黃敎安 대행은 <박영수 특검>의 수사기간 연장 요청을 단호히 거부해야 한다
이동복
헌법은 제84조에서 “대통령은 외환과 내란의 죄를 범한 경우를 제외하고는 재직 중 형사상의 소추(訴追)를 받지 아니 한다”고 명문으로 규정하고 있다. 그런데, 지금 <박영수 특검>이 박 대통령을 상대로 밀어 붙이고 있는 ‘뇌물죄’와 ‘직권남용죄’는, 사실 여부를 떠나서, 어떠한 법률해석으로도 헌법 제84조에 명문화되어 있는 ‘내란죄’와 ‘외환죄’에 해당되지 않을 뿐 아니라 ‘소추’의 대상이 될 수 있는 ‘중범죄’(Felony)에 해당되지 않는다는 것은 삼척동자(三尺童子)에게도 자명한 일이 아닐 수 없다. 이에 대하여 ‘소추’의 대상으로 삼고 있는 <박영수 특검>의 행위는 그 자체가 바로 헌법 제84조의 중대하고도 명백한 위반인 것이다.
사실은, 필자는 지금 <박연수 특검>이 박 대통령을 상대로 진행시키고 있는 형사적 ‘소추’ 행위는 이야 말로 형법 제87조와 제91조를 난폭하게 위반하는 ‘내란죄’에 상당한다는 점을 이 나라의 율사(律士) 사회에서 검토 대상으로 삼아야 한다는 점을 제기하는 것이 마땅하다고 생각한다. 형법 제87조는 “국토를 참절(斬截)하거나 국헌을 문란할 목적으로 폭동하는 행위”를 ‘내란죄’로 규정하고 있다. 이어서 제91조는 제87에 명시된 “국헌문란” 행위를 ① “헌법 또는 법률에 정한 절차에 의하지 아니 하고 헌법 또는 법률의 기능을 소멸시키는 행위” 또는 ② “헌법에 의하여 설치된 국가기관을 강압에 의하여 전복 또는 권능 행사를 불가능하게 하는 행위”로 정의(定義)하고 있다. (발췌)
==================
이탈리아에서 발견된 수월관음도
한국의 종북좌파들이 탐욕과 아집과 미망에서 벗어나기를 부처님께 기원한다.
---------------------------------------
김문희 전 헌재 재판관, "박영수 특검 때문에 법률 공부한 게 부끄럽고 자괴감이 든다"
[충격적인 사실] '테블릿'이라는 단어를 처음 사용한 것은 JTBC가 아니다.
믿기 어렵지만 사실이다.
JTBC가 10월 24일 방송시 화면에 보여준건 테블릿이 아닌
서북현 기자의 데스크탑 PC화면이었어. 요건 모두 알지?
이날 방송에서는 '테블릿'이라는 단어는 단 한번도 안나와,
'최순실PC'
이 단어만 주구장창 나오지.
궁금하면 다시보기 화면에서 찾아봐바.
그 다음날.
검찰청에서 기자 브리핑이 있었어.
이영렬 서울중앙지검장의 특별수사팀이지
이곳에서 테블릿이라는 단어를 처음 사용해.
그리고 이후부터 JTBC는 테블릿과 PC라는 단어를 혼용해서 사용해..
그러니깐 테블릿이라는 단어를 처음 사용한게 JTBC가 아니란 말이지.
이제 JTBC는 10월 27일 부터 본격적으로 PC라는 단어를 완전 배제해.
그냥 테블릿이라고 통용하지.
이게 지금까지 이어진거고.
언론사가 용어를 채택할 때는 그냥 하는게 아니다.
더군다나 2014년 세월호사건 때부터 손석희, 심수미, 서복현기자는 이미 테블릿을 사용하고 있었어.
그런데 작년 10월 24일 방송까지 테블릿이라는 단어를 단 한번도 사용하지 않았다는거지.
JTBC는 이에 대해 12월 8일 방송으로 조작질을 하고 있다.
뜬금없이 심수미를 등장시켜 10월 18일~19일에 고영태 사무실에서 테블릿을 발견했다고 말하는거지.
이건 알리바이를 맞추기 위한 꼼수. 속지말아야돼.
그들은 10월 18일을 테블릿을 발견했다고 말하지만 이날 방송일은 12월 8일임에 주목해야돼.
단언컨대.
작년 10월 24일까지 JTBC가 테블릿이라는 단어를 사용한 방송화면은 지구상에 존재하지 않는다.
왜? 그런 말을 한적이 없기 때문이지.
만약 못믿겠다면 다시보기해서 찾아보시라. 만약 찾는다면 내가 술한잔 사겠다.
하지만 절대 존재하지 않는다.
그리고 또 재미있는 사실이 있어.
지금 현재 네이버를 포함한 모든 포털에서 검색 기록이 지워졌다.
지워진 부분이 어떤거냐면 2016년 10월 25일 검찰청 기자 브리핑을 한 검사 이름.
지금은 그냥 검찰 관계자라고만 나와.
누구냐구?
노승권 서울중앙지검 1차장
이 양반이 브리핑할때 테블릿이라는 단어를 처음 사용했지.
그리고 당시 참석했던 JTBC기자에게 질문했었고
노승권이가 JTBC기자에게 말하길
"심수미기자가 독일에 가서 휴지통 뒤져 테블릿피씨 찾은거 맞죠?"라고.
그때 JTBC기자는 당황하며 "대답할 수 없다"라고 했지.
자 그럼 작금 고영태 녹취파일에서 등장하는 검사가 누굴까?
감이오지 않아?
노승권의 프로필을 보니, 대구 출신에 서울대 법대 졸업인데, 내가 이번 사건의 주모자라고 믿는 조응천 역시 대구 출신에 서울대 법대 졸업이다. 이것이 우연일까?
----------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
탈레브 어록
To teach someone a real skill, teach him how to take risk & fail. He will never learn this in school. No nonrisktaker can ever teach it.
누군가에게 진정한 기능을 가르쳐주려면, 그에게 위험을 감수하고 또 실패하는 방법을 가르쳐라. 학교에서는 절대 그것을 배울 수 없다. 위험을 감수하지 않는 사람은 절대 그것을 가르칠 수 없다.
The point is that you NEVER NEVER gauge wars by FREQUENCY but by INTENSITY. Kapish?
핵심은, 전쟁은 절대로 그 빈도(頻度)가 아닌 강도(强度)로 측정해야 한다는 것이다. 알겠소?
"Use laws that are old & food that is fresh".
법률은 오래된 것을 이용하고, 음식은 신선한 것을 먹어라.
-----------------------
미국 경제를 살리려면 세금 감면만큼 규제 철폐 역시 중요하다.
법에 기반한 자유시장 경제는 대체적으로 자율규제이며, 사기와 부패 그리고 위험하고 부당한 가격의 상품이나 서비스를 몰아내는 데 효율적이다.
규제는 복잡한 경제 문제를 풀 수 없다. 규제가 내놓은 해결은 언제나 의도치 않은 결과를 동반한다. 더구나 규제는 정치적 욕망을 지닌 정치가들이 추진한 것이므로 성공할 수 없다.
Our Huge Hidden Tax: Government Regulations
02/19/2017 •Scott Powell
On day one, President Trump surprised business leaders gathered at the White House, declaring US regulations “out of control” and “in need of 75% or more reduction.” A week later, he boldly signed an executive order requiring repeal of two old rules for every new one that government agencies implement.
The fact is that cutting regulations is as critical as tax relief in turning the US economy around. The two are the holy grail to repatriate a large part of the $2.5 trillion in offshore corporate capital, stimulate domestic investment, and create jobs — all central to “making America great again.” And it’s economic growth and broadening the tax base that can — in the longer run — finance rebuilding US infrastructure and the military without adding to deficits and national debt.
The Federal Register records regulations are imposed on business. Its annual pages generally grow with every administration, with a 19% year over year increase in Obama’s last year — setting a record-breaking 95,000-plus pages. Professor Alan Dershowitz notes that, “today the average professional commits three felonies a day without realizing it, thanks to the complex layers of regulation and legal requirements that have been built up over time.” The Small Business Administration estimates the compliance costs of regulations may be upward of $2 trillion a year — an enormous hidden tax nearly six times greater than the aggregate $350 billion in corporate tax revenue collected annually by the IRS in recent years.
We Need More Than Executive Orders
Executive orders provide temporary relief, but long-term structural change is needed for the US to free itself from the regulatory leviathan and permanently limit federal bureaucracies and their army of unaccountable regulators. Start with two statutory safeguards: (1) Congressional legislation that requires the delivery of $2 of regulatory cost reduction for every one dollar of new regulatory cost increase; and (2) Periodic Congressional reauthorization of regulations affecting industries and the economy — with sunset provisions for those not reauthorized.
But perhaps most importantly in the long run is the need for a renaissance in understanding the appropriate scope and principles for regulation in today’s free market information economy.
Toward this end it’s worth evaluating and learning from the three regulatory laws that have had the most impact on the economy over the last 15 years: (1) The Sarbanes-Oxley Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act, which was signed into law by George Bush in 2002; (2) The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare or ACA; and (3) The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act — the latter two signed into law by Barack Obama in 2010.
What is underappreciated is that the free market system based on law is largely self-regulating, and relatively efficient in weeding out deficient, unsafe, and excessively priced goods and services, as well as fraud and corruption. Government regulations should not be driven by crises nor be overly complex. The scope of regulation of a market economy properly understood should protect transparency, competition, private and public property, and safety; promote individual and corporate accountability; assure level playing fields, and provide for equal treatment of small enterprises; and most importantly, protect Constitutional rights and equal opportunity and penalty under the law.
In summary, the core lessons of the modern regulatory leviathan are: (1) that it can’t keep up with complexity; (2) that solutions are not only tenuous, but invariably come with unintended consequences; and (3) that it’s unlikely to work because it is driven by politicians who are driven to raise money and solicit votes — promising to “fix” problems by taking actions that “help” some constituents at the expense of others and that generally interfere with the self-correcting nature of a free market system. (발췌)
---------------
인플레는 사회를 물질주의적으로 만들고, 돈의 환상에 취한 사람들이 분에 넘치는 소비를 하게 된다.
The Great Gatsby and the Fed
02/17/2017 •Louis Rouanet
Even the most innocent novel can give its reader a fresh perspective on the economy during the author’s time. Economic writings and economic conditions often inspired great writers who, in turn, allowed us to contemplate either a glimpse or a detailed picture of economic reality. Stendhal was influenced by Malthus, Flaubert by Bastiat, and Ayn Rand by Mises. Other novelists faithfully described the economic times of their lives. Émile Zola, for instance, brilliantly accounts for the French 1882 financial crisis in his novel L’Argent (1891) and unconsciously exhibits the evils of fractional reserve banking.
Just as Zola’s L’Argent, so too F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby (1925) is a product of the business cycle. Some have interpreted Fitzgerald’s novel as an indictment against capitalism. It is not. It has been said that Gatsby is a product of alcohol prohibition, but Gatsby is also the unfortunate product of the Federal Reserve’s expansionist monetary policy. The “constant flicker” of the American life described by Fitzgerald in his celebrated novel is no less than the artificial boom driven by the Fed during the roaring twenties.
Inequality and the Fed during the Twenties
The Franco-Irish economist Richard Cantillon was among the first to notice the redistributive effects of monetary creation. Cantillon observed that the first to receive the newly created money saw their incomes rise whereas the last to receive the newly created money saw their purchasing power decline as consumer price inflation came about.
Under modern central banking, money is created and injected into the economy through credit on financial markets. Thus, the economics of Cantillon effects tells us that financial institutions benefit disproportionately from money creation, since they can purchase more goods, services, and assets for still relatively low prices.
One of the most visible consequences of this growth of financial markets triggered by monetary expansion is asset price inflation. Increases in asset prices will mainly benefit the wealthy for several reasons. First, the wealthy tend to own more financial assets than the poor in proportion to income. As the wealthy’s net worth increases, securities with continuously rising prices can be used as collateral for new loan requests. Second, it is easier for the richest individuals to contract debt in order to buy financial assets that can be sold later at a profit. Since credit-easing lowers the interest rate and therefore funding costs, the profits made by selling inflated assets bought on credit will be even greater. Finally, asset price inflation coming with the growth of financial markets will benefit the workers, managers, traders, etc., in the financial sector.
Not surprisingly, the development of ostentatious wealth and extreme inequality is one of the main themes in The Great Gatsby — which was published and written during the boom that would finally lead to the Great Depression. In his bestseller on the causes of the “Great Crash” of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression in the United States, John K. Galbraith mentions “the bad distribution of income” as the first of “five weaknesses which seem to have had an especially intimate bearing on the ensuing disaster.” The cause of this rising inequality is to be found in asset price inflation.
The responsibility of the Fed in the asset price bubble of the 1920s cannot be doubted. Indeed, as late as 1927, Benjamin Strong, who was then governor of the Fed, told the French economist Charles Rist that he was going to give “a little coup de whiskey to the stock market.” Similarly, the former chairman of the Fed, Marriner S. Eccles, points to the rising inequality financed by credit expansion during the 1920s, when, “as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.”
Money in The Great Gatsby is either inherited or derives from the mysteries of high finance or comes from crime or is made on the sports field. Involuntarily, Fitzgerald unfolds the Cantillon effect before our eyes. Indeed, the artificially stimulated financial sector, Fitzgerald shows, creates a distinctive geography and urban space. Whereas Manhattan and Long Island benefit from the redistributive effects of money production by the Fed and the Wall Street banks, the rest of America suffers from them. Thus, in the first chapter of the book, Nick Carraway explains that “Instead of being the warm center of the world, the Middle West now seemed like the ragged edge of the universe — so I decided to go East and learn the bond business.” Under central banking, money is first of all where it is artificially produced rather than in the hands of the most talented entrepreneurs. Nick followed the money.
Easy Money and Consumerism
The Great Gatsby describes a society that had gone beyond industrialism to become driven by leisure and consumption. But this too was at least partially caused by the Fed’s policies. As Dr. Guido Hülsmann writes in The Ethics of Money Production (p.187), “The spiritual dimension of these inflation-induced habits seems obvious. Money and financial questions come to play an exaggerated role in the life of man. Inflation makes society materialistic.”
No surprise then that the romance between Gatsby and Daisy is fashioned by materialistic concerns. Daisy’s love for Gatsby is conditioned by his great wealth. Daisy’s emotions are “materialistic”:
Suddenly, with a strained sound, Daisy bent her head into the shirts and began to cry stormily.
“They’re such beautiful shirts,” she sobbed, her voice muffled in the thick folds. “It makes me sad because I’ve never seen such — such beautiful shirts before.”
Consumerism is a function of monetary inflation because easy money policies create the illusion of wealth and thus lead individuals to consume more than they would otherwise. Because consumption increases, the capital stock will decline and society will ultimately be poorer than it would have been. This naturally leads us to depict the cultural consequences of easy money which are so visible in The Great Gatsby.
The Cultural Consequences of Inflation
The cultural effects of inflation have perhaps never been clearer than during the 1920s. As H.L. Mencken writes in 1925 in his review of The Great Gatsby, “To find a parallel for the grossness and debauchery that now reign in New York one must go back to the Constantinople of Basil I.” Mencken then adds with typical wit and gusto:
The thing that chiefly interests the basic Fitzgerald is still the florid show of modern American life — and especially the devil’s dance that goes on at the top. He is unconcerned about the sweatings and sufferings of the nether herd; what engrosses him is the high carnival of those who have too much money to spend, and too much time for the spending of it. Their idiotic pursuit of sensation, their almost incredible stupidity and triviality, their glittering swinishness — these are the things that go into his notebook.
By meddling with money, the Fed created an illusion of wealth and contributed to the creation of an all-pervasive world of illusion. It is Paul Cantor, that patron saint of Austrian literary criticism, who has noticed the link between inflation and the distortion of reality. Under fiat money, reality is confused with illusion and inauthenticity becomes a prevalent trait among the people. As Paul Cantor writes:
In a paper money economy, one does not see gold anymore, but the currency gives the illusion of the presence of wealth. The increasingly mediated character of the modern economy, especially the development of sophisticated financial instruments, allows the government to deceive its people about the nature of its monetary policy. When a government tries to clip coins or debase a metal currency, the results are readily apparent to most people. By contrast, the financial inter-mediation involved in modern central banking systems helps to shroud monetary conditions in mystery.
This inauthenticity of the characters in The Great Gatsby is obvious. From the beginning, everyone is speculating about Gatsby’s true identity. “Somebody told me they thought he killed a man once” says one; “it’s more that he was a German spy during the war” answers another. Gatsby himself lies about the fact that he was educated at Oxford. Worse, Daisy’s love for Gatsby is revealed to be phony as she finally realizes that her allegiance is with her husband Tom.
For the reader who knows his monetary history, nothing is clearer in The Great Gatsby than the cultural decline for which the artificial inflation of the money supply is responsible. Central banking, today as in the 1920s, led formerly good Americans to lie, commit fraud, and desert hard work. As Nick Carraway narrates the first night he goes to Gatsby’s mansion:
I was immediately struck by the number of young Englishmen dotted about, all well dressed, all looking a little hungry, and all talking in low, earnest voices to solid and prosperous Americans. I was sure that they were selling something: bonds or insurance or automobiles. They were at least agonizingly aware of the easy money in the vicinity and convinced that it was theirs for a few words in the right key.
In an inflationary environment, one must dream of becoming an overnight success because the slow steady way of amassing a fortune by working hard simply will not work. Hard-working people are systematically screwed. George Wilson, the garage owner and the figure of the hard-working American is, with Gatsby himself, the great loser of the novel. Not only is his wife Tom Buchanan’s mistress but she ends up dead. In The Great Gatsby, the Cantillon effect holds true even for love and women. Fitzgerald, however, somehow anticipated the bust that inevitably follows the boom. Gatsby dies. Nick returns to the Middle West.
One disappointing aspect of The Great Gatsby is the lack of contrast between the nouveaux riches who got wealthy thanks to fraud and financial speculation and the entrepreneurially talented bourgeoisie. This contrast, for instance, was made much clearer in Émile Zola’s book L’Argent. In Fitzgerald’s world, on the other hand, all the rich people are immoral and disgusting creatures. To this extent, Zola was much more successful, more than 30 years before Fitzgerald, in accounting for the corruption of entrepreneurial values and the debauchery caused by modern finance under fractional reserve banking and central banking.
One reason why Fitzgerald was incapable of elucidating different categories of rich was his insensitive ignorance of the financial sector itself. Contrary to Garet Garett’s novel The Driver (1922) which precisely describes the inner workings of the financial sector, Fitzgerald is sloppy and particularly unknowledgeable when it comes to describing the stock market. Thus, there probably is a germ of truth when Mencken writes that The Great Gatsby is “no more than a glorified anecdote, and not too probable at that.” Nonetheless, the moral decay on display in Fitzgerald’s novel serves, not merely as titillation for the reader, but as an object lesson in the evils of both central banking and prohibition.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기