북한 최종 목적이

      

장거리 미사일에 핵탄두 탑재인데

   

그게 레드라인이라고? ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

     

그냥 북한이 최종 목적 달성할때까지

      

손놓고 있겠다는거랑 다를게 뭐냐

출처: 일베

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

"설마, 미국이 북한을 군사적으로 쥐어팰라구?"--

이렇게 말해 온 후배가 있다.
이 후배가 어제 말한다.

"형, 진짜 팰 거 같아요..문재인 때문이라도 팰 거 같아요...
동맹의 대통령이란 자가, 미국 등짝에 칼질 하는데, 패는 거 밖에는 다른 수단이 없게 된 거에요."

문재인은, '[북한에 대한 예방전쟁]을 확정시킨 장본인'으로 꼽히게 될 지도..

[출처] 뱅모) 다른 수단이 없게 된 거에요

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

하이에크, <자유의 조건> 97 쪽,   소수를 위한 상품을 만들면서, 우리는 그것들을 좀더 경제적으로 만드는 방법을 배우게 되고, 그렇게 해서 나중에는 대중에게 그 상품들을 제공할 수 있게 된다.


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

Niall Ferguson‏

 

History and network theory should make us skeptical about Silicon Valley's utopian vision of a global community:

역사와 네트워크 이론은 실리콘 밸리의 기술로 이루어지는 지구촌이라는 유토피아적 전망에 회의를 갖게 한다.

원문 출처: 포린어페어즈

세계가 온라인에서 하나로 연결되면 네티즌들의 유토피아를 열거라는 생각은, 루터의 모든 신자들의 사제화(司祭化)라는 전망처럼 환상이었다. 그와 반대로 전세계 네트워크는 모든 종류의 광기와 공포를 전달하는 메커니즘이 되었다.

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

여주인공 청리원

영황 속의 남녀 주인공

영화 《1980年代的爱情, 1980년대 사랑》은 野夫라는 작가의 동명 소설을 각색해 올린 작품으로, 霍建起이 감독하고, 芦芳生 、杨采钰이 주연을 맡았다.

 

제목에서 알 수 있듯이, 이 영화는 80년대 중국이 막 개혁개방을 시작한 이후, 아직 황금만능, 물신주의가 세상을 뒤덮지 않았던 순수하고(?) 평온했던 시절의 젊은 남녀의 사랑을 그린다.

 

이야기는 너무 간단하다. 대학을 졸업하고 고향의 동사무소 같은 곳에 발령을 받은 주인공 관위포关雨波가 동창생 청리원成丽雯을 다시 재회하면서 예전의 짝사랑이 다시 타오른다.

하지만 청리원은 졸업생 중에 유일하게 대학을 졸업한 관위포에게 동네에 가게에서 일하는 자신의 처지가 어울리지 않는다고 생각했고, 그에게 부담을 주고 싶지 않다는 마음에 둘의 관계는 진전되지 않는다. 이 전반부의 시골 풍광이 아름답고 서정적이다.

 

그러다 관위포가 다시 도시로 발령을 받아 떠나면서 둘의 관계는 끊어진다. 도시로 나간 관위포는 사업을 시작했지만 사기를 당해 다시 빈털터리가 되어, 직업을 찾아 북쪽으로 올라가기로 결정한다.

 

그 전에 그는 동창생들의 모임에 나가고, 거기에서 청리원과 재회한다. 둘은 사랑을 나누고, 관위포는 그곳에 남아 그녀와 함께 하려 하지만, 그녀는 그를 보내며 약간의 돈을 보태준다.

 

다시 세월이 흘러 사회에서 성공한 관위포가 청리원을 찾았을 때, 그녀는 이미 죽고 없었다.

 

알고 보니 그가 고향을 떠난 후에, 그녀는 택시 운전사와 결혼을 했는데, 남편이 사고를 죽은 뒤에, 딸 하나를 키우며 죽을 고생을 했다는 것이다. 그리고 그로 인해 암을 얻어 세상을 떠난 것이다.

 

이 영화는 대체로 대사가 적고 클라이맥스 없이 담담하게 흘러간다. 영화 중간에 둘 사이에 베드신이 있는데, 오히려 전체 흐름에 방해가 될 정도라고 느끼게 된다.

 

감독이나 작가는 이 영화를 너무 단조롭게 만들었고, 그로 인해 실패작이 되었다. 하지만 관객들이 한번쯤 보아도 무방한 실패작이다. 왜냐하면 우리의 순수했던 80년대는 다시 오지 않을 테니까.

 

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

 

 

 

복지 국가는 어떻게 우리를 야만스럽게 만드나.

 

민주 복지국가가 등장하면서 시장에 기반한 사람들의 유대 관계가 단절되었다. 다시 말해 국가로 인해 사람들이 사람들의 욕구를 충족시키며 살기보다는, 다른 사람의 생산물에 기대어 살게 되었다.

사람들이 다른 사람들에 대해 배우기를 그치면, 그들은 협력보다도 갈등을 택하게 되고, 타인들은 나의 행복에 대한 장애물이 된다.

그런 사회에서 경쟁은 사람들의 욕구를 만족시키는 다양한 방법을 찾아가는 과정이 아니라, 승자와 패자만이 남는 제로섬 게임이 된다.

 

How Welfare States Make Us Less Civilized

 

•Per Bylund

 

 

Throughout history, the state has justified itself on the grounds that it is necessary to protect us from others whose habits and beliefs — we are meant to believe — are dangerous. For millennia, this fiction was easy to maintain because most people interacted so little with people outside their nearly autarkic — and therefore impoverished — communities.

 

But, with the rise of industrialization and international trade in recent centuries, the state's claim that it is necessary to keep us “safe” from outsiders has become increasingly undermined.

 

Much of this is thanks to the fact that in order to benefit from the market, one must engage in activities designed to serve others and anticipate their needs. As a result, trade increases our understanding for both members of our community and even the stranger; it also makes us realize that other people are much like us. Even if they speak strange languages or have odd customs and traditions.

 

The Market Order and Civilization

 

This is in essence Say’s Law, or the Law of Markets, which states that in the market we produce in order to trade with others so that we can thereby, indirectly, satisfy our own wants: our demand for goods in the market is constituted by our supply of goods to it. In order to effectively satisfy other people’s wants we need to not only communicate with them, but understand them. If we don’t, then we’re wasting our productive efforts for a random result. Obviously, we’d benefit personally from learning what other people want, both their present wants and anticipated future wants, and then produce it for them.

 

So far so good. Most people (except for Keynesians) grasp this very simple point about the market — and how it contributes to civilization and peaceful interaction. But all people aren’t saints, so good, hard-working people risk being taken advantage of as they have nothing to set against such actions. Without a central power such as the state, who will protect us from such people?

 

Answer: the web of voluntary transactions aligns people’s interests. In the market, “bad people” are not only defrauding, stealing from, or robbing a single person or family. They are, in effect, attacking the community of interdependent producers and network of traders.

 

Imagine a town with a baker who specializes in baking bread that people in the town like, but that he doesn’t necessarily fancy himself. Instead, he sells the bread in order to earn money that he uses to buy from others what he truly wants. Others similarly specialize their production to produce what others want, including the baker, so that they can use part of their income to buy bread. When a thief steals from this baker, he negatively affects the town’s bread supply — and thereby also makes the baker unable to effectively demand goods from others. This affects a lot of people, not only the baker: it affects all people who wanted to but now can’t buy bread and all those who expected to but no longer can sell their goods to the baker.

 

The network of exchanges and the specialized production for others thus creates a community of interdependent producers whose interests are generally aligned: they have all increased their productive effort by supplying a single good that is in high demand, and thereby made everybody better off. But it also means it is in their own interest that no one is unjustly treated and disadvantaged, whether the victim of a “bad person” is an existing or potential supplier of goods they desire or existing or potential customer of the goods they produce.

 

They all benefit from this order, since their productive efforts are used where they do most good. But they are also all in it together — they are all affected if things go wrong. It is not strange, then, to see how towns used to spontaneously organize to deal with crime. Robbing the baker involves not only a robber and his victim: an attack on one is an attack on the community. The robber has by his very actions chosen to not partake in community — to be an outcast.

 

Effect of the Welfare State

 

What’s happened over the course of the last century with the rise of the democratic welfare state is that these market-based bonds between people within a community have been severed. With the growing state, more and more people have found positions in the economy and society where they do not need to serve others. In other words, the state has made it possible to live off what other people produce rather than contribute to satisfying everybody’s wants.

 

As these bonds between people are severed, the threshold to engage in criminal behavior becomes lower. But more importantly, as people do not need to rely on their ability to satisfy the wants of others, they don’t understand other people: they have no incentive to learn about their needs and wants, and they have nothing to gain personally from satisfying them. In other words, there is no interdependence and therefore less of a reason to stay away from destructive behavior.

 

This is exactly what we’ve seen over the course of the past century when the very large state has replaced civil society with centralized systems and market with power. The problem is that when people stop learning about each other, it is easier to resort to conflict rather than cooperation — and it is much easier to see other people as obstructions to your own happiness. Getting rid of them thus increases your share of the (now diminishing) pie, and using and exploiting others for your own benefit appears a means toward satisfaction of one’s own wants.

 

We increasingly see examples of this type of thinking among entrepreneurs and those who want to be entrepreneurs. They start businesses not as a means to make a living — that is, to indirectly benefit themselves according to the Law of Markets — but in order to do “what they like.” It’s a lifestyle choice that many seem to think they have a “right” to make. Even worse, sometimes they even blame their entrepreneurial failure on “society” for not being supportive enough and not appreciating what they’re offering at the price they’re demanding.

 

This is exactly backward: to be able to do what you like for a living is a privilege that you can enjoy only if you, by doing so, satisfy others. If you create value for others, you gain value for yourself.

 

In this type of society where the bonds between people are weakening, it is not strange that people find the idea of a decentralized, spontaneous order outrageously naïve. Competition is here not the sound striving to better serve others by trying different and differentiated ways of satisfying wants, but rather a zero-sum game where there are winners and losers. In this situation, whoever is willing to cut corners, lie, and deceive is immediately better off. The incentives, in other words, are for destroying value and to prioritize short-term gains even if they come at high long-term costs — because those costs may be another’s burden. It’s the very opposite of civilization and an existence that will, if left unchecked and unchanged, eventually degenerate into a Lord of the Flies-type tribalism.

 

It is not strange that people have a hard time understanding the harmony argument for markets in a time when the state has alienated them from productive interdependence as explained by Say’s Law. The market’s informal, spontaneous cooperation for mutual benefit has been replaced by a statist mindset, which seeks guarantees — and finds it only in formal power.

 

But it should be obvious from the discussion above that this is not in any sense a guarantee — especially against bad behavior. It is the opposite. Yet it should be recognized that the market also offers no guarantee, strictly speaking. But do we need one when people’s interests are aligned? All we need to trust is that people do what is good for themselves. That’s hardly naïve.

 

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

 

삼성전자 광주사업장 생산라인 폐쇄 강행

 

베트남 정부, 삼성에 공장부지 무상제공과 파격적인 법인세 혜택을 약속

베트남 총리 "삼성은 최대투자 기업...지원아끼지 말라"

 

삼성전자 생산 무게중심, 베트남으로

http://www.newstomato.com/ReadNews.aspx?no=763797

삼성 베트남의 근로자 수 지난 4월 말 기준 14만9000명 기록, 조만간 15만 명을 넘을 듯

 

트럼프, 현행 35%이던 법인세율을 15%로 대폭 낮추며 리쇼어링(해외진출 자국기업의 국내복귀)과 해외기업 유치에 적극 나서.

 

삼성전자, 美 사우스캐롤라이나에 가전 공장 설립

http://www.newsis.com/view/?id=NISX20170628_0000025717&cID=13001&pID=13000

 

삼성그룹 미래전략실이 해체. 지난 4월 16일 실시된 삼성그룹 상반기 공채를

마지막으로 GSAT는 '역사속'으로 사라질 것으로 전망돼.

앞으로 그룹차원의 공채는 없으며 충원은 계열사별로 알아서~

 

      

 

LG디스플레이

현재 계획대로 (경북 구미 LCD 패널 생산라인) P2, P3, P4 공장은 폐쇄할 것"

 

LG화학, 베트남에 OLED 편광판 후처리 공장 짓는다

http://news1.kr/articles/?3068816

 

 

LG이노텍, “베트남 공장 완공되면 기술·원가 경쟁력 확보될 것”

http://www.ajunews.com/view/20170426162643412

 

 

'제2 전진기지' 베트남 투자 갈수록 확대하는 삼성·LG

http://www.newsis.com/view/?id=NISX20170626_0000022690&cID=13001&pID=13000

 

동국제강, "삼성‧LG전자 따라 해외공장 짓겠다"

http://www.newspim.com/news/view/20170427000279

 

中企도 한국 떠난다, 작년 6조8700억 해외로

http://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/04/16/2017041601673.html

 

 

통상·최저임금 압박에… 기업들 “해외로”

http://www.segye.com/newsView/20170814002683

 

반기업 몰매에...기업 '해외 엑소더스' 나서나

http://www.sedaily.com/NewsView/1OJRWA4VK5

 

[출처] 문재인 가카!! 저희는 이제 떠나렵니다. 만수무강하세요!

[링크] http://www.ilbe.com/9968494314

 

 

  출처: 일베


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