If you haven’t heard, a contingent of black radio talk-show hosts are calling for a national economic boycott Friday to protest what they consider racial and economic injustices across the country.
Warren Ballentine has enlisted help from other radio personalities, including Michael Baisden and the Rev. Al Sharpton.
He said the one-day boycott is designed to call attention to a series of national concerns, ranging from displays of nooses to wrongly jailed youth to the U.S. mortgage crisis.
“I’m a lawyer and I’m seeing a lot of people across the board suffer from the mortgage crisis,” he said. “I’m asking all Americans to participate, not just blacks. I’m asking people–if you can–don’t spend any money.”
From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
So, what do you think? Will it work? Is it sending the wrong message? Could it damage our economy? I’m sure there are plenty of opinions on this, so I’ll leave it open to discussion in the comments.
Author: Jeremy Vohwinkle
My name is Jeremy Vohwinkle, and I’ve spent a number of years working in the finance industry providing financial advice to regular investors and those participating in employer-sponsored retirement plans.
This is ludicrous. Boycotts like this rarely work, as noted above, and the vaguely-defined, racially motivated nature of the complaints don't clarify things for those who might be sympathetic.
It doesn't help that this same crew of people tend to do this every time, and some are not known for being subtle, or smart, about who and what they protest.
It will probably be more hype than something that will actually do damage. For instance, I would've never knew about this if I don't read blogs. Now that I know, I probably won't remember to follow it even if I agree.
This sounds like the gas boycott where some held off for a day, then bought what they would have bought the next day. Not sure how effective these "no-buy" days are.
I like the idea of blacklisting a certain company for good, that would make a serious impact. But not this unlikely do nothing idea.
If everyone decided to say blacklist Walmart, and really stuck to their guns, they'd be finished. Same with a certain oil company, but it wouldn't be easy.
I agree with the above comments, and I just don't see how this makes any sense. At least if you had a gripe with a certain company or industry, you could collectively boycott their product or service. But to just throw a blanket statement out saying not to spend any money at all for a bunch of unrelated problems?
Plus, I only physically spend money a few days a week, so if that happened to be on a Friday, it would just be a normal occurrence for me. If I don't go grocery shopping, buy lunch or gas, I don't spend any physical money that day anyway.
Oh well, if they wanted media attention, at least they got that.
How is not spending anything on one day going to accomplish anything?!?! I just don't understand this stunt. Like Meg said, what they are "protesting" is just a bunch of non-related issues. And not spending on one day? That won't accomplish anything. "hmmm....I need milk, but Al sharpton said not to buy today, so I'll buy it tomorrow". People will just buy what they need tomorrow (if they even partake in this ridiculous stunt).
How is the mortgage crisis a racial injustice? How is the Jena incident related to the economy? I'm with Meg, this sounds like the typical meaningless attention stunt that seems to have become the standard tool of the "black leadership" in America these days.
Wow, this sounds very ridiculous to me. A group of black media leaders are calling for a boycott by everyone on everything in order to protest a slew of vaguely identified, non-related injustices.
Could the structure of this boycott possibly be less effective and/or meaningful?