시진핑의 '南北美中 평화협정' 제안과, 美國의 패착
펀드빌더
시진핑의 의도는, 현행 6·25 휴전협정을, 이러한 '南北美中 평화협정'이라는 것을 매개 삼아, 사실상 종전협정으로 바꾸어놓고자 하는 것이다. 1953년 휴전협정에 사인한 것은 '美中北'이다. 2018년에는 여기에 한국을 추가해 '美中南北'이 사인함으로써 정식으로 종전협정을 맺자 는 것이 시진핑이 노리는 바다. 만약 종전협정이 성립하면, 이론상 주한미군이 한반도에 주둔할 명분은 없어진다(약해진다). 전쟁이 공식적으로 종결되었는데 왜 외국 군대가 한국에 주둔하느냐는 이의제기가 북한과 중국측에 의해 지속 제기될 것은 뻔하다
시진핑의 '南北美中 평화협정'(종전협정) 제안은, 주한미군 철수를 主목적으로 하는 사실상 공산당式 기만전술에 다름이 아니라고 볼 수 있다. 최근 돌아가는 상황은, 시진핑-김정은-문재인 정권 라인이, 사실상 한 몸(원 팀)이 되어 한참 전부터 일사불란하게 움직이는 정황이 뚜렷하다. (발췌)
------------------------------------------------------------------
최근 <동아일보> <중앙일보>의 근대사 歪曲·변조 시도를 慨歎한다
이동복
얼마 전 <중앙일보>가 이씨조선(李氏朝鮮)의 끝으로부터 두 번째의 26대 임금으로, 1863년부터 1907년까지 무려 44년간 재위(在位)하면서 618년간 지속되었던 한 왕조(王朝)의 종말은 물론 일제(日帝)가 강요한 식민통치에 의하여 한민족의 정치적 독립이 상실되는 망국(亡國) 과정을 책임져야 할 혼군(昏君)에 불과했던 고종(高宗)을 이른바 ‘개혁군주(改革君主)’로 미화(美化)시키는 역사 변조(變造) 내용을 기획기사로 연재(連載)하더니 이번에는 <동아일보>가 '1919∼2019 3.1 운동 100주년 역사의 현장'이라는 기획기사의 일환으로 “‘肉彈血戰’ 외친 의군부 독립선언서, 抗日 무력 투쟁 불 댕겨”라는 제목으로 ‘사문난적(斯文亂賊)’ 소리를 들어 마땅한 괴이한 기사를 한 페이지 전부를 할애하여 게재하는 엉뚱한 짓을 벌이고 있다.
요즘 <중앙일보>와 <동아일보> 등 제도권 언론 매체들이 엉뚱하게 한국 근대사를 새로운 사관(史觀)과 시각에 입각하여 재조명하는 데 영일(寧日)이 없다는 사실은 이제 나라 상부·하부구조가 송두리째 사실상 ‘종북(從北)’과 동일체인 ‘민중민주주의’ 사관의 장악 하에 수렴(收斂)되고 있음을 반증하고 있는 것이라 아니 할 수 없다. (발췌)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---> 사회주의가 기아와 가난을 초래한다는 것은 이제 명백하다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
개인의 자유는 개별적인 권리의 영역을 정해서, 개인들이 자신의 목적을 위해 기타의 수단을 동원할 수 있을 때에만 가능하다. 그래야 다양한 개성이 형성되고, 개별적인 환경 속에서 개인들이 자신의 목적을 추구할 수 있다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---> 장자연 사건을 재조사 한다는데, 혹시 방씨를 건드리면 태블릿을 터뜨린다는 경고인가?
---------------------------------------------------------------
그래 맞다! 태블릿으로 국정을 농단했다!
이상로 방심위원
https://youtu.be/TJTDxRPD0kE
------------------------------------------------------------------
전통의 부담으로부터의 해방이라는 말은 나온지는 얼마 되지 않았지만, 전통 도덕으로부터의 해방이라는 의미로서는 꽤 오래된 개념이다. 그런 자유를 주장하는 사람은 자유의 근본을 파괴하고, 문명을 가능하게 했던 조건들을 회복할 수 없도록 붕괴시킬 것이다. 그런 예의 하나가 해방 신학이다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
개인적 목적에 따라 개인적인 결정을 내릴 때 개인이 참작하는 보편적이고 추상적인 규범들만을 도덕이라고 부를 수 있다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
하나님, 섹스, 가족, 사유재산, 저축, 교환, 정직, 계약 등이 좌파들이 받아들이지 못하는 전통 도덕들이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
사회주의의 목적은 전통적 도덕, 법, 언어를 전면 개조하고, 그 바탕 위에서 낡은 질서와 정당화될 수 있는 조건들을 박멸하는 것이다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
우리가 진실이라고 증명할 수 없다고 해서, 기존의 모든 추론을 폐기하면, 우리는 결국 야만인의 상태로 돌아간다. 하지만 데카르트부터 현대의 실증주의자들에 이르는 과학주의가 요구하는 것은 바로 그것이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
word of the day: "Pasqueflower" - rare & beautiful deep-purple petalled flower, with feathery grey-green leaves, that blooms in late March/early April; thus its name (from the Latin "Paschalis", "relating to Passover or Easter").
The Pasqueflower loves chalklands & limestone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
특정 개미 집단에서는 개미의 45%가 특별히 하는 일 없이 빈둥거리는 것으로 보인다.
프랑스에서는 그런 사람들을 공무원이라고 부른다.
---->한국도 상황은 거의 같다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
로스바드의 후계자로서의 조 살러노가 걸어온 길
Joe Salerno on His Career as an Heir to Rothbard
•Joseph T. Salerno
JEFF DEIST: How does a kid from New Jersey get interested in economics, much less decide to get a PhD?
JOE SALERNO: Well, I didn’t really plan it. I think it all began back in fifth grade when my mother’s cousin visited from Italy, and during the course of conversation, he revealed that he was a member of the Italian Communist Party. My father, a New Deal Democrat who had voted for JFK, was also an ardent anti-communist. He got into a big argument with the cousin and then threatened to throw him out.
This made me wonder what made my father so passionate, so I started reading books in sixth grade about communism. They were all pretty much lurid right-wing screeds against communism with very little analysis. So, by the time I was in eighth grade, I was politically aware and became interested in Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign. I began to read more sophisticated books like Barry Goldwater’s political manifesto, Conscience of a Conservative, which was ghost written by Bill Buckley’s brother-in-law, Brent Bozell. I also recall reading Goldwater’s authorized biography, Freedom is His Life Plan, by Stephen Shadegg. Ayn Rand’s Anthem was another book that I read at that time.
By the time that I entered high school, then, I was a conservative with strong anti-communist leanings. The atmosphere at the Catholic prep school I attended was politically highly charged and I was exposed to a broad range of ideological opinions among the faculty. Three members of the lay faculty were members of or sympathetic to the John Birch Society, while a number of the younger religious faculty were Vatican II liberals who supported the welfare programs of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
I took a course in civics and economics in my senior year from a very liberal lay faculty member who assigned us John Kenneth Galbraith’s Affluent Society and some sections of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. The Wealth of Nations struck a chord with me, because it seemed very logical saying something definite about social relationships and it seemed very scientific to me. I really did not understand Galbraith’s book, and I thought his writing was empty and overblown. I decided to be an economist at that point, and I never thought about it again.
When I went to college I became an economics major and went on to receive a PhD in economics from Rutgers University. I didn’t really discuss it with my parents and just came to that decision on my own.
JD: And you find yourself somehow attending the now infamous 1974 South Royalton Conference in Vermont. Tell us how you even knew the conference was happening and how you managed to get invited.
JS: I had heard of libertarianism in college, and then, in my junior year, I read an article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine by two libertarian students from Columbia. The article mentioned the Austrian school and referred to Murray Rothbard as the leader of this nascent Austrian and libertarian movement. I started to read all the libertarian books I could get my hands on. On the summer break between my junior and my senior years, I scoured local bookstores and libraries and read most of the basic Austrian works, as well as a number of books on libertarianism. By the time I was a senior, I was a libertarian and a budding Austrian economist.
While I was in grad school, I became a founding member of the New Jersey Libertarian Party. This was the year that John Hospers was running as the first Libertarian presidential candidate. The New Jersey party was going to hold a convention to nominate a gubernatorial candidate and we needed a keynote speaker. As party vice president, I was in charge of engaging the speaker.
I had seen Murray Rothbard speak for the first time a few months before and I found him very, very engaging and quite funny, so I worked up the courage to call and invite him and he accepted. Realizing as a new party that we had very few funds, he graciously accepted a speaking fee of $75.
When he arrived at the convention I met and greeted him. To my surprise he was very eager to discuss my activities and what I was reading. I told him that I was a graduate student in economics, and that I was reading some of the works he had cited in the footnotes of his book, Man, Economy, and State. He became very excited at that point and like an absent-minded professor, began frantically searching his pockets for a pen. I finally handed him one and he took my name and phone number down and said that there were a group of Austrian students and faculty in New Jersey who met weekly to discuss Mises’s works, and he would have one of them get in touch with me. Sure enough, a couple of days later someone called me and asked if I wanted to join the reading group. I said yes, and that was how my connection with the Austrian movement all began.
I met several people at the meeting who were very prominent in libertarian scholarly circles in the New York area, including Walter Block and Walter Grinder, who had both participated in Rothbard’s famed living room soirées. Several months later I invited Murray over to present a talk to the graduate students and faculty at Rutgers University. A little later, he invited me to his apartment in New York City for refreshments and discussion. Although his manner was light and humorous, I could tell he really was evaluating me as a libertarian and as an Austrian, and I guess I must have favorably impressed him.
JD: Let’s go back to South Royalton. You’re a young guy, a grad student, meeting this incredible list of people: Rothbard, Israel Kirzner, Ludwig Lachmann, Henry Hazlitt, and Milton Friedman just for starters.
JS: I met Richard Ebeling on the first day. As the participants were arriving, Richard and I were sitting together talking with William H. Hutt, a distinguished economist and follower of Mises, who had studied at the London School of Economics, where he knew Hayek and Lionel Robbins, the leading British Austrian. Well, we were sitting with Hutt and we saw Ludwig Lachmann come in, and Hutt said to us, “What’s he doing here?” Richard said, “he’s an Austrian.” Hutt replied, “no he isn’t, he’s a Keynesian.” As you might guess, with all those people in the same room, we were already beginning to see, even at that point, some schisms among the different groups within Austrian economics.
The three main speakers at the conference were Murray Rothbard, Israel Kirzner, and Ludwig Lachmann. Since I was a graduate student, I just sat riveted and eagerly absorbed these talks but I noticed even then that the three speakers weren’t always saying the exact same things on crucial issues. I was trying to understand how the different views presented by the speakers all hung together, but I didn’t know if there were real differences between their positions or if it was just my ignorance as a novice that prevented me seeing the connections between them. I figured out only years later that Rothbard’s position was far different from Lachmann’s, but also, to some extent, from Kirzner’s position. But, they were all inspiring lecturers and the lectures were stimulating and provocative. So, it was a once in a lifetime experience.
JD: At the time, summer of ’74, Mises had died just that past October. Had Murray Rothbard already developed, or at least addressed some of his differences with Mises vis-à-vis utilitarianism? I remember reading how Rothbard felt very nervous about criticizing his mentor Mises at the conference.
JS: At that time, when he did criticize Mises’s utilitarianism during the South Royalton conference, it was the first time that he had done so in public. In fact, he confided to a number of us, me and Richard Ebeling included, that he felt a bit nervous criticizing his mentor in public. So, that just shows not only Rothbard’s great respect for Mises, but also the importance he attached to the mentor-protégé relationship, which was central to the development of Austrian economics.
JD: People talk about a renaissance in Austrian economics in the 60s and 70s, do you think that’s accurate?
Yes, I think the South Royalton conference was the culmination of the renaissance of Austrian economics. Initially and for a number of years I thought that the conference in 1974 was a seminal event in the rebirth of Austrian economics. But then when I thought more deeply about it two decades later I said, “Well how and why did 30 people show up there?” You know, where did these people come from? Was it a “Field of Dreams” scenario where a voice from on high says, “If you hold it, they will come.” In fact, what participants had in common who showed up there was that almost to the man — actually there was one woman there — everyone was a Rothbardian. They had all read and were influenced by Rothbard’s works. So it is now my view that the renaissance really began with the flurry of publications that Rothbard had written from 1961 to 1963: Man, Economy, and State, America’s Great Depression, and What Has Government Done to Our Money? Then Power and Market came out in 1970 and in 1973, the year before South Royalton, For a New Liberty was published. Everyone there had read and absorbed those books.
The only two other books of note published prior to the conference were Israel Kirzner’s, The Economic Point of View, which had some influence, but it wasn’t a treatise in the style of Rothbard’s. People were also abuzz about Kirzner’s Competition and Entrepreneurship, which came out in 1973, but it was really Rothbard’s works that everyone had absorbed and that had motivated people to begin to study Austrian economics on their own.
So, I think that Rothbard will be known as the person who almost single-handedly revived Austrian economics and then drove it forward. Rothbard unlike Israel Kirzner, for example, was always looking for new people, people who he thought were up to the task of carrying on Austrian economics. He was always encouraging scholars, no matter what degree of productivity you showed, he always pushed you; he encouraged you. He was always willing to be your mentor. I think Rothbard was the reason, at least in the 1970s and early 80s, for the movement not just withering away after the conference.
Hayek won the Nobel Prize a few months later in October of 1974. In addition, Hayek came back very strongly in economics after he had won the prize and he began to write more for the public as well as for other scholars. But, what was important was that he became more combative and uncompromising than he had been since the 1930s. People don’t realize that after the Nobel Prize, Hayek took direct aim at the Keynesians and didn’t pull any punches, as he had done in his middle-period writings on political and social theory.
JD: Are you ever shocked by the degree to which economic history is ignored? You’re known, for example, as someone who writes about the sociology of the Austrian school.
JS: I’m not shocked when I look at the mainstream because they are aping physics, and you don’t go back and read physics articles or books from even a decade ago, but that’s not true with Austrians. For the most part, Austrians have always looked at their history, have always gone back to study the great men in the tradition, like Menger and Böhm-Bawerk. It seems to me that there’s been a conscious attempt to narrow the economists that are considered a part of the Austrian tradition. For example, you have this idea that you can weed out Rothbard and downplay Mises as compared to Hayek. That was done deliberately in the late 70s and early 80s. Mises was thought to be too abrasive and too uncompromising. When we gave lectures, for example, for IHS, we were supposed to couch the presentation of the laissez-faire or anarcho-capitalist message with sort of a Hayekian twist with references to spontaneous order and social coordination.
But that approach seemed to have backfired and the same people have re-embraced Mises. Now those same people are trying to read Rothbard out of the tradition and water it down by renaming it and bringing in other people, especially those who have won the Nobel prize. These include James Buchanan, Elinor Ostrom, Douglass North, and Vernon Smith. Even classical economists like Hume and Adam Smith, whose main doctrines on value and cost were refuted by Menger and the early Austrian school are considered part of this expanded tradition. Oh, they don’t call it Austrian economics — they have another name for it — but it gives a very skewed and twisted view of where Austrian economics comes from and how it developed.
JD: You coined this great term “Austro-punkism” to describe a lack of reverence for the old masters and, this tension between undue deference to the past and the need for economic science to progress. It also goes to credentialism, how we shouldn’t judge economists based solely on their credentials instead of their actual knowledge and work.
JS: What we see sometimes in Austrian circles is that people aren’t reading other people’s articles. They’re reading their CVs instead to see where they have published. I’ve often heard this criticism: “well you haven’t published your view in a mainstream journal and therefore, we assume that your opponent who has an article in a higher ranked journal is correct.” This is just another example of how credentialism promotes poor scholarship. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to get a job in academia and pursuing this goal by publishing in mainstream journals. In fact, we encourage young people who come through the Mises Institute Fellows program to write articles for mainstream journals, but to try to incorporate Austrian truths and insights into those articles and to stay true to the praxeological tradition. And increasingly young faculty associated with the Mises Institute are showing that this can be done without deferring or selling out to the mainstream.
JD: You mentioned attempts to read people out of the movement, and also attempts to define Austrian economics too broadly by including fellow travelers. In your article for Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s festschrift, you provide a definition based on praxeology — and you remind everyone that definitions are by necessity exclusionary. Give us your working definition of what an Austrian economist is.
JS: I want to say a few words about it. The term Austrian was actually not used to define the economics that Mises was doing. Mises didn’t use that term in his Human Action, except to talk about his masters who were economists in Austria such as Menger and Böhm-Bawerk.
JD: He’s using it in the geographical sense.
JS: Yes, he uses it in a geographical and history-of-thought sense and he held the view that was current at the time that Austrian economics was a closed chapter of economic thought. Mises used to refer to his doctrines as “subjective-value economics” or just “modern economics,” but by the time he came to publish Human Action in 1949, his views were held by a tiny minority of the profession and the term “modern economics” was commonly used to mean something entirely different. Rothbard followed the same convention as Mises and even in Man, Economy, and State published in 1962, he used the term “Austrian economics” only two or three times, and every time put it in quotation marks, to indicate that the school was a historical episode. When the conference was held, and then Hayek won the Nobel Prize, we saw that there was a living movement and that it was going to grow, so it really cried out for a name. Rothbard began to use the term, “Austrian economics.” At the time, it seemed like the natural solution. But, as it turns out, the choice of such a broad name had an unforeseen and unfortunate consequence because now there are many people who claim to be Austrian economists yet hold fundamentally different views of economics.
So, to get back to your original question, my view of what an Austrian economist is — freely acknowledging that there is confusion about it — is someone who sticks to the praxeological paradigm, who believes that economics begins from the actions of individual human beings. And then, it infers from that premise or axiom of action, combined with certain obvious facts about the world, all of the related deductions that compose the structure of economic theory. In other words, for the praxeological economist, economic theory is the spinning out of the structure of implications of human action in the world that exists. That’s how I would define Austrian economics. Others have different definitions of it and unfortunately, they clash with one another.
The people at George Mason, for example, for a while tried to distance themselves from the term “Austrian economics” when Ron Paul began to popularize it during his presidential campaigns. They began to lump together and uncharitably denounce as “internet Austrians,” both lay people who supported Ron Paul’s pro-free-market program as well as academic economists associated with the Mises Institute. They came up with new more academic-friendly labels for their own, allegedly more scientific brand of Austrian economics, for example, “spontaneous order” economics or “coordination problem” economics. But they were never able to convert the term into a smear, and have embraced it yet again, although as I mentioned they are now trying to submerge it in a broader makeshift tradition.
JD: So it’s a useful term of convenience. It’s human nature to want to put some sort of broad label on a school of thought.
JS: Well, I think you have to. There are still different schools of thought. I think it’s a good thing that you’re starting to see this recognition by mainstream economists. The real business cycle people are labeled. They’re different from the new Keynesians, who in turn differ from the modern monetary theory people. There is even a burgeoning school of new monetarism, who differ on crucial points from old Friedmanite monetarists. You see it most clearly in macroeconomics, where there is a factionalizing of economists, which I think is magnificent.
JD: You’re probably best known in Austrian circles for your work on monetary theory and monetary policy. You’ve written a lot about the 19th century, the currency school versus the banking school. Give us a quick summary of this work, and how both schools still influence monetary policy today.
JS: Mises always referred to himself as a descendant of the mid-19th-century British currency school. The currency school said there was really no reason for the amount of money in the economy to change except through the balance of payments, that is, if a country got richer and sold more abroad, there would naturally be an inflow of gold and therefore an increase in the money supply. So, in other words, you didn’t need government to create money.
If a nation demanded a greater amount of money because it was more productive, that money would automatically flow in. And for nations that were declining economically, money would flow out through the balance of payments. All of these nations were of course using the same money, gold. I give my classes the example of Silicon Valley and Detroit. We don’t say that there is a deflation in Detroit because its money supply and prices have declined as the auto industry and its suppliers have shrunk, jobs have left, and the city’s income and wealth has declined. Nor do we say that Silicon Valley has suffered an inflation because money has flowed in, housing, restaurant, and retail prices have exploded upward, as the area has become increasingly more productive. As Mises and especially Hayek pointed out many years ago, a redistribution of the money supply from those regions or nations that have become relatively less productive to those areas that have become relatively more productive does not constitute deflation or inflation, respectively, but merely a market response to changes in relative demands for money. That was what the currency school was basically saying, that you didn’t need governments to increase or decrease money supplies in various countries or regions with a common currency, like gold, because this function was taken care of automatically by the price system.
JD: But, isn’t volatility in the amount of money, the money supply, generally a bad thing because entrepreneurs need to make predictions about the future? So, isn’t it better for prices to adjust than for the money supply in a country to expand or contract rapidly?
JS: Where there’s one currency, for example, either the dollar in the present day United States or the classical international gold standard in the 19th century, there’s never a need to increase the overall amount of money in the system, but that doesn’t mean that money supplies should not vary in different nations as some nations become more productive than others, and that automatically occurs under the gold standard. It’s called the price-specie flow mechanism, and it keeps overall prices, or the purchasing power of money, roughly equal throughout the gold currency area.
The overall world money supply never needs to be expanded as the capitalist economy becomes more productive, as it did during the 19th century. The reason is that as supplies of goods increase, with the same money supply, costs of production and prices naturally fall. If you look at industries that are flourishing today, HD TVs have come down in price from $36,000 in the 1990s to $400 today. Lasik eye surgery has come down from $3,000 or $4,000 per eye, all the way down to $300 to $500 per eye, and that’s because there’s been more capital investment and improvement in technology that’s increased output. So, yes, you’re right. Prices adjust slowly over time to changes in supply and demand. Now, volatility in prices is something else entirely. It is bad for households and businesses and it is only caused by government trying to centrally plan money through its central banks.
JD: You’ve written about the gold standard and alternatives to it, modern corollaries to it. Give us your thoughts on whether the gold standard is a dead historical relic at this point, whether it can still work, and whether cryptocurrencies can actually provide a new form of money that’s not controlled by government and politics.
JS: I’ve written about the gold standard and I’ve come out in favor of restoring it, but the term gold standard really means market money. I think the best road back to a gold standard is simply to allow people to use whatever money they want in making contracts. I agree with Hayek’s little booklet in the 1970s, Choice in Currency, in which he advocates that all taxes — sales taxes, excise taxes, capital gains taxes — and other legal measures hindering the use of gold, silver or foreign currencies be abolished. This would allow citizens of the US, for example, to contract in gold, silver, or foreign currencies, or in US dollars if they wish. Then we could sit back and allow competition to determine the best currency. Leave the US dollar exactly as it is and let’s see how it fares in this competition. I used to think that a mass movement could put pressure on the US government to return to a gold standard, but given what the Fed has done, I don’t trust the Fed or government agencies to restore a gold standard. I think they would try to sabotage it, so it is better if it should come about naturally.
Regarding cryptocurrencies, I wouldn’t call them currencies because look, we don’t have pricing in terms of cryptocurrencies. It is not the standard unit of account. We don’t have Bitcoin prices in Walmart, although you can buy some things directly with Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a good method of making payments anonymously, like cash. Whether or not Bitcoin is a bubble, as some people are saying, and its value will eventually fall to zero, is another question. I think that’s more of a historical question rather than a theoretical one. It’s here. It is a valued good, it’s a declaration, an electronic declaration basically and it has value because people are willing to pay both money and goods and services in exchange for it and to hold it as an asset. But we’ll see how long that lasts. I mean, its value seems to be very, very volatile and that’s really not a good mark of a sound money.
JD: Mises wrote about the socialist calculation problem at length, but one thing you’re known for is echoing the idea that it’s a calculation problem. In other words, entrepreneurs need actual money prices to make good or at least rational decisions about the future, whereas the Hayekian end of Austrian economics viewed it more as a knowledge problem or an information problem. Can you discuss this a little further?
JS: What Mises said was that no matter how much knowledge a person has, or a group of people acting in concert has, they would not be able to calculate. They may have knowledge of all existing resources and the latest technology at their fingertips. They could even know what people’s values are or even substitute their own values, but that’s all qualitative knowledge, which lacks a common denominator. There’s no way to calculate the most valuable uses of these resources and the most efficient ways of combining them in producing consumer goods. What Mises says is that the planner needs to transform this qualitative knowledge — people’s value scales, the size, locations, and skills of the labor force, the quantities and physical productivities of different kinds of capital goods and natural resources — into quantitative knowledge of the exchange ratios between these resources expressed in a common unit, that is, money prices. Without market prices all the knowledge in the world is useless, because the planner cannot find out his costs of production, or if the production of one batch of consumer goods involves sacrificing the production of more valuable quantities of different consumer goods. But the prices of the means of production can only come into being when there exists private property and exchange in all kinds of capital goods and natural resources. Capitalist-entrepreneurs then may forecast the prices of consumer goods and then bid, on the basis of these prices, for capital goods. This entrepreneurial bidding process brings about a structure of prices for capital goods that permits anyone to calculate the costs of production for any conceivable consumer good.
Take Steve Jobs, for example, appraising the commercial viability of the iPhone. There was no price for an iPhone. He had to forecast it. He had to look at what competing and complementary goods were likely to be available when the iPhone came to market and then make some sort of a forecast of what consumer demand for his product would be in money terms. He needed to compare his forecast money price to the money cost of producing an iPhone. He couldn’t just compare the physical inputs into the iPhone to subjective consumer values. There had to be money prices and costs for a comparison to take place. That was what Mises was saying. Hayek was saying that if a single mind had all the knowledge in the world, it wouldn’t be practical, but it would be theoretically possible to come up with the correct quantities and kinds of goods to be produced, market prices wouldn’t be necessary, but that’s just not the case. Hayek missed the point that you need entrepreneurs to competitively bid for productive resources — entrepreneurs who own their own capital, who take their own risks and who can forecast future consumer prices. So Mises was right, economic calculation is impossible without market prices.
JD: So, what makes socialism impossible is that only a system of private property can give us real price signals.
JS: Look, you can have private ownership and prices of all consumer goods, but without private ownership and markets for capital goods you can never find out what the costs of producing those consumer goods are. You would never know if you were producing the right kinds of consumer goods in the cheapest possible way or if you’re giving up something more valuable by producing, for example, X amount more cars and Y fewer motorcycles. You don’t know where resources are most valuable. You don’t know if the car’s bumpers should be made of titanium or steel or fiberglass like they are today. Who would think that a fiberglass bumper is more efficient than a steel bumper? Well, it’s not just an engineering problem, it’s an economic problem.
JD: Switching gears a little bit, I want to talk about some of the monetary policy prescriptions we hear about from the financial press and DC think tanks. Some of them are libertarian-ish, some of them are not. Give us your thoughts on some of the trendy ideas like the Taylor Rule, inflation targeting, and the like. Talk about some of the theories gaining traction out there.
JS: John Taylor has taken credit for the fact that his rule indicated that money was too loose from 2001 to 2005, that with his rule, there would have been a much higher interest rate that would possibly have prevented the real estate and financial bubbles and subsequent financial crisis.
And that may be true, if you look at the interest rate generated by his rule compared to the actual interest rate. If we go back to the late 90s, from about ’95 to ’99, we find his rule indicating the interest rate should be lower than it actually was and yet, the US economy experienced the dot-com bubble during that time. So, his rule would have exacerbated the tech bubble and he never talks about that. His rule also depends on arbitrary coefficients that have to be inserted into his equation. Lastly, the Taylor rule is a recipe for the Fed to manipulate the interest rate, which Austrians vigorously oppose. The interest rate is set on the market by people’s time preferences, by the preferences of people who want to abstain from present consumption and save and invest money in the structure of production, the production of capital goods that will yield consumer goods in the future.
JD: Aren’t ideas like a “rules based” Fed or inflation targeting just another form of monetarism? You’re looking at external data and using that data to tighten or loosen monetary policy, to put more money and credit into the economy or less.
JS: You’re right. It’s the central planning of money. The value of money and the height of the interest rate can and should be determined by the market. Any time there’s an expansion of bank credit, any time new money is injected into the economy, the interest rate is shaken loose from its moorings in the market economy, in individual time preferences. Artificially lowering the interest rate in this way causes entrepreneurial miscalculation and errors that cause imbalances between the production of consumer and capital goods — what Austrians call “malinvestments.” So, the bottom line is that, interest rates, like all other prices, should be left to find their own level on the market.
Now, there’s a number of free-market economists — George Selgin is one, Larry White another — who have recently made the case that the Fed has not pushed down interest rates since the financial crisis to below the natural rate of the market, even when the nominal rate was effectively at the zero bound. They argued that interest rates were low not because of inflationary Fed policy but because the natural interest rate had mysteriously fallen. I wrote a blog post criticizing this view. I pointed out that the loan rate of interest for Austrians is really determined by the rate of return on investment in capital goods, because entrepreneurs are willing to pay up to this rate for borrowed funds. Well, when I went back and looked at those rates of return since 2009, they weren’t at zero, they weren’t at 2 or 3%, they fluctuated between 7 and 8%. So, my response to Selgin and White is, okay, have the Fed stop increasing the money supply and then let’s see what happens to the interest rate. We all know the interest rate would sharply rise. That’s why the Fed is so apprehensive about raising the interest rate even by a quarter of a point, because there are asset bubbles sitting out there ready to burst. The student loan bubble, the bubble in urban housing markets, the unprecedented height of equity prices and so on. So, let’s have the Fed stop manipulating interest rates and then let’s see what happens to the interest rate. Will it fall below zero? Will it stay at zero? Of course not.
JD: Given how entrenched the Fed is now after 100-odd years, what do you suggest instead of tinkering? Simply allow other forms of money to compete, to be used for settlement of payments and for taxes? What’s a practical way to reform our monetary system?
JS: I would do that, but I would also do something else in the short term and that is make the Fed accountable to the Congress. Right now, it’s the only federal agency that isn’t so accountable. I think Ron Paul was absolutely right on this. The next step is to have the Fed audited, to have Congress take control of its budget and eventually to transform the Fed into a sub-department of the Treasury — a policy Milton Friedman advocated early in his career. Then the elected members of Congress will be held directly responsible for inflation and other monetary mishaps. So, having an independent Fed — to the extent that it really is independent — provides great leeway for unaccountable Fed bureaucrats to experiment with the latest craze in academic monetary economics. But no matter what new theory or policy comes down the pike from academic economists, it always boils down to a new method for printing money and suppressing interest rates in order to raise economic growth and employment to unsustainable levels that eventually ends in a financial crisis and recession. So, I say get rid of Fed independence. I think that is the first thing to be done to restore sound money. Ron Paul was the first modern politician to recommend such a course, to his everlasting credit. This policy will work and is something that we should really push for.
JD: Well, if they’re so independent they certainly seem to respond like timorous mice whenever there’s a hiccup in the stock market. What has “Fed independence” gotten us in the Greenspan-Bernanke era?
JS: All it’s gotten us is an easy way for Congress and the president to have giant budgets that exceed taxes and that result in deficits the Fed finances. If the Fed was an agency of the federal government, at least we would know where to lay some blame. Congress could no longer say, hey, that’s not us, that’s the Fed. I think just in that respect, it’s important. I have written an article on taming the Fed and I think that’s an important step. Rothbard, if you look at his book on the Progressive era, was always against bureaucrats being set up as experts and running our lives. He was a democrat with a small “d,” in the sense that he wanted democratic oversight over bureaucrats because he thought that was a more direct way of people being able to express their preferences and throw out the people that have caused the problems.
JD: But, then wouldn’t there be dangers in a pure greenbacker system where the central bank doesn’t exist and Congress simply tells the Treasury how much money they create.
JS: I don’t think that’s necessarily true, even though I don’t agree with the greenbackers that this is a permanent solution. The gold standard or some other private monetary arrangement is the permanent solution to getting rid of the business cycle. But, once again, if you have Congress telling the Fed how much money to create, you’ll get inflation and you’ll get people being upset and you get them reacting. I think it’s better to know where to place the blame and that is directly on Congress, on the people that you can vote out, where you can’t vote the Fed bureaucrats out. We need to get rid of the cloak of scientific mystique that surrounds monetary policy and expose it for what it really is: a method for benefitting one group at the expense of other groups by redistributing real income and wealth through money printing.
JD: One of your roles over a long career has been mentoring a lot of young PhD economists who have come through the Mises Institute, along with teaching thousands of undergraduates. You’ve certainly mentored a lot of superstars like Peter Klein and Guido Hülsmann. Tell us about a few up and coming Austrians whose names you think are worth watching.
JS: Matt McCaffrey at the University of Manchester, is an up-and-coming Austrian who has published some very good articles and chapters in the area of entrepreneurship. He’s creative and he’s already made some contributions. Also, his wife, Carmen Dorobăț, who writes on international money and international trade and who has applied the calculation debate to the division of labor. That is, Mises’s point that all society is based on voluntary exchange and prices. It’s prices that tell us where we can best use our labor, where we can best use our resources, both on the individual level, and on the level of nations. In a sense, she’s deepening our understanding of the social relation, that is, the division of labor, what makes some people better at certain tasks and other people better at other tasks. This, again, is all based on entrepreneurs being able to calculate where to allocate resources. I think hers is a very exciting research program.
Per Bylund, who has written a lot following Peter Klein on entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm and has also written two books. He is someone that I have high hopes for. And of course, Patrick Newman, who has edited Murray’s book The Progressive Era, but has also done some good work of his own on monetary policy in the 1920s and 30s. I think he’s a rising star in the tradition of Murray Rothbard and Robert Higgs as an economic historian. Malavika Nair, at Troy University has done some important work on monetary theory and applications, especially in the area of cryptocurrency. G.P. Manish, also at Troy, is hard at work researching and publishing in the area of economic development and, especially, causal-realist price theory. I could go on and on listing young scholars who are contributing to the Mengerian tradition in Austrian economics, but these are some of the rising stars.
--------------------------------------------------------------
말초 신경염 험방
末梢神经炎
主治；末梢神经炎，上肢、下肢或上下肢末梢同时麻木不仁，感觉不真，如隔手套。
方；桂枝 当归 白芍 各15 通草5 细辛 甘草 各3 大枣 5枚。
[病在上肢 加荆芥 羌活 防风各10；病在下肢 加牛膝 薏苡 二苍术 木瓜各10]
主治；末梢神经炎，上肢、下肢或上下肢末梢同时麻木不仁，感觉不真，如隔手套。
方；桂枝 当归 白芍 各15 通草5 细辛 甘草 各3 大枣 5枚。
[病在上肢 加荆芥 羌活 防风各10；病在下肢 加牛膝 薏苡 二苍术 木瓜各10]
-------------------------------------------------
노인 피부 소양
老年人皮肤骚痒：生地30
-----------------------------------------------------------
위장병에 효험이 있는 경방들
腹泻
1、葛根黄芩黄连汤
出自《伤寒论》
[方药]葛根188黄芩108黄连38甘草68 [笔者经历]患者病症:热性腹泻。
献曝语：除恶性病以外，一般腹泻分为热性腹泻、寒性腹泻、滑性腹泻(见28、赤石脂禹余粮汤）以及心下痞硬胃中不和性腹泻(见甘草泻心汤）四种。所谓热性腹泻，多发生于外有表热，大便带有恶臭，多为急性腹泻，宜此方。小儿腹泻，大便为绿色者,亦为热性腹泻，宜用调胃承气汤。笔者用两方治愈多人。所谓寒性腹泻,急性慢性都有，大便无味，所谓1吐泻无热'，即不发热多属于寒泻，大多出现于虚弱的中、老年人及小儿中。用人参汤及赤石脂禹余粮汤可治之。
医界珠玉：
1 、陆渊雷氏云："葛根黄芩黄连汤治热性腹泻，甚为有效，不必有条文中之'喘而汗出'。"又云:"…黄芩黄连,俱为苦寒药,寒能泄热。所谓热者，属于充血及炎性机转的便是。黄连对自心下而上至头面者有效， 黄苓对自心下而下至骨盆者有效。其证候皆为心下痞，按之濡而热,或从种种方面,测知而有炎性机转者是也。"
2、浅田宗伯氏云:"此方治表邪内陷之腹泻有效。尾州之医师,将此方用于小儿^疫痢，屡有效云。余用此方于小儿之腹泻,经验亦多。此方所治之喘，乃是邪热内攻所致，并非主证。"
3、按大塚敬节、矢数道明、清水藤太郎三氏合著《中医诊疗要览》对日本赤痢解释云："小儿骤觉思眠，在睡眠中或由睡觉后，突然发39~ 401：的高热，时常眼球上翻，四肢抽搦，全身痉挛，脉浮数或促，大便最初为普通便或软便，以后混为有粘液之稀便，最后仅排出白色或青黑色214 粘液便，多无里急后重，腹痛轻微。此时脉骤然微弱，或口渴特甚，而思饮水者，但饮后即吐,又再求饮水，即所谓有水逆性的呕吐。大便一昼夜十数次者居多，很少有竟达数十次者。颜面苍白，口唇发绀，手足厥冷。重者发病不久,即意识模糊，继则频发痉挛，陷于昏睡。又时作谵语，并吐出芩褐色液体。"
4、矢数道明氏治疫痢样腹泻云:"4岁男孩，突然发热40 ，意识不清，泻下带臭气之粘液便。腹部柔软,左下腹部可触及索状物,且有压痛。脉数而忽强忽弱,呈现所谓促脉。与葛根黄萃黄连汤，发热逐渐下降,腹泻次数亦减少。服药第三日热退,第四日自诉口渴，但水入即吐， 因有烦躁与小便不利，故与五芩散，呕吐立刻停止而痊愈。"
5、馆野健氏治高血压症云："60岁妇女，因患高血压症6年,左眼底出血，左半身知觉麻痹。最近感冒后，无食欲，出冷汗,大便软，心下痞硬,在脐右旁有瘀血压痛点。与葛根黄芩黄连汤,服药一周，诸症好转,两周后血压基本正常〈130/90毫米汞柱）。"又治高血压症云："34岁男子，患原发性高血压病，有心动悸，不眠，小便不利等症，用柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤虽有好转,但左肩痠痛，左背部痛,易汗。在诊室中头汗淋漓， 天凉亦然。头昏眼花，颜面色赤,与葛根黄苓黄连汤，兼用三黄丸,血压自170/100毫米汞柱降至130/70毫米汞柱。此人嗜酒成性，左半身知觉麻痹。"
6、矢数道明氏总结自己及各家)^此方的应用为：用于里热甚，有表热；表里郁热而心下痞，腹泻，喘而汗出，心中悸等症；
2、黄芩汤
[方药]黄芩128白芍108甘草108大枣4枚切
[笔者经历]患者病症:赤白痢疾。
献曝语：人们每遇赤白痢疾，不管其里急后重〈自觉大便催促〉如何，便认为是重病，必送医院，通过检査化验，然后再打针、吃药，颇能耗费资财。不知我们的祖先,早已给我们准备好如此小方,等待我们坐享其成,一般三剂可愈。
医界珠玉：
1 、陆渊雷氏云：172条的见证，只有下利与呕。方药亦但治胃肠， 可知其病属于急性胃肠炎、赤痢(红白痢疾)之类。虽或发热,其毒害性物质在胃肠而不在血，并非是发汗所能祛除的
2、陆渊雷氏评尾台榕堂氏《类聚方广义》中对此方加大黄云："里急后重便脓血之痢疾，或为传染性赤痢，或为大肠发炎而延及直肠，则病人自觉里急后重。此症始起为实热者,通常用大黄。日本汤本求真氏以有里急后重之症，为用大黄之候。然而，病人本苦腹痛，大黄能促进肠之蠕动，使其疼痛更加剧烈。余治痢疾，不是大实之症，并不轻用大黄。但于本方中加木香、枳实、槟榔、桔梗(取其排脓）、白头翁等味，取效甚速。又有久痢虚衮，宜加故纸、诃子肉、干姜、白术、党参等（以上两种加味、应先服原方三剂，无效时再加一笔者〉，温补收摄之剂，所经验者亦复甚多。其症始终下脓血而后重，不得以里急后重而用大黄。"
3、荒木性次氏云："发热、腹泻、腹痛者，或头痛，或发冷、或咽干、或旗痛里急，旗泻频数而急,或外热里热重之腹泻、咽干，或大便加杂有血者，皆此方主之。"又云："本方证往往误认为葛根汤发热、恶寒、腹泻、汗出者，为本方证。葛根汤证，腹痛轻微，本方证，腹痛居多，或腹痛剧烈。葛根汤证，项背痛，腰痛等表症必多，即葛根汤主表兼里；本方主里兼表。"又治腹與云："28岁妇女，忽然发热、头痛、腹痛、腹泻、渴.欲饮水。下腹胀略重，腹泻次数频频增加，与桂枝加芍药汤，腹泻愈甚，里急后重。与黄苓汤立刻痊.愈。"
4、矢数道明氏治急性结肠炎云：-61岁老年妇女，数日前食生鲣鱼肉片，次日呕吐、腹爯数次，并感腹痛，里急后重，下粘血样大便。脉稍沉迟,舌有白苔,心下痞满，左下腹部触及索状物，有压痛。诊时无热， 当日腹泻三次,混有粘血便，疲劳无力。与黄苓汤，次日精神变好,服用3日，诸症痊愈。第4日再服此方，反而便秘，服用三黄锭,大便得以通畅。"
5、矢数道明氏总结自己及各家对此方的应用为：主要用于急性肠炎、结肠炎、消化不良症，以及因感冒而发热、腹泻、腹痛、下粘液便或血便,有里急后重者;有时亦可用于急性阑尾炎、子宫附件炎之腹痛血热者、因代偿性月经而吐血、衄血者。
3.调胃承气汤
[方药]大黄28甘草68芒硝28
[笔者经历]患者病症：小儿腹泻绿便者(为热泻），成人或者老人有干稀、绿色便者，专治具有口臭之口腔溃疡与一般人的便秘。
献曝语:一般口腔溃疡，并非中西医难治之病,但亦有方法用尽而不能根治者。此方服十剂得痊愈， 笔者之业师已80多岁，患便秘，服此方三剂即变为正常。日子多了以后仍患便秘，再服此方，又得效如前。以后往往如此，其丈夫梁老先生年近九旬亦患便秘。服此方无效,给与大承气汤亦无效。对小儿腹泻绿便者，,极效。
医界珠玉：
1 、陆渊雷氏云："大黄系植物下剂，其作用为刺激肠粘膜，使肠蠕动亢进，且能制止结肠之逆蠕动。则肠内容物移动迅速，水分未及吸收， 已达直肠，故令粪便中富有液体也。芒硝为硫酸钠含水结晶体，系盐类下剂。内服之后，绝难吸收，故无刺激作用。不过在消化器内，保有其溶解本药之水分，不令吸收，故能保持小肠内容物之液状形态，直至直肠，粪便即成溏。古人谓大黄荡涤，芒硝软坚，信不诬也。由是言之，临床上之应用，若欲急速排除肠内容物者，宜大黄;若因肠内容物干燥而便秘者,宜芒硝。若二者合用，则泻下之力尤大，调胃承气汤是也。又， 大黄刺激肠管之结果，能引起腹腔内骨盆腔内之充血，为月经过多，子宫出血等症,在孕妇或致流产、早产，故肠及下腹部有充血炎性机转者， 大黄亦须慎用。调胃承气汤，用大黄芒硝以攻下，加甘草以治急迫，所以能治便秘便难,涤除食毒,对于急性、慢性肠炎,肠内容物发酵异常， 产生有害物质,刺激肠粘膜,使炎症加剧时，用此方排除，则肠炎可自止。所以又能治腹 1写，以及大便绿色等症。肠蠕动亢进,使肠腔脏器充血，实行诱导方法，能平较远处器官之炎症充血，所以又能治脑部充血， 即谵语发狂、发斑面赤、龈肿出血(患部充血）、疮、痈、疽患部炎症等，此皆是古人之实验，用今日的药理证明，并无不符合者。在此须注意，芒硝大黄俱属寒性药味,宜于阳症，切忌不要用此方于虚寒症患者。"
2、吉益东洞氏云："调胃承气汤，治汗吐下后谵语者。发汗后，有热而大便不通者。服下剂，下利不止,心烦或澹语者。吐下之后，心下温温欲吐，大便溏，郁郁微烦者。吐后,腹内胀满者。"
3、尾台榕堂氏云：天花麻疹，痈疽疔毒，内攻冲心；高热谵语，烦躁闷乱，舌上燥裂,不大便，或下利，或大便绿色，宜调胃承气汤。又云： "牙齿肿痛，龃齿枯折，口臭等,其人平日，多大便秘闭而冲逆者，宜调胃承气汤。"
4 、永富独啸庵云："一老夫伤寒经过一经而传入他经10余日不解， 手足冷,心下满，口不能食，舌上焦黄,昼间微烦，头汗出，脉沉细无力， 余诊之，而与调胃承气汤，得燥屎八、九枚，脉变洪迟，乃与竹叶石膏汤， 10数日而解。"
5 、吉益南涯氏之《成绩录》云："一男子，腹胀,脚以下洪肿，小便不
利,不大便10余日，舌上黑苔，先生与调胃承气汤，大下积物，小便快利,诸症悉去。"，
6 、中神琴溪氏云："一妇人，年20岁，大便一滴不通者，已三周。饮食起居，仍然未见异常现象，巴豆大黄芒硝为此用了数斤，皆无效。先生按其腹，虽甚硬,但无一燥屎及硬物应手者，即作调胃承气汤加葱白汤与之，使大便恢复正常。"
7 、齄鼻老人《用方经权》云："调胃承气汤,治膏粱太过之徒，其毒酿于肠胃，升降失政，潮热寝汗,微咳脉数，大便或秘，或作下利者；形如虚劳，心气迫塞，悲喜无时，胸动而行步难，其腹微满，或里急拘挛者。凡胃府酿成食毒，发诸症，或下流而郁结于肠中，小腹微满，大便不快，月事为之失政者,视起的证施之，则有万全之效"
4、赤石脂禹余粮汤
出自《伤寒论》
[方药]赤石脂308禹余粮308共为细末
〔笔者经历〕患者病症：滑性腹泻
煎服法：将药末加水400毫升，煎沸后再煎十分钟左右即可，去渣。
如此再煎一次，温服时,可用筷将药液搅混,边搅边饮。因单服药液上清汁无效。可分二次或一次服下皆可。
献曝语：所邻后院有一王姓老妇,患腹泻多年,不能根治。一日求笔者诊治。自言她的腹泻,极为特别，如刷锅时，看见篦子上有几粒米饭，放入口中，或吃下切得极薄的一小片苹果,如此即可招来腹泻的大祸。即使在夜间亦不可免，和白天一样至少要泻三、四次。这点微量食物，能引起如此严重的腹泻，是否属于直肠滑脱所致,与赤石脂禹余粮汤，后知服10剂根治，而未再发，老妇极赞中药之妙。不少半身不遂之人，常卧病榻，每因多食，大便失禁，惹得子女抱怨， 劝阻老人不可吃饱。有强令老人节食，日子一长，成为老人吃不饱的一大祸害。后知如能服此方10剂左右，虽遇饱食，大便亦不再失禁,这也是使老人能得到欢乐的一大方法。医界珠玉：
1 、陆渊雷氏对《伤寒论》159条"伤寒服汤药，下利不止，心下痞硬， 服诨心汤已,复以他药下之，利不止。医以理中与之，利益甚,赤石脂禹余粮汤主之"的解释云："伤寒服汤药误下之，下利不止，心下痞硬者，乃是甘草泻心汤证。服汤后，病症不能都祛除者,是药力不足的缘故。而
医生不知，以为投错泻心汤,乃以其他泻药泻下之，致使一误再误。肠胃益虚，腹泻不止。到此程度，医生亦知其虚，乃与理中汤，岂知腹泻更加厉害。条文中'理中者'三字，是后人的旁注误入正文。谓理中汤固然治心下痞硬而腹泻,为什么服后而腹泻更严重。理中所治为中焦虚寒,小肠吸收障碍之病。此则再三误下，直肠滑脱所致。此是腹泻在下焦，赤石脂禹余粮汤能淀滑固脱，治直肠滑脱之主药。若服此汤仍不止者，必因肾脏机能障碍，水分不得排泄，肠部起代偿性腹泻之故，故当利，其小便。，'
2、吉益东洞氏之《方极》云："赤石脂禹余粮汤，治毒在脐下而腹泻不止者。"又其《方机》云："腹泻，小便不利者。小腹痛，小便不利，若有
腹泻者。"
3、尾台榕堂氏云："赤石脂禹余粮汤，治肠洞泻滑脱，脉弱无力，大便粘稠如脓者。"
5、甘草泻心汤
[方药]甘草128黄芩108黄连48干姜108半夏158 党参108大冬3枚切
〔笔者经历]患者病症：心下痞硬、胃中不和性腹泻。
献曝语：心下痞硬，胃中不和性腹泻又可称为非寒非热性腹泻，即便是一般寒性腹泻或热性腹泻,亦可用此方治之。
医界珠玉：
1 、陆渊雷氏解释158条伤寒误下后云："素患胃扩张或慢性胃肠炎之人，往往舌上苔厚而大便难，值其人新感伤寒、中风，医惑于厚苔便难而误下之,则胃机能愈伤，扩张愈甚，内陷之邪热乘之，而下利〈腹泻)无度矣。谷不化《外台》作水谷不化，非谓下利清谷，谓消化力衰弱之甚耳。若下利清谷宜四逆汤，非泻心所主矣！误下后胃肠之炎症更加厉害,所以腹泻一日10次,水、气流动，故腹中雷鸣。有时会逆而上涌，故干呕。表热内陷，故心烦不得安。医生以为病尚未愈，而再用泻药泻下，则心下痞硬更为严重，这并不是热与糟粕相结之痞硬,但因胃机能衰弱，邪热挟水饮而上逆故使痞硬也。治胃扩张，胃肠炎之痞硬满，宜泻心汤。今腹泻无度，干呕心烦，则甚为急迫，宜加大甘草之重量,作甘草泻心汤治之。"
2 、吉益东洞氏之《方极》云："甘草泻心汤，治半夏泻心汤证，而心烦不得安者。"又其《方机》云："下利不止，干呕心烦者，默默欲眠，目不得闭,起卧不安，不欲饮食，恶闻食嗅者。"
3、尾台格堂氏云:"此方不过是半夏泻心汤方内，更加甘草一两而成，而且所治大不相同，如腹泻几十次，完谷不化,干呕心烦不得安。又默默欲眠，目不得闭,起卧不安，都是急迫造成的，故以甘草为君药。"又云:"慢惊风有宜此方者。"
4、丹波元坚氏云:"饮邪并结,有结在心下而冷热不调者。这种人胃.气素弱，水液不行，而误治更虚，使胃机能衰减，即胃冷;所谓痰饮盛、寒盛、虚盛可看为一家之言。又由于表热内陷，即所谓热搏,这就是胃中痞硬的原因。如为痰饮盛者，用半夏泻心汤；如为寒盛者，用生姜泻心汤；如为虚盛者；用甘草泻心汤。^
5、浅田宗伯氏云："某氏，年二十五、六，产后数月，腹泻不止，心下痞硬,饮食不进，口中糜烂，两眼红肿，脉虚数，廐瘦甚，乃与甘草泻心汤,服药数10日，腹泻止,诸症痊愈。"又云:"产后口中糜烂,有奇效。"
6、陆渊雷氏对《金匮要略》中有"狐惑(或作狐蜮一笔者)之为病云云，甘草泻心汤主之"一条解释后附一医案云："友人徐作丰，家昆山,戊辰〈1928年)春,其子四岁，发热二、三日不退，以友谊邀诊，见其壮热无汗,咳嗽，目赤而润，知其将发麻疹，用葛根汤,佐以清热宣肺〈可不加―笔者〗之品，令服2剂，得汗，麻点得遍布全身。昆山风俗，于麻疹流行之际,燃烧柏叶取烟，谓如此可防传染。惟既病后,闻触其气，病总难得治，事本不可考。然居同院者燃烧柏叶，其烟气闻于病房，疹点竟立即隐去。作丰又邀余出诊，病儿无汗如故，指尖微冷，唇干，舌光而絳，乃于原方加犀角地黄无价散，疏方毕，匆匆回上海。谁知服药后，热度大为升高，神识不清。作丰仓猝请当地某中医治之。医生不管麻疹必须透发于皮肤，又不能使全身温暖有汗，当然麻疹不会透发。一见热高神昏，急用羚羊、石膏、鲜大青、鲜石斛等大队寒凉，药量动以两剂。然服药后，神知渐清，热亦骤退，作丰以为能转危为安，颇为信任。一日，笔者根据所约往视，则巳服药两剂。见病儿肌肤枯燥，唇干舌润。疹点难以复出，某中医治疔七、八日，病儿竟能起来行走。忽然又咽.痛发热,发热日高，既而咽痛稍差，肛门旁又生蚀烂，再次邀笔者往视。患部不过两个如棋子大的黑点，略有低陷，并不红肿，而发奇臭不可近。有一西医为了洗涤敷药，揭去黑皮， 则皮下蚀烂已极大。根据疡医看法，是为阴证，当用附子、黄耆。然麻疹之毒，本来应当发散于全身皮肤，今聚而溃决于下部，则预后必极恶， 苦思不得治法，乃谢以不敏，病儿约一星期而死。死者烂蚀处穿透直肠、肛门，仅存括约肌一条,其状极为惨痛。由此可知,所谓狐惑之病， 是由毒害性物质不得按常规发散所致。"
7、大塚敬节氏《汉方临床三十年》治持续腹泻症10年云:"27岁妇女，10年前开始持续腹泻。每日二、三次，并有腹痛,月经期间痛得更为厉害。早晨起床必腹痛，积气。腹痛厉害亦不口渴，尿少。虽持续腹泻,但患者颜色未改，营养中等,腹部有弹性。令服参苓白术散、真武汤、胃风汤不愈，反而恶化。因此与甘草泻心汤，获得明显效果，腹泻完全停止，心下舒服,饮食增加。甘草泻心汤乃用于心下痞硬，腹中雷鸣， 腹泻为目标之方剂。常伴有恶心、呕吐,腹泻时多有口渴者。此患者无腹中雷鸣，亦无口渴,但甘草泻心汤，取得佳效。"
8、中神琴溪《生生堂治验》治梦遗病与着魔病云："近江之国大津人来此,与先生秘语,其云，余16岁时生一女，已经订婚,她患有奇病。每日夜间，家中人皆入睡后。她暗自起床,翩翩起舞。其舞蹈姿势,绝妙闲雅,颇似名家演员所为。余窃观之，舞姿各式各样,若随曲调变换，时间到即止,入床就寝。次日早晨,照常起床,如一般人一样。即使提起此事,亦毫无记忆。祭狐仙与祈祷诸神等均属无效。唯恐婆家得知退婚，故前来请先生医治。先生听后，认为即狐惑病(精神病之一种,此为梦游病)诊察之后，与甘草泻心汤，数日奇病治愈。平安结婚，已生小孩。"又云："与朋友清水先生谈了上述医案，他治一妇女，因不知柜中有猫,而加盖盖上。二、三日后启盖时，猫因饥饿而张牙舞爪，冲着妇女跳出。因过度惊恐,而患奇病。从其起居动作直至发声,均酷似猫(此即着魔〉。所述之后，与甘草泻心汤,此奇病亦得治愈。"
6、四逆汤
[方药]炮附子128干姜68甘草108 [笔者经历]患者病症:上吐下泻。
献曝语:古代称四肢冰冷为四肢厥逆，四逆汤即由此而得名。此方所治症状为：四肢厥逆、上吐、下泻、身体疼痛等。笔者近治一例，本校杨老师于1998年3月11日带她刚满10个月的耿姓白胖儿子求治。杨老师言，今日上午儿子吐了三次,大便了四次、全是水。诊之，脉微有低热，四肢温暖，只是上吐下泻。试投四逆汤一剂，令服两日，告诉她这是成人剂量。次日中午来电话言：今日未再吐泻，只是早晨体温达3910，现在为38.510。笔者命其晚六点再来电话,六点电话言又降半度。并言药只服一半。第三日晨来电话言，体温降为37。余认为服完余药，定能痊愈。此例单凭上吐下泻，而未见四逆，而四逆汤竟能治愈。回忆大青龙汤能治不恶寒或反恶热，此方能治四肢不厥逆之上吐下泻。可见古经方贵在应用，正如道路一样，是人走出来的，不是想出来的医界珠玉：
1 、陆渊雷氏云："手足厥逆的原因，有的因生温机能有所减低，所以不能传达于四肢末梢者；亦有因体温放散过速，温源来不及补充者；亦有因血中水分被劫夺，血液浓厚，不利循环，体温因而不能传达者；此皆是寒性厥逆之原则，其原因互相关联，多非一种原因所能致。"又云："所谓四逆者,即四肢厥逆。通常为高度心脏衰弱之征（宜与热性厥逆鉴别,但热性厥逆甚少见），所以四逆汤为强心主剂。其主药附子，为毛莨科植物双兰菊之球根，化学分析，得其主要成分乌头碱(阿科涅丁〉。其构造式虽因产地不同而微有差别，然皆类似。其性能效力皆麻醉而并非兴奋。其心脏衰弱者，禁用麻醉。有人以此怀疑中医用附子强心之误。然临床实验,干姜、附子之效，确实不次于毛地黄、樟脑诸剂。初用时,虽不及其效速而准确，但连续用之，至阳回之后，往往病症从此随愈。由此言之，附子不因其药性麻醉，而减其强心之效，乃是事实。……由使用药物之经验得知，高度兴奋之药物，常致麻醉；而极轻麻醉之药物，又反见兴奋。"
2 、尾台榕堂氏云：^四逆汤治霍乱之上吐下泻甚者，及所谓暴泻症， 急者死不容救。若遇此症仓惶失措，没有良策，毙人于非命，其罪为谁。医人当平素研究讲明，以济急救难。"
3、荒木性次氏治肺炎云："13岁女孩，因肺炎持续高热数日，使用强而有效的注射剂，高热降至37X3 ，但元气已衰，食欲不振，口干欲饮， 与之则又不饮。颜面色青,朦胧似睡，时时烦躁,而且呻吟，又有抽嗒哭泣。脉浮细而数、尿频。此为里寒阳虚之重证，所以与四逆汤。服药后呻吟得止。一小时后，欲食点心，谈笑自如无病态，服一、二剂后即痊愈。此患者，可能强服以西药，抑制阳气大过之故。，'
4、大塚敬节氏治感冒云："32岁男子,数日^5彻夜工作，三日前因感冒卧床不起，体温38^：，恶寒。次日升至40〔。患者主诉，除身较重外，无其他不适。舌无苔，尚有津液，脉浮大，每分钟90至。昨日无大便，尿澄清，触之足冷。投与四逆汤，2小时后微汗出，体温下降，夜间260 37.510，次日热平。"
---------------------------------------"
박상후
MBC 언론노조가 필사적으로 숨기려고 하는 중요한 팩트입니다.
세월호 전원구조 오보가
언론노조원들에 의해 어떻게 이뤄졌는지를 시
간대 별로 정리한 과거 MBC회사 성명서입니다.
많은 공유로 전파 부탁드립니다.
좌파 언론역시 MBC 언론노조의 치부라 언급하지 않는 중요한 기록입니다.
----------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기