趙甲濟
애국자들은 이제 새로운 명칭, 새로운 전략, 새로운 조직, 새로운 다짐으로 비상한 사태에 대비하여야 할 것이다. 내일부터 국가 생존투쟁이 시작된다. 진실, 정의, 자유를 핵심 가치로 여기는 체제와 이를 구현하는 문명과 이를 실천하는 교양을 수호하기 위한 투쟁이다. (발췌)
-----------------------------------------------------------
문죄인 정부는 박근혜 대통령으로부터 정권을 사기적 수법으로 탈취한 범죄 집단이다. 민주당은 정권 탈취 사기 집단이다. 이번 대선의 핵심은 이것이었지만, 아무도 이를 문제 삼지 않았다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
나의 책 <촛불 난동은 민주당 주도의 쿠데타였다>(위퍼블 출판, 무료)에서, 나는 이번 탄핵 사태의 초반 설계자가 조응천이라고 주장한 바 있다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
모든게 노무노무 걱정된다
종북주의자들이 모두사면받고
간첩들이 활게치고
사드 반대할 것이며 미군주둔경비 부담반대로
극도로 미국과 관계악화 심지어
철수하게만들 것같다
신용도는 급격히 추락할것이고
경제는 붕괘될거다
기업들 해외이전 급속화 될것이고
일자리는 없어질것이다
세금이 하늘을 찌를 것같고
세계서 왕따 될것이다
국정원 붕괘될 것이고 군사기밀 다넘어갈 것같다
이대로 진짜 좋은건지
국민들의 선택이 옳은건지
내가 틀린건지
잠이 안온다
내가 틀렸기 바랄뿐이다
일본으로 미국으로 망명신청하면 받아줄가?
잠이 안와서 귀화한 조선족의 걱정 늘어나본다
대한민국이 희망이 안보이는건
내가 잘못본 거겠지
박군혜가 원망스럽다
10년 20년뒤에 그리스나 베네수엘라가 보여서다
최악은 베트남식 적화통일이다
[출처] 잠이 안온다. 일베
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
이제 머지 않아 경제적, 정치적 아마겟돈이 시작될 것이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
기업과 이윤이 문제가 아니라, 국가가 문제다.
이윤이란 쌍방 간의 마음 속에 일어나는 교환의 결과이다.
이윤의 역할이 타락한 것은, 사회의 탐욕 지수가 갑자기 상승했기 때문이 아니라, 국가가 시장의 판매자와 소비자 사이에 개입했기 때문이다.
국가가 시장에 개입하는 방법 중의 하나는 공기업을 설립하고 소비자에게 빼앗은 돈을 그 기업에 지급하는 것이다.
국가가 기업의 이윤에 영향을 미치는 또 다른 방법은, 통화를 증발시키는 인플레 정책을 통해, 시장의 과정을 파괴하는 것이다.
Corporations and Profits are not the Problem, the State is.
September 8, 2015
These days, one sometimes hears in nominally libertarian circles (and certainly in more liberal mainstream circles) that war, banking, and, well, most every other industry including food, health insurance, and internet technology, are corrupt so extensively that the leaders of these industries and corporations are “only concerned about their bottom line.” That is, in greed they have transitioned away from serving the customer to focusing solely on padding their wallets and pleasing their shareholders. Hence, inequality and the increasing distinction between rich and poor and the disappearance of the middle class. This narrative confuses the economic issue, for two central aspects of the market economy are overlooked.
First, the above fails to consider the fact that man is no more greedy now than he was 1000, or even 2000, years ago. It is not as if mankind generally progressed along history with a certain low level greed and then, roughly in the 1990’s, we suddenly got super greedy and at various stages since then (such as 2000, 2008, and 2014) we have jumped to all new heights of human greediness. No, mankind has always been greedy. Blaming the troubles of the market economy on greed is a bit like blaming the crashing airplane on gravity. Sure, greed and gravity exist, but they consistent variables that are not useful in describing the problems of struggling markets and falling airplanes.
Second, the narrative fails to appreciate the exact nature of what it means to have a market economy. The idea that corporations and “the rich” have stopped caring about the customer and instead cares about profits is faulty if we are talking about the free market. For in order to make a profit, one must first satisfy the wants of his customer. Aside from the problematic interventions of the State into the market economy, a business profit literally means that the consumers of the business’ product desired the good sold to them more than the money that they had in their wallet. Thus, the customer was seeking his own desires as well and in the process, contributed to the corporation’s bottom line. The corporation’s profit, therefore, was a reward for acting in a way that made the customer happy.
Also relevant, but under-appreciated, is the fact that profit doesn’t necessarily mean money. Austrian-school economist Murray Rothbard noted this in his monumental economic treatise Man, Economy, and State, as he wrote:
Since man is always acting, he must always be engaged in trying to attain the greatest height on his value scale, whatever the type of choice under consideration. There must always be room for improvement in his value scale; otherwise all of man’s wants would be perfectly satisfied, and action would disappear. Since this cannot be the case, it means that there is always open to each actor the prospect of improving his lot, of attaining a value higher than he is giving up, i.e., of making a psychic profit.
Profit, then, is a result of trade that occurs in the minds of both parties. The purchaser of a loaf of bread has traded his $3 for this bread and profited because he placed more value on the bread than he did his dollars; and the opposite was the case for the seller. Both profited, and thus, there is no conflict between the happiness of the consumer and the profit of the corporation, under voluntary and free market conditions.
Such is the nature of the market transaction.
However, the role of profits become corrupted, not by a sudden and inexplicable rise in society’s greed levels, but by the means of state intervention into the market relationship between buyer and seller. The State’s impact in producing profits for those who would not have otherwise earned them can be recognized in a number of different ways. One way is more obvious of the two I will mention, and it is when the Government hires a company to provide a service for itself, and pays this company out of the money that was previously taxed, that is, taken from the consumers involuntarily. It is important to note that this is not a moral statement; the economic nature of the tax is distinct from the payments voluntary agreed to by the consumer on the market. Under the market conditions, as described above, the consumer is making a choice about the specific good that is being transferred to him and thus, his decision informs the selling business that the good, and the price, was satisfactory. However, under State-provision of goods and services, there is no expression of consumer desires and thus whether or not the good was satisfactory is unknown. Therefore, certain companies who are paid by the State can make a profit without satisfying the desires of the consumers in society.
The second “way” that the State influences the profits of certain corporations in society over against the desires of the consumers is far more reprehensible; partially because most people don’t even recognize that it is happening. In fact, it is this means toward wealth that is the most destructive in a given economy and has been the cause of Western economic demise in the 20th and 21st century. I am talking here of the destruction of the market process via inflation; that is, artificial increases in the supply of money and credit by way of central banking. The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States and has been since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The result of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policy is a massive occurrence of distorted market signals which causes capital flows to be directed to the wrong places in the economy. For example, as the supply of money is increased, there is more credit that can be loaned out to businesses for their various projects. The increase in the supply of loanable funds drives down the price of those funds; this price, the price of money, is known as the interest rate and is the most important price in the entire economy. To distort this is to distort everything. Rather than letting the market, the buyers and sellers, determine the interest rate price level via their time preferences, the banks, because they are allowed to do so by the central bank which sets their lending policies, essentially expand their loans and push down the interest rates. Businesses, seeing a profitable opportunity to invest in longer term projects than they were originally able to, take advantage of the situation and borrow at the low rates.
But the low rates did not stem from the market decision-makers, but rather from the decision of the Federal Reserve. One of the fundamental principles of economics is that prices and the allocation of resources must always come from the supply and demand of buyers and sellers because only they, in pursuing their individual wants, can lead to the accuracy in capital flows and price levels. The central planners do not have this extremely important knowledge. The Central Bank then, which is protected by the legal pronouncements of the State, is the cause of capital flowing to places where it should not be. Thus, again, we are in a situation where certain business are profiting even though they have not satisfied the desires of their consumers in the same way that would have taken place under free market conditions.
This is the cause of the destabilization of the markets, the apparent economic boom that will always end in a tragic and harmful bust. There was a disrupting influence in the structure of production that led business to make unsustainable decisions, thereby wasting scarce capital on projects that could both never be completed and are also actually unprofitable. Everything seems great until the boom peters out the the economic depression sets in. This is a very basic overview of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which explains the existence of booms and busts; false prosperity, followed by recession.
After the boom and bust of the 1990’s, rather than letting the bust fully take place and letting the markets stabilize, the Federal Reserve, under the direction of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, decided to increase the money supply even more, thereby propping up another boom, which led to the financial and real estate crash of 2008. And again, this time with Bernanke at the helm, the markets were not allowed to recover, but instead we got a tremendously dangerous bailout (TARP), which once again propped up the stock market. And since that decision, the United State’s economy has been propped up by various rounds of “QE” (Quantitative Easing AKA more money printing) that has caused billions of dollars to go flooding into Wall Street and making the billionaires out of millionaires. Yes, there are plenty of people profiting from the Great Wall Street Party of the 21st century, all the while Main Street sits on life support, drowning in debt and without the economic productivity that produces jobs on which they depend. The Federal Reserve, backed by the strong arm of the State, has caused the greatest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen. And this is something it simply could not do without the help and protection of the Federal Government.
Corporations and profits aren’t the problem. It is State power which is the source of our economic woes. The Federal Reserve would be nothing without the State.
by C.Jay Engel
-------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
경제학자 보몰의 학문적 업적
William Baumol, RIP
05/05/2017•Matthew McCaffrey
William Baumol, former professor of economics at Princeton and NYU, has passed away at the age of 95. Throughout his long career he contributed to many fields in economics, and he leaves behind an influential body of research on numerous topics relating to innovation and economic growth. He will mostly likely be remembered by Austrians, however, for his repeated calls to economists for more research on the role of the entrepreneur—calls that, sadly, have gone mostly unanswered.
Baumol was not an Austrian as such, but he did make a number of contributions to economics that Austrians take seriously, especially in the field of entrepreneurship. In particular, his 1990 paper, “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive” is commonly cited in Austrian circles, and remains one of the most influential contributions to the field of economics and institutions. In it, Baumol provides a concise explanation of how institutions channel entrepreneurial talent in society. As he explains, for many centuries and in many different countries, poor institutions, especially in government, rewarded “unproductive” entrepreneurship in areas like politics while penalizing “productive” entrepreneurship in service to consumers. As a result, innovation and growth were uncommon and standards of living were low for most of human history. (For those interested in exploring this work further, I’ve written a survey of Baumol’s argument and its influence, which can be found here, and I’ve also applied his argument to an entrepreneurial episode in economic history, here.)
In addition, much of Baumol’s other research is also relevant in one way or another for contemporary Austrians, including his work on “contestable markets,” which he developed as a more realistic alternative to the perfect competition model. As Mateusz Machaj explains, there are opportunities for Austrians to revise and refine Baumol’s theory of contestable markets in order to use it as a basis for understanding entrepreneurial competition and the effects of government intervention.
On another note, Austrians have often suggested Baumol as a potential contender for the Nobel Prize, an award he never managed to receive. In fact, many argued that the prize would be jointly award to Baumol and Israel Kirzner for their individual contributions on the topic of entrepreneurship. Now that Baumol has passed away, however, this particular pairing is not to be. Yet it’s worth noting that Baumol’s chances of receiving a Nobel, at least in the past few years, were increasingly slim. At the age of 95, he was already older than any previous winner, including economist Leonid Hurwicz, who, at 90, remains the oldest Nobel laureate in any category. It’s therefore likely that Baumol’s moment had passed.
In any case, Baumol will surely be remembered as a lively voice in the economics profession, especially through his vital role in supporting the study of entrepreneurship, not to mention his original contributions to that study. He deserves to be listed among the most influential entrepreneurship scholars in the history of economics, along with Richard Cantillon, Jean-Baptiste Say, Frank Knight, Ludwig von Mises, and, especially in Baumol’s case, Joseph Schumpeter
매슈 맥카프리가 쓴 논문
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2963622
----------------------------------------------------------
인플레란 가격 인상이 아니라 통화 공급의 증가를 뜻한다.
The Connection Between Money-Supply Growth and Inflation
05/05/2017•Frank Shostak
In the article “Rapid money supply growth does not cause inflation” written by Richard Vague at the Institute for New Economic Thinking, December 2, 2016, the author argues that empirical evidence shows that increases in money supply has nothing to do with inflation. According to Vague,
Monetarist theory, which came to dominate economic thinking in the 1980s and the decades that followed, holds that rapid money supply growth is the cause of inflation. The theory, however, fails an actual test of the available evidence. In our review of 47 countries, generally from 1960 forward, we found that more often than not high inflation does not follow rapid money supply growth, and in contrast to this, high inflation has occurred frequently when it has not been preceded by rapid money supply growth.
Now Vague defines inflation as, three or five consecutive years of increases in the consumer price index (CPI) of 5% or more. Based on this he has concluded that an increase in the money supply does not cause inflation.
The main problem here is that inflation is not changes in prices but rather changes in money supply. The fact that Vague could not find strong correlation between increases in money supply M2 and changes in the CPI does not prove much.
To begin with the price of a good is the amount of dollars paid for the good. If the growth rate of money is 5% and the growth rate of goods is also 5% then there will not be any increase in the prices of goods. If one were to follow that inflation is the increase in the CPI then one will conclude that despite the increase in money supply by 5% inflation is 0%.
However, if we were to follow the definition that inflation is about increases in the money supply then we will conclude that inflation is 5%.
So how are we to decide about the correct definition of inflation? Is it about increases in the money supply or increases in prices?
The Essence of Inflation
The purpose of a definition is to present the essence, the distinguishing characteristic of the subject we are trying to identify. A definition is to tell us what the fundamentals of a particular entity are. To define a thing we need to go to the origin of how it has emerged.
Historically inflation originated when a country’s ruler such as the king would force his citizens to give him all their gold coins under the pretext that a new gold coin was going to replace the old one. In the process the king would falsify the content of the gold coins by mixing it with some other metal and return diluted gold coins to the citizens. On this Rothbard wrote,
More characteristically, the mint melted and recoined all the coins of the realm, giving the subjects back the same number of “pounds” or “marks,” but of a lighter weight. The leftover ounces of gold or silver were pocketed by the King and used to pay his expenses.
On account of the dilution of the gold coins, the ruler could now mint a greater amount of coins and pocket for his own use the extra coins minted. What was now passing as a pure gold coin was in fact a diluted gold coin.
The increase in the number of coins brought about by the dilution of gold coins is what inflation is all about.
Note that what we have here is an inflation of coins, i.e., an expansion of coins. As a result of inflation, the ruler can engage in an exchange of nothing for something (he can engage in an act of diverting resources from citizens to himself).
Under the gold standard, the technique of abusing the medium of exchange became much more advanced through the issuance of paper money un-backed by gold. Inflation therefore means an increase in the amount of receipts for gold on account of receipts that are not backed by gold yet masquerade as the true representatives of money proper, gold.
The holder of un-backed receipts can now engage in an exchange of nothing for something. What we have is a situation where the issuers of the un-backed paper receipts divert real goods to themselves without making any contribution to the production of goods.
In the modern world money proper is no longer gold but rather paper money; hence inflation in this case is an increase in the stock of paper money.
Observe that we don’t say as monetarists are saying that the increase in the money supply causes inflation. What we are saying is that inflation is the increase in the money supply.
If we were to accept that inflation is increases in the money supply then we will reach the conclusion that inflation results in the diversion of real wealth from wealth generators toward the holders of newly printed money. We will also reach the conclusion that monetary pumping, i.e., inflation is bad news for the wealth generating process. No empirical study is required to confirm or to refute this.
As we have shown in the example at the beginning increases in the money supply need not always to be followed by general increases in prices. Prices are determined by both real and monetary factors. Consequently, it can occur that if the real factors are pulling things in an opposite direction to monetary factors, no visible change in prices might take place. In other words, while money growth is buoyant, prices might display low increases.
------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기