손범규 변호사는 이번 결정을 ‘탄핵 쿠데타’라고 이름 지었다....... 황성욱 변호사도 '탄핵쿠데타라는 말에 300% 동의한다'고 했다. 김평우(金平祐) 변호사도 결정문 분석 글에서 손 변호사와 비슷한 시각을 보였다. (조갑제닷컴)

 

----> 탄핵 쿠데타가 아니라, 처음 태블릿 사태가 터졌을 때부터 이미 쿠데타가 시작되었고, 국회에서 탄핵안이 통과되었을 때, 쿠데타는 성공했다. 이번 헌재 판결은 단지 쿠데타에 합법성을 부여한 요식행위였다. 쿠데타 정권 하에서 헌재가 탄핵을 기각하리라 믿었던 게 착오였다.

 

 

--------------------------

 

소래 포구에 불이 났는데, 사람들이 저렇게 욕을 해대고 있다. 전통 시장 사람들이 무조건 약자이고 보호해 줘야 한다고 말하지만, 이렇듯이 그들은 때로는 카르텔을 형성하고 소비자들을 등치는 집단이기도 하다.

--------------------------------------------------

기도도 필요하지만, 기도만으로는 이루어지지 않는다. 강력한 힘이 준비되어야 한다.


----------------------------------------------------------

 

                                               출처: 수컷닷컴 미술관

 

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

 

ian bremmer‏

 

War with North Korea!

 

Great headline.

 

But nothing Tillerson said is out of line with previous Administrations' policies.

 

북한과의 전쟁!

 

대단한 헤드라인이다

 

하지만 틸러슨이 말한 모든 발언은 지난 행정부의 정책과 동일한 것들이다.

 

---> 일베 같은 사이트에 보면 미국이 금방이라도 북한에 대한 폭격을 실시할 것 같은 글들이 있다. 하지만 위의 브레머가 지적하듯이 크게 달라진 것은 없다. 단지 트럼프와 틸러슨이 모두 경영자였고, 상대와의 협상에 능하다는 것 뿐이다. 그래서 나는 지금 미국의 군사적 행동도 북한을 겁주어서 모종의 행동을 끌어내는 협상술이라고 판단하고 있다.

북폭은 정치, 경제적 위험 변수가 너무 많아 미국도 행동으로 옮기기가 쉽지 않다.
 

 -------------------------------------------------

태극기 집회의 새로운 패션(?)

이정미 재판관의 반역적이고, 정신 나간 머리를 저 헤어롤이 명확히 보여주고 있다.

-----------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------  

David Fahrenthold‏ (워싱턴포스트 기자)

 

Tillerson says diplomacy with North Korea has ‘failed’; Pyongyang warns of war. This seems to be escalating quickly.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

트럼프의 예산안은 과학을 탈 정치화 하는 첫번째 시도이다. 

 

Trump's Budget a First Step Toward De-Politicizing Science

 

Tho Bishop

 

 

The Trump administration has released its proposed 2018 budget, and within it are some things worth cheering. Trump’s "America First budget" includes needed cuts to the regulatory state, defunds efforts to purchase more Federal land, eliminates funding for 19 minor government agencies, and makes significant cuts to a number of more significant ones — including the State Department, HUD, and Commerce. Unfortunately, the proposal also reflects the myth that America’s military is underfunded, calling for a $52 billion increase for the Pentagon and another $2.8 billion increase for Homeland Security. The budget also ignores America’s web of entitlement programs, the larger driver of the nation’s fiscal woes.

 

While the Trump budget, should it pass, would do little to change government spending as a whole, the targeted cuts would have a positive impact beyond the US debt clock. For example, the proposed cuts to the Energy Department, the EPA, and the National Institute of Health represent a significant step toward separating state and science.

 

It should go without saying that scientific research is a vital part of civilized society, allowing for technological breakthroughs that dramatically increase the quality of life for mankind as a whole. It is precisely because of its great importance that it should not be politicized by being influenced by politicians and government bureaucrats. The inherent problems of government's inability to efficiently allocate scarce resources doesn't change when the subject is science, so government research can suffer with the same issues of waste, fraud, and abuse that regularly haunt other programs.

 

The National Institute of Health, one of the areas most impacted by the Trump budget, provides a number of examples of such questionable research. As Senator Jeff Flake documented last year, the National Institute of Health dedicated millions to such pressing research as the impact of cocaine on bees, testing sex steroids on goldfish, and studying the appearance of Jesus on toast. In its own version of Washington Monument Syndrome, the NIH then came back to Congress asking for more funds to dedicate to actual public health concerns.

 

Waste at the NIH isn’t just a concern for economists and attention-seeking politicians, Dr. Michael Braken, at Yale University School of Public Health, has argued that 87.5 percent of the organization's research is waste.

 

 

For every 100 research projects, only half lead to published findings. Of those 50, half have significant design flaws, making their results unreliable. And of those 25, half are redundant or unnecessary because of previous work. That’s how you get to 12.5 percent.

 

Not only are the priorities of public research questionable, it can impact the science itself. We have seen this particularly in the case of climate science, one area which is targeted extensively in Trump’s budget.

 

Earlier this year Dr. John Bates, a former NOAA scientist, documented how climate data was improperly handled. The purpose, as Bates states, was:

 

 

[to put a] thumb on the scales — in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets — in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.

 

Government-funded science was manipulated to push a government agenda.

 

Past administrations' concerns with warming have also led to programs incentivizing “alternative energy” sources, which can lead to all sorts of bad investments by private companies seeking public subsidy. One of the most prominent examples was the failure of Solyndra, the solar panel company that went bankrupt after receiving billions from taxpayers. These programs also take a hit in Trump’s budget.

 

Cuts to government research programs, however, should only be the first step toward making American science great again. The second part should come in the form of cutting taxes to the wealthiest Americans, and eliminating taxes for scientific investment. This is precisely what Murray Rothbard advocated in Science, Technology, and Government, and it would build upon a long standing American tradition of wealthy Americans playing a pivotal role in scientific innovation.

 

While it’s fair to debate whether Elon Musk is closer to Howard Roark or James Taggart based on his use of government subsidies, his SpaceX program has demonstrated the potential of privatizing space exploration — and the efficiencies that come with it. For those concerned about private interest in research without explicitly profitable ends, last year private non-profits provided $2.3 billion to basic research.

 

While his proposed budget is a solid first step toward de-politicizing science, unfortunately the increase in Pentagon spending means that military-related research will continue to enjoy the perks of government privilege. Resources that could have been dedicated to serving the wants and needs of the public will instead be allocated to building ever more expensive weapons for the world’s most powerful military (regardless of its actual performance).

 

As long as Trump continues to view the military-industrial complex as a sacred cow, he won’t make real progress in draining the swamp.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------- 

“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” – Henry Ford

국민들이 우리의 은행과 화폐 시스템을 이해하지 못하는  게 다행이다. 만일 그들이 그것을 이해한다면 내일이 오기 전에 혁명이 일어날 것이다.  -- 헨리 포드


-------------------------------------------------------

 

 Erdogan: European Headscarf Ban ‘Started a Clash Between the Cross and the Crescent’

터키의 대통령 에르도완: 유럽의 이슬람 헤드스카프 금지는 기독교와 이슬람 간의 분쟁을 유발했다.


-----------------------------------------------------------

 

 

지금까지 일반적인 설에 따르면, 아일랜드 대기근 사태는 감자에만 의존하던 게으른 아일랜드 국민과 마침 일어난 감자 병으로 인해 대기근이 일어났다는 거다.

아담 스미스는 흉년이 결핍을 만들지만, 선한 의도의 정부가 휘두르는 폭력은 결핍을 기근으로 바꿀 수 있다고 지적했다.

영국이 아일랜드를 정복한 후에 광대한 농지가 영국인들의 손에 넘어갔다. 영국의 지주들은 그 땅을 관리인에게 맡겨 경작하게 했는데, 관리인들은 그 땅을 다시 쪼개서 고율의 임대료를 받고 나눠주었고, 그로 인해 농민들은 겨우 입에 풀을 칠하는 정도였다.

곡물법은 영국의 부재(不在) 지주들에게 혜택을 주었는데, 곡물 값이 오르자 지주들은 새로운 땅을 개척하고 기존의 농지를 더욱 이용했다.

그러다 1849년 토리와 휘그 당은 보호 관세를 인하하고 곡물법을 폐기하기로 합의했는데, 그러자 밀의 가격이 급락했다. 농지가 초지로 바뀌고, 밀의 가격이 하락하면서 아일랜드 농민에 대한 수요가 감소했다.

 

What Caused the Irish Potato Famine?

 

•Mark Thornton

 

 

 

[This article originally appeared in The Free Market, April 1998; Volume 16, Number 4.]

 

British Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized for doing "too little" in response to the Irish Potato Famine of the 19th century that killed one million people and brought about the emigration of millions more. But in fact, the English government was guilty of doing too much.

 

Blair's statement draws attention to the question of what caused the famine. Up to now, the popular theory is that the Irish were promiscuous, slothful, and excessively dependent on the potato. As a result they died by the hundreds of thousands when a blight appeared and ruined their food source, in the midst of one of the fastest economic growth periods in human history.

 

Was the Potato Famine an ecological accident, as historians usually say? Like most famines, it had little to do with declines in food production as such. Adam Smith was right that "bad seasons" cause "dearth," but "the violence of well-intentioned governments" can convert "dearth into famine."

 

In fact, the most glaring cause of the famine was not a plant disease, but England's long-running political hegemony over Ireland. The English conquered Ireland, several times, and took ownership of vast agricultural territory. Large chunks of land were given to Englishmen.

 

These landowners in turn hired farmers to manage their holdings. The managers then rented small plots to the local population in return for labor and cash crops. Competition for land resulted in high rents and smaller plots, thereby squeezing the Irish to subsistence and providing a large financial drain on the economy.

 

Land tenancy can be efficient, but the Irish had no rights to the land they worked or to any improvements they might make. Only in areas dominated by Protestants did tenant farmers have any rights over their capital improvements. With the landlords largely residing in England, there was no one to conduct systematic capital improvements.

 

The Irish suffered from many famines under English rule. Like a boxer with both arms tied behind his back, the Irish could only stand and absorb blow after blow. It took the "many circumstances" of English policy to create the knockout punch and ultimate answer to the Irish question.

 

Free-market economist J.B. Say was quick to note that the system of absentee landlords was deplorable. He accurately diagnosed this cause and grimly predicted the disastrous results that did follow. He sadly relayed the suggestion of a member of Parliament that the seas swallow up the Island of Erin for a period long enough to destroy everything on it.

 

The Malthusian law of population is sometimes used to explain away English guilt. Here the Irish were viewed as a promiscuous bunch that married young and had too many children. Malthus himself considered the Irish situation as hopeless. The Irish then paid for their sins via the starvation and disease that the famine wrought.

 

Were the Irish such a promiscuous bunch? The population of Ireland was high and the island had become densely populated after union with Great Britain in 1801. Part of this population growth can be attributed to basic economic development as population was also increasing rapidly in England and elsewhere in Europe.

 

In fact, the Irish population was only growing slightly faster than the English population and was starting from a much smaller base. But why was it growing faster? The answer lies in the fact that England had placed Ireland in an unusual position as the breadbasket for the Industrial Revolution.

 

The British Corn Laws were designed to protect local grain farmers from foreign competition. In 1801, these laws were extended to Ireland. The laws not only kept prices high; they protected against falling prices in years of plenty. The main beneficiaries of this protectionism were the English absentee landlords of Ireland, not the Irish.

 

The Irish people were able to grow large quantities of nutritious potatoes that they fed their families and animals. Landlords benefited from the fact that the potato did not deplete the soil and allowed a larger percentage of the estate to be devoted to grain crops for export to England.

 

Higher prices encouraged the cultivation of new lands and the more intense use of existing farmlands. A primary input into this increased production was the Irish peasant who was in most cases nothing more than a landless serf. Likewise, the population growth rate did slow in response to reduced levels of protectionism in the decade prior to the Famine.

 

This artificial stimulus to the Irish population was secure with English landlords in control of Parliament. However, English manufacturers and laborers supported free trade and grew as a political force. With the agitation of the Anti-Corn Law League, the Whigs and Tories agreed in 1845 to reduce protectionist tariffs and the Corn Laws altogether by 1849. The price of wheat plummeted in 1847 ("corn" being British for grains, especially wheat, the prime grain protected under the Corn Laws), falling to a 67-year low.

 

Repeal drastically impacted the capital value of farmland in Ireland and reduced the demand for labor as Irish lands converted from grain production to pasture. It should be clear that while free trade did bring about these changes, the blame for both stimulating prefamine population growth and the subsequent depopulation (the Irish population did not recover until 1951 and net emigration did not end until 1996) rests with English protectionism and the Corn Laws.

 

These price shocks made a population decline inevitable. As emigration became a viable option, many Irish decided to take the long and dangerous journey to the New World rather than the ferryboat to the factories of England.

 

Let us now take a look at the so-called laissez-faire approach that the English applied to the famine and for which Tony Blair apologized. This is important because it forms the backbone of the case that the free market cannot address famine and crisis (also that the IMF and FEMA are all the more necessary today).

 

Far from allowing the market to work, England launched a massive program of government intervention, consisting mainly of building workhouses, most completed just prior to the onset of the Famine.

 

Earlier, the Irish Poor Inquiry had rejected the workhouse as a solution to poverty. In the report, Archbishop Whately — attacked today for his free-market stand — argued that the solution to poverty is investment and charity, but these "radical" findings were rejected by the English who threw out the report and appointed George Nicholls to write a new one.

 

The workhouses, an early version of New Deal make-work programs, only made the problem of poverty worse. A system of extensive public works required heavy taxation on the local economy. The English officials directed money away from projects that would increase productivity and agricultural output into useless road building.

 

Most of these roads began nowhere and ended nowhere. Worse yet, the policy established by Sir Charles Trevelyan to pay below-market wages, which you can well imagine were pretty low, meant that workers earned less in food than the caloric energy they typically expended in working on the roads.

 

The British government opened soup kitchens in 1847 and these were somewhat successful because they mimicked private charity and provided nutrition without requiring caloric exertion or significant tax increases. But the kitchens were quickly ended. Next came a return of the workhouses, but again they could not solve the problem of poverty and hunger. In the summer of 1847, the government raised taxes, a truly callous act.

 

In addition to the fundamental failure of the government programs, workhouses, public works, and soup kitchens tended to concentrate the people into larger groups and tighter quarters. This allowed the main killer of the Famine — disease — to do its evil work.

 

Fewer Irish people had died in the numerous past famines; indeed, the potato blight did not severely afflict most of Europe. What was different in Ireland in the 1840s? The Irish Poor Law crowded out private charity. In previous famines, the Irish and English people had provided extensive charity. But why donate when the taxpayer was taking care of the situation? The English people were heavily taxed to pay for massive welfare programs. The Irish taxpayer was in no position to provide additional charity.

 

Reports concerning English policy towards genuine charity are hard to ignore. One account had the people of Massachusetts sending a ship of grain to Ireland that English authorities placed in storage claiming that it would disturb trade. Another report has the British government appealing to the Sultan of Turkey to reduce his donation from £10,000 to £1,000 in order not to embarrass Queen Victoria who had only pledged £1,000 to relief.

 

Other factors played a role. The Bank Act of 1844 precipitated a financial crisis created by a contraction of money as a more restrictive credit policy replaced a loose one. Taken together these factors support John Mitchel's accusation that "the Almighty sent the potato blight but the English created the Famine."

 

Did the English create the Famine on purpose? This was after all an age of revolution, and the Irish were suspected of plotting yet another revolt. The "Irish Question" was of major importance and many Englishmen agreed with Trevelyan that God had sent the blight and Famine.

 

Ultimately, the question of blame is not as important as the question of cause. Even more importantly, the Famine is a source of great economic errors, such as the claim that famines are the fault of the market and free trade, and that starvation results from laissez-faire policy. Even Karl Marx was heavily influenced by events happening in Ireland as he wrote in London.

 

Ireland was swept away by the economic forces that emanated from one of the most powerful and aggressive states the world had ever known. It suffered not from a fungus (which English scientists insisted was just excessive dampness) but from conquest, theft, bondage, protectionism, government welfare, public works, and inflation.

 

As an American, I am hardly one to consider Mr. Blair's apology. However, if the apology had been for causing the Famine and for the welfare policies that made it so deadly, it would have much more to recommend it.