles in America?

Standing before cameras, Powell revealed that the Department of Justice had served the Fed with grand jury subpoenas threatening criminal indictment. The ostensible reason was his testimony to Congress about renovating Federal Reserve buildings. But Powell was direct about what was really happening: “This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.”

In that moment, the central bank of the United States became something more than a monetary policy institution. It became a test case for whether any American institution can resist President Trump’s political coercion over the next few years.

To understand why Powell’s statement matters, consider the landscape of American institutions today. The Supreme Court faces credibility challenges stemming from ethics controversies and a perceived ideological realignment. Congress operates in near-permanent partisan gridlock, struggling with basic functions like confirming appointments and passing budgets on time. State legislatures engage in aggressive gerrymandering and voting restrictions that challenge principles of equal representation. Executive power has expanded while norms of restraint have weakened across administrations.

Against this backdrop, the Federal Reserve maintained something increasingly rare: independence grounded in technical expertise and insulated from short-term political calculations. When President Trump repeatedly demanded interest rate cuts to boost the economy ahead of elections, the Fed held firm. When President Biden faced criticism over inflation, he publicly respected institutional boundaries. The Fed’s dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices has required it to balance competing interests across the entire economy, forcing decisions that prioritize collective welfare over partisan advantage. Until now, that independence seemed relatively secure. Powell’s statement reveals it may be more fragile than Americans realized.

Powell’s January 11th statement is remarkable for several reasons. First, he explicitly connected the threat of criminal charges to the Fed’s monetary policy independence. He didn’t hide behind legal technicalities or bureaucratic language. He stated plainly that prosecution threats stem from the Fed “setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.” This is extraordinary transparency from an institution that typically communicates through carefully calibrated economic language. Powell used simple, direct terms: political pressure, intimidation, threats. He acknowledged that the ostensible reason for the subpoenas—his testimony about building renovations—was a pretext. He named what was happening.

Second, Powell invoked a principle larger than monetary policy: “Public service sometimes requires standing firm in the face of threats.” This isn’t the language of a central banker defending technical autonomy. It’s the language of someone defending an essential democratic principle, that institutions making decisions affecting all Americans should operate based on evidence and expertise, not political coercion. Third, Powell explicitly committed to continuing his work “with integrity and a commitment to serving the American people.” By framing his resistance as service to the public rather than institutional turf protection, he positioned the Fed’s independence as a democratic value rather than a technocratic privilege.

The Federal Reserve’s independence isn’t just about optimal interest rates or inflation targets. It represents a broader principle: that some decisions require insulation from short-term political calculations to serve long-term public welfare. When the Fed raises interest rates to combat inflation, it often creates short-term pain such as slower job growth, reduced business expansion, lower stock prices. Politicians facing elections have strong incentives to prioritize short-term stimulus over long-term stability. An independent Fed can make unpopular decisions that serve the country’s economic health over time.

This principle extends beyond economics. Independent courts can rule against popular sentiment to protect constitutional rights. Professional civil servants can implement policies based on expertise rather than political expediency. Scientists at government agencies can report findings that contradict administration positions. These institutional arrangements aren’t perfect, but they represent democracy’s attempt to balance popular sovereignty with expert judgment and long-term thinking. Powell’s statement suggests this balance is under direct assault, with the Fed potentially the last major holdout.

The Department of Justice subpoenas nominally concern Powell’s congressional testimony about Federal Reserve building renovations. Powell addressed this directly, noting that “the Fed through testimony and other public disclosures made every effort to keep Congress informed about the renovation project.” The suggestion that criminal charges might stem from routine congressional oversight testimony is itself remarkable, it criminalizes normal interaction between the legislative and executive branches. But Powell identified this as a pretext. The real issue is monetary policy that doesn’t align with presidential preferences.

This pattern using nominally legitimate legal mechanisms to pressure institutions making independent decisions represents a sophisticated form of institutional capture. It’s not crude interference like simply firing an agency head. It’s using the threat of criminal prosecution to reshape institutional behavior. The sophistication makes it more dangerous. It creates plausible deniability while achieving the same result: institutions become reluctant to make decisions contrary to executive preferences if doing so might expose their leaders to criminal investigation.

The Federal Reserve operates with more structural independence than most government institutions. Fed chairs serve fixed four-year terms that don’t align with presidential terms. Board members serve 14-year terms, ensuring continuity across administrations. The regional Federal Reserve bank structure distributes power geographically. These design features were intended to insulate monetary policy from political interference. If these protections prove insufficient—if the threat of criminal prosecution can bend the Fed to executive will then institutions with less structural independence have little chance of resisting similar pressure.

What happens to agencies making environmental regulations? To prosecutors deciding which cases to pursue? To intelligence agencies providing threat assessments? Democracy requires institutions that can tell truth to power. When the Environmental Protection Agency assesses climate risks, it needs to report findings honestly regardless of administration preferences. When the Congressional Budget Office scores legislation, it needs to provide accurate projections even if they contradict political claims. When courts rule on executive actions, they need to follow legal principles rather than political convenience. The Federal Reserve’s resistance to political pressure on monetary policy is part of this broader ecosystem of institutional independence. Its vulnerability suggests the entire ecosystem is at risk.

Jerome Powell cannot save American democracy alone. Even if the Federal Reserve maintains its independence on monetary policy, that doesn’t address court packing, voting restrictions, gerrymandering, or executive overreach in other domains. One institution resisting political capture doesn’t reverse broader democratic backsliding. Moreover, there are real tensions in celebrating the Fed as democracy’s guardian. The Federal Reserve is run by unelected officials making decisions with enormous consequences for ordinary Americans. Its most powerful body, the Federal Open Market Committee, operates with limited direct accountability. Unelected experts making consequential decisions without popular input can itself become anti-democratic.

The fact that we’re looking to an unelected central bank to defend democratic principles reveals how far other institutions have fallen. In a healthy democracy, Congress would check executive overreach, courts would protect institutional independence, and the civil service would resist improper political interference. That the Fed appears to be the last institution willing to publicly resist political coercion is an indictment of American governance, not just a testament to the Fed’s courage.

Powell’s statement creates several possible trajectories. The administration could back down (unlikely), recognizing that overtly criminalizing central bank independence would damage financial markets and America’s international credibility. Financial markets depend on confidence that U.S. monetary policy follows economic logic rather than political whim. International investors might flee dollar-denominated assets if they believe the Fed operates under political control. Alternatively, the administration could proceed with prosecution, testing whether public opinion, financial markets, or congressional action provide sufficient backstop to preserve Fed independence. This would transform an implicit crisis into an explicit constitutional confrontation. A third possibility is the subtler one: continued pressure without formal prosecution, creating uncertainty that gradually shapes Fed behavior. Board members might resign rather than face investigation. Future Fed chairs might be selected for political pliability. The institution might remain nominally independent while becoming practically captured.

The Federal Reserve’s independence ultimately depends on public support for the principle that some decisions should be insulated from short-term political pressure. Most Americans don’t follow monetary policy debates closely. But the principle that institutions should operate based on evidence rather than political coercion resonates beyond economics. Powell’s statement was unusually direct in part because he’s appealing beyond financial markets and policy experts to a broader public. He’s asking Americans whether they want institutions that can resist political intimidation or whether all government functions should answer directly to executive power.

This framing matters. If defending institutional independence becomes a partisan issue with one side supporting independent institutions and the other demanding political control then institutional independence has already lost. The Fed’s independence has survived because both parties recognized long-term benefits from monetary policy insulated from electoral cycles. Powell’s challenge is maintaining this bipartisan consensus at a moment when partisanship dominates and institutional norms have weakened.

There’s something appropriate in the Federal Reserve potentially becoming democracy’s last institutional defender. Central banks are unglamorous, technical, deliberately boring institutions. They don’t inspire passion or generate headlines under normal circumstances. They’re staffed by economists and lawyers making incremental decisions based on data and models. But democracy often depends on exactly these kinds of institutions. Not dramatic moments of resistance but everyday functioning of agencies that do their jobs professionally regardless of political pressure. Not heroic stands but consistent application of expertise and judgment independent of partisan considerations.

Powell’s statement was dramatic because it made explicit what usually remains implicit: that institutional independence requires constant defense, that political pressure is always present, and that resistance sometimes demands personal courage and public confrontation. The Federal Reserve may be the last institution defending these principles not because it’s special but because it’s one of the few with sufficient structural independence and public credibility to mount visible resistance. Its fight is everyone’s fight. If the Fed falls to political capture, the precedent suggests no institution is safe.

January 11, 2026 may be remembered as the day the question became explicit: Can American democratic institutions survive sustained pressure from political leaders willing to use criminal prosecution as a tool of institutional capture? Jerome Powell’s statement doesn’t answer that question. It simply acknowledges the question exists and declares his intention to resist. Whether that resistance succeeds depends on factors beyond the Federal Reserve—on Congress, courts, financial markets, public opinion, and the willingness of other institutional leaders to stand alongside the Fed in defending independence.

The Federal Reserve isn’t democracy’s savior. But in making public the political pressure it faces and explicitly refusing to capitulate, it’s doing what democratic institutions must do: operating based on evidence and principle rather than political intimidation. Whether other institutions find similar courage may determine whether American democracy survives its current crisis of institutional legitimacy. For now, the central bank stands. How long it can stand alone remains to be seen.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Central Banks

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Impossible Mathematics: African America’s $480 Billion or $1.5 Trillion Debt Dilemma

Posted on December 30, 2025 by | Leave a comment

Debt is part of the human condition. Civilization is based on exchanges – on gifts, trades, loans – and the revenges and insults that come when they are not paid back. – Margaret Atwood

The mathematics of African American household debt present a stark choice: either eliminate $480 billion in consumer credit or add $1.5 trillion in mortgage debt. These are the pathways to achieving the 3:1 mortgage-to-consumer-credit ratio that European, Hispanic, and other American households maintain as a baseline of financial health. The first option requires African Americans to reduce consumer borrowing by 65% while maintaining current mortgage levels. The second demands increasing mortgage debt by 185% from $780 billion to $2.22 trillion while holding consumer credit constant. Neither path is realistic in isolation, yet both illuminate the extraordinary structural challenge facing Black households attempting to build wealth in an economy designed to extract it.

The current debt profile of $780 billion in mortgages against $740 billion in consumer credit represents an almost perfect inversion of healthy household finance. To understand the magnitude of correction required, consider what a 3:1 ratio would mean in practice. If African American households maintained their current $780 billion in mortgage debt, consumer credit would need to fall to $260 billion, a reduction of $480 billion. Alternatively, if consumer credit remained at $740 billion, mortgage debt would need to rise to $2.22 trillion, an increase of $1.44 trillion. The symmetry of these impossible requirements reveals how far African American household finance has diverged from sustainable wealth-building patterns.

The consumer credit reduction scenario appears superficially more achievable. After all, paying down debt requires discipline and sacrifice rather than access to new credit markets. Yet the practical barriers are immense. Consumer credit serves multiple functions in African American households, not all of them discretionary. Medical debt, a significant component of consumer credit, reflects the reality that Black Americans face higher rates of chronic illness while having lower rates of health insurance coverage and higher out-of-pocket costs. Transportation debt, often in the form of auto loans that blur the line between consumer and secured credit, reflects the necessity of vehicle ownership in a nation with limited public transit and residential patterns shaped by decades of housing discrimination that placed Black communities far from employment centers.

Even the portion of consumer credit that finances consumption rather than necessity spending reflects structural constraints. When median Black household income remains roughly 60% of median white household income, and when emergency savings remain inadequate due to lower wealth accumulation, consumer credit becomes a volatility buffer—a way to smooth consumption when irregular expenses arise. The Federal Reserve’s Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking consistently shows that Black households are significantly more likely than white households to report that they could not cover a $400 emergency expense without borrowing or selling something. This is not improvidence; it is the predictable result of income and wealth gaps that leave no margin for error.

Reducing consumer credit by $480 billion would require African American households to collectively pay down debt at a rate of approximately $40 billion per month for a year, or $3.3 billion per month for twelve years, assuming no new consumer debt accumulation. Given that African American households currently carry 15% of all U.S. consumer credit while representing 13% of the population, this would require Black households to dramatically outperform all other groups in debt reduction while maintaining living standards and weathering economic volatility without the credit cushion that has become structurally embedded in their financial lives.

The mortgage expansion scenario presents different but equally formidable challenges. Adding $1.44 trillion in mortgage debt would require African American homeownership to expand dramatically or existing homeowners to take on substantially larger mortgages. Current African American homeownership stands at approximately 45%, compared to 74% for white households. Yet even closing this gap entirely would be insufficient. To generate $1.44 trillion in new mortgage debt at the median Black home value of $242,600 (according to BlackDemographics.com analysis of Census data), African American homeownership would need to reach 87%—a rate no demographic group in American history has ever achieved. For context, white homeownership peaks at 74%, Asian American homeownership reaches approximately 63%, and Hispanic homeownership stands around 51%. The mortgage expansion path requires Black households to exceed the performance of every other demographic group by more than 13 percentage points while navigating credit markets that systematically disadvantage them.

More realistic would be existing homeowners trading up to more expensive properties or extracting equity through cash-out refinancing. Yet here too the barriers are substantial. The 2025 LendingTree analysis showing 19% denial rates for Black mortgage applicants reveals that even creditworthy Black borrowers face systematic disadvantages in accessing mortgage credit. For those who do gain approval, interest rate disparities mean that Black borrowers pay higher costs for the same debt, reducing the wealth-building potential of homeownership while increasing monthly payment burdens.

There is also the question of whether massive mortgage expansion would even be desirable. The 2008 financial crisis demonstrated the dangers of over-leveraging households on housing debt. While the crisis hit all communities, African American households suffered disproportionate wealth destruction, losing 53% of their wealth between 2005 and 2009 compared to 16% for white households. This reflected both predatory lending practices that steered Black borrowers toward subprime mortgages and the concentration of Black wealth in housing, which meant that home price declines destroyed a larger share of Black household balance sheets. Adding $1.44 trillion in mortgage debt without addressing underlying income inequality, employment instability, and institutional weakness would simply create a larger foundation upon which the next crisis could inflict even greater damage.

Nor would shifting the focus toward investment properties rather than primary residences solve this vulnerability. While rental properties offer income generation and different tax treatment, they would further concentrate African American wealth in real estate potentially pushing the share from the current 60% of assets concentrated in real estate and retirement accounts to 75% or higher in property holdings alone. When real estate markets crash, they crash comprehensively, taking both owner-occupied homes and rental properties down together. The 2008 crisis demonstrated this brutally: Black investors who had built portfolios of rental properties lost everything when tenants couldn’t pay rent during the recession, forcing investors to carry multiple mortgages they couldn’t service, leading to cascading foreclosures across their entire property holdings. Investment real estate offers no escape from concentration risk when households lack the liquid assets, diversified portfolios, and institutional support systems necessary to weather market downturns. With African American households holding just $330 billion in corporate equities and mutual funds—a mere 4.7% of their assets—there simply isn’t enough non-real-estate wealth to cushion the impact of property market volatility, regardless of whether the properties are owner-occupied or investment holdings.

The geographic dimension of mortgage expansion presents additional complications. African American homeownership is concentrated in markets where home values have historically appreciated more slowly than in majority-white submarkets. A recent Redfin analysis found that homes in majority-Black neighborhoods appreciated 45% less than homes in majority-white neighborhoods over a fifteen-year period, even after controlling for initial home values and location. This means that even substantial increases in mortgage debt may not generate proportional wealth accumulation if the underlying properties do not appreciate at competitive rates. The legacy of redlining, racial zoning, and exclusionary land use policies has created a geography of disadvantage where Black homeownership builds less wealth per dollar of debt than white homeownership.

The institutional barriers to either path are equally daunting. African American-owned banks hold just $6.4 billion in assets, while African American credit unions hold $8.2 billion. Together, these institutions control less than $15 billion in lending capacity. If these institutions were to facilitate a $480 billion reduction in consumer credit by offering debt consolidation loans at lower rates, they would need to increase their asset base by more than thirtyfold. If they were to finance a $1.44 trillion increase in mortgage debt, they would need to grow nearly hundredfold. Neither is feasible within any realistic timeframe, meaning that any significant shift in African American debt composition must flow through institutions owned by other communities, the same institutions whose discriminatory practices and wealth extraction mechanisms created the current imbalance.

There are no African American-owned credit card companies, no Black-controlled mortgage servicers of scale, no African American commercial banks with the balance sheet capacity to originate billions in mortgage debt. This institutional void means that even if African American households collectively decided to restructure their debt profiles, they would lack the institutional infrastructure to execute that restructuring on their own terms. Every loan refinanced, every new mortgage originated, every credit card balance transferred would enrich institutions outside the community, perpetuating the extraction cycle even as households attempted to escape it.

The policy environment offers little assistance. The Federal Housing Administration, which once provided a pathway to homeownership for millions of Americans, has become a more expensive option than conventional mortgages for many borrowers, with mortgage insurance premiums that never fall away. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises that dominate the mortgage market, have made reforms to reduce racial disparities in underwriting, but these changes have been modest and face political resistance. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations that might limit predatory lending face uncertain enforcement in a political environment hostile to financial regulation.

State and local down payment assistance programs exist but remain underfunded relative to need. Employer-assisted housing programs, which some corporations have established to help employees become homeowners, rarely reach the Black workers who need them most, both because African Americans are underrepresented in the professional class jobs these programs typically target and because the programs often require employment tenure that Black workers, facing higher job instability, are less likely to achieve.

The theoretical third path—simultaneous reduction in consumer credit and expansion of mortgage debt—might seem to offer a middle ground. If African American households could reduce consumer credit by $240 billion while increasing mortgage debt by $720 billion, the 3:1 ratio could be achieved through a more balanced adjustment. Yet this scenario simply combines the barriers of both approaches: it requires access to mortgage credit that discrimination constrains, while also requiring debt paydown that income and wealth gaps make difficult, all while navigating through institutions that lack alignment with Black community interests.

What makes the entire framing particularly troubling is that it treats symptoms rather than causes. The 3:1 ratio that other communities achieve is not the result of superior financial planning or cultural advantage. It reflects higher incomes that reduce the need for consumer credit to smooth consumption, greater wealth that provides emergency buffers without borrowing, better access to mortgage credit at favorable terms, stronger financial institutions serving their communities, and residential patterns that allow homeownership to build wealth efficiently. African American households face the inverse of each advantage: lower incomes, less wealth, worse credit access, weaker institutions, and housing markets structured to extract rather than build wealth.

Pursuing a 3:1 ratio without addressing these structural factors would be like treating a fever without addressing the underlying infection. The ratio is a symptom of deeper pathologies: systematic wage discrimination that has suppressed Black income for generations, wealth destruction through urban renewal and highway construction that demolished Black business districts, redlining and racial covenants that prevented Black families from accessing appreciating housing markets during the great postwar suburban expansion, mass incarceration that removed millions of Black men from the labor force and branded millions more as essentially unemployable, and the steady erosion of the institutional infrastructure that might have provided some counterweight to these forces.

The data from HBCU Money’s 2024 African American Annual Wealth Report shows African American households with $7.1 trillion in assets and $1.55 trillion in liabilities, yielding approximately $5.6 trillion in net wealth. Yet this wealth is overwhelmingly concentrated in illiquid assets, real estate and retirement accounts comprising nearly 60% of holdings. The modest $330 billion in corporate equities and mutual fund shares represents just 0.7% of total U.S. household equity holdings. This concentration in illiquid assets means that even households with substantial paper wealth lack the liquidity to manage volatility without consumer credit, while also lacking the income-producing assets that might reduce dependence on labor income.

The comparison with other minority communities is instructive. According to the FDIC’s Minority Depository Institution program, Asian American banks control $174 billion in assets, Hispanic American banks hold $138 billion, while African American banks manage just $6.4 billion. These disparities reflect different histories of exclusion and different patterns of institutional development, but they also reveal possibilities. Hispanic and Asian American communities have managed to build and sustain financial institutions at scales that enable meaningful intermediation of community capital. African American communities have not, and the debt crisis is one manifestation of this institutional failure.

The question is not really whether African American households should reduce consumer credit by $480 billion or increase mortgage debt by $1.44 trillion. Neither is achievable through household-level decisions alone, and both would leave unchanged the extraction mechanisms and institutional weaknesses that created the crisis. The question is whether the structural conditions that make the current debt profile inevitable like income inequality, wealth gaps, discriminatory credit markets, institutional underdevelopment can be addressed at a scale and pace sufficient to prevent the debt trap from closing entirely.

The urgency is real. Consumer credit growing at 10.4% annually while mortgage debt grows at 4.0% and assets appreciate even more slowly suggests an accelerating divergence. Each year, the gap widens. Each year, the extraction intensifies. Each year, the institutional capacity to respond weakens as Black-owned banks close and credit unions remain trapped at subscale. The mathematics of debt restructuring, stark as they are, pale beside the mathematics of compounding disadvantage where each year’s extraction reduces the capacity to resist next year’s, creating a downward spiral from which escape becomes progressively more difficult.

The $480 billion or $1.5 trillion question is not really about debt reduction or mortgage expansion. It is about whether a community can restructure its household finances while lacking institutional control over the credit markets it must navigate, while facing discrimination at every point of access, while generating wealth that flows immediately out of the community through interest payments, fees, and rent extraction. The answer, based on current trajectories, appears to be no. The alternative is building the institutional infrastructure, addressing the income and wealth gaps, reforming the credit markets that requires a scale of intervention that African America’s current political and economic institutional conditions make unlikely. And so the debt trap closes, slowly but inexorably, converting nominal wealth gains into real wealth extraction, one interest payment at a time.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economics

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Consumer Credit Now Rivals Mortgage Debt in African American Households

Posted on December 23, 2025 by | Leave a comment

First our pleasures die – and then our hopes, and then our fears – and when these are dead, the debt is due dust claims dust – and we die too. – Percy Bysshe Shelley

African American household assets reached $7.1 trillion in 2024, a half-trillion-dollar increase that might appear encouraging at first glance. Yet beneath this headline figure lies a structural vulnerability that threatens to undermine decades of hard-won economic progress: consumer credit has surged to $740 billion, now representing nearly half of all African American household debt and approaching parity with home mortgage obligations of $780 billion. In the world of good debt versus bad debt, African America’s bad debt is rapidly choking the economic life away.

This near 1:1 ratio between consumer credit and mortgage debt represents a fundamental inversion of healthy household finance. For white households, the ratio stands at approximately 3:1 in favor of mortgage debt over consumer credit. Hispanic households maintain a similar 3:1 ratio, as do households classified as “Other” in Federal Reserve data. The African American community stands alone in this precarious position, where high-interest, unsecured borrowing rivals the debt secured by appreciating assets.

The implications of this structural imbalance extend far beyond mere statistics. They reveal a community increasingly dependent on expensive credit to maintain living standards, even as asset values nominally rise. Consumer credit grew by 10.4% in 2024, more than double the 4.0% growth in mortgage debt and far exceeding the overall asset appreciation rate. This divergence suggests that rising property values and retirement account balances are not translating into improved financial flexibility. Instead, African American households appear to be running faster merely to stay in place, accumulating debt at an accelerating pace despite wealth gains elsewhere on their balance sheets.

What makes this dynamic particularly insidious is the extractive nature of the debt itself. With African American-owned banks holding just $6.4 billion in combined assets, a figure that has grown modestly from $5.9 billion in 2023, the overwhelming majority of the $1.55 trillion in African American household liabilities flows to institutions outside the community. This represents one of the most significant, yet least discussed, mechanisms of wealth extraction from African America.

Consider the arithmetic: if even a conservative estimate suggests that 95% of African American debt is held by non-Black institutions, and if that debt carries an average interest rate of 8% (likely conservative given the prevalence of credit card debt and auto loans), then African American households are transferring approximately $120 billion annually in interest payments to institutions with no vested interest in Black wealth creation or community reinvestment.

For context, the entire asset base of African American-owned banks—$6.4 billion—represents less than one month’s worth of these interest payments. The disparity is staggering. According to the FDIC’s Minority Depository Institution program, Asian American banks lead with $174 billion in assets, while Hispanic American banks hold $138 billion. African American banking institutions, despite serving a population with $7.1 trillion in household assets (yielding approximately $5.6 trillion in net wealth after liabilities), control less than 0.1% of that wealth through their balance sheets.

This extraction mechanism operates at multiple levels. First, there is the direct transfer of interest payments from Black borrowers to predominantly white-owned financial institutions. Second, there is the opportunity cost: capital that could be intermediated through Black-owned institutions creating deposits, enabling local lending, building institutional capacity but instead enriches institutions that have historically redlined Black communities and continue to deny Black borrowers and business owners at disproportionate rates.

Third, and perhaps most pernicious, is the feedback loop this creates. Without sufficient capital flow through Black-owned institutions, these banks lack the resources to compete effectively for deposits, to invest in technology and branch networks, to attract top talent, or to take on the larger commercial loans that could finance transformative community development projects. They remain, in effect, trapped in a low-equilibrium state unable to scale precisely because they lack access to the very capital that their community generates.

The near-parity between consumer credit and mortgage debt in African American households signals a fundamental divergence from the wealth-building model that has enriched other communities for generations. Mortgage debt, despite its costs, serves as a mechanism for forced savings and wealth accumulation. As homeowners make payments, they build equity in an asset that typically appreciates over time. The debt is secured by a tangible asset, carries relatively low interest rates, and benefits from tax advantages.

Consumer credit operates on precisely the opposite logic. It finances consumption rather than investment, carries interest rates that can exceed 20% on credit cards, builds no equity, and offers no tax benefits. When consumer credit approaches the scale of mortgage debt, it suggests a household finance structure tilted toward consumption smoothing rather than wealth building—using expensive borrowing to maintain living standards in the face of inadequate income growth.

The data from HBCU Money’s 2024 African America Annual Wealth Report confirms this interpretation. While African American real estate assets totaled $2.24 trillion, growing by just 4.3%, consumer credit surged by 10.4%. This divergence suggests that home equity, the traditional engine of African American wealth building, is being offset by the accumulation of high-cost consumer debt.

More troubling still, the concentration of African American wealth in illiquid assets with real estate and retirement accounts comprising nearly 60% of total holdings limits the ability to weather financial shocks without resorting to consumer credit. Unlike households with significant liquid assets or equity portfolios that can be tapped through margin loans at lower rates, African American households facing unexpected expenses must often turn to credit cards, personal loans, or other high-cost borrowing.

This creates a wealth-to-liquidity trap: substantial assets on paper, but insufficient liquid resources to manage volatility without accumulating expensive debt. The modest representation of corporate equities and mutual funds at just $330 billion, or 4.7% of African American assets means that most Black wealth is locked in homes and retirement accounts that cannot easily be accessed for emergency expenses, business investments, or wealth transfer to the next generation.

The underdevelopment of African American banking institutions represents both a cause and consequence of this debt crisis. With combined assets of just $6.4 billion, Black-owned banks lack the scale to compete effectively for deposits, to offer competitive loan products, or to finance the larger commercial and real estate projects that could drive community wealth creation.

To understand why bank assets matter for addressing household debt, one must grasp a fundamental principle of banking: a bank’s assets are largely composed of the loans it has extended. When a bank reports $1 billion in assets, the majority represents money lent to households and businesses in the form of mortgages, business loans, and lines of credit. These loans are assets to the bank because they generate interest income and (ideally) will be repaid. Conversely, the deposits that customers place in banks appear as liabilities on the bank’s balance sheet, because the bank owes that money back to depositors.

This means that when African American-owned banks hold just $6.4 billion in assets, they have extended roughly $6.4 billion in loans to their communities. By contrast, African American households carry $1.55 trillion in debt. The arithmetic is stark: Black-owned institutions are originating less than 0.5% of the debt carried by Black households. The remaining 99.5% or approximately $1.54 trillion flows to non-Black institutions, carrying interest payments and fees with it. If Black-owned banks held even 10% of African American household debt as assets, they would control over $155 billion in lending capacity more than twenty times their current scale creating a powerful engine for wealth recirculation and community reinvestment.

The exclusion from consumer credit is even more complete than these figures suggest. There are no African American-owned credit card companies, and most African American financial institutions lack the scale and infrastructure to issue Visa, MasterCard, or other branded credit cards through their own institutions. When Black consumers carry $740 billion in consumer credit much of it on credit cards charging 18% to 25% interest virtually none of that debt flows through Black-owned institutions. Every swipe, every interest payment, every late fee enriches the handful of large banks and card issuers that dominate the consumer credit market. This represents the most direct and lucrative form of wealth extraction: high-margin, unsecured lending with minimal default risk due to aggressive collection practices, all flowing entirely outside the Black banking ecosystem.

By comparison, a single large regional bank might hold $50 billion or more in assets. The entire African American banking sector commands resources equivalent to roughly one-eighth of one large institution. This scale disadvantage manifests in multiple ways: higher operating costs as a percentage of assets, limited ability to diversify risk, reduced capacity to invest in technology and marketing, and difficulty attracting deposits in an era when consumers increasingly prioritize digital capabilities and nationwide ATM access.

The decrease of Black-owned banks has accelerated these challenges. The number of African American-owned banks has declined from 48 in 2001 to just 18 today, even as the combined assets have grown from $5 billion to $6.4 billion. This suggests that the survivors have achieved modest scale gains, but the overall institutional capacity of the sector has contracted significantly. Each closure represents not just a loss of financial services, but a loss of community knowledge, relationship banking, and the cultural competence that enables Black-owned institutions to serve their communities effectively.

The credit union sector presents a more substantial but still constrained picture. Approximately 205 African American credit unions operate nationwide, holding $8.2 billion in combined assets and serving 727,000 members. While this represents meaningful scale more than the $6.4 billion held by African American banks the distribution reveals deep fragmentation. The average credit union holds $40 million in assets with 3,500 members, but the median tells a more sobering story: just $2.5 million in assets serving 618 members. This means the majority of African American credit unions operate at scales too small to offer competitive products, invest in digital banking infrastructure, or provide the full range of services that members need. Many church-based credit unions, while serving vital community functions for congregations often underserved by traditional banks, hold assets under $500,000. The member-owned structure of credit unions, while fostering community engagement and democratic governance, also constrains their ability to raise capital through equity markets, leaving them dependent on retained earnings and member deposits for growth, a particular challenge when serving communities with limited surplus capital.

This institutional deficit has profound implications for the debt crisis. Without strong Black-owned financial institutions, African American borrowers must rely on financial institutions owned by other communities that often offer less favorable terms. Research consistently shows that Black borrowers face higher denial rates, pay higher interest rates, and receive less favorable terms than similarly situated white borrowers. A 2025 LendingTree analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data found that Black borrowers faced a mortgage denial rate of 19% compared to 11.27% for all applicants making them 1.7 times more likely to be denied. Black-owned small businesses received full funding in just 38% of cases, compared with 62% for white-owned firms.

These disparities push African American households and businesses toward more expensive credit alternatives. Unable to access conventional mortgages, they turn to FHA loans with higher insurance premiums. Denied bank credit, they turn to credit cards and personal loans with double-digit interest rates. Lacking access to business lines of credit, entrepreneurs tap home equity or personal savings, increasing their financial vulnerability.

The absence of robust Black-owned institutions also deprives the community of an important competitive force. Where Black-owned banks operate, they create pressure on other institutions to serve Black customers more fairly. Their presence signals that discriminatory practices will drive customers to alternatives, creating at least some market discipline. Where they are absent or weak, that discipline evaporates.

Corporate DEI programs that once channeled deposits to Black-owned banks have been largely eliminated. The current federal political environment is openly hostile to African American advancement, with programs like the Treasury Department’s Emergency Capital Investment Program facing uncertain futures. External support structures are collapsing precisely when they are most needed, leaving African American institutions and individuals as the primary actors in their own financial liberation, a task made exponentially more difficult by the very extraction mechanisms this analysis has documented.

The near-parity between consumer credit and mortgage debt in African American households is not a reflection of poor financial decision-making or cultural deficiency. It is the predictable outcome of structural inequalities that have limited income growth, constrained access to affordable credit, concentrated wealth in illiquid assets, and prevented the development of financial institutions capable of serving the Black community effectively.

The comparison with other racial and ethnic groups is instructive. White, Hispanic, and other households all maintain mortgage-to-consumer-credit ratios of approximately 3:1 or better. They achieve this not because of superior financial acumen, but because they benefit from higher incomes, greater intergenerational wealth transfers, better access to credit markets, and stronger financial institutions serving their communities.

African American households, by contrast, face headwinds at every turn. Median Black household income remains roughly 60% of median white household income. The racial wealth gap, at approximately 10:1, ensures that Black families receive less financial support from parents and grandparents. Discrimination in credit markets, though illegal, persists in subtle and not-so-subtle forms. And the institutional infrastructure that might counterbalance these disadvantages from Black-owned banks, investment firms, insurance companies remains underdeveloped and undercapitalized.

The result is a community that has achieved a nominal wealth of $5.5 trillion, yet finds that wealth increasingly built on a foundation of expensive debt rather than appreciating assets and productive capital. The $740 billion in consumer credit represents not just a financial liability, but a transfer mechanism that annually extracts tens of billions of dollars from the Black community and redirects it to predominantly white-owned financial institutions.

Breaking this pattern will require more than incremental change. It will require a fundamental restructuring of how capital flows through the African American community, how financial institutions serving that community are capitalized and regulated, and how wealth is built and transferred across generations. The alternative of continuing on the current trajectory is a future in which African American households accumulate assets while simultaneously accumulating debt, running faster while falling further behind, building wealth that proves as ephemeral as the credit that increasingly finances it.

The data from HBCU Money’s 2024 African America Annual Wealth Report provides both a warning and an opportunity. The warning is clear: the current path is unsustainable, with consumer credit growing at more than double the rate of asset appreciation and institutional capacity remaining stagnant. The opportunity is equally clear: with $5.5 trillion in household wealth, the African American community possesses the resources necessary to build the financial institutions and wealth-building structures that could transform debt into equity, consumption into investment, and extraction into accumulation.

The question is whether the community, and the nation, will recognize the urgency of this moment and take the bold action necessary to recirculate capital, rebuild institutions, and restructure household finance before the debt trap closes entirely. The answer to that question will determine not just the financial trajectory of African American households, but the capacity of African America rise in power and to address the racial wealth gap that remains its most persistent economic failure.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economics

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

African America’s August 2025 Jobs Report – 7.5%

Posted on September 8, 2025 by | Leave a comment

Overall Unemployment: 4.1%

African America: 7.2%

Latino America: 5.3%

European America: 3.7%

Asian America: 3.6%

Analysis: European Americans’ unemployment rate was unchanged from July. Asian Americans decreased 30 basis points and Latino Americans increased 30 basis points from July, respectively. African America’s unemployment rate increased by 30 basis points from July.

AFRICAN AMERICAN EMPLOYMENT REVIEW

AFRICAN AMERICAN MEN: 

Unemployment Rate – 7.1%

Participation Rate – 69.8%

Employed – 9,893,000

Unemployed – 753,000

African American Men (AAM) saw a increase in their unemployment rate by 10 basis points in August. The group had an increase in their participation rate in August by 190 basis points, there highest participation rate in the past five months. African American Men gained 270,000 jobs in August and saw their number of unemployed increase by 30,000.

AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN: 

Unemployment Rate – 6.7%

Participation Rate – 61.4%

Employed – 10,260,000

Unemployed – 739,000

African American Women saw a increase in their unemployment rate by 40 basis points in August. The group increased their participation rate in August by 30 basis points. African American Women gained 13,000 jobs in August and saw their number of unemployed increase by 45,000.

AFRICAN AMERICAN TEENAGERS:

Unemployment Rate – 24.8%

Participation Rate – 29.3%

Employed – 590,000

Unemployed – 195,000

African American Teenagers unemployment rate increased by 310 basis points. The group saw their participation rate increased by 10 basis points in August. African American Teenagers lost 24,000 jobs in August and saw their number of unemployed also increase 25,000.

African American Men-Women Job Gap: African American Women currently have 367,000 more jobs than African American Men in August. This is an decrease from 624,000 in July.

CONCLUSION: The overall economy added 22,000 jobs in August while African America added 260,000 jobs. From Reuters,”The warning bell that rang in the labor market a month ago just got louder,” Olu Sonola, head of U.S. economic research at Fitch Ratings in New York, said in reference to the U.S. labor market. “A weaker-than-expected jobs report all but seals a 25-basis-point rate cut later this month.” Fed Chair Jerome Powell had already reinforced rate cut speculation with an unexpectedly dovish speech at last month’s Fed symposium in Jackson Hole.”

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Leave a comment

Posted in African American Jobs Report

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Political Assault on Lisa D. Cook: Why the Fed’s Only HBCU Alum Faces an Outsized Storm

Posted on August 21, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“You can not win a war that you will not acknowledge you are in, and African America refuses to acknowledge it is in a war and therefore has not built the institutional defense necessary to win.” – William A. Foster, IV

The latest calls for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa D. Cook to resign reveal less about her alleged financial entanglements and more about the precarious place of African American excellence in America’s institutional hierarchy. Cook, an alum of Spelman College—the jewel of the Atlanta University Center—sits as the only Historically Black College and University graduate in the Federal Reserve’s history. Her very presence at the central bank represents a seismic shift in the composition of economic policymaking. It also explains why she has become a lightning rod for partisan attacks.

On August 20, 2025, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social: “Cook must resign, now!!!!” The demand followed remarks from Bill Pulte, the Trump-appointed Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who urged the Department of Justice to probe Cook’s role in allegedly questionable mortgages. What might otherwise be dismissed as yet another skirmish in Washington’s perpetual political warfare assumes broader significance when one considers who Cook is, what she represents, and what she symbolizes to African American institutions.

Lisa Cook’s rise to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in May 2022 marked a watershed moment. For over a century, the Fed had been populated by a homogenous cadre of policymakers—almost exclusively White men with Ivy League or equivalent pedigrees. Cook, a Black woman educated at Spelman College, Oxford, and the University of California, Berkeley, carved a path through both racial and gendered barriers that have long defined the economics profession. Her scholarship is well known in academic circles: her pioneering work on the relationship between racial violence and African American innovation remains a cornerstone of economic history. By quantifying how lynching and Jim Crow violence curtailed patent activity by African Americans, she exposed a structural mechanism by which systemic racism suppressed not just Black lives but also Black wealth creation. At the Fed, she carried this analytical rigor into debates on labor markets, innovation, and most recently, the economic implications of artificial intelligence. For African America, her appointment was not just symbolic. It was strategic. HBCU graduates have long been overrepresented in producing the nation’s Black professionals—doctors, lawyers, judges, engineers. But in macroeconomic governance, their footprint has been virtually nonexistent. Cook’s ascension offered a foothold in one of the world’s most powerful institutions, where decisions reverberate across global markets, shape credit availability, and indirectly determine whether African American households can access affordable mortgages, student loans, and capital for small businesses.

The ferocity of the attacks against Cook cannot be divorced from her identity. The allegations hinge on supposed mortgage irregularities, amplified by Pulte and weaponized by Trump. Yet, even before these accusations, Cook faced resistance. Her Senate confirmation was one of the narrowest in Fed history, with Republicans uniformly opposed and some explicitly questioning her “fitness” for monetary policy on the grounds that her academic research leaned too heavily into racial economics. This rhetorical sleight-of-hand—dismissing racialized economic analysis as political—is a familiar tactic. It seeks to delegitimize the very work that challenges the dominant narrative. Cook’s critics often sidestep her publications in American Economic Review or her leadership within the American Economic Association, preferring instead to cast her as a “diversity appointment.” The current calls for her resignation escalate this narrative. To remove Cook under a cloud of controversy would not just eliminate a Fed governor. It would roll back the fragile gains of HBCU institutional representation in elite economic policymaking. It would signal, once again, that African American advancement is conditional, fragile, and always subject to reversal.

It is important to situate these attacks in a wider political economy. Trump’s demand is not only about Cook. It is about control of the Federal Reserve itself. The central bank has become increasingly politicized in recent years, with Republicans casting inflation and interest rate policy as partisan issues. To force out Cook would not only weaken President Biden’s appointees but also demoralize constituencies who view her as a critical voice for equity in macroeconomic policy. The Fed has traditionally projected itself as a technocratic, apolitical institution. Yet this veneer has cracked. Appointments are now battlefield contests. Cook’s vulnerability demonstrates that while America’s institutions have formally opened their doors to HBCU graduates, they have not yet fortified protections against political weaponization. This dynamic mirrors a historical pattern. African Americans who rise into positions of structural authority—whether judges, regulators, or corporate executives—often find themselves targets of disproportionate scrutiny. The goal is not merely to unseat them but to delegitimize the institutions that empowered them.

HBCUs stand uniquely implicated in this episode. Spelman College, Cook’s alma mater, is one of the leading producers of Black women in economics and STEM. Yet, despite their track record, HBCUs remain underfunded relative to predominantly White institutions. Cook’s ascent to the Fed was a triumph for the HBCU ecosystem, proof that institutional excellence could translate into influence at the very highest levels. That triumph is now under attack. If Cook were to resign or be forced out under pressure, it would reverberate across HBCUs. It would reinforce perceptions that HBCU alumni, even at their most accomplished, remain vulnerable to political takedowns. For African American students pursuing economics at Howard, Morehouse, or North Carolina A&T, the message would be chilling: success does not guarantee security. From an institutional development standpoint, the HBCU community must interpret this not as an isolated incident but as a case study in institutional fragility. Without strong networks of advocacy, media response, and financial backing, HBCU alumni who enter elite spaces will continue to stand exposed.

Cook’s potential ouster matters beyond symbolism. At a time when the Federal Reserve is grappling with questions of inflation persistence, labor market dynamics, and the disruptive potential of artificial intelligence, her perspective is invaluable. She has consistently foregrounded the idea that innovation is not distributed equally and that policy must account for structural barriers to participation. In her July 2025 speech at the National Bureau of Economic Research, Cook warned that generative AI could entrench inequality if its benefits accrued only to a narrow segment of firms and workers. This perspective matters because it forces the Fed to grapple with the distributional consequences of macroeconomic shifts, not just aggregate averages. Her departure would narrow the intellectual diversity of the Fed at precisely the moment it most needs heterodox insights.

What then must be the response of African American institutions—HBCUs, banks, think tanks, chambers of commerce? Silence cannot be an option. Cook’s defense should not be left to partisan politicians alone. Instead, a coordinated institutional defense is required, one that frames this attack not just as an assault on an individual but as an assault on African American institutional legitimacy. African American-owned banks could highlight the importance of a Fed governor who understands the structural barriers to credit access in Black communities. HBCU presidents could jointly issue statements defending the integrity of their alumna and reminding the public of their role in producing top-tier economists. Think tanks could produce rapid-response analyses showing the economic costs of underrepresentation in monetary policy. The lesson is clear: individual success must be buttressed by institutional power. Without that scaffolding, every Lisa Cook who rises will remain vulnerable to political storms.

Ultimately, the attack on Lisa Cook exemplifies America’s struggle with inclusion at the highest levels of institutional power. It is not enough to allow “firsts” to break through. True inclusion requires protecting them from disproportionate scrutiny, ensuring that they can govern with the same presumption of competence afforded to their peers. For African America, Cook’s ordeal is a reminder that victories in representation must be consolidated by institutional strategy. HBCUs cannot rest on symbolic triumphs; they must translate them into sustained influence, advocacy, and resilience. Otherwise, every gain risks being undone at the first sign of political backlash.

Lisa D. Cook stands at a crossroads. Her presence at the Federal Reserve is not simply about her credentials, which are unimpeachable. It is about what she represents: the intellectual capacity of HBCUs, the resilience of African American scholarship, and the potential for inclusive economic governance. The calls for her resignation are not neutral. They are part of a larger contest over who gets to shape America’s financial architecture. If African American institutions fail to rally, Cook may become another cautionary tale of progress reversed. But if they respond with clarity and force, this moment could mark the beginning of a new era—one in which HBCU alumni are not just present in elite institutions but are protected by a scaffolding of institutional power equal to the challenges they face. Her fate, in many ways, is a referendum on whether African America can defend its foothold in the commanding heights of global economic governance.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

Leave a comment

Posted in Central Banks

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,