By Michael Kennedy

Economic class distinctions have always been, and will always be, a threat to the nation. The modern man, without knowing they belong to a nation fails to grasp the threat, as he is only shown his nation in statist terms. Therefore they believe whatever is good for the government, is good for the nation.

The Economic Classes:

Our country is divided into a number of economic classes, which are political and ideological in nature. The class that one belongs to however, has less to do with Marxian notions of owners of means of production, but an outlook, or economic philosophy. It matters less and less whether ones actually has the financial means to belong to the class. What matters is which side they choose. The idea that wealthy business owners are one class, the Bourgeoisie , and workers another, the Proletariat is now obsolete, defunct. Socialists that still fight that class war are akin to the Japanese soldiers of WWII, left behind after the war ended and running around Papua New Guinea decades later looking for soldiers. Likewise, neo-liberal Capitalists who fear a turn to Socialism, who think society is threatened by some form of Marxist economic revolution, who believe that ‘the politics of envy’ are real and a threat, are also just as misguided and anachronistic.

That class war ended, largely due to the success that Capitalism had over Communism in providing an improved material standard of life. Children no longer die of disease through industrial labour, and the average worker enjoys a comfortable life and decent standard of living, albeit a declining one, and one under serious and grave threat. Economics class warfare is not about whether one eats or not, whether ones children work or not, but about ideals. The financial crimes committed today, the injustices are greater than ever before. The corruption, blatant theft and sociopathic predatory behavior that occurs in our financial system is beyond compare. There is but one fact which allows this behavior to continue without repercussions from an angry populate; decadence. No matter what injustice is done, the average person is relatively comfortable with access to food, medicine and most importantly, quantities of entertainment beyond all imagining. The theft is tolerated because it is abstract, and more importantly, inconsequential to most people. The average person will tolerate injustice so long as it does not interfere with the lifestyle they are accustomed to, and if the lifestyle they are accustomed to has been degraded without their awareness due to the actions of others, then not knowing any better, they won’t see the transgression. Someone living all their life with a handicap, does not feel handicapped, because their situation, as they see it, is normal. In a similar vein, young people saddled with crippling debt through student loans and high mortgages, don’t feel that they are being robbed by a banking system working to make then debt slaves, as they think this is ‘normal’, and hence it would not make sense fighting.

This decadence divorces people from economic warfare, the warfare between competing peoples over who is going to take the lions share of the fruits of civilization. With the investor classes throwing around sums of money in the millions, it is difficult for someone to feel an injustice, when they can afford, with difficulty nonetheless, most of what they desire. They may feel unfairness when a CEO of a large corporation makes millions a year, even when they fail, but this is rarely internalized. It is never more than an observation of hypocrisy. It rarely, if ever, becomes a reason for struggle.

The Three economic classes:

The first economic class are the owners. These aren’t the 1% but the 0.1%. These are the people who control the economy, who have influence over the movement of money, and who own politicians and thereby own politics. This class do not engage in class warfare. They don’t fight. They don’t need to as the system is built to keep them in power. These are the people who benefit from tax payer funded bailouts, and for whom the ever changing rules and ethics governing our global economy are designed to protect from failure.

The second class, can be broadly categorized as those who through perceived concepts of virtue, believe that wealth goes to those who can acquire it. These are the Capitalists, Free Marketeers, Lassez Faire libertatians, opponents of the ‘welfare state’, neo-liberals, Ayn Randists and so on. They often care little for the distinctions between the means that one uses to acquire wealth, whether it’s through production, invention or gaming the financial system or exploitation. Broadly speaking, these are people who excuse and justify the acquisition of large quantities of wealth by individuals and companies, using ideological and economic reasons to justify their acquisitions. To them, wealth is a sign of morality. Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, argued that Protestants, particularly Calvinists, believed that those who God had chosen for salvation would show industriousness, hard work and therefore end up wealthy. Wealth therefore was not simply a utility, but a sign of a moral person, one who had been predestined by God for salvation. This industriousness led to the advancement of Capitalism and while Weber believed that one Capitalism is achieved, the Protestant ethic is no longer necessary, it appears evident that the idea that that accumulation of wealth being in and of itself, a moral indicator is still pervasive. We can see this in how those who were lucky to catch an economic boom, ascribe their success to their own personality, morality and ability, and similarly, ascribe the failures of people caught up in an economic bust, to their personality, morality and ability.

These people in the second class may not actually have any real wealth themselves, but aspire to be like those who do, and hence defend economic and political ideologies with work in the favour of those they aspire to be, even if it works against the aspirant and they have little or no chance of ever fulfilling their goals. A classic example of this is the political propaganda of the Liberal party, which convinces middle class Australian to support policies which favour wealthy investors and big business owners and CEO’s, because they might all be wealthy mum and dad investors or CEO’s one day.

Free Marketeers and Libertarians also fall into this category. They generally quote Ayn Rand (and focus solely on economics when in reality she had a broader philosophy) or reference Adam Smith (grossly misunderstanding him) to justify a biased interpretation of “Free Markets”, where some market manipulations are acceptable (marketing, controlling the movement of vast quantities of wealth, donating to political parties, exploiting peoples needs to leverage power over them, lowering wages of your workers,) and others unacceptable (workers raising the cost of their labour and setting terms by which they sell their labour, democratic governments regulating business, health and safety regulations). Modern spruikers of Libertarianism and Free Markets generally argue that it is moral for the loin to eat the lamb, and immoral for the lamb to deny the loin the meal it worked hard to get, because they see themselves as lions rather than lambs.

The third class is the inverse of the second. These are people who see themselves as the lamb who is predated on by the lion. These are people who through perceived concepts of virtue, believe that wealth should go to those who can use it the most. These are the Socialists, supporters of welfare, of income distribution, supporters of regulation and perhaps, paradoxically, many of the extremely wealthy. These people may be relatively wealthy themselves, but aspire to ensure that distribution of wealth goes along the lines of their moral principles, even if it works against them or they are not the recipients, such as white people supporting Affirmative Action. Wealth distribution to them, isn’t so much a matter of who can get wealth, but who should have wealth. It is better for a dollar to go to a poorer person than a richer one, because the poorer one is more likely to spend it, they argue. It is considered of greater importance that wealth moves to maintain a particular status quo or social situation, than for wealth to follow the market.

It is important to note that people generally apply their economic morality to others, not themselves. Unionists ditch worker solidarity and socialist principles and abuse their position of power as soon as they get it. Socialists who get into power soon forget the workers. Communists in the former Soviet Union suddenly found when Communism fell that they were all Capitalists. Free Marketeers and Libertarians may collect welfare and ask for bail outs.

For those in politics, this means rhetoric is more important than economic results. Economic policy which resounds with a particular morality popular among voters will win over pragmatic policy. Economic policies which appease peoples economical moral principles, will be more popular than dry economic policy which has a proven track record of success.

Choosing sides in economics: The housing market

The ‘housing market’ (a term used loosely because when property becomes an speculative investment for the investor class, it ceased to become housing for people) is a classic example. The housing affordability crisis divides the nation into two groups, those who benefit from escalating prices, and those who don’t. An opinion of whether house prices should be kept artificially high (and they are at artificially high values), is a matter of which economic morality one chooses. The government has two options (a third is to pretend there is no problem, but we’ll ignore that for now as it is effectively to keep the current situation which is favorable to investors). Either pander to investors, and support policies which keep prices high, such as high levels of immigration, having the property market open to foreign ‘investment’, maintaining negative gearing, controlling the release of land, first home vendor grants and the like, or pander to buyers and support policies which will reduce prices, such as removing negative gearing, bigger releases of land, closing the market to foreign investors, removing the first home vendor grant and generally removing policies which benefit the investor.

One option will outrage home owners and investors, who are more likely to be the older, and perhaps larger demographic given our aging population, or the other option is to disenfranchise buyers, by keeping the prices high and simply not allowing the market to correct. At the moment, government policies, from both sides of the duopoly, is quite clearly aimed at taking the side of investors. After all they argue, the baby boomer earned the 200% price growth simply by virtue of having bought an additional property at the right time and doing nothing, and the poor young Australian couple wanting to settle and start a family just have to go deeper into debt. As discussed before with the second economic group, these people won’t see the capital increase as an economic aberration or just plain good luck due to fortuitous timing, but as evidence of their own morality. The large capital gains, made at the expense of the younger generation and through unsustainable credit growth, are to them evidence of their good character, hard work and moral outlook. The corollary is that their opinion of the younger generation, locked out of the market is negative. Just as they perceive their increase in wealth as evidence of their character and ability, they also perceive the inability of the younger generation wanting to enter the market as evidence of their lack of character and inability.

The media generally take the side of the government too, though wisely throw out a few, ineffectual puff pieces to ‘sympathize’ with Australians doing it tough in the housing market. If only the media was as fanatical about the house price injustice as they are about every single little “racist” comment made on public transport. If our national establishments put the effort into ensuring that Australians maintain their ability to afford a basic human right, housing, as they do into promoting “Diversity”, “Multiculturalism” and “Anti-Racism” and other such useless piffle, the housing affordability crisis would have ended years ago.

Apart from votes, the decision as to whether to allow the housing market to correct or not is the state choosing one side of the economic schism over the other. This is made all the more outrageous, when one realizes what is truly taking place. A democratic government, which is theoretically supposed to support ALL Australians equally, is putting some Australians above others, based on their economic position. A democratic government should not be doing this at all. To put the interests of one citizen, below the interests of another, is antithetical to the core principles of democracy. Financial status should have no bearing to the degree which the government represents your interests. The needs of someone to secure a home, are equal, or should be equal, to the needs of someone to have stability in their investment, because their desire is equal. But the current housing market creates a dilemma, where the needs of one come at a cost to the other. It is the passive income and capital gains of landlords vs Australian families and retailers. It is the nest eggs of baby boomers vs a productive middle class. It is deciding whether it is more moral to leave those who benefit from unaffordable housing reap their income and “earnings” or to give those trying to establish their life a better foothold and better opportunities for their children.

The Nationalist position is simple. The economy serves the people, and economic activity which serves the people is that which is deserving of reward. The nation is strengthened by a strong, stable middle class which is able to go beyond subsistence and find further avenues for productivity and contribution to society. The Nationalist position is that the housing markets gives the greatest returns, when people are able to use housing to create a thriving, strong, socially stable and vigorous population, whether for themselves, or a large family. This means housing which working Australians can afford without having to sacrifice funding education for their children, or funding a course for themselves. This means housing where Australians are not stuck having no money left over servicing an oppressive mortgage to spend on other goods and investments. The needs of the nation outweigh the right of the individual to profit from a necessary good or service. This does not mean, however, that a Nationalist government is obliged through welfare to grant everyone a house.

Choosing sides in economics: Interest rates

Another example is interest rates. For each change in the official interest rates, there are losers and winners. A drop in interest rates is good for borrowers, bad for savers, and a rise in interest rates vice versa. As the global financial system seeks to turn everyone into debt slaves, interest rates which facilitate debt slavery are good, and those which encourage independance through saving and avoiding debt, are negative. This is why today, unlike in the past, low interest rates are a sign of a poor economy, as it is debt which drives the economy, rather than savings. Hence low interest rates to boost the economy, by encouraging people to further progress into a debt fueled lifestyle. Interest rates in Australia will continue to fall to remove the interest barrier which stops Australians borrowing more to spend more, as our economy falters.

Nationalism and the markets

Nationalists spend less time concerned with economics than perhaps every other political wing. While criticism of both Capitalism and Socialism feature prominently, Nationalists generally don’t give economic systems all that much thought. Nationalists know what they don’t like, and see economic injustice, but unlike their anti-Capitalist counterparts on the Left, they don’t propose replacements. Leftist critiques against Capitalism are equally a call for implementation of a Socialist system. Nationalist critiques against Capitalism are critiques and nothing more and it is here where Nationalists deviate from the left. The left, much like the Libertarian, Free Market and Capitalist right are seeking a social morality expressed through economics. To fix the moral order, they believe, one must first implement the right economic system. They seek to continue to choose a side, to put citizen against citizen based on their economic standing, but using a different model than the current one. The Nationalists on the other hand seek any economic system which serves the organic society, but are generally uninterested in economic struggles, so long as those struggles don’t threaten the nation. This is perhaps why Nationalistic governments have tended to be economically prosperous. By shifting focus to that which strengthens the nation, and not having to pander to every interest group and rent seeker, it gives the governing body a greater clarity and focus. Economic solutions rarely, if ever, solve economic problems, and Nationalists rarely look towards economists for solutions. In a sense, Nationalists look at economics with almost a child like simplicity and naivety, but economic problems are rarely as complex as they are made out to be.

Nationalism and the markets: The economy vs the people

Nationalists also look at economics in a utilitarian sense, not a moral one. Economies serve a purpose, the well being of the people. The economic system is supposed to be subservient and dictated by the will of the people, not the will of the people being controlled by the needs of the economic system. The economy is purely a means to an ends, it is not an ends in itself, and success of failure in the economy is not necessary a signal of that individuals character of ability. Modern Capitalism, better described as a Plutocracy puts emphasis on ‘growth’, whether it be in GDP, or growth in asset prices, or simply in the number of economic units partaking in the economy. What grows the economy is good. Growth is good goes the mantra. Economic expansion is good goes another mantra. An increase in the ‘workforce’ is good. Increasing debt levels are good. These are goals which national citizens are to work for, but for what? The Australian experience from 2001 to present demonstrates clearly that what is good for the economy is not necessarily good for the people. Banks assets have increased substantially through housing rising in price dramatically. The economy has expanded and so has the population, but for what gain? High house prices are portrayed as a good, but who benefits other than those who choose to speculate? Our population has expanded dramatically, but for increase in quality of life? We have more traffic, more competition for housing, jobs, hospital beds. The cost in providing infrastructure are enormous, yet the system continues to push the absurd notion that giving up your quality of life is necessary for growth. What good is growth and economic advancement, if your life doesn’t improve?

There is only one rational way to judge economic performance, and that is how efficiently the economy can transform inputs, that is, the labour, inventiveness, entrepreneurship and resources of the nation, to desired outputs.

Our current economic system is topsy-turvy. It celebrates inefficiency. It promotes waste. Decreasing efficiency is seen as progress. Consider the automobile industry. Auto makers make more efficient cars by making cars which provide more output (distance traveled) per unit of input (fuel). The engine is an economy in itself, using resources, fuel, oxygen, to provide a desire output, motion. The further the car can travel on one litre of fuel, the more efficient it is. The car owner is seeking to maximise their petrol dollar. The further they travel on it, the better. The economic system however, inverts this logic when it comes to the economy. One generation or so ago, a 1/4 acre block and family home could be bought on one wage. One working adult would spend a portion of their working life to pay for the home. Today, this is not possible for the average worker and the norm now is for two working adults to pay off the same home, and most likely, each spending a greater portion of their income. The view of the system and its economists concerning this development, is that prices have gone up, therefore value has gone up, which is good (despite the fact that there is no substantive change in the property or land which can be any use). This is supposedly progress and this is the only acceptable modern view, but it is one which takes the side of money against the people. The other viewpoint, which is just as legitimate is that this represents a regression. Where before one person had to work, now two do. The amount of human labour which is required to be performed, in order for the property to exchange hands, has doubled. The inputs have doubled, but the output is the same. Like a car which starts to consume twice the fuel to travel the same distance each week, this is indicative of an underlying problem. Of course, if cars were to use more and more fuel, our system would see this as a positive, as fuel sales would increase, oil prices go up, and so on. Again, highlighting how topsy-turvy the modern view regarding economics is, how morality has been turned upside down in our society. There are other example. The “skills shortage” is supposedly the sign of a healthy economy, but with a greater proportion of the Australian population in the workforce before, the fact that this greater input of human labour is failing to sustain our nation is likely more indicative of another inefficiency. Surely a population, where half its population working can attend to its needs, is more efficient than a population where 90% of its population cannot attend to its needs. As people produce goods with greater efficiency, the need for employed people, for human labour to produce societies needs and wants should drop, and not only should it be drop, but people should be celebrating it. But again, our system, upside down, would human labour becoming more and more unnecessary as a problem, while at the same time, celebrating people working more and more to maintain the same lifestyle.

Is it any wonder, that all the Western economies, which have adopted this upside down, anti-human view, are in a constant state of crisis, broken almost beyond repair and teetering on the edge of collapse? Perhaps the crisis afflicting the global economy can be explained as simply as a loss of balance and perspective as to what we would want our economies to do. The complex analysis and nuanced economic theorising to explain why our economies are failing may simply be distracting us from a basic truth, that we have lost sight of why we maintain economic systems in the first place, and lost sight of what we should expect from them.

Nationalism and the markets: The economy for the people

The nationalist view proposed here, of an economy for the people is markedly different to the Marxist/Socialist interpretation of what an economy for the people is. The Marxist/Socialist interpretation, which is, in some form or another the interpretation held by most socially “progressive” Liberals and Socialists, is that for an economy to serve the people, it must be served appropriately by the people. It’s primary goal is correct distribution of the products of society and the human condition and quality of life is secondary.

The nationalist view also excludes either of the two economic philosophies mentioned before becoming dominant. The right of the nation to be healthy, vigorous, sustainable supersedes individual rights to unlimited wealth acquisition or to entitlements and welfare. It is not the nations duty to support the bludgers, parasites and irresponsible elements of society, nor is it the nations duty to ensure that individual or corporations have means to hoard and acquire wealth by gaming or playing the system. Individuals are still free to use their abilities to enrich themselves, to the degree which they desire to exert themselves, but rights don’t extend beyond this. One has no right choose to live from the work of another nor does one have the right to claim wealth from society in excess of what they have produced.

For an economy to be truly subservient to the people, it should follow the following principles…

* Human effort, natural resources and energy are the most important means by which to measure an economy, not money. Efficiency is measured by expenditure of these elements. The more output that can be realised, per unit expenditure of human effort (labour), natural resources and energy, the more efficient the economy is. GDP, interest rates, the Dow Jones, All Ordinaries, employment levels are secondary measures, which measure the performance of a financial system, not the well being of the people or the efficiency of the economy in serving the needs of the people. The more divorced the system is from the natural needs of the nation and the economy, the less relevance these “performance indicators” have to peoples day to day lives.

* Economies should aim for greater efficiency. In contemporary Capitalist economies and Capitalist ideology, employment is a ‘good’. While employment is a necessity, the desire to increase levels of employment creates a paradox. It means that a greater amount of human effort is required to provide the needs and wants of society and it also means that people need to expect a greater amount of effort to maintain a particular lifestyle. While there is an element of society which will work as much as possible to gain as much as possible, there is perhaps a larger one which would be willing to take on shorter working hours. For example, many two parent families, where both parents would prefer to have one parent home to take care of the children, particularly before they are school age. This is also socially beneficial, as childcare conducted at home by parents is better for the child than childcare. As technology increases and product yield increases, it should mean that less and less man hours are required to progress society. This means less and less employment is necessary, freeing people from the drudgery of production. Our Capitalist system in its current form is not equipped to deal with this type of progress, as there is no mechanism within the system by which society could adapt to lowering employment levels.

* Value input should equal value output. The reason that Capitalism cannot allow technical progress to liberate people from labour, is because wealth moving to owners of capital is a significant aspect of the Capitalist system. If technological advancement could result in 100% of peoples needs being produced by 10% of the labour being exerted now, the wealth of that production would go to the minority of people who own the means of production. If each worker only worked 1 hour a day, on average, then the price of labour would skyrocket as the worker would still need a living wage. Owners of the means of production would however prefer the worker to continue to work the minimum 40 hour week, instead of the 4 hour week, and produce 10 times more, thereby allowing the owners to earn 10 times the profits. It would be a exercise left for the marketing department to increase the consumption habits of other people, to purchase the excess and justify the production. The problem here, is because the means of production is owned, the owner will want to maximize their potential to acquire wealth by maximizing the business transactions that occur. As inefficiencies increase the number of transactions, efficient systems, with regards to human labour, natural resources and energy can never arise. If the economic system was constructed so that wealth moves to active production, that is, one must work to acquire wealth, than earn the right to own an income stream by ownership, then the system will move towards greater efficiency as people seek to find a desirable balance between work and reward.

* Human and national wellbeing is the primary means of judging an economy. Overall happiness, stability, quality of life and the way in which human material and spiritual needs are met are the primary means by which an economy should be judged. High GDP rates mean little if it comes at the cost of peoples health, happiness, national stability, the environment and social cohesion. People create systems such as governments, states and economies to improve their life, therefore the only logical means by which the performance of man made institutions can be judged, is by their ability to provide subjective benefits.

* A strong society results in a strong economy, and not vice versa. Another example of the inverted thinking which permeates modern though, is the belief that a good economy is a requirement for a good society. It may well be that the opposite is the case. Witness the continually shoddy economies of the third world, rife with corruption, endless poverty and failures and contrast this with the ability for traditional Western nations to recover quickly and dramatically from disasters and war. Regardless of the economic system, the same results always occur. As parts of traditionally white countries become more and more “diverse”, those parts resemble more and more the areas that the “diversity” originally came from. California for instance, now significantly Mexican, is becoming more and more economically akin to Mexico. While a poor economic system is undoubtedly an obstruction to progress and a potential cause for hardship and austerity, for economic systems which don’t impose severe handicaps, such as Communism, it is perhaps more important that the social fabric is of good quality. First world populations create first world economies and first world societies. Third world populations create third world economies and third world societies. Maintaining the cultural and ethnic make up of a nation, having a strong, dynamic and upwards looking culture and strong social ties may be more critical to economic progress than economic interventions.

* An economy must be adaptive. Technological, scientific and social progress will always render economic systems obsolete. The Communism was an attempt to implement an economic ‘final solution’, with results far more deadly than the other, more well known ‘final solution’. Capitalism likewise is struggling to adapt as technology increases human labour efficiency and as natural resources are dwindling. Capitalism which once benefited the west is now becoming a burden and the need for a more socialistic system is becoming more apparent. For a nation to survive, it must discard the idea that there is one ‘correct’ economic system, one ‘moral’ economic view, and use whatever economic tools and systems are suitable for that particular point in time. The only static moral view regarding economics should be that economies must serve people, and the value of an economic system can only be judged by its ability to meet human needs and national requirements. What was right for one generation, can be wrong for the next. Economic ideals must be beyond good and evil, and seen only as practical tools and any sentimental or ideological attachment to any system must be dispensed with. A society must have ownership over it’s economy, and have the freedom to democratically change it.

* An economy must not be owned. For a society to be able to adapt its economy to meet its changing needs, the government must have control over the economy, and the government must be democratic. The economy today is controlled by a very small number of Capitalists, who resist any change as the system as it is now is what profits them and gives them power. This means that the economic system ossifies and does not react to social, cultural and technical changes. It is owned by the so called ‘economic’ elite, and they would prefer to keep the system as it is, even if it means many people within the nation experience a reduced quality of life. This creates an additional problem. As the economy resists adaptation, it weakens the entire nation due to it losing its competitive edge to other nations. Because the nations needs must trump those of the 1%, a nation must have a means by which to eject Wall Street criminals.

* Free markets are preferable to command economies. In the west, giving the market a degree of freedom has worked better than a planned, centrally controlled economy. This does not mean that free markets are a panacea, or work in all place. China for example is thought to not be capable of any sustainable successful Capitalist system, because for Capitalism to function it requires transparent, and Chinese culture precludes economic transparency. The preference of free markets to controlled economies is just that, a preference. For an economy to prosper in the West, it should by biased towards free markets and a libertarian model, but only biased. It must not seek absolute market freedom, or always prefer free market solutions but only keep a balance between the two, where the market has enough freedom to allow people to command their own economic fate.

Tagged with:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *