망한 그리스 케이스를 잘 알려야 한다
죄형법정주의(조갑제닷컴 회원)
2000년대 그리스는 노동인구 4명중 1명이 공무원이었다. 즉, 85만 명이 공무원이었다.
공무원은 오전 8시반 출근, 오후 2시 반에 퇴근이다. 그리스는 은퇴 직전 임금대비 연금 수령액 수준이 95%였다. 영국 33%, 독일 42%, 프랑스 50%에 비하면 턱없이 높다. 국채 발행하며 주인 없는 돈을 정치인과 국민이 펑펑 쓰다가 결국은 망한 것이다.
한국은 2013년 기준으로 국가공무원 숫자가 100만 명이 되었다. 한국 인구는 5000만으로 그리스 인구의 약 5배인데 공무원 숫자는 비슷해서 양호해 보인다.
그러나 이 공무원 100만이란 수치에 공공기관, 공기업 등 준공무원과, 광역단체, 기초단체의 지방공사 및 각종 사업단, 직업군인까지 합한다면 사실상 공무원 수는 160만 명에 달하는 것으로 알려졌다. 정부는 2013년 세금을 내는 근로자가 1600만 명이라고 발표한 점을 고려할 때 결국 10명당 1명이 사실상 공무원인 셈이다.
일각에서는 준공무원을 다 합하면 공무원 숫자는 200만 명에 이를 것으로 추정한다. 결국 8명 중 1명이 사실상 대한민국 공무원일지도 모른다.
---> 나 역시 <대한민국, 이렇게 망한다>에서 그리스의 사례를 언급했다. 그리고 한국이 좌파적 복지 관료주의로 망할 거라고 예견했다.
우리나라에도 왔었던 그리스의 하치스(Aristides Hatzis) 교수가 쓴 <Greece as a Precautionary Tale of the Welfare State>라는 글이 있는데, 그리스 망국의 원인을 잘 짚었다.
-------------------------------
일베에 올라온 흥미로운 풍자 사진. 도덕을 법률이나 제도로 규정하면 무서운 일들이 나타난다.
-------------------------------------------------
요약
1. 개헌안 중 헌법이 기본권을 보장하는 대상을 "국민"에서 "사람"으로 바꿈
2. 이 부분은 마르크스주의자들이 국가체제를 파괴하기 위해 항상 주장하는 부분이었음.
3. 이 내용이 포함된 개헌안이 통과될 경우 불법체류자를 단속하고 국제범죄자의 입국믈 막는 것이 불가능해짐
4. 정치권내의 극좌파들은 아직도 활개치고 있다.
5. 다문화, 인권의 간판을 달고 나오는 법안들의 진짜 목적은 국가를 없애고 대한민국을 마르크스 주의를 실천하는 모범사례로 만드는것임.
-----------------------------------------------------------
출처: 일베
----------------------------------------------------------------------
좌파들의 위선에 혀를 두르고 만다.
---------------------------------------------------
한국에 좌파 정권이 탄생하면 삼성은 곧 이 나라를 뜰 것이다.
--------------------------------------------------
About The Strange Death of Europe
By: Douglas Murray
Told from this first-hand perspective, and backed with impressive research and evidence, the book addresses the disappointing failure of multiculturalism, Angela Merkel's U-turn on migration, the lack of repatriation and the Western fixation on guilt. Murray travels to Berlin, Paris, Scandinavia, Lampedusa and Greece to uncover the malaise at the very heart of the European culture, and to hear the stories of those who have arrived in Europe from far away. In each chapter he also takes a step back to look at the bigger issues which lie behind a continent's death-wish, answering the question of why anyone, let alone an entire civilisation, would do this to themselves? He ends with two visions of Europe – one hopeful, one pessimistic – which paint a picture of Europe in crisis and offer a choice as to what, if anything, we can do next.
Reviews
“Douglas Murray glitters in the gloom. His pessimism about multiculturalism is so well constructed and written it is almost uplifting. Liberals will want to rebut him. I should warn them that they will need to argue harder than they have ever argued before.” – Nick Cohen
“Douglas Murray's introduction to this already destructive subject of Islamist hegemony is a distinguished attempt to clarify the origins of a storm. I found myself continually wishing that he wasn't making himself quite so clear.” – Clive James
-------------------------------------------------------------
왜 시간은 유수(流水)와 같은가?
아우구스티누스는 물리학의 영역에 속하던 시간을 꺼내서 심리학에 옮겨놓았다. 말, 소리, 사건 등은 오고가지만 그들의 경과는 마음 속에 인상을 남겨 놓는다. 시간은 다른 어느 곳도 아니고, 바로 거기에 있다.
---------------------------------------------------
Tom Froese라는 필자의 논문 제목인데, 삶에서 죽음이 지니는 의미를 논하고 있다.
Life is precious because it is precarious: Individuality, mortality, and the problem of meaning
생명이 소중한 이유는 그것이 취약하기 때문이다: 개성, 죽음, 그리고 의미의 문제
--------------------------------------------------
평등 페미니즘의 주창자인 크리스티나 소머즈의 인터뷰
An Interview with Christina Hoff Sommers
Posted by Jack F. Mourouzis on February 27, 2017 in National, Photo Slider
출처: 다트머스 리뷰
(Photograph courtesy of American Enterprise Institute)
Editor’s Note: Christina Hoff Sommers is a well-known former philosophy professor and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of several books including Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys. She also hosts a video blog entitled The Factual Feminist. The Review sat down with Ms. Sommers to gain some insight on her perspective on modern-day gender movements and feminist controversy.
The Dartmouth Review (TDR): Much of your writing has to do with the warped state of modern feminism. Can you explain how it came to this? Where does the modern movement have its origins, and why is it the way it is today?
Christina Hoff Sommers (CHS): I am a strong supporter of classical equity feminism — the sort of feminism that won women the vote, educational opportunities, and many other freedoms. But on today’s campus, equity feminism has been eclipsed by fainting-couch feminism. Fainting-couchers view women as psychically fragile and prone to trauma. They demand trigger warnings, safe spaces, and micro-aggression monitoring. Their primary focus is not equality with men—but rather protection from them. As an equity feminist from the 70s, I see this as a setback for feminism—and for women. There was a battle for the soul of feminism in the 80s and 90s. The wrong side won. Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin (precursors to today’s fainting-couchers) sought to protect women from the ravages of an implacable, all-encompassing patriarchy. Never mind that no such patriarchy existed. Another group, known as sex-positive or libertarian feminists, focused on female freedom, personal responsibility, and pleasure. They saw MacDworkinism (as it came to be called) as a reactionary social purity movement. The libertarians had better arguments, but the MacDworkinites won most of the assistant professorships. Over the years, MacDworkinism has melded with “intersectionality.” Today, undergraduate women are told (depending on their identities) that they are oppressed not only by sexism, but by racism, classism, ableism, etc. Conceptually, the theory is muddled. For one thing it fights sexism and racism by classifying everyone according to sex and race. But at the highly privileged intersections of American higher education, the theory is all the rage. For an equality feminist like myself, this is a sorry development. Our feminist foremothers viewed women as just as competent and mentally strong as men, so they fought and won a battle for equality. Trigger warnings, safe spaces and identity theatrics betray that tradition, and treat women like fragile little birds in need of protection. I see too many talented, idealistic young women turning inward—away from a world that needs them.
TDR: In addition to the movement itself, many words have lost their original meanings. Terms like “racism,” “sexism,” “violence,” “unconstitutional,” “fascism,” and various other -isms and -phobias do not mean the same thing that they did even three years ago. How has this happened?
CHS: For activists committed to the doctrine of intersectionality, universities have to be seen as racist, sexist, violent institutions. The theory demands it. In fact, our institutions of higher learning are among the least bigoted or violent places on earth. To maintain the theory, activists stretch the meanings of words beyond comprehension. When I politely challenged fainting-couch feminism at Oberlin and Georgetown—protestors accused me of “violence.” Instead of challenging what I said, they have re-labeled it as violence and ruled it out of bounds. That’s not only absurd, it contradicts to principles foundational to our Constitutional democracy. The American legal tradition makes a clear distinction between words and deeds. According to diversity officials at Berkeley and UCLA, anyone who suggests that “Men and women have equal opportunities for achievement” or refers to the US as “a land of opportunity” is creating a “hostile” environment and “targeting” marginalized people. They have good intentions, but they twist words in ways prevent rational debate.
TDR: In wake of the Berkeley riots this past week, it’s become more clear than ever that freedom of speech is, in fact, a dangerous thing. Interestingly, it has not come under threat from the government – which is what the constitution explicitly protects against – but rather from private citizens. What is the danger of this? How can we overcome this conflict over freedom of ideas?
CHS: On some campuses, activists have assumed the role of thought police. When they heckle speakers or shut down events, they set themselves up as arbiters of what others can hear and say. Who put them in charge? They are free to not attend events they don’t like or to protest peacefully. What they can’t do is to shut down discussion. Legally, the First Amendment applies only to the government, but the moral principles on which it is based ought to apply to private universities as well. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, a legendary champion of liberal causes, called restrictions on free speech “dangerous subversions” and “the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” Why un-American? Because in our free and open democracy—there is no Ministry of Truth.
TDR: Where does free speech stop and hate speech start?
CHS: The First Amendment does not recognize the distinction. Hateful and benign words are equally protected. You can say vicious things about all groups—Jews, Muslims, Christians, Whites, Blacks, women or men—even babies. You can burn a flag, insult Catholics or celebrate Hitler. I find such speech reprehensible and there is far too much of it in the blogosphere as well as on campus. But in America we deal with it by social scorn, not censorship. We don’t have blasphemy laws. That is not our tradition. We err on the side of freedom. Any public university that imposes a speech code is violating the US Constitution. Private universities like Dartmouth have more leeway. But even private schools may have contractual obligations to protect academic freedom if that was promised in their mission statement.
I understand that many schools want to encourage civility and respect. So do I. But civility is best taught through example—not censorship regimes. Enforced “Civility” can also serve as a pretense for banning tough criticism, humor, satire—or unpopular ideas. The truth is not always polite.
TDR: Moving on towards the topic of gender equity. You are also published on the issues facing young boys in society (The War Against Boys), when much focus is placed on young girls. What happened to “male privilege?”
CHS: Girls and women are the privileged sex in education. From preschool to graduate school, and across ethnic and class lines, women get better grades, they win most of the honors and prizes, and they’re far more likely to go to college. Today women earn a majority of bachelor’s degrees and advanced degrees. Latino girls are now slightly more likely to attend college than white boys. When an education policy analyst looked at current trends in higher education he quipped, only half in jest, “The last male will graduate from college in 2068.” Our schools have offered untold number of admirable and effective programs to strengthen girls in areas where they languished—in sports, math, and science. Where are the programs to help boys in areas where they falter: reading, writing, grades, school engagement and college matriculation? So far Congress, schools of education, school boards and the Department of Education have looked the other way.
TDR: In what ways are women and girls actually worse off than men and boys? How can this be helped, and what role is modern feminism playing in actually addressing these issues?
CHS: Women, far more than men, struggle with the challenge of combining work and family. They still earn less. Although violence against women is on the decline, it continues to exact a terrible toll. In the past, feminists played a decisive (even heroic) role in improving the status and safety of women. But, today the movement is carried away with a “war-on-women” narrative. Advocates never tire of telling us that women are cheated out of nearly a quarter of their salary; that one in four college women is sexually assaulted, or that women are facing an epidemic of online abuse and violence. Such claims are hugely distorted, but they have been repeated so often they are have taken on the aura of truth. Workplace discrimination, sexual assault and on-line threats are genuine problems, but to solve them women need sober analysis, not hype and spin. Exaggerated claims and crying wolf discredit good causes and send scarce resources in the wrong direction.
TDR: What effect does gender-neutral child-rearing actually have on kids growing up today? What are the consequences going to be down the line?
CHS: With few exceptions, children are powerfully drawn to sex-stereotyped play. Parents who imbibed too much Judith Butler in college and view gender as fluid and malleable may be startled by the counterevidence provided by their toddlers. A 2012 cross-cultural study on sex differences confirmed what most of us already knew to be true: Throughout the world, women tend to be more nurturing, risk averse and emotionally expressive, while men are usually more competitive, risk taking, and emotionally flat. (Of course there are exceptions, but these researchers were looking at the norms.) As for play preferences, the female penchant for nurturing play and the male propensity for rough-and-tumble play hold cross-culturally and even cross-species. Among our close relatives such as rhesus and vervet monkeys, researchers have found that females play with dolls far more than their brothers, who prefer balls and toy cars. It seems unlikely that the monkeys are acting out a culturally manufactured gender binary. The best evidence we have suggests that some not-yet entirely understood combination of biology and culture is behind typical male/female differences. Of course parents and teachers should expose kids to a wide range of toys and play activities. But they must also be careful not to shame their children for their preferences. That sort of shaming can do harm. To give one example, little boys tend to favor superhero play where they vanquish bad guys. Two researchers noticed that many teachers don’t like that sort of play and often don’t allow it. They asked an important question: “If boys, due to their choices of dramatic play themes, are discouraged from dramatic play, how will this affect their early language and literacy development and their engagement in school?” Ignoring genuine differences between boys and girls can be just as misguided as creating differences where none exist.
TDR: What effect is Donald Trump’s presidency going to have on this movement? Are things going to get better, or worse?
CHS: I have given up making predictions about Mr. Trump.
TDR: Can higher education be saved? What’s it going to take?
CHS: To save themselves universities must overcome their obsession with identity politics. There are too many classes focused on narrow topics: too few on transcendent works of genius. Students complain, “I don’t see myself in the curriculum.” You are not supposed to. The purpose of education is to take you outside yourself into a larger world. Conservative scholars can’t do much to turn things around. They have all but disappeared from campus. So it’s up to liberal academics to restore sanity. Will they do it? I’m not so sure. Anyone who challenges the identitarians will face a lot of hostility and be told the check their privilege. Who wants that? But there is one hopeful development. The University of Chicago has indicated that it will not be going the way of safe-space, trigger warnings and censorship. Some have suggested that universities need to be clear about their primary mission: They can pursue truth, at the expense of identity validation and emotional comfort–or they can choose comfort, and admit that they sometimes do so at the expense of truth. Either is fine, but at least students will have a choice.
TDR: What is the best advice you can offer to conservative students, closeted or otherwise, struggling against the oppressive weight of radical liberalism plaguing campuses nationwide?
CHS: Conservative students are the group I worry about the least. Few people at your college are worried about your feelings. That is a good thing. Your views are tested and challenged every day. That’s what education is all about, and it’s something many liberal students are missing. Unfortunately, there is a noisy coterie of students, and a few professors, who see you as the embodiment of evil. But don’t be intimidated, because there are others—many others—who will appreciate your independent mind. But do check out student programs at think tanks like AEI, Cato, Hertog, and FIRE. These summer institutes are some of the safest spaces for reason, logic, and debate.
----------------------------
좌파들이 이런 식으로 우파 인사들을 하나씩 침묵시키고, 몰락시키고, 투옥하고, 제거하고 있다.
-------------------------------------------------
미국 의회가 대북 원유공급 중단까지 포함하는 초강력 대북제재 법안을 내놓자 중국 정부가 반대 입장을 분명하게 밝혔다.
그러면서 쌍궤병행'(雙軌竝行·비핵화 프로세스와 북한과의 평화협정 협상)과 쌍중단(雙中斷·북한 핵·미사일 도발과 한미 연합군사훈련 중단)을 또다시 강조했다.
중국 외교부의 화춘잉(華春瑩) 대변인은 23일 정례 브리핑에서 미 의회가 강력한 대북 제재법안을 발의했는데 대부분 중국을 겨냥한 것이라는 분석이 있다는 연합뉴스 기자의 질문에 "현재 한반도 정세가 매우 긴장된 상태로 각방은 긴장 완화에 유리한 일을 많이 해야지 긴장을 가속화해서는 안 된다"고 밝혔다.
[출처] 中 외교부, 대북 석유공급 중단포함 美제재안에 "반대한다"
"자국법으로 다른 국가에 독자제재 안돼"…"긴장 가속말라"
-------------------------------
러 전문가 "美 대북 군사옵션 발언은 중국과 북한을…"
17일(현지시간) 연합뉴스에 따르면 러시아 과학아카데미 산하 '경제연구소' 아시아 전략센터 소장 게오르기 톨로라야는 이날 '북핵 대응에서 군사적 옵션도 배제하지 않는다'는 틸러슨 장관의 발언에 대해 "북한과 중국을 놀라게 하고 북한을 대화로 이끌기 위한 심리전의 일환이지 실질적 군사 계획 공표로 보지 않는다"는 견해를 밝혔다. (매일경제)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
현재 미국에서 일어나는 일은 문화 충돌이다. 그들은 단지 서로 싫어하고 합의하지 못하는 게 아니다. 그들은 더 이상 대화조차 할 수가 없다.
Doug Casey Has "Never Seen Anything Like This"
"What's going on in the US now is a culture clash. They don't just dislike each other and disagree on politics; they can no longer even have a conversation. They hate each other on a visceral gut level. They have totally different world views. I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime. There hasn't been anything like this since the War Between the States, which shouldn't be called "The Civil War," because it wasn't a civil war. "
출처: 인터네셔널 맨
----> 한국도 비슷한 상황. 지금 좌파와 우파는 서로 대화를 나눌 수가 없다.
------------------------------------------------------
대학생 대출의 총액은 금융 거품이 최고조에 달했을 때의 전체 액수보다 크다. 서브프라임 모기지처럼 대출의 상당 부분이 채무 불이행이다.
This New Bubble Is Even Bigger Than The Subprime Fiasco
The total value of student loans in America today is LARGER than the total value of subprime loans at the peak of the financial bubble. And just like the subprime mortgages, many student loans are in default.
-------------------------------------------------------
[KBS공영노조 성명서]
문재인 후보의 공영방송 장악음모를 규탄한다.
더불어 민주당의 문재인 대선 경선 후보가 문화방송에 대해 노골적인 장악 의도를 보인데 대해 우리는 심각한 우려를 표한다.
그것도 생방송으로 진행된 <100분 토론>에서, 문화방송을 적폐청산의 대상이라고 주장 한 것은 자신들에게 줄 서라고 협박한 것이라고 밖에 볼 수 없다.
이것은 언론의 자유와 공영방송의 근간을 흔드는 대단히 위험한 발상이 아닐 수 없다.
문 후보는 문화방송의 태극기 집회 보도와, 임기가 다한 사장에 대해 방문진 이사회가 후임 사장을 선임한 것을 문제 삼았다.
어처구니없다. 세상에 촛불집회를 담은 뉴스만 뉴스이고 그 곳에 있는 사람들만 대한민국 국민이란 말인가? 탄핵에 반대하여 태극기를 든 사람들의 목소리를 담은 뉴스는 뉴스가 아니란 말인가?
그리고 적법한 절차에 따라 이뤄지는 방송사의 사장 선임을 문제 삼고 이래라 저래라 하는 태도의 저의는 무엇인가?
편협 되고 초법적인 발상으로 위험한 언론관을 드러내는 문 후보가 과연 대통령 후보의 자격이 있는 사람인가? 언론사, 그것도 공영방송을 장악하려는 의도를 가진 사람이 대선 후보라는 것이 심히 걱정스럽다.
문 후보가 당선된다면, KBS와 MBC 사장을 누구누구로 이미 내정했다는 설을 이번 방송에서 표면으로 드러낸 것이 아닌가?
우리는 이런 시각을 군부독재 때보다 더 심한 언론찬탈 음모라고 본다.
참여정부시절에 언론사 기자실을 폐쇄하며 언론에 ‘대못’을 박은 사실을 우리는 기억한다.
한 번 해본 경험이 있는 사람들은 또 그 수법을 사용한다는 것도 안다.
문 후보가 적폐를 내 세우며 언론사를 장악하려 한다면 우리는 ‘언론탄압 정치인’ 문재인 후보와 과감히 싸울 것이다.
전대미문의 대통령 탄핵을 거치면서 언론이 특정 정파의 선전도구처럼 획일적이고 편파적인 보도행태를 보인 것에 대해 언론의 현장에 있는 우리는 깊이 걱정한다.
이런 잘못된 언론의 기류를 이용하여 대선을 치르려 하는 문 후보의 언론장악 음모와 맞서 우리는 분연히 떨치고 일어나 투쟁할 것이다.
우리는 공영방송을 지킬 것이다. MBC 사원들과도 연대해 싸울 것이다. 다시는 방송을 갖고 장난하지 못하도록 온 국민과 더불어 투쟁할 것임을 천명하는 바이다.
2017년 3월 23일
KBS공영노동조합
-------------------------------------------------------
미제스 연구소는 어떻게 설립되었나?
설립자 록웰 주니어의 회고
Celebrating Murray!
•Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
35 years ago, I was worried. I was working at a free-market think tank at a university, and I could see that Austrian economics was becoming less and less influential.
Who would speak for untrammeled freedom and capitalism? Sound money and no central banking? Would economics entirely betray its great advocates of liberty from Menger to Mises, in favor of monsters like Keynes and Marx?
Who would teach students the truth, and inspire them never to give up or give in? To dedicate their lives to the ideas that build civilization, and fight the left-wing destructionists?
Just as bad, for me, was the lessened interest in Mises himself. I had worked with him 14 years before, and although I was very young, the experience changed my life.
Here was the economist of the century, a world-class genius in his writing and teaching, and a hero in his deeds besides.
Progressives, New Dealers, Communists, Nazis — nothing could stop him. Neither could the resulting hardship.
When a boy, he had adopted a motto from Virgil: “Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.” Until his dying day at 92, despite oppression and proffered inducements to compromise, he never betrayed that principle.
I knew that not only did we need his monumental scholarship, we needed his personal example.
Yet just 9 years after his passing, there was a palpable lack of much interest in the ideas and the man.
I determined to do something about it. First, I invited Margit von Mises, his widow, to lunch at her favorite restaurant, the Russian Tea Room in New York City.
As you can imagine, I was on tenterhooks as I asked for her blessing in establishing a Mises Institute. She was delighted, and enthusiastically served as our chairman as well.
Next I approached Mises’s greatest associate, a world-class genius himself, Murray N. Rothbard.
We were walking in Manhattan at the time, and when I told Murray of my plans, he turned to me and clapped his hands in joy.
Ron Paul was a huge help, as were Henry Hazlitt and F.A. Hayek. I was surrounded by giants, while defending one.
Over those 35 years, what fun all of us at the Institute have had. Fun in achievements. Fun in fighting the bad guys.
Of course, we could have done nothing without our benefactors. As Mises noted, entrepreneurial ideas are a dime a dozen. Having the necessary capital is both rarer, and all-important.
Our faculty, students, and supporters in all walks of life have also been essential.
Thanks to you, and so many others, we have been able to do much good. Through teaching, research, conferences, publishing, social media and the internet, we have been able to touch the minds and hearts of millions. As a result, Mises and Austrian economics are far better known and therefore far more influential. How that is needed!
We have taken on the Fed, the welfare state, the warfare state, the power elite, Keynesianism, socialism, and every other excrescence that afflicts society.
We do not compromise with the state, nor those who promote it. As a result, young people all over the world — not to speak of teachers, business leaders, and writers — look to the Mises Institute for leadership. There are now 26 Mises Institutes in as many countries.
Where Austrian economics was once a dwindling school of thought, now it flourishes here and in Europe, Asia, and South America, especially in the next generation. On our 35th anniversary, we remember all this with great gratitude, and plan for far more success in the years ahead. Won’t you help us continue our work? Certainly our ideas have never been more timely.
With your generous tax-deductible donation, you can help build the foundations of liberty for the future. You can help us make sure that we can reach all the good students and young professors who are dedicating their lives to freedom, private property, and free markets.
With your help, we are determined to fight and win the intellectual battle. Government cannot defeat ideas, and our ideas are both right and necessary.
----------------------------------------------------
자유 시장에서는 수익-손실 시스템에 따라, 무엇보다 불확실성을 가장 잘 대처하는 사람들에 의해 자원이 배분된다. 이에 반해 인위적으로 금리가 낮은 곳에서는 자본을 소비하고 부족한 자원을 잘못 투자하는 기업가들이 혜택을 입는다.
For Keynesians and Austrians, "Uncertainty" Means Two Different Things
•G. P. Manish
•Felicia Cowley
Keynesian economics has witnessed a remarkable resurgence since the crisis of 2008. The inability of mainstream economics to predict or explain the crisis led many economists to become skeptical of its core macroeconomic tenets. Several have turned the clock back to the ideas of Keynes to make sense of the housing bubble and the ensuing recession.
One such explanation inspired by the General Theory emphasizes the endemic uncertainty of the future and its implications for market stability. Championed by Paul Davidson1 and popularized by Robert Skidelsky,2 this line of thought blames the crisis and recession on the fickle expectations and “animal spirits” that guide investment in a market economy.3
Per this thesis, in an uncertain world, entrepreneurs and investors suffer from mood swings. Optimism regarding the future abruptly gives way to pessimism. Fluctuations in economic activity are the result of these variations in outlook.
With its focus on uncertainty, this line of thought bears a striking resemblance to Austrian ideas. Moreover, its rejection of mathematical probability as a foundation for expectations is echoed by several prominent Austrian economists.
Nevertheless, while Keynesians conclude that the uncertainty of the future renders a market economy inherently unstable, Austrians embrace uncertainty without losing faith in the order generated by a market economy. What lies at the root of this puzzle?
Keynes on Expectations, Uncertainty, and Market Stability
Think of Mary, a plastic bottle manufacturer drawing up plans to open a new factory. Given the durability of the investment, her decision is based on a set of long-term expectations. How does Mary arrive at these estimations of future prices?
In a neo-classical world, she does so by absorbing as much information as possible regarding past prices. Using this information, she calculates the numerical probabilities associated with various prices and forms her expectations based on these probability distributions.
In such a world, expectations share a deterministic relationship with the past. The numerical probabilities associated with future prices are inferred mechanistically from those associated with past prices. Thus, Mary’s expectations of the future are objective in nature. Anybody else in her place would have come to identical conclusions regarding the future with the information at hand.
Keynes sharply disagreed with this approach. Long-term expectations, he argued, are formed in a fog of uncertainty. This renders mathematical probability useless as a basis for forming one’s expectations. Since the future may differ significantly from the past, information about past prices provides “no scientific basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever” regarding the likelihood of future prices.4
Entrepreneurs and investors cannot mechanically extrapolate probability judgments regarding the future from an analysis of information regarding the past. As a result, their expectations are subjective in nature. Mary’s expectations now bear a personal stamp.
These subjective expectations share no connection to the past. The inability to use probability to form expectations renders the future unknowable to entrepreneurs and investors. Unable to turn to the past to assess the likelihood of future events, they find themselves confronted by a radical uncertainty.
In such a world, Mary’s decision to build a new factory is not the “outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities.” Instead, it is governed by her “animal spirits;” by a sense of “spontaneous optimism” that results in an “urge to action rather than inaction.”
Nevertheless, even in a radically uncertain world, investments must be guided by some expectations regarding the future. Instead of grounding them in an analysis of the past, Mary bases her expectations on an assessment of what others believe regarding the future.
Lurking behind her animal spirits are expectations formed as the result of an attempt on her part to “conform with the behavior of the majority or the average.” A similar striving on the part of everyone else gives rise to a “conventional judgment” regarding the future, shared by the overwhelming majority of entrepreneurs and investors.
Based on the flimsy foundations of the psychology of opinion and with no moorings in experience, this conventional judgment is subject to sudden and violent change. Like a school of fish, investors and entrepreneurs swim this way and that, always taking their cues on what to do from others, without recourse to any solid foundations in which to ground their expectations.
Buoyed by an optimistic conventional judgment, investors, with positive animal spirits pumping through their veins, rush to produce more capital goods, lifting the fortunes of workers with them. Soon the judgment turns and pessimism sets in. Investors no longer have the urge to act. They become quiescent, and unemployment increases.
Thus, for Keynes the endemic uncertainty that surrounds the future gives rise to an inherently unstable market economy. Fluctuations in output and employment are endogenous to the market and are ultimately to be traced to the shifting sands that underlie the prevailing conventional judgment regarding the future.
The path to greater market stability requires heavy government intervention. It is the job of the state to counter the waxing and waning of animal spirits and help stabilize the level of investment, output and employment.
Uncertainty and Subjective Expectations in the Austrian Framework
Prominent Austrian economists such as Mises,5 Lachmann,6 and Rothbard7 agree with Keynes’s rejection of a mechanistic relationship between past and future prices.
This rejection is the result of a consistent application of the subjective theory of value. The prices of the past result from the individual valuations that prevail in a specific set of circumstances. Two individuals, however, can form different valuations in the same circumstances. Moreover, the same individual may react differently to identical conditions at two different points in time.
It follows that the reemergence of a similar set of conditions in the future need not result in the reappearance of the same set of prices as in the past. Thus, there is no simple, deterministic relationship between the past and the future. Instead, the future is inherently uncertain.
This has implications for the formation of expectations. Entrepreneurs cannot study past prices, calculate the numerical probability associated with them and then simply extrapolate these numbers into the future. As a result, mathematical probability is not a suitable foundation on which to base expectations. However, this does not imply that we know nothing about the future. The past can still serve as a guide to action.
Entrepreneurs can still estimate the likelihood of future events. They do so by trying to understand the motivations underlying the valuations of market participants in specific situations in the past. They must peer beneath the veil of past prices and must analyze why market participants acted the way they did under the given conditions.
This analysis of unique, heterogeneous situations as they arose in the past, and not the numerical probabilities associated with past prices, provides the raw material to appraise the valuations and prices that will prevail in the future in a different set of conditions. Thus, in the Austrian framework, expectations do not rest on utilizing numerical probability but on interpreting and understanding the past.
This, as in the case of Keynes, lends them a subjective flavor. Nevertheless, the subjective expectations of entrepreneurs do not coalesce into a homogenous and ever-shifting conventional judgment regarding the future. Instead, these expectations are heterogeneous. Two entrepreneurs may come to different conclusions regarding why individuals behaved the way they did in the past. Moreover, their grounding in the past gives them a basis in reality. Thus, they are not whimsical and subject to random fluctuations.
Subjective Expectations, Profit and Loss, and Market Order in the Austrian Framework
The expectations of entrepreneurs, while subjective, exhibit a discernible pattern. The ability to appraise the future is not distributed evenly across market participants. Instead, in a market economy there are leaders, or those who are better able to formulate a judgment of the future based on the past, and there are others who are less proficient at doing so.
The profit and loss system ensures that the better appraisers are rewarded for their more successful judgments and accumulate capital. Those who are less successful at this endeavor are, meanwhile, gradually stripped of their capital. Thus, they lose influence in shaping the course of the market.
This process of entrepreneurial selection allows for the coordination of the decisions of producers and consumers. It ensures that, at any given moment in time, the best appraisers of the future are in control of making the key production decisions in the economy. Thus, in the Austrian framework, uncertainty and subjective expectations are compatible with market order and stability.
The key to ensuring this is a price system that results from the voluntary decisions of market participants to engage in mutually beneficial exchange. The prices that emerge on the various factor markets must reflect the appraisements of the participating entrepreneurs. Any interference with such a system of prices can interfere with this process of coordination and the order generated by the market.
An artificial reduction of the interest rate that results from an expansion of the money supply is an example of such an intervention. The increase in liquidity interferes with the process of entrepreneurial selection. In fact, it turns this system on its head.
Profits no longer reward those entrepreneurs who allocate scarce resources to the highest ranked ends of the consumers. Instead, they reward those who, misled by the artificially low interest rate, embark on production projects that are unsustainable. Those entrepreneurs who correctly perceive the underlying unsustainability now lose control of the capital at their disposal and gradually lose the ability to influence the course of affairs.
Thus, it is monetary expansion and an artificially low interest rate and not the endemic uncertainty of the future that generates booms and busts and market instability. In a free market, thanks to the profit-loss system, resources are allocated primarily by those who are best at grappling with uncertainty. In a world of artificially cheap credit, however, the very same system rewards those entrepreneurs who engage in the consumption of capital and the malinvestment of scarce resources.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기