----------------------------------------------------------------------
위의 여론조사는 조작되었다고 믿지만, 전에도 썼듯이 만일 북한이 미국과의 협상에서 통 크게 핵무기를 모두 폐기한다고 하면, 한국에서 김정은의 인기가 오르고, 연방제도 순조롭게(?) 될 가능성을 보여주는 기사이다.
나는 북한의 핵보다, 한국의 사회주의화와 연방제가 더 무섭다고 내내 주장해 왔다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
교육 혁명이 일어나, 아이들을 교육 지옥에서 구해내야 한다.
소위 천재라는 아이들도 바이올린, 체조, 수학, 물리학 등 한 가지만 집중해서 파는데, 평범한 아이들을 데려다 수십가지 과목을 모두 다 잘하라고 닥달하니, 이건 교육을 통한 고문이다. 나는 간단한 수학과 국어, 그리고 외국어 한 가지, 그리고 아이가 흥미를 가진 과목 2 ~3 개만 가르쳐야 한다고 믿는다. 나머지 과목은 아이가 커서 흥미를 가지면 그때 독학을 해도 늦지 않다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[사람을 미워하는 것]
우리는 김정은이가 악의 축이기 때문에 김정은을 죽일 듯이 미워합니다.
그런데 그런 김정은을 살리려고 온갖 지랄 발광하는 문도 밉습니다,
오히려 문이 김정은보다 더 미운건 무슨 심리인지 참 난해합니다.
지금 우리 대통령을 극악무도하게 해꼬지하는 놈은 문입니다.
나는 악마를 보는 것 같이 문이 소름끼치게 밉습니다.
그런데 그런 문을 도와서 우리 대통령을 해꼬지한 김무성등 탄찬파 62명도 버러지를 보듯 싫습니다.
오히려 쓰레기 김무성 일파가 문보다 더 미운건 무슨 심리인지 모르겠습니다.
...
우리는 김정은이가 악의 축이기 때문에 김정은을 죽일 듯이 미워합니다.
그런데 그런 김정은을 살리려고 온갖 지랄 발광하는 문도 밉습니다,
오히려 문이 김정은보다 더 미운건 무슨 심리인지 참 난해합니다.
지금 우리 대통령을 극악무도하게 해꼬지하는 놈은 문입니다.
나는 악마를 보는 것 같이 문이 소름끼치게 밉습니다.
그런데 그런 문을 도와서 우리 대통령을 해꼬지한 김무성등 탄찬파 62명도 버러지를 보듯 싫습니다.
오히려 쓰레기 김무성 일파가 문보다 더 미운건 무슨 심리인지 모르겠습니다.
...
김무성 일파는 문을 도와 우리 대통령을 해꼬지한 개같은놈들입니다.
그런데 그런 개같은놈들을 자유한국당으로 끌어들인 홍준표도 엄청 밉습니다. 아주 원수같습니다.
요즘은 김무성 일파보다 홍준표가 더 개같은놈으로 보입니다.
그 홍준표란 버러지 같은 놈이 우리대통령을 또 폄훼했습니다.
홍준표는[박대통령은 최순실과같이 국정농단을 했기 때문에
구속이 정당하지만 이명박은 다르다]고 페이스북에 썻다는군요.
이놈은 남자도 아니고 인간도 아닙니다.
아무짝에도 쓸모없는 개같은 놈이, 낯짝에 붙이고 다니라는 눈깔과 귀떼기는 집에 두고 다니는지...
우리 대통령에게는 한점의 죄가 없다는 걸 지난 1년간 우파 국민들이 목이터져라 외쳤는데...
그 자식은 듯지도 못하고 보지도 못한 모양입니다.
# 그동안 참 밉고 또 미웠지만 홍준표 따위도 우파라고 욕을 안했는데,
어젯밤 그 기사를 읽고 그 개자식에게 살의를 느낄 정도였습니다.
홍가에게 욕설을 펴붓지 않으면...내가 병 날 것 같아 씁니다.
그런데 그런 개같은놈들을 자유한국당으로 끌어들인 홍준표도 엄청 밉습니다. 아주 원수같습니다.
요즘은 김무성 일파보다 홍준표가 더 개같은놈으로 보입니다.
그 홍준표란 버러지 같은 놈이 우리대통령을 또 폄훼했습니다.
홍준표는[박대통령은 최순실과같이 국정농단을 했기 때문에
구속이 정당하지만 이명박은 다르다]고 페이스북에 썻다는군요.
이놈은 남자도 아니고 인간도 아닙니다.
아무짝에도 쓸모없는 개같은 놈이, 낯짝에 붙이고 다니라는 눈깔과 귀떼기는 집에 두고 다니는지...
우리 대통령에게는 한점의 죄가 없다는 걸 지난 1년간 우파 국민들이 목이터져라 외쳤는데...
그 자식은 듯지도 못하고 보지도 못한 모양입니다.
# 그동안 참 밉고 또 미웠지만 홍준표 따위도 우파라고 욕을 안했는데,
어젯밤 그 기사를 읽고 그 개자식에게 살의를 느낄 정도였습니다.
홍가에게 욕설을 펴붓지 않으면...내가 병 날 것 같아 씁니다.
------------------------------------------------------------
김철홍 교수 시국 진단 | 「문재인 개헌」 속셈?
https://youtu.be/ehGgC9xlI8I
박 대통령 탄핵의 두 세력----- 의원내각제나 이원집정부제 세력(친이계)과 서초동의 법률가 집단이라고 주장, 흥미있는 주장이다.
또 읍면동까지도 지방자치 조직을 만든다는 더불당의 계획은 소비에트(민주적 자치기구)를 만들려는 음모일 수도 있다고.
탄핵의 빌미를 만든 태블릿 조작은 분명 민주당의 좌파 세력이다. 이 들이 주도하고, 쓸모있는 바보들인 친이계와 법률가 집단이 동조했다고 보는 게 타당하다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
자유로운 시장은 사회적 효용을 극대화한다. 하지만 정부의 개입으로 교환이 강제될 때, 한 집단은 이익을 보는 반면, 다른 집단은 손해를 본다.
정부에 의한 인플레는 국민의 반에게 혜택을 주는 반면, 나머지 반에는 손해를 입힌다. 또 그로 인해 경기 순환에 의한 불경기가 찾아오고, 화폐의 가치가 폭락한다.
Austrians vs the Mainstream: on Taxes
This article illustrates the usefulness of the methodology of the Austrian school of economics. No scientific inquiry can occur without a method, be it carefully considered or willy-nilly. Yet, mainstream economists pay little attention to the methods they use. Apparently they are satisfied to mimic the method of physics. For economists as a whole, the Austrians stand virtually alone as students of methodology. The usefulness of the economic theory developed from their method challenges mainstream economists to reconsider their own methodology.
This article poses such a challenge by presenting an Austrian school critique to the indifference curve analysis proof that an individual prefers an income tax to an excise tax of equal amount. The first section gives a brief overview of the Austrian methodology, a theory of property rights plus the resulting market system, and, finally, the effect of invasion into the market. The second section reviews indifference curve analysis and its application to tax types. The third contains the Austrian critique of indifference curve analysis and its application to tax type. The last section provides concluding remarks.
Austrian Methodology
Austrian economists study all human action, including economics, using the axiomatic-deductive method of logic. This methodology employs the rules of deductive logic to derive conclusions from basic premises. These conclusions will be true if the premises are true and the logical steps used in their derivation are valid.
The science of economics begins with the premise that each individual human acts. The existence of human action is self-evident. Furthermore, the premise rises to the status of a axiom since any attempt to refute the premise is human action. The entire body of economic theory derives from the fundamental axiom (and, as needed, ancillary premises). For example:
Let us consider some of the immediate implications of the action axiom. Action implies that the individual's behavior is purposive, in short, that it is directed toward goals. Furthermore, the fact of his action implies that he has consciously chosen certain means to reach his goals. Since he wishes to attain these goals, they must be valuable to him; accordingly he must have values that govern his choices. That he employs means implies that he believes he has the technological knowledge that certain means will achieve his desired ends. Let us note that praxeology does not assume that a person's choice of values or goals is wise or proper or that he has chosen the technologically correct method of reaching them. All that praxeology asserts is that the individual actor adopts goals and believes, whether erroneously or correctly, that he can arrive at them by the employment of certain means.
All action in the real world, furthermore, must take place through time; all action takes place in some present and is directed toward the future (immediate or remote) attainment of an end. If all of a person's desires could be instantaneously realized, there would be no reason for him to act at all. Furthermore, that a man acts implies that he believes action will make a difference; in other words, that he will prefer the state of affairs resulting from action to that from no action. Action therefore implies that man does not have omniscient knowledge of the future; for if he had such knowledge, no action of his would make any difference. Hence, action implies that we live in a world of an uncertain, or not fully certain, future. Accordingly, we may amend our analysis of action to say that a man chooses to employ means according to a technological plan in the present because he expects to arrive at his goals at some future time.
The fact that people act necessarily implies that the means employed are scarce in relation to the desired ends; for, if all means were not scarce but superabundant, the ends would already have been attained, and there would be no need for action. Stated another way, resources that are superabundant no longer function as means, because they are no longer objects of action. Thus, air is indispensable to life and hence to the attainment of goals; however, air being superabundant is not an object of action and therefore cannot be considered a means, but rather what Mises called a "general condition of human welfare." Where air is not superabundant, it may become an object of action, for example, where cool air is desired and warm air is transformed through air conditioning. Even with the absurdly unlikely advent of Eden (or what a few years ago was considered in some quarters to be an imminent "postscarcity" world), in which all desires could be fulfilled instantaneously, there would still be at least one scarce means: the individual's time, each unit of which if allocated to one purpose is necessarily not allocated to some other goals.
This scarcity implies that an individual cannot fulfill all goals but must allocate means to the most highly valued ends, leaving less valued ends unfulfilled.
Means used to accomplish ends are called goods. Conceptually, action toward means can be either production, consumption, or exchange. Production is an act that furthers a good toward its final stage where it is consumed. Consuming a good renders service (value) to the individual consumer. Voluntary exchange of goods is an act of production that moves goods from less valuable to more valuable uses. All such voluntary trades occur in (or constitute) the market.
Property Rights. Since individuals exchange possession of goods and service (alienable property) in the market, any explanation of markets must contain a theory of ownership rights to property. Briefly, the system of property rights that generates free market exchange as a by-product contains five parts: (1) Each individual owns himself, some parts of which are exchangeable (e.g., labor) and some parts of which are inalienable (e.g., free will). (2) When an individual mixes his labor with other resources, he comes to own the property created. (3) In a similar manner, the first individual to transform virgin land becomes its just owner. (4) The only other way to justly acquire ownership rights to property is voluntary exchange. (5) An individual can defend his property against aggressive violent invasion—coercion—by using a proportional amount of defensive violence to repel the invader. Finally, these rights are absolute and equal for all individuals.
The Market. Free market exchange will result from this system of property rights, with the following effects. First, each voluntary exchange provides benefit for all traders. Individuals demonstrate their gain by the very act of voluntary trade. Taken together, all such acts create the greatest possible value of goods and, thus, maximize the utility of the individuals in the market. Second, harmony exists between individuals since each person's welfare depends on gaining the voluntary cooperation of others. If a person disrupted this harmony, he would injure himself. Third, man extends his power over nature to produce goods because he claims them as his own. This occurs through specialization and division of labor which the existence of trade makes possible. Fourth, individuals produce in a pattern desired, not by themselves, but by others. That is the only way to earn wealth on the market. Fifth, voluntary trading results in a set of market prices. These prices are established in accord with the values individuals place on various goods; therefore, each individual can use these prices to calculate how to effectively serve others. These activities create wealth which is reflected in the increased value of goods and the existence of profit. Finally, the market contains incentives for production and improved living standards. This is a direct consequence of ownership of produced property. The market renders mutual benefit, harmony, peace, power of man over nature, efficiency, calculation, and productivity. But what of involuntary exchange—the opposite of the market?
The next section traces the effects of placing a protection racket that engaged in such coercion within a market community.
Invasion of the Market. The protection racket will engage in several actions. First, the racket extracts payment from individuals with the use or threat of physical violence. This involuntary exchange violates the individual's property rights by establishing a hegemonic relationship of command and obedience. The racket and its favorites benefit while the victims suffer. Second, the racket provides differing amounts of protection to different individuals regardless of an individual's desire for it. Without voluntary payments, the racket cannot know the strength (if any) of the individual's demand for protection. Thus, even if it desires to, the racket cannot efficiently provide the pattern of protection services that individuals desire. Third, the racket's activity does not increase the value of goods in the community and probably decreases their value. When providing protection, the racket diverts resources from producing goods that individuals demonstrably desire on the market. Instead, these resources produce what the protection racket and its favorites desire. The preracket pattern of market production, exchange, and consumption is completely transformed into a less efficient (less valuable) pattern. These effects will hold true when any group establishes the hegemonic relationship.
Government. The effects of government activity are analogous to those of the protection racket. Taxes are involuntary payments extracted by the threat or use of force. If not, individuals would gladly make these payments voluntarily and could voluntarily withdraw them. Taxes cannot exist in the market, but are always invasions into the market. As with any other form of violence, taxes disrupt the effectiveness of voluntary activity (destroy wealth). In the same manner as the protection racket, all government activity (i.e., taxing and spending) transfers wealth from one group to another, destroying some in the process. This misallocation occurs as government coerces individuals to give up part of their income (which was created by servicing the desires of others) and then uses these funds to bid resources away from them. Individuals are burdened and resources are reallocated from serving individual desires to satisfying the ends of government officials. The extent of the burden of this misallocation is directly proportional to the level of taxation and government expenditures compared to the level of private income. In other words, the type of tax is much less significant than the level of taxation (and expenditure).
Because of the coercive nature of government activity, two additional results come forth. First, by voluntarily purchasing an item on the market, an individual demonstrates that he values the item more than the money price. But in paying taxes, he makes no such demonstration. The government does not know, as a business does, the value individuals place on its activity. Since government cannot obtain the information and incentive by demonstrated preferences of individuals, they cannot efficiently serve individuals. Second, the government creates a disjunction between benefit from and payment for their activities. The taxpayer pays and the benefits go to government officials and those who obtain government expenditures. This creates both a class of forced riders and a class of free riders.
In Rothbard's words:
One of the conclusions of this analysis is that the purely free market maximizes social utility, because every participant in the market benefits from his voluntary participation. On the free market, every man gains; one man's gain, in fact, is precisely the consequence of his bringing about the gain of others. When an exchange is coerced, on the other hand—when criminals or governments intervene—one group gains at the expense of others. On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers. The market is an interpersonal relation of peace and harmony; statism is a relation of war and caste conflict. Not only do earnings on the free market correspond to productivity, but freedom also permits a continually enlarged market, with a wider division of labor, investment to satisfy future wants, and increased living standards. Moreover, the market permits the ingenious device of capitalist calculation, a calculation necessary to the efficient and productive allocation of the factors of production. Socialism cannot calculate and hence must either shift to a market economy or revert to a barbaric standard of living after its plunder of the preexisting capital structure has been exhausted. Any and every intermixture of government ownership or interference in the market distorts the allocation of resources and introduces islands of calculational chaos into the economy. Government taxation and grants of monopolistic privilege (which take many subtle forms) all hamper market adjustments and lower general living standards. Government inflation not only must injure half the population for the benefit of the other half, but may also lead to a business-cycle depression or collapse of the currency.
We cannot outline here the entire analysis of this volume. Suffice it to say that in addition to the praxeological truth that (1) under a regime of freedom, everyone gains, whereas (2) under statism, some gain (X) at the expense of others (Y), we can say something else. For, in all these cases, X is not a pure gainer. The indirect long-run consequences of his statist privilege will redound to what he would generally consider his disadvantage - the lowering of living standards, capital consumption, etc. X's exploitation gain, in short, is clear and obvious to everyone. His future loss, however, can be comprehended only by praxeological reasoning.
Such is the nature of government and the effects of its activity derived from the Austrian method. The next section discusses the indifference curve analysis and its application to the problem of optimal tax type. (발췌)
--------------------------------------------------------------
저건 신문이 아니라 선전선동 찌라시이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
인터넷에서 대중의 지혜를 찾으려 했던 사람들은 커다란 환멸에 직면해야 했다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
생활 양식의 변화로 의류 사업이 사양길로 접어 들었다는 기사.
------------------------------------------------------------------
몇년 전까지 사회는 개방파와 폐쇄파로 크게 나누어져 있었다. 하지만 현재 그것보다 더 중요한 사회의 두 집단은 시험을 통과한 사람들 vs 그렇지 못한 사람들이다. 시험을 통과한 집단은 세계화의 바람으로부터 비교적 안전한 기업에 들어간다.
----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
사람들의 머리 속에 들은 생각이 편견이나 혐오에 의해 유발되었다면, 그것이 위법이 아니라도 기소할 수 있다는 경찰의 말. 생각이 범죄가 되는 세상이 되었다.
한국의 검찰과 법관들도 법이 얼마나 황당할 수 있는지 보여 주었다. 바야흐로 법(아니 법이라 불리는 것)이 광란의 춤을 추는 세상이 되었다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
복령음으로 위장병을 치료하다.
한국의 검찰과 법관들도 법이 얼마나 황당할 수 있는지 보여 주었다. 바야흐로 법(아니 법이라 불리는 것)이 광란의 춤을 추는 세상이 되었다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
천재만이 경제학을 이해하는 건 아니다.
사람들은 생산 수단의 소유가 (경제적 또는 기타의) 권력을 의미한다고 생각한다. 하지만 생산 수단(자본)은 그것이 소비재의 생산에 기여하는 정도에 따라 가치를 지니며, 그 소비재가 소비되어야 가치가 실현된다. 모든 물건을 생산하는 로봇의 실제적인 효과는 생산 비용을 크게 낮출 수 있다는 것이다. 하지만 시장에 상품이 넘쳐 나면 가격은 떨어지게 된다. 따라서 자본의 유일한 역할은 노동의 생산성을 높인다는 것이고, 그 결과 우리가 생활수준을 유지하게 위해 장시간 노동할 필요가 없어진다는 것이다.
It Doesn't Take a Genius to Understand Economics
Per Bylund
In fact, most geniuses seem to simply not get economics. An example is the recently departed physicist Stephen Hawking, who - like so many - made rather ridiculous statements of economic nature. Quoted by MSN/MarketWatch, Hawking makes several very simple mistakes in his attempted economic commentary. For instance, he seems to not understand the difference between a natural resource (the physical production factor) and an economic resource (the subject value), which leads him to erroneously conclude that hoarding, and the resulting increased scarcity of physical resources, impoverishes humanity. Also, Hawking noted:
“If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed,” he wrote. “Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution.”
This is a common view that at best captures a fundamental misunderstanding of economics: that ownership of the means of production somehow implies power (economic or otherwise). But, as we've known since Menger, the means of production have only value to the extent they contribute to the production of consumers' goods, the consumption of which is the realization of value. In other words, if I buy all machinery in the world and refuse to use any of them to produce goods, the economic value is zero. If I don't use the machinery to produce and sell consumers' goods, I have destroyed the economic value of my property.
The real effect of robots "producing everything" is that the cost of production plummets, which offers producers profits. But as we're flooded with goods, their market price also plummets. And as the (only) role of capital is to increase the productivity of labor, it means we don't have to work much to support a very high standard of living. The true gig economy is that we can work only for an hour or two - when we feel like it - to support a month's (or maybe a year's) worth of luxurious leisure.
This is apparently a problem to some geniuses.
茯苓饮为老师治疗胃肠疾病常用之方，其组成为“参苓术、橘枳姜”，党参温中健胃，有治疗里虚寒“心下痞”的特能；苓术温中健胃化饮；橘枳姜汤理气，以胡希恕先生经验，每重用陈皮、并加半夏，合为小半夏汤，增强理气降气除满之功，因而病机为太阴里虚寒有饮，兼有气滞。临床中，太阴里虚寒之胃痛、胃胀、嗳气，每获奇效。但需以太阴病为前提。当然，如合并他经症状则可以合方：如兼有口干口苦、胸闷等少阳表现，有合用小柴胡汤或四逆散等机会；兼有口干、小便不利、身痛汗出，有合用五苓散机会；兼有口干、鼻干，有加生苡仁之机会……各随其证治之。
--------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기