더불어민주당 경남도의원 서교민 예비후보 페이스북

 서 후보는 “이번 대선은 박근혜 대통령의 탄핵 문제로
야기된 사건”이라며 “탄핵을 자행한 집단은 박근혜
대통령이 메인 타깃이 아니라 자유민주주의의 전복을
목적으로 반란을 일으켰다. 박근혜 대통령은 그 희생양이었다”
고 적었다.
----------------------------------------------------------

 1.  GM은 지금까지 한국지엠이 꼭 필요했음.

2. 이유는 미국의 기업평균연비규제 때문으로,  자동차 업체별 평균연비를 정해놓고 초과하면 엄청난 벌금을 물리는 제도임. GM은 돈 되면서 연비가 극악한 SUV를 팔기 위해서는 연비 좋은 소형차를 연 30-40만대 생산해야했고, 주로 한국에서 생산함


3.트럼프가 환경보호 반대론자인 스콧을 환경보호청장에 임명함. 스콧이 미국 SUV경쟁력을 높인다며 기업평균 연비규제를 오바마 이전수준으로 완화하겠다고 함
따라서, 돈 안되는 소형차 생산공장인 한국지엠이 필요가 없어짐


한줄요약.  한국지엠  트럼프 때문에 확실히 좇됨

[출처] 한국지엠이 좇된 숨겨진 비밀(feat 트럼프)/ 일베

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

한국 재판, 미국재판: 박대통령이 미국 재판정에서 재판을 받았다면?

 

오늘 오후 미국 변호사 친구와 최근 김세윤 판사의 박근혜 대통령의 형사 사건 1심 판결에 대해 이야기할 기회를 가졌다.

먼저 이 미국 변호사가 판결문을 읽어 보고 싶다고 해서 판결문이 600여 페이지나 되고 아직도 인터넷에서 볼 수가 없다고 말해주었다.

이 말을 들은 미국변호사의 첫 일성이 재판이 엉터리인 모양이란다.  미국에서는 판결문이 흔히 20페이지를 넘지 않는다고 한다.  물론 판결문마다 판사의 조수 (미국에서는 이들을reporter 부른다)들이 판결 이후에 작성한 주해서가 있지만 판결문 자체는 그렇게 길 수가 없다는 것이다.    이에 대한 설명을 요구하자 이 미국 변호사는 미국 재판에 대해 간결하지만 설득력 있는 설명을 해 주었다.

미국 재판에서는 모든 죄목에 대하여 범죄 구성요소 (영어로는 “element”라는 용어를 사용하는 모양이다) 가 정해져 있고 검사와 변호사 측에 이 엘레멘트에 대한 질문과 답변으로 재판을 진행한다는 것이다.  이 질문들은 대부분 “예” 혹은 “아니오”로만 대답하도록 짜여져 있어 대답에 대해 여러가지 다른 판단을 할 수 있는 가능성을 배제한다는 것이다.

한편 검사의 기소장이 수 십페이지에서 수백 페이지가 되는 경우도 있을 수 없다는 설명이다.  검사의 기소장이 장황하게 길면 판사는 기소를 기각시켜 버릴 것이란다.  또 기소장이 길 필요가 없는 것은 기소장도 이 “엘레멘트”만을 대상으로 작성하니 길 필요가 없어진다는 것이다.  한편 이 기소장에는 판결에 영향을 줄 수 있는 그 어떤  정보를 포함해서도 안된다는 것이다.  가령 피의자가 전과자라고 해도 그 전과기록을 기소장에 포함시키는 것은 허용되지 않는단다.

만일 박근혜 대통령 형사 사건을 미국에서 재판하게 되었다면 어떤 판결이 나왔을까?  아마도 기소 자체가 성립하지 못했을 가능성이 매우크다고 보여진다.  우선 뇌물죄라는 죄목의 범죄구성요건에는 반드시 피의자가 공무원이고, 금전적 이득을 취했으며, 뇌물에 대한 반대급부로  자신의 직무범위 안에서 뇌물공여자에게 부당한 특혜를 베푼 사례가 있어야 할 것이다.

박 대통령의 경우 이 뇌물죄 범죄구성요건에서 해당되는 부분은 그가 공무원이라는 사실밖에는 없다.  금전적 이득을 취한바도 없고 이는 김세윤의 판결에서도 인정된 사실이다.  (추징금이 없다는 것이 그 증거다)   삼성 경영권 승계를 도와주었다는 주장을 하지만 삼성같은 사기업체의 경영권 승계문제는 박대통령의 직무범위에 있는 사안이 아니다.  범죄 자체가 구성되지 않는 것이다.

삼성의 말 세마리 문제도 마찬가지다.  이득을 보았다면 최서원이 본 것이지 별개의 개인인 박근혜 대통령이 이득을 본게 아니다.  이러니 “경제적 공동체”,  “ 포괄적 뇌물죄”, 혹은 “묵시적 청탁”라는 해괴한 논리를 적용하여 박대통령을 엮어 넣기에 안깐힘을 쓴 것이다.

사실은 최서원과 삼성의 승마지원 문제도 범죄구성 성립 요건에 해당되지 않는다.  삼성과 독일에 있는 최서원의 개인회사 코아스포츠 간의 용역계약은 사기업간의 정상적인 계약으로서 범죄행위가 아니다.  그 계약내용이 어떤 특혜의 징후가 보인다 해도 이는 사기업체 간의 문제일 뿐이다.

사건의 실체가 이렇게 명확한데 없는 죄를 억지로 뒤집어 씌우려니 기소장이나 판결문이 장편소설로 둔갑하게 되는 것이다.  방대한 양의 허튼 수작으로 진실을 가리려는 연막전술에 불과하다.  대한민국의 법치를 무너뜨린 이들 검찰과 법원에 있는 자들을 어찌할꼬?  반드시 응당한 처벌을 받도록 해야 한다.  이를 위한 특별법을 만들어서러도 이들은 처벌을 받아야 한다.

[출처] 한국 재판, 미국재판: 박대통령이 미국 재판정에서 재판을 받았다면?/ 일베

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

사회적(social)이란 단어의 문제


확장된 질서의 비인간적이고 자생적인 과정을 의도적인 인간


의 창조물이라고 오해하게 한다.


누구도 계획할 수 없었던 시장 질서를 다시 계획하라고 요구한


다.


사회적이란 단어의 다음에 오는 명사의 의미를 삭제해버리는


힘이 있다.
-------------------------------------------------------------

사회적이란 단어는 족제비가 흔적을 남기지 않고 계란의 알맹


이를 빼먹듯이, 뒤에 수식하는 명사의 의미를 삭제해버린다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

민주제는 예전에 분명한 의미를 지니고 있었지만, 사회적 민주제는 1차대전 이후의 급진적인 오스트리아 막시즘의 명칭으로 사용되었고, 영국에서는 일종의 파비안 사회주의를 지향하는 정당에 사용되었다. 또 현재의 "사회적 국가"는 과거에 "자비로운 독재"로 불렸다. 개인의 자유를 유지한 채 그런 독재를 민주적으로 성취할 가능성은 "사회 민주제"라는 단어의 조합으로 물거품이 되었다.
---------------------------------------------------------------
 

인간의 노동을 균일한 생산 요인으로 보았던 맬서스의 가정은 당시의  경제에서는 크게 틀리지 않았다.

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

하지만 노동이 균일하지 않고, 다양화되고 전문화된 현재의 상황에서는 맬서스의 가정이 옳지 않다.

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

인구의 증가는 더 많은 전문화를 촉발해서 또 다시 인구의 증가를 가능하게 하고, 확정할 수 없는 기간 동안 인구 증가는 자체적으로 가속화할 것이고,  또 물질적, 정신적 문명의 진보를 위한 전제가 될 것이다.

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

도태우

김기식 사태에 관한 단상

1. ‘좌나 우나 그런 사람이 있다’는 인식은 사태의 표면만을 본 것이다.

2. 김씨가 속한 흐름은 도덕을 수단(공격수단, 권력쟁취수단, 정쟁수단, 기만수단, 생계수단, 유희수단 등)으로 여긴 것이며, 이는 단순한 부도덕이나 위선과 구분된다.

3. 도덕의 수단화는 삶의 중심에 거짓을 모시게 되며, ‘광우병 소동’ ‘세월호 7시간 모략’은 정확히 이에 연결된다.

4. 도덕의 수단화는 인간을 포함한 모든 존재의 수단화로 귀결되고, 자신을 포함한 모든 존재의 황폐화에 도달한다.

5. 도덕의 수단화는 영혼을 타락시킬 뿐 아니라, 그 중심의 거짓으로 인해 자유 사회를 파괴한다.

6. 김기식 사태를 끝까지 파들어가라.
거짓을 중심에 두고 도덕을 수단화하며 자유 사회를 파괴한 흐름이 아카시 뿌리처럼 줄줄이 끌려나올 것이다

-----> 과거 도덕율은 "정직이 최선의 방법이다"라고 해서, 거짓말을 악으로 알고 언제나 진실을 말해야 한다고 천명했다. 하지만 좌파 사상이 득세하면서, 거짓말을 해도 좋은 결과가 나오면, 거짓말도 상관 없다는 생각이 퍼졌다.  거짓말이 하나의 수단으로 타당하다고 본 것이다. 좌파들의 위선은 여기에서 시작된다. 그들은 좋은 결과(즉 사회주의 달성)를 위해서는 거짓말도 할 수 있고, 해야 한다고 믿고 있다.

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

 

인구 문제를 전세계적 관점에서 생각하면 이 문제를 잘못 이해하게 된다. 인구 문제는 각각의 지역마다 각자의 측면을 지닌 지역적 문제로 보아야 한다.  문제의 핵심은 특정 지역의 인구가 그들 지역의 자원이 감당할 수 없을 만큼 증가했느냐의 여부이다.

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

인구의 증가가 그 인구의 생활 수준을 낮춘 사례는 역사에 없다. 사이먼은 "인구의 증가가 생활 수준에 부정적 영향을 끼쳤다는 경험적 자료는 과거에도 현재에도 없다."라고 말했다.

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

As the Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Richer

https://youtu.be/J_Bzw8W1rS8

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

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

2015년 김아사 기자가 쓴 기사에서는 당시까지 모은 돈이 약 1800억원이라고 말했다.
----------------------------------------------------------------

현대 경제학자들의 정태(靜態)적 정신 구조

 

수익과 손실의 함수를 만들기 위해 경제학자들은 가정적이고 실현 불가능한 상황을 구성하는데, 거기에서는 어느 것도 변하지 않고, 내일도 오늘과 다름이 없고, 따라서 경영에 변화를 줄 필요가 없다.

현재의 경제학자들이 이용하는 수학적 모델은 인간의 행동과 생산이라는 문제의 이해에 조금의 도움도 주지 못한다.

경제학자들은 정태(靜態)적 조건에서는 사회주의가 가능하다고 말한다. 하지만 계속 변화하는 세상에서는 그런 조건이 실현 불가능하므로, 그 말은 불가능한 상황에서는 사회주의가 가능하다는 말과 같다.

 

The Static Mentality

 

•Ludwig von Mises

 

 

The average man lacks the imagination to realize that the conditions of life and action are in a continual flux. As he sees it, there is no change in the external objects that constitute his well-being. His world view is static and stationary. It mirrors a stagnating environment. He knows neither that the past differed from the present nor that there prevails uncertainty about future things. He is at a complete loss to conceive the function of entrepreneurship because he is unaware of this uncertainty. Like children who take all the things the parents give them without asking any questions, he takes all the goods business offers him. He is unaware of the efforts that supply him with all he needs. He ignores the role of capital accumulation and of entrepreneurial decisions. He simply takes it for granted that a magic table appears at a moment's notice laden with all he wants to enjoy.

 

This mentality is reflected in the popular idea of socialization. Once the parasitic capitalists and entrepreneurs are thrown out, he himself will get all that they used to consume. It is but the minor error of this expectation that it grotesquely overrates the increment in income, if any, each individual could receive from such a distribution. Much more serious is the fact that it assumes that the only thing required is to continue in the various plants production of those goods they are producing at the moment of the socialization in the ways they were hitherto produced. No account is taken of the necessity to adjust production daily anew to perpetually changing conditions. The dilettante-socialist does not comprehend that a socialization effected fifty years ago would not have socialized the structure of business as it exists today but a very different structure. He does not give a thought to the enormous effort that is needed in order to transform business again and again to render the best possible service.

 

This dilettantish inability to comprehend the essential issues of the conduct of production affairs is not only manifested in the writings of Marx and Engels. It permeates no less the contributions of contemporary psuedo-economics.

 

The imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy is an indispensable mental tool of economic thinking. In order to conceive the function of profit and loss, the economist constructs the image of a hypothetical, although unrealizable, state of affairs in which nothing changes, in which tomorrow does not differ at all from today and in which consequently no maladjustments can arise and no need for any alteration in the conduct of business emerges. In the frame of this imaginary construction there are no entrepreneurs and no entrepreneurial profits and losses. The wheels turn spontaneously as it were. But the real world in which men live and have to work can never duplicate the hypothetical world of this mental makeshift.

 

Now one of the main shortcomings of the mathematical economists is that they deal with this evenly rotating economy — they call it the static state — as if it were something really existing. Prepossessed by the fallacy that economics is to be treated with mathematical methods, they concentrate their efforts upon the analysis of static states which, of course, allow a description in sets of simultaneous differential equations. But this mathematical treatment virtually avoids any reference to the real problems of economics. It indulges in quite useless mathematical play without adding anything to the comprehension of the problems of human acting and producing. It creates the misunderstanding as if the analysis of static states were the main concern of economics. It confuses a merely ancillary tool of thinking with reality.

 

The mathematical economist is so blinded by his epistemological prejudice that he simply fails to see what the tasks of economics are. He is anxious to show us that socialism is realizable under static conditions. As static conditions, as he himself admits, are unrealizable, this amounts merely to the assertion that in an unrealizable state of the world socialism would be realizable. A very valuable result, indeed, of a hundred years of the joint work of hundreds of authors, taught at all universities, publicized in innumerable textbooks and monographs and in scores of allegedly scientific magazines!

 

There is no such thing as a static economy. All the conclusions derived from preoccupation with the image of static states and static equilibrium are of no avail for the description of the world as it is and will always be.

 

Excerpted from Profit and Loss

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

 

예수 그리스도 이전부터 정부는 부패했다.

 

해스켈는 그의 책 <로마의 뉴딜정책, The New Deal in Old Rome>에서 로마가 망한 것은 게르만 족의 침공이 아니라, 로마의 도덕적 경제적 타락이었고, 다시 그 근원은 정부의 인기영합주의와 개입주의라고 밝혔다.

로마의 개입주의를 역사가들은 한 마디로 “빵과 서커스”라고 요약했다. 그런 정책은 도덕적 타락, 또 다른 개입, 타락, 인플레, 전체주의적 국가, 마침내 로마의 멸망으로 이어졌다는 것이다.

 

Governments Have Been Corrupt Since Before Christ

 

William H. Peterson

 

 

How prevalent has political corruption been over recorded history—and how did it originate? Quite an inkling as to its prevalence and origin can be found in a book written by H. J. Haskell and published by Alfred A. Knopf in 1939. The book is The New Deal in Old Rome.

 

Haskell, a newspaperman with the Kansas City Star, was both puzzled and inspired in the late 1930s when he and his wife drove across the Pont du Gard, the stone bridge and aqueduct that soars 165 feet above the river bed near Avignon in southern France. This triumph of engineering and architecture was built by the Romans some two millennia earlier. It still stands, mute testimony to the genius of Rome. Yet it raises the question: What happened to the glory that was Rome?

 

The magnificent Pont du Gard cast a spell on Haskell. Perhaps the spell was of the same sort that fascinated Edward Gibbon when he walked along Hadrian’s Wall, which demarcates the northern boundary and defense line of Roman Britain. Gibbon went on to write The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the first volume appearing in 1776.

 

Back to Haskell. He reflected on the possible meaning of the Pont du Gard and asked himself: Just what kind of a civilization had created such an awesome, durable, and most beautiful structure, survived a thousand years, and then disappeared? And, pondered the American journalist further, why the disappearance? Back in the United States, Haskell discussed these questions with Katharine Dayton, a friend and playwright.

 

The time was the Great Depression, the heyday of the New Deal, of massive interventionist measures following in the wake of Federal Reserve expansion and contraction of the money supply in the late 1920s and early 1930s, and of failed Hoover Administration programs—most notably the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of 1932. But now a number of New Deal programs had also backfired. The depression dragged on, even though FDR and his New Deal won in 1936 by a larger majority than in 1932. Severe unemployment persisted year after year and even escalated in 1938.

 

Miss Dayton told Haskell of her conversation with eminent antiquity historian and archeologist James Breasted shortly before he died. She had inquired if he had discovered any New Deals in the ancient world. He responded: “Yes, my dear, I’ve dug up at least a dozen.”

 

Hence the reference to the New Deal in the title of Haskell’s book. In it he argued, as had Gibbon, that it was not the strength of the Germanic invaders that sank Rome but the Eternal City’s moral and economic corruption. The corruption arose, Haskell held, from a pattern of majoritarianism (popularism) and interventionism (widespread government interference in a market system).

 

Such interference is seen in the Roman equivalents of, in New Deal terms, a Farm Debt Conciliation Committee, a Resettlement Administration, a Public Works Administration, a Food Relief Administration, a Home Owners Loan Corporation, an Ever-Normal Granary, and so on.

 

This potpourri of interventionist measures is frequently shorthanded by historians of Rome as “bread and circuses.” It pushed Rome, Haskell held, into amorality, further intervention, more corruption, bouts of inflation, and eventually into a totalitarian state—all contributing to Rome’s decline and fall.

 

Amorality? Note how Mises similarly plays on “the standards of morality” in commenting on Rome in Human Action:

 

 

The marvelous civilization of antiquity perished because it did not adjust its moral code and its legal system to the requirements of the market economy. A social order is doomed if the actions which its normal functioning requires are rejected by the standards of morality, are declared illegal by the laws of the country, and are prosecuted as criminal by the courts and the police. The Roman Empire crumbled to dust because it lacked the spirit of liberalism and free enterprise. The policy of intervention-ism and its political corollary, the Fuhrer principle, decomposed the mighty empire as they will by necessity always disintegrate and destroy any social entity.

 

A Tuneless How-to Message

 

Newspaperman Haskell observed that much amorality if not immorality was involved in Roman majoritarianism and interventionism. In this vein, see his references to the Handbook on Politics by Quintus Cicero, younger brother of the great Marcus Cicero (B.C. 106-43), leader in the Roman Senate. Marcus was running for the Roman consulship in the latter days of the Roman Republic, and Quintus evidently figured his brother was too principled, too unschooled in the devious ways of politics, to make a winning race. Hence while his blunt handbook was dedicated to Marcus Cicero (just as Machiavelli later dedicated his similar handbook on politics, The Prince, to Lorenzo de Medici of Florence), its how-to message seems timeless—relevant to machine politicians today, some 2,000 years later—as well as conducive to corruption.

 

Look, said Quintus to his brother. As a senator and leading attorney, with many successful cases to your credit, remind your clients of your brilliant services and collect your political I.O.U.’s. Too, since citizens in outlying districts also vote, best swing around the circuit, greet your rural constituents, wish them happiness, caring families, long lives, good health, good crops, and, of course, urge them to vote.

 

And, of course, with urban citizens as well, kiss babies, embrace old ladies, smile in public, shake hands, slap backs, tell stories, and, above all (or underneath all), gather votes—the politician’s raison d’être. Tell the citizens, in the city and in the outlying regions, that they are the salt of the earth, the strength of the country, God’s chosen people. Tell them anything.

 

Let them personally know, Marcus, how highly you admire them and value their counsel, their friendship, their affection—and their vote. That is, fawn on the voters, butter them up, play the game. As Quintus wrote for his brother, as quoted by Haskell: “One has great need of a flattering manner, which, wrong and discreditable though it may be in other walks of life, is indispensable in seeking office.”

 

Another thing, Quintus went on, don’t be overly conscientious or careful in your electioneering. Be generous, even lavish, with pledges of booty, bounty, jobs, contracts, public works— favors you can bestow once in office. “Human nature being what it is, all men prefer a false promise to a flat refusal. At the worst the man to whom you have lied may be angry. That risk, if you make a promise, is uncertain and deferred, and it affects only a few. But if you refuse you are sure to offend many, and that at once.”

 

Quintus covered all the angles. He wrote: Again, dear Brother Marcus, no need to be reserved or above questioning the honesty and integrity of your opposition. Your rivals for office are certain to resort to bribery and other underhanded tricks. Right? Hence fight fire with fire, Quintus counseled. Try bribery yourself, buy off your enemies, convert them into allies. Too, why not try scandal? “Contrive, if possible,” said Quintus, “to get some new scandal started against your rivals for crime or immorality or corruption, according to their characters.”

 

This last idea struck home. Catiline, the key rival of Marcus Cicero in the election, was apparently making illicit payments to voters and key officials. But in Senate speeches Cicero went beyond such peccadilloes and accused Catiline of crime after crime, outrage after outrage, including murder, adultery, attempted massacre, attempted incest, and marriage to a daughter whom he had fathered with a mistress. Demanded Cicero: “Quo usque, Catilina, abutere patientia nostra? [How long, Catiline, will you abuse our patience?]” The accusations, however wild, fell on receptive ears. Catiline lost the election.

 

The More Things Change ...

 

Now, what was really going on here two millennia ago of relevance to us in our own age of political corruption and rather unlimited government? Consider. Cicero’s election campaign was all part of a universal game that goes to this hour, a bidding war, a slander war between rival parties and candidates, with each party and candidate trying to out-promise and out-denigrate the other, while the wooed and all-too-frequently- grasping voters swoon over the adoration and public loot showered or to be showered on them.

 

Historically parties and candidates have long resorted to a campaign strategy of half-truths if not calculated deceptions, artifices, illusions, and other stratagems that many voters, then and now, only half understand and half suspect of hood-winkery. But many if not most of the electorate are nonetheless tantalized and corrupted by an election campaign—political gladiators skewering the reputations of their opponents, the temptation of something for nothing, the longing for certainty in an uncertain existence, the wish for security in an insecure world. Many a voter echoes the thought of Oscar Wilde: “I can resist everything except temptation.”

 

So today’s campaign tantalizers and tantalizees are part and parcel of the story of corruption. They are not basically different from political contests of yesteryear. Fanfare and knowing winks persist, accompanied by standard political charisma and oratorical flair, by cascades of rhetoric and bombast, by political conventions complete with campaign buttons, ribbons, flags, bunting, and balloons, by parades of marching bands and shiny open cars topped off with the smiling candidates waving at adoring multitudes along a parade route.

 

All this classic showmanship is at once benumbing and mesmerizing, if not confusing, to the electorate. But it is also, on the whole, enthralling, persuasive, and enveloping. As are the political slogans: “Carthage Must Be Destroyed.” “A Chicken in .Every Pot.” “Death to the Huns.” “Reunite the Two Germanies.” “Peace and Prosperity.” “Veni, Vidi, Vici.” “Workers of the World, Unite.” “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” “A New Deal.” “The Square Deal.” “The New Freedom.” “The European Community.” “The Worker’s Paradise.” “A New Beginning.” “Greater Asia’s Co-Prosperity Sphere.”

 

For then in the time of Cicero and now on the eve of a millennium, do candidates tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Do the voters themselves really believe all that campaign rhetoric and bombast? Many, perhaps most, obviously do. But quite a few of them nudge each other in the ribs and wink an eye. As Haskell commented on the electioneering goings-on in Ancient Rome: “Probably Cicero would have been surprised to know that his election charges [against Catiline] would be taken seriously by posterity.”

 

Haskell concluded his book with an appendix of interventions, of campaign promises, and ploys that went wrong. He called it a “Chronology of Roman New Deal Measures and Other Economic Experiments.” Some highlights:

 

367 B.C.—Licinius Stolo: moratorium on debts.

 

357 B.C.—Maximum interest rate set at 81/3 percent.

 

342 B.C.—Interest abolished to favor debtors; law soon ignored.

 

217 B.C.—Monetary devaluation to meet financial stringency in second war with Carthage.

 

133-121 B.C.—The Gracchi: Resettlement Administration; Public Works Administration; Ever-Normal Granary; two-price system for wheat, sold by the government at 32 cents a bushel (1939 equivalent), well below the market price, to those willing to stand in line.

 

58 B.C.—Wheat furnished free as a dole. 49-44 B.C.—Julius Caesar: panic in Rome when Caesar crosses Rubicon; flight of capital; collapse in real estate. Remedies: debts scaled down on basis of prewar values; Resettlement Administration, 80,000 taken off relief and settled away from Rome; relief rolls cut in half with means test (320,000 to 150,000); anti-hoarding measures, with compulsory investment in Italian land; Public Works Administration, work on roads, public buildings, reclamation projects.

 

29-9 B.C.—Augustus: more extensive Public Works Administration projects; large soldier bonuses; easy- money policy from spoils of Egypt and large coinage of gold and silver from government mines; rising prices; relief rolls, which had expanded after Julius Caesar’s death, cut from 320,000 to 200,000.

 

9 A.D.—Domitian: Agricultural Adjustment Administration, half of provincial vineyards destroyed to stop overproduction of wine.

 

97-106 A.D.—Nerva and Trajan: Farm Credit Administration, with loans to farmers at half the market rate; government aid to children of poor families; senators required to invest one-third of their wealth in Italian land.

 

117-211 A.D.—Hadrian and successors: extravagant spending on public works by central government and cities, followed later by heavy expenditures for wars, exhausting both reserves and tax resources.

 

212-273 A.D.—Heavy taxation and inflation, demoralization of business, breakdown of the middle class.

 

27 A.D.—Aurelian: relief extended, with bread substituted for wheat and addition of free pork, olive oil, and salt; right to relief made hereditary. Ruinous taxes; galloping inflation.

 

284-476 A.D.—Diocletian and successors: spiraling taxation; inflation from overvalued currency with skyrocketing prices; Diocletian’s ill-fated edict of 301 A.D. mandating wage and price controls under pain of death; totalitarian state; collapse of agricultural production; invasion of Germanic tribes; relocation of capital; end of Western Empire.

 

The push of Roman intervention and corruption is matched by the surge of Roman inflation. And that surge is reflected in the decline of silver content in the Roman coin of circulation, the denarius, from practically pure silver (save for a hardening agent) in the rule of Augustus (44 B.C.-14 A.D.) to practically pure copper (with just a wash of silver) by the role of Diocletian (284-305 A.D.)

 

Originally published as The Taproots of Political Corruption in The Freeman Dec 1990.

 

 

William H. Peterson is the winner of the 2005 Schlarbaum Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Study of Liberty. He was is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and distinguished Lundy professor emeritus of business philosophy at Campbell University in North Carolina. .

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

 

 

Ability to Pay" Is a Lousy Way to Judge Tax Policy

 

능력 있는 사람이 세금을 내야 한다는 주장은 가장 생산적인 사람들에게 징벌을 가함으로써 사회에 손실을 끼친다.

 

•Brian Balfour

 

 

As tax day rapidly approaches, we are sure to hear leftists once again admonish us all about how the rich should “pay their fair share” of taxes. Their favorite tool to accomplish this is a highly progressive income tax code, which forces those with higher incomes to pay a greater share of their income to the tax man.

 

The progressive income tax is more “fair” and “just” because it is based on the taxpayer’s “ability to pay,” according to its advocates. Under a progressive income tax structure, those that earn the most income not only pay more in taxes in total dollars, but pay a higher share of their income in taxes. “The rich should pay more because they can afford it,” goes the argument.

 

The ability-to-pay rationale has been elevated as unquestioned dogma in the realm of taxation justice.

 

Indeed, progressives are so enamored of the ability to pay principle of taxation, one Daily Beast article last year described it as “the basic principle of all successful income and wealth tax systems going back nearly 2,500 years to ancient Athens where democracy and progressive taxation were invented as foundational twins of Western civilization.”

 

But the ability-to-pay doctrine falls short of providing a logical or ethical justification for progressive tax rates, for multiple reasons.

 

Murray Rothbard expertly laid out these reasons in his 1970 book Power and Market: Government and the Economy.

 

For starters, the ability-to-pay doctrine fails to consider an individual’s accumulated wealth – a factor that clearly affects a person’s ability to pay taxes. “A man earning $5,000 during a certain year probably has more ability to pay than a neighbor earning the same amount if he [the first man] also has $50,000 in the bank while his neighbor has nothing,” wrote Rothbard.

 

Thus, using income alone as the metric to gauge one’s ability to pay becomes ambiguous and does not provide a sure guide on the concept.

 

Moreover, an individual’s financial obligations such as medical bills and other debt commitments surely impair one’s ability to pay a hefty tax bill, but this too is not taken into account on the progressive’s beloved progressive income tax schedule.

 

Moreover, some apologists of the ability-to-pay doctrine defend it by comparing taxes paid to government with voluntary donations to charity. In private charity, they say, it is expected that people of greater means contribute a higher share of their resources than those with less.

 

Comparing voluntary charity to tax payments to the government, however, is shameful.

 

People get to choose which charities they support, and the amount of support each receives. If one believes a charity is no longer serving the community in a way that is appropriate, he can withdraw his support. The same is obviously not true of government. People cannot opt out of paying taxes. As Rothbard wrote: “Government is the very negation of charity, for charity is an unbought gift, a freely flowing uncoerced act by the giver.”

 

Finally, the ability-to-pay doctrine fails because it harms society by more sharply penalizing the most productive. Those that prove most capable in serving the needs of their fellow man (at least in a free market economy) by efficiently creating goods and services that others value are those who will fall into the highest progressive income tax brackets. “Penalizing ability in production and service diminishes the supply of the service – and in proportion to the extent of that ability,” declared Rothbard. The result will be greater impoverishment, felt most heavily by the low-skilled and low-income people who are always hardest hit by a stagnant economy.

 

In spite of the protests from self-styled, left-wing advocates of “tax fairness,” the ability-to-pay principle fails to provide a logical or ethical argument in favor of progressive income taxes. As Rothbard concluded, “Rather than being an evident rule of justice, the "ability to pay" principle resembles more the highwayman’s principle of taking where the taking is good.”

 

Brian Balfour is Executive Vice President for the Civitas Institute, a free market advocacy organization in Raleigh, North Carolina

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

   월경 전 배꼽 아랫배가 아픈 증상


温脐化湿汤处方：炒白术30g（原方是土炒）茯苓9g 炒山药15g  巴戟天15g （盐浸） 炒扁豆9g 白果十枚莲子三十枚不去心（此药店没有，当地买）此方君药是白术利腰脐之气，用巴戟天、白果通任脉，用扁豆、山药、莲子以卫冲脉，所以寒湿扫除而经水自调。
---------------------------------------------------------------


陈景河先生大剂量用药之特点

1、川芎，35---40克，治疗头痛。

2、萹蓄，50克。治疗尿道炎。

3、生椿根皮，60克。治疗崩漏。

4、猫爪草100克，治疗结核。

5、柴胡50克，黄芩50克，板蓝根30克。治疗外感高热。

6、百合40，石斛30克，鱼腥草50克，白花蛇舌草30克。治疗肺热咳嗽。

7、知母40克，生地30克，熟地30克，山药30克。治疗肺虚咳嗽。

8、天冬30克，淫羊藿30克，补骨脂30克，黄精50克。治疗寒饮咳嗽。

9、沙参50克，玉竹30克。治疗肺燥咳嗽。

10、黄芪80克，白芍50克，龟板30克，丹参30克。治疗虚劳咳嗽。

11、侧柏叶50克，化痰止咳。

12、天花粉50克，治疗咽喉干燥。

13、生石膏30克，治疗口腔溃疡。

14、黄芪40克，党参40克，连翘50克，防风30克。治疗顽固性口腔溃疡。

15、菟丝子30克，用于心动过速。

16、磁石30---50克，用于心悸。

17、鸡血藤50克，何首乌50克，玉竹50克，千年健35克，菟丝子30克，

        威灵仙30克。治疗风湿性心脏病。

18、珍珠母40克，用于冠心病。

19、小茴香100克，外敷治疗腹痛。

20、葛根40克，泽泻30克，牛膝303克，代赭石30克，川芎40克。治疗高

       血压。21、益母草80克，何首乌70克，葛根50克。治疗中风。

22、柿蒂75克，治疗顽固性呃逆。

23、茯苓50克，白术40克。治疗胃脘痛。

24、黄芪70克，白芍50克。治疗慢性腹泻。

25、桑葚50克，生地30克。治疗便秘。

26、白头翁50克，黄芪50克，蚤休30克，石斛30克，白芍30克，黄柏30

       克，白及30克，山药30克。治疗脓血便。

27、板蓝根50克，茵陈50克，败酱草35克，山豆根35克。治疗急性黄疸型 肝炎，降低谷丙转氨酶。

28、土茯苓30克，虎杖30克，板蓝根50克，败酱草30克，连翘30克、石斛30克，蚕砂20克，柴胡40克。治疗慢性肝炎。

29、鳖甲50克，沙参50克，丹参30克，黄芪30克，败酱草50克，连翘40克。治疗慢性肝炎，脾大，肝硬化。

30、白花蛇舌草50克，山慈姑50克，半枝莲330克，茵陈50克，五加皮50克。治疗癌性黄疸。

31、金钱草50克，芒硝20克，海金沙30克。治疗胆管结石。

32、葶苈子50克，白茅根50克，茯苓40克，黄芪50克，丹参30克。治疗 胸腹水。

33、黄芪50克，白茅根50克，茯苓30克。治疗癃闭（前列腺肥大所致尿 闭）

34、桑螵蛸30克，用于遗尿。

35、萹蓄60克，瞿麦30克，玉米须60克，黄芪100克，生椿根皮60克、菟丝子30克。治疗慢性肾炎。

36、夜交藤50克，龙骨30克，牡蛎30克，磁石30克。治疗失眠。

37、山茱萸50克，益母草50克，沙参50克。治疗虚性眩晕。

38、麻黄根50克，沙苑子50克，龙骨50克，牡蛎50克，防风50克。治疗多汗。

39、紫草30克，白蒺藜30克，白鲜皮30克，党参30克。治疗带状疱疹。   

40、何首乌50克，陈皮100克，千年健30克，地枫皮30克赤芍30克，生地30克，熟地30克。治疗痿证。

41、鸡血藤50克，地枫皮30克，何首乌50克，千年健30克，薏苡仁40克。治疗肩周炎。

42、薏苡仁100----200克，用于痹症。

43、鸡血藤50克，伸筋草50克，豨莶草40克，何首乌40克，威灵仙40克。治疗痛风。

44、当归100克，丹参100克，玄参100克，鸡血藤50克，牛膝30克，黄芪30克。治疗脱疽。

45、防风60克，艾叶60克，干姜20克，附子20克，红花15克，鸡血藤60 克。水煎外洗治疗产后足跟疼。

46、生地100克，白芍70克，龙骨50克。治疗热伤血络之牙龈出血。

47、生椿根皮50克，刘寄奴50克。治疗血便。

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