Financialising Remigration

End game victory

In the bad old days of Jonathan ‘nutter’ Portes, people believed that immigration was ‘good’ for the economy. This was, of course, nonsense for reasons now easily understood by even the Wokest of Westminster. Nonetheless, a cavalier attitude has replaced it which holds that simply because migrants are a drain on the state, absolutely nothing is driving replacement except the misguided ideology of our rulers. There may be some truth to this but I’ve encountered some persuasive arguments to the contrary I shall do my best to recapitulate here, in the interests of ‘steelmanning’ the case for remigration.

One of the things I, personally, observe Marxist economists to be more correct about than Orthodox economists is the concept of over-capitalisation. The average British rightist believes that Weatherspoons is cheap because Tim Martin is such a top bloke he buys proper sausages and cuts prices, driving out competitors with an iconic mixture of zero-music and zero-dogs. The reality is, the main value of Weatherspoons is its property portfolio which it leverages for cheap credit to make investments. That is overcapitalisation, in short; as the rate of profit on new investment declines, it makes more sense for companies to become rent-seekers instead of innovators, finding ways to increase the value of their assets by debt.

Where does immigration come into this? Let us look at a company greatly associated with cheap labour in Britain, Deliveroo. Deliveroo only became profitable in 2024, for close to a decade, it relied exclusively upon debt-fuelled expansion and is, as of this year, about £50 million pounds in debt. The purpose of Deliveroo is not to serve the customer, or invest in new products, it is to deliver a reliable but small return, over a very long period of time, to its shareholders. This is the strategy pursued by big asset management firms like Blackrock, of which Pension funds are a type; whereas buccaneers from the golden ages of Capitalism, like Sir James Goldsmith, would seize companies to restructure them and sell them off at a profit, the pension fund is primarily concerned with mitigating risk, it will take on a massive spread of small, safe investments in firms like Deliveroo to generate consistent returns for its beneficiaries. This also means that, within companies, innovation is discouraged in favour of shareholder return and competition declines across the board.

Immigration? Yes, the point is, within this risk-reduction, overcapitalised, pension fund dominated model of capitalism, the surest way of guaranteeing returns is suppressing wage growth. The presence of the migrants is not that they are necessarily ‘cheap’ labourers in the way the Chinese coolie or African slave was but that they suppress wages across the board. The fact that replacement migrants are a huge drain on the welfare state makes no difference to shareholders and institutional investors. They aren’t the ones paying for that. There was an argument during the IDS benefit reforms that in-work benefits were, essentially, the taxpayer subsidising corporate profits. Think of replacement migration like this. Nick 30 ans pays 50% income tax to ensure semi-literate people, who otherwise would never integrate into society, get free housing and the Deliveroo shareholders only have to hire them, with their healthcare, housing costs and day to day expenses paid for by the British taxpayer.

Now, if you take the word ‘economy’ to be at all connected with the general welfare of the people it is obvious that this model, taken as a whole, is terrible for ‘the economy.’ It ultimately bankrupts the public purse and stagnates every other sector until only a strategy of rent-seeking on existing bottlenecks is left. Within the context of the model itself, however, mass migration would appear to be an irreducible part; the balance sheets of every pension fund, stipulated by law to maximise returns for their clients, will have factored in a steady deprecation of wages caused by growing population. The problem with overcapitalisation is that our entire system runs on it; not just the economy. The government is just as overcapitalised as Deliveroo, with a multi-trillion pound national debt only due to keep growing. In order to give markets the illusion it can afford to keep servicing that debt (it can’t) it must, like a shitcoin multinational pension fund piggy bank, continue to show that it is ‘growing’ by importing a million consumers every year.

If Deliveroo, and every other company which subsists off servicing debt with coolie labour, went bankrupt over the first two years of a Reform government the institutional investors would lose money, this in turn means they would allocate their capital elsewhere which means the British economy would have less transactions and thus less ‘growth’ which means the credit ratings agencies can downgrade our debt.

Is the problem, thus, insoluble? Rubbish. The best way to institutionalise your ideology, better than taking over the media, better than packing the courts, better than marching through those institutions – is allowing the market to bet on them. When asset managers have multibillion pound investments on remigration working, it will not matter whether Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister in 2040, the remigration will continue; for the same reason, at present, Nigel Farage being Prime Minister makes no difference to the continued influx of men across the channel. We need to create an instrument which simultaneously deprecates the value of labour, while creating a new field of speculation for overcapitalised markets.

I propose the following. Modelled along ‘ESG’, Parliament shall legislate to create new ethical guidelines for the market which prioritise Automation and Remigration. Firms will be set up to rank any company on the FTSE according to its use of cheap labour and degree of automation. Loans given to those companies which score low will be riskier than those with a higher score, buying shares in companies with high scores will be easier than those for low scores and come with tax incentives. Meanwhile, new classes of bond will be invented for the specific purpose of promoting automation and, possibly, deporting non-nationals, which the BoE will promptly be instructed to buy, in bulk, to make them an artificially attractive asset. As institutional investors rush to buy these bonds, and secondary asset classes like collateralised loans given to small businesses for the same purpose, more and more of the financial system will be invested in the pivot to automation and remigration.

It is likely that, by next year, there will exist robots equipped with primitive learning models which can do essentially any manual task. This does not mean they necessarily will. Tesla estimate each ‘Optimus’ unit will cost about £30,000 which means competitor models will cost £50,000; they are aiming to provide status-items for upper-middle class people, rather than massive industrial rollout. This makes them the ideal vector for creating a massive asset-bubble. Large corporations will require huge cash injections to replace their foreign workforce with robotic labourers. On the other hand, as this money will be going in to a robot work-force, it will have very little effect on wage growth or inflation. The only problem will be ensuring that enough robots are built, on time, to keep up with demand. As migrant labour, specifically, will affect the company’s remigration score, companies will be incentivised to report non-native labourers replaced to the border force of a progressive government the moment they are automated.

Just as Net Zero tricked European financial institutions into betting against their own economies, so too will we trick them into betting against massive obsolescence of the work-force. There are dangers to our strategy, if remigration isn’t followed through, you will see an explosion of the welfare tab picked up by taxpayers and mass unemployment but this should only keep governments honest.

I have no domain-relevant expertise in economics, I am sure anyone who has so much as perched their bottom on a bond desk can point out the flaws in this plan, nonetheless, I submit it to the public less as a demand than as a call to thought and action and gesture in the direction in which we should be thinking. If we limit our thinking on economics to the simple expenditure of the state, we will not succeed in creating lasting change, we’ve got to think at the level of global markets.