황당하고 위험한 ‘북핵(北核) 평화론’
황성준(문화일보 논설위원)


  ‘핵 있는 평화’는 핵무기의 ‘상호확증파괴(MAD·Mutual Assured Destruction)’ 덕분에 전쟁 없는 상태란 의미의 평화가 보장된다는 국제관계 이론가 케네스 왈츠의 핵전략 이론이다. 그리고 냉전 시대 미국과 소련 사이에서 전면전이 발생하지 않은 원인을 설명하는 주요 논리다. 이 이론의 핵심은 선제 핵공격에도 살아남을 수 있는 ‘제2차 보복 타격 능력’을 포함한 ‘공포의 핵 균형’이다. 따라서 이 이론을 한반도에 적용하면, 한국도 핵무장에 나서야 한다. 그런데 독자적 핵 개발은커녕 미 전술핵 도입도 반대하는 사람들이 핵 있는 평화를 거론하고 있으니 그 저의를 의심하지 않을 수 없다.


‘핵 있는 북한’이 백령도 점령과 같은 도발을 해도, 한국은 반격을 주저할 수밖에 없다. 즉, 북핵 평화는 미·북 간의 전쟁 없는 상태이자, 북한의 대남 국지전 자유를 의미하게 된다. (발췌)


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


문재인 대통령님! 역주행 계속하면 큰 사고 납니다


여섯째, 나라의 미래는 잊어버리고, 좌파 지지자의 눈치만 보고 거꾸로 갑니까? 촛불 덕택에 탄생했다며, 좌우 없이 통합으로 간다 해놓고, 정권 복수극 벌이고, 군병력 감축하고, 최저임금 올리고, 법인세 올리는 것은 좌파세력에 잡힌 겁니까? 김정은 기쁨조 춤에 취한 겁니까? 가상화폐 대책도 왔다갔다, 방과 후 영어수업도 오락가락, 제천 화재진압도 갈팡질팡, 국민은 두렵고 어지럽습니다.

  문재인 정부는 왜 거꾸로 갑니까? 역주행 계속하면 운전자도 죽고, 5천만 승객도 참변 당합니다. 부디 운전 좀 똑바로 하세요. (김문수 전 의원, 발췌)


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

공기 중 수분만 있으면 저절로 앞으로 전진하는 ‘하이그로봇’. 서울대 제공


https://youtu.be/-G3GFFTMWN0

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

변희재는 자신이 슨상님의 햇볕정책 추종자출신이다.
변희재는 노무현을 공개적으로 지지한 사람이다.
변희재는 진중권과 추미애를 빨아대던건 사람이다.
변희재는 트위터로 국민생각 비례 표절녀 전여옥을 지지했다.
변희재는 박근혜 비대위원장 시절 나경원의 친구를 자처했다.
변희재는 신의한수에서 박근혜의 탄핵을 촉구했다.
변희재는 2002년 반미촛불시위 찬성패널이었다.
변희재는 호남지역주의자 강준만 키즈였다.
변희재는 정연주 빽으로 KBS시청자위원을 했었다.
변희재는 한겨레 신문 고정칼럼리스트였다.
변희재는 강의.석과 호형호제하는 사이다.

나는 팩트만 말한다.

출처: 일베


변희재는 우파라고 하지만 과거에 좌파들과 어울렸고, 권력욕이 강해서 무슨 짓을 할지 모르는 사람이다. 관상학적으로 하백안(下白眼)이라 그것도 꺼림칙하다.  재승덕(才勝德)형의 사람이다.  매우 흥미 있는 인물임은 분명하다.  
-------------------------------------------------------------

출처: 오마이뉴스, 제목 / 진보에서 보수로 변신한 '꺼삐딴변' 변희재


좌파에서 우파로 전향한 게 죄는 아니다. 그런데 변희재의 경우에는, 그것이 사상적인 깨달음에서 비롯된 것이 아니라, 자신의 권력욕을 채우기 위한 변신처럼 보인다는 것이다.


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


Roger Scruton - On Consumerism, Community and Capitalism; Röpke's Humane Economics  


https://youtu.be/VydFFs6pb6A


비디오의 결론 부분이 잘려나갔다. 하지만 그럼에도 볼만 한 비디오이다.


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

전교조 새끼들한테 장악당한 학교 현상황.disaster/ 출처 일베


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

    언론 장악에 광분한 좌파들. 나중에 저렇게 장악된 언론들이 무슨 짓거리를 할지 두렵다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 

미국 타임스퀘어에 걸린 노무현 조롱 광고. 재미 한국인이 한 것으로 알려졌다.


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

이병태

 

[문재인 대통령의 또다른 거짓말]


얼마전 문대통령은 지난 하반기에 추경을 집행해서 경제성장을 끌어 올렸다고 자랑했다.
그런데 그 추경이 집행된 4분기에 마이너스 성장을 했다. 
지난 하반기와 지금의 성장은 수출이 견인한 것이다.
돈풀어 경제성장을 견인할 수 있다면 일본이 25년 왜 고생했을까?

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

홍준표 자유한국당 대표는 25일 근로시간 단축 논의와 관련, “근로시간 단축은 임금삭감이 전제돼야 하고, 문재인 대통령이 단축하라 했으니 대통령 사비로라도 보전해야 한다”고 주장했다.

탈레브의 스킨 인더 게임(skin in the game)이 생각나는 주장이다. 대통령이 사비로 보전한다면, 근로 시간 삭감도 해볼만 하다고 생각한다.

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

독일 출신으로 브라질에서 교편을 잡고 있는 뮬러(Antony P. Mueller)는 <브라질: 천박한 케인즈 정책의 희생양(Brazil: Victim of Vulgar Keynesianism), 2015년 3월>이란 글에서, 룰라 이후 브라질의 경기 침체가 전임 대통령이었던 룰라의 케인즈 식 정책 때문이었다고 주장한다. 그에 따르면 모든 케인즈 정책은 결국 스태그플레이션에 이르고 마는데, 1970년대에 유럽과 미국이 그러했고, 현재의 브라질이 또 그러하다는 것이다.

브라질 정부는 룰라 대통령 재임 기간에 케인즈 식의 경기 진작 정책을 펼쳤는데, 당시 운 좋게도 중국발 경기 호황으로 원자재에 대한 수요가 높아지면서, 브라질은 반짝 호황을 맞았다. 하지만 원자재의 호경기가 끝나고 중국의 성장세가 주춤하면서, 브라질의 소비자들도 지갑을 닫자, 브라질 정부의 곳간은 비고, 그 동안 풀어놓은 돈으로 인플레는 자꾸 상승하는 이중의 고통을 받고 있다.

한때 룰라 대통령은 브라질 경제가 영국을 추월하고 선진 대국의 반열에 오를 거라고 장담했다. 또 2014년에 열리는 축구 세계챔피언 대회를 개최하고, 2016년에는 리우데자네이루에서 올림픽을 개최한다고 했을 때, 브라질 국민은 정말 세계의 선진 대열에 올라선 듯한 착각을 했다.

뮬러 교수는 룰라 정부와 노동당이 브라질에서 시행한 케인즈 정책은 매우 조악한 형태였고, 더구나 미샤우 칼레츠키(Michał Kalecki, 폴란드 경제학자, 케인즈 이전에 케인즈와 유사한 생각을 갖고 있었고, 마르크스 경제학을 자신의 경제학에 도입했다)의 마르크시즘과 혼합되어 있었다고 한다. 그 결과 기타의 거시경제학은 제쳐두고, 오직 칼레츠키 식의 케인즈 정책이 시행되었다는 것이다.

칼레츠키 식의 케인즈 정책은 “노동자들은 그들이 번 것을 소비한다.” “자본가들은 그들이 소비한 것을 번다.”라는 간단한 결론에 이르고, 이에 바탕해 국가가 자본가 역할을 해서 소비를 하면 나라가 번영하고, 노동자들은 소비자로서 그들의 합당한 몫을 챙길 수 있다고 믿는다.

그에 따라 목적에 상관없이 대량 소비와 결합된 정부 지출은 번영에 이르는 방법이 되었고, 그것이 브라질 노동당 정부가 12년 동안 행한 정책이 되었다.

----> 본인의 책 <대한민국, 이렇게 망한다>(위퍼블 출판, 판매)의 일부.

지금 한국에서는 소득 주도 성장이라는 해괴한 경제 정책이 실시중인데, 이 정책이 지속된다면 브라질과 유사한 파탄에 이를 것이 분명하다. 

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

하이에크, 자유의 조건

중세에는 국가가 스스로 법을 만들거나 창조할 수 없다고 보았다. 그런 행위는 유일하게 법을 창조할 수 있는 신에 대한 반역으로 여겨졌다.  수 세기 동안 왕을 비롯한 모든 권력은 법을 창조하지는 못하고, 단지 그것을 선포하거나 이미 존재하는 법률을 발견할 수 있다고 여겼다.

----->의원들이 함부로 입법을 하면서 세상이 어지러워졌다.

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

어쩌면 코미디라고 할 수도 있다. 일자리는 기업이 창출하는데, 관료들에게 청년 일자리를 만들어 내라고 화를 내다니, 관료들로서도 참으로 난감한 상황이 아닐 수 없다.

세금을 내리고 경제 민주화, 최저 임금제, 노조, 사회적 정의 등을 철폐하면 청년 일자리는 내일이라도 해결될 수 있지만, 저 경제 문맹들이 그걸 알 턱도 없고!

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

3줄 요약


1. 2017년도 4분기 경제성장률이 전기대비 마이너스 0.2% 성장을 했음.


2. '기저효과'에 의한 왜곡이 있지만, 9년 만에 마이너스 성장이라 의미심장하다고 봄.


3. 2017년도 4분기부터 건설투자, 설비투자, 수출 증가율이 둔화되고 있음.

[출처] 2017년도 4분기 마이너스 성장을 araboja
 

---->위에는 일베의 분석가가 쓴 글이다. 나는 마이너스 성장의 가장 큰 요인은 미래에 대한 불확실성이라고 본다. 지금은 과연 한국에서 기업을 계속할 수 있을지 의문이 드는 시기라서, 기업가들의 도전 정신은 더욱 위축될 것이고, 경제는 더욱 고꾸라질 것이다. 그럴 수록 정부에서는 돈을 풀어 경제를 부양하기 위해 기를 쓸 것이다.

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

김진태

오늘 대법원에서 무죄 확정판결 받았습니다. 
이제 발 뻗고 잘 수 있겠네요. 
저보다 더 걱정해주신 많은 분들의 기도 덕분입니다. 

그동안 피고인 신분이라 아무래도 활동이 위축됐는데 
이제부터 밥값하겠습니다. 
태블릿 PC 진실 밝히고, 박근혜 대통령 
명예회복에 최선을 다하겠습니다. --------------------------------------

역대 정부에서 한 곳 고등학교 출신이
​

이렇게 많은것은 처음이다.이런 인사도 있나요?

ㅡ총리 호남   광주일고 출신
ㅡ사회부총리  광주일고
ㅡ검찰 총장     광주일고
ㅡ농림축산장관   광주일고
ㅡ헌법재판소장   광주일고
ㅡ청와대정책실장 광주일고
ㅡ육군참모총장  광주일고
​

*해방 후 역대 정부에서 이런 인사가 있었나요?

'문벌구 재앙정부는 호남정부'

[이슈] 누군가 호남을 지켜보고 있다.출처 : 광주매일신문

문죄인 재앙정부의 "탕평인사"는 이러했다.

 
청와대 및 직속기관
✔비서실장 임종석/장흥
✔정책실장 장하성/광주
✔국민소통수석 윤찬영/전주
✔정무비서관 한병도/익산
✔정무기획 진성준/전주
✔시민사회비서관 김금옥/군산
✔이사비서관 김우호/고창
✔국정기록비서관 조용우/순천
✔일자리기획비서관 이호승/광양
✔제2부속실비서관 유송화/고흥
✔국가안보실1차장 이상철/나주
✔일자리위원회 부위원장 이용섭/함평
✔국민경제 자문위원회 부위원장 김광두/나주
✔지방자치 발전위원회 위원장 김효석/장성 
사법부
✔검찰총장 문무일/광주

 
행정부 및 관련기관
✔국무총리 이낙연/광주
✔부총리겸 교육부장관 김상곤/광주
✔육군참모총장 김용우/장성
✔법무부장관 박상기/무안
✔농림수산식품부 장관/완도
✔국토교통부 장관/정읍
✔문화체육관광부 1차관 나종민/광주
✔기획재정부 1차관 고형권/해남
✔환경부차관 안병옥/순천
✔여성가족부 차관 이수진/광주
✔보건복지부 차관/권덕현/남원
✔외교부 2차관 조현/김제ㅈ
✔행자부 차관 심보균/김제
✔금융위원장 김요범/무안
✔법무부 검찰국장 박균택/광주
✔방송통신위원회 상임위원 고삼석/해남
✔국무조정실 국무2차장 노형욱/순창
✔산림청장 김재현/담양
✔통계청장 황수경/전주
✔새만금개발청장 이철우/남원
✔농촌진흥청장 라승용/김해호남조선인민공화국이 되었네요~!

[출처] 주사파, 호남, 광주일고 공화국의 인적구성(폄)....기가찹니다.
 

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

진실을 말하는 사람들은 거기에 자신의 모든 것을 걸어야 한다.  소련의 기관지는 프라우다, 즉 '진실'이었다.-------------------------------------

아래는 탈레브의 프랑스 신문과의 인터뷰이다. 구글 번역이어서 완전하지는 않으므로, 이를 감안해서 읽어야 한다.

 

Nassim N. Taleb:

"It is thanks to the kind of individual madness that an entrepreneur is a company that works"

 

      

GREAT MAINTENANCE. In "Playing his skin" (ed., Les Belles Lettres), his latest book, the author of "The Black Swan" extends his reflections contained in "Antifragile". Stalking the "hidden asymmetries in our daily life", Nassim Nicholas Taleb mixes as usual reflections from everyday life, historical and scholarly considerations, polemical judgments, to answer the question: how to move in a world where those who take risks do not bear the consequences?

 

 

THE TRIBUNE - Your new book, "Playing your skin", has an ethical dimension more assertive than the previous ones?

 

NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB - Yes, that's what the cover suggests, it's the packaging! But the central theme of which I am dealing is the asymmetry which already occupied an important place in "Antifragile", my previous book. In the course of my work, I realized that everything is based on this notion, especially ethics. For example, if I earn more than I lose, this poses a problem of asymmetry. Look at the case of Bob Rubin (former secretary of the Treasury Bill Clinton and former president of the bank Citigroup he left the bankruptcy while pocketing tens of millions of dollars.) He has an option on gains and profits with no obligation on losses. Our societies operate on these risk transfers, which poses an ethical problem, but also practical in the longer term.

 

In addition to asymmetry, the second important concept is that of scale, asymmetry operates not only at the level of individuals, but also groups, societies. This multi-scalar dimension must be taken into account. This led me to think that the notion of universalism is only theoretical. In practice, it is impossible to apply, the reality is fractal.

 

 

In other words, whoever takes the risks must assume them ...

 

Yes, but you have to qualify. When the doctor treats his patient, he expects in return a material gain or a moral benefit. But we tolerate him making a mistake, because society needs him. The logic that the one who takes the risks must always bear the consequences is not applicable in all cases. Historically, physicians have a moral obligation to care, it is their responsibility, but they can only do so because their failures are not attributed to them.

 

But let's take another context. I dedicated this book to a friend, Ralph Nader. Through his campaigns, he managed in the 1960s to extend the legal protection to consumers, which makes it possible to attack a company. Being able to have a company admitted to you wrong, and having it condemned, is essential for capitalism to work. A company must take risks to make a profit. This point of governance is essential.

 

But the genius of Ralf Nader was to obtain such rights not through state regulation or protection, but through the courts. If a company causes you harm, you must be able to demand compensation. It has a lot to lose in not properly ensuring the services or products it sells.

 

This is the difference between the law and the contract?

 

Exactly. And asymmetry is precisely a matter of contract. The discovery of the notion of risk and the study of probabilities do not date from the 18th century. It started with the king of Babylon Hammurabi (1810 BC-1750 BC). The state did not tell you how you had to live, but imposed a penalty on anyone who harmed another person.

 

People were already sophisticated in the Middle Ages. I mention a thirteenth-century book of scholasticism, Pierre Jean de Olivi's "Traité des contrats" (*), which describes a company that was based on contracts.

 

So we would have historically replaced the contract with the law?

 

In Europe, yes. But in the Roman Empire, for example, risk sharing was a commercial principle. In antiquity, a law in Rhodes stipulated that no one wins if everyone loses. If to save a boat and its crew, we must throw overboard a cargo, the loss must be borne by all actors, the seller, the buyer, the captain, the financier ... Everyone assumes its share .

 

Today, this is not the case?

 

No.

 

Let's take a current example, that of the accommodating monetary policy of the ECB chaired by Mario Draghi. Some believe that the choice to keep rates down creates risks that could have negative consequences for everyone at a later date. What do you think ?

 

This will have no consequence, as illustrated by Bitcoin. The success of cryptocurrencies is precisely due to these policies of manipulation of rates. The decisions of a "bureaucrat" like Mario Draghi can be good as bad, the problem is that he will never assume the consequences. It will be able to sink a peaceful retirement. Generally, macro-decisions, like monetary policies, represent important risks. Micro-decisions are more interesting, as illustrated by the federal political system of Switzerland, where the real power of decision is at the commune level. At the micro scale, errors are quickly visible.

 

It is better to avoid taking risks at the state level?

 

There are two methods of taking risk. The first, top-down, applied by our leaders and their experts, ensures that it knows how to identify random events to protect itself. The second, that of contracts, prefers to modify the terms of the contract rather than to establish small probabilities. In other words, it is better to have a good lawyer than 12 statisticians. For example, if you buy insurance, you can add clauses if there are doubts between the two parties. This sounds trivial, but risk management is the theory behind the contracts, and determines the responsibilities. Today, our leaders do not understand the principle of "risking their skin" because they enjoy the protection of the state. They adopt a position of epistemic arrogance by being persuaded to know all the risks. We saw it in the intervention in Libya. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, should have been instructed by the example of Iraq. But she decided to do it because she suffered no consequences, unlike the local people. The higher you get to the macro level, the less people become responsible for their actions, which is a characteristic of our modern states.

 

That would explain, according to you, the election of Donald Trump in front of her?

 

Yes, but to understand this, let's take a detour through theology. Originally from the Levant, and a Greek orthodox Christian rite, I have always wondered why Jesus must be considered both God and man. The first foundation is "bottom-up": the man becomes God, but a God does not suffer, because he takes no risk. Jesus, on the contrary, suffered, he was crucified. For most people, someone who has suffered is more real. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump went bankrupt, then recovered and made a lot of money, despite his mistakes. The second explanation is a morality that Europeans have difficulty understanding. In the eyes of the average American, characters like Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama, who was paid $ 65 million law for his memoirs, return to the public service to become rich, thanks to taxpayers' money . Trump does not owe his wealth to this public money. For some Americans he can understand them because he is in real life.

 

And how do you explain the victory of Emmanuel Macron?

 

It's the same logic. Macron is not an entrepreneur, but the French preferred someone who had already worked in his life rather than a professional politician. Remember that in the past, there were traders, doctors, workers, lawyers, and professions in the National Assembly who were representative of French society and not bureaucrats in politics.

 

Is this populism, a certain weariness of people in what you call "sales pitch"?

 

Exactly. They prefer the practice to the theory, which is less beautiful, the reality is not platonic. We must understand the populist attitude. Who controls the dominant discourse? The group of intellectual bureaucrats who never risk their skin, the typical case in France being Bernard-Henri Lévy. It is they who speak of populism. But that's changing, especially thanks to the Internet and social networks. Trump was elected against the American political system without controlling the "mainstream" discourse.

 

In your book, you define yourself as a libertarian, what exactly do you mean by this term misunderstood in France?

 

I refer to Ron Paul, to whom I also dedicated my book, which was the libertarian candidate for the 2012 presidential election against Barak Obama. He raised, in my opinion, two important problems, one political and one of scale. The first is that no power should be imposed on individuals, especially that of the state. This idea is shared by some of the left and part of the line. Paul is not against authority, but he feels that the federal government should not take care of your affairs, which must be regulated at the level of the municipality where you live. It's localism. The second is the problem of scale. The United States is not a republic, but a confederation like Switzerland. Comparing the statuses of Macron and Trump does not make sense. In my opinion, it is not incompatible to define Republican at the level of the state, but it depends on its size, libertarian democrat at the commune level, and communist for family and friends, my community. It is this problem of scale that people do not understand.

 

How is this an advantage?

 

Because you can more easily call a mayor than a minister. The first is part of the community, he is accountable. This is not a problem of democracy, but of governance. See how subsidiarity has been limited in the governance of the European Union. Suppose I live in a European state like Liechtenstein. I do not want anyone in Brussels to determine how I live. But if you are in Paris, you accept that the mayor determines how you should live even if Paris is bigger than Liechtenstein. Good governance is about finding the right scale. My libertarianism is not without rules.

 

It is more political than economic?

 

Yes, for example Ron Paul is in favor of not limiting immigration in the name of the free movement of people, for my part, I prefer that the communities set their rules. Everyone is free to join the community he wants, and to change when he wants. If a community decides to ban the import of Chinese garlic, it assumes responsibility by preferring to deprive itself of a cheaper resource than the locally grown product. It's their choice. Globalization poses a problem of scale. Open to all products promotes the logic of "winner take all", which can generate instability. People do not like to have a standard model imposed on them that they do not have. They prefer to have diversity locally and above all to be able to decide for themselves. In Switzerland, for example, some municipalities have banned foreigners from buying land at home. They wanted to prevent the price of land from rising, because Saudi billionaires wanted to buy apartments. They have the right to make such a decision because it seems unusual to them that their children can not buy their future apartment and be sentenced to leave. It has nothing to do with a policy of left or right, it is a problem of scale. We must avoid uniformity as we see it spread across the world.

 

This scale problem affects the way we speak, our communication?

 

Yes, to illustrate this point, I will take the example of a discussion between two Stoics, Diogenes of Babylon and Antipatros of Sparta: is it moral to sell a commodity to Rhodes from Alexandria without saying that 5 boats of a shipment of wheat will arrive and collapse wheat prices. Between traders, it is immoral to be trapped for the good reason that we will be ostracized by the community of traders in which must be respected ethics. If he is a stranger to this community, we do not have to tell him. There are different circles of ethics. Many moral rules are universal. But if I see two children drown, one of whom is my son, I must first save him. I'm obviously obliged to save both, but I have to start with my son. It's not a reflex of tribalism. And that can not work otherwise.

 

Similarly, there are things that can be said to some and not to others?

 

Yes, we can not be fully transparent in the name of ethics. For example, I am obliged to be against a consumer if I sell him a defective product, do I have to give him my manufacturing secrets? Obviously no. I look at these problems from a multifractal point of view, and at different scales. At each level of ethics there is a degree of transparency. What we say to our loved ones does not have to be communicated to everyone.

 

This goes against our societies who want more and more transparency?

 

Yes, but they are mistaken in not distinguishing ladders. This point has been studied in Elinor Ostrom's work on "commons", which earned him a Nobel Prize in economics. It shows that the moral behavior of an individual in a community of 250 is impossible when we are 250,000. We find our problem of asymmetry. On an ethical level, individual rationality has nothing to do with collective rationality. And sometimes it takes a lot of individual irrationality to have a rationality at the collective level.

 

Does this mean that there are two levels of rationality?

 

Yes, it takes crazy people in a society, that is, people who work against their own interests. Thus, it is safer to be a public servant than to take disproportionate risks as entrepreneurs do. In one case, you know what you are going to do in the next 40 years, can schedule your vacation, and so on. In the other case, the entrepreneur can lose everything or work without counting his time. But it is thanks to this kind of individual madness that a society works. On the contrary, the individual rationality that drives selfish calculation can become irrational at the collective level, for example in the exhaustion of a common good. In order for the collective to survive, individual rationalities must be violated. In this case, the shape of the group is more efficient, and it is at this level that we encounter altruistic behavior.

 

You say in your book that for an individual's life to make sense, he or she must take risks while living a reasonable life, exercising caution. Is not this contradictory?

 

There are two answers. Of course, we can say that the best life is the one that is the most tranquil, and individuals aspire to it. My second answer is inspired by Aristotle. According to him, prudence is the greatest of virtues, but courage is an essential virtue. And he adds that the virtues are not contradictory, if you have one you must have the others. To answer your question, we must return to the problem of scale: we must be careful at the collective level and brave at the individual level to promote the collective. My own life represents a few decades, while humanity, I hope, has an infinite lifespan or at least several million

 

  ----------------------------------

 

  -----------------------------------

 

  부자들이 더욱 부자가 되었다. 하지만 수백만 이상이 가스 난방을 하고 있고, 집안에 배관시설을 하고 있으며, 값싼 여행을 하고, 여성의 권리는 높아졌으며....  

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

 심리학 대 프랙시올로지

 

Psychology vs. Praxeology

 

•Jörg Guido Hülsmann

 

 

(Excerpt from chapter 17 of Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, pp. 765–67.)

 

Mises’s exposition of economic science differed decisively from all modern authors in that it drew a sharp line between praxeology and psychology. This has remained a defining feature of the works of his disciples.

 

Mises did not contest that the psychological background of a person, his worldview, knowledge, conscious motivations, subconscious urges, and so on have an immediate impact on his behavior. Neither did he ignore the important psychological problems that his friend F.A. Hayek began to stress in those years, in particular, that of knowledge acquisition. Mises’s point was that there were also laws of human behavior that exist in complete independence of these psychological dispositions.

 

For example, in chapter 4, Mises discusses ends and means, scales of values, and scales of needs. He does not deal with the question of how or why people select ends and means, or how or why they have certain values and certain needs. He argues that in every human action we do use means to attain ends, and that needs and values can be ranked. In chapter 15 (“The Market”) he points out that consumers are sovereign because their buying decisions steer the market. This is obviously true, irrespective of what consumers buy or the reason why they make these purchases. Therefore he does not deal with these questions. In chapter 16 (“Prices”) Mises states that the number of market participants determines how narrow the margins are within which prices are determined. Yet this implies that the number of market participants has no influence on how prices are formed. Irrespective of the number of market participants, market prices are always determined by the decisions of marginal buyers and sellers. Thus, all prices can be explained as a result of the mere fact that market participants prefer one good A to another good B.

 

Praxeology is the science of these laws. It examines the ramifications of the mere fact that a man makes this or that choice. Considering the relationship between a choice and its consequences, praxeology examines the suitability of different means to attain particular ends. In praxeological analysis, the ends are “given,” not in the sense that human beings cannot choose them or that the choice of the right end is not problematic, but in the sense that the choice of ends is outside the scope of this particular science.15

 

With respect to the knowledge of market participants, Mises emphasized the fact that the individual market participants are not equally well informed. Yet even if they all had the same information they would appraise this information differently.

 

As to equilibrium, he stated again and again that the market never reaches such a state, that it is a mere mental construct the only function of which is to analyze profits and losses. That is, the equilibrium construct is needed to explain a particular component of price spreads. It is not required to explain prices (wages, interest, commodity prices) as such.

 

Consequently, in Mises’s view, equilibrium is not the right benchmark for the evaluation of the market. To critics of economic science who complain that the market never produces a perfect balance between different goods and services, Mises replies in two steps. First, he points out that this fact of imbalance does not refute economic doctrine because economic science explains any state of affairs as it results from the fact that consumers make certain valuations. Second, he observes that the relevant benchmark for the market is government intervention. And because government officials are not supermen, one cannot make the a priori assumption that entrusting them with the maintenance of the market will bring improvement. As the analysis of government interventionism shows, the very opposite is the case.

 

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

 

Can China Really Dethrone the Dollar?

 

•Daniel Lacalle

 

 

The mistake made by China is that it thinks that its currency will be imposed through repression, and not from market confidence. In the US, the Federal Reserve constantly monitors how to maintain confidence and increase use of the US dollar. Because of this, China will likely fail. It will become another victim of those who did not understand that money is not what the government wants, but what citizens accept.

 

The only way to threaten a global reserve currency is by being stronger and defend its purchasing power. Any other way is likely to fail. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. (발췌)

 

 

 

Daniel Lacalle has a PhD in Economics and is author of Escape from the Central Bank Trap, Life In The Financial Markets and The Energy World Is Flat.

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