-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
문재인은 운동권 반미수괴답게 북괴가 항상 주장한 '종전선언' 추진
종전선언만되면 미군철수는 당연히 주장할 것이고
북괴는 남한의 친북 종북과 함께 기습남침으로 공산화는 불 보듯 뻔함
방송들은 문재인은 올해 종전선언이 목표 라고 하는데
신문은 이상하에 전혀 보도 안합니다
한국당이야말도 즉각 문재인은 대한민국 공산화 노린다고 발표해야하는데
한마디 하는 인간들이 없습니다
*보도내용
문재인 대통령이 "올해 종전 선언이 목표"라고 말했다
싱가포르 일간지 '더 스트레이트 타임스'와 인터뷰했다
인도에 이어 싱가포르를 국빈방문하고 있는 문재인 대통령이 11일 “평화로운
한반도에서 남북이 공존공영하며 민족공동체를 회복해 나간다면 통일의 문은
자연스럽게 열릴 것”이라고 말했다. 그는 또 “올해 종전 선언을 하는 것이
우리 정부의 목표”라고 밝혔다.
[출처] *문재인은 운동권 반미수괴답게 북괴가 주장한 '종전선언' 추진
----------------------------------------------------------------------
無償교육·아동수당 공약으로 2009년 총선 돌풍 일으켰지만
경제 惡化·행정 무능력에 몰락… 이들의 실패를 反面敎師 삼아야
차학봉 산업1부장차학봉 산업1부장
일본 민주당은 정말 신기루처럼 사라졌다. 자유·진보 성향 정치인들이 1996년에 결성한 민주당은 2009년 총선에서 54년 집권의 자민당을 무너뜨렸다. '자민당 영구 집권론'이 나돌던 일본에서 경천동지였고 혁명이었다. 자민당 장기 집권에 대한 염증과 더불어 민주당이 제시한 공약이 서민들의 마음을 사로잡았다. 월 2만6000엔의 아동수당 지급, 공립 고교 무상 교육, 고속도로 통행료 무료화, 월 7만엔의 최저연금 보장, 75세 이상 고령자 무상 의료….
후진국에서나 통하는 '포퓰리즘 공약'이라는 비판이 있었다. 민주당은 무상 복지를 매니페스토(정책 공약)로 둔갑시켰고 불황에 지친 서민들은 열광했다. 민주당은 연간 170조원에 달하는 공약 재원을 토목공사 같은 공공사업 축소 등을 통해 세금을 절약해 충당하겠다고 약속했다.
집권 초 70%가 넘는 지지율을 자랑했다. 그러나 불과 39개월 만에 정권은 붕괴했다. 2012년 12월 총선에서 민주당은 57석의 미니 정당으로 전락했고 이젠 당명(黨名)조차 남아 있지 않다. 퇴출된 줄 알았던 자민당은 아베 신조 총리를 내세워 다시 장기 집권 가도를 달리고 있다.
민주당 소멸의 이유는 뭘까. 동(東)일본 대지진과 원전 사고, 중국과의 영토 갈등, 외교 정책 실패 등 돌발 변수가 있었지만 근본적으로 민주당의 이념 편향, 포퓰리즘, 탁상행정형 정책이 실패를 잉태했다.
첫째, 포퓰리즘 정책은 결코 성공할 수 없다. 민주당 정부는 무상 복지로 가계의 가처분소득을 늘려 소비를 확대, 경기를 회복시키는 '내수 주도형 성장'을 공언했다. 이론은 완벽해 보였다. 그러나 정부의 돈주머니는 화수분이 아니다. 공짜 점심은 없고 눈속임은 오래가지 않는다.
둘째, 반(反)기업·친(親)서민 정책의 역설이다. 노조를 지지 기반으로 한 민주당 정부는 일자리와 가계소득의 원천이 기업과 기업가 정신이라는 경제 원칙을 비웃었다. 수출 대기업들이 엔고(円高)로 경쟁력을 상실, 빈사상태에 빠졌다. 하지만 '친서민' 민주당 정부는 엔고로 수입 물가가 내려 서민 가계에 도움 된다는 환상에 빠졌다. 내수가 70%라는 일본이지만, 수출 대기업의 실적 악화는 서민 경제까지 냉동시켰다.
셋째, 민주당이 내세운 탈(脫)관료주의는 정부 행정의 무능력화를 초래했다. 국민의 입장을 대변하는 정치인이 정책을 주도하겠다며 행정을 총괄하는 차관급 회의를 폐지했다. 등 돌린 관료들이 부작용 많은 이념형 정책을 수수방관했고 민주당 정부는 무능 정부가 됐다. 관료들은 이념형 정책을 현실에 접목시키는 기술자들이다. 기술자가 등 돌리면 기계는 돌아가지 않는다.
2009년 한국의 야당 의원들은 일본 민주당의 압승에 흥분, 공약을 벤치마킹할 필요가 있다고 했다. 현 정부의 정책은 일본 민주당 정부와 유사한 측면이 있다. 일자리 정부를 자임했지만, 최악의 실업률을 기록하는 등 성과가 나지 않고 있다. 한국 경제의 견인차 역할을 해야 하는 대기업은 검찰, 국세청, 공정위의 전방위적 압박으로 위축돼 있다. 적폐로 몰린 관료 조직은 복지부동이다. 근로시간 단축 등 부작용이 뻔한 정책도 보완 대책이 없이 쏟 아지는 것이 그 증거일 것이다.
미·중 무역 전쟁으로 한국 경제는 폭퐁 속으로 진입하고 있다. 대공황에 버금가는 글로벌 경제 위기로 이어질 수 있지만, 정부도 정치권도 관심 자체가 없어 보인다. 일본 민주당 정부의 집권 과정이 아니라 몰락사를 연구해야 문재인 정부는 실패하지 않을 수 있다. 그래야 한국 경제도 활로를 찾을 수 있다. 시간이 얼마 남지 않았다.
[출처] 조선일보
문병신 경제파탄 탄핵임박, [경제포커스] 日 민주당의 '39개월 天下'
---->일본 민주당은 적어도 정치적 음모로 대통령직을 탈취하지도 않았고, 주체 사상의 노예들도 아니었고, 일본을 공산화 시키려는 생각도 없었다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
정치적 올바름과 경제의 관료화
기업이 기업가적인 진취성을 잃고 좌파들과의 정치적 동화를 택한다면, 그들은 관료주의의 병폐로 머지않아 쇠퇴하게 된다.
PC and the Bureaucratization of the Economy
•William L. Anderson
The recent incident at a Philadelphia Starbucks in which police arrested two black men who were waiting for a friend to join them has stirred a lot of controversy and brought bad publicity to the coffee chain. Facing demonstrations accusing the company of racism, the Starbucks management even closed some of its stores for one day in May so that employees can undergo training to deal with racial biases.
Given the company’s history of supporting progressive causes and politicians , and its outright forays into the nether regions of political correctness , one would think that the progressive establishment would cut the company a break, especially given that the manager of the Philadelphia store is known herself as being a “ social justice warrior .” Such things don’t matter to progressives, however, as one misstep from orthodoxy can trigger a cascade of Twitter mobs, “doxing” (activists quickly put the manager’s personal information online, subjecting her to death threats and forms of public shaming, not to mention her being removed from her job), and outright threats.
That American firms find themselves immersed in the intense political struggles no longer seems surprising. Google fired engineer James Darmore after he wrote a memo that questioned the company’s “diversity” policies, and Mozilla forced out CEO Brendan Eich because he had contributed money to an organization that opposed legalization of gay marriage. The New Yorker recently attacked the fast-food restaurant chain Chick-fil-A for even existing in New York City and for openly having Christian principles in the company’s organizational structure. Mayor Bill de Blasio demanded a boycott of the restaurant when it opened in New York; New Yorkers apparently failed to heed his demands and are buying a lot of chicken sandwiches, instead.
In the movie, “ Dr. Zhivago,” the revolutionary Strelnikov tells Zhivago: “The personal life is dead in Russia; history has killed it.” The only thing left, of course, is the political life. I saw a recent flyer publicizing a women’s study program at a university declare: “Feminism is about connecting the personal with the political,” and wondered if the writer someday would be as enthusiastic about killing political opponents as was the fictional Strelnikov.
These are the undeniable recent political developments in the USA, but what do they mean for a market economy or, to be more specific, an economy that is based upon relatively free prices, property rights, and entrepreneurship? The answers to such questions is simple: As long as promoters of political correctness seek to use the state to coerce others to accept PC viewpoints, the growth of PC in the workplace will be economically harmful and impose unnecessary costs upon producers and consumers.
First, and most important, we are not dealing with simple preferences. As pointed out, many people on the left refuse to patronize Chick-fil-A because the company’s leadership does not believe that gay marriage is compatible with Biblical principles. Furthermore, the company has contributed money to organizations that oppose gay marriage, which has enraged certain political factions, and especially some Democratic Party politicians.
The city government of Chicago, for example, in the past refused to permit Chick-fil-A to open a franchise in the Chicago city limits because of the company president’s stated beliefs. (The city has three locations today.) Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel justified the action by claiming that the business did not conform to “our values”:
Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.
Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, who was behind the blocking of Chick-fil-A opening a store in his ward, added:
They (Chick-fil-A) should be in the business of selling chicken, not promoting a political philosophy. If they want to come out with an anti-discrimination policy, put it in their employee handbook, post it in their restaurants…then we can have a discussion.
These are curious remarks, given that Moreno and Emmanuel are demanding not only that Chick-fil-A have a political philosophy, but one that agrees with the worldview of the Chicago politicians and those political groups with which they are aligned. Furthermore, the demands that businesses promote certain political viewpoints – or not be permitted to exist – have far-reaching consequences and have only a social downside.
Second, we are seeing businesses spending millions of dollars for “diversity” programs and “diversity officers, ostensibly to create “a work culture where all employees can be productive, respected, and feel safe in their work environments.” However, as the Damore incident demonstrates, Google was not looking for a more-productive environment but rather an environment of political conformity.
Given that “diversity officers” exist to promote a particular political philosophy, they are more accurately labeled “political officers,” and anyone familiar with the organizational structure of various Red Army factions in the former U.S.S.R. and other communist countries understands the actual role of the political officer. Those officers had one duty, and that was to enforce political conformity and to root out possible dissenters, and it does not stretch credulity to say that the gaggle of diversity officers burrowed into American businesses, colleges and universities do not have similar roles.
For every James Damore, there are many employees at U.S. firms that simply are silent about their political views, religious beliefs, or pro-life views on abortion. It is not worth the risk to them to test the bounds of tolerance in their workplaces.
In that regard, profit-oriented business organizations that hire political officers and demand political conformity in the workplace are mimicking government agencies, and it is here that we turn to Bureaucracy by Ludwig von Mises for guidance. Mises noted that a business cannot be run by bureaucratic management and simultaneously be successful in satisfying consumer demands and being profitable (at least in a market system). He writes:
…the manager is not a business executive but a bureaucrat, that is, an officer bound to abide by various instructions. The criterion of good management is not the approval of the customers resulting in an excess of revenue over costs but the strict obedience to a set of bureaucratic rules. The supreme rule of management is subservience to such rules.
Mises continues:
Every kind of government meddling with the business of private enterprise results in the same disastrous consequences. It paralyzes initiative and breeds bureaucratism.
While many of the firms in question have claimed that a “diverse” workforce also is more effective than one not diverse, one wonders why the “diversity” numbers have not reflected what the companies claim to be obvious. The people who own and run Google seem to seek factors of production that will satisfy their customers and provide profitability to the company. One cannot imagine the CEO claiming that it was hiring an officer to oversee diversity of hardware. Indeed, if hiring managers have been bringing in its “undiverse” workers simply to satisfy their own desires of making sure their hires “look like them,” then they have done their employer a disservice.
To put it another way, when these firms hire diversity officers, they are not doing so because they believe that since their inception they have been employing inferior workers, but rather because they wish to impose political directives upon their employees, directives that are in line with their own current political philosophy. However, once these companies go this route – basing production decisions upon political viewpoints – they chose to apply the bureaucratic model rather than one that is entrepreneurial.
At the present time, firms like Apple or Google are so successful and so productive that one cannot imagine their demise, and especially their demise as being self-imposed. Less than two generations ago, people were saying the same thing about General Motors and IBM. General Motors collapsed because it could not sustain its private employee welfare state model and IBM bet the house on mainframe computers. The larger point here is once companies abandon or limit their entrepreneurial focus and seek political or some other kind of conformity, they succumb to the sclerosis of bureaucracy.
Likewise, if firms like Chick-fil-A are denied the right even to exist because an executive with the firm disagrees with politicians about the Sexual Revolution, or if people are denied opportunities to work because their political views do not conform to the views of people in power, the result is lost economic opportunities, or what economists might call deadweight losses. These are real costs borne by real people, costs for which there is no economic return.
In the former U.S.S.R. and other communist countries, one’s political status has been one of the main determiners of someone’s employment and standard of living. One cannot argue that such a state of affairs made life better for consumers and workers in these states and one certainly cannot argue that imposition of such political directives will do anything but harm our own economy.
Bill Anderson is a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기