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]
|
Jonathan Hanson has spotted some interesting parallels between Tinseltown and Downing Street
In ruminating over the current government in England, an analogy occurred to me that I hoped you might find worthy of publishing and/or commenting on.
It hit me that there are rather creepy similarities between the Blair left liberal machine and Hollywood’s current marketing strategy.
Hollywood is no longer interested in quality, only in what sells. The producers and directors strive to appeal to the lowest common denominator of moviegoer (constituent?), in a bald-faced effort to bring in the most money (votes). The content of the message is unimportant, as to whether or not it has a moral, a germ of spiritual inspiration, or the slightest connection to reality. Hollywood is happy to exploit minorities, the poor, violence in society, and numerous other causes, not in the name of justice, but in the name of profit. The result is millions of moviegoers sitting slack-jawed while being spoon-fed pablum.
Am I missing anything?
Jonathan Hanson, Tucson, Arizona
[Editor: No Jonathan, you are not missing a damn thing]
Blogger Alan K. Henderson has a rather flattering idea for protests at the Beijing Olympics.
After reading about Yahoo’s complicity with the Chicoms, I started thinking about the Beijing Olympics. Maybe everyday American spectators could sneak in a little protest here and there. The only idea I have right off the bat is strategically chosen wardrobe. Shirts emblazoned with the Taiwanese flag or that famous photo of the guy standing in front of the Tianenmen tanks might not get past customs (American inspectors might seize them, for all we know – don’t want to upset our partners in peace ). But Samizdata T-shirts are another matter; inspectors won’t think twice about them, and even though Chinese locals won’t know what the eye-in-the-pyramid logo means, they’ll probably ask…
Alan K. Henderson
[Editor: of course if they look at the back of the T-shirts and see the slogan ‘When the state watches you, dare to stare back’ they might have a teeny inkling that these shirts might not be indicative of enthusiasm for the collectivist world view]
Paul Marks marvels how the insidious bias of the BBC can even mislead a hardened sceptic like him!
Even people who think they are cynical about what they see and hear from the BB. can still be fooled by it. I give as an example myself.
On Monday the 5th of August I watched and listened to the B.B.C. report that there had been the worst one month decline in manufacturing industry since “Mrs Thatcher in 1979” (cue film of Mrs Thatcher).
“Yes [I thought to myself] Mrs Thatcher was very unwise to accept the pay rises that the Labour government had promised to end the winter of discontent – if only Mrs T. had ripped up those agreements on coming to power (on the grounds that the Conservatives had not signed them) and had taken on the unions at once (when the people were strongly against the unions) then the line could have been held on government spending and taxes need not have gone through the roof [as they did in the first years of Mrs Thatcher’s government] and the recession would not have been worse here than it was in other nations”.
Then in the small print of the newspapers today I read that the month in 1979 that was being referred to was January (Mrs Thatcher was, of course, elected in May) . The BBC fooled me totally.
Paul Marks
Appropriately given that we have been mentioning the subject of optimism and pessimism, Paul Marks says why he sees the cup as half full.
People who read my blogs (such as the latest one Ignorance has never been an impediment to journalism) may regard the idea that ‘Paul Marks is an optimist’ as a sick joke. However, I do not regard telling the truth (whether about, New Labour, the Telegraph papers, the financial system, or anything else) as giving in to despair – on the contrary understanding reality is the first step to genuine hope (rather than fantasy).
I do believe that “things will turn out all right” (not for me – but for world generally), and I want to briefly say why I think this.
My belief is based on two points. Firstly that the mainstream left are not savages and secondly that most people are capable of learning.
Take the example of California. By all accounts the present Governor (Gray Davis) will be reelected in November. Mr Davis is a bad Governor. He endlessly increases taxes and spending (he has an “F” grade from the Cato Institute), in what was a big government State even before he was elected. Mr Davis and his friends in the State Legislature also love regulations and blame all of California’s problems on greedy business people (even the power shortage was not caused by price controls – it was all a plot by Enron).
When Mr Davis is reelected there is very little chance of him reforming. He will carry on in his statist way and California will continue to slide – especially as the economic problems of the United States (which will get worse next year) will prevent much expansion of federal aid.
So why am I optimistic about California? Because Mr Davis (and most of his followers) is not a beast – he will not set up a police state, he will not kill or lock up his political foes. Some leftists in California would indeed do these things (indeed I suspect that they desire the taste of human flesh in their mouths and the feeling of human blood flowing down their throats). However, such leftists in California are a tiny minority and I believe that they will not come to power (especially as so many of them choose to be active in fringe groups rather than the Democratic party).
Millions of people in California will vote for Bill Simon this November. He will lose, but he will have told them the truth – that the path of statism is a bad path. At the next election (2006) the people who see that statism does not work will not be minority – they will be the majority. Must people can learn IF they have evidence and IF people are prepared to tell them the truth (even at the cost of losing elections in the short term).
What will be true for California in 2006 will eventually be true for the world. The mainstream left (in Britain, France, Germany etc as well as the United States) is not interested in eating people. When their policies fail they will not set up a police state to try and cling to power. IF politicians are prepared to tell people the truth (or even part of the truth) eventually this message will get through to people (as they see the evidence with their own eyes) and reform will take place.
It takes only ONE major nation to reform for this to spread. There are (for example) many free market politicians in the United States (although not the man who sits in the White House). After Mr Bush loses in 2004 the left will come to power. But the Democrats will not feast on human flesh, they will simply flap about as the economy continues to fall apart – and in 2008 free market Republicans will be elected. The example of the United States will influence the rest of the world (where people will be desperate for a way out of economic decline).
Reform may even start before this. In New Zealand the left has just be reelected – but it was not the landslide they were predicting and many of the opposition groups had people within them who told the voters some of the truth. As the economy declines this will be remembered – and in the next election (2005) Labour may well be kicked out and reform take place.
What lessons for Britain? Simple enough – politicians should tell people the truth (that the path of taxes, spending, regulations and funny money) will not work. As the economy collapses these politicians will eventually come to power with a mandate to clear away statism – so that people can start to rebuild civil society.
It will not be easy or quick (and I will not live to see it), but statism will be driven back and civil society will be rebuilt.
Paul Marks
Paul Marks reads what is generally said to be a ‘pro-free market’ newspaper and find a procession of writers who do not have the slightest idea what they are talking about
Page four of the Sunday Telegraph business supplement (4 August 2002) tells us quite a lot of the state of what passes for free market thought in Britain today – remember the ‘Sunday Telegraph’ is about as free market as mainstream Britain gets, the other newspapers (let alone radio and television programs) are far worse.
There are three articles on the page. The first article is by Jeff Randall of the BBC Mr Randall is one of several B.B.C. people who write in the Daily and Sunday Telegraph and such people are given as evidence that the B.B.C. is tolerant of free market thought. My own opinion is that the Telegraph is rather welcoming to anti free market thought – but I must deal with the article on its merits (not on basis that the author works for the BBC.)
Mr Randall writes about two topics in his article. The second topic is the stupidity of the Football League – a topic I know little about. However, Mr Randall starts his article by writing about the 1990’s stock market bubble. Mr Randall blames the whole thing on stupid greedy people (businessmen, politicians, ordinary investors and so on) and gives several examples of stupid behaviour.
Mr Randall shows little sign of understanding that the bubble was created by an expansion of credit-money by the Federal Reserve Board and the other central banks. But why should Mr Randall understand this? The source of Mr Randall’s understanding of economics is that “classic work” by J.K. Galbraith “The Great Crash”. J.K. Galbraith (being a socialist) would hardly blame the great depression on government credit-money expansion – no, greedy businessmen and other silly people were the cause. Being mostly University graduates Sunday Telegraph readers are likely to have heard of Galbraith’s work. However, it is very unlikely that the average reader (or even Mr Randall himself) has heard of Ludwig Von Mises’ “Theory of Money and Credit” or Murray Rothbard’s “America’s Great Depression”.
The basic truth that investment must be based on real savings and that trying to base investment on credit-money expansion via the central bank system MUST lead to a boom-bust cycle (whatever the moral character of businessmen) is not something that it is generally known. And how can Conservative “Telegraph” readers get to know about it? The socialists are not going to tell them – and anti-socialist establishment types such as Mr Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve Board are not going to tell them either. Even if the establishment types know what they have done (and I suspect that Mr Greenspan is one of the few people in the international finance “community” who actually does know what he has done) they are hardly going to say “look, we have created a boom-bust cycle”, such a statement would not make them popular. It is far better to blame “greed”.
The second article (on page four of the business supplement of the Sunday Telegraph) is by Evan Davis (another BBC man). Mr Davis notes that people in some Continental nations tend to save more than people in Britain or the United States. Mr Davis concludes from this that the E.U. central bank should cut interest rates – as this will encourage the people in Europe to spend and invest, rather than save.
Mr Davis is unaware that investment depends on saving (I suppose he thinks that “saving” means hiding money under the floor boards). Mr Davis is also unaware that people must produce before they can consume. All efforts to “stimulate the economy” by getting people to buy more things are putting the cart before the horse.
However, there is no reason why Mr Davis should know any of this – he could spend as much time as he wished in university economics departments without learning any of it. The business people who read the “Sunday Telegraph” are (no doubt) quite happy to think that all would be well if only people had more money to buy their products. Why should the business people not think like this? No one has ever told them anything different.
Mr Davis points out that there is less of a house price bubble in most continental nations and that the stock markets have not reached the heights seen in the United States. However, Mr Davis does not point out that there has in fact been vast money supply growth in most Continental nations and that presently the Euro money supply growth figures are higher than money supply growth figures for the United States – see the back pages of the “Economist” magazine for the figures.
The idea that the effects of the boom-bust cycle in Britain and the United States can be mitigated by further money supply expansion in the Euro Zone is insane – but there is no reason why Mr Davis (or his readers) should know that it is insane.
The last article (on page four of the business supplement of the Sunday Telegraph) is by Luke Johnson (chairman of Signature Restaurants). Mr Johnson is concerned about the rise of China and the relative decline of the West in manufacturing.
Mr Johnson knows little about “macro economic” matters – for example he thinks that the “relentless deflation now present in all economies” is due to China manufacturing cheap goods. Actually there is “deflation” (i.e. falling prices) in virtually no Western nations (apart from Japan) – and the falls in asset values that we have seen (and will see a lot more of next year) are due to the credit bubble (which is still being pumped up) nearing its terrible end. Mr Johnson does mention the credit bubble – but being a businessman he prefers to deal with something he can see in terms of physical goods (in this case the manufactured goods of China).
Mr Johnson is actually right to dismiss the idea that manufacturing does not matter – I know only to well that “service industries” normally do not mean flashy things (and when they do mean flashy things – they are often unstable credit bubble linked things such as “financial services”). Mostly “services” are things like the warehouses that have replaced the factories of the midlands (and much of the rest of Britain). And anyone who thinks that warehouse work, looking after goods imported from abroad, is a real substitute for actually making things is simply wrong.
Mr Johnson makes too much of China’s low wages (there are nations with much lower wages than China that produce very little in terms of manufactured goods – and there is no reason why, with automation, “high wage” areas can not hold their own against “low wage” areas).
However, Mr Johnson is right to point out that depending on a hostile power (and China is deeply hostile to the west) for essential manufactured goods may be unwise. Although one should remember that a real market order can adapt very fast – for example the British military, to some extent, depended on goods produced in Germany in 1914 (even down to the dye for army uniforms) – but this did not prevent Britain fighting Germany (British firms filled the gaps).
But Mr Johnson’s last but one paragraph makes his most important point (and shows there is some reason to read the ‘Telegraph’ papers, rather than reading the ‘Guardian’ or watching the BBC.).
“Fatuous E.U. bureaucrats legislate for more burdensome health and safety regulations, higher taxes, and more red tape for business, and insist that curing unemployment is a priority”.
When they are dealing with “micro” economics (as opposed to the financial magic of “macro” economics) Telegraph business people have something to say. It is the taxes, spending and regulations of Western nations (E.U. or not E.U.) that is helping destroy Western industry – not a wicked Chinese plot. Of course Western industry is also being destroyed by the boom-bust cycle, the very demands for “lower interest rates” and “more consumer demand” that we hear from business people in every Western nation.
They are rich, they are well meaning, they are hard working – but (sadly) they are ignorant.
Paul Marks
Paul Marks reports on some interesting developments in the USA… and the politico-legal establishment do not like it one bit!
Our old friend jury nulification is back. For those people who have not heard of jury nulification it is the doctrine that a jury has the right to judge, not just the “facts of the case”, but THE LAW as well. All the Founding Fathers of the United States believed in this doctrine, but it tends to make modern legal folk froth with rage – things like the “war on drugs” might get into some difficulty if jury nulification makes a come back.
This November in South Dakota an amendment to the Constitution of the State will be on the ballot. The amendment will explicitly give a defendent the right to argue against the law (whether in terms of what it makes illegal or in terms of the severity of the sentance) .
Now I am not claiming that the admendment will pass (no doubt the legal establishment will do just about anything to defeat it), but it would be interesting to see “judge made” and “politician made” law mitigated by a real jury.
Of course, I should not assume that a jury would be more libertarian than a judge or a group of politicians in a legislature – but it may put an obstruction in the way of the statists.
Paul Marks
Paul Marks has been keeping his eye on the antipodes
The recent election in New Zealand was widely predicted to be another triumph for the left. Certainly I predicted that this is what would happen (and my predictions have to be treated with some care – I tend to assume that things will go badly), but I was not alone – the BBC and the rest of the international media were all expecting the victory of their comrades (with the only dispute being between those media people who supported Labour and those that supported the Greens).
Sure enough the Labour party has got the most votes (about 40%) but even with the Greens (and fringe leftists “the progressive list”) it would not have a secure majority (even assuming these various factions of collectivists did not tear each others eyes out over things like G.M. crops).
So Labour is looking to the “United” party. I had a look at this parties web site (just go to “New Zealand” on your searcher – then go to the elections and then on from there). And it does not seem to be in favour of greater statism.
That is the thing about New Zealand – it has a lot of political groups (perhaps thanks to P.R.). I looked into all of the political groups and “ACT”, the National Party and New Zealand First can not be described as supporting greater statism (if anything the reverse – even judged by a negative minded old swine like me).
Now here is the rub. If one adds up the votes of United and the National Party and “ACT” and New Zealand First one gets very near to a majority of the voters. Now I am not saying that there is any chance of all these factions getting together – but I am saying there are a lot of “right of centre” (for want of a better term) voters out there (far more than there are in Britain). So the next election (three years time) may well see Labour kicked out and some real reform in New Zealand.
This is certainly not what I thought I would be reporting when I decided to look into this.
Final points – yes there are Christian and Rural parties in New Zealand (I have not dealt with them for reasons of time and space – they do not change the overall picture). And yes there is a Libertarian Party in New Zealand (and they seem like fine people), but as hardly anyone votes for them (they do not seem to have got one per cent of the vote) I decided not to examine them here.
Paul Marks
In his blog article The Brown Government, Brian Micklethwait observes that the present Labour government is expanding the state. However, Brian thinks this is something new and that it represents the defeat of Prime Minister Blair by Chancellor Brown.
Actually the present government has been increasing taxes, spending and regulations since day one. Neither Mr. Blair nor Mr. Brown are Marxists, but they are certainly not free market folk either. The Brown-Blair dispute is about who should be Prime Minister – it is not about high principle.
However, I am glad that the patronising “you just don’t get it” rubbish about ‘New Labour’ has finally come to an end. There is indeed such a thing as ‘New Labour’ but it is about culture not economics – it is words, spin, ‘lifestyle’.
As I have said neither Mr. Blair nor Mr. Brown are Marxists – but then neither was Prime Minister James Callaghan – indeed Callaghan was rather less of a spend-and-regulate man than Mr. Blair and Mr. Brown.
As for Mr. Blair and Mr. Brown I think I prefer Mr. Brown. Mr. Blair clearly has a deep seated hatred of this country (it is not ‘modern’, European etc – and should be broken up into Euro Regions as fast as possible). Mr Brown may be like this too but if so he certainly hides it rather better.
I have not mentioned the Conservative and Unionist Party. Let me see – lots of expensive trips to various European nations in order to talk about how to make the public services work (i.e. no understanding that the public services cannot work by their very nature).
Perhaps the least said the better.
Paul Marks
Paul Staines sees an old enemy and rejoices that someone else is also putting the boot in where it is much needed.
Over at The Spectator business guru Derek Matthews has a splendidly vitriolic go at failed stockbroker, turned failed newspaper editor and soon to be failed think-tank-wonk, Will Hutton.
How this fraud had a hit book I don’t know, even Blair’s circle think he is a left-wing loony.
Matthew’s piece shows Hutton’s total hypocrisy in glorious technicolour. I hate this guy so much I had a go at him myself a few years ago in an LA pamphlet called The benefits of speculation*
*= Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar pdf program to read.
Alice Bachini analyses the nature of the threat from Islamic cultures.
I caught a strange TV programme about USSR state secrets coming to light last night on ITV, narrated by the fruity-voiced Roger Moore. After showing us shocking films of agents being forced to have sex with gorgeous women in hotel rooms, Mr Moore started telling us about the unknown numbers of nuclear bombs, some of which are apparently dinky enough to fit into your Louis Vuitton luggage, which are floating around the world’s second-hand weaponry markets looking for Dr Evil-style homes. Apparently again, they are difficult to use without the instructions, but there are very likely one or two ex-Soviet scientists who can’t get jobs at McDonalds and who may well offer helpful how-to guidance in return for a reasonable fee.
Now, I dont know how reliable Mr Moore is on these matters, but it seems to me that if NYC gets nuked, everyone will probably be as surprised as they were by 9/11, even though, in retrospect, it was only a matter of when and how those bastards did it. I hope the next set of bastards aren’t at Yale University right now on a Nuclear weapons and how to use them course module, but it wouldn’t surprise me very much if they were.
The other thing that struck me was that Bin Laden (whom Mr Moore reliably informs us is still alive – perhaps he has some tracking gadgetry left over from his salad days of saving the world, I dont know) and people like him are absolutely right that vicious jihad attacks were and are inevitable.
Of course the Muslim world feels persecuted; it is, and should be treated ‘unfairly’ by the West, because its values are evil and if we don’t stop them they will destroy our better ones. We don’t have to bomb the hell out of them for them to feel persecuted; we only have to treat them like the dodgy, unreliable and dangerous societies that they are.
Does making an agreement with the West about not having nuclear weapons make it any more likely that Saddam will stop causing trouble? Of course not. It just makes it more likely that he will hide them better and hate us all the more. And terrorist groups are forces of potentially worse evil than bad governments, precisely because they are underground and festering. We ignore the sub-governmental level of evil at our peril. Freedom isn’t just about getting rid of governments; it’s about getting rid of the evil that threatens freedom. This is why countries get the governments they deserve, why X per cent of Afghan women are still walking round in burqas, why we shouldn’t trust the Saudis, and why we are still so complacent that we will be shocked if NYC is nuked.
At least the cold war was cold. The next set of conflicts is about the nastiness that comes up from the bad memes of repressive cultures. Until we understand that, we are never going to understand the nature of the evil we are facing. And until we understand our enemy, we are never going to be able to defend ourselves adequately from it.
(See Sarah Lawrence’s “Is that a burqa on the bedroom floor?” and “War, Free Trade and Liberty – Strange Bedfellows?” at www.sarahlawrence.org)
Alice Bachini
There is a general election in New Zealand this weekend. The present Labour party government has done its best to reverse much of the half hearted reform that it inherited – and it looks like the Labour party will be re-elected (and continue to increase the size and scope of the state).
I found myself thinking (as I often do) “good, if people vote for statism they deserve to get it – good and hard”. However, the divine right of the 51% (democracy) is (as all libertarians know) quite immoral. There is no reason why those who vote against statism should suffer because of the people who vote for it.
Take the example of California. When I rub my hands with glee (which I do) at the latest example of California statism (“jolly good, the reckoning is brought forword and the collapse of California will be a warning to the rest of the nation to repent…”) I am overlooking a few important points.
Firstly the innocent (those who vote against the increase in government spending and regulations) suffer at least as much (most likely rather more) than the guilty. And secondly there is no reason to suppose that people in other areas will understand that the suffering is caused by the statism.
Take the example of retail price controls on the sale of electricity (in California this is known as ‘deregulation’). Such price controls created a shortage of power (no surprise there) and rather than letting the lights go out the Bush administration demanded that companies outside California sell power (at the government price) to California.
I have argued that the lights should have been allowed to go out until the Californians worked out “if we pay more money people will sell us power”.
However, (of course) people who opposed the price controls would have suffered along with the people who supported them. Also there is no guarantee that people would understand that the suffering was caused by the statism.
After all the famous “economist” Paul Krugman has explained that the Californian energy crisis was created by a plot by Enron and other wicked corps. Nothing is so absurd that it will not be argued for by the media and academia. It does not matter whether most academics and media people are liars or whether they believe their own nonsense, the effect is the same – millions of people are mislead.
When I argue that the bankruptcy of California would act as a warning to the rest of the United States, or that the bankruptcy of one of the European Welfare States would warn the other nations of Europe to reform themselves whilst there is still time I must come up with a reply to the above. And I have no great reply.
I suppose all we can do is to endlessly try and explain to as many people as we can the consequences of statism – sadly we have little access to such things as the mass media, but we must do the best we can.
Things are not formally inevitable and we must help when we can. For example in California if the people voted for Bill Simon to be Governor (the election is in November) there is a good chance that collapse could be avoided (almost needless to say – the Bush administration strongly opposed Mr Simon getting the Republican nomination for Governor). And even if Gray Davis is reelected (as he most likely will be) there may still be an election in 2006 (I do not think people will be eating each other by then) and something might be saved.
Yes democracy is immoral and it is inefficient (the innocent minority are punished for the votes of the majority and the majority are endlessly mislead by academics and media people anyway), but this does not mean we should ignore democracy.
Perhaps the world will collapse and isolated groups of libertarians (or semi libertarians) will have to try and rebuild civilization via a grim struggle to survive – but we should not just give up. To give up (or to treat each example of statism with perverted joy – as I often do) is immoral.
Paul Marks
Paul Staines thinks Alan Greenspan as a canny operator who requires some careful interpretation
Yep, the 80s are over, Gordon Gekko is dead and buried, Gordon Brown lives, the stock market is going to the Antarctic, CEOs are going to jail and now the high priest of central banking himself says greed got out of control in the 90s.
I admit to never understanding why Disney’s Eisner would be motivated to work Mickey Mouse harder if he had $300m in stock options instead of $100m, but hey, I thought it was up to the shareholders to decide rather than the readers of the New York Times. Enron was pretty bad, the accountants seem to have been looking the other way and the CEOs were acting like robber barons of yore.
Today the Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was giving his biannual testimony to congress. Markets stop and listen, particularly when they are in trouble – and boy are they trouble today – I had CNBC (“bubblevision”) playing him live whilst trying to figure out how not to lose money, I heard him say “the latter part of the 1990s … arguably engendered an outsized increase in opportunities for avarice. An infectious greed seemed to grip much of our business community..”
Guilty as charged. For a period in 1999 to 2001 whilst the NASDAQ got gloriously irrationally exuberant, I was completely infected with greed, my altruistic immunity system shutdown. Hot dot.com IPOs? “Gimme, gimme, gimme” I cried. “Yahoo! Lets go Cisco!” I wasn’t the only one, an old friend is currently staying with me. He is a private banker, he grew his family’s nest egg 2000% in four years, then wiped it out in one year. His wife is suing him, not for divorce, but for misadvising her in his capacity as her broker. (Memo to self, never marry an American lawyer).
Greenspan has been very clever in his testimony, he has defended capitalism whilst decrying capitalists and their avarice. He basically said the bull market gold rush of the 90s overwhelmed the checks and balances of American capitalism, but capitalism is good, just some capitalists are bad. I could further summarize what he said but why not click to the Fed’s own page for yourself?
Oh, one of the big insurance companies has just announced that it “is not a forced seller of equities”. Hmmm.
Paul Staines
|
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.
|
