Right, another four pages of contributions overnight, and I'm still no closer to understanding how there's any societal justification for your comments. Instead of getting drawn out on the questions of what you have and haven't said (which seems to be a favourite topic of yours- worth noting I'm not the only person in this thread whose claimed that your argument has so far had the form of "this is what I believe, and I'm right. You're white so you don't get any say on whether I'm right, plus your opinions are invalid because you're the problem" which, let's be frank, is stupid), let's address your theory in isolation, shall we.
I think I've grasped the basic principle of your response, though- so, through the muddy heap of ad hominem attacks and rambling diatribes, your claim is basically that blacks should cooperate primarily with blacks in economic matters, in both production and expenditure, because you resent the fact that the majority of the US economy is, rather like the majority of the US population, white-dominated.
There are a few glaring problems with this theory, and with some of the examples you use to furnish it, which lead me to conclude that far from being in a position to claim that only you have any right to speak on the issue, and anyone of another racial group does not, you're own poor comprehension of basic economic theory means you are in no position to quibble with people who address your hypotheses:
1) Modern, general economic theories are inclusionist by and large- and this doesn't just extend to the US in isolation but to external supply coming from abroad. A huge proportion of the US economy is driven by overseas imports- that's what keeps prices at a lower level that can possibly be achieved using domestic labour, goods and services alone. A hypothetical economic model of ethnic minorities serving ethnic minorities in the US is going to be economically uncompetitive because the potential pool of human resources- not just working hours but expertise, access to particular skillsets and the industrial complex. The net result of this economic model would be a sub-macro-economy in which prices would in all probability be higher. I doubt that many of the hypothetical consumers in this economy would put getting "one up on the man", as it were, above substantive increases in cost- especially given that we're generally talking about a sector of society which sees a larger proportion of low-income individuals and households. It's not economically sustainable.
2) Because of 1), a game theory analysis of the economic relationship between whites and blacks in the US would likely conclude that the whole debacle would be negative-sum for the ethnically exclusionary economic minority. The net economic productivity of the macroeconomic model would probably decline, so you'd see a real terms negative-sum for all members of society, but the comparative losses to ethnic minorities involved in the exclusionary system would be higher for all the reasons I've outlined above. As I've already said, very few people would put priding their own racial heritage above general economic progression- so the idea's basically a non-starter from an objective, external point of view that focuses largely on societal economic trends.
3) Your use of historical examples, whilst certainly interesting and enlightening, doesn't really provide much of a defence for these views given that economic realities one hundred years ago were so different than today. Globalised economics have spread the consumer and producer base much further than the borders of the United States and in order for your hypothetical exclusionary sub-macro-economy to function you'd have to effectively roll back globalisation, which is next to impossible because the costs of doing so would outstrip any substantive, empirical benefit.
4) Your use of Chinatown as an example of a system of the same or similar nature ignores fundamental supply and demand economics. You effectively make the claim that, because Asian immigrants and 1st/2nd/3rd/4th-gereration native residents can create successful isolated microeconomic entities, that other ethnic minority groups could- nay, should, too. This seems to entirely ignore the fact that these microeconomies are driven by sectoral supply and demand not present in the larger social economy. The reason Chinatowns exist is because some of the needs- cultural, economic, culinary, social ect- of these people aren't currently met by the wider social economy, which is of course driven by the demand of the majority of society. The average consumer has no real need to purchase most of the products and services supplied by these microeconomies, hence why they're not supplied by the wider macroeconomy- and therefore the consumer base is driven by demand amongst particular ethnic groups for goods and services not otherwise catered for. You've fallaciously implied that these economies compete directly with other microeconomies when in reality they lack direct competition due to the lack of supply and demand. Similarly, these microeconomnies are not exclusionary, and nor are the businesses they supply directly or indirectly.
I'm not sure why people are so offended by his proposal. The "Buy Black" movement is a fundamentally good idea. You can't deracialise society if you don't do something about the massive economic disadvantage blacks face as individuals, and the under-servicing their neighbourhoods face.
That's not quite what we've got here, though. I don't resent the principle of people favouritising supply and purchase based on their own arbitrary views on the issue- that's free market economics through and through, and no different in principle to encouraging domestic supply over foreign through the use of tariffs et cetera- although how long such an approach is going to be workable due to the increasing reach of globalised economics I don't know. But that's not really the issue; it's none of my concern whether the decisions people make in terms of the operation of their business model are arbitrary or rational- although I will use that as the metric to assess whether I consider investing in their goods and services.
No, what we have here is a demand for an insular, centralised, discriminatory, imposing and broad-ranging sub-macro-economy driven not by basic economic principles of supply and demand but by racial segregation, at a time when economies are by and large becoming less centralised, less insular, more inclusionist and more heterologous. Aside from all else, I think it's utterly infeasible and will achieve exactly the oppose of the aims you've outlined in your response.
Like you, I see no problem in principle with a movement which economically supports marginalised elements of society. But such a movement has to be consumer-driven and can only exist, and exist to the extent, that demand is present. Racial blackmail can't be used as a tool to coerce people into making negative-sum economic decisions.