이제는 정말 모든 애국시민들이 전부 8월 23일(수) 오후 4시(한 시간 앞당겨졌습니다)에 상암동 MBC앞 광장에서의 <제7차 MBC지키기 집회>에 꼭 오셔야 합니다.
지난 9일 'MBC판 블랙리스트' 사태로 카메라 기자 50여명, 지난 11일 보도국 소속 취재기자 81명, 지난 16일 비(非) 보도국 기자 66명이 차례로 업무거부를 선언했습니다.
그리고 언론노조 MBC본부는 24일부터 엿새간 총파업 결정투표를 하기로 하고 총파업수순을 밟고 있습니다. 8월17에는 편성피디 30명, 18일에는 드라마피디 50여명, 21일에는 예능·라디오 피디 56명, 라디오피디 36명, 그리고 22일에는 아나운서 27명이 출연거부와 업무거부를 선언했습니다. MBC노조는 29일 투표결과가 나오는 대로 9월 4일부터 총파업에 돌입합니다. 그러면 피디수첩 등 일부 프로그램은 결방이 불가피할 것입니다. 2012년에도 170일간 이어진 MBC 총파업사태동안 무한도전은 반년 간 결방된 적이 있습니다. 그리고 총파업이 시작되면 이를 구실로 방송통신위의 이효성 위원장이 MBC사태에 개입할 것입니다.
그러나 애국진영도 단호합니다. 집권 1백일 기자회견에서 문재인 대통령은 정부는 절대로 공영방송을 장악하려고 하지 않겠다고 약속했는데 지금 이를 정면으로 뒤집고 있기 때문입니다.
8월 9일까지 2백명 정도로 모이던 집회가 16일에는 5백명이 모였습니다. 그리고 이제는 <새로운 한국을 위한 국민운동>이 주최하는 집회가 아니라 모든 애국단체가 함께 하는 집회로 바뀌었습니다. 그래서
이번에 전군구국동지연합회는 8월 22일 아침 8시에 과천 방송통신위원회 사무실 앞에서 출근시간에 맞추어 이효성 방통위원장 사퇴를 촉구하는 집회를 했습니다. 여기에도 2백명이 모였습니다. 구국동지연합회는 방통위 앞 집회를 앞으로도 계속할 예정입니다.
애국시민이 이렇게 열심히 싸우는 이유는 저들이 말하는 MBC 정상화가 MBC의 공영성을 지키는 것이 아니라 민주노총 소속의 MBC 제1노조가 총파업을 계속하여 MBC경영진을 내쫓아서 촛불권력에 굴복하게 하겠다는 것이기 때문입니다.
이들이 파업명분으로 말하는 내용들은 우리가 듣기엔 황당한 내용들뿐입니다. MBC 경영진이 공영성을 지키기 위해 촛불집회와 태극기집회의 균형을 맞추려는 노력은 전부 잘못이라는 것입니다. 한마디로 문재인정부가 출범했으면 촛불권력에 굴종해야지 왜 촛불권력의 명령을 따르지 않는가라는 것입니다. 이들이 말하는 공영방송은 민주노총 산하의 MBC 제1노조가 지배하는 노영(勞營)방송이 되는 것입니다.
우리는 오정환 보도본부장의 발언을 잊을 수가 없습니다. ”끌려 나가 짓밟히더라도 생물학적인 생명만 붙어 있으면 부정한 저들에 맞설 것"이라는 결사항전의 발언입니다. MBC 경영진이 이렇게 감동적으로 항전을 하는 한 우리는 절대로 물러설 수 없습니다. 우리 애국시민들도 온힘을 다해 모일 것입니다. 이번 MBC 싸움은 대한민국의 민주주의를 지키기 위한 고귀한 싸움이기 때문입니다.
존경하는 애국시민여러분, 23일 오후 4시까지 꼭 상암동 MBC 광장으로 와주세요. 여기는 역사에 길이 남을 역사의 현장입니다. 오시는 방법은 6호선 디지털미디어시티역 9번 출구에서 걸어 오셔도 되구요. 또는 2번 출구로 나오셔서 맞은편에서 18번 버스를 타셔도 됩니다. 이 문자편지를 사방으로 전달해 주세요. 감사합니다.
홍 대표는 이날 당 회의에서 “결국 최종 판단은 국민이 할 문제이지만, 우리 당으로서는 우려를 금치 않을 수 없다”며 이 같이 말했다. 그는 이어 “나라가 급격히 좌편향되고 있는 것을 국민도 느끼실 것”이라고 했다.
출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/08/23/2017082301025.html
하지만 우리나라는 신자유주의는커녕 자유주의 근처에도 가본 적이 없다.
출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/08/22/2017082203648.html
그런데 좌파 정권때 민노총 산하 언론노조가 생겼다는 것
KBS에는 노조가 총 3개 - 정치색 옅은 노조 / 민노총 산하 KBS 본부노조 / 공영노조
문제는 이 민노총 산하 KBS 본부노조에 KBS 기자와 PD의 80~90%가 가입되어있어서
가만히 놔두면 국가의 정통성에 맞는 공정한 방송보다는 자기들의 이익과 신념에 맞는
편파적 방송을 할 수밖에 없음을 지적했다.
원래 정치색이 별로 없었는데, 노무현 정권때 난데없이 한겨레 출신 정연주를 사장으로
내정하고 나서, 정연주가 진보매체에서 특채를 대거 뽑다보니, 이렇게 되었다는 것
민노총 산하 KBS 본부노조의 만행들도 폭로했다.
1) 인사 이동있을 때, 내부 게시판을 통해 발표하기 전에 이 본부노조 사무실에 알려주는 것이
사실상 제도화 되어있다는 것 ( 충격적 ) - 자기들이 문제라고 보는 이들을 빼라 마라하기도
한다는 것
2) KBS내 커피숍, 주차장, 식당을 이 본부노조들이 운영한다고 한다.
커피숍으로 웨딩홀로 전환해서 운영하기도 한다는 충격적 폭로
명분은 노조원들 복지(?)향상을 내걸고 있다는 것
- 회사의 자산을 이 본부노조가 멋대로 이용하나 ?라고 비판
( 사측에서 손을 들고, 노조의 간을 키운 것이라고 비판 )
3) KBS공영노조가 이런 민노총 산하 KBS본부노조의 만행과 문재인 정권의 방송장악 시도를
성명서로 발표를 하니 고소를 하면서 성명서 발표도 마음대로 하지 못하게 압박을 한다는 것
- 그런데 정작 KBS본부노조들은 가뜩이나 문재인 정권 친화적 방송을 보고도,
더욱 더 자기들이 원하는 방송을 하려고 이중성을 띤 성명서를 발표한다는 것
- 이런 민노총 산하 본부노조는 MBC 본부노조, YTN 본부노조등과 연대해서
일사분란하게 움직이고 있음도 지적
* 방송법으로 보장된 사장과 이사장 임기를 무시하고 정권이 바뀌었다고 악질적으로
뒷조사등으로 사장과 이사장 퇴진을 압박하는 것은 이명박 정권때 정연주 사장의 임기를
보장하라고 외치던 때와 180도 다른 이중적이고 모순적 행태를 보이고 있다고 지적
- 美 트럼프 대통령이 CNN등 주요 언론들로부터 비판을 받고 있지만 그렇다고 그 언론사들
사장을 멋대로 퇴진하라고 하고 교체시키거나 하지 않고 있지 않다고 하면서,
좌파 정권이 들어서면 언론은 보수적이어야하고, 우파 정권이 들어서면 언론은 진보적이어서
서로 견제와 감시를 할 수 있어야 건전하게 발전한다고 지적
원전정책, 사드, 복지, 최저임금, 비정규직문제등 현정권의 문제점을 지적할 것이 많은데,
지금 언론들은 우리의 정체성과 국가 안위와 관계가 먼 문재인의 가십성 이미지를 알리는
데 집중하고 있다고 비판
최근에만 봐도, KBS는 엄중한 한반도 상황에 반하는 뜬금없이 북한 투자를 이야기하는 방송을
하고, 원자력 전문가란 사람이 나와서 원자력의 문제점만 나열하고 대체에너지로 가야한다는
방송만 하는 등, 이런 일련의 방송은 문재인 정권이 추진하고 있는 일련의 정책들을
일방적으로 홍보하는 것이라고 비판
첨예한 논란이 되는 이슈는 일방적 설명을 하는 프로그램을 하면 안되고, 상대방이 있는
토크 형식으로 반론이 가능해야함에도 일방적으로 프로그램을 지금도 이렇게 만들고
있음을 비판
[출처] ( KBS 공영노조 성창경 위원장 기자회견 ) " KBS는 좌파 노영방송화 ", 민노총 산하 언론노조 만행들 폭로
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
하이에크, 127쪽,
합리주의적 개념이 유행되면서 '사회적'이란 용어가 남용됨.
(좌파들이) 말하는 사회적이란, 사회에서 진화되어 온 규범 대신에, 개인의 지성이 개인의 행동을 지배해야 된다는 생각이다. 그것은 결국 사회적 현상에 대한 경멸이고, 개인의 이성이 (수천년 동안 진화해온 도덕보다) 더 우수하다는 믿음의 표현이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
합리성에 대한 합리적인 자세는?
과학에서 믿음은 글자 그대로 과학적인 믿음이다. 하지만 실생활에서 믿음은 그 자체가 목적이 아닌, 무엇을 하기 위한 도구이다.
시각적인 눈속임은 산타 클로스를 믿게 하는 것과 다르지 않다. 그것은 성탄절의 미학적 경험을 향상시키는 것이다.
생존이 최우선이고, 진리와 이해 그리고 과학은 그 다음이다.
믿음의 합리성이란 없다. 단지 행동의 합리성이 있을 뿐이다.
행동의 합리성은 오직 진화적 고려를 통해 판단될 수 있다.
계몽주의 이후에 나타난 합리성은 우연randomness을 가정하지 않았거나, 세계의 우연 구조를 간소화 했다.
산타 클로스나 바알Baal 신의 분노에 대한 믿음이 생존율을 높였다면, 그것은 합리적이다.
합리성이란 생존을 돕고 파멸을 회피하는 것이고, 위기 관리이다.
--- 나심 탈레브
How to be Rational about Rationality
[One of the more technical (and optional) chapters, at the end of Skin of the Game]
Rory Sutherland claims that the real function for swimming pools is allowing the middle class to sit around in bathing suits without looking ridiculous. Same with New York restaurants: you think their mission is to feed people, but that’s not what they do. They are in the business of selling you overpriced liquor or Great Tuscan wines by the glass, yet get you into the door by serving you your low-carb (or low-something) dishes at breakeven cost. (This business model, of course, fails to work in Saudi Arabia).
So when we look at religion and, to some extent ancestral superstitions, we should consider what purpose they serve, rather than focusing on the notion of “belief”, epistemic belief in its strict scientific definition. In science, belief is literal belief; it is right or wrong, never metaphorical. In real life, belief is an instrument to do things, not the end product. This is similar to vision: the purpose of your eyes is to orient you in the best possible way, and get you out of trouble when needed, or help you find a prey at distance. Your eyes are not sensors aimed at getting the electromagnetic spectrum of reality. Their job description is not to produce the most accurate scientific representation of reality; rather the most useful one for survival.
Ocular Deception
Our perceptional apparatus makes mistakes –distortions — in order to lead to more precise actions on our parts: ocular deception, it turns out, is a necessary thing. Greek and Roman architects misrepresent the columns of the temples, by tilting them inward, in order to give us the impression that the columns are straight. As Vitruvius explains, the aim is to “counteract the visual deception by an change of proportions”[i]. A distortion is meant to bring about an enhancement of your aesthetic experience. The floor of the Parthenon is curved in reality so we can see it straight. The columns are in truth unevenly spaced, so we can see them lined up like a marching Russian division in a parade.
Should one go lodge a complain with the Greek Tourism Office claiming that the columns are not vertical and someone is taking advantage of our visual weaknesses?
Ergodicity First
The same applies to distortions of beliefs. Is this visual deceit any different from leading someone to believe in Santa Claus, if it enhances his or her holiday aesthetic experience? No, unless the person engages in actions that ends up harming him or her.
In that sense harboring superstitions is not irrational by any metric: nobody has managed to reinvent a metric for rationality based on process. Actions that harm you are observable.
I have shown that, unless one has an overblown and (as with Greek columns), a very unrealistic representation of some tail risks, one cannot survive –all it takes is a single event for the irreversible exit from among us. Is selective paranoia “irrational” if those individuals and populations who don’t have it end up dying or extinct, respectively?
A statements that will orient us for the rest of the book
Survival comes first, truth, understanding, and science later
In other words, you do not need science to survive (we’ve done it for several hundred million years) , but you need to survive to do science. As your grandmother would have said, better safe than sorry. This precedence is well understood by traders and people in the real world, as per Warren Buffet expression “to make money you must first survive” –skin in the game again; those of us who take risks have their priorities firmer than vague textbook notions such as “truth”. More technically, this brings us again to the ergodic property (I keep my promise to explain it in detail, but we are not ready yet): for the world to be “ergodic”, there needs to be no absorbing barrier, no substantial irreversibilities.
And what do we mean by “survival”? Survival of whom? Of you? Your family? Your tribe? Humanity? We will get into the details later but note for now that I have a finite shelf life; my survival is not as important as that of things that do not have a limited life expectancy, such as mankind or planet earth. Hence the more “systemic”, the more important such a survival becomes.
***
Three rigorous thinkers will orient my thinking on the matter: the cognitive scientist and polymath Herb Simon, pioneer of Artificial Intelligence, and the derived school of thought led by Gerd Gigerenzer, on one hand, and the mathematician, logician and decision theorist Ken Binmore who spent his life formulating the logical foundations of rationality.
From Simon to Gigerenzer
Simon formulated the notion now known as bounded rationality: we cannot possibly measure and assess everything as if we were a computer; we therefore produce, under evolutionary pressures, some shortcuts and distortions. Our knowledge of the world is fundamentally incomplete, so we need to avoid getting in unanticipated trouble. Even if our knowledge of the world were complete, it would still be computationally near-impossible to produce precise, unbiased understanding of reality. A fertile research program on ecological rationality came out of it, mostly organized and led by Gerd Gigerenzer, mapping how many things we do that appear, on the surface, illogical have deeper reasons.
Ken Binmore
As to Ken Binmore, he showed that the concept casually dubbed “rational” is ill-defined, in fact so ill-defined that much of the uses of the term are just gibberish. There is nothing particularly irrational in beliefs per se (given that they can be shortcuts and instrumental to something else): to him everything lies in the notion of “revealed preferences”, which we explain next.
Binmore also saw that criticism of the “rational” man as posited by economic theory is often a strawman argument distorting the theory in order to bring it down. He recounts that economic theory, as posited in the original texts, is not as strict in its definition of “utility”, that is, the satisfaction a consumer and a decision-maker derive from a certain outcome. Satisfaction does not necessarily have to be monetary. There is nothing irrational, according to economic theory, in giving your money to a stranger, if that’s what makes you tick. And don’t try to invoke Adam Smith: he was a philosopher not an accountant; he never equated human interests and aims to narrow accounting book entries.
Revelation of Preferences
Next let us develop the following three points:
Judging people on their beliefs is not scientific
There is no such thing as “rationality” of a belief, there is rationality of action
The rationality of an action can only be judged by evolutionary considerations
The axiom of revelation of preferences states the following: you will not have an idea about what people really think, what predicts people’s actions, merely by asking them –they themselves don’t know. What matters, in the end, is what they pay for goods, not what they say they “think” about them, or what are the reasons they give you or themselves for that. (Think about it: revelation of preferences is skin in the game). Even psychologists get it; in their experiments, their procedures require that actual dollars be spent for the test to be “scientific”. The subjects are given a monetary amount, and they watch how he or she formulates choices by spending them. However, a large share of psychologists fughedabout the point when they start bloviating about rationality. They revert to judging beliefs rather than action.
For beliefs are … cheap talk. A foundational principle of decision theory (and one that is at the basis of neoclassical economics, rational choice, and similar disciplines) is that what goes on in the head of people isn’t the business of science. First, what they think may not be measurable enough to lend itself to some scientific investigation. Second, it is not testable. Finally, there may be some type of a translation mechanism too hard for us to understand, with distortions at the level of the process that are actually necessary for think to work.
Actually, by a mechanism (more technically called the bias-variance tradeoff), you often get better results making some type of “errors”, as when you aim slightly away from the target when shooting. I have shown in Antifragile that making some types of errors is the most rational thing to do, as, when the errors are of little costs, it leads to gains and discoveries.
This is why I have been against the State dictating to us what we “should” be doing: only evolution knows if the “wrong” thing is really wrong, provided there is skin in the game for that.
What is Religion About ?
It is therefore my opinion that religion is here to enforce tail risk management across generations, as its binary and unconditional rules are easy to teach and enforce. We have survived in spite of tail risks; our survival cannot be that random.
Recall that skin in the game means that you do not pay attention to what people say, only to what they do, and how much of their neck they are putting on the line. Let survival work its wonders.
Superstitions can be vectors for risk management rules. We have as potent information that people that have them have survived; to repeat never discount anything that allows you to survive. For instance Jared Diamond discusses the “constructive paranoia” of residents of Papua New Guinea, whose superstitions prevent them from sleeping under dead trees. [1] Whether it is superstition or something else, some deep scientific understanding of probability that is stopping you, it doesn’t matter, so long as you don’t sleep under dead trees. And if you dream of making people use probability in order to make decisions, I have some news: close to ninety percent of psychologists dealing with decision-making (which includes such regulators as Cass Sunstein) have no clue about probability, and try to disrupt our organic paranoid mechanism.
Further, I find it incoherent to criticize someone’s superstitions if these are meant to bring some benefits, yet not do so with the optical illusions in Greek temples.
The notion of “rational” bandied about by all manner of promoters of scientism isn’t defined well enough to be used for beliefs. To repeat, we do not have enough grounds to discuss “irrational beliefs”. We do with irrational actions.
Now what people say may have a purpose –it is not just what they think it means. Let us extend the idea outside of buying and selling to the risk domain: opinions in are cheap unless people take risks for them.
Extending such logic, we can show that much of what we call “belief” is some kind of background furniture for the human mind, more metaphorical than real. It may work as therapy.
“Tawk” and Cheap “Tawk”
The first principle we make:
There is a difference between beliefs that are decorative and a different sort of beliefs, those that map to action.
There is no difference between them in words, except that the true difference reveals itself in risk taking, having something at stake, something one could lose in case one is wrong.
And the lesson, by rephrasing the principle:
How much you truly “believe” in something can only be manifested through what you are willing to risk for it.
But this merits continuation. The fact that there is this decorative component to belief, life, these strange rules followed outside the Gemelli clinics of the world merits a discussion. What are these for? Can we truly understand their function? Are we confused about their function? Do we mistake their rationality? Can we use them instead to define rationality?
What Does Lindy Say?
Let us see what Lindy has to say about “rationality”. While the notions of “reason” and “reasonable” were present in ancient thought, mostly embedded in the notion of precaution, or sophrosyne, this modern idea of “rationality” and “rational decision-making” was born in the aftermath of Max Weber, with the works of psychologists, philosophasters, and psychosophasters. The classical sophrosyne is precaution, self-control, and temperance, all in one. It was replaced with something a bit different. “Rationality” was forged in a post-enlightenment period[2], at the time when we thought that understanding the world was at the next corner. It assumes no randomness, or a simplified the random structure of our world. Also of course no interactions with the world.
The only definition of rationality that I found that is practically, empirically, and mathematically rigorous is that of survival –and indeed, unlike the modern theories by psychosophasters, it maps to the classics. Anything that hinders one’s survival at an individual, collective, tribal, or general level is deemed irrational.
Hence the precautionary principle and sound risk understanding.
It may be “irrational” for people to have two sinks in their kitchen, one for meat and the other for dairy, but as we saw, it led to the survival of the Jewish community as Kashrut laws forced them to eat and bind together.
It is also rational to see things differently from the “way they are”, for improved performance.
It is also difficult to map beliefs to reality. A decorative or instrumental belief, say believing in Santa Claus or the potential anger of Baal can be rational if it leads to an increased survival.
The Nondecorative in the Decorative
Now what we called decorative is not necessarily superfluous, often to the contrary. They may just have another function we do not know much about –and we can consult for that the grandmaster statistician, time, in a very technical tool called the survival function, known by both old people and very complex statistics –but we will resort here to the old people version.
The fact to consider is not that these beliefs have survived a long time –the Catholic church is an administration that is close to twenty-four centuries old (it is largely the continuation of the Roman Republic). The fact is not that . It is that people who have religion –a certain religion — have survived.
Another principle:
When you consider beliefs do not assess them in how they compete with other beliefs, but consider the survival of the populations that have them.
Consider a competitor to the Pope’s religion, Judaism. Jews have close to five hundred different dietary interdicts. They may seem irrational to an observer who sees purpose in things and defines rationality in terms of what he can explain. Actually they will most certainly seem so. The Jewish Kashrut prescribes keeping four sets of dishes, two sinks, the avoidance of mixing meat with dairy products or merely letting the two be in contact with each other, in addition to interdicts on some animals: shrimp, pork, etc. The good stuff.
These laws might have had an ex ante purpose. One can blame insalubrious behavior of pigs, exacerbated by the heat in the Levant (though heat in the Levant was not markedly different from that in pig-eating areas further West). Or perhaps an ecological reason: kids compete with humans in eating the same vegetables while cows eat what we don’t eat.
But it remains that whatever the purpose, the Kashrut survived approximately three millennia not because of its “rationality” but because the populations that followed it survived. It most certainly brought cohesion: people who eat together hang together. Simply it aided those that survived because it is a convex heuristic. Such group cohesion might be also responsible for trust in commercial transactions with remote members of the community.
This allows us to summarize
Rationality is not what has conscious verbalistic explanatory factors; it is only what aids survival, avoids ruin.
Rationality is risk management, period.
[1] “Consider: If you’re a New Guinean living in the forest, and if you adopt the bad habit of sleeping under dead trees whose odds of falling on you that particular night are only 1 in 1,000, you’ll be dead within a few years. In fact, my wife was nearly killed by a falling tree last year, and I’ve survived numerous nearly fatal situations in New Guinea.”
----> 내가 요즘 하이에크의 글을 캡처해서 올리고 있지만, 나심 탈레브는 사실은 이미 하이에크가 오래 전에 했던 말을 수학적으로 다시 한번 반복하고 있다. 나심 탈레브가 계속해서 이런 작업을 해준다면, 자유주의를 확산하는 데 도움이 될 것으로 믿는다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
엡비씨에서 방송 불가 판정 받은 이승환의 노래 가사
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
저축과 화폐의 관계
중앙은행이 느슨한 재정 정책을 사용해 돈을 풀면, 늘어난 화폐 공급은 누군가 일해서 번 돈이 아니고, 따라서 그것에 해당하는 소비자 상품이 없다. 그런 돈으로 소비자 상품을 구입하면, 생산 없이 소비를 한 셈이 된다. 따라서 화폐 발행은 저축의 증가가 아니라, 실질 저축의 총량의 감소로 이어진다.
또 화폐가 증발되면, 정직한 화폐를 지닌 사람은 인플레 증가분만큼 정부로부터 강도를 당한 게 된다.
The Relationship Between Saving and Money
•Frank Shostak
Conventional wisdom says that savings is the amount of money left after monetary income was used for consumer outlays. Hence, for a given consumer outlays an increase in money income implies more saving and thus more funding for investment. This in turn sets the platform for higher economic growth.
Following this logic, one could also establish that increases in money supply are beneficial to the entire process of capital formation and economic growth. (Note increases in money supply result in increases in monetary income and this in turn for a given consumer outlays implies an increase in savings).
Saving vs. Money
Saving as such has nothing to do with money. It is the amount of final consumer goods produced in excess of present consumption.
The producers of final consumer goods can trade saved goods with each other or for intermediate goods such as raw materials and services. Observe that the saved goods support all the stages of production, from the producers of final consumer goods down to the producers of raw materials, services and all other intermediate stages.
Support means that these savings enable all these producers to maintain their lives and wellbeing while they are busy producing things. Also, note that if the production of final consumer goods were to rise, all other things being equal, this would expand the pool of real savings and would increase the ability to further produce a greater variety of consumer goods (i.e., wealth).
Note that people do not want various means as such but rather final consumer goods. This means that in order to maintain their life, people require an access to consumer goods. Only once there has been a sufficient increase in the pool of consumer goods, people may aim at enhancing their wellbeing by seeking other things such as entertainment and services related products — such as medical treatment, etc.
Introducing Money
The introduction of money does not alter what we so far have said. When a final producer of a consumer good sells his saved goods for money to another producer, he has supplied the other producer with his saved goods.
The supplied good sustains the other producer and allows him to produce other goods. Note that the money received by the producer is fully backed by his unconsumed production. Whenever, he deems it necessary he can always exchange his money for goods.
Whenever people buy capital goods such as machinery, they transfer money to the individuals who are employed in the making of the machinery. The money can in turn can be exchanged for consumer goods. With money, the machinery maker can choose to purchase not only final consumer goods but also various services. The services provider who receives the money could in turn acquire final consumer goods and services to support his life and well-being.
Without the medium of exchange (i.e., money), no market economy and hence no division of labor could take place. Money enables the goods of one specialist to be exchanged for the goods of another specialist. This all that money can do.
By means of money, people can channel real savings (i.e. unconsumed consumer goods) to others, which in turn permits the widening of the process of real wealth generation.
In addition, in the world without money it will be impossible to save various final consumer goods like perishable goods for a long period. The introduction of money solves this problem.
There is however, one provision in all this: that the flow of the production of goods continues unabated. This means that whenever a holder of money decides to exchange some money for goods, these goods are there for him.
By having the raw materials or intermediate goods readily available various producers can proceed immediately with the stages of making the final good. If the intermediate goods and materials were not readily available they would have to make it themselves, which of course would delay the making of the final good.
Once real savings are exchanged for money, it is of no consequence what the holder of the money does with it. Whether he uses it immediately in exchange for other goods or puts it under the mattress, it will not alter the given pool of real savings. How individuals decide to employ their money will only alter their demand for money, this however, has nothing to do with savings.
Individuals can exercise their demand for money either by holding it themselves or by placing it in the custody of a bank in a demand deposit or in a safe deposit box.
Whenever an individual lends some of his money he in fact transfers his claims on consumer goods to a borrower. By lending money, individuals in fact lower their demand for it.
Note that the act of lending does not alter the existing pool of real savings.
Likewise, if the owner of money decides to buy a financial asset like a bond or a stock he simply transfers his real savings to the seller of financial assets — no present real savings are affected because of these transactions.
When Central Banks Intervene
Problems, however, emerge whenever the central bank embarks on loose monetary policies. Since the expanded money supply was never earned, it therefore is not backed up, so to speak, by consumer goods. When such money is exchanged for consumer goods, it amounts to consumption that is not supported by production.
The printing of money therefore cannot result in more savings. On the contrary, it results in the weakening of the pool of real savings. We now have more money chasing the same amount of goods.
Consequently, a holder of honest money (i.e., an individual who has produced real wealth) that wants to exercise his claim over goods, discovers that he cannot get back the equivalent value of all the goods he previously produced and exchanged for money, all other things being equal.
He discovers that his purchasing power of money has fallen — he in fact been robbed by means of loose monetary policy.
Any so-called economic growth, in the framework of loose monetary policy can only be on account of the private sector that manages to grow the pool of real savings despite the loose monetary policy undermining this process.
Is it possible to ascertain the state of real savings? After all this is what drives economic growth? Because of the heterogeneous nature of final goods, it is not possible to quantify the size of the pool of real savings at any point in time.
All that can be established that in a true free market economy, without the central bank printing money, the pool of real savings is less likely to be threatened.
We can thus conclude that savings is not about money as such but about final consumer goods that support various individuals that are engaged in various stages of production. It is not money that funds economic activity but the saved pool of final consumer goods. The existence of money only facilitates the flow of the real savings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
출처: 익스프레스 지
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kelly
How AI can bring on a second Industrial Revolution
https://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_how_ai_can_bring_on_a_second_industrial_revolution/transcript#t-3052
------------------------------------------------------------------------
헌법재판소가 탄핵 심판을 하면서, 자기들이 법률을 어겼음이 당시 법조계에서 이를
지적되었지만, 언론들이 이를 제대로 보도하지 않았음을 지적하면서
[1] 헌법재판소가 자신들의 헌법재판소법 제32조를 어겼다는 것을 다시 폭로했다.
- 헌법을 수호할 의지가 없고 엉터리 판결을 한 것은 헌재인 것이다.
" 헌법재판소법 제 32조는 단서 조항으로, [ 재판.소추 또는 범죄수가가 진행 중인
사건의 기록에 대하여는 송부를 요구할 수 없다. ]고 명확하게 규정하고 있다.
- 이는 법원의 권한을 침해하는 것뿐 아니라, 개인의 기본권을 심각하게 침해하기에
송부를 요구할 수 없도록 되어있는 것인데도, 이번 탄핵심판을 담당한 헌재는
탄핵심판 초기부터, '특검'에다가, 박근혜 대통령에 대한 수사기록을 넘겨달라고
한 것은 분명한 법률위반을 저지른 것
당시 여러 변호사들이 헌법재판소는 헌법재판소법 제32조를 위반하지 말라고 했음에도
헌재는 이를 묵살하였고, 이렇게 헌재가 법률을 위반했음에도 언론들은 헌재가 위법을
저지른 것을 보도하지 않았음을 지적 ( 헌재와 언론이 거의 짠 듯이 위법적 행위를 은폐)
[2] 또한 헌법재판소법 제51조 [ ... 동일한 형사소송이 진행되고 있는 경우에는
재판부는 소송절차를 정지할 수 있다 ]는 것 - '할 수 있다'고 되어있기에
정지 안할 수 도 있다고 볼 수 있지만, 만약 정지를 안했다면 반드시 판결문에는
왜 정지를 하지 않았는 지를 자세히 소명해야하는데, 헌재는 하지 않았다.
[출처] (속보) 이상로 전 MBC국장, " 탄핵 심판한 헌법재판소가 법률을 위반했다 " - 그외에도 결정적 잘못 발견
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
출처: 타임
5 Reasons Things in North Korea Could Still Go Badly Wrong
Ian Bremmer
Aug 21, 2017
Tensions on the Korean peninsula remain high, as U.S. and South Korea began its latest series of war games on Monday, but right now the outbreak of war is looking less likely. Kim Jong Un’s regime in North Korea announced that it has opted for a wait-and-see approach with Guam, after U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis warned that any missile attack directed toward a U.S. territory “could escalate into war very quickly.” That's 21st century diplomacy in action. Here’s a quick look at some of the ways the current U.S.-North Korea détente can go sideways:
1. The wild card in the White House
For the last 60+ years, the unpredictable element in the U.S.-North Korea standoff has always hailed from Pyongyang. But Donald Trump is a different kind of president. He has at times demonstrated an astonishing thin skin—and given that the only thing impoverished North Korea has in spades is bellicose rhetoric, that’s a problem.
More worryingly though is the fact that if ever there was a seeming slam dunk foreign policy win for Trump, it’s North Korea. 62 percent of Americans believe Kim Jong-un poses a serious threat to the U.S. (up from 48 percent in March); 50 percent favor military action against North Korea if they continue testing missiles that can reach the U.S. For a man who remains conspicuously short of signature victories more than 200 days into his administration (and has a penchant for lurching from one PR disaster to another), taking a strong stand against North Korea might become more appealing day by day. And we haven’t even gotten to the Mueller investigation yet, which will most probably have Trump desperate to change the narrative any way he can.
2. North Korea's got something to prove
Conventional analysis of Kim Jong-un often begins and ends with the premise that he’s crazy. That may very well be, but he’s shown himself to be a pragmatist when it comes to foreign policy. Kim saw what happened to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, strongmen who bluffed a big nuclear game. He has no intention of following suit.
Menacing Guam was never going to give Kim the appearance of strength he desperately needs to stay in power though. Guam is heavily fortified; 6,000 U.S. troops are stationed there, as are THAAD missile defense systems and Aegis destroyers. It’s possible those defense systems are capable of shooting down missiles directed towards Guam—instantly transforming Kim’s threat from bold gambit to laughable miscalculation.
Then there’s the fact that China, North Korea’s longtime benefactor and main lifeline to the outside world, seems particularly unnerved by North Korea’s recent actions and fears it could destabilize the global status quo. It joined the UN Security Council’s latest round of sanctions against Pyongyang, and early reports suggest it’s actually following through this time. As a reminder, China accounts for more than 90 percent of North Korea’s trade volume in addition to providing the bulk of its food and energy. North Korea feeling threatened by the U.S. is one thing; North Korea feeling threatened by China is a completely new ball game, and one that makes Kim more likely to lash out.
3. China under pressure
Not that China had much choice but to turn the screws on North Korea. Trump has been floating the possibility of a trade war with China for months now, but it was only this week that Trump took any concrete steps by announcing the launch of a broad investigation into China’s alleged theft of American intellectual property. Had China not signed on to those Security Council sanctions, Trump would have probably taken an even harder line.
Ideally, China would like a stable world to continue its ascent to world power status. Given that, China has no good options when it comes to dealing with North Korea. It doesn’t want to get into a showdown with the U.S., so doing nothing is not a viable long-term option from here on in. But it can’t just cut North Korea off—there’s no telling what trouble Pyongyang will cause if it suddenly finds itself unmoored. In all likelihood, Beijing’s dream of a stable global environment while it focuses on building up economic initiatives like its ambitious One Belt One Road project suddenly vanish. At the same time, it can’t push the Kim regime too far lest it collapse, flooding China with desperate North Korean refugees and producing two of China’s worst nightmares: loose nukes and a US military using North Korea’s collapse as a pretext for ramping up its activity in Asia.
So China remains faced with a number of bad options. But it won’t stay that way forever. China’s leadership has shown itself adept to dealing with geopolitical challenges as they come; there will come a time when one North Korea option will clearly show itself to be worse than the others, and Beijing will act. It’s just not clear who that will benefit.
4. South Korea trapped in the middle
Pyongyang already poses an existential threat to South Korea. North Korea has anywhere between 2,500 and 5,000 tons of chemical weapons at its disposal already, and a barrage of artillery (as many as 21,000 pieces) continuously pointed at Seoul; some analysts estimate that amount of firepower could decimate Seoul (population: 10 million) in as little as two hours.
What is new for South Korea is its president, Moon Jae-in. Moon was elected in a special election this past May after his predecessor, the conservative Park Geun-hye, was impeached. During the last two conservative presidential administrations (Park and Lee Myung-bak), South Korea had followed America’s lead and taken a hardline against Pyongyang, believing that isolating North Korea could weaken it. Having seen the wonders that plan has worked, Moon has opted to revive South Korea’s “sunshine policy” from the late 1990s/early 2000s of constructive engagement with North Korea, which includes reestablishing lines of communication with Pyongyang (a proposal 77 percent of South Koreans support) and floating the possibility of economic cooperation with the Hermit Kingdom.
But improving relations with North Korea is far from simple. South Korea also has to balance its relationships with China and the U.S. China is a critical economic partner for South Korea; China accounts for almost a quarter of all South Korea’s trade, and it is the single largest importer of South Korean exports. At the same time, South Korea has relied on American military protection since the 1950s, and given the part of the world it’s situated in, it’s smart to have the world’s foremost military power in your corner. In fact, under U.S. President Barack Obama and South Korean President Park, the two countries agreed that the U.S. would install its THAAD anti-missile system in the country—a move China hates for fear that undercuts its own military leverage in Asia and that the technology could possibly be used to spy on their own military maneuvering. China has already responded with sanctions against select South Korean firms doing business in China and threatened more if THAAD’s deployment continues—which Moon has said it will. And all this without South Korea doing much of anything beyond remaining North Korea’s easiest target.
5. A problem that defies solutions
To recap: the U.S. demands North Korea stop developing nuclear weapons and missiles Pyongyang keeps threatening to use on the U.S. North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons and missiles to ensure its survival against an enemy it’s so terrified of it keeps threatening to nuke it. China would like things to remain relatively calm and unchanged, and South Korea just want to be left alone (Japan too). If that wasn’t bad enough, consider the principal actors involved: Donald Trump, Kim Jong-un, Chinese president Xi Jinping (who’s heading into a political transition this fall, and though he’s widely expected to continue on as president, the majority of China’s other decisionmakers are expected to be swapped out under Communist Party rules), and a South Korean president who hasn’t been in the job for even six months yet.
North Korea may be the single most difficult geopolitical challenge the world faces. Plenty of big time powers want opposing things, and all of them fear taking decisive action will leave them worse-off in the long run. Yet the longer no one does anything, the longer the problem festers, and at a certain point someone desperate will act, forcing everybody’s hand. There’s always a chance that cooler heads prevail and traditional diplomacy will work, but the world just hasn’t had that type of luck lately.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기