文 대통령은 '조세 정의(正義)'의 定義를 다시 세워야 할 듯
'지지율 높을 때'라는 명분만으로 지지율에 큰 영향을 주지 않는 소수 특정 계층에 불이익을 준다는 것은 세금마저 인민재판으로 걷겠다는 것과 다를 바 없다고 본다.
(證人, 조갑제닷컴 발췌)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
더러운당에서조차도 한명숙이같은 파렴치범도 무죄라고 항변하고 이석기같은 국가반역범도 양심수라고 감싸고 돌아도 그런일로 정치적부담은 커녕 오히려 의리만점이라고 세력만 확장 되더군요,
하물며 눈곱만큼의 실수를 침소봉대해서 탄핵까지 몰려간 박근혜논란에 정치적부담을 걱정 하다니요, 그래갖고서야 한국당이 쪽박신세 면하겠습니까?
출처 :조선일보
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
이제는 경제정책의 기본 틀을 뒤집는다고 한다. 경제성장으로 소득을 늘리는 것이 아니라 세금으로 소득을 늘려 경제를 성장시킨다고 한다. 일부 계층에게 세금을 나눠 줘 분배를 개선한다는 것은 들어본 얘기이지만 그걸로 경제성장까지 한다니 무슨 마술인가 싶다. 성공하면 문재인 정부가 단체로 노벨 경제학상을 받아야 할 것 같다.
몇해 전 ILO(국제노동기구) 소속 좌파 학자들이 '임금 주도 성장'이란 것을 주장했고 이것을 국내에 번역 소개한 사람이 지금 청와대 경제수석이다. 문 대통령이 여기에 빠져 세미나도 했다고 한다. 이들이 마침내 자신들이 신봉하는 이론을 전 국민을 상대로 실험해볼 수 있게 됐다.
출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/07/26/2017072603436.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
지난 20일 서울남부지법은 '닻은 올랐다' '혁명의 여명' 등의 이적 표현물을 인터넷에 게시한 혐의로 기소된 '노동자의 책' 대표 이모(50)씨에게 무죄를 선고했다.
출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/07/27/2017072700081.html
---> 한국 사회에 정말로 좌파 혁명의 여명이 밝았고, 혁명을 향한 항해에 닻이 올랐다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
문죄인은 세월호로 죽은 아이들에게 가서 "고맙다"고 하고, 또 다른 년놈들은 문상 가서 엄지 척 하며 히죽거린다. 참 기가 막힌 세상이다. 시체팔이에 잘 이용해서 고맙고, 반일 선동에 잘 써먹어서 엄치 척!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of fragility helped put some rigor around the notion that the only effective judge of things is time –by things we mean ideas, people, intellectual productions, car models, scientific theories, books, etc.
사물의 유일하고도 가장 효율적인 판관(判官)은 시간이다. 여기서 사물이란 생각, 사람들, 지적 생산물, 자동차 모델, 과학 이론, 책 등을 가리킨다. --- 나심 탈레브의 An Expert Called Lindy 중에서
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knowing “economics” doesn’t mean in the academic lingo knowing anything about economics in the sense of the real activity, but the theories produced by economists. ---출처 위와 동일
학계의 전문 용어로 '경제학'을 안다는 건 실질적으로 움직이는 경제에 대해 안다는 게 아니라, 다른 경제학자들이 만들어낸 이론을 안다는 뜻이다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While our knowledge of physics has not been available to the ancients, human nature was. So everything that hold in social science and psychology has to be Lindy-proof, that is, have an antecedent in the classics; otherwise it will not replicate or not generalize beyond the experiment. By classics we can define the Latin (& late Hellenistic) moral literature (moral sciences meant something else than they do today): Cicero, Seneca, M. Aurelius, Epictetus, Lucian, or the poets: Juvenal, Horace or the later French so-called “moralists” (La Rochefoucault, Vaugenargues, La Bruyere, Chamfort). Bossuet is a class on his own. One can use Montaigne and Erasmus as a portal to the ancients: Montaigne was the popularizer of his day; Erasmus was the thorough compiler. --출처 위와 동일
사회과학이나 심리학의 지식들은 고전 속에 선례(先例)가 있어야 한다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madness of Crowds: Nietzsche: Madness is rare in individuals, but in groups, parties, nations, it is the rule
니체: 개인에게 나타나는 광기(狂氣)는 드물지만, 집단이나 정당, 국가에서는 광기가 규칙처럼 존재한다.
---한국 사회는 좌파 광기에 사로잡힌 나라가 되었다.
-----------------------------------------------
가난의 진정한 문제는 분배가 아닌 생산의 문제이다. 가난한 사람이 가난한 이유는 그들이 무엇인가를 빼앗겨서 그런 게 아니라, 그들이 충분히 생산하지 않기 때문이다. 따라서 가난을 구제하는 지속적인 방법은 그들의 구매력을 높여주는 것이다.
Why Some People Are Poorer than Others
Henry Hazlitt
This problem is nearly always referred to by socialists as "the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty." The implication of the phrase is not only that such poverty is inexcusable, but that its existence must be the fault of those who have the "plenty." We are most likely to see the problem clearly, however, if we stop blaming "society" in advance and seek an unemotional analysis.
Diverse and International
When we start seriously to itemize the causes of individual poverty, absolute or relative, they seem too diverse and numerous even to classify. Yet in most discussion we do find the causes of individual poverty tacitly divided into two distinct groups — those that are the fault of the individual pauper and those that are not. Historically, many so-called "conservatives" have tended to blame poverty entirely on the poor: they are shiftless, or drunks or bums: "Let them go to work." Most so-called "liberals," on the other hand, have tended to blame poverty on everybody but the poor: they are at best the "unfortunate," the "underprivileged," if not actually the "exploited," the "victims" of the "maldistribution of wealth," or of "heartless laissez faire."
The truth, of course, is not that simple, either way. We may, occasionally, come upon an individual who seems to be poor through no fault whatever of his own (or rich through no merit of his own). And we may occasionally find one who seems to be poor entirely through his own fault (or rich entirely through his own merit). But most often we find an inextricable mixture of causes for any given person's relative poverty or wealth. And any quantitative estimate of fault versus misfortune seems purely arbitrary. Are we entitled to say, for example, that any given individual's poverty is only 1 percent his own fault, or 99 percent his own fault — or fix any definite percentage whatever? Can we make any reasonably accurate quantitative estimate of the percentage even of those who are poor mainly through their own fault, as compared with those whose poverty is mainly the result of circumstances beyond their control? Do we, in fact, have any objective standards for making the separation?
A good idea of some of the older ways of approaching the problem can be obtained from the article on "Poverty" in The Encyclopedia of Social Reform, published in 1897.
Professor Warner converted the number of cases listed under each cause in each study into percentages, wherever this had not already been done; then took an unweighted average of the results obtained in the fifteen studies for each of these "Causes of Poverty as Determined by Case Counting," and came up with the following percentages. First came six "Causes Indicating Misconduct": Drink 11.0 percent, Immorality 4.7, Laziness 6.2, Inefficiency and Shiftlessness 7.4, Crime and Dishonesty 1.2, and Roving Disposition 2.2 — making a total of causes due to misconduct of 32.7 percent.
Professor Warner next itemized fourteen "Causes Indicating Misfortune": Imprisonment of Bread Winner 1.5 percent, Orphans and Abandoned 1.4, Neglect by Relatives 1.0, No Male Support 8.0, Lack of Employment 17.4, Insufficient Employment 6.7, Poorly Paid Employment 4.4, Unhealthy or Dangerous Employment 0.4, Ignorance of English 0.6, Accident 3.5, Sickness or Death in Family 23.6, Physical Defect 4.1, Insanity 1.2, and Old Age 9.6 — making a total of causes indicating misfortune of 84.4 percent.
No Objective Standards
Let me say at once that as a statistical exercise this table is close to worthless, full of more confusions and discrepancies than it seems worth analyzing here. Weighted and unweighted averages are hopelessly mixed. And certainly it seems strange, for example, to list all cases of unemployment or poorly paid employment under "misfortune" and none under personal shortcomings.
Oriented Toward the Future
A provocative thesis has been put forward by Professor Edward C. Banfield of Harvard in his book, The Unheavenly City. He divides American society into four "class cultures": upper, middle, working, and lower classes. These "subcultures," he warns, are not necessarily determined by present economic status, but by the distinctive psychological orientation of each toward providing for a more or less distant future.
At the most future oriented end of this scale, the upper-class individual expects long life, looks forward to the future of his children, grandchildren, even great-grandchildren, and is concerned also for the future of such abstract entities as the community, nation, or mankind. He is confident that within rather wide limits he can, if he exerts himself to do so, shape the future to accord with his purposes. He therefore has strong incentives to "invest" in the improvement of the future situation — e.g., to sacrifice some present satisfaction in the expectation of enabling someone (himself, his children, mankind, etc.) to enjoy greater satisfactions at some future time. As contrasted with this:
The lower class individual lives from moment to moment.
By Merit, or by Luck
In judging any program of relief, our forefathers usually thought it necessary to distinguish sharply between the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor. But this, as we have seen, is extremely difficult to do in practice. And it raises troublesome philosophic problems. We commonly think of two main factors as determining any particular individual's state of poverty or wealth — personal merit, and "luck." "Luck" we tacitly define as anything that causes a person's economic (or other) status to be better or worse than his personal merits or efforts would have earned for him.
We commonly praise people for being energetic or hardworking, and blame them for being lazy or shiftless. But may not these qualities themselves, these differences in degrees of energy, be just as much inborn as differences in physical or mental strength or weakness? In that case, are we justified in praising industriousness or censuring laziness?
What Happens to Incentive
The important question always is the effect of outside aid on incentives. We must remember, on the one hand, that extreme weakness or despair is not conducive to incentive. If we feed a man who has actually been starving, we for the time being probably increase rather than decrease his incentives. But as soon as we give an idle able-bodied man more than enough to maintain reasonable health and strength, and especially if we continue to do this over a prolonged period, we risk undermining his incentive to work and support himself. There are unfortunately many people who prefer near destitution to taking a steady job. The higher we make any guaranteed floor under incomes, the larger the number of people who will see no reason either to work or to save. The cost to even a wealthy community could ultimately become ruinous.
The real problem of poverty is not a problem of "distribution" but of production. The poor are poor not because something is being withheld from them, but because, for whatever reason, they are not producing enough. The only permanent way to cure their poverty is to increase their earning power. 발췌
[The Freeman, 1972.]
----------------------------------------------------
드라마 《쩐칭추어아이 真情错爱》는 汪沛勋이 감독하고, 秦岚、赵亮、冯雷, 罗钢 등이 출연한 남녀애정 드라마이다.
이야기는 여주인공 예진叶瑾과 그녀의 애인 쓰투민司徒敏, 그녀를 손에 넣으려는 구혼자 수용썬苏永森, 그리고 시골의 무지렁이 청년 꺼다니엔葛大年 사이에서 벌어진다.
예진의 아버지는 방직공장의 주임이었고, 투디(徒弟. 중국에는 공장에 들어가면 투디가 되어 시푸師傅를 모시고 일을 배운다.)인 수용썬이 마음에 들어 자신의 딸인 예진을 그와 결혼 시키려 한다. 하지만 예진은 공장에 副과장으로 온 쓰투민과 사랑에 빠지고 아이까지 임신한다.
이에 예진의 아버지도 할 수 없이 둘의 결혼을 승낙하려 하는데, 수용썬이 폭발 사고를 일으킨다. 그 결과 예진의 아버지는 죽고, 쓰투민은 사고를 일으킨 사람으로 지목되어 체포된다. 게다가 쓰투민이 폭발 사고를 일으켰다는 오해에 빠진 예진은 이제 그를 아버지를 죽인 원수로 보고, 그와 만나려 하지도 않는다.
하지만 아이를 지워야 했으므로 그녀는 농촌으로 피신했는데, 거기에서 꺼다니엔이란 조금은 무식하지만 마음이 착한 청년을 만나 그와 결혼을 한다. 그러니까 제목 그대로 추어아이(錯愛, 잘못된 사랑)이 이뤄진 것이다.
이 드라마의 재미는 아름다운 예진이라는 여인이, 쓰투민도 그리고 수용썬도 아닌, 시골의 순박한 청년에게 시집을 가서 자신의 운명을 인정하고 살아가는 과정을, 계속해서 시청자를 끌어당기는 이야기로 연결했다는 것이다.
수용썬 역의 冯雷는 폭발 사고를 일으킨 후 무척 괴로워하고 반성하는데, 시청자인 내가 보기에는 감정이 전달되지 않는다. 아마도 미스 캐스팅이 아닌가 생각된다.
이 드라마의 작가는 유명한 高满堂과 史海伟라는 사람이다.
극 중의 수용썬과 그를 사랑하는 杨雪蕙
------------------------------------------------------
U.K. Joins France, Says Goodbye to Fossil-Fuel Cars by 2040
블룸버그 뉴스이다. 화석 연료 자동차를 폐지하려면 전기가 풍부하고 저렴해야 한다. 이산화탄소도 배출하지 않고, 전기료도 저렴한 전원은 원자력 밖에 없다. 그렇다면 결론은 원자력 발전이다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
전기차 혁명의 부담.
전기차는 아직 기술적으로 해결해야 할 문제들이 남아 있다. 정부가 이를 정책적으로 강제하면 커다란 부작용이 뒤따른다.
매트 리들리의 전기차 정부 정책 반대 글
How the electric car revolution could backfire
Published on: Thursday, 20 July, 2017
The state risks locking in the wrong technology too early
The British government is under pressure to follow France and Volvo in promising to set a date by which to ban diesel and petrol engines in cars and replace them with electric motors. It should resist the temptation, not because the ambition is wrong but because coercion could backfire.
The electric motor is older than the internal combustion engine by about half a century. Since taking over factories from the steam piston engine at the end of the 19th century, it has become ubiquitous. Twinned with its opposite number, the turbine (which turns work into electricity, rather than vice versa), it drives machines in factories, opens doors, raises lifts, prepares food, brushes teeth and washes plates.
These are fantastic motors and we should be using even more of them, especially in personal transport. They are quiet and clean at the point of use, so could have transformative effects on the quality of life of those living near roads and in urban areas. In the future they could even fly planes.
But if it is to be cordless, an electric drive must carry a heavy battery. Using lithium atoms, among the lightest there are, has helped to make batteries lighter, but they are still bulky, slow to charge and liable to explode if charged too fast. Imagine the congestion at charging stations if every car was electric.
Building an electric car generates considerably more carbon dioxide than creating a comparable petrol model because so much energy is required for the mining and processing of lithium, nickel and other materials for the battery. The battery accounts for more than half the cradle-to-grave emissions created by an electric car. Fuelling that car from a coal-fired grid like China’s or India’s makes the emissions even worse.
With Europe’s mix of generating capacity — less coal, more gas, more wind and more nuclear — an electric vehicle does emit less carbon dioxide over its lifetime than a comparable petrol or diesel vehicle, but not by a large margin. As one study concluded: “We find that electric vehicles powered by the European electricity mix reduce [global warming potential] by 26 per cent to 30 per cent relative to gasoline . . . and 17 per cent to 21 per cent relative to diesel.”
Then there is the question of where the extra electricity is to come from. In recent years we have struggled to build enough power stations for existing users, let alone adding all cars and heating too, for that is the plan. Britain’s cars travel about 250 billion miles a year. Assuming the use of very small Nissan Leaf-style vehicles, that mileage would add an extra 16 per cent of demand to our existing electricity grid.
If we want the new capacity to be low carbon — and since we cannot seem to get our act together on nuclear, and solar works poorly at this latitude, especially in winter — then how many wind turbines would be needed to generate that much extra electricity? Roughly 10,000 onshore or 5,000 offshore, requiring a subsidy of at least £2 billion, more than double the size of our existing windfarm estate. Yikes.
Meanwhile, the idea of using electric vehicles to balance the grid, allowing us to dump spare juice into them when the wind blows and take it out when it does not, is, according to Ofgem, pie in the sky, at least until autonomous vehicles arrive and cars can go scurrying off to central charging points after dropping you at home, which is some way off.
Finally, remember that — globally at least — 40 per cent of road transport fuel is used by lorries, not cars, so electrifying all cars still leaves a big chunk to tackle. In short, electric cars are a great technology but almost trivial as a climate policy. They’re attractive for other reasons.
To achieve a major transition in the economy, such as to electric transport, you could force the issue with a legal deadline, challenging the engineers to solve the practical problems and incentivising businesses to leave their comfort zone and abandon existing technologies.
Without a government ban it might never happen. But that sort of hothouse growth risks entrenching an immature technology, preventing a better one from coming along.
Here is a cautionary tale illustrating the latter point. Ten years ago Gordon Brown, then chancellor, and Hilary Benn, environment secretary, announced that ahead of an EU timetable Britain would forcibly phase out incandescent light bulbs in favour of compact fluorescent (CFL) ones, promising that this would “help tackle climate change, and also cut household bills”. By sending free CFL bulbs to most households and requiring retailers to sell only the new bulbs, this cost the country almost £3 billion.
Slow to warm up, tending to flicker, with a much shorter lifetime than expected and dangerous to dispose of, CFL bulbs were less popular with consumers than with manufacturers, who tooled up to produce them. Now, just ten years later, nobody wants CFL bulbs, thanks to the dramatic fall in price of the next technology: more efficient, better quality and safer LED lights. The government backed the wrong technology. Fortunately, in that case, changing course won’t be very hard, though the waste of £3 billion is a miserable thought. It would be much worse if we picked the wrong battery technology for electric vehicles.
Tesla’s decision to build a “Gigafactory” to make lithium-ion batteries may establish a new standard for battery technology for a generation, at the risk of pinching off research into potentially better designs for batteries. Or Tesla may find itself with an obsolete system if one of those other technologies suddenly achieves a breakthrough.
Perhaps we should leave this to the market. The great merit of private enterprise is that it reduces the cost of learning by putting a limit to the extent of the hazard of any particular adventure. One company gambles, and takes a hit, but the harm is limited and the lesson is learnt by everyone.
A ministerially mandated nationwide failure would be costly in itself and could delay the wider use of a genuinely promising development in personal transport. Don’t let the state screw this up.
------------------------------------------------
A Scholar in his Study, Ludwig Gloss
-----------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기