김병준
박정희 전 대통령은 국가가 경제와 산업을 이끌어 나가는 국가주의적 성장모델을 바탕으로 한강의 기적을 일으켰지만, 시장과 시민사회가 이렇게 성장한 상황에서는 더 이상 이 모델은 작동할 수 없다. 이제는 시장과 시민사회가 성장의 축이 돼야 한다.
불행하게도 우리는 박정희 전 대통령의 성공신화 이후 새로운 성장모델을 만들지 못하고 있다. 이제 또 다른 성장모델을 만들어야 하고, 이를 바탕으로 또 한 번의 기적을 만들어야 한다
새로운 모델의 중심에는 시장과 공동체의 역할이 있어야 한다. 국가주도가 아니라 자율의 정신 아래 국민 한 사람, 한 사람이 그 잠재력을 다 발휘할 수 있도록 해야 한다.
국가는 시장과 공동체를 보다 자유롭게 하는 한편, 시장과 공동체가 할 수 없는 일들, 즉 약자를 보호하고 공평한 기회와 공정한 질서를 확립하고 국민의 안전과 평화를 지키는 일 등에 더욱 주력해야 한다.
----> 김 교수는 좌파라서 그런지 잘 나가다가 삼천포로 빠지는 경향이 있다. 박정희 대통령의 성장 모델이 수명을 다했다는 데에는 누구나 공감할 것이다. 따라서 이제는 시장이 자율적으로 행동하도록 풀어놓아야 한다. 그런데 마지막에 국가가 나서서, 약자를 보호하고 공평한 기회와 공정한 질서를 확립하고 국민의 안전과 평화를 지키는 일 등에 주력해야 한다는 잘못된 결론이 나왔다.
약자를 보호하고, 공정한 기회를 주려고 하는 순간, 정부의 개입과 관료들의 행패를 막아낼 수가 없게 된다. 최저 임금이나 각종 복지 혜택이 바로 약자를 보호하겠다는 국가의 개입에서 나온 것들이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------
2018年大運如何？
2018年是戊戌年，按照五運六氣的預測，五運之中，是火太過，這是最主要的中運，也是大運，這個火太過會影響整個一年的氣候。火太過，說白了就是夏天會非常熱，這個我們必須首先明白，提早有所準備。大家都知道，2017年的春天是非常明顯的倒春寒，因為2017年是木不及，所以中運的表現，最明顯的就是對應的季節。正是因為有了主運，或者說中運，我們才能確定這一年的主運如何。
很多人預測五運六氣，不看主運，只看六氣，這也是導致預測不準的根本原因。因為黃帝內經中並沒有主客運結合的特點描述，只有主客氣的特點描述，所以很多人只能根據內經現有文字加以擴展，很多時候就會大打折扣了。
2018년의 오운육기에 이미 火太過로 예상이 되어 있었다. 지금의 폭염은 지구 온난화의 결과라기 보다는, 60년을 주기로 반복되는 날씨 패턴의 한 예일 뿐이다.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
쓰레기를 소각하기 전까지는 이 문제가 계속될 것이다. 하지만 환경론자들이 이를 가로막고 있다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
정부를 기업처럼 운영할 수는 없다
기업은 소비자와의 자발적인 거래를 통해 수익을 창출해야 하지만, 정부는 내지 않으면 감옥에 보내겠다는 위협 아래 세금을 걷는다. 이것이 기업과 정부의 가장 큰 차이점이다.
기업가가 일단 정부 기관에 임명되면, 그는 더 이상 기업가가 아니라 규정과 규제를 지키는 관료가 될 뿐이다.
No, You Can't Run a Government "Like a Business"
•Brian Balfour
For several decades a growing chorus of voices has been insisting that government can become more efficient and effective if it were “run like a business.”
For instance, former New York mayor Fiorello La Guardia in 1938 promised to “run [the government] as any honest man attempts to run his business,” while many of us remember 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot injecting the “like a business” promise virtually every time he spoke.
More recently, many invested hope that Donald Trump’s business experience would enable him to govern more efficiently, while his senior advisor (and son-in-law) Jared Kushner declared “the government should be run like a great American company” and that “our hope is that we can achieve successes and efficiencies for our customers, who are the citizens.”
Such notions, however well worn, are completely misguided. Business and government are far too different, and the differences help reveal the dangers of state control growing into further reaches of society.
The most crucial and substantive difference between government and businesses in a competitive, market-based economy is that the government collects its revenue under threat of punishment, while businesses must earn their revenue through voluntary transactions with customers.
If consumers are not willing to pay a price for a good or service sufficient to exceed the costs of producing that product, the business will fail. Conversely, government doesn’t need to earn its revenue from people who value what they receive in return for more than what they pay. Force is their motivator, rather than the mutual benefit that exists in the voluntary business/consumer transaction.
Moreover, the management of a government bureaucracy differs greatly from that of a business. In his 1944 book Bureaucracy, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises exposed the stark and unbridgeable differences between the two.
A business manager’s main goal, Mises pointed out, is to make profits. That means generating revenue that exceeds expenses. This is very clear, and can be concisely calculated. Because of this ease of calculation, each division in the business can measure whether it has a positive or negative effect on the company’s bottom line.
“The only directive that the general manager gives to the men whom he entrusts with the management of the various sections, departments, and branches is: make as much profit as possible,” Mises wrote.
As such, the general manager has no need to bother with the intricate details of each section’s management, and in turn can “assign to each section’s management a great deal of independence.”
The result is what matters most, and each department manager can exercise his discretion over how to achieve the best results.
Compare that, as Mises did, to the role of a provincial governor appointed by a king. To prevent the local deputy from enforcing his own arbitrary decisions and rules, Mises noted, “the king tries to limit the governor’s powers by issuing directives and instructions.”
The local governor’s free discretion is severely limited, replaced with a duty to comply with what can quickly develop into numerous complicated decrees and codes. “Their main concern is to comply with the rules and regulations, no matter whether they are reasonable or contrary to what was intended,” Mises described. “The first virtue of an administrator is to abide by the codes and decrees. He becomes a bureaucrat.”
Bureaucratic management, therefore, becomes first and foremost compliance with legislation — the rules and regulations passed down from above. Individual discretion and initiative is eliminated. Such a process enables a centralized authority to strengthen its grip over vast numbers of people.
While Mises used a medieval setting for his example, he emphasized that such characteristics defined modern administrative government as well.
Moreover, “success” in bureaucratic management is virtually impossible to define, because there is no economic calculation.
“In public administration there is no connection between revenue and expenditure. Public services are spending money only,” Mises observed.
Revenue to bureaucrats comes from taxes, taken thru coercion. There is no market price for “public” goods and services, resulting in no way to know which are most highly valued. Calculating value and trade-offs in a government bureaucracy becomes impossible in any economic sense.
In a business, however, customers voluntarily pay for the good or service being produced. The market price shows which goods and services are most highly valued by consumers. Because resources can be directed to where they are most urgently desired, waste can be minimized.
It is for these reasons, Mises argued, that it would be vain to seek reforms by electing or appointing businessmen as heads of government agencies. “The quality of being an entrepreneur is not inherent in the personality of the entrepreneur; it is inherent in the position which he occupies in the framework of market society,” he wrote. Once a businessman is appointed head of a government agency, he is no longer an entrepreneur, but a bureaucrat whose main objective becomes “compliance with rules and regulations.”
Calls for finding efficiencies in government by electing or appointing people to “run it like a business” are futile. Bureaucratic management necessarily involves rigid adherence to rules and statutes, while individual initiative and creativity are snuffed out. Centralized authority stifles more localized decision making and discretion. Meanwhile, the lack of economic calculation makes waste inevitable.
Citizens need to be vigilant in fighting against the expansion of government largess, in part because it places larger segments of society under bureaucratic management and results in wasteful use of scarce resources and more authoritarian rule.
Brian Balfour is Executive Vice President for the Civitas Institute, a free market advocacy organization in Raleigh, North Carolina
사라 정이라는 한국계 미국인. 좌파에 속하는 그녀가 과거 백인을 비난하는 트윗이 발견되어, 논란의 주인공이 되었다.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기