The Economy of the Multipolar Future

Ireland and the case for a People’s Economy

Cas Corach on Ireland, economic vassalage, and the fight for sovereignty.

Introduction

It is evident that Ireland exists, now as she has for many centuries, as a colony. We exist as a vassal region of the United States Empire, managed directly by the European Union and our own quisling political wardens. As such each region of this aforementioned Empire serves a number of purposes.

Ireland serves, in one case, as a data hub for international technocrats, so much so that our country’s data centres are prioritized over normal native families in terms of energy allowance. The elderly and poor will freeze before any data centre switches off. In another case, it serves a supply of relatively cheap labour for pharmaceutical companies and provides migrant workers for other regions of the Empire. Finally, Ireland for a long time was a tax haven. Given political pressures, this state of affairs seems to be changing and our political wardens may raise taxes on international corporations while at the same time lamenting the economic damage that this change will engender.

The last example serves as a portent to Ireland’s economy. Our people live under the illusion of freedom but in fact are slaves, at the beckon call of international finance capital, to be eaten up and spat out once again like so many historical victims of usurious regimes. If American technocrats decide that it would be beneficial to their interests to move pharmaceutical companies away from Ireland - as has been threatened by the mad king Trump - we are ruined. The livelihood of thousands will be in jeopardy. Emigration will suck up those who find their education now useless in Ireland and the diaspora will expand once again. This is but one example of the potential disaster of globalism and the unipolar moment. We are dependent on unfriendly regimes for a significant portion of our economy. We are here not commenting on our need to export our surplus agricultural produce but rather the almost complete lack of a strong manufacturing base in our country. What little manufacturing we do perform is often owned by cosmopolitan foreigners or predominantly labored by migrants. There are notable exceptions of course, but we all know that in general Ireland does not have a strong independent national economy. We do not have an economy which is anti-fragile. It is time that Ireland had a new purpose, its natural purpose.

The central thesis of this work will be that we need to develop an independent and self sustaining manufacturing and service culture in anticipation of coming multipolarity. This is not a mere economic recommendation, not some new pet theory, promising new heights of capital production. The purpose of these ideas are to ensure the lasting propagation and happiness of the Irish people in their homeland. This goal presupposes a number of other economic changes that we shall presently discuss. Let us assume that we have full reign to implement these economics ideas, to make the People’s Economy a reality.

Why Usury Must Be Ended

Usury is the making of money from money, living off the interest gained by distributing loans. There is nothing more complicated to it than this. In modern parlance, usury is defined as charging excessive interest, which is very serendipitous for those who want to live off usury. Who among us gets to define an excessive rate of interest? One could easily say that 0.01% interest is excessive, but that is neither here nor there. Undoubtedly, usury was seen as a general moral bad for much of human history, in many different societies. Several civilizations banned the practice outright so there is a clear historical precedent for this view, but we are getting ahead of ourselves.

Let us first understand this action from a purely economic perspective. Banally, we can call interest the cost of taking out a loan, the price charged by the creditor in proportion to the risk of the enterprise he is investing in. More abstractly, rates of interest (in its purest sense) represent the time difference between money that exists now for consumption and money that can only be consumed at a later date. It is evident that money now is far more valuable to the consumer than money that will be received in the future. The debtor, in theory, could actually save the amount of money he needs and not take out a loan at all. Yet, the debtor feels his free time more valuable than the cost of taking out a loan and thus calls the money of the future into the present for his consumption. The difference in value between money now and later is what we call interest.

So what is wrong with making this practice of charging interest your business? Surely an economy needs credit and creditors willing to oblige? We see a superficially similar practice in profit making. Profit is (again, in its purest sense) a form of interest on investment. The entrepreneur invests money to combine various factors of production, then after a certain amount of time, providing he managed his factors well, receives his profit (interest or return on the initial investment). Yet, the difference between this and usury is clear. The businessman uses his money to create a real thing or provide a service to his customers. He uses his labour (or a delegate’s labour) to give someone real value in the real world. The carpenter creates a chair, the teacher provides education, the shopkeeper gives access to food. It is natural and normal that those who provide a service or product deserve compensation for the work they have done. This is true for the normal employee receiving an agreed upon wage and the entrepreneur who, through his superior understanding of the market, leads the combination of various factors of production in order to best satisfy human wants. Profit is his natural reward and a key motivator in business (though of course it needn’t be the most important motivator).

Does the usurer labour? No. He simply fronts money and waits. He speculates on the market but has frankly very little to do any real market or product creation. He only wants to deal with money and is thus separated from the actual production of goods or services. Everything becomes abstraction and bean counting. ‘But what harm?’, a modern economist would lament. Is it really such a crime to make money from money and is it not true that the usurer is providing a service, i.e. a supply of money at a premium? We admit of course that great business can be conducted with usury. Whole civilizations have been built upon it and it is certainly possible, in theory, to create a decent society with people living off interest and making money from money. Yet in practice this is rarely the case for it is written that Abyssus Abyssum Invocat; literally, ‘hell calls hell’. The initial action of usury is but the first step on a road to decadence. Traditional society saw it as a sin for a reason and economics is not a moralizing science. Just because we understand usury theoretically does not mean we should practice it.

We may understand how a heroin dealer or a pimp make their profits, yet we all know these are not respectable ways of living. We know that a society which regards drug abuse and prostitution as normal will degenerate and collapse. Consider how those with an understanding of interest often find themselves in a wicked profession. Knowing full well how to manipulate desperate people, lenders may misrepresent the value difference between now and future, the expected and the actual. By continually providing credit, the lender can turn a customer into a slave, forever shackled with debt, their poor monetary skills used against them. The ready supply of easy money, given a long enough time, raises the time preference of the society generally. Consumption is encouraged, savings discouraged. The people’s whole spirit becomes centered around the pleasures of the day, a people squandering their children’s future with debt.

All this said, some may agrue that a little usury, regulated and fair, can be used to ‘grease the wheels’ of an economy and provide much needed credit to entrepreneurs with few negative results. This could well be the case but in reality, we are not dealing with a few loan sharks here or there or a small number of banks that offer credit on interest to knowledgeable businessmen. The whole banking system is based on usury and this affects all our markets and our society more generally. Our government currently buy their Euros from the ECB on interest. The money is already in debt the second it is printed, already gathering interest for foreign bankers before it is loaned out again to the Irish public to gather even more interest.

What does this mean in practice? It means punitively high taxes on the people in order to pay back this interest. What is Ireland’s housing crisis but a tale of manipulated interest rates? Banks simply invented money out of thin air for mortgages, massively inflating house prices at a time when they should have been dropping. Why? A large portfolio of debts is needed, to be conglomerated together and sold off at a discount of their value so that even more interest could be sucked out of them. This might be forgiven if the mortgages were at all times going to Irish people and planned appropriately. But more often than not, all significant properties in our country are bought up by faceless corporations only to be rented back to us and any citizen of the world that flies into our airports. All this, because of usurious greed. It is time for this practice to stop in Ireland and in Europe more broadly; it is time to embrace an economy of the people and of the coming multipolar future.

State Credit

Nations need a form of credit to satisfy the wants of their society, to achieve productivity and greatness. We cannot allow our society to naturally go through the process of accumulating savings without someone to provide them credit. Businesses would take years to develop; our people would fall homeless and in truth it would be the worst of all possible situations - pure anarchy. It is the obligation of the Irish state to ensure the lasting propagation and happiness of the Irish people in their homeland and it follows that the state should be the provider of credit and have the sole power to create legal tender in Ireland. This idea opens up a world of possibilities for our people. It represents a fundamental revolt against the banking class, a true path to freedom.

Currency must represent something real in order for its effective utilization. A key problem of our modern economy is that the money represents nothing tangible. Currencies oscillate in price relative to each other without firm ground in anything. The use of fractional reserve banking represents a fraud against people all over the world. What would happen if everyone in Ireland decided to take their money out of the bank and put it under their mattress? A bank run in other words. It is clear that the whole sham would be exposed and either two things would happen: 1) the bank simply wouldn’t be able to pay everyone their money since they have actually loaned out more than the real savings of individuals. 2) they would simply print the money to satisfy everyone. The inflation would spiral out of control and in both situations, we would descend into economic chaos.

For all its flaws, the gold standard, for a time, acted as a light restraint on credit creation. Banks were disinclined to excessively extend credit beyond reserves for fear of losing gold to balance payments. But Ireland has no gold and we have many historical examples of gold prices being manipulated as fiat currency is now. It should be clear that we cannot leave our nation succeed or fail, starve or prosper, on the whims of international gold prices, bitcoin or the dollar. We in Ireland have something tangible on which to base our currency: we have our people, Irish labour. The other nations of the world have an equally valuable, if culturally different, resource in their own people. Here we are discussing an economy that is truly of the people but in a real sense, not the ideological waffle of US liberalism.

State banking and credit is our answer to the current state of affairs. The Irish State is obligated to issue a new currency (we shall call it the punt) to the Irish people and control it in the name of the nation, for the benefit of the nation. It is a modern myth that the state and economy can be separated. In truth there is no monetary decision made without an a priori goal, a political destiny that demands actualization. The goal is the happiness, success and propagation of our own people and an economic agenda flows from this. At all times, when making policy, this goal must take precedence.

Housing is an issue close to the heart of the modern Irish man. How will state banking relieve our people from this deliberate crisis? Consider an Irish couple, recently married who wish to begin the next chapter of their lives and buy their home. They enter the state bank and after careful evaluation of employment history and other regulations, are approved an interest free state loan. Credit is extended to the couple to either buy a house already built, or start work on their own land. The house will be built and repayments made within an agreed upon timeline. The punts given to the couple for their purchase will have a tangible representation in the real world: the house itself, and more abstractly the Irish labour that went into its creation. The worth of the house depends, not just on exchange value but also on the skill and genius of our nation. It is vital to emphasis again that this state loan will be interest free i.e. only the principle of this loan will have to be repaid to the state.

We do not have to stop here. The couple could have 25% of their debt forgiven for each child that they bring into the world. Four children and the loan is forgiven. The difference between these suggestions and the current economy is night and day. The use of interest free state banking removes any profit incentive. The state should have no financial motive in giving credit; therefore it will necessarily only extend credit to those couples who have displayed a clear ability to make repayments. The state will have no incentive to get as many people in debt as possible in order to sell that debt to international finance capital. Upon receiving repayments, the state can now withdraw money from circulation if needed. This will act as a counter balance against inflation. That said, given that punts will at all times be represented by the tangible assets of the country, the money supply (and therefore inflation) will only rise with respect to the creation of assets. If, for whatever reason, there is a period of economic stasis with regard to the development of assets, there will no new money creation, and similarly no Irish man or woman will be encouraged to get into debt needlessly. Should the debt be forgiven completely due to child bearing, the newly born people will also, one day, demand money. Again, we protect ourselves from inflation with this policy.

When it comes to credit given for starting a business, the process is much the same. The potential business man or woman would enter the state bank and their business proposal evaluated. The state must be satisfied that the business will provide a service that is actually wanted i.e. profitable and that it is of a decent nature. There may be stipulations for the credit. For example, the state may insist that only local people may be employed in the business or that it adheres to various regulations regarding safety and environmental protection etc. Once again, the newly created money will be represented by the tangible assets created by the business or the growth in economy by the service provided. Upon receiving repayments, the state can once again withdraw money from circulation as needed. Should the business fail, the state will simply recoup its loss by selling the collateral of the business owner and withdrawing the money it receives from circulation.

The real benefit of state credit is the long-term and intergenerational projects that can be engendered. We quote the influential German economist Friedrich List, as he elucidates the point clearly:

The system of state credit is one of the finest creations of more recent statesmanship, and a blessing for nations, inasmuch as it serves as the means of dividing among several generations the costs of those achievements and exertions of the present generation which are calculated to benefit the nationality for all future times, and guarantee to it continued existence, growth, greatness, power and increase of the powers of production.

(F. List, National System of Political Economy)

We support this view wholeheartedly. Using state credit, public works of infrastructure and art will be developed and financed. At all times the greatness of our people realized.

Protectionism and Businesses

We began this text lamenting Ireland’s weak manufacturing development and our dependence on foreign markets and investment. What we see in our current economy is frankly an inversion of what should be the natural business of the state. In Ireland today, capital from anywhere and everywhere flows in and out of the country. There is little regard as to who owns this investment really, or what effect it will have on our domestic economy so long as the GDP goes up. Conversely, the ordinary man and woman cannot start their business or move their capital without meeting regulation and red tape. The People’s Economy would reverse this situation. We know that a market, left to its own devices, will over time become more capitalistic (i.e. longer and more roundabout processes of production), leading to a lower cost to the consumer per unit of output. At times, the best the state can do is get out of the way of the market, and allow men and women to trade freely amongst themselves for the benefit of their communities. This is not a principle coming from a Libertarian perspective but rather one of common sense. The state should set the minimum regulation and taxation on most businesses in the domestic economy, and then the people should be left more or less alone. Only at times of crisis should price controls (for example) be considered a valid economic tool, to ensure stability when chaos looms.

That said, the domestic economy and the international economy are totally different beasts. It is undoubtedly true that free trade amongst individuals leads to economic efficiency and growth. The same is not necessarily true for nations however. If Ireland were to be engaged in free international trade with the nations of the world, we would quickly find ourselves swamped with all sorts of international tack. Our domestic industries would never be able to grow and develop, as they would be competing with the whole world. Tariffs and other duties must be put upon foreign goods that compete with our own industries, increasing in line with the perfection and development of native production. Goods which are not vital to the domestic economy (such as luxury items) may be freely imported as needs be.

We know that protectionist policies, along with good government directives, lead to fantastic growth in production power and consequentially material wealth creation (List gives clear historical examples in his National System of Political Economy). This is but a serendipitous secondary effect. The real purpose of all the previously mentioned ideas or policies is the National idea stated at the beginning: to ensure the lasting propagation and happiness of the Irish people in their homeland. The creation of a true self-sustaining production and service industry in Ireland would not just benefit us materially but also psychologically. Irish people would know that at all times that their leaders encourage local businesses for local employment. Industry would become intergenerational as it would be protected from foreign competition. Community and stability could be built around these industries, counteracting the atomizing effects of the modern world. The housing of married Irish couples via interest free loans has the purpose of ensuring stable, intact and financially secure nuclear families. It would ensure the right incentives are at all times prioritized. This is essential for promoting healthy people. The degeneration of the Irish family will have long lasting implications if it is not reversed. Finally, the creation of intergenerational works of art and public infrastructure would give self confidence back to the Irish people and would return them to the place of international greatness where they belong.

Conclusion

This is but a preliminary outline of the National Economy, a starting point upon which we begin the realization of our ultimate ideal. These are not new ideas but rather are old promises that we are obliged to keep. We quote General Collins at length:

In the ancient days of Gaelic civilization the people were prosperous and they were not materialists. They were one of the most spiritual and one of the most intellectual peoples in Europe….

The real riches of the Irish nation will be the men and women of the Irish nation, the extent to which they are rich in body and mind and character.

The system should be on co-operative lines rather than on the old commercial capitalistic lines of the huge stock companies. At the same time I think we shall safely avoid State Socialism, which has nothing to commend it in a country like Ireland, and, in any case, is monopoly of another kind.

(M. Collins, The Path to Freedom)

We agree wholeheartedly with this these statements. We do not engage in this either for racist or jingoistic reasons. We believe that all nations deserve this type of People’s Economy. We simply do not see it as our place to articulate it for other nations. We know that all the people of Europe need to come together to survive the unipolar moment and create states that recognize the genuine need to support their people who can in turn also support each other. At the moment these are mere thoughts but a time will come when new leadership is required to navigate multipolarity. We hope that the People’s Economy is part of that future for the sake of the peoples of Europe.