헌법도 좌향좌 하는 세상


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

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

 

 

수요 부족이라는 거짓말

소비자가 아닌 생산자가 경제 성장의 엔진이다.

정부와 중앙은행의 장난으로 소비자들의 효과적인 수요를 증가시킬 수는 없다.

수요는 상품의 생산에 의존하고 있고, 이는 통화 증발(增發)이나 정부 지출로 대신할 수 있는 것이 아니다.

 

The Myth of Insufficient Demand

 

 

•Frank Shostak

 

 

Following the ideas of Keynes and Friedman, most mainstream economists associate economic growth with increases in the demand for goods and services.

 

Both Keynes and Friedman felt that The Great Depression of the 1930’s was due to an insufficiency of aggregate demand and thus the way to fix the problem is to boost aggregate demand.

 

For Keynes, this was achieved by having the federal government borrow more money and spend it when the private sector would not. Friedman advocated that the Federal Reserve pump more money to revive demand.

 

There is never such a thing as insufficient demand as such, however. An individual’s demand is constrained by his ability to produce goods. The more goods that an individual can produce the more goods he can demand, and thus acquire.

 

Note that the production of one individual enables him to pay for the production of the other individual. (The more goods an individual produces the more of other goods he can secure for himself. An individual’s demand therefore is constrained by his production of goods).

 

Note again demand cannot stand by itself and be independent – it is limited by production. Hence, what drives the economy is not demand as such but the production of goods and services.

 

In this sense, producers and not consumers are the engine of economic growth. Obviously, if he wants to succeed then a producer must produce goods and services in line with what other producers require.

 

According to James Mill,

 

 

When goods are carried to market what is wanted is somebody to buy. But to buy, one must have the wherewithal to pay. It is obviously therefore the collective means of payment which exist in the whole nation constitute the entire market of the nation. But wherein consist the collective means of payment of the whole nation? Do they not consist in its annual produce, in the annual revenue of the general mass of inhabitants? But if a nation's power of purchasing is exactly measured by its annual produce, as it undoubtedly is; the more you increase the annual produce, the more by that very act you extend the national market, the power of purchasing and the actual purchases of the nation…. Thus it appears that the demand of a nation is always equal to the produce of a nation. This indeed must be so; for what is the demand of a nation? The demand of a nation is exactly its power of purchasing. But what is its power of purchasing? The extent undoubtedly of its annual produce. The extent of its demand therefore and the extent of its supply are always exactly commensurate.

 

If a population of five individuals produces ten potatoes and five tomatoes – this is all that they can demand and consume.

 

No government and central bank tricks can make it possible to increase their effective demand. The only way to raise the ability to consume more is to raise the ability to produce more.

 

The dependence of demand on the production of goods cannot be removed by means of monetary pumping and government spending.

 

On the contrary, loose fiscal and monetary policies will only impoverish real wealth generators and weaken their ability to produce goods and services — it will weaken the effective demand.

 

Therefore, what is then required to revive the economy is not boosting aggregate demand but sealing off all the loopholes for the creation of money out of “thin air” and curbing government spending.

 

This will enable true wealth generators to revive the economy by allowing them to move ahead with the business of wealth generation.

 

We can conclude that by strengthening the economy’s ability to produce goods and services we are in fact strengthening the so-called aggregate demand and promoting real economic growth.

 

 

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

 

  Hayek on tacit knowledge


 Fuat Oğuz


Abstract
This paper discusses the place of 'tacit knowledge' in Hayek's writings. How did Hayek understand tacit knowledge? How did his understanding change through time? I address these questions and follow the change in Hayek's works from skills and techniques of thought in the 1930s to the use of 'tacit knowledge' in the1960s. Hayek uses Polanyi's concept in many writings, but remains short of approving its implications. The paper emphasizes that while Hayek was quite aware of the differences between tacit knowing and knowing-how, he was not keen to stress the divergence. In the end, I offer some potential explanations for this preference


Hayek on tacit knowledge (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231881677_Hayek_on_tacit_knowledge [accessed Jan 02 2018].


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

  하이에크의 책 <자유의 조건> 241쪽


법 앞의 평등을 의미하는 아이소노미(isonomy)
민주주의(데모크라시)는 후에 점차 "법 앞의 평등"이라는 원칙을 버리고, 가난한 자를 위한 다는 명분으로 그들에게 혜택을 베풀기 시작했음. 따라서 우리는 민주주의를 버리고 아이소노미를 회복해야 한다.


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

 

 

 

  로마의 번영은 경제적 자유 덕분이었다.
하지만 콘스탄티누스와 유스티니아누스 황제로 내려가면서, 법 위에 군림하는 황제가 나타났고, 르네상스 이후로 고대 문화를 재발견 하면서, 유스티니아누스 법률도 다시 채용되었다. 

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

 

 

뉴욕타임즈의 좌파적 헤드라인을 제대로 고쳤다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

심리학인가 헛소리인가?


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

작년(2016년) 가을에 본인이 위퍼블에 올린 책의 캡쳐.  책은 봄에 완성되었는데, 출판하겠다는 곳이 없어서 원고를 갖고 있다가, 우연히 위퍼블이라는 사이트를 알아서 거기에 올렸다.
불행하게도 본인이 우려했던 대로 대한민국이 망국의 길로 가고 있다.


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