There are many powerful factions vying against White identity and for globalism, and one of the strongest is the investor class. Their wealth depends on bull markets pushing the price of their stocks ever higher, and would be wiped out by a sharp and prolonged downturn. The only way to maintain their position is ever increasing GDP, which requires an endless stream of new consumers, without which corporate earnings decrease, along with corporations’ ability to buyback shares and pay out dividends, and possibly even to pay down debt and make interest payments.
The investor class may have vast wealth at the moment, but that could either diminish drastically or completely evaporate if the economy slows even slightly. Of course they are a diverse group, with different levels of sophistication and liquidity, but many simply hold large quantities of stock and take loans against them, believing they will be able to sell what they need to at a good price when their loans are due. How would they fair if their portfolio were down over fifty percent?
To avoid such a disaster, they are vehement advocates for new consumers to enter White nations, where they pay the most inflated prices for their goods, thus boosting corporate earnings to their maximum. Growth, of both GDP and their own wealth, are only capped by how many Chinese people, Africans and everyone else they can cram into White countries. This makes it easy for them to pretend that Chinese people, Africans and everyone else are interchangeable, because their lifestyle depends on it.
Unfortunately for everyone else, the side effect of this policy is higher competition for housing, making it more expensive, and downward pressure on wages, as there is always a Filipino who will do your job for less- another boon for corporate earnings.
How would a reversal of globalism affect the various strata of society? If we sent home those who do not belong, they would take with them the lifeblood of the bull market, as their dollars departing the sacred economy would cause a huge downward revision to valuations of stocks and GDP. The investor class would be done, aside from the nimble few who get out and short. But regardless of the winners who would be left, “Finance” would no longer be an exciting option going forward.
As for everyone else, the downside would be that working people with savings in the form of investment funds, or even housing, may be a down a bit. But the growing number of people with no savings and barely enough income to pay rent would suddenly have affordable housing as homes become available. There would be economic upheaval, with corporations downsizing, and some disappearing. But most valuable jobs would likely remain. The term “likely” is used as an acknowledgement that hypothetical scenarios may not play out in predictable ways. But everyone reading this knows that our people can work through any problem, especially one as simple as economics, which just comes naturally to a society that functions.
If we look to history, we can see the aftermath of the Black Death that swept across Europe in 1348-49, when roughly a third (perhaps half, by some estimates) of the population succumbed and ceased to be consumers. All the land was owned by the nobility (using England as an example, but most other places as well) and leased out to peasants. Being a leaseholder pre-plague was a decent place in society, as it tended to offer more income than being a farm labourer, and was your best chance at advancement in a low-tech, agrarian society. And it was not easy to get there without inheritance.
Until, that is, the plague freed up space for any peasant who wanted to be a leaseholder, but few did. Day labourers were typically paid one pence a day before the disaster. But after the labour pool was cut by about fifty percent (the peasants suffered the highest death rate), they were able to demand much higher wages. Despite the lack of consumer demand, the nobility still wanted their land farmed, as that was their source of income, so demand for labour remained strong, and suddenly peasants were being paid two, four, even eight pence a day- depending on the region. Times were so good that no one wanted to be the leaseholder, with the responsibilities that went along with that. Why would you when you could make up to eight times what your previous wage were? They could work when they wanted, and take days off when it suited them.
In addition, since the land was being farmed, there were surpluses due to lack of demand, making the price of everything decrease. Basically, a quick and drastic decrease in the population led to higher wages and a lower cost of living. The nobility became less wealthy, but nobody felt sorry for them, as they were still the nobility and more rich and powerful than peasants. But it was very likely the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history.
While circumstances have changed, and things may not play out in the exact same manner if we suddenly made our lands more vacant, we would likely again see some level of wealth transfer, from those who have sucked parasitically from our people for so long, to those who are currently struggling to house and feed themselves.
More importantly than any economic argument is how being flooded with violent third-worlders and the constant debasement of White history weighs on the soul of the European peoples, which the investor class is willing to crush to preserve their own wealth and power.