북한의 싱가포 회담 전략은 미끼를 따먹고 튀겠다는 것
이동복
In the current preparations for the summit, what is seldom noted is how few of Kim’s very close advisors have been brought in to witness their leader’s new and exciting approach toward the U.S. and South Korea. The head of the rubber-stamp legislative body (the Supreme People’s Assembly) attended the welcoming ceremony at the Olympics but was sent home immediately after. Only “Princess” Kim Yo Jong and spy-chief Kim Yong Chol stayed to initiate the charm offensive. They are essentially the only two people who have been trusted to deal with Seoul and New York and Washington. (If the butler sent to arrange the talks in Singapore is counted, that brings the number to three.)
This suggests a predictable bait-and-switch is in the cards. Kim Jong Un can rely on these confidants to go along with whatever reversal or deception he chooses to employ — they have no independence from him — and the bag carriers certainly know their lives depend on keeping their mouths shut. When we engage in talks, we send our best and brightest, people who have policy responsibilities; Kim Jong Un sends his most despicable and unswervingly loyal, and they are merely there to carry out his command.
But hope springs eternal, especially in the State Department, where advocates of “engagement” have always fantasized that North Korea is driven by greed and a few simple objectives: North Korea's desire for respect, peace, and financial aid. That view seems to have been adopted by Secretary Pompeo and the president for the time being, but I suspect it may not last.
If nothing else, this summit will establish that President Trump has offered North Korea what decades of American diplomats have advocated. Perhaps that will establish with finality the failure of this approach.
--------------------------------------------------------
김정은의 목적은 "주한 미군철수" 한국, 일본에게는 '최악'
[zakzak.co] 2018.6.8
-------------------------------------------------------------
All signs point to North Korea preparing a bait-and-switch
By Chuck DownsIn the current preparations for the summit, what is seldom noted is how few of Kim’s very close advisors have been brought in to witness their leader’s new and exciting approach toward the U.S. and South Korea. The head of the rubber-stamp legislative body (the Supreme People’s Assembly) attended the welcoming ceremony at the Olympics but was sent home immediately after. Only “Princess” Kim Yo Jong and spy-chief Kim Yong Chol stayed to initiate the charm offensive. They are essentially the only two people who have been trusted to deal with Seoul and New York and Washington. (If the butler sent to arrange the talks in Singapore is counted, that brings the number to three.)
This suggests a predictable bait-and-switch is in the cards. Kim Jong Un can rely on these confidants to go along with whatever reversal or deception he chooses to employ — they have no independence from him — and the bag carriers certainly know their lives depend on keeping their mouths shut. When we engage in talks, we send our best and brightest, people who have policy responsibilities; Kim Jong Un sends his most despicable and unswervingly loyal, and they are merely there to carry out his command.
But hope springs eternal, especially in the State Department, where advocates of “engagement” have always fantasized that North Korea is driven by greed and a few simple objectives: North Korea's desire for respect, peace, and financial aid. That view seems to have been adopted by Secretary Pompeo and the president for the time being, but I suspect it may not last.
If nothing else, this summit will establish that President Trump has offered North Korea what decades of American diplomats have advocated. Perhaps that will establish with finality the failure of this approach.
--------------------------------------------------------
법원의 반란을 법원장들이 제압할 수 있을까?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
正恩氏の狙いは「在韓米軍の撤退」色めき立つ韓国、日本にとっては「最悪김정은의 목적은 "주한 미군철수" 한국, 일본에게는 '최악'
[zakzak.co] 2018.6.8
-------------------------------------------------------------
유전자 조작한 골든 라이스가 미국에서도 허용되었다. 하지만 나심 탈레브는 precautionary principle에 의거해 유전자 조작 식품을 반대한다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
격세적 후생유전학은 증거가 부족하다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Diplomats Evacuated in China as Medical Mystery Grows
중국 광저우의 미국 영사관 직원들이 이상한 질병에 시달리고 있는데, 아마도 중국의 소행으로 추정된다는 기사. 이전에 쿠바에서도 유사한 일이 있었다고 한다.
-----------------------------------------------------------
연준이 화폐를 찍어 화폐의 공급을 증가시키면, 무(無)와 유(有)가 서로 교환되고, 이로 인해 호경기와 불경기의 경기 순환이 일어난다.
Should the Fed Print More Money When "Demand for Money" Rises?
•Frank Shostak
For most economists and commentators the main role of the Fed is to keep the supply and demand for money in equilibrium. Whenever an increase in the demand for money occurs — in order to maintain the state of equilibrium — it is held that the Fed must increase the money supply as a necessary action in order to keep the economy on a path of economic and price stability.
The accommodation of the increase in the demand for money is not considered as money printing and therefore not harmful to the economy. That is, this sort of increase, it is held, does not set in motion the boom-bust cycle as long as the growth rate of money supply does not exceed the growth rate in the demand for money.
Note that by this way of thinking, since the growth rate in the demand for money is offset by the growth rate of the supply of money, then no effective increase in the supply of money occurs. From this perspective, no harm is inflicted on the economy.
Why Accommodating Demand for Money Is Always Harmful
What do we mean by demand for money? In addition, how does this demand differs from the demand for goods and services?
The demand for a good does not reflect the demand for a particular good as such, but the demand for the services that the good offers. For instance, an individual demands food because this provides the necessary elements that sustain his life and wellbeing. Demand here means that people want to consume the food in order to secure the necessary elements that sustain their life and wellbeing.
The demand for money arises because of the services that money provides. However, instead of consuming money people demand money in order to exchange it for goods and services.
With the help of money, various goods become more marketable — they can secure more goods than in the barter economy. What enables this is the fact that money is the most marketable commodity.
An increase in the general demand for money, let us say, on account of a general increase in the production of goods, doesn’t imply that individuals’ sit on the money and do nothing with it.
The key reason an individual demand’s money is in order to be able to exchange money for other goods and services. So in this sense an increase in the supply of money is not going to be neutralized by a corresponding increase in the demand for money, as will be the case with various goods.
An increase in the supply of apples is neutralized by the increase in the demand for apples i.e. people want to consume more apples. For instance, the supply of apples, which increased by 5%, is absorbed by the increase in the demand for apples by 5%. The same cannot however, be said with regard to the increase in the supply of money, which has taken place in response to the same increase in the demand for money.
Money Isn't Like Other Goods
We have seen that contrary to other goods, an increase in the demand for money implies an increase in the employment of money to facilitate transactions. This means that an increase in the demand for money by 5% is not going to neutralize an increase in the supply of money by 5%. The increase in the demand by 5% implies that people’s demand for the services of money has increased by 5%.
An increase in the supply of money, in response to an increase in the demand for money, does not imply that its effect on the economy will be neutral. Consequently, any increase in the supply of money out of “thin air” is going to set in motion all the negatives that an increase in money out of “thin air” does.
There Is Always Enough Money
Again, irrespective of whether the total demand for money is rising or falling what matters is that individuals employ money in their transactions.
Once the market has chosen a particular commodity as money, the given stock of this commodity will always be sufficient to secure the services that money provides. Hence, it is futile to accommodate the increase in the demand for money by the increase in the supply. An increase in the demand for money does not require an increase in the supply as is the case with respect to other goods.
According to Mises
As the operation of the market tends to determine the final state of money's purchasing power at a height at which the supply of and the demand for money coincide, there can never be an excess or deficiency of money. Each individual and all individuals together always enjoy fully the advantages which they can derive from indirect exchange and the use of money, no matter whether the total quantity of money is great, or small. . . . the services which money renders can be neither improved nor repaired by changing the supply of money. . . . The quantity of money available in the whole economy is always sufficient to secure for everybody all that money does and can do.
Conclusion
It is held that if the Fed accommodates an increase in the demand for money this accommodation should not be regarded as an increase in the supply of money as such. But in practice, this accommodation, like any other accommodation by the Fed, results in the increase in money supply out of “thin air.” All other things being equal, this leads to an exchange of nothing for something that sets in motion the menace of the boom-bust cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기