Category: Money

Knowing When to Walk Away in 2025

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

By Nkozi Knight

We tell ourselves that success comes from more effort and more time. That belief still matters. Yet in 2025 another truth is just as important. Half the game is choosing where you spend your effort in the first place. Sometimes the smart move is to walk away.

The labor market is reshaping itself in real time. Generative AI tools now handle work that once kept whole teams busy. Companies are reorganizing to chase efficiency and speed. Leadership teams are under pressure to do more with fewer people. Global talent markets are wide open. H1B holders bring real skill and many firms are recruiting globally before they look locally. None of this is a moral judgment. It is the environment. In this environment staying put out of habit can become the most expensive decision you make.

Silent quitting defined the last few years. People stayed but pulled back. In 2025 the bigger risk is silent stagnation. You keep delivering while the org chart keeps shifting. Systems take over routine tasks. Budgets move to automation and to roles that can scale. If your seat does not compound your skills or your network, the clock is already ticking even if you cannot hear it.

Walking away is not drama. It is strategy. The question is simple. Does this role increase your value twelve months from now. If the honest answer is no, the cost of loyalty is too high. Loyalty to your future is the only loyalty that compounds.

To evaluate your situation ask yourself whether the outcomes you deliver are unique to your skill set or whether a model could replace them. Consider whether the learning curve in your current role is still steep or if you are repeating cycles that add little to your future. Reflect on whether your work places you near decision makers or keeps you locked in execution only. And finally, consider whether the relationships you build today will serve you tomorrow. These questions offer quiet clarity that no performance review will provide.

Leaving does not always mean quitting your employer. It can mean walking away from the wrong team, the wrong leader, the wrong product line, or the wrong client mix. It can mean seeking roles that sit beside the machines rather than beneath them. Human judgment, trust building, original insight, and accountable ownership remain scarce. Aim your career at the work that needs a signature, not just a keyboard.

The H1B debate is loud this year and will stay loud. The best response is not resentment. It is readiness. Build competencies that translate across industries. Learn the tools that drive your field so you can direct them rather than compete with them. Grow relationships that outlast any single title. When your value is clear and portable you will not fear any policy cycle.

For leaders the message is just as direct. People are watching how you treat them during this transition. If you use AI to strip away meaningful work without creating new ladders, your best people will exit first. If you invest in upskilling and in clear career paths, your organization will retain its core talent and attract more. Markets reward firms that act with clarity and care at the same time.

The choice to walk away is never easy. It asks for courage and a clear view of the road ahead. Yet the market is telling the truth every day. Growth rarely happens in places that mute your voice or drain your energy. If the room you are in no longer fits the person you are becoming, it is time to leave the room.

In 2025 the winners will not be those who simply grind harder. They will be those who choose their arenas wisely and walk away when the environment no longer deserves them.

Private Equity’s Greed Is Catching Up: Why Ordinary Americans Will Pay the Price

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

April 30, 2025 • By NKOZI KNIGHT

Many of us do not realize that private equity firms has always been about extraction, not creation. The model is simple. Borrow heavily, buy a company, slash jobs and benefits, sell off assets, and walk away with fees long before the damage shows. Communities are left with shuttered stores, abandoned buildings, bankrupt chains, and broken promises.

The list of casualties is long. Toys “R” Us was loaded with more than $5 billion dollars in debt by Bain Capital and KKR before it collapsed, taking 30,000 jobs with it. Payless ShoeSource closed its doors, erasing 18,000 jobs. J. Crew, Gymboree, Shopko, Forever 21, and Sears each followed the same path. Behind nearly every failure was a private equity deal that turned once-profitable companies into vehicles for debt. Blackstone, the largest of them all, drew criticism for gutting nursing homes and rental housing, where residents and tenants bore the consequences. Carlyle, Apollo, and Sycamore Partners engineered deals that enriched executives while leaving behind bankruptcies across retail, energy, and health care.

The damage has never been limited to debt. Private equity firms extract billions in fees on top of what they load onto companies. They sell the land and buildings, forcing the very businesses they own to pay rent back to them. In franchise models, they skim off royalty payments while cutting services and staff. They charge management fees to companies they already control, ensuring that even if a business fails, the firm still profits. These practices are not side effects. They are the business model.

For years the system ran on cheap money. With interest rates near zero, debt was abundant and investors were eager. Firms could buy, bleed, and flip companies in two or three years. That era is gone. Interest rates now sit above five percent. Debt costs more, buyers are scarce, and the IPO market has dried up. Firms are stuck holding companies that are drowning under the very leverage designed to enrich their owners.

The numbers are staggering. Nearly $12 trillion dollars in private equity assets now sit unsold. Exit activity has collapsed more than 70 percent since 2021. To raise cash, firms are borrowing against their own portfolios with NAV loans or dumping stakes at steep discounts on the secondary market. Even the giants like Blackstone, KKR, Apollo, Carlyle, Bain are stuck with bad debt no one wants. They cannot sell, yet their investors are demanding cash.

The quiet truth is that these firms are already maneuvering for Washington’s help. During the 2008 financial crisis, banks and insurers were rescued with taxpayer dollars. Private equity, which profited handsomely off that same collapse, is positioning itself for similar treatment.

This is not just an elite problem. It is a national one. When private equity runs out of road, it is not the billionaire partners who suffer. It is the workers whose jobs are cut, the retirees whose pensions cannot meet obligations, the students whose tuition rises because endowments cannot keep pace, and the taxpayers who are asked to backstop the system.

The parallels to 2008 are frightening. Then it was mortgage backed securities. Now it is unsellable companies and illiquid funds. In 2008, families lost homes and jobs while Wall Street was saved. Today the scale is even larger. With trillions in assets frozen, the next bailout could dwarf the last one.

Meanwhile, private equity’s destruction also extends into America’s hospitals and nursing homes and people are paying with their lives. Studies show that Medicare patients undergoing emergency surgeries in private equity–owned hospitals are 42 percent more likely to die within 30 days compared to those treated in community hospitals . A nationwide study found infections, falls, and other preventable adverse events increased following private equity takeovers of hospitals . Even the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services condemned the impact, warning that private equity ownership of nursing homes led to an 11 percent increase in patient deaths .

Recent reporting shows the financial calculus behind these tragedies. Nursing home operators in New York’s Capital Region diverted Medicare and Medicaid funds through inflated rent and bogus salaries. That left facilities chronically understaffed and suffering neglect so severe that it led to cases of serious injury and death .

By turning hospitals and nursing homes into profit centers rather than care centers, private equity firms aren’t just bankrupting businesses, they are literally killing people. And when that business model collapses, it will be everyday Americans who pay the cost once again.

The message is not subtle. If private equity’s gamble fails, the richest players will once again be saved. For ordinary Americans, the reckoning will look like it always does. Lost jobs. Higher taxes. Vanishing pensions. Rising tuition. And another generation paying for someone else’s greed.

This is the American cycle. The profits are privatized, the losses are socialized, and working families are forced to carry the cost.

The Private Equity Trap: How Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Got Caught in a Liquidity Crisis

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

For decades, private equity was the hottest corner of finance. The model was simple. Buy a company, cut costs, load it with debt and fees, polish the books, and sell it again within two to three years for a hefty profit. It was called the “flip,” and it made fortunes for firms like Blackstone, KKR, and Carlyle. Endowments and pensions rushed to get a piece of it.

That model is now broken.

The exits that once came fast and lucrative have slowed to a crawl. A world of near-zero interest rates is gone. Debt that once financed buyouts at minimal cost now comes with punishing interest, squeezing margins and stretching holding periods. Instead of flipping companies in two years, funds are sitting on assets for six, seven, even ten years. The portfolio backlog is staggering: more than $12 trillion worth of private equity assets sit unsold worldwide.

And at the center of this crisis are the universities that built their wealth on the promise of private equity. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton reshaped modern investing by betting heavily on illiquid alternatives. They now face the consequences of that bet.

The Death of the Flip

The two-year turnaround was never sustainable, but for a time it worked. Cheap debt fueled endless rounds of leveraged buyouts, where firms borrowed heavily, stripped assets, cut staff, and pushed companies back to market at inflated valuations.

But the cycle depended on two things: cheap money and eager buyers. Both have disappeared. The Federal Reserve’s rate hikes have doubled and tripled the cost of debt financing. Buyers are cautious, corporate balance sheets are tighter, and the IPO window remains largely shut.

Exit activity tells the story. In 2021, private equity firms sold $840 billion worth of companies. By 2023, that figure had collapsed to $234 billion, a drop of 72 percent. Even with a partial rebound in 2024 to $468 billion, exits are far too low to clear the backlog. Funds are holding twice as many assets as they did in 2019, but are selling them at the same pace as five years ago.

Without exits, distributions to investors dry up. Endowments that expected cash back to fund university budgets are left waiting.

Interest Rates as the Choke Point

Private equity’s entire model is built on leverage. A firm that buys a company for $10 billion may finance $7 billion of that price with debt, leaving just $3 billion of investor equity. If interest rates are low, debt is cheap, and any improvement in the business magnifies returns.

But with rates at five percent or higher, the math no longer works. Debt service eats into earnings. Refinancing becomes expensive or impossible. Companies bought at lofty valuations in 2020 and 2021 are now struggling to cover interest costs, let alone generate attractive profits for resale.

For the funds that hold them, paper valuations remain high, but real buyers demand discounts. That gap between reported NAV and market reality is another reason sales have slowed.

The Mechanics of Desperation

To keep investors from revolting, firms have engineered liquidity out of thin air. NAV loans lines of credit secured by the assets in a fund allow managers to borrow cash and hand it back to investors as if it were a distribution. Continuation funds where a firm sells a portfolio company from one of its funds into another fund it also controls in effect creates the illusion of an exit, while extending the holding period indefinitely.

On the investor side, endowments and pensions have turned to the secondary market, selling their stakes in private equity funds to buyers willing to take them at a discount. In 2024, secondary volume hit a record $155 billion. Harvard sold $1 billion worth of fund stakes. Yale is preparing to sell as much as $6 billion. The New York City pension system sold $5 billion. Buyers snapped them up at 10 to 15 percent discounts to stated value. For venture portfolios, the discounts were as steep as 50 percent.

These maneuvers do not solve the problem. They buy time. The only true fix is exits with real sales, IPOs, or recapitalizations and the industry is years away from clearing the overhang.

Case Studies: The Ivy League Squeeze

Harvard has a $53 billion endowment, the largest in the world. Nearly 40 percent of it is tied up in private equity. In April 2025, Harvard moved to sell $1 billion of those stakes through Jefferies, while simultaneously planning to issue $750 million in bonds. The official explanation is liquidity management, not distress. But the resemblance to 2008, when Harvard was forced to borrow billions to cover private equity calls, is unmistakable.

Yale built the “Yale model,” with nearly half of its $41 billion endowment allocated to private assets. For years, this made Yale the envy of institutional investors. But in 2024, Yale returned just 5.7 percent, compared to 13.5 percent for a basic stock-bond index. Now it is exploring a $6 billion secondary sale, nearly 15 percent of its endowment. The sale is not about strategy. It is about cash.

Princeton has a smaller endowment, about $35 billion, but the same exposure. Its longtime CIO Andrew Golden called 2023 the worst liquidity environment he had ever seen. Princeton raised $1.4 billion in bonds to shore up its balance sheet. Like Harvard and Yale, it insists the strategy is intact. But the reality is that illiquidity has become a liability.

Why This Matters to Everyday Americans

It is tempting to see this as an elite problem, billion dollar universities mismanaging their fortune. But it is not.

Endowments fund scholarships, financial aid, and core research. If Harvard or Yale faces a liquidity squeeze, it means fewer students receive aid. It means tuition rises to fill the gap. It means labs lose funding and staff lose jobs. What begins as a crisis in private equity becomes a crisis for students and families.

The same holds true in pensions. State retirement systems have billions tied up in private equity. When distributions dry up, they cannot meet obligations to retirees. That shortfall has to be covered by raising taxes, cutting benefits, or, in the worst case, turning to the federal government for relief. For millions of working and middle class Americans, this is not abstract. It is their retirement on the line.

The parallels to 2008 are chilling. Then, it was mortgage backed securities that turned toxic. Homeowners defaulted, banks failed, and Washington rushed in with taxpayer bailouts. Families lost houses, jobs, and savings, while Wall Street was rescued. Today, the scale is even larger. With twelve trillion dollars in unsold assets stuck on private equity books, the next bailout could dwarf 2008.

Imagine the politics of that moment. A populist like Donald Trump could frame it as Ivy League elites and Wall Street executives begging for lifelines while ordinary Americans pay the price. But the structural interdependence is real. If endowments and pensions buckle, the pressure on Washington to intervene may be irresistible. The federal government does not have the fiscal room to absorb another trillion dollar rescue, yet that may be exactly what is asked of it.

The burden would not fall on universities or private equity firms alone. It would fall on taxpayers, on students already struggling with debt, on workers who depend on pensions, on families already squeezed by inflation and high borrowing costs. In short, it would fall on the very people who had no hand in creating the mess.

Private equity sold itself as the smartest bet of modern finance. But the two year flip is dead, interest rates have choked the model, and endowments that once trusted in illiquidity now find themselves trapped. For everyday Americans, the lesson is as clear as it was in 2008: when the smartest people in the room gamble with other people’s money and lose, it is everyone else who ends up paying the price.

Behind Washington’s Latest Bipartisan Marvel: The Quiet Power Grab in the GENIUS Act

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

Date: Wisconsin, June 28, 2025

When the Senate voted 68-30 last week to pass the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, or better known as the GENIUS Act, the moment barely registered in a news cycle crowded with updates from the Diddy trial, ominous talk of World War III, and who does and does have have nuclear warheads a in the Middle East. Yet the bill is poised to reshape American money itself, setting the stage for bank-issued digital dollars and a vastly expanded federal role in everyday payments that will impact every Americans for the next decade.

House leaders now plan to bundle the measure with a separate market-structure bill, the CLARITY Act, and move both to the floor in a single vote as early as the week of July 7. President Trump has already signaled he will sign the package “without delay.”  

A $265 Million Campaign Pays Off

Passage caps the costliest crypto lobbying blitz on record. Industry groups and super PACs spent more than $265 million during the 2024 election cycle, which is nearly double the previous year, to elect crypto-friendly candidates and draft the very language that now governs them.  

Much of that money flowed through Fairshake, a super PAC bankrolled by Coinbase, Ripple and venture fund a16z, which alone poured over $130 million into congressional races. Thirty-three of its thirty-five endorsed candidates won which ties them with AIPAC.

The bill’s corporate sponsors read like a who’s-who of finance:

JPMorgan Chase filed a trademark for JPMD, a deposit-backed token it can now launch on Coinbase’s Base network.   PayPal and several regional banks lobbied for an exemption that lets them issue “payment stablecoins” under state charters.   World Liberty Financial, the Trump-family venture behind the USD1 stablecoin, secured a new $100 million investment from a UAE fund days before the vote.  

What the Bill Actually Does

This bill re-labels stablecoins as “payment systems,” taking them out of securities law and handing primary oversight to the Fed and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, creating an aura of legitimacy. It also creates a licensing moat: only banks and “permitted issuers” that meet 1-to-1 reserve, audit and AML rules can mint tokens—locking smaller DeFi projects outside the gate. Mandates monthly disclosures of reserves but allows issuers to hold short-term Treasuries, providing fresh demand for federal debt.   Bars members of Congress and their immediate families from trading stablecoins—but notably leaves the White House exempt. Senator Elizabeth Warren called this “a loophole big enough to drive a truck full of crypto through.”

The Bipartisan Pattern: Crypto and Foreign Wars

The only other legislation that has moved this smoothly across party lines in recent years is foreign-aid spending for Ukraine and Israel. In April 2024 Congress passed a $95 billion package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan with overwhelming majorities in both chambers, with all packages hovering over $300 billion in the last 5 years.

Critics argue the same donor class such as defense contractors abroad and crypto financiers at home, dictates both agendas. “If it involves new weapons or new money rails, Congress finds consensus,” says Sarah Bryer, a former Senate banking staffer now at watchdog group Public Citizen. “Everything else stalls.”

What Gets Missed While Washington Innovates

Poverty: The Supplemental Poverty Measure rose to 12.9 percent in 2023, the first increase in a decade.   Homelessness: More than 770,000 Americans were unhoused on a single night in January 2024, the highest count ever recorded.   Disaster Recovery: Communities from Maui to East Palestine still wait on promised federal funds years after their crises. To date the U.S. Congress has held nine hearings but passed no comprehensive relief bills for any of these victims.

Yet lawmakers devoted 18 months of hearings and four mark-ups to ensure banks can mint digital dollars.

A New Architecture for Control

Civil-liberties attorneys warn that putting money on permissioned blockchains invites mission creep. Once every transaction is traceable:

Payments can be geofenced or frozen at the click of a regulator’s dashboard. Political dissenters can be de-banked without ever seeing a courtroom. Cash’s untraceable refuge disappears, replaced by tokens that obey code written in Washington and often debugged on Wall Street.

Senator Warren, one of just eleven Democrats opposed, likened the bill to the 2000 Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which green-lit credit-default swaps before the 2008 crash. “We’re repeating history,” she warned on the floor. 

What Happens Next

If the House delivers the bill to President Trump before the July 4 recess, bank-branded stablecoins could hit the market within a year. JPMorgan’s JPMD pilot is ready; PayPal has quietly updated code to let its wallet swap into compliant tokens.

For ordinary Americans, the promise is faster payments, at least until the rules change. “Digital dollars are programmable,” notes Bryer. “Today they clear instantly. Tomorrow they refuse to buy a bus ticket to the wrong protest.”

The Bottom Line

The GENIUS Act is not just a regulatory tweak; it is the blueprint for a cashless, centrally mediated economy shaped by the largest banks, the loudest lobbyists and a White House with skin in the game. That it passed under the radar says as much about the media distractions of the moment as it does about the power of money in Washington.

As many households grapple with rising rents, increased living expenses, stubborn poverty and record homelessness, Congress has found rare harmony over who controls the future of money itself. When the dust settles, Americans may discover their new digital wallet comes with fewer rights than the battered leather one it replaced.

While You’re Watching Game 7 of the NBA Finals, We’re Being Sold Out Piece by Piece

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

We’re not watching a dramatic fall of America. There are no breaking news alerts about the end. No explosions in the streets. No economic sirens.

But make no mistake….something terrible is happening.

Piece by piece, decision by decision, we are being sold out. Our labor, our taxes, our future, it is all being extracted. And while it happens, we are told to look the other way while letting AI take many of our jobs.

Watch the game. Scroll the feed. Place a bet. Argue online about culture wars that do not affect your rent, your hospital bill, or your ability to afford groceries.

Meanwhile, the money keeps flowing. Out of your paycheck. Out of your neighborhood. Out of this country. Straight into the hands of foreign governments, defense contractors, and elite interests.

This is not the dramatic fall of a nation. It is a transfer of wealth, security, and stability away from ordinary Americans and toward a system that was never built to serve us. It is a system that acts globally, extracts locally, and survives only as long as we do not look directly at it.

You can call it a government. You can call it a machine. But what it really functions as is an empire. And the longer we ignore it, the more it takes.

The Cost of That Empire Is Being Paid in Evictions and Empty Refrigerators

While your tax dollars are used to fund missile systems in Israel, people across the United States are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads. Since 2020, the median price of a home has risen by more than 40 percent. Interest rates have climbed above 7 percent, making homeownership unreachable for millions (National Association of Realtors, 2024).

At the same time, Americans like myself, carry over $1.7 trillion in student loan debt. Medical bankruptcies remain the most common form of personal financial ruin. A premature baby that has to stay in a neonatal intensive care unit for over a month can cost well over a million dollars. On top of that, more than half of the country cannot afford an unexpected five hundred dollar emergency.

And yet, every year, tens of billions of dollars are approved for foreign aid without hesitation.

Israel receives more U.S. taxpayer money than any other nation on Earth. Since 1948, it has received over 300 billion dollars in aid, including nearly 4 billion annually in guaranteed military funding (Congressional Research Service, 2023).

That money has helped fund a public healthcare system, subsidized childcare, and modern infrastructure. Israel’s students have new schools. Their citizens have access to doctors without going bankrupt.

Meanwhile, in American cities, teachers work second jobs. Classrooms go without books. People drive across state lines to afford prescriptions. And in cities like Flint, Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi, families still live without safe drinking water.

This is not about scarcity. It is about priorities.

An Economy Built to Keep Us Consuming

We are told that the economy is doing well. But it only looks strong on paper because we are constantly spending to survive.

Wages have remained flat for decades, while the cost of everything else has gone up. Food, gas, housing, tuition, and insurance have all exploded. But instead of fixing the system, the solution we are offered is more debt.

–Buy now, pay later.

–Zero percent financing.

–Monthly subscriptions for everything, even the essentials.

Our economy runs on credit cards and desperation.

We are not building wealth. We are surviving one paycheck at a time, and no one is willing to admit it.

And when that stress becomes too much, we are handed another solution, a distraction. Sometimes it’s a RICO case of a famous celebrity, other times it’s the United States bombing an empty nuclear facility in Iran, and other times it’s something as simple as sports and sports betting.

There is always something to pull our focus. Sports betting is now a multi-billion dollar industry thanks to ESPN, Draft Kings, Prize Picks, and MGM Sports betting. On television, sex-laden reality shows dominate prime time and paid subscriptions. Viral celebrity drama trends daily. Meanwhile, airstrikes in Gaza or explosions in Tehran are buried beneath all this noise but we pay for all of it.

None of this is random. It is a carefully designed system.

We Fund a Better Life for Others While We Are Told to Settle for Less

The average American is constantly being told to sacrifice.

Tighten your belt.

Use credit.

Be patient.

Inflation is temporary.

Work harder.

But there is no austerity when it comes to military aid.

There is always money for war. There is always money for foreign governments. There is always money to rebuild somewhere else in a land most have never been, but there is nothing for Maui, East Palestine, Flint, New Orleans, and many other cities in America.

Since 1948, Israel has received over 300 billion dollars in U.S. assistance (Reuters, 2024). That money has helped create one of the best publicly funded healthcare and education systems in the world—for a country with fewer people than New York City.

In America, we have veterans sleeping on the street in every major city.

We have kids learning from worksheets because their school cannot afford books.

We have families rationing insulin and choosing between medication and rent.

This is not just a funding issue. It is a values issue.

We are paying for the stability of others while our own communities are crumbling.

They Keep Us Distracted So We Do Not See It

Every time the conversation gets too close to real issues, the distractions flood in.

The headlines suddenly shift, and Operation Mockingbird goes full tilt. The scandals erupt more salacious than the prior one. The outrage machine gets turns on, and Americans are pinned against each other.

We are told to obsess over celebrities, argue over culture wars, and follow political soap operas like they are sports teams.

This is not a coincidence. It is the only way this corrupt system survives.

Because if we stop fighting each other, we might start asking the real questions.

Where is the money going?

Why can’t we afford basic services while funding foreign militaries?

Why is our economy built on debt and distraction?

And who exactly is benefiting from all of this since it’s not US?

This Is Not Incompetence. It Is a Strategy.

The truth is that the United States has all the resources it needs to take care of its people….if it wanted to.

But we do not. Not because we can’t. But because we are not supposed to.

We are expected to work, consume, and remain distracted.

We are expected to stay tired, stay anxious, and stay divided.

And we are expected to believe that any attempt to change the system is unrealistic, unpatriotic, or impossible.

But the truth is, the system is not broken. It is functioning exactly as designed.

It is designed to take.

It is designed to distract.

And it is designed to leave us wondering why we are doing everything right and still falling behind.

Can You Relate

If you are working harder than ever but getting nowhere, you are not alone.

If you are wondering why another country has healthcare and you cannot afford a routine checkup, you are asking the right question.

If you are tired of being told that sacrifice is patriotic while billionaires and foreign allies get blank checks, then maybe it is time we stop playing along.

They do not fear Iran. They do not fear China. They do not fear Russia.

What they fear is that you will start paying attention.

Because the moment we stop watching the show and start watching the system, the game is over.

Sources

National Association of Realtors. (2024). Median home price trends

Congressional Research Service. (2023). U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel

Reuters. (2024). Israel aid totals and annual packages

CNBC. (2023). 80 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck

Cato Institute. (2021). U.S. Military Footprint: 750 bases in 80 countries

Al Jazeera. (2021). U.S. global base presence overview

Beneath the Clothes We Donate: How America’s Fast Fashion Addiction is lDrowning Ghana

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

By Nkozi Knight


A young boy stands amid mountains of discarded clothing and plastic waste on Ghana’s Chorkor Beach

Accra, Ghana –

The beaches of Ghana should be sanctuaries. Places where waves kiss the sand and children play in peace. But on the shores of Chorkor Beach, the tide doesn’t bring seashells. It brings sweaters from Shein, leggings from Lululemon, and Target tees soaked in salt and filth.

Week after week, a deluge of secondhand clothing arrives in Ghana from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other industrialized nations. Billed as “donations,” these shipments are not gifts. They are refuse. They are the castoffs of a culture addicted to overconsumption and numbed to consequence.

Ghana receives roughly 15 million garments a week, much of it dumped by consumers who believe they’re “doing good” by donating to local bins outside of Walmart or church parking lots. In reality, 40 percent of these clothes are unusable trash, exported to West Africa in bulk and eventually dumped, burned, or strewn across the coastline. Kantamanto Market in Accra, once a center of textile trade and reuse, has become overwhelmed and swamped by low-quality fast fashion designed to fall apart before its first wash.

“We are drowning in your clothing,” said a local vendor in a recent BBC Africa Eye documentary. “These aren’t donations. They are poison.”

This isn’t hyperbole. Synthetic fabrics, often polyester, don’t biodegrade. They clog drains, suffocate marine life, and release microplastics into the ecosystem. Some are so contaminated with dyes and industrial chemicals that simply burning them chokes nearby residents. Because Western brands outsource both the problem and the blame, few Americans ever witness the wreckage.

The Cult of the New

American corporations drive this destruction through a business model of planned obsolescence and psychological manipulation. Fast fashion giants like Shein, Fashion Nova, Boohoo, and H&M churn out hundreds of new styles weekly. And we buy them. On impulse. To feel something. To impress no one. To post once on social media and then forget.

A 2023 Vogue Business investigation reported that the average American throws away 81 pounds of clothing per year. That’s nearly 13 billion pounds of textile waste, most of which is either burned or exported. Out of sight. Out of mind.

The 2024 HBO documentary Brandy Hellville and the Cult of Fast Fashion peeled back the curtain on this global racket, revealing how corporations knowingly flood developing nations with clothing that cannot be sold, recycled, or reused. These companies profit from both ends of the pipeline, selling cheap clothes and then writing off their “donations” for tax breaks.

But in Ghana, the beaches tell the truth. Children walk barefoot through piles of wet fabric. Fishermen cast their nets into waters tangled with discarded bras and sweaters. Clothes meant for dignity now strip the land of its own.

Stop Pretending It’s Helping

The problem is systemic, but it starts at home.

Donating clothes in bins is not inherently virtuous. In fact, it’s part of the illusion. The vast majority of those clothes don’t go to shelters or local families. They are sold in bulk to global brokers who profit off Africa’s environmental misery.

We are not helping. We are offloading guilt.

The solution cannot be just more donation or wishful recycling. It begins with consuming less. Buy intentionally. Wear things longer. Mend. Repurpose. Swap. Or better yet, just don’t buy unless you need to. The world doesn’t need another $9 tee you’ll forget in a week.

And for the clothes that have truly reached their end? Perhaps it’s time to explore municipal incineration, compostable textiles, or clothing deposit programs where manufacturers are held financially responsible for their waste. We regulate plastic straws more than we regulate stores like Forever 21, H&M, and Walmart.

A Final Reckoning

Americans, if we do not change, beaches like Chorkor will disappear, buried under the weight of our vanity and excess. What once were coastal communities tied to fishing, family, and resilience are now becoming textile graveyards. The soil is dying. The water is choking. The air burns with the fumes of our unwanted clothes that takes 200 years to naturally decompose.

This is no longer just about fashion. It’s about justice.

Because let’s be honest: we know who’s responsible.

The responsible parties include: Shein, H&M, Zara, Forever 21, Fashion Nova, Boohoo, PrettyLittleThing, Temu, Target, Walmart, Old Navy, Uniqlo, Gap, Amazon’s in-house brands, and countless Instagram and Tik Tok shops. These corporations flood the global market with billions of garments each year. Their business model thrives on overproduction, cheap labor, and psychological manipulation. They manufacture the illusion of need. They sell you a fantasy of trendiness and self-expression at the cost of someone else’s environment and dignity.

And we, the consumers, buy in. Often literally.

Every impulse buy, every “haul” video, every $5 tee or $10 dress contributes to a planetary cycle of destruction. We wear it once, toss it in a bin, and tell ourselves we did something good by “donating.” But we’re not recycling. We’re relocating the problem. Our discarded clothes are not going to those in need. They’re going to countries like Ghana, Kenya, Chile, and Haiti, nations without the infrastructure to process the sheer volume of waste we produce.

Because the truth is: your closet might be clean, but someone else is paying the price for it.

And they’re paying with their soil, their seas, and their breath.

We need a global reckoning. Not just with corporations, but with ourselves.

Buy less. Buy better. Demand accountability. Push for laws that make brands responsible for the full life cycle of their products.

Until we stop treating clothing as disposable, we will continue to treat people the same way.

Boys play in the sea diving off a pile of clothing found washed up on the beach at Jamestown, Accra(Image: Adam Gerrard / Daily Mirror

For a video documentary, watch:

Ghana: Fast fashion dumping dumping ground

Further Reading and Resources:

Greenpeace Report: Fast Fashion, Slow Poison

HBO Documentary: Brandy Hellville & The Cult of Fast Fashion

AP News Article: Fast fashion waste is polluting Africa

The Guardian: Where does the UK’s fast fashion end up?

Zeus Network Exposed: The True Creators and the CEO Who Cut Them Out

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

DeStorm Power, King Bach and Amanda Cerny, the original creators of Zeus Network.

Zeus Network launched in 2018 as a creator driven platform dreamed up by DeStorm Power, King Bach and Amanda Cerny working alongside Lemuel Plummer. DeStorm was the first to believe in the vision so much that he invested one hundred thirty five thousand dollars of his own money to make it happen. He even came up with the name Zeus after being inspired by Nike. King Bach brought his thirty million plus followers from Vine and Instagram as built in hype for day one. Amanda used her brand partnerships know how to land sponsorship deals and bring in real revenue when most startups were still figuring out how to sell ads. Together they handled content production promotion and funding while Plummer kept the network running behind the scenes  .

Once Zeus picked up steam Plummer cut the founders out of the financial picture. They say he locked them out of company accounts erased their names on contracts and denied them the earnings they had a right to. Instead he allegedly reported to the IRS that the original partners made millions in profits. DeStorm, King Bach and Amanda have received K1 tax documents showing those figures and they are forced to pay taxes on money they never saw  . That alone is the heart of their lawsuit. How can you justify billing someone for income that never landed in their bank account?

This is not the only time Zeus has faced legal action over shady deals. In 2020 singer Omarion sued Zeus and Plummer for two hundred thousand dollars for breach of contract and fraud after the network aired his Millennium Tour Live Concert without paying the agreed revenue share  . More recently Paramount Global’s Viacom filed suit accusing Zeus of ripping off Wild ’N Out with Bad Vs Wild and intentionally inducing Nick Cannon to breach his contract  . Even reality star Chrisean Rock says Zeus still owes her money for Crazy In Love and claims Diddy confronted Plummer over the unpaid checks  .

When you look at the roster of lawsuits it shows a pattern of profit first and fairness nowhere. DeStorm Power, King Bach and Amanda Cerny built the network with their talent hustle and cash. Now they are in court fighting to reclaim the fruits of their labor and clear their names from inflated IRS documents. Their case is about more than unpaid equity. It is a fight for creator rights and a warning to anyone thinking they can build a brand and be cut out of the story.

At the end of the day Zeus may keep churning out viral reality shows but the real story is in these court filings. The people who actually created the platform are the ones left holding the bag. If the court sides with the original founders it will send a message that ideas earned through sweat deserve more than a line item on a tax form. It will remind every creator that building a business with your own hands means protecting your stake and standing up when someone tries to rewrite history

CITY YEAR MILWAUKEE FACES UNCERTAIN FUTURE AS FEDERAL AMERICORPS FUNDING CUTS LOOM

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

City Year Milwaukee, a vital partner in local education equity efforts, may be one of many programs at risk following sweeping cuts to AmeriCorps funding enacted through recent federal executive orders by President Donald Trump.

For years, City Year AmeriCorps members have served as near-peer mentors and tutors in Milwaukee Public Schools, offering support in classrooms where additional academic, emotional, and behavioral reinforcement is needed most. Their work has contributed directly to increased reading scores, stronger attendance, and greater student engagement in underserved communities.

But those outcomes now face disruption.

The federal government’s decision to significantly scale back AmeriCorps support by $400 Million threatens the infrastructure that has powered City Year and dozens of national service programs for decades. The loss of funding doesn’t just cut stipends or operational support, it cuts opportunity in Milwaukee. It cuts the relationships that matter most: those between a struggling student and the one person in their school day who sees their potential and shows up every morning to nurture it.

“This isn’t just a budget line,” said one City Year alum. “It’s a lifeline to kids, to communities, and to those of us who joined AmeriCorps to serve with purpose.”

City Year, a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit, remains committed to serving without discrimination based on race, color, gender, origin, political belief, or faith. But continuing that mission requires resources.

Supporters, alumni, and concerned residents can learn more and get involved at: https://www.cityyear.org/milwaukee

In the wake of these cuts, the question is not whether the need still exists. It’s whether we will still show up.

BlackRock Doesn’t Just Own Tech. It Owns Your Future.

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

BlackRock doesn’t just own parts of Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon. It owns your food supply. It owns farmland. It owns water infrastructure. And through those investments, it owns a growing stake in the future of human survival itself.

What began in 1988 as a modest Wall Street firm built on risk management is now the largest asset manager in human history. BlackRock controls over $11 trillion , which is larger than the GDP of every country in the world except the United States and China.

But what most people still don’t realize is that BlackRock’s most important power grab didn’t happen on Wall Street. It happened quietly, across America’s farmland, its food systems, and its natural resources.

How Did We Get Here?

BlackRock’s expansion strategy was never about flashy takeovers. It was about ownership without attention. They don’t need to buy entire companies when they can buy enough shares to influence them all.

Through complex index funds and ETFs (Exchange-Traded Funds), BlackRock has quietly become a top shareholder in nearly every major corporation in America. Coca-Cola. PepsiCo. Kraft Heinz. Nestlé. Tyson Foods. Monsanto-Bayer. Even the companies that compete with each other are often owned by the same hand, BlackRock.

That includes food production, packaging, seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, farmland, water rights, grocery store chains, and agribusiness suppliers.

It is a spider web so vast that very few industries operate outside of its reach.

Farmland: The New Oil

In recent years, farmland has quietly become one of the hottest investments among America’s wealthiest. But few players have been as aggressive as BlackRock and its peers like Vanguard and State Street.

Why Farmland you may ask?

Simple. Land produces food, controls water access, and holds its value against inflation. In a world of uncertainty, farmland is power.

BlackRock has invested in farmland directly and indirectly through real estate investment trusts (REITs) like Farmland Partners and Gladstone Land Corporation. In some regions, institutional investors now own an estimated 30-50% of all available farmland.

For local farmers like Paul Rettler, this creates an impossible game that no one can win. Competing against trillion-dollar firms backed by infinite capital means the consolidation of agriculture isn’t slowing down, rather it’s accelerating.

The ESG Illusion

Much of BlackRock’s public messaging has centered around ESG, which stands for: Environmental, Social, and Governance investing , a framework designed to steer money toward sustainable and ethical practices.

But behind the marketing, ESG has often allowed BlackRock to reshape industries while still investing heavily in the very corporations most responsible for environmental harm.

Larry Fink, BlackRock’s billionaire CEO, has framed ESG as both a moral obligation and a business necessity. Yet BlackRock remains one of the largest shareholders in fossil fuel giants, industrial agriculture companies, and food manufacturers responsible for deforestation and soil degradation.

As environmental groups have pointed out daily, BlackRock has the ability to change the food system overnight. But profit almost always wins over principle and we have seen this outcome time and time again.

So What Does BlackRock Want?

It’s simple: Control. Influence. Permanence.

The more essential needs a company controls such as food, water, housing, energy, the less it matters who holds political office. Ownership is the real power.

When a handful of corporations control the basic elements of survival, the public becomes renters of everything, including their health, their homes, and their future.

This is the world being built right in front of us.

Water rights in California. Farmland in the Midwest. Global seed patents. Packaging monopolies. Shipping routes. Grocery store chains. Pharmaceutical partnerships. Tech platforms controlling communication.

This is not just about selling products.

This is about owning life itself.

So what can everyday people do?

Waiting for a politician to fix this system is like waiting for a thief to return what they stole. It is not going to happen.

But the answer is not fear. The answer is awareness. The answer is action.

It starts with taking back control wherever you can.

Buy from local farmers when possible. Grow your own food even if it is just herbs in your kitchen window. Filter your water. Cook your own meals. Learn how to read ingredient labels. Support local businesses over corporations when you can.

Most importantly, do your own research. Step outside of Google, mainstream media, and the same recycled talking points coming from media companies owned by the very corporations profiting from your confusion.

Seek independent sources. Read books. Listen to people on the ground, not just those in boardrooms. Question convenience when it comes at the cost of your health.

Learn how to be less dependent on the systems designed to keep you dependent.

Because at this point, we cannot wait for RFK. We cannot wait for politicians. We cannot wait for the same people who helped build this system to suddenly tear it down.

We have to start building something different starting in our homes, in our families, in our communities.

Not because it is trendy.

But because survival has always belonged to the people willing to think for themselves, take responsibility for their lives, and protect their future by any means necessary.

Harvard Expands Free Tuition to Families Earning Under $200,000

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

By Nkozi Knight

In a move aimed at expanding access to higher education, Harvard University announced Monday that it will offer free tuition to students from families earning $200,000 or less starting in the 2025-2026 academic year. This marks a significant expansion of the university’s financial aid program, further removing financial barriers for prospective students.

Students from families with incomes below $100,000 will also have all expenses covered, including housing, food, health insurance, and travel costs. Previously, Harvard provided full financial support only to students from families earning less than $85,000 annually.

“Putting Harvard within financial reach for more individuals widens the array of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives that all of our students encounter, fostering their intellectual and personal growth,” said Harvard President Alan Garber.

While tuition alone at Harvard currently exceeds $56,000, total costs, including housing and other fees, approach $83,000 per year. The new policy will significantly lessen that burden for many American families.

Families earning above $200,000 may still qualify for tailored financial aid depending on individual circumstances.

This initiative aligns with similar policies at other elite institutions, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which announced a comparable expansion last fall. Harvard estimates that 86% of U.S. families will now be eligible for some level of financial aid.

“Harvard has long sought to open our doors to the most talented students, no matter their financial circumstances,” said Hopkins Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. “This investment ensures that every admitted student can pursue their academic passions and contribute to shaping our future.”

The expansion comes amid broader conversations about diversity in higher education, especially following the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action in college admissions. Harvard, along with other institutions like the University of Pennsylvania, views increased financial aid as a pathway to maintaining diversity by ensuring access to students from varied socioeconomic backgrounds.

“We know the most talented students come from different socioeconomic backgrounds and experiences, from every state and around the globe,” said William Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s dean of admissions and financial aid. “Our financial aid is critical to ensuring that these students know Harvard College is a place where they can thrive.”

This policy marks a continued effort to create a more inclusive and accessible environment at one of the nation’s most prestigious universities.

Wisconsin Real Estate Market: What to Expect in 2024 & 2025?

Posted on by Nkozi Knight
2024 Parade of Homes Model-The Clare

The median home sale price in Wisconsin has reached $327,000, reflecting an 8.8% year-over-year increase. Homes are still selling quickly, with an average of 43 days on the market, which suggests high demand in the real estate market. This is further reinforced by a 6.6% increase in home sales, with 6,532 homes sold in July 2024 compared to 6,130 last year. These figures indicate a competitive housing market, favoring sellers.

Inventory has risen by 6.5%, giving buyers more options. However, the supply remains tight, averaging around 2 months, which leans towards a seller’s market. Mortgage rates are around 6%, giving buyers somewhat more purchasing power, though prices are still on the rise.

With Wisconsin’s strong job market and an unemployment rate of 3%, the housing market is unlikely to experience a crash soon. Wisconsin’s balanced economy, affordable cost of living, and steady population growth continue to support the real estate market’s strength .

If you’re considering buying or selling in areas like Caledonia or Beaver Dam, it’s a good time to stay informed as the market is expected to favor buyers slightly towards the end of 2024.

2024 Parade of Homes model

Americans are taxed $60 billion in real-estate commissions, says attorney who just won a $1.8 billion mega-verdict against National Association of Realtors

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

BY ALEX VEIGA AND THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

A series of court challenges seek to upend longstanding real estate industry practices that determine the commissions agents receive on the sale of a home — and who foots the bill.

A federal jury in one of those cases on Tuesday ordered the National Association of Realtors along with some of the nation’s biggest real estate brokerages to pay almost $1.8 billion in damages, after finding they artificially inflated commissions paid to real estate agents.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in 2019 on behalf of 500,000 home sellers in Missouri and some border towns. The verdict stated that the defendants “conspired to require home sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their homes in violation of federal antitrust law.”

If treble damages — which allows plaintiffs to potentially receive up to three times actual or compensatory damages — are awarded, then the defendants may have to pay more than $5 billion.

“This matter is not close to being final as we will appeal the jury’s verdict,” Mantill Williams, a spokesman for the NAR, said in a statement. “In the interim, we will ask the court to reduce the damages awarded by the jury.”https://76b575ca9530c4e3b3e66a54a9d20e9c.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html?n=0

Williams said it will likely be several years before the case is resolved.

But already the NAR and several real estate brokerages are facing another lawsuit over agent commission rules. Fresh off winning the verdict in the 2019 case, the lawyers filed a new class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri that seeks class-action status covering anyone in the U.S. who sold a home in the last five years. It names the trade association and seven brokerage companies, including Redfin Corp., Weichert Realtors and Compass Inc.

“What’s at issue nationwide is costing Americans about $60 billion in extra real estate commissions,” said Michael Ketchmark, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuits.

The focus of the lawsuits is an NAR rule that requires that home sellers offer to pay the commission for the agent representing the homebuyer when they advertise their property on a local Multiple Listings Service, where a majority of U.S. homes are listed for sale. This is in addition to also having to cover the commission for their listing agent or broker.

The NAR’s rules also prohibit a buyer’s agent from making home purchase offers contingent on the reduction of their commission, according to the complaint.

“Defendants’ conspiracy forces home sellers to pay a cost that, in a competitive market and were it not for defendants’ anticompetitive restraint, would be paid by the buyer,” the plaintiffs argued in the lawsuit filed Tuesday.

Plaintiffs also claim that the NAR requirement effectively keeps commissions for a homebuyer’s agent artificially high.

If NAR’s “Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule” were not in place, then homebuyers would foot the bill for their agent’s commission, which would open the door for competition — and lower commissions — among agents vying to represent a homebuyer, the plaintiffs contend.

The NAR argues that the practice of listing brokers making offers of compensation to buyer brokers is best for consumers.null

“It gives the greatest number of buyers a chance to afford a home and professional representation, while also giving sellers access to the greatest number of buyers,” Williams said.

The NAR spokesman also noted that the trade association’s policies have always required that an offer of agent compensation be made without specifying an amount, adding that it could be as little as $1 or even a penny.

In July, the independent Bright MLS, which covers some states in the eastern part of the country, changed the rules so that it’s OK for a home listed in that region’s MLS to not include an offer of agent compensation at all. That still falls within NAR’s guidelines.null

“In addition, regardless of the offer, those offers are always negotiable,” Williams said.

As home prices have soared in recent years, pushing the national median sales price to $394,300 as of September, so have agents’ commissions.

“Today, what effectively happens is the buyer agent’s commissions are added to the sale price of the house, inflating the sale price,” said Stephen Brobeck, senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America. “If sellers no longer had to pay the buyer agents, there wouldn’t be that inflation and buyers could negotiate the commission down and they would end up paying less money.”null

Typically, the home seller pays their listing agent, who then splits the commission with the buyer’s agent according to the NAR rules. Traditionally, that works out to a 5% to 6% commission split roughly evenly between the buyer’s and seller’s agents.

Such commissions are justified, given the professionalism agents offer their clients and the hefty expenses they often incur in preparing to sell a home, including costs for staging, marketing, photography, lock boxes and even cleaning, said Matthew Shelton, a Kansas City area real estate agent.

“Never have I had a seller even bat an eye or question a commission,” he said. “If somebody takes control and limits what commissions can be charged that would be more concerning, you know, if they put a cap on anything. I don’t think that that’s accurate or correct.”null

The 2019 lawsuit originally also included Anywhere Real Estate Inc. and Re/Max, but the two companies reached a settlement agreement, which included Anywhere paying $83.5 million, Re/Max paying $55 million, and the pair agreeing to pull back on their relationships with NAR.

Homebuyers and sellers aren’t likely to see any immediate change in the way agent commissions for homes listed on the MLS are typically handled, as the NAR has vowed to appeal Tuesday’s verdict.

However, the industry will be watching for what the court will do next now that the jury has spoken.

“What’s critical is how far the court orders the industry to restructure their compensation and offers,” Brobeck said. “The real solution is for buyers to be able to finance the buyer-agent commissions as part of their mortgages …. But there are regulatory barriers to that occurring right now — regulatory barriers that are strongly supported by the industry.”

In a blog post Tuesday, Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman noted that it may take days or weeks for the judge to decide what structural changes the jury’s verdict will entail, and possibly years of court appeals.

“For now, the initial size of the damages alone will ensure major change,” he wrote.

Last month, Redfin announced it would mandate that its brokers and agents withdraw from NAR membership, citing partly the trade association’s requirement of a fee for the buyer’s agent on all listings.

The agent commission lawsuits aren’t the first time that the residential real estate industry has drawn scrutiny about the impact its rules have on competition.

The Justice Department filed a complaint in 2020 against the NAR, alleging it established and enforced rules and policies that illegally restrained competition in residential real estate services. The government withdrew a proposed settlement agreement in 2021, saying the move would allow it to conduct a broader investigation of NAR’s rules and conduct.

___

Associated Press writer Michelle Chapman in New York and Heather Hollingsworth in Kansas City contributed to this report.

Most Popular in Finance

Rankings

Sections

Customer Support

Commercial Services

About Us

© 2022 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information | Ad Choices
FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.
S&P Index data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. Terms & Conditions. Powered and implemented by Interactive Data Managed Solutions.

BRICS Expansion: The Biggest Challenge to the US Dollar?

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

BRICS, a coalition of emerging markets comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is welcoming six new members: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Argentina, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. This growth aims to craft a fairer, inclusive, and prosperous world, says South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Historically, BRICS has aspired to strengthen its geopolitical standing to challenge Western dominance. Notably, the integration of significant energy exporters like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the UAE will bolster this mission. Moreover, the potential lineup of countries eager to join BRICS reflects the world’s increasing disaffection with a primarily US-led global order.

However, some economists, like Gregory Daco from EY-Parthenon, express skepticism about BRICS matching the power of Western alliances like the G7 in the foreseeable future. The ambition to reduce dollar dependence (de-dollarization) appears ambitious, especially given the differing strategic priorities of BRICS members.

The concept of a unified BRICS currency to counterbalance the dollar has been a recurring theme, stirred up by remarks from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva questioning the US dollar’s dominance. Yet, not all are on board with the idea. South Africa’s finance minister, Enoch Godongwana, recently voiced reservations about losing monetary policy independence with such a move. Moreover, the term BRIC’s creator, Jim O’Neill, called the idea of a shared currency “ridiculous,” referencing the challenges posed by political tensions between members like India and China.

While the prospect of a unified BRICS currency remains distant, the bloc is undeniably trying to lessen its dollar dependency. The group has expressed intentions to decrease reliance on the US dollar in international trade. Emphasizing this sentiment, Russian President Vladimir Putin highlighted the growing momentum of de-dollarization efforts. Moreover, there’s talk of promoting the Chinese renminbi as a reserve currency.

However, these ambitions face steep challenges. As of 2022, the US dollar was used in nearly 90% of global foreign exchange transactions. The renminbi represented a mere 2.5% of foreign exchange reserves, making its rise to challenge the US dollar, at least for now, a far-off dream. While BRICS grows and evolves, the journey to a post-dollar world seems laden with complexities and hurdles.

Fitch Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating Amid Rising Deficits and Political Turmoil

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

In a recent blow to the United States, Fitch Ratings has downgraded the nation’s credit rating from the highest possible AAA to AA+. The rating agency attributed the drop to increasing deficits and political conflict, which they believe threaten the government’s capacity to service its debts.

This decision was made two months following a last-minute agreement between the Biden administration and House Republicans to temporarily raise the debt ceiling, thereby narrowly dodging a potentially catastrophic federal default.

This isn’t the first time the U.S. has faced such a demotion. Back in 2011, amid a similar crisis regarding the debt ceiling, Standard & Poor’s reduced the United States’ AAA rating. At present, Moody’s Investors Service is the only major credit rating agency that continues to assign the U.S. the top AAA rating.

Despite recognizing the robustness of the U.S. economy and the benefits reaped from the dollar’s position as the world’s primary currency, Fitch expressed concerns about the escalating deficits and both political parties’ reluctance to address long-term fiscal issues. Fitch voiced limited faith in the government’s ability to effectively manage the country’s finances.

In response to the downgrade, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen criticized Fitch’s decision as “arbitrary” and reliant on obsolete data. She emphasized that “Treasury securities remain the world’s preeminent safe and liquid asset” and affirmed the underlying strength of the U.S. economy.

According to Fitch, the expenditure caps set as part of the recent debt agreement in June merely scratch the surface of the overall budget and do not confront enduring issues, such as financing Social Security and Medicare for an aging populace.

With tax reductions and elevated government expenditure leading to an expansion of deficits in recent years, and coupled with increasing interest rates, the fiscal burden has grown. Government interest payments in the first nine months of the current fiscal year amounted to $652 billion, marking a 25% rise from the same period last year.

Maya Macguineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, responded to the downgrade, terming it a “wake-up call.” She stressed the urgent need for fiscal responsibility, stating, “We are clearly on an unsustainable fiscal path. We need to do better.”

The repeated political standoffs over the debt ceiling have not only eroded the faith in U.S. fiscal management but also put the longstanding reputation of U.S. government bonds at risk. For close to a hundred years, these bonds have been considered some of the safest investments globally, primarily because the U.S. seemed unlikely to default on payments.

However, with the recent debt ceiling impasses, there is growing concern that the U.S. might default for the first time. Over a decade ago, S&P pointed out political discord as a significant risk to the country’s governing ability, and many experts opine that the situation has deteriorated since.

The Meteoric Rise of Online Gambling and The Destructive Impact On Sports, Athletes, and Fans

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

As the digitization of daily life accelerates, the world of gambling is not immune to this transition. Recent years have witnessed an explosion of online gambling, fueled by large media sports outlets, with ESPN leading the charge, often making sports shows unwatchable. This shift has profound implications for the sporting world, the athletes at its center, and the fans, young and old, who passionately follow their favorite teams and players.

The Push from Sports Outlets

For sports media platforms, the digitization of gambling represents a new frontier of audience engagement and a fresh stream of revenue. ESPN has been at the forefront of this transformation, incorporating gambling lines, odds, and statistics into their sports coverage. Last month at the NBA draft, a betting line was changed when NBA Insider Sham Charania posted that Scoot Henderson was “gaining serious momentum” as the No. 2 pick. The problem is Sham Charania is a paid brand name ambassador for Fan Duel and his tweet resulted in millions of dollars changing hands with what many consider was bad information. This brought to light the lack of regulations and oversight to prevent conflict of interest between members of the media who can influence betting markets and company’s like Fan Duel. Companies like ESPN and Fox Sports continue to blur the lines as they have effectively mainstreamed sports betting, lending an air of legitimacy to an activity previously associated with the outskirts of the sporting world.

ESPN, owned by Disney, and other sports outlets are leveraging their immense influence to not only provide sports news but also to shape the way fans engage with sports. By introducing betting elements in their broadcasts, these platforms have turned viewership into an interactive, higher-stakes experience. Now, fans aren’t just rooting for their team; they’re also potentially reaping financial gains or losing everything from the outcome.

Impact on Sports and Athletes

This increased focus on gambling has significant implications for the sports themselves and the athletes who compete. One major concern is the threat to the integrity of sports. While most bets are placed in good faith, there is an increased risk of match-fixing and corruption as the volume of sports betting grows. Several NFL players were recently suspended for betting on games, potentially ruining their careers and livelihoods. Rigging a game for betting gains may become tempting to unscrupulous individuals, casting a shadow over the purity of competition.

For athletes, the rise of online gambling can present a new kind of pressure. Knowing that their performance can affect not only their team’s fortunes but also the financial outcomes of countless fans adds a unique stressor. This added pressure could affect their performance, either spurring them on to greater heights or causing them to buckle under the weight of expectation.

Impact on Fans

From the fans’ perspective, the rise of online gambling has transformed the way they engage with sports. It’s no longer just about cheering for your team; now, there’s a personal stake in the game’s outcome. For some, this adds an exciting new dimension to their fandom, heightening the thrills of victory and the agonies of defeat. But for others, it can lead to financial distress and potential addiction.

Furthermore, there’s the potential to alter the dynamic between fans and athletes. Instead of viewing athletes as individuals who are striving for success in their sport, they may increasingly see them as mere components of their betting strategies. This could potentially lead to a dehumanization of athletes and a detachment from the essential spirit of sports.

As the rise of online gambling continues, fueled by sports outlets such as ESPN, Fox Sports, and CBS, it’s imperative that we carefully consider and address its potential impacts. Regulation will play a key role in ensuring the integrity of sports and protecting fans from financial exploitation. As we move forward, it’s crucial to regulate this new landscape with the goal of preserving the core values of sports: competition, teamwork, and integrity for this generation and generations to come.

The Future of Work: Shifting Job Landscape in the United States Over the Next Decade

Posted on by Nkozi Knight

The rapidly evolving technology landscape is altering the world of work, transforming how organizations operate and the roles that employees hold. Over the next decade, we can expect significant shifts in the United States’ job market, with some careers experiencing exponential growth, while others decline. This blog post delves into the trending careers while exploring the impact of technology on employment and companies across various industries.

Trending Careers: Riding the Wave of Technological Advancements

Healthcare Professionals: As the U.S. population continues to age, there is an increasing demand for healthcare services. This need will fuel the growth of jobs in healthcare, such as physicians, nurses, and other medical practitioners. Technological advancements, including telemedicine, medical devices, and health informatics, will also create new opportunities in the industry.

Data Science and Analytics: With the exponential growth of data, businesses are increasingly relying on data-driven insights to make informed decisions. As a result, data science and analytics professionals will be in high demand, with roles like data analysts, data engineers, and data scientists becoming increasingly important.

Cybersecurity Experts: As technology becomes more sophisticated, the threat of cyber-attacks also grows. Consequently, the need for skilled cybersecurity professionals will continue to rise, ensuring the protection of valuable data and digital assets.

Renewable Energy Specialists: Climate change and sustainable energy concerns are driving the growth of the renewable energy sector. Professionals in solar, wind, and other renewable energy fields will see an increased demand for their expertise as countries transition towards more sustainable energy sources.

Mental Health: The increased awareness and focus on mental health will drive job growth in this sector. Counselors, therapists, and psychologists will be in high demand as society continues to prioritize mental health while using data to treat mental health issues faster.

Technology: The tech industry will continue to flourish, creating jobs in areas like artificial intelligence, machine learning, and cybersecurity as mentioned previously. Specialists in data analysis, software development, and information security will be highly sought after.

The future of work in the United States will be led by a continued shift towards technological careers, healthcare, data and renewable energy. While some industries will see growth, others will decline, and workers will need to be adaptable and flexible in order to stay competitive. As technology continues to evolve, it will be critical for workers to develop new skills and expertise in order to stay relevant and valuable in the job market now and in the future.