I think we need to understand why race even exist to begin with. Now some would argue that race is a biological reality. And I'm not here to dispute that, but functionally that's not really how race works in practice in the USA. Race, by design in any system of government has always been a tool to separate people, and there is always a mandate from the government as to how you treat people based on race. Understanding this, the governments all over the world has tried to get together and fix the race problem. Usually, and almost always with bad results. But we have to understand that race exist mostly as an economic imperative. And once we reconcile this, perhaps we can fix the issue more effectively. One thing is this, you can't fight discrimination. Because discrmination is essential for freedom. And everyone discriminates to a degree. The only thing we can do is make the system of discrimination useless. Discrimination itself is a choice, and there is only one economic model that punishes someone for bad choices. And this is the free market. Now one would say, the free market left unchecked will create more discrimination, not less of it. But we need to look at very good examples in South Africa, and 1920s to 1940s America. In which black people were more employed than their white counterparts, because of the power of bargaining. The thing is, there was an economic incentive for even the most hardened racist to give up their ideology in exchange for economic prosperity. But then we had things like Jim Crow. And one would say that is a system of discrimination under the free market. And anyone who believes and studies the free market will tell you that this isn't true at all. It was protectionism, which is the complete opposite of the free market. A model like Jim Crow is impossible under a free market system. And the only way it could be possible is if discriminating against black customers is a naturally effective economic strategy. Now one could argue that a discriminatory economic system can work. But those who say it can, cannot point to an example of a huge multinational, multi-billion dollar company that has an open discrimination policy. Not a single one. Businesses that discriminate either kill themselves, or they do not grow. One could say I'm using the "No True Scotsman" argument. However I think we have to understand that free market economics is directly opposed to anything like Jim Crow which uses a Keynesian/Protectionist model. Some people who are aware of Adam Smith and Great Britian knows that the free market was designed to combat mercantilism. Mercantilism looked almost like capitalism, but it was a severe protectionist economic model. What the USA has a mix of protectionism and free market. So we can even see examples today in the free market. Look at the overally success and growth of IT, which is one of the most free markets. And let's look at the growth of highly regulated businesses like Oil or Medical which always seem to stagnate. In closing, the answer to solving the race problem is right in front of our face. We need free markets, we need a better economic model. And we already have one that works, and it's been kicking ass for centuries.
I think you are really comparing apples to oranges. Yes the free market is great for producing the greatest good for the greatest number, but that doesn't seem to really address discrimination, Jim Crow, or that "race is an economic problem." I don't think it is. The people who seem the most tormented and in agony about race are usually winners in the free market. Writer Ta-Nehisi Coates is definitely a winner in pure economic terms, but I can't think of a person more in agony about race then him. He lives a life constantly seething in hatred of white people (for apparently minor infractions) and all the money in the world isn't going to cool that fire.
Actually it does solve issues of discrimination by punishing discrimination. If the actual discrimination that's taking place does not make sense economically, than the market will respond in the form of the business losing money or showing limited growth. Now as to someone's psychology after they've achieved something in the market. Well of course the free market can't solve that problem. I do not know who Ta-Nehisi Coates is, but I don't think his personal psychology has anything to do with the free market. That's just a personality trait for him/her only. And no one should look at policy makers or economist to solve those types of problems anyway. In either case, I feel that you built a straw man in either case.
That's you're problem; you don't think discrimination is viable economically and would damage any business that exercised it. I totally disagree. I think there is a massive market in discrimination. It's just not tapped because it's illegal, but look at how it manifests itself when there isn't a legal barrier: Real Estate. People move and live to either be with or avoid racial groups. In real estate, "good schools" is a euphemism for few blacks, and real estate agents know that when the black population hits a certain percentage in an area, like 25% or around there, white flight begins. White people (in general-I know not all..) don't seem to want to live around Black people and Black people (judging from reactions to gentrification) don't want to live around white people. If that sort of segregation were legal and out in the open, the US would quickly develop racial enclaves. Well we have that now, it's just not as overt. Now imagine if it was legal to have racially exclusive malls, restaurants, clubs... it would be like churches in America; mostly segregated.
Being only a generation or two into being able to compete equally in the economic sphere is an economic issue. There are blacks who are breaking through, but it will take another generation or two before we start seeing significant gains via the creation of intergenerational wealth. Whether or not that is a problem depends on one's disposition, however.
