You (and she) might be selling her short. Black Americans of Caribbean ancestry tend to prosper more than black Americans whose ancestors were in the US in the 1860s. And of those black Americans, those whose ancestors were free at the time of the Civil War tend to prosper more than those who were slaves at that time.
Racism can't explain those in-group differences -- unless you're willing to believe racists run the genealogy of the black people they encounter, and for some reason care where their ancestors were a generation or 3 or 5 or 7 ago.
It could be she, like other black Americans of Caribbean origins, brings things to the table -- work ethic, gratification deferral, etc. -- that are causes of her professional success. Your presence as her spouse might bring a slight nudge to it, maybe, but I'd bet the bulk of it came from her personal virtues that show in her professional conduct.
I've got 40 acres I'm going to put in cacao trees. Bushes. Stalks. Whatever they are.
As soon as the last frost of the season is over, or April, whichever comes first.
One of the things my mom -- hardly a racist -- noticed is that African immigrants don't have a certain attitude that some black Americans have. I'm not sure I can put it into words -- and certain not in the words she used, as I can't remember them -- but it had something to do with her being white and them being black, and things were somehow her fault, though it wasn't stated out loud. African immigrants don't have that particular unstated thing going in their heads. Nor do all black Americans.
For what it's worth, all her ancestors were in Scandinavia until the 1870s, so any benefit she got from slavery in America was very indirect. (Any slaves held in Scandinavia were mostly likely Europeans, not Africans. And many centuries earlier.)
She did marry a fellow who was apparently descended from one Captain Thomas Harris, who arrived in Virginia in 1611. It's entirely possible that at least some of her long-dead in-laws were slaveholders, though how much good that did a man who grew up on a dairy farm in Kansas (and more to the point, his Swedish-American wife) I can't say.
Standardized, obedient, punctual citizens, too.
Some would quibble and say the correct word is "subjects" not "citizens".
Others would prefer "proles". Still others, "serfs".
There is no such thing as "the economy" when used like this in sentences like this.
Artificially-low interest rates tilt the labor-versus-equipment decisions towards equipment. We can expect that sometimes this means money is spent on equipment (or other capital expenses) rather than labor. Quantifying the size of that effect is not something I would care to do. Nor would I trust the conclusions of others -- unless put to the test before the fact in accordance with Allison's Precept.
Regardless of the estimated or actual size of the effect, it's something that shouldn't happen, IMO.
It is bad for "the economy" (in that: people make sub-optimal decisions, which affect people, negatively, overall).
I expect the beneficiaries of this would be people who own businesses (directly, as individuals, or indirectly, as stock or mutual funds or eventual recipients of money from pension funds), and those negatively affected would tend to be people fired or laid off or never hired or put on reduced hours.
The Fed's artificially-low interest rates almost certainly result in a net transfer of wealth and/or income from lower income people to higher income people.
An undocumented ability to spy on NATO countries? Sounds to me like a feature, not a bug.
Correction: spy back on NATO countries. I'm living in one of the snoopiest.
Well, not yet.
Two words: Zimbabwe. Weimar.