정치조직이 아니라 종교조직이라는 말은 엉터리지만, 어쨌든 주체사상도 거의 교주 김일성을을 하느님처럼 모시는 집단이니까 유사 종교조직이긴 하다.

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

나는 드루킹 대화내용 끝부분에

드루킹: 사실상의 독재정치에 가까운데도

드루킹: 문재인 지지층은 거의 광적인 홍위병적인 지지를 보내고 있죠

라고 쓴 부분이 인상 깊더라

결국 윗대가리들은 지들 잘못을 스스로 잘 알고 있으면서

국민을 개돼지처럼 이용해 먹고 있다는 것이 딱 느껴지는 부분임

출처: 일베 댓글, 토미플래

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

가장 충격적이였던 드루킹 대화록/ 일베

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

손병호

 

[주사빨 추미애 왕따]
 
주사빨의 조종을 받은 댓글부대는 100여곳이 될겁니다.
정식으로 사무실을 가진 무슨 직업같이 운영된 것으로 보입니다.
한 곳당 4-5명이 상주하면서 여론을 조작하고 우파글에 악성 댓글로 초토화시켰어요.
 

놀라운 것은 주사빨이 민주당의 공식기구엔 그 실상을 함구했어요.
 
심지어 민주당의 공식기구 수장인 추매도 몰랐던 것으로 보입니다.
그러니 민주당의 실무자들이나 정보원도 몰랐겠지요.
한 정보원이란놈이 지난 1월 “보수측의 댓글부대를 적발했다”고 추매에게 보고한겁니다.

추매는 그놈들이 설마 지들편이란걸 꿈에도 생각않고 “옳타구나 잘 걸렸다”하고 경찰에 신고했고,
경찰은 잽싸게 그 사무실을 급습하여 검거한겁니다.
 
그런데 잡힌놈들이 “우린 민주당의 댓글부대다 니들 죽는다 까불지마라” 하니까
경찰이 “이 자식들이 뭐라는겨? 니들을 신고한분이 민주당 당수여 임마”하고 유치장에 처넣은 겁니다.
 
이놈들이 빡쳐서 추매에게 항의하여 민주당이 알았고, 그동안 민주당이 겉으로는 쉬쉬했지만
속으로는 난리가 난 것이지요.
 
그걸 조선일보의 한 기자가 눈치채고 경찰에서 뻣치기한 결과 이 댓글 사태를 적발한 겁니다.

어제 어느 기자의 말이 이 사태의 본질을 찝어냈습니다.

“주사빨은 추매도 믿지 못한거여 그래서 왕따시킨거여” 이 말은 추매까지도
주사빨이 그런 기구를 운영하는걸 몰랐으니, 한마디로 민주당은 주사빨의 일개 도구란 말이지요.
 
홍준표가 우파의 대표성을 확보하려면 이걸 악어의 잇빨처럼 물고 늘어져야합니다.

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

박성현

 

[돈이 웬수]

드루킴이 8년동안 유령출판사 차려놓고 한번도 월세 밀린적 없이...
버젓한 사무실을 운영해 왔다...
사무실도 깔끔하다.
파주 출판단지에 있는 '느릅나무 출판사'...
...

2012년 말엔 깡통좌파가 "십알단이라 불리는, 박근혜 대통령후보 지지 인터넷 댓글부대가 있다!"라고 주장하며
내가 그 두목 쯤 된다고 음해했었다.

컥.

문재인 정부에 들어서는
모처 교육원에서 수십차례 강연하고 받은 돈을, '댓글부대 운영비'로 받았다고 오해해서,
모기관으로부터 내게 느닷없이 전화가 오는 해프닝이 있었다.
그 교육원에서 강연을 매번 녹화해 두었기에 다행이었다.
그 강연은 'SNS의 철학적*역사적 의미'에 관한 상당히 수준높은 인문학 컨텐츠였다.
명강으로 꼽혔다.
원래는 두어번 정도 잡힌 강의였는데, 내용이 좋아서 엄청 여러번 했다.

자유민주 진영에는 그 전부터 별로 돈이 돌지 않았다.

전경련이 찔끔찔끔 주는 게 전부였는데,

이 동네, 돈이 없다. 그러니 사고도 크게 나지는 않는다.

반면 저동네엔 돈이 차고 넘친다. 그러니 사고가 나면 크게 난다.

이번 드루킴은 지난 8년 동안 못 움직여도 수십억이 움직였을 게다.
그러니 사무실도 운영하고 댓글 팀도 돌렸을 게다.

그 돈의 흐름을 좇으면 다 나온다... 그런데 경찰, 검찰이 과연 이 판도라의 상자를 열까?

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

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

로봇의 출현이 야기한 3가지 허구

1. 로봇이 사람들을 대체해서 실업자로 만들 것이다.

2. 자연 자원을 소진시킬 것이다.

3. 성장에 한계가 닥칠 것이다.

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

다른 사람의 돈을 당신에게 주겠다고 약속한 정치가를 뽑았다면, 그 정치인들이 당신의 돈을 다른 사람들에게 주었다고 불평하지 말라.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

우정국은 왜 그렇게 많은 적자를 보는 것일까?

 

미국 우정국이 적자를 겪고 있는 이유는, 부분적인 독점권을 지니고 있기 때문이다. 독점권이 있는 대부분의 기업은 비용을 줄여야 할 동기가 없다.

트럼프가 의회에 압력을 넣어 아마존의 택배에 고율의 수수료를 부과하지 못하도록 하면, 아마존은 다른 배송 회사를 택할 것이고 미국 우정국은 쇠퇴를 면치 못할 것이다. 그러면 우편 배달의 경쟁은 개방이 되고, 미국우정국은 정부로부터 자유로워질 것이다.

 

How the Postal Service Loses So Much Money

 

•Justin Murray

 

 

Lately, when he isn’t trying to blame China on America’s competitiveness woes, President Donald Trump has become obsessed with the online retailer Amazon. While there’s speculation that Trump is using the reins of government to carry out a personal grudge because Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO, also owns The Washington Post, the more recent obsession is based on his belief that the United States Postal Service is subsidizing Amazon’s activity. The claim is that, based on a cost-plus method of pricing, Amazon is being subsidized $1.47 per package delivered by the USPS as a last-mile carrier. With an estimated 608 million boxes shipped by the online retailer in 2017, Trump is implying that Amazon has shorted the postal service by $893 million. Considering the USPS lost $2.7 billion, this further implies that Amazon is a key reason why the USPS is struggling financially. Trump goes on to state that Amazon should fork over the entire $2.7 billion to cover the difference.

 

A key problem here is the assumption that businesses operate on a cost-plus basis. This kind of thinking is a result of how warped government operations are, which frequently engage in cost-plus kinds of contracts. Cost-plus contracts are where the government agrees to cover all the applicable costs of performing the work plus a guaranteed profit. These forms of contracts are relatively unusual in the private business sector, where bidding on price are the primary form of activity. Because of the nature of cost-plus, and how they will frequently go over-budget because there is little incentive to control costs of performance, companies generally don’t engage in them. This means, in the world outside of tax-funded activity, the USPS has to compete with other package carriers like UPS and FedEx and doesn’t have the luxury of guaranteeing itself a profit on every activity.

 

When it comes to the USPS, the organization has significant fixed costs. In business planning, prices are usually lower-bound by the variable cost of activity. Any revenues that are collected above and beyond the variable costs are able to contribute toward fixed expenses. This is referred to as the contribution margin. Because the fixed component exists whether the product or service is sold or not, companies will be pressured to lower prices until they reach this contribution margin is exhausted. Companies then hope to generate sufficient volume at this margin to cover the fixed expenses. If the choice is between no sale and a sale below an optimal price with some contribution margin, the organization will usually go with the lower than optimal price to at least slow the resource deterioration.

 

The reason the USPS is in trouble and is struggling to cover its estimated $29 billion in fixed costs is because of its status as a partial legal monopoly. From the own words of the USPS, Congress has granted, with criminal penalty, the USPS total monopoly over the delivery of letters, with some carve-out exceptions (such as urgent or free of charge). Like most monopolies, the USPS had little incentive to keep costs controlled. In 1999, the USPS even went so far as to shrug off the burgeoning Internet, e-mail in particular, as some fad and engaged in sorting facility expansions with the expectation that letter volume would continue to grow. Since peaking in 2001, the number of letters delivered by the USPS has since collapsed to nearly half as much in 2017. The USPS costs, however, continued to increase, from $62 billion in 2000 to $72.3 billion in 2017, despite the collapse of business volume. The USPS was only able to remain solvent by leveraging its monopoly status by driving up the price of stamps from $0.34 for a first class stamp in 1999 to $0.50 later this year. But even this is running into limitations as the decline in mail volume accelerates.

 

This monopoly, however, doesn’t cover package delivery, putting the USPS in a strange position of having a legal monopoly on only part of its business. This creates the impression that the package business is subsidized by the letter business since the prices on the letter side aren’t limited by a competitive force. This then creates the further impression that the expenses, which were never controlled because of the historical reliance on letter delivery, should be evenly applied to package delivery as well. Thus the assumption there is a subsidy at all when in reality the costs are grossly overinflated due to a lack of market discipline.

 

When a private business is threatened by decreased volume, they usually have to trim operations to adjust their size to meet the new market demands. The USPS, on the other hand, does not do this. The organization continues to operate on the assumption it must make daily deliveries, six days a week, to every address in the nation. Even the old rural excuse has become weakened as the nation becomes more urban (assuming it was ever justified to tax city residents to provide city amenities to those who elected to live in remote places). Not that rural residents need a monopoly organization to deliver junk mail.

 

Repeal the Postal Service's Monopoly

 

So what’s the answer to the failings of the USPS? Repeal the Private Express Statutes and let the USPS loose to manage its own affairs without Congressional interference in its operations. As Lysander Spooner famously proved back in 1844 with the American Letter Mail Company, the private sector can not only deliver the mail, it can deliver the mail profitably for a fraction of the cost of the postal service. This solves two problems:

1.The appearance that Amazon is subsidized through the USPS is eliminated

2.Profitable, stable delivery organizations can come into play

 

Repealing the private express statutes and getting government out of the mail delivery business may also very well save the USPS as not only can the USPS get out from under populist mandates, such as the overly generous retirement program and maintaining an absurd number of postal service locations; the USPS maintains over twice as many postal stops as McDonald’s has restaurants. It will also open up the market to more competition and competition breeds superior operations for competing members as creative methods of operation are more likely to be identified and can be mimicked, leading to superior operations for all players.

 

In the end, the “problem” with Amazon is self-inflicted by the government insisting it operates a monopoly letter carrier. Trump can fix the problem with one fell swoop by pressuring Congress not to pass laws imposing higher rates on Amazon delivered packages, which will only accelerate the failure of the USPS since Amazon would just pick an alternate carrier, but to open up unrestricted competition in mail delivery and cut the USPS loose from the government tether. It certainly worked out well in New Zealand.

 

Justin Murray received his MBA in 2014 from the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland.

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

 

낮은 실업률은 인플레의 원인이 아니다

 

인플레는 한 마디로 “횡령”이다. 옛날에 왕이 국내의 금화를 모두 몰수한 뒤에, 가짜 금속을 섞은 금화를 만들어 백성에게 돌려주고, 빼돌린 금으로 다시 금화를 만들어 사용한 것이 인플레의 시작이었다.

크루그먼의 주장과 달리 낮은 실업률은 상품과 서비스의 전반적인 가격 상승을 유발하지 않으며, 인플레이션이라 불리는 경기 과열을 일으키지도 않는다.

 

Low Unemployment Is Not the Cause of Inflation

 

•Frank Shostak

 

 

In his New York Times article of March 27, 2018 — "Immaculate inflation strikes again" — Paul Krugman argues that those economists who are of the opinion that the key factor that causes inflation is increases in money supply are very wrong. According to Krugman, the key factor that sets in motion inflation is unemployment. While a decline in the unemployment rate is associated with a strengthening in the rate of inflation, an increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a decline in the rate of inflation.

 

Note that for Krugman inflation is about general increases in the prices of goods and services, which is a flawed definition. To ascertain what inflation is all about we have to establish how this phenomenon emerged. We have to trace it back to its historical origin.

 

The Essence of Inflation

 

The subject matter of inflation is "an act of embezzlement." Historically inflation originated when a country’s ruler such as king would force his citizens to give him all their gold coins under the pretext that a new gold coin was going to replace the old one. In the process, the king would falsify the content of the gold coins by mixing it with some other metal and return diluted gold coins to the citizens.

 

On this Rothbard wrote,

 

More characteristically, the mint melted and recoined all the coins of the realm, giving the subjects back the same number of “pounds” or “marks”, but of a lighter weight. The leftover ounces of gold or silver were pocketed by the King and used to pay his expenses.

 

On account of the dilution of the gold coins, the ruler could now mint a greater amount of coins and pocket for his own use the extra coins minted. What was now passing as a pure gold coin was in fact a diluted gold coin.

 

The increase in the number of coins is what inflation is all about. As a result of the increase in the quantity of coins (inflation of coins) that masquerade as pure gold coins, prices in terms of coins now goes up (more coins are being exchanged for a given amount of goods), all other things being equal.

 

Note that what we have here is an inflation of coins, i.e., an expansion of coins. Because of inflation, the ruler can engage in an exchange of nothing for something (he can engage in an act of diverting resources from citizens to himself). Also, note that the increase in prices in terms of coins is because of the coin inflation.

 

Under the gold standard, the technique of abusing the medium of the exchange became much more advanced through the issuance of paper money un-backed by gold. Inflation therefore means an increase in the amount of receipts for gold on account of receipts that are not backed by gold, yet masquerade as the true representatives of money proper, gold.

 

The holder of un-backed receipts can now engage in an exchange of nothing for something. Because of the increase in the amount of receipts (inflation of receipts) we now also have a general increase in prices.

 

Observe that the increase in prices develops here on account of the increase in paper receipts that are not backed up by gold. Also, what we have is a situation where the issuers of the un-backed paper receipts divert real goods to themselves without making any contribution to the production of goods.

 

In the modern world, money proper is no longer gold but rather paper money; hence, inflation in this case is an increase in the stock of paper money.

 

Observe that we do not say as monetarists are saying that the increase in the money supply causes inflation. What we are saying that inflation is the increase in the money supply.

 

So it seems that our Nobel Laureate, instead of discussing inflation is actually referring to its possible symptoms, which are price increases.

 

Once the proper definition of inflation is obliterated and inflation is viewed as general increases in prices then all sort of explanations of what causes these increases are possible.

 

By means of statistical correlation, Krugman asserts that a fall in the unemployment rate is an important driving factor of inflation. Hence, on this logic policy makers must carefully watch the unemployment rate and decide whether it has reached the point where it could trigger an explosion in the rate of inflation.

 

Why Low Unemployment Is Not the Cause of Inflation

 

But, using statistical correlations as the basis of a theory means that "anything goes."

 

For example, let us assume that high correlation has been established between the income of Mr. Jones and the rate of growth in the consumer price index. The higher the rate of increase of Mr. Jones’ income, the higher the rate of increase in the consumer price index. Therefore, we could easily conclude that in order to exercise control over the rate of inflation the central bank must carefully watch and control the rate of increases in Mr. Jones’ income. This example is no more absurd than correlating the unemployment rate with the rate of increases in prices as Krugman does.

 

Contrary to Krugman, a low unemployment rate does not cause a general rise in the prices of goods and services and an economic overheating labeled as inflation. Regardless of the rate of unemployment, so long as every increase in expenditure is supported by production, no "overheating" can actually occur. The overheating emerges once expenditure rises without being backed up by production, a situation that emerges when the money stock is increasing.

 

In his article, Krugman argues that the Fed’s inflation target of 2% is too low. According to Krugman, the Fed should aim at a higher inflation target, which amounts to an increase in the monetary pumping. Furthermore, Krugman is of the view that the Fed should not tighten its interest rate stance since this could push the US economy into a liquidity trap.

 

If Krugman were to define correctly what inflation is all about, he would quickly realize that a tighter stance would be required to eliminate various bubble activities that undermine the process of wealth generation. Contrary to Krugman, a liquidity trap, which is another way of saying that Fed policies cannot generate any longer an illusion that these policies can grow an economy, is the outcome of very loose monetary policy of the US central bank. The loose monetary stance, which weakens the process of wealth generation, results in either stagnant or a shrinking pool of real wealth. Without an expanding pool of real wealth, the illusion that the central bank can grow an economy is shattered.

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