39% white people, 40% black people and 19% hispanics in the US

How are 13% of the population the largest percentage of people in prisons

And how are they responsible for so much cost

Is it possible that this multiethnic scenario is actively cost-inefficient

african americans are exposed to higher levels of poverty and have less developed communities. this is only to be expected given the only fairly recent achievement of full civil rights and even so african americans do not represent a tax deficit

So here is my rebuttal

Why are most countries in Africa unable to sustain themselves without billions of dollars in financial aid from the US, let alone other European countries

They've had civil rights since the get-go

Why is Mexico a third world country in almost every part of it?

If entire countries of Africa cannot sustain themselves economically, producing drastic deficits on the US that they will never repay

Why am I supposed to believe that blacks have any potential to produce wealth in the US?

Same story, different area

You're a capitalist, what is the benefit to the US to support the dead weight of these ethnic groups?

most african countries dont receive much aid at all, especially historically. the middle east is currently much higher for example. historically europe is also a huge beneficiary of us aid programs, again to a more prominent degree than africa as africas geopolitical importance is low.
Civil rights have not been equal to african americans from the get go as should be seen from the history of jim crow laws, segregation and slavery in the US.
Mexico is a shit country because its on shit geography. Africa too has a terrible geography.

Japan has shit geography as well, and it's a highly developed first world nation

Russia has shit geography

That's not an excuse

Japan had to be bullied into a first world nation from an Emperor-worshipping island, it wasn't as developed before essential American interference. And even then, due to its island geography, it had little wars and was quite isolated, allowing it to develop on its own.
And Russia, besides having great people, also had and has a heckton of natural resources which it utilized heavily. And still none of these two countries had as many geographical problems or as little geographical benefits as African countries have.

as for aid the payoffs are fairly immediate. aid is typically used to encourage geopolitical effects, not to actually promote the well being of the people the country its given to.
The russian geography on the european side is pretty exceptional, as is most of the european plain and has access to good agricultural land, decent river systems and flat terrain allowing inexpensive infrastructure builds. on the asian side its pretty shit which oddly enough is why you see all the development in russia highly concentrated near europe.
japan has pockets of exceptional areas and exceptional ports, kinda shit until you hit globalised trade which oddly enough is when we saw it come into its own

plus both of these are in the eurasian continental system, the longest east-west landmass on earth

@Kazimir Malevich good points also

The logic you're presenting should suggest that Norwegians are 40 IQ mudrats lol

your logo reminded me of it

Why do you separate the mentally handicapped from the regular students in school?

why would you as a white man, support a subclass of blacks?

it ruins the whole vibe

they wont be happyyou wont be happy

and all metrics of your country go down

and everybody will be unhappy

I do not see what part of "Heavily forested humid environment with moderate summers facilitating farming and cold winters incentivizing human development" as "lol it makes ppl dumb xd".

diversity is weakness

science shows this

time and again

"guns germs and steel" is my favorite for this kinda analysis but you might also get a benefit from "the dictators handbook"
norway also benefits enormously from oil deposits and rich resource deposits and have leveraged these fantastically to make up for a historical lag in european development.
as kaz points out theres no reason to believe that climate effects intelligence and typically what we see is nutrition being the major cause of difference in intelligence between populations. Japan for quite a while had a significantly shorter population until their economy developed to the degree that they could reliably import food. we see much the same with iq differences

you know norway started to benefit from oil in 1970s

and norway was developed long before that, it was poor but it was developed

you cant just change race, thousands of generations of environment conditions went into race

they didnt have rape gangs and massive overpopulating

when you take a race out of that environment, they wont change quick

The environmental demands shape genetic specialization

And dictate what is selectively competitive

thats the whole point