일부 PD수첩 제작진이 <한상균은 왜 감옥에 있는가?>라는 기획안을 회사가 승인하지 않는다는 이유로 제작 거부라는 불법적 집단행동에 돌입한 지 2주째로 접어들고 있습니다.

 

제작진은 <한상균은 왜 감옥에 있는가?>가 한국 사회에서 ‘일하는 사람들이 어떤 대우를 받고 있는가를 취재하려던 기획’이었으나, 회사가 부당하게 승인하지 않았다고 억지 주장을 하고 있습니다.

 

이에 회사는 문제의 기획안을 공개함으로써, 이번 사태에 대한 정확한 판단 근거를 제공하고자 합니다.

 

<한상균은 왜 감옥에 있는가?> 기획안에는 ‘주장’과 ‘시선’에 대한 언급은 있지만, 새로 발굴된 ‘사실 관계’의 제시는 없습니다. ‘팩트’가 아닌 한쪽으로 치우친 ‘주장’만을 나열하면서 프로그램을 제작하는 것은 탐사보도 프로그램을 지향하는 PD수첩이 결코 밟아서는 안 되는 길입니다. 따라서 이번 PD수첩 제작거부 사태의 본질은 ‘제작 자율성’의 침해가 아니라, 공정성 위반 소지를 방지하려는 회사의 ‘정당한 데스킹’과 제작 가이드라인을 부정하는 행위인 것입니다.  (발췌)

2017. 8. 3
㈜문화방송

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

더불어민주당 의원들이 최근 3일 새 문재인 대통령의 대선 공약과 현 정부 '100대 국정 과제'의 핵심 내용을 담은 법안 30여 건을 무더기로 발의했다. 이 중 가장 논란이 예상되는 법안은 공무원과 교사의 정치 활동을 허용하는 법안들이다. 야당은 이를 "결사 저지하겠다"고 밝혀 9월 정기국회에서 치열한 공방이 예상된다.

출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/08/05/2017080500197.html

--------> 하이에크는 입법만을 전문으로 하는 기구를 만들어, 정치인들에 의한 법의 남발을 막아야 한다고 주장했다. 나 역시 그러한 주장을 <대한민국, 이렇게 망한다>에서 다시 반복했다.

지금 우리의 국회에서는 좌파 의원들에 의해 한국을 망하게 하는 각종 법들이 무차별로 만들어지고 있다.

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

스탈린, 독재자의 새로운 얼굴 | 올레크 V. 흘레브뉴크 지음 | 유나영 옮김 | 삼인 | 647쪽 | 3만5000원

스탈린의 전기인데, 이미 오래전 신좌파 학자로 분류되는 에리히 프롬이 <The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness>에서 스탈린의 성격 분석을 했다. 번역된 책도 있다. <파괴란 무엇인가>란 제목으로 나온 번역서가 있었다. 




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

성과연봉제 도입 폐기 선언과 문재인 대통령의 헛고생

박동운 단국대 경제학과 명예 교수

한국은 일본의 호봉제를 그대로 베껴다가 지금까지 써 왔는데, 문제점은 다음과 같다.

 

첫째, 일의 가치와 생산성 반영이 미흡하다.

둘째, 일자리 창출에 부정적 영향을 미친다. 호봉제는 호봉에 맞춰 임금이 자동으로 오르게 되므로 생산성과 무관하게 인건비가 오른다. 따라서 기업은 인건비 상승에 억눌려 고령자를 조기 퇴직시키거나 신규 채용이나 비정규직 정규직화를 기피하게 된다.

셋째, 고령화 추세에 맞지 않다. 호봉제를 유지하면서 (박근혜 전 대통령이 도입한 정책대로) 정년을 60세로 연장할 경우 생산성이 증가하지 않으면 기업의 인건비 부담이 커지기 마련이다. 따라서 60세 정년 의무화가 어렵게 된다.

넷째, 근로자 간 임금격차가 확대되고 신규 채용이 어렵게 된다. 한국은 생산직 근로자의 경우, 30년 이상 근속 근로자의 임금이 초임보다 3.3배나 높다. 30년 근속 근로자 1명 임금으로 신규 근로자 3명을 채용할 수 있다는 뜻이다. 따라서 근로자 간 임금격차가 확대되는 것은 물론 기업은 신규 채용을 기피할 수밖에 없다.

 

문재인 대통령, ‘성과연봉제 도입’ 폐기 선언을 후회해야

 

문재인 대통령은 취임 후 얼마 있다가 민노총의 청구서에 따라 ‘성과연봉제 도입’ 폐기를 선언했다. 성과연봉제 도입으로 임금경직성이 풀릴듯하다가 중단되고 말았다. 만일 성과연봉제 도입이 폐기되지 않았더라면, 권현지 교수 연구팀의 연구대로, 혈세 퍼붓지 않아도 기업의 비정규직 정규직 전환이 쉬워지고, 신규채용도 활성화될 수 있을 것이다. ‘손 안 대고 코풀 수 있는 정책’을 문재인 대통령이 노조 편을 들어주느라 스스로 폐기하고 만 것이 아쉽다. 문재인 대통령은 이를 두고두고 후회해야 할 것이다.

(조선 펍, 발췌)

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

왜 로봇은 대량 실업을 유발하지 않는가?

장 밥티스트 세이는 과잉 생산이 시장 경제에 전혀 문제가 되지 않는다는 것을 설명했다. 그에 따르면 모든 생산은 그 결과로 생산자가 다른 상품을 구매할 수 있는 능력을 향상시킨다. 다시 말해 시장에서 상품을 공급하게 되면, 그 사람은 다시 시장에서 다른 상품들을 수요로 하게 된다는 것이다.

일부에서는 산업의 로봇화로 인한 소득 불평등을 걱정하는데, 탐욕스런 자본가가 그들의 상품을 구입해주는 거대 소비 대중이 없다면, 어떻게 부자가 될 수 있겠는가?

또 인간의 욕구는 무한정이기 때문에 결핍은 항상 존재한다. 그리고 그들의 욕구를 만족시키기 위해서는 기업가와 상품이 있어야 한다.

새로운 기술은 종종 혁신적이고 전혀 관련이 없는 상품을 출현시키고, 전체 경제를 번영하게 한다. 예를 들어, 세탁기의 출현은 여성과 그 가족이 빈곤에서 탈출할 수 있게 해주었다.

 

Why Robots Won't Cause Mass Unemployment

 

•Jonathan Newman

 

I made a small note in a previous article about how we shouldn’t worry about technology that displaces human workers:

 

 

The lamenters don’t seem to understand that increased productivity in one industry frees up resources and laborers for other industries, and, since increased productivity means increased real wages, demand for goods and services will increase as well. They seem to have a nonsensical apocalyptic view of a fully automated future with piles and piles of valuable goods everywhere, but nobody can enjoy them because nobody has a job. I invite the worriers to check out simple supply and demand analysis and Say’s Law.

 

Say’s Law of markets is a particularly potent antidote to worries about automation, displaced workers, and the so-called “economic singularity.” Jean-Baptiste Say explained how over-production is never a problem for a market economy. This is because all acts of production result in the producer having an increased ability to purchase other goods. In other words, supplying goods on the market allows you to demand goods on the market.

 

Say’s Law, Rightly Understood

 

J.B. Say’s Law is often inappropriately summarized as “supply creates its own demand,” a product of Keynes having “badly vulgarized and distorted the law.”

 

Professor Bylund has recently set the record straight regarding the various summaries and interpretations of Say’s Law.

 

Bylund lists the proper definitions:

 

 

Say’s Law:

•Production precedes consumption.

•Demand is constituted by supply.

•One’s demand for products in the market is limited by one’s supply.

•Production is undertaken to facilitate consumption.

•Your supply to satisfy the wants of others makes up your demand for others’ production.

•There can be no general over-production (glut) in the market.

 

NOT Say’s Law:

•Production creates its own demand.

•Aggregate supply is (always) equal to aggregate demand.

•The economy is always at full employment.

•Production cannot exceed consumption for any good.

 

Say’s Law should allay the fears of robots taking everybody’s jobs. Producers will only employ more automated (read: capital-intensive) production techniques if such an arrangement is more productive and profitable than a more labor-intensive technique. As revealed by Say’s Law, this means that the more productive producers have an increased ability to purchase more goods on the market. There will never be “piles and piles of valuable goods” laying around with no one to enjoy them.

 

Will All the Income Slide to the Top?

 

The robophobic are also worried about income inequality — all the greedy capitalists will take advantage of the increased productivity of the automated techniques and fire all of their employees. Unemployment will rise as we run out of jobs for humans to do, they say.

 

This fear is unreasonable for three reasons. First of all, how could these greedy capitalists make all their money without a large mass of consumers to purchase their products? If the majority of people are without incomes because of automation, then the majority of people won’t be able to help line the pockets of the greedy capitalists.

 

Second, there will always be jobs because there will always be scarcity. Human wants are unlimited, diverse, and ever-changing, yet the resources we need to satisfy our desires are limited. The production of any good requires labor and entrepreneurship, so humans will never become unnecessary.

 

Finally, Say’s Law implies that the profitability of producing all other goods will increase after a technological advancement in the production of one good. Real wages can increase because the greedy robot-using capitalists now have increased demands for all other goods. I hope the following scenario makes this clear.

 

아래는 로봇의 도입을 가상한 간단한 이야기인데, 시간이 없는 분은 생략해도 됨.

 

The Case of the Robot Fairy

 

This simple scenario shows why the increased productivity of a new, more capital-intensive technique makes everybody better off in the end.

 

Consider an island of three people: Joe, Mark, and Patrick. The three of them produce coconuts and berries. They prefer a varied diet, but they have their own comparative advantages and preferences over the two goods.

 

Patrick prefers a stable supply of coconuts and berries every week, and so he worked out a deal with Joe such that Joe would pay him a certain wage in coconuts and berries every week in exchange for Patrick helping Joe gather coconuts. If they have a productive week, Joe gets to keep the extra coconuts and perhaps trade some of the extra coconuts for berries with Mark. If they have a less than productive week, then Patrick still receives his certain wage and Joe has to suffer.

 

On average, Joe and Patrick produce 50 coconuts/week. In exchange for his labor, Patrick gets 10 coconuts and 5 quarts of berries every week from Joe.

 

Mark produces the berries on his own. He produces about 30 quarts of berries every week. Joe and Mark usually trade 20 coconuts for 15 quarts of berries. Joe needs some of those berries to pay Patrick, but some are for himself because he also likes to consume berries.

 

In sum, and for an average week, Joe and Patrick produce 50 coconuts and Mark produces 30 quarts of berries. Joe ends up with 20 coconuts and 10 quarts of berries, Patrick ends up with 10 coconuts and 5 quarts of berries, and Mark ends up with 20 coconuts and 15 quarts of berries.

 

	Production	Trade	Consumption
Joe	50 Coconuts (C)	Give 20C for 15B	20C + 10B
Patrick		n/a	10C + 5B (wage)
Mark	30 qts. Berries (B)	Give 15B for 20C	20C + 15B

 

 

The Robot Fairy Visits

 

One night, the robot fairy visits the island and endows Joe with a Patrick 9000, a robot that totally displaces Patrick from his job, plus some. With the robot, Joe can now produce 100 coconuts per week without the human Patrick.

 

What is Patrick to do? Well, he considers two options: (1) Now that the island has plenty of coconuts, he could go work for Mark and pick berries under a similar arrangement he had with Joe; or (2) Patrick could head to the beach and start catching some fish, hoping that Joe and Mark will trade with him.

 

While these options weren’t Patrick’s top choices before the robot fairy visited, now they are great options precisely because Joe’s productivity has increased. Joe’s increased productivity doesn’t just mean that he is richer in terms of coconuts, but his demands for berries and new goods like fish increase as well (Say’s Law), meaning the profitability of producing all other goods that Joe likes also increases!

 

Option 1

 

If Patrick chooses option 1 and goes to work for Mark, then both berry and coconut production totals will increase. Assuming berry production doesn’t increase as much as coconut production, the price of a coconut in terms of berries will decrease (Joe’s marginal utility for coconuts will also be very low), meaning Mark can purchase many more coconuts than before.

 

Suppose Patrick adds 15 quarts of berries per week to Mark’s production. Joe and Mark could agree to trade 40 coconuts for 20 quarts of berries, so Joe ends up with 60 coconuts and 20 quarts of berries. Mark can pay Patrick up to 19 coconuts and 9 quarts of berries and still be better off compared to before Joe got his Patrick 9000 (though Patrick’s marginal productivity would warrant something like 12 coconuts and 9 quarts of berries or 18 coconuts and 6 quarts of berries or some combination between those — no matter what, everybody is better off).

 

	Production	Trade	Consumption
Joe	100C	Give 40C for 20B	60C + 20B
Patrick	45B	n/a	16C + 7B (wage)
Mark		Give 20B for 40C	24C + 18B

 

 

If Mark decides to reject Patrick’s offer to work for him, then Patrick can choose option 2, catching fish. It involves more uncertainty than what Patrick is used to, but he anticipates that the extra food will be worth it.

 

Suppose that Patrick can produce just 5 fish per week. Joe, who is practically swimming in coconuts pays Patrick 20 coconuts for 1 fish. Mark, who is excited about more diversity in his diet and even prefers fish to his own berries, pays Patrick 10 quarts of berries for 2 fish. Joe and Mark also trade some coconuts and berries.

 

In the end, Patrick gets 20 coconuts, 10 quarts of berries, and 2 fish per week. Joe gets 50 coconuts, 15 quarts of berries, and 1 fish per week. Mark gets 30 coconuts, 5 quarts of berries, and 2 fish per week. Everybody prefers their new diet.

 

	Production	Trade	Consumption
Joe	100C	Give 50C for 15B + 1F	50C + 15B + 1F
Patrick	5 fish (F)	Give 2F for 20C + 10B	20C + 10B + 2F
Mark	30B	Give 25B for 30C + 1F	30C + 5B + 2F

 

Conclusion

 

The new technology forced Patrick to find a new way to sustain himself. These new jobs were necessarily second-best (at most) to working for Joe in the pre-robot days, or else Patrick would have pursued them earlier. But just because they were suboptimal pre-robot does not mean that they are suboptimal post-robot. The island’s economy was dramatically changed by the robot, such that total production (and therefore consumption) could increase for everybody. Joe’s increased productivity translated into better deals for everybody.

 

Of course, one extremely unrealistic aspect of this robot fairy story is the robot fairy. Robot fairies do not exist, unfortunately. New technologies must be wrangled into existence by human labor and natural resources, with the help of capital goods, which also must be produced using labor and natural resources. Also, new machines have to be maintained, replaced, refueled, and rejiggered, all of which require human labor. Thus, we have made this scenario difficult for ourselves by assuming away all of the labor that would be required to produce and maintain the Patrick 9000. Even so, we see that the whole economy, including the human Patrick, benefits as a result of the new robot.

 

This scenario highlights three important points:

 

(1) Production must precede consumption, even for goods you don’t produce (Say’s Law). For Mark to consume coconuts or fish, he has to supply berries on the market. For Joe to consume berries or fish, he has to supply coconuts on the market. Patrick produced fish so that he could also enjoy coconuts and berries.

 

(2) Isolation wasn’t an option for Patrick. Because of the Law of Association (a topic not discussed here, but important nonetheless), there is always a way for Patrick to participate in a division of labor and benefit as a result, even after being displaced by the robot.

 

(3) Jobs will never run out because human wants will never run out. Even if our three island inhabitants had all of the coconuts and berries they could eat before the robot fairy visited, Patrick was able to supply additional want satisfaction with a brand new good, the fish. In the real world, new technologies often pave the way for brand new, totally unrelated goods to emerge and for whole economies to flourish. Hans Rosling famously made the case that the advent of the washing machine allowed women and their families to emerge from poverty:

 

 

And what’s the magic with them? My mother explained the magic with this machine the very, very first day. She said, “Now Hans, we have loaded the laundry. The machine will make the work. And now we can go to the library.” Because this is the magic: you load the laundry, and what do you get out of the machine? You get books out of the machines, children's books. And mother got time to read for me. She loved this. I got the “ABC’s” — this is where I started my career as a professor, when my mother had time to read for me. And she also got books for herself. She managed to study English and learn that as a foreign language. And she read so many novels, so many different novels here. And we really, we really loved this machine.

 

And what we said, my mother and me, “Thank you industrialization. Thank you steel mill. Thank you power station. And thank you chemical processing industry that gave us time to read books.”

 

Similarly, the Patrick 9000, a coconut-producing robot, made fish production profitable. Indeed, when we look at the industrial revolution and the computer revolution, we do not just see an increase in the production of existing goods. We see existing goods increasing in quantity and quality; we see brand new consumption goods and totally new industries emerging, providing huge opportunities for employment and future advances in everybody’s standard of living.

 

 

 

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

 

  이데일리 2017.06.02. 육사 34~43기 출신 사조직인 '알자회' 뿐 아니라 '독사파'(獨士派) 인사들의 향방에 군 내 관심이 집중되고... 박찬주(육사37기) 육군 2작전사령관도 독일 육사에서 공부했다. 대표적인 '김관진 라인' 인사다.

이상하더 했더니 역시나 문재앙이 사드 보고 누락했다고 보복시작했다

박찬주 대장은  그 첫번째 타깃일뿐이다

박근혜 대통령이 임명한 군장성들 짜르기위한

좌빨 청와대 주사파 비서실장 임종석이 무리배들 음모다

독일 유학한 군장성 보고 독사파라 이름붙이는 것도 그렇고

사드반대 주한미군철수 동성애 찬성 군인권센터 정의당 주사파 임종석

각이나온다 공관병 나름의 애로는 있겠지만 변기에 머리박으라는

해병대 각도아니고 침소봉대뒤에는 분명히 음모가 있다고본다


군인권센터 동성애 군인가려내라는 명령내린 장군보고 인권침해라는 놈들이다

좌파들 문재앙 안좋은 시선 보내는 군장성을 말잘듣는

좌파 문재앙이 무리배로 바꾸려는 숨은 의도가있다고 본다

김대중 정권당시 국정원 대북전문가 580명이나 대량해고한거 보면 알수있다 

출처: 일베

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

3500명을 월 3억으로 가동했으면 

30개팀 팀장이 월 300만원을 받았다는거 빼고 

1인당 평균 월 6만원을 받았다는 소리가 된다 

이정도 수준으로 3500명이 가동됐다면 

애국국민들의 자발적인 참여고 애국활동이지 

이게 왜 알바가 되는가? 

어떤 미친놈이 하루 2000원 

10시간 기준하면 시간당 200원 정도를 받고 

댓글 알바를 한다는 건가? 

문 정권의 3500명 월 3억 국정원 댓글알바 선동은 

반대국민을 댓글알바로 몰아세워서 정권을 

유지하겠다는 명백한 독재적 정치탄압이고 

치졸한 정치보복에 불과하다 

 출처: 일베

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

 

 

이코노미스트의 표지. 북한의 핵 문제를 다루었는데, 별다른 방법이 없고, 북한 핵을 억지하다가, 북한의 내부에서 반란이 일어나 정권이 바뀌면, 그때나 해결될 수 있다고 한다.


나는 그 전에 좌파 정권에 의해 한국의 사회주의화가 완성 될 수도 있다고 본다.


지금 사회 현상을 보면 각 방면에서 한국을 사회주의 국가로 만들기 위한 총력전이 전개되고 있다. 앞으로 5년 후에 우파가 정권을 잡을 수 있는 기회가 점점 줄어들고 있다. 지금의 좌파 정권은 또 다시 어떤 수작을 해서라도 좌파 인물을 5년 후 대선에 당선시킬 것이다.  그러니까 지금의 베네수엘라와 같은 상황이 벌어질 가능성이 크다.
-------------------------------------------------------------