물을 잘못 다스리면 망하는 수가 있다!
조갑제

'녹조라떼'라는 선동에 대통령이 넘어가면 물에 당할지도 모른다.

 2. 문제를 제기하는 이들은 사대강 주변에 살아 보지 않은 학자, 기자, 정치인이다. 짧은 지식과 관념으로 자연현상을 멋대로 裁斷하는 게 아닌가?
    

 6. 대통령이 아무리 막강해도 과학에 이길 순 없다. 자연에 명령을 내릴 수도 없다. "보를 열터이니 당장 깨끗해져라!"-이런 명령이 통할까?

 

----> 탈레브의 <skin in the game>이 생각난다. 탁상에서 환경 운동을 하는 몇몇 극성스런 인간들은, 보를 개방한 후에 가뭄이 닥쳐도, 자신들은 아무 피해도 입지 않는 그런 사람들이다. 따라서 그들은 아무 개소리나 지껄일 수가 있다.

 

 

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

국정원은 파리나 잡으려는 것인가?

 

 

문재인 대통령에 의하여, 국정원장 후보로 추천된 서훈은 국회 정보위원회 인사 청문회에서, "국정원장이 되면, 문 대통령의 위 공약을 이행할 것인지 여부를 묻는 야당 의원의 질문에 대하여, 대공 수사권 폐지와 국내 정보 수집 업무 폐지를 약속한 공약이 반드시 이행되도록 하겠다."고 답변하였다.

  대공 수사권과 국내 정보 수집 업무를 폐지하겠다는 얘기는, 암약중인 남파 공작원들과 우리 사회와 정부 기관 내에서 숨어 있을지도 모르는 김정은 집단에게 충성을 맹세한 노동당원을 색출하고 체포하는 업무를 하지 않겠다는 자기 고백인 것이다. 원장이란 사람이 국정원의 기본 업무를 하지 않겠다고 공공연히 다짐하고 있으니 국기를 흔드는 직무유기가 아닌가! (조약돌, 조갑제닷컴 발췌)

 

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

   男子失精，女子夢交를 치료하는 계지가용골모려탕  

 

桂枝加龍骨牡蠣湯

 

[組成用法]

桂枝10～15g、芍藥15～20g、甘草5～10g、生薑10g、大棗12枚、龍骨]5～20g、牡蠣20～30g。水煎服，日三次。

[方證]

1．胸腹動悸、易驚、失眠多夢。

2． 自汗、盜汗。

3．脈浮大而無力，舌質嫩紅、苔少。

 

[現代應用]

1．以心胸動悸感，驚恐不安，失眠多夢爲主證的疾病：如室性心動過速、心肌炎、功能性早搏、甲亢、神經衰弱、癔病、癫痫、精神分裂症、失眠等。

2．汗出異常症：自汗、盜汗、偏沮（半身出汗）。

3．一些兒科疾病可見本方證，如小兒肺炎、佝偻病、遺尿、小兒睡眠多汗症、夜啼等。

4．其他疾病如男子不育症、陽痿、早洩、遺精、前列腺增生、陰冷、女子夢交、産後血崩、帶下、脫發、荨麻疹、奔豚病、支氣管哮喘、肺氣腫、慢性胃炎、消化性潰瘍、更年期綜合征等也有應用本方的機會。

 

[經驗參考]

桂枝加龍骨牡蠣湯在兒科疾病應用的機會比較多．如魏如恢治療一例小兒肺炎，患兒2歲，使用抗生素及氨茶堿後，汗出不止，曾注射阿托品，當時汗雖止，藥效消失後又大汗淋漓。面色蒼白，咳嗽氣喘，汗出淋漓，四肢欠溫，消瘦神倦，舌淡而嫩。拟桂枝加龍骨牡蠣湯，重用龍骨牡蠣，另加紫菀、川貝母。服三劑後諸症消失（江西中醫藥，1985；4：64）。胡義保用本方治療小兒睡眠多汗症56例，病程最長6年，最短3個月。用桂枝加龍骨牡蠣湯加昧，随證加黃耆、太子參、五味子、白朮、麻黃根。痊癒38例，好轉11例，無效5例（河南中醫；5：26）。

 

對男科病的治療，也常用到本方。如《張氏醫通》載治少腹急痛，便溺失精，溲出白液者。編者治一位男性青年患者，素質孱弱，是個白面書生。患者列腺炎，睾丸疼痛、遺精，多夢、盜汗，專科屢投清熱活血劑不效，視其形瘦目睛精採外露，舌嫩紅苔少，脈大無力，投桂枝加龍骨牡蠣湯加五味子、芡實、蓮須，三劑即寐安、汗止，續服30餘劑痊癒（黃煌，《中醫十大類方》，1995年）。吳有超用本方加味治男性不育症25例，包括精子數量不足、不射精等。臨證根據病情加味：濕阻精竅加滑行、車前子等，瘀阻精竅加穿山甲、王不留行等，療效滿意（吉林中醫藥，1995；3：25）。

 

“男子失精，女子夢交”爲《金匱要略》中本方的主治病證，而失精常見，夢交難睹。下面一例夢交症，很有代表性：一女，34歲。入夜每與人交，天明始去，已四五年，誤爲“狐仙”，羞愧難言。初則不以爲然，久則心悸膽怯，延期失治，病情日重。避卧于鄰家，仍糾纏不散。形體消瘦困倦乏力，少氣懶言，頭暈眼花，腰膝酸軟，帶下多清稀，舌質淡紅，苔薄白，脈細弱。用桂枝18g、白芍、龍骨各20g，甘草、生薑各9g、生牡蠣30g、紅棗7枚。5劑後，渚證消除（徐伯倫，浙江中醫雜誌，1984；1：46）。

 

以上案例，都應與“失精家”的特殊體質類型有關。臨床上的許多疑難雜症，隻要見到桂枝加龍骨牡蠣湯證，用之多效，如編者曾治療陸某，男，57歲，2003年12月8口就診。西醫診斷爲：骨髓增生性病變伴骨髓纖維化。現症：化療後，午後至夜間發熱38°C以上，伴頭暈、汗出，面色痿黃，舌淡苔少，脈芤。西醫抗菌治療發熱不退，前來求治。予桂枝加龍骨牡蠣湯加黨參五劑，囑其服後啜粥取汗。第一頓藥後腹痛，大便量很多，微汗出，體溫降至正常。随訪，體溫一直正常。

 

本方是桂枝湯的加味方，因此適用于在桂枝湯證的基礎上，出現更嚴重的動悸、氣上衝，表現爲胸腹部的搏動感、易驚恐不安、失眠、睡眠淺、多夢、自汗、咨汗。“失精家，少腹弦急，陰頭寒，目眩發落”。是張仲景對適用這張方的人的體質描述。在臨床中可以看作是桂枝體質的一種，即膚白體瘦，外表柔弱，皮膚細膩，小腹腹直肌緊張，腹主動脈搏動亢進，易心悸頭暈；汗出、失眠多夢。決定本方能否應用還應參考脈象和舌象。脈必見浮露，大而無力，若沉細沉實或大而有力，均不是本方脈象；舌質嫩紅、濕潤、苔薄白者可用，若舌質暗紅堅老、淡白胖大，舌苔黃膩、焦乾、厚膩者均應慎用。

 

睡眠狀況不佳是應用本方重要的依據，臨證時應進行詳細詢問。包括不易入睡、睡眠淺、夢多，或亂夢紛紛，或作噩夢、容易驚醒、夢遺、夢交。桂枝加龍骨牡蠣湯的加味藥多爲黃耆、五味子、酸棗仁、郁金、遠誌、白薇、山萸肉等。不宜過多，随證選取一兩味即可。

 

[原文點睛]

夫失精家，少腹弦急，歷頭寒，目眩發落，脈極虛芤遲，爲清谷，亡血，失材。脈得諸芤動微緊，男子失精，女子夢交，桂枝加龍骨牡蠣湯主之。（《全匱要略》第六篇第八條）

桂枝、芍藥、生薑各三兩、甘草；兩、大棗十二枚、龍骨、牡蠣各三兩。上七味，以水七升，煮去三升。分溫三服。

 

[注論精選]

尤在涇：桂枝湯能補虛調陰陽，加龍骨牡蠣者，以失精夢交，爲神情間病，非此不足以收斂其浮越也（《金匱要略心典》）。

徐忠可：桂枝芍藥通陽固陰，甘草薑棗和中上焦之營衛，使陽能生陰。而以安腎寧心之龍骨牡蠣爲輔陰之主，後世喜用膠麥而臣薑桂，豈知陰凝之氣，非陽不能化耶（《金匱要略論注》）。

張路玉：夫亡血失精，皆虛勞内固之證，舉世皆用滋補氣血之藥，而仲景獨與桂枝湯，其義何居?蓋人身之氣血全賴後天水谷以資生，水谷入胃，其清者爲榮，濁者爲衛，榮氣不榮則上焦熱而血溢，衛氣不衛則下焦寒而精亡，是以調和營衛爲主。榮衛和，則三焦各司其職，而火自歸根，熱者不熱，寒者不寒，水谷之精微輸化，而血液之源有賴矣。以其亡脫既憤，恐下焦虛脫不禁，乃加龍骨牡蠣以固斂之（《金匱衍義》）。

 

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

 

 

현재의 경제적 영향 평가에는 경제학이 없다

 

프랑스의 바스티아는 이렇게 지적했다.

“나쁜 경제학자와 좋은 경제학자의 유일한 차이는, 나쁜 경제학자가 보이는 효과에만 스스로를 가두는데 반해, 좋은 경제학자는 보이는 효과와 반드시 예견되어야 할 효과를 모두 고려한다는 것이다.

 

There Ain’t no Economics in Economic Impact Studies

 

•Roy Cordato

 

 

Real Economic Impact Analysis: “the seen and the unseen”

 

To properly assess the impact of any economic activity, whether it’s building a convention center or sports stadium or installing a vast solar power plant, it must first be understood that the project will yield directly observable activities that one can reasonably expect to occur and there will be economic activities that don’t occur but otherwise would. By definition, these impacts, while real, are not directly observable.

 

The second category is what economists call opportunity costs. Opportunity costs are the result of the fact that all economic activity uses scarce resources that, under normal conditions, would be used for other purposes had the project under consideration not occurred. Opportunity costs, while real, are by their nature related to resource uses that are diverted from economic activities that would otherwise be pursued and are therefore unseen.

 

Any economic impact study that does not attempt to assess these opportunity costs cannot legitimately be called economic analysis. In fact, not attempting to take account of the latter is considered to be the biggest mistake that non-economists make when thinking about economic issues. As the nineteenth-century economist Frederic Bastiat famously pointed out: “There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist considers both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.”

 

 

For example, let’s imagine that a local government decides that it wants to spend $20 million on constructing a convention center to serve both the local community and possibly outside groups who might use the facility for meetings or conferences. In general, what would a true economic impact study have to take into consideration? Of course, the study would look first at “the seen,” that is, the effect of the $20 million expenditure on the industries that might be directly impacted, such as the construction industry, local suppliers of materials and equipment, labor demand in these industries, etc. These would be immediate effects as the construction begins and is carried out to completion. Of course, local restaurants and hotels might benefit and therefore increase their output as a result of this new business. If labor is paid more in these industries, then these workers will go out and spend some of that money increasing the demand for other products. These are often called ripple or secondary effects of the $20 million expenditure,and they are what are typically called the “multiplier” effect of the initial spending.

 

The point is that, at least conceptually, these activities actually occur and can be seen. But what must be realized is that none of them is free. Every dollar that is spent as these “impacts” occur and every resource that is used, including labor, has an unseen opportunity cost. Starting with the original $20 million, the question is simple. What economic activities would have occurred if that money remained in the hands of the taxpayer? It would have been spent on various goods and services or saved in local banks and therefore would have had an economic impact that would also have had secondary effects associated with it. This would have to be subtracted from the visible effects.

 

During the process of building the convention center, as discussed, local resources will be used. For example, the demand for labor will increase which means that for some, wages will be increased in the process of bidding labor away from other possible uses. Some local industries unrelated to the construction of the convention center will see their costs rise and will either contract their business or reduce investment in future expansion. This means that other workers, again those not related to the construction of the convention center, will see a reduction in the demand for their services over what it otherwise would be and would face the prospect of lower wages.

 

The point to be made here is that this would occur while the visible ripple or secondary effects that are being analyzed are occurring. What needs to be understood is that the measurements of visible effects are actually describing how the building of the convention center, or any similar project, is absorbing resources away from other economic activities. A true assessment of the economic impact of this or any other project would have to estimate the losses due to these unseen activities and subtract them from the values associated with the seen activities. (발췌)

 

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

 

 

중소 제조업 종사자들이 한국 공뭔들 먹여 살린다

 

박봉에 일도 가장 많이함

 

라인이 돌면 한눈팔 시간도 없음

 

세금도 말없이 꼬박꼬박 잘냄 특별한 기술이나 스펙 없어 부려먹기 딱이지

 

베네수엘라는 넘치는 자원으로 갱생 가능하나

 

한국은 제조,경공업 무너지면 그냥 나가리임

 

지금도 동남아국가들 값싼 인건비를 무기로 한국을 바짝 따라붙고 있음

 

참고로 울동네 소방서 놀러가면 하루종일 놀고 먹음

 

몇가구 안되는 동네에 소방서 존나게 크고 차 다섯대정도에

 

직원 20명정도 근무함

 

3교대면 4~50명 돼겠지

 

 

 

 

면사무소 가면 동네 어르신 보다 주민센터 직원이 더 많음 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

 

하루 한명 정도 방문할까 말까임 ㅋ

 

동네서 어르신들 잔치나 소,돼지 잡으면 직원들 초대하고 실컷먹이고

 

어제는 숭어 회무침해서 점심에 가져다줌

 

동네 살면서 소방차 출동 하는거 기억에 없음

 

이렇게 노는 공무원들이 넘치는데 70만명을 늘려?

 

재미지노

 

게이들아 한달만 시골 살아 봐라

 

경로당 호텔급에 먹을거 넘쳐나고 복지 최고다

 

빨리 늙었으면 좋겠다

 

[출처] 한국은 제조업으로 먹고 사는 나라임/ 일베

 

 

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

구글 검색에서 일베가 사라졌다고 한다. 일베를 쳐도 일베가 뜨지 않는다. 구글은 여기에 대해 아무 설명도 하지 않고 있는데, 이런 일은 정부가 개입하지 않으면 일어날 수가 없다.

구글은 일찍이 중국 정부의 정치적 압력을 거부하고 중국에서 퇴출한 전력이 있다. 그런데 이번에는 한국 정부의 부당한 압력에 굴복한 듯 하다. 계속해서 구글에서 일베가 검색되지 않는다면, 이건 심각한 정치적 문제이다.

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

Niall Ferguson‏

 

The title of "true leader of the western world" was bestowed on Merkel prematurely, says @gideonrachman. I agree.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/dc911cb8-4449-11e7-8519-9f94ee97d996

 

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

 

안아키라는 인터넷 카페가 있어서 약을 쓰지 않고 아이를 키운다고 하다가 법망에 걸린 모양이다. 이 카페의 설립자가 한의사라고 하는데, 약을 쓰지 않는 게 한의학의 기본 정신은 아니다.  

 

 그보다 한의학은 약을 쓰거나 침을 놓거나 기타 안마 등의 방법을 써서 우리 몸의 음양오행을 정상으로 되돌려 놓는 역할을 하는 것이다. 문제가 생겼을 때, 절대 자연 그대로가 좋다는 주의가 아니다.

 

또 설립자가 수두 파티를 원한다고 했는데, 한의학은 적극적으로 수두를 치료하는 편이지, 그냥 바라보며 파티를 하지는 않는다.

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

 

 

"This Market Is Crazy": Hedge Fund Returns Hundreds Of Millions To Clients Citing Imminent "Calamity"

 

 by Tyler Durden

 

"We think that there is too much risk in this market at the moment, we think it's crazy," Altair CIO Philip Parker said: "valuations are stretched, property is massively overstretched... Let me tell you I've never been more certain of anything in my life."

 

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

 자유의 진정한 의미

 자유란 한 사람의 신체나 사유재산을 타인이 침범하지 않는 것이다.

Memorial Day and the Meaning of Freedom

 

•Jeff Deist

 

 

Memorial Day provides the political class countless opportunities to ruin an otherwise thoroughly enjoyable holiday weekend. Like clockwork, local congressmen, mayors, city council members, et al. materialize at parades, picnics, and churches to give speeches about "freedom."

 

But what does freedom really mean?

 

Just as we should repudiate Junk English in economics, we should demand precision when it comes to the language of political posturing! In other words, we should insist that politicians use defined terms (I'm not holding my breath).

 

In essence, freedom is the absence of state coercion. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less.

 

Dr. Ron Paul explains this coercive reality behind those invoking freedom while advocating state action:

 

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn't be called taxes, they'd be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

 

Taking this definition a step further, Hans-Hermann Hoppe describes a free society as the absence of aggression against one's body and property:

 

A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or "homestead" previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples' property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions.

 

In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard similarly defined freedom as the "absence of invasion by another man of any man's person or property" (italics in original).

   

This encapsulates the critical libertarian concept of negative liberty, as opposed to the view of positive liberty in the form of mastery over one's person and surroundings generally favored by "progressives."

 

This definition of freedom is fundamental. It means free people should be able to use their minds, bodies, and talents to advance their well-being (whether material, intellectual, or spiritual) as they see fit. It does not mean they can demand freedom from material want, or scarcity, or illness, or unhappiness, or unpleasantness generally. It does not mean anyone owes them housing, medical care, food, or a "living wage." It means, in sum, the freedom to be left alone. And this is precisely what the political class of all stripes cannot abide.

 

Originally published on Mises Daily 5/24/2014

 

 

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

고용 창출이 중요한 게 아니라, 가치를 창조하는 게 중요하다.

 

고용은 그 자체로 목적이 아니다. 보다도 그것은 생활의 수준을 높이기 위한 수단일 뿐이다. 그리고 자유 시장에서 고용은 가치를 창조하는 과정이다. 직업은 소비자들의 욕구와 필요가 가격 체계를 통해 표현될 때 나타난다.

노동자의 임금은 그가 창조하는데 일조한 추가적 부(富)의 반영이다. 하지만 정부가 창조한 직업은 이런 부의 창조 과정이 없다. 그보다 그것은 납세자의 돈을 걷어서 정부 고용 프로그램의 수혜자에게 갖다 줄 뿐이다.

 

We Don't Need to Create Jobs — We Need to Create Value

 

 

•Robert Fellner

 

 

An influential left-wing think tank has called for the government to create millions of jobs for those without a college degree, leading to headlines like The Nation’s declaration that “It’s Time for the Government to Give Everyone a Job.”

 

One fatal flaw of such a plan was exposed in the comments section of that article, when a commentator named Ira Dember pointed out the perverse incentives that would result if the government guaranteed jobs to only those without a college degree.

 

Namely, that there is little incentive to undertake the expense of going to college in the hopes of finding employment, when the government will guarantee employment to only those who choose to eschew higher education!

 

But the underlying notion of this proposal — that the government can solve poverty by creating jobs for those unable to find work — is riddled with economic fallacies.

 

The logic underpinning a government-jobs program was best epitomized by an advocate who declared that, “The goal in and of itself is job creation. You create the job to fit the person.”

 

But employment is not an end in and of itself. Rather, it is a means to an end: namely the increased standard of living that the worker obtains by trading his labor for wages.

 

In a free market, employment is a value creation process — with jobs stemming from the wants and needs of consumers as conveyed through the price system.

 

It is this productive nature of free-market jobs that make them desirable and capable of increasing a worker’s standard of living.

 

Wages spring directly from, and are proportional to, the degree in which a job creates wealth by helping to satisfy an unmet need. As is the case for all mutually-agreeable trades in a free market, both sides gain and wealth is created: the worker receives wages that he values more than his labor and the consumer receives a product or service he values more than its price.

 

In other words, a worker’s wages are reflective of the additional wealth he helped create, which enables his newly improved standard of living.

 

Because government-created jobs are devoid of this wealth creation process, they are merely a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the program’s beneficiaries.

 

 

This is made clear by taking the argument to its logical conclusion and considering a government proposal that paid one set of workers to dig ditches and the other set to fill them back in. While there would be a virtually unlimited number of jobs that could be created under such a program, there is clearly no value creation of any kind.

 

Thus, a government-mandated job omits the very thing that makes employment desirable in the first place — value creation.

 

But it’s even worse than that.

 

As the great Frédéric Bastiat taught us, we need to also consider that which is unseen.

 

Every government-created job takes resources away from a private sector job that could have been created otherwise. Even worse, since the government is incapable of possessing the knowledge necessary to determine the most productive means of employment, the trade of one government job for a private sector one will almost always result in a significant loss of value.

 

Moreover, with a guiding principle that jobs are an end unto themselves, the government is strongly incentivized to engage in the most wasteful projects possible, as those would require greater levels of employment than a more efficient alternative.

 

While a government job would certainly benefit those currently unemployed in the short term, they too stand to lose in the long run.

 

The longer these workers stay in make-shift jobs, the less opportunity they have to develop skills that have actual value, a harm that compounds over time.

 

The best thing the government can do to help those struggling to find work is to get out of the way. Repeal cronyist occupational licensing laws that lower wages and reduce employment. Stop imposing a one-size fits all monopoly form of education that is poorly suited for preparing students for today’s rapidly changing and dynamic job market. Repeal and reduce anti-business taxes and regulations so that entrepreneurs can get back to their work of making us all richer.

 

A government-jobs program would only make worse a problem that is, for the most part, the result of government intervention.

 

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

조혜령 해금연주 달빛 (박소혜 작곡)

https://youtu.be/iHHRTvejexg

劉天華 月夜 二胡演奏

https://youtu.be/bO_ORWoJDSA

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