cnn 브레이킹 뉴스에 트럼프의 위의 트윗이 소개되었다. 중국 전문가 고든 창은 유치하다고 평했다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
뱅모 @bangmo 10시간10시간 전
더 보기
우리은행 달력의 그림에는 인공기만 있는게 아니다. 김일성화, 김정일화, 붉은소년단 스카프도 그려져 있는 것으로 보인다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
그러므로
저 그림은 단순히 초등학생 그림이 아니라
완전히 계획된 그림이다란 말.
[출처] (뱅모) "우리은행 달력의 그림에는 인공기만 있는게 아니다"\\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
출처: 일베
----------------------------------------------------------
하이에크는 케인즈를 잘못 보았다
케인즈는 권력을 쫓는 국가주권주의 마키아벨리였고, 또 20세기에 떠돌던 최악의 사상적 경향과 제도를 구체화 했다.
What Hayek Got Wrong About Keynes
•Murray N. Rothbard
Was Keynes, as Hayek maintained, a “brilliant scholar”? “Scholar” hardly, since Keynes was abysmally read in the economics literature: he was more of a buccaneer, taking a little bit of knowledge and using it to inflict his personality and fallacious ideas upon the world, with a drive continually fueled by an arrogance bordering on egomania. But Keynes had the good fortune to be born within the British elite, to be educated within the top economics circles (Eton/Cambridge/Apostles), and to be specially chosen by the powerful Alfred Marshall.
“Brilliant” is scarcely an apt word either. Clearly, Keynes was bright enough, but his most significant qualities were his arrogance, his unlimited self-confidence, and his avid will to power, to domination, to cutting a great swath through the arts, the social sciences, and the world of politics.
Furthermore, Keynes was scarcely a “revolutionary” in any real sense. He possessed the tactical wit to dress up ancient statist and inflationist fallacies with modern, pseudoscientific jargon, making them appear to be the latest findings of economic science. Keynes was thereby able to ride the tidal wave of statism and socialism, of managed and planning economies. Keynes eliminated economic theory’s ancient role as spoilsport for inflationist and statist schemes, leading a new generation of economists on to academic power and to political pelf and privilege.
A more fitting term for Keynes would be “charismatic”—not in the sense of commanding the allegiance of millions but in being able to con and seduce important people—from patrons to politicians to students and even to opposing economists. A man who thought and acted in terms of power and brutal domination, who reviled the concept of moral principle, who was an eternal and sworn enemy of the bourgeoisie, of creditors, and of the thrifty middle class, who was a systematic liar, twisting truth to fit his own plan, who was a Fascist and an anti-Semite, Keynes was nevertheless able to cajole opponents and competitors.
Even as he cunningly turned his students against his colleagues, he was still able to cozen those same colleagues into intellectual surrender. Harassing and hammering away unfairly at Pigou, Keynes was yet able, at last and from beyond the grave, to wring an abject recantation from his old colleague. Similarly, he inspired his old foe Lionel Robbins to muse absurdly in his diary about the golden halo around Keynes’s “godlike” head. He was able to convert to Keynesianism several Hayekians and Misesians who should have known—and undoubtedly did know—better: in addition to Abba Lerner, John Hicks, Kenneth Boulding, Nicholas Kaldor, and G.L.S. Shackle in England, there were also Fritz Machlup and Gottfried Haberler from Vienna, who landed at Johns Hopkins and Harvard, respectively.
Of all the Misesians of the early 1930s, the only economist completely uninfected by the Keynesian doctrine and personality was Mises himself. And Mises, in Geneva and then for years in New York without a teaching position, was removed from the influential academic scene. Even though Hayek remained anti-Keynesian, he too was touched by the Keynesian charisma. Despite everything, Hayek was proud to call Keynes a friend and indeed promoted the legend that Keynes, at the end of his life, was about to convert from his own Keynesianism.
Hayek’s evidence for Keynes’s alleged last-minute conversion is remarkably slight—based on two events in the final years of Keynes’s life. First, in June 1944, upon reading The Road to Serfdom, Keynes, now at the pinnacle of his career as a wartime government planner, wrote a note to Hayek, calling it “a great book…morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it.” But why should this be interpreted as anything more than a polite note to a casual friend on the occasion of his
first popular book?
Moreover, Keynes made it clear that, despite his amiable words, he never accepted the essential “slippery slope” thesis of Hayek, namely, that statism and central planning lead straight to totalitarianism. On the contrary, Keynes wrote that “moderate planning will be safe if those carrying it out are rightly oriented in their minds and hearts to the moral issue.” This sentence, of course, rings true, for Keynes always believed that the installation of good men, namely, himself and the technicians and statesmen of his social class, was the only safeguard needed to check the powers of the rulers (Wilson 1982, pp. 64ff.).
Hayek proffers one other bit of flimsy evidence for Keynes’s alleged recantation, which occurred during his final meeting with Keynes in 1946, the last year of Keynes’s life. Hayek reports,
A turn in the conversation made me ask him whether or not he was concerned about what some of his disciples were making of his theories. After a not very complimentary remark about the persons concerned he proceeded to reassure me: those ideas had been badly needed at the time he had launched them. But I need not be alarmed: if they should ever become dangerous I could rely upon him that he would again quickly swing round public opinion—indicating by a quick movement of his hand how rapidly that would be done. But three months later he was dead. (Hayek 1967, p. 348)
Yet this was hardly a Keynes on the verge of recantation. Rather, this was vintage Keynes, a man who always held his sovereign ego higher than any principles, higher than any mere ideas, a man who relished the power he held. He could and would turn the world, set it right with a snap of his fingers, as he presumed to have done in the past.
Moreover, this statement was also vintage Keynes in terms of his long-held view of how to act properly when in or out of power. In the 1930s, prominent but out of power, he could speak and act “a little wild”; but now that he enjoyed the high seat of power, it was time to tone down the “poetic license.” Joan Robinson and the other Marxo-Keynesians were making the mistake, from Keynes’s point of view, of not subordinating their cherished ideas to the requirements of his prodigious position of power.
And so Hayek too, while never succumbing to Keynes’s ideas, did fall under his charismatic spell. In addition to creating the legend of Keynes’s change of heart, why did Hayek not demolish The General Theory as he had Keynes’s Treatise on Money? Hayek admitted to a strategic error, that he had not bothered to do so because Keynes was notorious for changing his mind, so Hayek did not think then that The General Theory would last. Moreover, as Mark Skousen has noted, Hayek apparently pulled his punches in the 1940s in order to avoid interfering with Britain’s Keynesian financing of the war effort—certainly an unfortunate example of truth suffering at the hands of presumed political expediency.
Later economists continued to hew a revisionist line, maintaining absurdly that Keynes was merely a benign pioneer of uncertainty theory (Shackle and Lachmann), or that he was a prophet of the idea that search costs were highly important in the labor market (Clower and Leijonhufvud). None of this is true. That Keynes was a Keynesian—of that much derided Keynesian system provided by Hicks, Hansen, Samuelson, and Modigliani —is the only explanation that makes any sense of Keynesian economics. Yet Keynes was much more than a Keynesian. Above all, he was the extraordinarily pernicious and malignant figure that we have examined in this chapter: a charming but power-driven statist Machiavelli, who embodied some of the most malevolent trends and institutions of the 20th century.
[Excerpted from Keynes, The Man]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
연준의 인플레 정책으로 인해, 벼랑에 몰린 노인들이 돈을 벌기 위해 차를 타고 유랑하며 아마존 등에서 일하고 있다
중앙은행에 의한 인플레는 하층민들의 부를 강탈해서 상류층에게 갖다 주고 있다. 중앙은행이나 상업은행이 허공에서 돈을 만들면, 그 돈을 가장 먼저 사용하는 사람들의 구매력이 증가하고, 반대로 하층민들의 구매력은 잠식당하게 된다.
Seniors Scramble for Income as the Fed Inflates
•Doug French
The Federal Reserve’s decades long program of inflation, as the cure to fix all things wrong with economy, has made retirement a luxury fewer people can afford. It’s not a story that’s well known. That the retail world is being taken over by Jeff Bezos’s Amazon is common knowledge.
The two trends crash together in Jessica Bruder’s Nomadland, a book gushed about by reviewers at The New York Times. Bruder said at the Wisconsin Book Festival, “the economy is a mess,” and goes on to rail against greedy employers who don’t want to pay benefits and fund retirement funds.
Bruder’s book is chalk full of sad stories of layoffs, foreclosures, and lack of family support. At the same time, these nomads, workampers or rubber tramps, are a resilient bunch, who left behind the costs and responsibilities of real estate for “wheelestate” to survive their golden years.
This is where Mr. Bezos comes in. Amazon is a large employer of the workampers. “Incentivized by federal tax credits for employing elderly workers (25 to 40 percent of wages), the company aggressively recruits them, especially during the holiday season,” Parul Sengal writes for The New York Times. “Jeff Bezos has predicted that a quarter of all workampers will pass through his warehouses, working 10 hours or more a day, sorting packages.”
Not having the luxury of financial security and leisure time to play golf and bridge, “workampers ride a national circuit of jobs extending coast to coast and up into Canada, a shadow economy created by hundreds of employers posting classified ads on websites with names like Workers on Wheels and Workamper News,” writes Bruder.
The fact is, employers are eager to hire workampers. “They love retirees because we’re dependable. We’ll show up, work hard, and are basically slave labor,” seventy-seven year old David Roderick told the author.
The author lived in a van (named Halen) and traveled with the workampers for three and a half years. The people she befriended were cheerful and gracious, even after working grueling shifts at Amazon warehouses that could involve walking 15 miles punctuated with dozens of squats. A couple Advil, taken before and after work, are a must.
However, few dream of living in an RV Park, working for Mr. Bezos, then moving on to work for a forest service contractor, and then toiling in the pressure-packed, beat-the-clock, sugar beet harvest.
Contrary to how Bruder portrays it, this is not a minimum wage issue. Government provides employers incentives to hire temporary workers so as avoid paying margin killing benefits. The author doesn’t finger Uncle Sam for working these wanna-be retirees to the bone and shorting them on their hours, even in national parks. She saves her bile for the evil Amazon.
“Many of the workers I met in the Amazon camps were part of a demographic that in recent years has grown with alarming speed: downwardly mobile older Americans,” writes Bruder. "In the heyday of a place like Empire — the era of a strong middle class, complete with job stability and pensions — their circumstances had been virtually unimaginable.”
Yes, successive generations are now doing worse, as government has become an over leveraged leviathan. However, people don’t just curl and die, they persevere, with a smile. The author cites a wonderful quote from James Rorty who wrote during the Great Depression, “I encountered nothing in 15,000 miles of travel that disgusted and appalled me so much as this American addiction to make-believe.”
While Americans put on a happy face, central bank inflation robs people at the bottom and transfers wealth to those at the top. “Creating money out of thin air, which is what central banks and commercial banks are licensed to do, confers purchasing power on those who are able to use the money first,” writes Russell Lamberti. “For this new money to obtain purchasing power, it must rob little bits of purchasing power from all the other money in the economy. Purchasing power is transferred from those who hold money to those who create new money at close to zero marginal cost.”
Lamberti continues,
This explains how and why wealthy, creditworthy asset owners get richer while many poor people tend to resort to overconsumption and ultimately get poorer. Economist John Maynard Keynes, ironically a proponent of inflationary policies, famously noted that “by a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.
Ms. Bruder believes this is just the beginning. Most who fall on hard times won’t move into their vehicles. However, “Those who do are analogous to what biologists call an ‘indicator species’--sensitive organisms with the capacity to signal much larger shifts in an ecosystem.”
The disease is inflation, workamping is a symptom.
Douglas French is former president of the Mises Institute, author of Early Speculative Bubbles & Increases in the Money Supply , and author of Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Ownership Myth. He received his master's degree in economics from UNLV, studying under both Professor Murray Rothbard and Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
미제스의 역사 연구 방법 타이몰로지 thymology
Mises Explains What Motivates Human Action
•Chris Calton
In the preface to Ludwig von Mises’ Theory and History, Murray Rothbard refers to the book as his “fourth and last great work” as well as “the most neglected masterwork of Mises.” In it, Mises elaborates on the philosophy put forth in Human Action, where he details one of the two sciences of human action — praxeology. The other science of human action, Mises tells us, is history, and in Theory and History, he finally gives a systematic exposition of his method of history, which he calls “thymology.”
Fatalism and the Erroneous Theories of History
Thymology was Mises’ answer to the approaches to historical research that were in fashion in the late 1950s when Theory and History was first published. He starts by dismantling the various theories of history – what we may refer to as “deterministic” views of history – that suggest that the course of history was moving along a destined path determined by some outside force.
Mises gives a damning critique of these philosophies of history, which culminated in the Marxian theory of history that was dominating the discipline during Mises’ lifetime. He writes: “Every variety of the philosophy of history must answer two questions. First: What is the final end aimed at and the route by which it is to be reached? Second: By what means are people induced or forced to pursue this course?”
In the religious materialism that developed in the seventeenth century, the answers to these questions were clear. There was a “prime mover” — God — who created the universe much like a man creates a machine, and mankind will necessarily move mechanistically through stages of history: the period of sinful bliss, followed by the wicked suffering, and finally salvation. This was the deterministic outlook on the course of history that established both the concepts of a “prime mover” and what we can refer to as a “stages doctrine,” which is to say that mankind is destined to move inevitably through certain stages of history in a specific order.
During the Enlightenment, many thinkers began to take a more agnostic approach to the course of human history. Instead of Providence, mankind was moved by reason. But in this doctrine, historical progress was inevitable. Reason would be perfected, and human history would progress only in an upward linear direction. Although this approach did not adopt a “stages” approach to history, it retained the deterministic view of human progress: namely, that we will only progress – and never retrogress – intellectually, morally, economically, and so on.
Hegel inserted the idea of consciousness that was naturally implanted into the collective minds of a people. As Mises explains it, the Hegelians believed that “Providence resorted to a cunning device. It implanted in every man’s mind certain impulses the operation of which must necessarily result in the realization of its own plan.” Hegel referred to this natural intuition as Geist. Through the study of logic, man could still obtain real knowledge of the universe, the Hegelians believed, but any cognition of the universe still depended on this Geist.
Karl Marx attempted to synthesize the Hegelian view with the old materialist doctrine, but with modifications that appealed to his outlook. Marx turned Hegel’s view of Geist into the notion of “class consciousness” that directed the actions of the proletarians and the bourgeoisie. He also reinstated a “stages doctrine” of history, but now it proclaimed the destiny of mankind to move through the stages of feudalism, capitalism, and finally socialism. This was Marx’s cognition of the inevitability of progress. Finally, Marx also touted that his philosophy was “scientific,” but Mises argues that this was only because the scientific outlook toward various disciplines was in fashion at the time. In reality, Marx merely replaced previous notions of the “prime mover” with his undefined “material forces of production” that were – inexplicably – responsible for the way that class consciousness directed the actions of people. Historic progress, in Marx’s world, would occur only because of the enlightened few who were mystically endowed with a higher consciousness – one beyond the consciousness of their class – that would allow them to hasten the inevitable progress toward socialism. These enlightened men would be the prophets of the Marxian religion, and – of course – Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the first among them.
Mises spends several pages dismantling these theories of history as untenable and fatalistic. The purpose of Marx’s theory of history, Mises argues, was to “silence the critical voices of the economists by pointing out that socialism was the next and final stage of the historical process and therefore a higher and better stage than the preceding stages.” Rather than combat the economists on the grounds of logic and reason, Marx sought to convince people to dismiss their arguments entirely, as they were merely presenting the “bourgeois economics” dictated by their class consciousness. Damningly, Mises points out that this “irresistible trend toward salvation and the establishment of a state of everlasting bliss is an eminently theological idea.”
Mises and the Cliometricians
In addition to the popularity of Marxist interpretations of history that prevailed during Mises’ lifetime, there was also the rising popularity in the mid-twentieth century of statistical analyses of history. This mathematical approach to history is known as “cliometrics,” and the birth of this method is often dated back to 1957 – the same year that Theory and History was published. Mises’ attack on this budding methodology was prescient, but it unfortunately went unheeded for several decades. The Cliometric Society was founded in 1983, and it continues to promote quantitative approaches to history to this day. Although the field of history itself has moved away from the use of cliometric analyses – largely due to the lack of education in quantitative methods rather than the recognition of the logical flaws in this approach – the field of economics has taken it over in the production of economic histories by scholars whose academic training is in mathematical economics.
Joseph Salerno clarified Mises’ critique of mathematical history (largely because Mises was attacking it during its nascent, undeveloped stage) in the introduction to Murray Rothbard’s The History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II. Dr. Salerno identifies two major deficiencies in this approach that are solved by adopting the method of thymology.
First, he points out that the statistical approach to history limits the scope of historical questions that can guide the research. Mathematical economic histories, Salerno argues, are confined to questions such as “What was the net contribution of the railroad to the growth of real GNP in the United States?” These quantitative questions neglect any qualitative analyses, such as the question of “what motivated the huge government land grants for railroad rights-of-way or the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.” In other words, per Mises, the quantitative approach to history ignores the motivations of the men involved, which are the ultimate source of any historical phenomena. A comparison of the two approaches can be found in Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States, 1857-1960, which tried to explain monetary history through a mechanical movement of money aggregates, and the contrasting book by Murray Rothbard, America’s Great Depression. Rothbard’s work was published in the same year, and both works sought to explain the Great Depression of the 1930s, but only America’s Great Depression offers any analysis of the human beings involved and how their ideas and choices played a role in this significant historical episode.
The second and more significant of the failures of mathematical economics that Salerno points out is the “relationship it posits between theory and history.” He argues that “if the theory used to interpret past events can always be invalidated by future events, then it is unclear whether theory is the explanans or the explanand in historical research.” Put in simpler terms, historical positivists are employing circular logic in their approach to history. They are employing economic theory to interpret historical data, but are then using the interpretation of their data to confirm or refute their theory. The theory is sound because the interpretation of the data confirms it to be so, and the interpretation of the data is sound because the theory tells us that it is.
Instead of a deterministic view of history that purports to know what will happen in the future, these economic historians have no means of even gauging what actually happened in the past. Without an a priori basis of economic knowledge derived from the study of human action, all historical interpretations rest precariously on the self-confirming foundation of raw, quantifiable data.
Mises’ Alternative Approach: Thymology
Mises wrote Theory and History to offer a better approach to the study of history – one that might correct the erroneous trends in which the field was moving. Equipped with the foundation of knowledge derived from praxeology, historical analysis could gain an even deeper understanding of specific historical events through what he referred to as “understanding” throughout his magnum opus Human Action.
“Understanding,” in the technical Misesian lexicon, is the means by which we can estimate the uncertain and mutable elements of any given time and region. It begins with the immutable laws of human action and the natural sciences, but it probes further to the circumstantial elements affecting a specific person or people at a specific period of time. Thymology – the method of improving our understanding of these unique circumstances – is already used by everybody, whether they realize it or not. When an entrepreneur is speculating on the future status of the market, he is practicing thymology to gain a better understanding of the unique factors that help him to anticipate the uncertain future. This takes the laws of economics and natural sciences and seeks to add to it the circumstantial knowledge of culture, beliefs, personal motivations, and other factors that are not universally applicable throughout all of history the way natural laws are.
Although thymology is used outside of the discipline of history, Mises posits that historians would be better off abandoning their erroneous approaches and theories and adopting thymology for historical analysis. He begins by establishing the proper subjects of historical analysis. These consist of the particular value judgments made by individuals, the ends they hoped to achieve, the means they employed to achieve their desired ends, and finally the outcome of the actions taken (which may or may not have been what the individuals were hoping to achieve).
To determine these elements of any historical event, the historian has to be aware of the social milieu in which the individuals exist. Ideas, Mises contends, are the ultimate subject of history because historical change is always driven by the ideas of individuals. But although ideas can change and new ideas can be conceived, the historian would be remiss to treat the human subjects of history as if the context of their environment – their culture, their upbringing, their religion, their political structure – had no effect on the shaping of their ideas.
Mises also encourages historians to reject certain ideological fallacies that can lead them to err. The fallacies he addresses are the “natural factors” and the “biological factors” of ideas. The fallacies derived from the notion that “natural factors” are responsible for the birth of ideas is the product of putting too much weight on the importance of the social environment. It is erroneous to ignore the social context of individuals, but it is equally erroneous to assume historical figures are entirely the product of their environment. “To the same physical environment,” Mises writes, “various individuals and groups of individuals respond in a different way.”
The concept that “biological factors” can explain history is based on racist doctrines. Mises rejects this as well. The racial doctrines seek to explain how some societies have progressed at different rates and in different ways than others by attributing certain characteristics to specific races, but Mises points out that this fails to explain “why a man’s ideas differ from those of people of the same race.” Even if the historian believes one culture to be more advanced than another, the individuality rooted in the conception of ideas make it impossible to claim that the different rate of technological or cultural progression between peoples is the product of any inherent differences. The concerns of the historian, Mises reiterates, are strictly confined to “people’s ideas and the ends they were aiming at motivated by these ideas.” The assumption of biological factors in the formation of ideas is a formula for a misunderstanding of historical events.
Finally, thymology employs the concept of “activistic determinism.” The theories of history were employing the notion of “fatalistic determinism” – which philosophers merely refer to as “determinism” without the additional qualifier. Fatalistic determinism assumes, whether tacitly or explicitly, that man has no free will, and therefore the progress of history is determined by some prime mover beyond any control of the humans that put them in motion. Activistic determinism, Mises makes very clear, is fully compatible with the concept of free will. The “deterministic” element of this concept is merely the recognition of the fact that there are immutable laws of nature that govern all historical events. It is not fatalistic determinism that if I drop a penny off of the Empire State Building, it will fall to the ground; this is the immutable law of gravity at work. The activistic element is the free choice of the actor to drop the penny or to not drop the penny, a decision that is not a matter of fate or destiny, but rather a matter of conscious choice.
Thymology thus assumes that (1) there do exist certain universal laws of nature, referring to both the laws of the natural sciences and the laws of human nature determined through praxeology, (2) human beings have some conception of these laws of nature, though this knowledge may be imperfect or even erroneous (3) an individual’s perception of these laws of nature effects the means they employ to achieve their desired ends based on a perception (accurate or not) of causal connections, and (4) man has the free will to act according to both his desired ends and his perception of these natural laws.
How Thymology Illuminates Historical Understanding
Murray Rothbard employed the thymological method in every history he wrote. In doing so, he offered historical interpretations that were always driven by the motivations of the individual actors involved and often came to conclusions that were different from the conventional wisdom.
A prime example of this is seen in his two-volume An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought. The conventional narrative had treated the progress of economic thought much along the fatalistic notion of progress put forth by the Enlightenment thinkers. That is, economic thought was progressing in an upward linear direction; it was constantly being perfected, and there was no retrogression.
Rothbard offered a different perspective, claiming that the progression of thought zig-zagged. It was not uncommon for a thinker to take economic science astray with erroneous theories. His most famous example of this was his thesis regarding Adam Smith, and the retrogression of thought that followed from his influence. The scholastic scholars, Rothbard believed, had a much better understanding of economic science than the British classical economists who came centuries after them.
He followed the Misesian method of history further in explaining the roots of these fallacies. Rothbard’s interpretation of the popularity of the labor theory of value of Smith and his followers was rooted in the Calvinist doctrine that was prominent in countries such as Britain and Scotland at the time, which taught that labor should be valued for its own sake, rather than for the ends that it was aimed at. The Catholic countries – such as those in France, Italy, and Austria – were less prone to labor value fallacies because Catholicism taught that joy in consumption was valid.
Rothbard’s histories are extensive, and the thymological method is apparent in each of them. The example provided is useful only because it is such a well-known contribution to history that Rothbard provided. It demonstrates all the elements of why Mises believed thymology was the appropriate method of conducting history. It assumed no pre-determination, and even corrected the underlying determinism of the competing histories (the view of upward progress in history is a determinism that historians are often prone to even subconsciously). It sought a better understanding of the history by looking for the ideas that motivated the individuals involved. Perhaps most importantly, Rothbard treated his history of economic thought with the understanding that the specific elements directly pertaining to the subject matter cannot be divorced from the seemingly unrelated elements of different kinds of history. After all, whether or not one agrees with Rothbard’s explanation for the religious basis of the differing value theories, it is impossible to claim that other historians of thought have even considered their religious beliefs a variable worth considering in explaining the evolution of economic ideas. By recognizing the importance of all of the interconnected details, Rothbard has been able to offer a deeper analysis on the historical subjects he wrote about than most – if not all – of the historians before him or since.
The discipline of history has begun to move away from deterministic and mathematical approaches to history, but it has failed to replace them with the strict thymological approach that Mises put forth in 1957. The result has been that more modern histories are often little more than a slew of jumbled factoids that the historian has failed to organize into a coherent narrative, only to ultimately arrive at conclusions that are in no way based on the evidence presented. Historians are abandoning the fallacies of older historical methods, but without a sounder methodology to replace them, they are falling prey to their own value judgments, ideological biases, and sometimes entirely arbitrary interpretations of events. With this in mind, there is no better time for the resurrection of Mises’ most neglected intellectual contribution.
Chris Calton is a Mises University alumnus and an economic historian. He is writer and host of the Historical Controversies podcast.
-------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
김미영
6.25때 자유를 걸고 형제간에도 싸웠던 것은 자유가 생명이기 때문이고 영혼이기 때문입니다.
헌법 4조에서 자유를 빼면 국가보안법은 4조에 딸린 법으로서 조용히 사라지고 국가정보원도 근거법을 잃습니다.
어떻게 이 나라가 김일성에 줄서 헌법을 마음대로 유린합니까?
도대체 이런 발상이 어떻게 허용됩니까?
헌법 4조에서 자유를 빼면 국가보안법은 4조에 딸린 법으로서 조용히 사라지고 국가정보원도 근거법을 잃습니다.
어떻게 이 나라가 김일성에 줄서 헌법을 마음대로 유린합니까?
도대체 이런 발상이 어떻게 허용됩니까?
이 생각을 헌법 개정 공론에 갖고 나온 최초의 인물 반드시 색출해야 합니다.
헌법제정권력이라는 말과 헌법개정권력이라는 말을 들어보셨을 것입니다.
국민주권원리 공화원리 자유민주주의원리 영토조항같은 것을 손대려면 헌법제정권력을 필요로 합니다.
진짜 촛불이 70%이고 또 촛불이 헌법제정권력입니까?
무시무시한 거짓말에 속지 마십시오.
왜 여론조사 70%에 집착하겠고 선거로 헌법개정권력도 못 되는 41% 받아 당선되고도 촛불혁명 운운할까요?
촛불이 헌법제정권력이라고 혼돈시키기 위함 아닐까요?
헌법에서 4조 자유를 지우는 것은 70년 자유 대한민국을 조용히 수장시키겠다는 의미입니다.
거듭 이런 아이디어를 낸 반역자 반드시 색출해야 합니다.
이런 일이 일어나도 가만히 있는 쓰레기 반역집단화된 언론과 공당 모두 망하게 해야 합니다.
다들 김일성 집단이 초대하는 지옥불에 안 들어가려면 정신들 챙기시고 옆 사람 깨우세요.
철없는 애들도 깨우시고 철없는 부모도 깨우셔야 합니다.
40년 주사파와 PD파 와신상담이 공산 대한민국을 만들고 있습니다.
제가 처음 말하지 않습니다. 끝
까지 정신을 못 차리는 국민들.
아이들에게 결국 북한같은 지옥불을 선물하실 생각들인가요?
헌법제정권력이라는 말과 헌법개정권력이라는 말을 들어보셨을 것입니다.
국민주권원리 공화원리 자유민주주의원리 영토조항같은 것을 손대려면 헌법제정권력을 필요로 합니다.
진짜 촛불이 70%이고 또 촛불이 헌법제정권력입니까?
무시무시한 거짓말에 속지 마십시오.
왜 여론조사 70%에 집착하겠고 선거로 헌법개정권력도 못 되는 41% 받아 당선되고도 촛불혁명 운운할까요?
촛불이 헌법제정권력이라고 혼돈시키기 위함 아닐까요?
헌법에서 4조 자유를 지우는 것은 70년 자유 대한민국을 조용히 수장시키겠다는 의미입니다.
거듭 이런 아이디어를 낸 반역자 반드시 색출해야 합니다.
이런 일이 일어나도 가만히 있는 쓰레기 반역집단화된 언론과 공당 모두 망하게 해야 합니다.
다들 김일성 집단이 초대하는 지옥불에 안 들어가려면 정신들 챙기시고 옆 사람 깨우세요.
철없는 애들도 깨우시고 철없는 부모도 깨우셔야 합니다.
40년 주사파와 PD파 와신상담이 공산 대한민국을 만들고 있습니다.
제가 처음 말하지 않습니다. 끝
까지 정신을 못 차리는 국민들.
아이들에게 결국 북한같은 지옥불을 선물하실 생각들인가요?
[출처] 김미영--- 이런 아이디어를 낸 반역자 반드시 색출해야 합니다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2, 2018 3:07 pm JST
Internationalization of yuan loses momentum
Overseas investors' interest wanes amid tougher capital controls, depreciation
China has boosted the supply of money more than Japan and the U.S. to shore up its economy. But the massive easy money policy is acting as a drag on the international use of the yuan.
In Danang, a coastal city in Vietnam popular among Chinese and other tourists, the yuan is accepted at convenience stores. But its exchange rates against the Vietnamese currency, the dong, are some 5% lower than at banks.
Local convenience stores are not exactly enthusiastic about using the yuan. "We accept yuan just for the sake of customers," a store worker said..........
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. 핵 실험을 중단하면, 생활 수준을 높일 수 있을 정도의 경제 원조와, 좀더 발전된 단ㆍ중거리 미사일 및 무기를 원조해 준다.
2. 북한은 지금으로서는 핵을 계속 보유해도 좋다.
3. 북한의 붕괴는 우리가(중국이) 막아 준다.
4. 국제적 제재로 북핵을 포기시킨다는 건 불가능 하다. 해서, 국제적 제재에는 상징적 조치만 취한다.
5. 정부 대리인 혹은 제 3국을 경유한 무역은 용인한다.
6. 2018년에는 전년보다 15% 증가한 현금을, 그후 2019~2023년까지는 매년, 전년 대비 최하 10% 인상된 금액을 지원한다.
7. 금융제재는 국책은행과 일부 은행에만 국한시킨다.
8. 지금은 핵을 포기 못 하더라도, 나중에 점진적 개혁을 통해, 비핵화를 달성한다. 그 사이에 절대 핵 도발을 하지 못 하게끔 엄중 경고한다. 만약 도발할 경우, 고위급과 그 가족에 대해 직접적으로 징계 조치를 취한다.
9. 이론적으로는, 미국이 북핵을 제거하기 위해 군사공격을 하지는 않을 것으로 보나, 만약 군사공격을 할 경우, 한국과 일본도 위험해 진다. 특히 서울의 피해가 클 것이다. 한반도에 분쟁이 발발하면, 중국ㆍ러시아 등 주변국들도 지켜볼 수만은 없다.
10. 북한의 핵도발로 중국도 감당하기 힘들 정도의 국제적 압박이 가해지고 있다. 절대 더 이상, 핵 위기를 고조시키지 못 하도록 엄중히 경고한다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
고려연방제 추진을 위한 지방분권형 헌법개정 찬성서명
전라도전역 부터 통반장들이 앞장서 받고 다닌다.!!
◇[지방분권형 헌법개정] 즉, 고려연방제는 적화통일[공산주의]을 의미하는 것이다.
전남 영암에서 보내 왔다.(페북 펌)
[출처] "연방제 찬성" 서명을 통반장들이 받고 다니는 지역/ 일베
----------------------------------------------------------------------
차명진
< 오늘 아침의 단상들 >
● 엊그제 이용수 할머니가 쪽빛 한복을 차려 입고 제야의 종을 내려치는 모습을 보며,
'30년 쯤 후에 저 할머니가 다시 한번 뉴스가 되겠구나. 120살 먹은 최장수 할머니로!'
● 엊그제 이용수 할머니가 쪽빛 한복을 차려 입고 제야의 종을 내려치는 모습을 보며,
'30년 쯤 후에 저 할머니가 다시 한번 뉴스가 되겠구나. 120살 먹은 최장수 할머니로!'
그 때 기자들은 뭐라고 쓸까? 역경의 한국인? 아니면 실제 나이 따져보자?
● 우리은행 달력의 초딩 4년짜리 그림을 보며,
'나도 모르는 김일성꽃과 김정일 꽃을 밑둥과 정점에 정확히 배치하고, 인공기를
한 획도 틀리지 않고 그려내는 식견!
이건 그림신동이 아닌 주사파신동이다.
이 걸 뽑은 심사위원도, 달력에 채택한 간부의 안목도 놀랍다.'
문정부는 좌경화의 원인이 아니라 결과였구나.
암튼 온 나라가 속속들이 뻘건데 나만 몰랐다! 비응신!
● 개헌특위 자문위원들이 우리나라를 자유민주주의에서 사회주의로 바꾸려 한다는 소릴 듣고,
'나는 그동안 촛불이 혁명이 아니라 시위라고 주장했다. 내가 틀렸다.
이 자들은 지금 정권 바꾼 데서 그치지 않고 국체까지 바꾸려 하고 있다. 이건 인민혁명이다!'
정신 차려야겠다.
우리 어버이와 우방 수백만이 목숨 바쳐가며 지킨 자유민주주의를
고작 몇 달짜리 시위꾼들한테 강탈당할 순 없다. 뭔가라도 해야겠다.
[출처] 차명진---암튼 온 나라가 속속들이 뻘건데 나만 몰랐다! 비응신!
● 우리은행 달력의 초딩 4년짜리 그림을 보며,
'나도 모르는 김일성꽃과 김정일 꽃을 밑둥과 정점에 정확히 배치하고, 인공기를
한 획도 틀리지 않고 그려내는 식견!
이건 그림신동이 아닌 주사파신동이다.
이 걸 뽑은 심사위원도, 달력에 채택한 간부의 안목도 놀랍다.'
문정부는 좌경화의 원인이 아니라 결과였구나.
암튼 온 나라가 속속들이 뻘건데 나만 몰랐다! 비응신!
● 개헌특위 자문위원들이 우리나라를 자유민주주의에서 사회주의로 바꾸려 한다는 소릴 듣고,
'나는 그동안 촛불이 혁명이 아니라 시위라고 주장했다. 내가 틀렸다.
이 자들은 지금 정권 바꾼 데서 그치지 않고 국체까지 바꾸려 하고 있다. 이건 인민혁명이다!'
정신 차려야겠다.
우리 어버이와 우방 수백만이 목숨 바쳐가며 지킨 자유민주주의를
고작 몇 달짜리 시위꾼들한테 강탈당할 순 없다. 뭔가라도 해야겠다.
[출처] 차명진---암튼 온 나라가 속속들이 뻘건데 나만 몰랐다! 비응신!
----------------------------------------------------------------
미국의 대학가에 퍼진 공산주의 독버섯
100 Years. 100 Million Lives. Think Twice.
In 1988, my twenty-six-year-old father jumped off a train in the middle of Hungary with nothing but the clothes on his back. For the next two years, he fled an oppressive Romanian Communist regime that would kill him if they ever laid hands on him again.
My father ran from a government that beat, tortured, and brainwashed its citizens. His childhood friend disappeared after scrawling an insult about the dictator on the school bathroom wall. His neighbors starved to death from food rations designed to combat “obesity.” As the population dwindled, women were sent to the hospital every month to make sure they were getting pregnant.
My father’s escape journey eventually led him to the United States. He moved to the Midwest and married a Romanian woman who had left for America the minute the regime collapsed. Today, my parents are doctors in quiet, suburban Kansas. Both of their daughters go to Harvard. They are the lucky ones.
Roughly 100 million people died at the hands of the ideology my parents escaped. They cannot tell their story. We owe it to them to recognize that this ideology is not a fad, and their deaths are not a joke.
Last month marked 100 years since the Bolshevik Revolution, though college culture would give you precisely the opposite impression. Depictions of communism on campus paint the ideology as revolutionary or idealistic, overlooking its authoritarian violence. Instead of deepening our understanding of the world, the college experience teaches us to reduce one of the most destructive ideologies in human history to a one-dimensional, sanitized narrative.
Walk around campus, and you’re likely to spot Ché Guevara on a few shirts and button pins. A sophomore jokes that he’s declared a secondary in “communist ideology and implementation.” The new Leftist Club on campus seeks “a modern perspective” on Marx and Lenin to “alleviate the stigma around the concept of Leftism.” An author laments in these pages that it’s too difficult to meet communists here. For many students, casually endorsing communism is a cool, edgy way to gripe about the world.
After spending four years on a campus saturated with Marxist memes and jokes about communist revolutions, my classmates will graduate with the impression that communism represents a light-hearted critique of the status quo, rather than an empirically violent philosophy that destroyed millions of lives.
Statistics show that young Americans are indeed oblivious to communism’s harrowing past. According to a YouGov poll, only half of millennials believe that communism was a problem, and about a third believe that President George W. Bush killed more people than Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, who killed 20 million. If you ask millennials how many people communism killed, 75 percent will undershoot.
Perhaps before joking about communist revolutions, we should remember that Stalin’s secret police tortured “traitors” in secret prisons by sticking needles under their fingernails or beating them until their bones were broken. Lenin seized food from the poor, causing a famine in the Soviet Union that induced desperate mothers to eat their own children and peasants to dig up corpses for food. In every country that communism was tried, it resulted in massacres, starvation, and terror.
Communism cannot be separated from oppression; in fact, it depends upon it. In the communist society, the collective is supreme. Personal autonomy is nonexistent. Human beings are simply cogs in a machine tasked with producing utopia; they have no value of their own.
Many in my generation have blurred the reality of communism with the illusion of utopia. I never had that luxury. Growing up, my understanding of communism was personalized; I could see its lasting impact in the faces of my family members telling stories of their past. My perspective toward the ideology is radically different because I know the people who survived it; my relatives continue to wonder about their friends who did not.
The stories of survivors paint a more vivid picture of communism than the textbooks my classmates have read. While we may never fully understand all of the atrocities that occurred under communist regimes, we can desperately try to ensure the world never repeats their mistakes. To that end, we must tell the accounts of survivors and fight the trivialization of communism’s bloody past.
My father left behind his parents, friends, and neighbors in the hope of finding freedom. I know his story because it is my heritage; you now know his story because I have a voice. One hundred million other people were silenced.
One hundred years later, let us not forget the history of the victims who do not have a voice because they did not survive the writing of their tales. Most importantly, let us not be tempted to repeat it.
Laura M. Nicolae ’20 is an Applied Mathematics concentrator in Winthrop House.
My father ran from a government that beat, tortured, and brainwashed its citizens. His childhood friend disappeared after scrawling an insult about the dictator on the school bathroom wall. His neighbors starved to death from food rations designed to combat “obesity.” As the population dwindled, women were sent to the hospital every month to make sure they were getting pregnant.
My father’s escape journey eventually led him to the United States. He moved to the Midwest and married a Romanian woman who had left for America the minute the regime collapsed. Today, my parents are doctors in quiet, suburban Kansas. Both of their daughters go to Harvard. They are the lucky ones.
Roughly 100 million people died at the hands of the ideology my parents escaped. They cannot tell their story. We owe it to them to recognize that this ideology is not a fad, and their deaths are not a joke.
Last month marked 100 years since the Bolshevik Revolution, though college culture would give you precisely the opposite impression. Depictions of communism on campus paint the ideology as revolutionary or idealistic, overlooking its authoritarian violence. Instead of deepening our understanding of the world, the college experience teaches us to reduce one of the most destructive ideologies in human history to a one-dimensional, sanitized narrative.
Walk around campus, and you’re likely to spot Ché Guevara on a few shirts and button pins. A sophomore jokes that he’s declared a secondary in “communist ideology and implementation.” The new Leftist Club on campus seeks “a modern perspective” on Marx and Lenin to “alleviate the stigma around the concept of Leftism.” An author laments in these pages that it’s too difficult to meet communists here. For many students, casually endorsing communism is a cool, edgy way to gripe about the world.
After spending four years on a campus saturated with Marxist memes and jokes about communist revolutions, my classmates will graduate with the impression that communism represents a light-hearted critique of the status quo, rather than an empirically violent philosophy that destroyed millions of lives.
Statistics show that young Americans are indeed oblivious to communism’s harrowing past. According to a YouGov poll, only half of millennials believe that communism was a problem, and about a third believe that President George W. Bush killed more people than Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, who killed 20 million. If you ask millennials how many people communism killed, 75 percent will undershoot.
Perhaps before joking about communist revolutions, we should remember that Stalin’s secret police tortured “traitors” in secret prisons by sticking needles under their fingernails or beating them until their bones were broken. Lenin seized food from the poor, causing a famine in the Soviet Union that induced desperate mothers to eat their own children and peasants to dig up corpses for food. In every country that communism was tried, it resulted in massacres, starvation, and terror.
Communism cannot be separated from oppression; in fact, it depends upon it. In the communist society, the collective is supreme. Personal autonomy is nonexistent. Human beings are simply cogs in a machine tasked with producing utopia; they have no value of their own.
Many in my generation have blurred the reality of communism with the illusion of utopia. I never had that luxury. Growing up, my understanding of communism was personalized; I could see its lasting impact in the faces of my family members telling stories of their past. My perspective toward the ideology is radically different because I know the people who survived it; my relatives continue to wonder about their friends who did not.
The stories of survivors paint a more vivid picture of communism than the textbooks my classmates have read. While we may never fully understand all of the atrocities that occurred under communist regimes, we can desperately try to ensure the world never repeats their mistakes. To that end, we must tell the accounts of survivors and fight the trivialization of communism’s bloody past.
My father left behind his parents, friends, and neighbors in the hope of finding freedom. I know his story because it is my heritage; you now know his story because I have a voice. One hundred million other people were silenced.
One hundred years later, let us not forget the history of the victims who do not have a voice because they did not survive the writing of their tales. Most importantly, let us not be tempted to repeat it.
Laura M. Nicolae ’20 is an Applied Mathematics concentrator in Winthrop House.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기