Russell Roberts's Blog, page 71
December 7, 2022
Some Links
Phil Magness and James Harrigan have read the transcript of the recent deposition of Fauci. A slice:
That said, the email records we do possess contain ample evidence of Fauci’s involvement in the “take down” order [of the Great Barrington Declaration], plainly contradicting his sworn deposition. In those emails we see [Francis] Collins colluding with Anthony Fauci (while fantastically CCing Lawrence Tabak, Deputy Ethics Counselor at NIH) to craft talking points against the GBD in the media. Behind the scenes, we see them working with Deborah Birx to keep the GBD off of the White House COVID Task Force agenda. And we see Fauci’s instructions to [Greg] Folkers to assemble a list of media op-eds attacking the GBD, with the apparent intent of parroting them back to the very same press as official talking points from the NIH.
The recent anti-lockdown protests in China have rightly drawn reams of media coverage and praise in Britain. The bravery of the protesters has been widely acknowledged, as has the tyranny of China’s lockdown regime.
Last week, the protests were hailed by the Guardian as the stirrings of democracy – deserving of our ‘admiration and support’. The BBC approvingly profiled the ‘young people powering the demonstrations’. The Sunday Times similarly praised the ‘bravery’ of the protest movement in the face of a brutal state crackdown. And quite right, too. These protesters are indeed courageous freedom fighters.
Yet many of the publications, politicians and pundits now praising the Chinese protesters are hardly the greatest friends of freedom. After all, they were among the loudest cheerleaders for the UK’s brand of Covid authoritarianism. And as well as curtailing every other aspect of our lives, the Covid regime in the UK also involved cracking down on protests – particularly, it seemed, those against the lockdown.
Most pundits ignored or even actively supported the suppression of protests in Britain in 2020 and 2021. Protests against the lockdown became larger and more frequent as the months dragged on during the pandemic. And the policing of these protests became increasingly zealous, too.
During England’s second lockdown in November 2020, the police made hundreds of arrests at multiple demonstrations. In one video, a pensioner was shown being bundled into the back of a van. At another protest, journalist Laura Dodsworth was shouted at and interrogated by police simply for taking pictures while reporting on the protest for spiked. Hundreds of officers in riot gear were dispatched to deal with these protests. The police made over 150 arrests at one demo alone.
Many of the protesters were severely punished. Piers Corbyn (brother of former Labour Party leader Jeremy) was issued with a £10,000 fine for organising an anti-lockdown rally, on the grounds that it was attended by more than 30 people. He was questioned for 10 hours by police. You don’t have to agree with anything the conspiratorial Corbyn brother says to find his punishment shocking.
Worse still, there was barely a peep of dissent against this authoritarianism from the mainstream media.
In 2022, students at North American universities with third-dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates risk disenrolment if unvaccinated. To assess the appropriateness of booster mandates in this age group, we combine empirical risk-benefit assessment and ethical analysis. To prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation over a 6-month period, we estimate that 31 207–42 836 young adults aged 18–29 years must receive a third mRNA vaccine. Booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including 1.5–4.6 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalisation). We also anticipate 1430–4626 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity interfering with daily activities (although typically not requiring hospitalisation). University booster mandates are unethical because they: (1) are not based on an updated (Omicron era) stratified risk-benefit assessment for this age group; (2) may result in a net harm to healthy young adults; (3) are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; (4) violate the reciprocity principle because serious vaccine-related harms are not reliably compensated due to gaps in vaccine injury schemes; and (5) may result in wider social harms. We consider counterarguments including efforts to increase safety on campus but find these are fraught with limitations and little scientific support. Finally, we discuss the policy relevance of our analysis for primary series COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
Reuters recently reported that energy giant BP is “considering ending the publication of its Statistical Review of World Energy, over 70 years after it first published the benchmark report.” The reason? The report’s numbers are supposedly undermining the company’s rhetoric about its pursuit of alternative energy. To give in to such claims and cancel the Statistical Review—one of the most reliable energy resources in the world—would be an egregious mistake.
The review is a benchmark report. No other entity, corporate or public, publishes such a wide variety of data. Because the Statistical Review is published in spreadsheet form, its data can be easily used to detect and illustrate trends in everything from coal use in Vietnam (it’s soaring) to the electricity generated annually by America’s nuclear reactors (it’s falling).
I look at the review almost daily, as do many people in the media, energy and government sectors. That BP would even consider halting publication—the cost of which amounts to decimal dust amid the company’s 2021 revenue of $164 billion—shows how a huge company can be cowed by fashion and fleeting political considerations.
But even if Europeans didn’t subsidize their green-energy industry, they wouldn’t be hurt by the idiotic U.S. policy that subsidizes some companies at the expense of all the others (and of taxpayers). Such subsidies shift capital away from more efficient investments towards the politically favored ones. We have understood this reality about subsidies since the time of Adam Smith, but there was unfortunately little supporting empirical evidence. Such evidence is now, fortunately, pouring in.
A recent paper in this category, by Lee Branstetter, Guangwei Li, and Mengjia Ren, is titled “Picking Winners? Government Subsidies and Firm Productivity in China.” The authors examine the extensive array of subsidy programs in China — the existence of which is the excuse many U.S. legislators use for supporting similar American subsidies — and their impacts on the productivity of subsidized firms.
Also expressing justified skepticism of industrial policy is James Pethokoukis.
Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 253 of Samuel Gregg’s superb 2022 book, The Next American Economy: Nation, State, and Markets in an Uncertain World (footnotes deleted):
It takes particular skills to bolster free trade in ways cognizant of these national security concerns. But one dimension of such economic statesmanship involves recognizing how much Beijing’s accelerated embrace of its version of state capitalism is likely to undermine China’s economic growth. Between 2002 and 2019, publicly listed Chinese state-owned enterprises persistently showed far less productivity than publicly listed firms in which Beijing has no ownership stake. It follows that if China continues to shift its economy in the direction of state enterprises, the decline in productivity will accelerate. Likewise the increasing uncertainty in the legal environment generated by growing state authoritarianism will make China an increasingly risky place for Americans and others to invest and do business.
DBx: Indeed so.
Whenever the state overrides the market-guided allocation of resources with a state-dictated allocation of resources, the state weakens the economy. The economy becomes less productive, less robust, and more brittle. Corruption infects it. It ages more and reinvigorates itself less. The cancer of poorly allocated resources metastasizes. Ordinary people wind up being poorer than they would have been otherwise, and eventually the quantity of resources available for the state to use for its own purposes is also made lower.
For the U.S. government to respond in kind to Beijing’s experiments with industrial policy is for the U.S. government to inject its economy with the same deadly cancer that Beijing superstitiously and stupidly believes will transform the Chinese economy into a global Hercules.
December 6, 2022
Some Links
My GMU Econ colleague Dan Klein decries the governmentalization of social affairs. A slice:
We limit governmentalization by upholding liberal principles. Governmentalization is a cancer, and liberal principles shrink it. The medicine does not bring on euphoric sensations, it simply reduces the evil. In other metaphors, governmentalization is pollution, poison, a plague of locusts. Liberal principles are the abatement, the antidote, the pesticide.
We don’t expect pesticides to make us virtuous or happy. We expect them to keep locusts away.
The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board decries what it calls Biden’s “climate trade war.” A slice:
The biggest winner of Mr. Biden’s climate protectionism may be GM, whose joint venture with LG Energy Solution this summer received a $2.5 billion federal loan guarantee to build three U.S. battery factories. RBC Capital Markets has estimated that GM could pocket $3 billion from the battery tax credit in 2025. GM recently projected the IRA tax credits will add $3,500 to $5,500 in profit to each EV.
Yesterday, Timothy Sandefur wished happy birthday to the late, great Rose Wilder Lane. A slice:
As I detail in my new book, Freedom’s Furies, this and other discoveries helped make Lane—along with her friend and mentor Isabel Paterson, and another of Paterson’s admirers, Ayn Rand—one of a trio of women who would help revolutionize Americans’ conception of liberty in the age of the Depression and World War II. In 1943, all three of them published books—Lane’s The Discovery of Freedom, Paterson’s The God of the Machine, and Rand’s The Fountainhead—that helped spark the modern liberty movement. The journalist William F. Buckley later called them “the three furies of modern libertarianism.”
Pierre Lemieux explains that “industrial policy is attenuated central planning.”
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is wise to Trump. Here’s the Board’s conclusion:
Truth in advertising, though. Mr. Trump is giving Republicans a taste of what they’re in for if they nominate him again in 2024. His presidential campaign is less than a month old. Already Mr. Trump has dined with anti-Semites and a white nationalist, while calling for himself to be reinstated as President, even if this requires the “termination” of whatever in the Constitution stands in the way. What he’ll really terminate is the GOP.
Also sick of Trump is National Review‘s Charles Cooke. Here’s his conclusion:
As there should be, there is a limited supply of political energy in this country, and for some reason, the American Right has decided to spend an inordinate amount of it defending a man who is now serving nothing except for his own boredom and his own ego. At some point, conservative-leaning voters are going to notice that all Trump cares about now is the pretense that he won the election of 2020, and that, in order to push that idea, he will happily destroy anything and everything that gets in his way. Until then, I must ask: Are you not tired of this crap?
GMU Econ PhD candidate (and my former undergraduate student) Matthew Owens, along with my colleague Chris Coyne, survey, in a new paper, the history of classical liberals on war and imperialism. Here’s the abstract:
This paper surveys the views of twenty key British and non-British figures in the classical liberal tradition on the issues of war, imperialism, and alternative paths to peace. These ideas are important both for purely historical reasons, and because they are relevant to contemporary conversations about the complexities and nuances of foreign relations. We identify common themes across these thinkers while noting that there is no single classical liberal position on these issues. In addition to identifying commonalities, we also summarize tensions and contradictions, both within the work of individual figures and across the thinkers surveyed. We include two appendices consisting of tables summarizing the views of each of the thinkers discussed throughout the survey.
Ken Green puts the risk of covid in perspective.
Justin Hart reviews newly released evidence that Fauci is a liar.
According to Macmillan Cancer Support, around 30,000 fewer people in England started cancer treatment between March and August 2020 than in the same period in 2019. Two years on, the UK is counting the tragic cost in additional deaths and a health service struggling to catch up. As the country with one of the worst records in cancer survival in Europe before Covid, the UK now lags yet further behind.
Bonus Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 209 of F.A. Hayek’s 1939 University of Chicago monograph, “Freedom and the Economic System,” as this monograph is reprinted as chapter nine of the 1997 collection, edited by Bruce Caldwell, Socialism and War:
Economic activity is not a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the administration of the means with which we seek to accomplish all our different ends. Whoever takes charge of these means must determine which ends shall be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower – in short, what men should believe and strive for.
DBx: The greater the control of the state over the allocation of resources, the greater is the control of the state over the ends that individuals are able to pursue. And so contrary to the assertions of many people, it’s not true that this dangerous control becomes effective only under full-on socialism. The moment the state obstructs a property-owner’s use of his or her property – including, of course, the use of his or her labor – the state obstructs the ends that that person can pursue.
While scattered, small-time interventions – a few protective tariffs here, some occupational-licensing restrictions there, minimum wages set at low levels – will perhaps not pinch noticeably on individuals’ ability to pursue ends of their own choosing, the pinching is nevertheless real. And the fact that this pinching is indeed largely unnoticed creates the false impression that further interventions will in no real way interfere with individuals’ freedom to pursue ends of their own choosing.
Industrial policy, for example, involves greater state obstruction of the use of property than do ordinary protective tariffs (which are typically ‘merely’ the nasty fruits of interest-group politics rather than part of a broad system-wide ‘plan’ for industrial activity). Therefore, industrial policy, with its greater obstruction of the use of private property, necessarily narrows more than do ordinary tariffs the range of ends that individuals’ can pursue.
Industrial-policy advocates, of course, focus not on the unseen shrinkage of ends that can be pursued but, instead, on the enhanced ability of a small handful of people to pursue their particular ends. For instance, workers in existing manufacturing plants might be protected from having to find new jobs. “See! Industrial policy works!” proclaim industrial-policy proponents. Left unnoticed, though, is the corresponding shrinkage of the ability of larger numbers of fellow citizens to pursue ends of their own choosing.
Even if you agree, say, with modern ‘national conservatives’ that America should have more jobs in manufacturing plants – and, to achieve this goal, support industrial policy – you cannot legitimately deny that the pursuit of industrial policy ranks the ends of particular workers more highly than those of other workers (and consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs). Industrial policy compels many people to serve others’ ends – others’ ends that the many would not voluntarily serve. Industrial policy necessarily partially enslaves some people to others.
Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 140 of Mark Kurlansky’s splendid 2002 book, Salt: A World History:
The salt shortage in the northern fisheries was solved by a commercial group that organized both herring and salt trades. Between 1250 and 1350, a group of small associations in northern German cities formed. Known as the Hanseatic League, from the Middle High German word, Hanse, meaning “fellowship,” these associations pooled their resources to form more powerful groups to act in their commercial interests. They stopped piracy in the Baltic, initiated quality control on traded items, established commercial laws, provided reliable nautical charts, and built lighthouses and other aids to navigation.
Before the Hanseatics gained control of the northern herring trade, peat salt was often laced with ashes, and inferior, even rotten herring was commonly sold….
The Hanseatics guaranteed that an entire barrel was of quality. Those caught placing bad herring in the bottom of a barrel were heavily fined and forced to return the payment they received.
DBx: Now who’d a-thunk that the provision of public goods, including law, could be effectively carried out by any organization other than a sovereign state?
December 5, 2022
A Letter to a Progressive With Poor Reading Comprehension
This letter is a response to someone with whom I’ve tangled on-line for many years. I here keep this person’s identity anonymous.
Mr./Ms. X:
In response to this Café Hayek post, you e-mail to me the following, quoted here in full:
I saw your Hutt post on “one person, one vote.” This is an issue I’m quite interested in. I was unclear, though, on the exact sense in which you considered Hutt serious, humane, and liberal. Are you of the view that it was a good idea to deny Black South Africans the vote, and to maintain that arrangement for generations?
If you disagree with Hutt on that, in what sense do you think he was being serious, humane, or liberal?
[Mr./Ms. X]
I don’t apologize for being blunt: You continue to reveal either that your reading comprehension is poor or that you intentionally or instinctively put the worst interpretation on matters. If you’ve actually read W.H. Hutt’s works fully enough to justify your condemnation of him – and if, unlike some of the ‘scholars’ who you routinely defend, you followed the civilized practice of putting a fair interpretation on what you read – it would never have occurred to you to send to me this e-mail. Indeed, this same conclusion holds as regards the Magness, Carden, and Murtazashvili paper on Hutt in the Spring 2022 Independent Review that served as the centerpiece of my blog post: No competent reader with a fair mind would read the Magness, et al., paper and reach the scurrilous conclusion that you reach about Hutt.
In the Magness, et al., paper there is an explicit mention of – and quotations from – Hutt’s April 1961 letter to the Times of London calling for everyone in South Africa to be given the franchise (in Hutt’s own words) “without regard to race, colour, or home language.” This fact is nearly impossible to square with your suggestion that the details of Hutt’s proposal for South Africa to transition away from apartheid reveals that he was not “serious, humane, or liberal.”
It’s true, as you allude, that part of Hutt’s longer proposal for South Africa to transition away from apartheid was an income-weighted franchise. It’s true also that this proposal is not ‘one person, one vote.’ But as a fair reading of Hutt makes clear, and as Magness, et al., convincingly argue, Hutt’s goal in making this proposal was to craft what he believed to be a workable transition out of apartheid to a regime under which property rights and individual freedom are secured under the rule of law for everyone. Hutt worried that a too-quick adoption of ‘one person, one vote’ would result in the depredations of raw majoritarianism – depredations that serious political philosophers have warned about for centuries and that, should these depredations occur, would over the long run confine the masses to tyranny and poverty.
It’s legitimate to argue that Hutt’s proposal was poorly thought out – that Hutt’s proposal was not a good, or the best available, means of securing for all South Africans the blessings of liberalism, the rule of law, and commercial prosperity. But it is not legitimate to infer from your disagreement with Hutt’s means that Hutt was motivated by racism, or that he was neither humane nor liberal.
Like many on the political left, you have a long track record of mistaking your disagreement with someone’s means as evidence that that someone’s ends are detestable. Also like many on the left, you seem unable to understand that liberals – true liberals – value democracy highly, but only as a means of helping to secure individual freedom. For liberals (which Hutt most certainly was), the ultimate measure of a society’s goodness is how free are the individuals within it. If restrictions on majority rule are believed to further the prospects of individual freedom, those restrictions are supported by liberals.
True liberals don’t fetishize majority rule. Nor do true liberals believe that the right to vote is the very essence of freedom or that it ranks as a right above all others.
Again, you can legitimately disagree with the liberal conclusion that maximum freedom for all requires restrictions of different sorts on majority rule. But, also again, you cannot legitimately do what you do with regard to Hutt – namely, infer that, therefore, liberals such as Hutt are devilish while you are pure of heart.
I’m under no illusions that you’ll comprehend what I write here or that, in the off-chance that you do comprehend it, you’ll interpret it in a manner befitting a true scholar. And so I ask you not to correspond further with me as any such correspondence would be pointless.
DBx
Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 217 of F.A. Hayek’s November 1941 Nature paper, “Planning, Science and Freedom,” as this paper is reprinted as chapter ten of the 1997 collection, splendidly edited by Bruce Caldwell, Socialism and War:
It must indeed be admitted that if we wanted to make the distribution of incomes between individuals and groups conform to any predetermined absolute standard, central planning would be the only way in which this could be achieved. It could be argued – and has been argued – that it would be worth putting up with less efficiency if thereby greater distributive justice could be obtained. But unfortunately the same factors which make it possible in such a system to control the distribution of income also make it necessary to impose an arbitrary hierarchical order comprising the status of every individual and the place of practically all values in human life. In short, as is now being more and more generally recognized, economic planning inevitably leads to, and is the cause of, the suppression of individual liberty and spiritual freedom which we know as the ‘totalitarian’ system.
December 4, 2022
Bonus Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 423 of F.A. Hayek’s Spring 1949 University of Chicago Law Review paper titled “The Intellectuals and Socialism“:
It is perhaps the most characteristic feature of the intellectual that he judges new ideas not by their specific merits but by the readiness with which they fit into his general conceptions, into the picture of the world which he regards as modern or advanced.
DBx: So very true.
Many intellectuals surely attach some value at the margin to additions to truth – that is, to improvements in our understanding of reality. But far too many of these same intellectuals mistake the newness or edginess of an idea for that idea’s truth content. The novelty seems cool and progressive in comparison with older and more-established ideas’ ‘meh-ness.’
The typical intellectual more and more fancies himself or herself as being a member of the planning board for society’s Shining Tomorrow from which will be eradicated – in the name of love, course – all want, fear, unhappiness, hate, danger, and differences among humans (save for their access to the power of the state). Nothing good can come from this pretension.
Some Links
Civil forfeiture is the power to seize property suspected of being produced by, or involved in, crime. The property owners must prove that they and their property are innocent of such involvement. Proving this can be, and government has a motive to make it be, a protracted, costly ordeal against a government that has unlimited resources. The government entity that seizes the property often is allowed to keep or sell it. Lucrative law enforcement involves blatant moral hazard — an incentive for perverse behavior.
David Boaz applauds Disney’s private provision of public goods.
Emma Camp reports on the growing legal obstacles to Biden’s illegal student-loan ‘forgiveness.’
Imagine for a minute that you had a credit card, that you were allowed to set your own credit limit, that you were viewed as a hero for using and vilified for not using, and for which you would never have to pay the bill. What would you do with this mythical credit card?
Washington politicians do not have to imagine, because this is their day-to-day reality. Congress can set its own debt limit, and can raise it at any time by any amount. In fact, the House Committee on the Budget has even argued that we should “abolish the debt limit” altogether.
Today, it is widely believed that federal spending creates jobs. And it is common practice to express federal spending with figures such as “jobs created” or “jobs supported.” For example, using the average personal income in the U.S. of $63,214, the $73 billion of education spending could be said to support approximately 1.1 million jobs in education. Thus, the incentives that elected officials face is clear: more spending means more jobs. To do so is to be an economic hero. To suggest otherwise is to be accused of not caring about people.
Finally, today’s Washington politicians will not be held responsible for such profligate spending. Future elected officials will instead inherit the fiscal mess today’s officials create, just as today’s have inherited the fiscal mess caused by past officials.
David Henderson is no conservative.
One of the reasons was Rubio’s misleading claim that the deal Congress ended up approving “does not have the support of the rail workers.” He continues to make that claim in his piece today. “The hardworking rail worker was left out in the cold,” he wrote. The deal was a “decision to side with rail companies over rail workers” and “Democrats voted overwhelmingly to ram the September agreement — an agreement in name only, as it was rejected by four unions, including the largest — down the throats of the workers.”
Rubio does not mention that eight unions voted to ratify the deal. If you add up the votes across all twelve unions, most were in the affirmative. (Additionally, though the ratification elections saw high turnout relative to past contracts, thousands of rail workers did not vote at all, so we don’t know their opinions of the deal one way or the other.) Adopting a deal that two-thirds of the unions ratified and most voting union members approved is hardly ramming it down workers’ throats.
This is not to downplay the seriousness of the Covid pandemic for specific groups of people. But for most of the population, the actual threat of the virus was as minimal as a puddle around their feet. We built vast hospitals for thousands of people that never took even a single patient.
So what was it that happened? Perhaps it is possible, at the distance of more than two years, to get it in some perspective?
Yet even now, it is remarkable to look back and consider those days. Little wonder that people don’t want to do so.
Just consider the madness of the cases that were taken out by the police against people for breaking the various lockdown restrictions – restrictions that were more stringent than anything issued even in wartime.
For instance there were the two students at Leeds who were fined £10,000 for having a snowball fight. The beggar fined for sitting in a Tesco car park. The homeless man fined for being outside Liverpool Street Station. “I was arresting him for breaching coronavirus conditions because he had no address,” the arresting officer explained to the district judge.
Or remember the council in Wales which used drones with loudspeakers on them ordering people not to be outside and to go back to their houses if they were.
Did these things really happen in Britain in the 21st century? Yes, they did.
The police “surrounded” two ladies in Derbyshire who went for a country walk and questioned them over their hot drink flasks which officers said meant that the walk could be “classed as a picnic”. Not a picnic!
Or consider the people pulled over and fined for going for a Sunday morning hike in the Lake District. The pub landlord fined £4,000 for holding a staff party on the same day that it turned out there was a party at Downing Street, where the Prime Minister was fined 50 quid.
It is painful to reread. Even more painful to recall. I remember at the height of lockdown, one friend of mine called me and said: “Do you have informers where you are?” I asked her what she meant. She said that in her village there had been outbreaks of people ratting on their neighbours. One neighbour had stuck his head over his fence and said to my friend: “Are you aware that this is your second walk of the day?”
While most professionals continue to party, children, workers, the poor, small business people, the frail and the old will continue to deal with the collateral lockdown harms for years to come.
Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 549 of Phillip Magness’s, Art Carden’s, and Ilia Murtazashvili’s superb Spring 2022 Independent Review paper, “‘The Danger of Deplorable Reactions’: W. H. Hutt on Liberalism, Populism, and the Constitutional Political Economy of Racism“:
Classical liberals argue that constraints on “one person, one vote” majoritarianism are critical to avoid populism. What prevailing perspectives do not do, but Hutt did, is explain the underlying sources of illiberal populism. His perspective recognized that the necessity of putting democracy in chains depends in part on the historical context. Where pressure for retribution and redistribution are strongest, constraints are more critical. Where capitalism and its opportunities are robust, constraints are less critical because the populism that will emerge is less likely to involve substantial conflict, violence, and large-scale expropriation of wealth.
DBx: W.H. Hutt (1899-1988), pictured here, was a serious, deeply humane, and thoroughly liberal scholar who thought with much more care than does the typical scholar about the practical design and details of changes in government policies.
Phil’s, Art’s, and Ilia’s Independent Review paper is part of their important research into the work of Hutt. Among other outcomes, this research clears Hutt of the scurrilous charge – made by wholly unserious ‘scholars,’ and swallowed and peddled by yet other wholly unserious ‘scholars’ – that Hutt was a racist.
Russell Roberts's Blog
- Russell Roberts's profile
- 39 followers
