문재인 대통령이 어제 "시간이 얼마 남지 않았다. 대통령 개헌안을 마련해서 6·13.지방선거와 동시에 개헌 국민투표를 하도록 준비해달라"고 청와대 수석ㆍ보좌관 회의에서 지시했습니다.
아직 개헌안도 마련하지 않은 채 6·13.지방선거와 동시에 개헌 국민투표를 서둘러 하자는 문재인 대통령이 법률가 맞습니까?
국회의원 재적 과반수의 발의나 대통령의 발의로 제안된 개헌안은 대통령이 20일 이상 공고해야 합니다(헌법 129조), 공고 후 60일 이내에 국회 재적 3분의 2 이상 찬성을 얻어야 합니다(헌법 130조1항). 국회가 의결한 개헌안은 30일 이내에 국민투표에 붙여, 과반수 이상 찬성을 받아야 합니다(헌법 130조 2항),
20일+60일+30일=110일 이상 걸립니다. 그런데 오늘(2.6.)부터 6·13 지방선거일까지는 126일 남았습니다.
오늘부터 16일 만에 졸속하게 대통령이 개헌안을 만들어서, 20일 이상 공고하고, 60일 이내에 국회 3분의 2 이상 의결을 거쳐서, 30일 이내에 국민투표로 과반수 이상 찬성을 받아내는 것이 가능한 일입니까?
문재인 대통령과 민주당이 아직도 촛불혁명에 취해서, 헌법에 명기된 날짜 계산도 해보지 않고, 국민과 야당을 윽박질러서야 되겠습니까? 김문수(前 경기도 지사) 트위터
----------------------------------------------------------------------
대통령을 묻어버린 '거짓의 산' 49편 | 박영수 특검 참패하다!!
https://youtu.be/J2G_xYiMpr0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spring Paintings by Lourry Legarde
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----> 탈레브가 말하는 앤티프래질은 바로 하이에크가 말한 복잡계의 한 특징이라고 볼 수 있다. 복잡계는 스트레스를 받으면 오히려 스스로를 강화하며 성장하는데, 탈레브는 이것을 다시 앤티프래질이라고 부르고 있다.
본인의 책 <(환원주의에 기초한) 서구의학은 파산했다> 참고.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
탈레브가 설명하는 복잡계
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
나의 무드, 슬픔, 불안 등은 지성의 두 번째, 아니 어쩌면 첫번째 원천이기도 하다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
이문열의 '사로잡힌 악령'도 고은이 모델이다.
http://maggot.prhouse.net/612
지난 1994년 이문열 씨는 《아우와의 만남》(둥지출판사)이라는 중·단편 모음집을 펴냈다. 여기서 한동안 문제가 됐던 것이 바로 〈사로잡힌 악령〉이다. 고은 씨라고 지칭하지는 않았지만 ‘그’라는 화자를 통해 이문열씨는 고은 씨를 연상케 하는 인물을 등장시킨다. ‘그’는 유명한 스님(고은 씨의 경우 효봉 스님) 밑에 상좌로 들어가 명사(名士) 사냥을 통해 자신의 입지를 다진 후 신분의 혜택에 힘입어 문단으로 적을 옮긴다. 그 후 추악한 짓과 교묘하게 시대적인 흐름에 편승하는 방법으로 자신의 욕구와 야망을 채운다. 색주가인 그는 민주화 운동으로 넘어가는 과정에서 시대에 편승함으로써 언제부터인가 민중시인이자 저항시인으로 탈바꿈한다.
물론 시국사건에의 연루, 투옥, 고문, 재판, 중형으로 이어지는 수난의 이미지는 대중적인 지명도를 전국적인 것으로 만들었고, 그가 편승한 대의는 지식인 사회에서까지 그 명성의 실질을 보장해 주었다고 말한다. 계속 이어지는 글에서 이문열 씨는 ‘그’는 어떤 일간지의 지면을 빌어 자서전을 연재했다고 기술하고 있는데 이것은 고은 씨가 신문에 연재했던 〈나 고은〉을 빗대고 있는 것은 분명하다. 이런 까닭에 〈사로잡힌 악령〉은 초판 이후 시비가 불거지면서 《아우와의 만남》에서 삭제된다. 이것을 안 고은 씨는 공개적으로 입장을 밝히지 않았지만 아마 크게 분노했을 것은 뻔하다.
------------------------------------------------------------------http://maggot.prhouse.net/612
지난 1994년 이문열 씨는 《아우와의 만남》(둥지출판사)이라는 중·단편 모음집을 펴냈다. 여기서 한동안 문제가 됐던 것이 바로 〈사로잡힌 악령〉이다. 고은 씨라고 지칭하지는 않았지만 ‘그’라는 화자를 통해 이문열씨는 고은 씨를 연상케 하는 인물을 등장시킨다. ‘그’는 유명한 스님(고은 씨의 경우 효봉 스님) 밑에 상좌로 들어가 명사(名士) 사냥을 통해 자신의 입지를 다진 후 신분의 혜택에 힘입어 문단으로 적을 옮긴다. 그 후 추악한 짓과 교묘하게 시대적인 흐름에 편승하는 방법으로 자신의 욕구와 야망을 채운다. 색주가인 그는 민주화 운동으로 넘어가는 과정에서 시대에 편승함으로써 언제부터인가 민중시인이자 저항시인으로 탈바꿈한다.
물론 시국사건에의 연루, 투옥, 고문, 재판, 중형으로 이어지는 수난의 이미지는 대중적인 지명도를 전국적인 것으로 만들었고, 그가 편승한 대의는 지식인 사회에서까지 그 명성의 실질을 보장해 주었다고 말한다. 계속 이어지는 글에서 이문열 씨는 ‘그’는 어떤 일간지의 지면을 빌어 자서전을 연재했다고 기술하고 있는데 이것은 고은 씨가 신문에 연재했던 〈나 고은〉을 빗대고 있는 것은 분명하다. 이런 까닭에 〈사로잡힌 악령〉은 초판 이후 시비가 불거지면서 《아우와의 만남》에서 삭제된다. 이것을 안 고은 씨는 공개적으로 입장을 밝히지 않았지만 아마 크게 분노했을 것은 뻔하다.
Ruth Etting - All of me (1931)
Words and Music by Seymour Simons and Gerald Marks (first recorded by Belle Baker,1931).
Recorded by Ruth Etting at December, 1931
You took my kisses and all my love
You taught me how to care
Am I to be just remnant of a one side love affair
All you took
I gladly gave
There is nothing left for me to save
All of me
Why not take all of me
Can't you see
I'm no good without you
Take my lips
I want to loose them
Take my arms
I'll never use them
Your goodbye left me with eyes that cry
How can I go on dear without you
You took the part that once was my heart
So why not take all of me
https://youtu.be/Sz_zeJM-5-A
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
독일 통일은 유럽연합의 성립보다 중요하다. 소련의 붕괴는 독일 통일보다 중요하다. 중국과 인도의 부상은 소련의 붕괴보다 중요하다.
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Piketty: Capital for the 21st Century
Jean-Philippe Delsol, Nicolas Lecaussin, and Emmanuel Martin, eds.
Cato Institute, 2017
When Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century was published in 2015, it suffered an unexpected fate for a treatise of 700 pages, filled with statistics and equations. It became a bestseller. Proclaimed a masterpiece by Paul Krugman and worthy of a Nobel Prize for its author by Larry Summers, it perfectly encapsulated and extended a familiar narrative of anti-capitalist propaganda, found in cruder form in the speeches of Bernie Sanders.
According to Piketty, capitalism over time widens the gap between the rich and the poor. In recent years, complaints have abounded that only the rich, and especially the superrich, gain from economic growth. In Piketty’s view, this fact is no happenstance of present conditions but reflects a law of capitalist development. This law is the famous r > g, i.e., the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth. Capitalists who get interest payments will take over a greater and greater share of the gains from economic growth, and the gap between rich and poor will widen. At times this distressing trend can be halted; wars and revolutions slow capital accumulation and increase equality. But the overall trend toward inequality is clear and needs to be contained by high taxes on income and wealth.
Piketty’s portrayal of capitalism has not gone unchallenged, and Anti-Piketty collects a number of the most important criticisms of it. One of the most telling of these criticisms is obvious. If capitalism has been so bad for the poor, how can it be that the standard of living for the poor has vastly increased? As Jean-Philippe Delsol, a French economic journalist, notes, “People who focus on inequality often seem to forget a historical fact: market economies have allowed a great many people to get rich and to get out of poverty. This effect is unprecedented in history. ... The speed at which the market economy allows sections of humanity to get us out of poverty should make us marvel.”
The well-known demographer and economist Nicholas Eberstadt makes a related point. “Whatever may be said about economic inequalities in our epoch, material forces are quite obviously not working relentlessly and universally to increase differences in living standards across humanity today. From the standpoint of length of life and years of education, indeed, the human condition is incontestably more equal today than it has ever been before.”
How might Piketty respond? It is apparent from his book that what concerns him is the gap between rich and poor, more than the quality of life enjoyed by the poor. He would be likely to say, “Granted that the poor today do not for the most part live in abject circumstances. Still, the superrich have enormously more wealth than anyone else. That by itself suffices to justify corrective action by the government.”
But this would open Piketty to a further objection. Why is inequality bad? If you lead a good life but others are much better off, why do you have any cause for complaint, just because of the inequality? That is a fundamental question, but unfortunately it is not addressed in Anti-Piketty. In a densely written essay, Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson say, “It may be difficult to maintain political institutions that create a dispersed distribution of political power for a wide cross section of people in a society in which a small number of families and individuals have become disproportionately rich.”
Taking their comment on its own terms, would not a better solution to the problem it poses be to reduce the power of the state rather than to confiscate wealth? But this is not the issue I wish now to address. This is the failure of the contributors to address the intrinsic justice of equality. Is equality good or bad in itself? Why or why not? The contributors leave this vital issue to the side.
Before we can deal with whether Piketty’s r > g accounts for rising inequality, we must ask another question. Has he shown that inequality is in fact rising? If it is not, there is nothing for his formula to explain.
The historian Phillip W. Magness and the economist Robert P. Murphy (a name well-known to readers of The Austrian) in a joint contribution, analyze to devastating effect Piketty’s statistical evidence for inequality. They come close to charging Piketty with fraud and deception: “The discrepancies we identify are pervasive in the book, beginning with misstatements of basic historical fact and extending to an abundance of political distortion and confirmation bias in his data selection and methodological choices. In his use of communist data assumptions to accentuate the shape of a desired trend line, ostensibly explaining a hypothesized characteristic of capitalism, for example, it is difficult to maintain a noble opinion of the scholarship involved.”
Piketty’s signature tune, the r > g formula, fares no better at the hands of the contributors to this book. The economist Randall Holcombe uses a point much stressed by Austrian economists to dismember Piketty’s entire approach to capital theory. Piketty writes as if the return to capital were automatic: all a capitalist needs to do is invest his money and rewards will flow to him at a fixed rate. Precisely the opposite is the case: “The general idea — that capital does not just earn a rate of return, but has to be employed in productive activity by its owner — plays no role in the way Piketty analyzes his extensive data set on inequality. Piketty makes it appear that earning a return on capital is a passive activity. ... But capital has value only because it provides a flow of income to its owners, and it only provides that flow if the owners employ it productively.”
Piketty misconceives the nature of economic growth. He bemoans the gains of capitalists, but without their investments growth would not take place. He follows a famous model of Robert Solow, in which changes in technology, not additions to capital, are the primary drivers of growth. But as Mises long ago noted, knowledge of technology in poor countries far exceeds the ability of these countries to put this knowledge into practice. What these countries need is more capital; and if economic growth is to continue in well-off countries, they need increases in investment also. Piketty’s confiscatory policies would choke off growth and prosperity in the name of equality. (This basic point against Piketty has been made most effectively in a short book not included in this collection, George Reisman’s Piketty’s Capital.)
Does Piketty have a response? He might claim that even if capitalist investment does promote economic growth, the capitalists will seize the benefits for themselves, leaving others no better off. The economist Hans-Werner Sinn shows the error of this line of thought: “[Piketty’s] formula does not imply that wealth grows faster than economic output. Such a conclusion would only be warranted if the savings of an economy could be set equal to the economy’s capital income, so the rate of economic growth is the same as the interest rate. But this is not the case. Rather, savings are consistently smaller than the sum of all capital income. The wealthy consume substantial parts of their income. ... Thus, the growth rateof wealth lies significantly below the interest rate; the fact that the interest rate exceeds the rate of economic growth in no way implies that wealth grows faster than the economy. ” So much for r > g.
Suppose, though, that one accepted Piketty’s analysis and was accordingly concerned with capitalists’ having too much. As Michael Tanner aptly remarks, Piketty’s solution to this alleged problem would not work. “He seems to believe that ‘confiscatory taxes’ (his term) can be imposed without changing incentives or discouraging innovation and wealth creation. Piketty’s solutions would undoubtedly yield a more equal society, but also a remarkably poorer society.” Instead, Tanner suggests, why not encourage the emergence of more capitalists by making Social Security private? “No policy proposed in recent years would have done more to expand capital ownership than allowing younger workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes through personal accounts.” Piketty has no use for pro-market proposals of this sort.
The essays in Anti-Piketty make Nicolas Lecaussin’s claim inescapable. Piketty is one of those “intellectuals” who, as Ludwig von Mises and Robert Nozick have noted, resent the free market because “it does not recognize them at — what they think is — their ‘fair value.’” Readers of this book will be inoculated against Piketty’s ill-considered analysis and policies.
https://mises.org/system/tdf/The%20Austrian%204%20no%201%20Jan%20Feb%202018.pdf?file=1&type=document
------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기