We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Elliot Keck (who he?) had this recent excellently sharp item over at CapX:
It can be infuriating making the case for free markets. Too much time has to be spent batting away obviously terrible, tried-and-failed ideas. Proposals for a wealth tax are just the latest iteration requiring many a wall to be bashed with many a head. Just in the last few days, a group called ‘Patriotic Millionaires’ has urged Rachel Reeves to consider a ‘simple way’ to grow the economy with a tax of 2% on wealth over £10 million per year. A recent piece in the New Statesman concluded that a wealth tax wouldn’t be straightforward, but it could work. The new director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has also called for a one-off wealth tax.
This is mad. As a TaxPayers’ Alliance study of wealth taxes has demonstrated, they’ve failed everywhere they’ve been tried. When Labour considered one in the 1970s, they concluded it would be unworkable, despite capital being far less mobile then than it is today.
We are already seeing the wealthy flee at a shocking rate (just look at the Adam Smith Institute’s millionaire tracker), forced abroad by changes to non-dom rules, punitive marginal tax rates, shoddy public services, increasing crime and the imposition of VAT on private schools, to name just a few incentives. When this is pointed out to proponents of wealth taxes, as I recently found on LBC, the response is not to dispute the problem but to bemoan the fact that every time the rich are asked to pay their ‘fair share’, they throw their toys out the pram and flee.
Yet now those who have the temerity to be affluent are being told to cough up to clean up the almighty mess made by our political class. It’s yet another reason for the wealthy to line up for the last chopper out of Saigon. Rather than criticising those who leave, we should increasingly be thanking those who choose to stay.
In my day job, I have to keep an eye on financial regulations and the compliance regimes such as those of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Switzerland’s FINMA, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, and more.
A few years ago, regulators such as the SEC dropped the hammer on bankers and other financial sector folk for using private chat apps such as WhatsApp in ways deemed unacceptable: “The Securities and Exchange Commission has punished some of the biggest names in banking including Citi, Bank of America and JPMorgan with fines totalling more than $2bn since 2021, amid concerns that a boom in services such as WhatsApp, iMessage and WeChat could be letting market abuse go unchecked.”
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this – this ought to be a matter between the staff of these firms and their employers, in my view – the regulatory authorities come down hard on people using these apps in ways that are seen, however mistakenly, to put certain things (such as record-keeping of important conversations) at risk.
And yet as you know, dear reader, we have seen examples in recent days from US government figures communicating via Apps such as Signal to discuss the pros and cons of military action. It has caused a stink for various reasons, but for me, I am struck by how few people have commented on the very different treatment of those who work in finance, and those who hold positions of power and where lives are at stake. In the UK, a while back, it turned out the government of Boris Johnson was using WhatsApp extensively, with inevitably poor results. This has led to extensive commentary.
I think this gets me to a wider point. Wherever I look, I see a breakdown in trust in our institutions, public and private. The extent to which this is deserved is contested, but at the root of much of it is that those who set the rules and call for them appear not to abide by them: Political and NGO big cheeses flying in private jets to discuss catastrophic global warming, for example, or the cases of alleged two-tier justice that have been such a mark of the UK government in recent months.
“America doesn’t make anything anymore” is a powerful talking point, but it’s false. We make plenty, including some of the most complex, high-valued goods in the world, from aircraft to pharmaceuticals to advanced electronics. Our workers don’t make many T-shirts or toasters; other countries can do it more cheaply. And the more successfully we produce and export advanced machinery, the more foreign goods we can afford to import. America’s industrial base is not collapsing. It’s evolving—becoming more productive, more specialized, and more capital-intensive. Protectionism won’t bring back the past or revive old jobs. It will just make the future more expensive and shift workers into lower-paying jobs.
– Veronique de Rugy, Reason magazine.
Lest any Trump admirers get all upset about my posting this quotation it is worth pointing out that there is plenty of protectionist guff on my side of the Atlantic as well. The EU has its Customs Union – the aspects of the bloc that I like the least – and it is described in typically bureaucratic fashion, here. This article in the Financial Times contains the claim that the EU is not as comprehensive in its “protective shields” as the US, Canada and Australia. That said, free trade in general terms is in global retreat, unfortunately, and not simply under the Trump administration – previous US governments were hardly much better, although that is not setting the bar very high.
I have jousted a bit in the comments on previous threads with those claiming that tariffs are necessary, for various (and to my mind, fallacious and often self-contradictory reasons): to “protect jobs”; national security and diversification of supply; as a club to hit supposedly foolish and oppressive other countries; to raise taxes and shift away from income taxes, or that comparative advantage on the David Ricardo model does not work if you allow cross-border capital flows. All the arguments are, in my view, flawed and in some cases, just plain wrong. (Here is a good summary of the arguments contra protectionism.)
As it is used a lot these days, here’s a good take-down, from the Hoover Institution, of the “national security” argument for tariffs. I can also recommend a new book, Free Trade In The 21s Century, a collection of essays by folk from the political, business and economics world. It is a big read, but good to immerse in if you want to delve into the arguments.
What I see playing out today in the US – and at times in Europe – is the way that, since the end of the Cold War and the supposed triumph of free market ideas in the subsequent 20-plus years, the argument was not made with sufficient force and the benefits not adequately spelled out. So here we are. And one big problem is that what Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called the “creative destruction” of capitalism meant that the supposed losers of all this commotion, such as car workers in the UK West Midlands or the US “rust belt” did not get, as far as they could tell, much immediate uplift from the greater overall prosperity that open trade brought. Telling them to “learn to code” just riled them up. (Explaining to an unemployed coal miner or machine tool operator that they should learn a very different skill is difficult, at any age, but particularly if the argument comes from a politician who appears to have never had a real job.) And this, it seems to me, is the fundamental issue: how can a culture of adaptability and can-do attitudes be fostered in a world of constant and at times, disturbing change? (Robert Tracinski makes a good attempt to do so, here.) Because if that does not happen, the populists of the left and the right, whether a Trump, a William Jennings Bryan, etc, will energetically seek to fill the market void. (HL Mencken magnificently destroyed Bryan, who was an opponent of gold-backed money and held many other terrible views that are, I fear, still popular in certain quarters.)
This book, Capitalism In America, from a few years ago by journalist Adrian Wooldridge and former Federal Reserve chairman, jazz musician and economist Alan Greenspan (full disclosure: I have met both of them), gives a good overview of the rise and fall and then rise of arguments about free trade, globalisation, the problems with how the losers from disruption can demand destructive changes, and more. If advocates of free trade like me cannot explain all of this, then the protectionist argument will gain ground, to calamitous effect.
“The Russians are deemed to have agency: the could stop the war. Hamas are treated as if they lack self-determination: they are not held accountable for their crimes or expected to release hostages. Excuses are found for them, in a classic case of the racism of low expectations. Every attack on Israel triggers demands that Jerusalem surrenders territory, that it helps those seeking to exterminate it; things are that are (correctly) never demanded of Ukraine.”
– Allister Heath, in an excellent take-down of the double-think that seems to operate with the UK government and much of the political/chattering classes about what is going on in Ukraine/Russia and Israel one against various Islamist forces. (Article is behind paywall.)
“I keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who. I send them over land and sea, I send them east and west; But after they have worked for me, I give them all a rest.
>I let them rest from nine till five, For I am busy then, As well as breakfast, lunch, and tea, For they are hungry men. But different folk have different views; I know a person small— She keeps ten million serving-men, Who get no rest at all!
She sends’em abroad on her own affairs, From the second she opens her eyes— One million Hows, two million Wheres, And seven million Whys!”
– Rudyard Kipling, Just So Stories (1902)
Those business journalists at Bloomberg ($) have noticed that some investors are betting that Russian debt – a market frozen since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine – could “thaw out” if there’s a ceasefire/peace deal. But this is a gamble that has potential to go very wrong.
The transactions — revealed here for the first time — are among the clearest indications yet that investors are quietly betting that US President Donald Trump’s overtures to Moscow for a deal to end the war in Ukraine will eventually translate into Russia’s return to the global financial markets. The buyers are wagering that the deeply discounted securities could soar in value if the sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 are lifted.
Money managers, too, say they are receiving approaches from Wall Street sales teams gauging their interest in making bets on the ruble through non-deliverable forwards — derivatives that because they don’t involve a physical Russian asset or individual person aren’t subject to sanctions. The Russian currency has gained 13 percent against the dollar since the start of the year, according to Bank of Russia data.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. are among banks that have been acting as brokers to facilitate growing investor demand for ways to trade Russian-related assets, people familiar with the matter said.
Given the potential for things to go awry, such as if Mr Putin treats a pause in the fighting to re-group and launch another assault, I’d want to be in close touch with any investment managers running my savings plans to be sure that Russian debt, assuming it was ever to be considered in a portfolio, were to take up more than a few percentage points of my total holdings. In fact, I’d want to insist that Russian debt, even after any sort of diplomatic move (regardless of how it is arrived at), is out of bounds.
As European countries, finally, crank up defence spending, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (or “ITAR”) are likely to come up in conversations.
Reflecting on topics such as this got me thinking that so much of the Western supply chain in military kit is controlled by the US. On the positive side, you get economies of scale and all that comes with these kind of forces. For years, Americans have been keen on selling all this funky kit to the likes of Germany, Britain, etc.
The problem is that to follow an independent foreign and military policy in this new era means that chain is breaking. There is talk that the US can operate a “kill switch” so that countries using certain US-made weapons cannot use them in ways that an administration does not like. It reminds me a bit of worries about Chinese electric vehicles being vulnerable to such a “switch”.
This seems in some ways to be a risk management issue. There is a broader Nassim Taleb-style point about making defence and security in the free world less fragile. Think how much of our defence and communications run off a handful of networks and suppliers. There are US satellites, cloud computing services from the likes of AWS, Microsoft, etc; military hardware suppliers in the US such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Pratt & Whitney. And many more. These systems generate great efficiencies and rich export earnings, particularly for the United States.
There’s a problem – a fragility. Europe has become dependent, complacent and comfortable.
As we found out because of the 2008 financial crisis and covid, overconfidence in certain institutions (US government, central banks, medical experts) can lead to dangerous outcomes. There is a sort of moral hazard problem. Just as “too-big-to-fail” bank bailouts create foolish attitudes about risk, a sense that the US military or whoever would ride to the rescue of a country meant too many nations got complacent. In fact, it is possible to see some of what is going on right now in behavioural terms. Incentives matter. Shield people against certain costs, and they become spendthrifts, borrow too much, or assume they can strike attitudes on things and there won’t be bad outcomes.
(See my related post on what countries such as in Europe, parts of Asia etc, do now.)
I have seen a number of US-based commentators rail against American involvement in many international events and wars, and to an extent they have a point. Not least, they’re right to ask hard questions about what America gets in return for all that apart from our love. Selling fancy military jets and tech is nice, but not much compensation, arguably, for much of the grief that comes with financing military efforts. So even if a different POTUS was office, we’d have reached this situation, if not quite the same way.
Remember that less than two months ago, the POTUS was a senile, crooked, and in my view deeply unpleasant old man who liked to shove America’s nose into UK domestic matters, such as Northern Ireland, to take just one example. So this is a bipartisan problem, not one specific to Trump and his circle.
In a way, Trump is doing Europe and certain other countries a favour, even if it does not come across that way. I expect S. Korea, Japan, even Taiwan, to spend even more on defence, such as anti-missile defence. Those nations must be deeply alarmed. I expect Israel to get involved in lending out its expertise to countries willing to work with Israel. (One side-effect of this period is that behind the scenes, military co-operation between Europe and Israel will increase. Let’s get IDF pilots of a certain age to train folk up. They’re the best in the world.)
Various thoughts this morning in London, as I get ready to fly on business to Zurich (the Swiss have some clever tech, by the way):
Net Zero is dead. Keir Starmer must in whatever way he can to sway his backbenchers and the chattering class, put NZ into the side of the road. That might mean sacking energy secretary Ed Milliband. Deindustrialisation must stop. Windmills, solar energy and happy thoughts cannot build a submarine, artillery shell factory or a bunch of anti-missile batteries. And screwing the British economy to make a tiny dent in C02 emissions so we feel all virtuous is a luxury belief. Luxuries are out.
Liz Kendall, the minister responsible for benefits in the UK, will have to squeeze benefits paid to millions of people who are currently allegedly too ill to work. We spend tens of billions on keeping working-age adults away from productive work. It’s unsustainabile, financially and morally. It also robs the UK of productive potential, and lets human capital disintegrate. If Starmer can blitz foreign aid, he can instruct his colleagues to do the same on welfare.
European nations will start to further restrict the ability of US-based companies, investors etc from buying controlling stakes in unlisted and listed European firms that produce tech and goods that have military uses, either explicitly, or potentially. Such firms will also be banned, or restricted, from listing on the New York Stock Exchange for the forseeable future.
Americans coming to Europe on various trips may notice that visa-free applications become more onerous. I don’t like it but I won’t be surprised if it happens, particularly if such a person has been to Russia in the past decade.
Intelligence sharing among the “Five Eyes” alliance that dates back to WW2 (the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) will squeeze out the US to some extent, if not completely. Subtly, however, there will be more of a move towards countries we might have to trust a bit more. With Tulsi Gabbard as a intelligence-related US government member, some of the 5E countries will be nervous.
I want to stress that I don’t necessarily endorse all the actions that will be taken, or at least I don’t have time here to go into the finer details. Trump is going to be in office for four years and we don’t know what happens after the mid-terms. He’s also getting older and more volatile. At some point his acolytes will fall out (Musk, probably.) But whatever happens, Europe must rearm significantly, must increase focus on security and intelligence gathering capabilities, and prevent further US leverage over our resources where possible.
“Many Democrats rolled out of the election acknowledging the urgent need for a change in direction—for moderation, an end to cultural radicalism, a reconnect with working-class Americans. They immediately crashed into the left-wing base, threatening political death to heretics. Even if the party had the spine to push back, who exactly on the Democratic bench even remembers how to be a moderate?”
Writes Kimberley Strassel, in the Wall Street Journal ($). She beats up on the Donkey Party, and with good reason:
What looks like a rapid collapse was years in the making. The left’s takeover of the Democratic Party began with the rise of Barack Obama and it steadily eradicated dissenting voices. Nancy Pelosi’s “majority makers”—the Blue Dogs and moderates who won her the speakership in 2006—were made to support unpopular legislation and paid for it in lost elections. Progressives targeted and polarized other holdouts, picked them off in primaries, or drove them to resignation. It was Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”
The Squad’s wild proposals for the Green New Deal, open borders, Medicare for all—a program of socialism that traditional Democrats initially rejected—is now mainstream thinking, the policy litmus test for party entry.
But…
This could be the MAGA future. The GOP is a party of many factions, and their policy disagreements frequently produce stalemates and governing heartache. Influential Trump supporters are honing their own methods for stamping out even mild disagreement with the president’s approach: rally online supporters to pile on, label the target a member of the “uniparty” or the “establishment,” threaten a primary. This exact playbook was exercised numerous times over the past few weeks of nomination votes. “Rules for Radicals.”
It’s a recipe for intellectual stagnation. It’s a departure from the modern conservative movement, which has been defined by its innovative ideas, from school choice to civil-service reform. It sits unnaturally in a movement that has long prized individualism and entrepreneurship and condemned the left’s collectivism. It mistakes the goal of party unity (the act of members compromising on strongly held positions for a legislative victory) with the tyranny of party conformity (think like we do, or get the boot).
And look how it worked out for Democrats.
From the Daily Telegraph (£) today:
A quarter of 13 to 17-year-olds recently admitted to the Pew Research Centre that they use ChatGPT to write their homework, double the proportion found a year earlier. Last year, the Higher Education Policy Institute found that one in eight undergraduates – 13 per cent – were using AI to write assessments, and 3 per cent were handing in the chatbot’s output without checking it.
Oh dear. As the article says, there are AI programmes now that screen writing to see if a generative form of AI has written it. So we have a sort of arms race, as it were, between those using these systems to write essays or whatever, and those using it to spot the cheats.
Using AI is not quite the same, necessarily, as using a search engine to check up on sources, or a calculator to do sums rather than by hand. I do think that something is lost if a person has no idea of how to go about how to find things out: what references to check, how to validate such references and how to understand sources, levels of credibility and corroboration, etc. Being able to think through a topic, to structure an essay, marshal facts and figures, and come to a convincing conclusion, is a skill. It is also an important way that we hone our reasoning. And I don’t think there is anything specifically “Luddite” in pointing out that using AI to “write” your homework assignment will lead cause atrophy of our mental faculties. And in this age of social media, “coddling” of kids and all the problems associated with a “fragile generation” , it is easy to see this trend as being malign.
I am definitely not saying the government ought to step into this. I think that schools and places of higher learning ought, as part of the conditions of entry and admission (preferably with the consent of parents/students) to restrict AI’s use to avoid people not developing their own mental muscle and developing ability to truly grasp a subject, rather than simply “phone it in”. If a place of learning has a mission statement, it surely ought to want to develop the learning ability and skills of its students. If AI detracts from it, then it is out of bounds.
It is best, I think, to leave this up to individual schools. This is also another reason why I am a fanatic about school choice, and fear the dangers of state central control of schools.
Technology has its place, in my view. In my childhood, pocket calculators started to be used, but we were not allowed to use them in class until we’d already mastered maths the old-fashioned way. (I used them in doing my physics O-level, for example, so long as I clearly could show my workings if asked.)
Here is an associated article by Gizmondo. On a more optimistic point, venture capital mover and shaker Marc Andreessen has thoughts on the overall positives from AI.
I also have a more financial concern. If students, such as undergraduates, are using AI to write essays, even whole dissertations, etc, then it makes it even more scandalous that they rack up tens of thousands of dollars, euros or whatever in debt to pay for this. Because if they get a degree thanks to ChatGPT (that rhymes!), then what exactly have they got for their money?
“Earlier this week, the BBC admitted it had broadcast an hour of primetime television narrated by the son of a Hamas terrorist leader. This connection to terrorism was not initially disclosed to audiences.”
– Danny Cohen, Daily Telegraph (£) Here’s a non-paywalled story about this.
In all the calls I come across from the Left, it is not often to find examples of how rich people are attacked because if they are allowed to keep more of their wealth (even if is legitimately acquired and without coercion), the money disappears. Forever, kid. It’s lost.
Yes, you read that right. The money vanishes into a black hole. An argument against “trickle-down” economics (which is a term no serious free marketer I have heard of actually uses) is that nothing “trickles” anywhere. Apparently, there is this place, someone on Earth, where money is just sitting around, gathering dust, all on its unproductive exile, just waiting to be rescued by a benevolent State so it can be put back into work. It sounds like a first draft of the plot from the Count of Monte Cristo and the bit about the secret treasure that Edmond Dantes discovered and used to persecute his foes.
Why do I mention this bizarre idea? Because I read it defended and set out in a book, The Future Of Finance: The Rising Tide of Fintech Lending and the Platform Economy, by Francesco Filia and Daniele Guernini, (Whitefox Publishing, 2024). The book is a mostly informative account of how modern digital technology is changing finance. It talks about the role of blockchain; decentralised finance (DEFI) and other developments. It has lots to commend it if you want to understand these ideas, and the use cases in finance for technologies such as AI. But…some of the economic contentions in the book are bonkers.
For example, the authors claim that “we know” that wage growth and equality drive economic growth. (No clear evidicence is given for this contention.) They argue that wage growth continued for about 100 years until 1970, when it apparently stopped.
However, that begs the question of whether there was a lot of equality in that period. Was there a lot of equality, in relative, equality-of-outcome terms, during the “Gilded Age” of the Rockefellers, Carnegies and the rest? (There was not, but the rising tide of wealth nevertheless was considerable.) Was there much of that during the 1920s? I suspect that equality, brought about by steeply progressive tax rates (and they caused issues) did not really manifest itself greatly until after WW2, and even then, given exemptions and other forces, American society in some ways was less egalitarian than in Western Europe.
The authors argue that a labour shortage drove this wealth growth, but surely, absent the restrictive and destructive impact of labour union restrictive practices, it was superior capital investment, and hence superior productivity, that meant tight labour markets coexisted with rising real wages in certain countries. (West Germany rapidly overtook the UK, and it was a country where income tax rates kicked in at higher levels, unions were less obstructive, and there were fewer price controls under the Adenauer administrations than, say, the UK.) The authors make no reference whatsover in this part of the book to investment in capital. But it is total factor productivity (physical capital, human capital, etc) that makes the difference over time to income growth. The US labour market was, relatively, less unionised in the post-war period than the UK one, for example, but the standard of living in the US rose relatively faster, as Milton Friedman pointed out in his book, Free to Choose.
The idea that real incomes have somehow stagnated because wages have stopped rising ignores what might have caused that stagnation. I argue that they get causation back to front. If it is a shortage of labour that causes wages to rise, then surely, absent state intervention, capital will flow into machinery and the like to make up the shortfall, and such a country will also attract immigration (hopefully, of the sort that adds value via skills). In the US, as recounted by Alan Greenspan and Adrian Wooldridge in their masterful account of American capitalism, that’s exactly what happened. During the 19th century, even before the US Civil War, the US saw tremendous growth of labour-saving devices to handle this labour shortage issue. For instance, the McCormick reaper-binder, Singer sewing machine, and more. Light bulbs, early air conditioning…you name it, have also increased returns on human labour because light bulbs allow 24-hour shift work; AC enables places that are otherwise stinking hot to be more economically viable, and so on. And this capital equipment made US workers more productive and increased their real income, other things being equal.
But it is on page 64 that Filia and Guernini ramp up their error wholesale and put forward what I call the “consumption theory of wealth”, which puts spending, rather than investment, innovation and creativity, as the cause of why we are better off: I am going to quote a passage in full:
“When employees and ordinary people (as opposed to odd people, ed?) have more money in their pocket, they spend it. The go out and spend money in restaurants and bars or entertainment venues, they buy new cars or modernise their homes. As a result, that money goes into the real economy to create demand for goods and services and helps businesses prosper and the economy to grow. But when already wealthy people and business owners keep more money via tax cuts, that money is squirrelled away. It’s dumped in offshore trust funds to minimise tax till further or it’s used in stock buybacks. It never reaches the real economy. All it does is to create even greater inequality.” (My emphasis in bold.)
So, if a person saves any money or “squirrels it away”, it is potentially gone. The idea that savings are important, and a source of investment, is totally absent in this account As several on this blog such as Paul Marks regularly point out, a problem in many modern economies is that when investment is financed by central banks’ printing of money, and not real savings made possible by foregoing consumption, it bids up the factors of production, and that without injecting yet more funny money to keep the party going, there’s a crash. The importance of savings cannot be overstated in making sustainable growth possible. The authors claim, with no real evidence, that if money is salted away in a low/no-tax jurisdiction such as the Cayman Islands, Mauritius, Jersey or Dubai, that this money disappears. It’s gone. But that’s plainly rubbish: that money is invested. Why else put it offshore? Even if that money is put into government bonds, that is lent to someone to finance something.
It is true those who use such jurisdictions hope to reduce their overall tax, and in many cases, they defer tax burdens rather that remove them. After all, a person may still want to repatriate their wealth eventually, for whatever reason, and they pay tax on it when that happens. They could, I suppose, give it to charity – but then that money will also go into the “real economy”.
But the idea that money that is not taxed goes out of existence is beyond bizarre. I don’t even know if Thomas Piketty, the French academic who called for progressive taxes and assaults on wealth, went so far into arguing that rich people’s money just vanishes from “real economy”.
Anyway, apart from page 63 and 64, it is a decent book.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
