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

命運は尽きた…習氏、貿易戦争で“惨敗” 対米戦略は「歴史的な愚策」 食糧、資源、人材…決定的な“資源格差”を無視 国際投資アナリスト・大原浩氏緊急寄稿

운명은 다한...무역전쟁에서 시진핑 "참패" 대미 전략은 "역사적인 愚策" 음식, 자원, 인재 ... 결정적 "자원 격차" 무시 국제투자 애널리스트 大原浩氏緊 긴급기고

中国との貿易戦争で２２兆円強の制裁関税第３弾の発動に向けた手続きを終えた米トランプ政権, 残り約３０兆円分を含む「全輸入品」への制裁も示唆するなど攻勢を強めている。

관세 제 3탄 절차를 마친 트럼프 정권. 나머지 약 30조엔을 포함 "총 수입"에 강력한 제재를 시사하고 있다. 

시진핑 정권도 대항조치를 취했지만 "더 이상은 운명이 다했다" 보는 것이 중국경제와 시장에 정통한 국제 투자분석가 오하라 히로시의 분석

식량과 자원인력 등에 결정적인 차이가 있음에도 불구하고 시진핑이 미국에 칼날을 겨누는 것은 "역사적인 우책"이라고 기고하고 있다.

세계최대의 산유국이라고 하면 사우디을 떠올리는 독자가 많다고 생각하지만 현재는 러시아이며, 국제 에너지기구 (IEA)에 따르면 2019년에는 미국이 세계최대의 산유국이 될 전망이다.

[출처] [외신] 시진핑 운명을 다했다. 무역전쟁에서 참패

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

차명진

문재앙-김정은 돼지새키의

판문점 선언 비준 표결하는

날은 대한민국 안보의 조종

(弔鐘)을 울리는 날이자,

가짜 애국자들이 자신의

정체를 드러내는 날!!

게시자 주) 

공산주의자들의 적화전략인 '통일전선

전술'을 구사하고 있는 문재앙 일당들의

속임수에 이미 홀라당 넘어간 사기탄핵

주범 사기탄핵당 인간쓰레기 잡놈 김성태

靑의 꼼수… '판문점 비준'

정상회담 이후 재논의

"18~20일 3차 정상회담 통해 '동력'

확보한 뒤 다시 추진"… 전략적 판단에 야권 '합의'

판문점선언 비준 표결이 연기됐다.
어쨌건 그날은 대한민국 안보가 조종

(弔鐘)을 울리는 날이다.

동시에 이 땅에 존재하는 가짜 애국자들이

자신들의 정체를 있는 그대로 드러내는 날이다.

민주당은

통과 못 시켜 안달이고...
바미당은

서두르면 안된단다.
한국당은

비용 문제도 따져보고 국민 의견도 확인한 후에 하잔다.

민주당은 원래 종북이고
바미당은 기회주의자들이니 그렇다 치자.

한국당이 큰일이다.
4.27선언 자체가 엉터리인데 무슨

비용이니 국민동의니 하는 조건이 필요한가?

그럼 돈도 되고 여론조사가 찬성이

높다면 찬성해주겠다는 건가?

한국당은 이래야 한다.
"김정은한테 핵탄두와 미사일 진짜

폐기하고 대남 적화노선을 포기하겠다는

합의문 받아와라.

그때 비준도장 찍어 주겠다."

(끝)

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

이 글을 읽는 당신은 박근혜대통령의 탄핵이 언제부터 거론되었다고 생각하는가?

JTBC의 최순실보도?  테블릿?

아니다.

이미 2016년 8월 15일 중국 인민일보에 박근혜 대통령에 대한 탄핵 경고가 처음 게시되기 시작했다.
당시엔 최순실도 테블릿도 세상에 존재하지 않있던 시기다.

그들은 그럼 무엇때문에 탄핵협박을 했나?  당연히 사드배치 때문이었다. 
당시 민주당 김상곤의 발언과 콜라보를 이루며 박통에게 탄핵의 협박을 가하기 시작했던거다.

그렇다면 중공 시진핑이 기획하고  북한 김정은이 써포트한 박통 탄핵을  대한민국의 쓰레기 언론과 쓰레기 정치인들이 
어떻게 콤비네이션을 이뤄  성공했는지에 대해선  2편에서 계속하겠다. (발췌)

[출처] 박근혜대통령 탄핵사태의 본질 - 1부

---> 나는 박 대통령 탄핵이 문죄인이 여적죄로 공격을 받는 상황에서 그것을 돌파하기 위한 민주당 좌파들의 공세라고 생각했고, 또 그렇게 썼다. 그리고 여기에 북한도 가담하고 있을 거라고 믿었다. 

하지만 위의 글에서 필자는 사드 배치가 중국의 전략과 충돌하는 과정에서 일어난 일이라고 주장하고 있다. 이런 추론도 매우 흥미있다. 하여튼 탄핵 사태는 여러가지 요인이 복합되어 한꺼번에 폭발한 것이라고 보는 게 타당하다. 

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

김진태 트위터

 요즘 우파 유튜브 방송이 인기를 끌자 정부가 이를 손보려고 나섰다. 민주당은 방송법개정안을 제출했다. 이 법이 통과되면 1인방송도 공중파와 마찬가지로 심의대상이 되고, 마음에 안들면 없애버릴 수도 있다. 
  
  핑계는 1인방송에 가짜뉴스가 많다는 것인데, 과연 현정권이 그런 말을 할 자격이 있는지 되묻고 싶다. 보수정권 하에서는 김어준 나꼼수를 없앨 상상도 하지 않았고, 나꼼수는 오히려 그때가 전성기였다.
  
  우리 언론은 용비어천가 물개박수 언론이 돼버린 지 오래다. 그렇게 살다보니 고분고분하지않은 1인방송을 못 참는 거다. 중국정부가 최근 교회 십자가 4천 개를 일시에 철거한 일이 떠오른다. 자신들의 체제에 위협이 된다고 생각하면 무슨 짓이든 서슴지 않는다. 
  
  듣기 싫은 소리도 참고 들어야 한다. 모두가 찬양하는 건 최고인민회의에서나 하는 짓이다. 미국 수정헌법 제1조가 언론자유인 것을 기억하자.
  

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

좌파 정부가 무서워 돈 가진 사람들이 투자를 하지 않고, 오히려 외국으로 나갈 궁리만 하고 있는데, 경제가 살아날 수 있을까? 

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

문화다원주의에 넘어간 대학들이 좌파들의 "정치적으로 올바른" 요구에 굴복해 커리큘럼을 오염시키고 있다. 학문을 진실의 탐구가 아닌, 인종적 다양성을 추구하는 장으로 변질시키고 있다. 

Duped by diversity: Colleges corrupt their curriculum to satisfy modern progressive sensibilities  

By HEATHER MAC DONALD

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

서구 사회가 경험주의와 합리주의와 관용의 세계에서 부족적이고 직관적이며 증거에 눈감아 버리는 사회로 회귀하고 있다. 

Dan Hannan: The West is losing liberalism

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

과거에 화학무기를 사용한 측은 시리아가 아니라 알카에다라는 주장.  

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

그 많던 쌀은 어디로 갔을까?   출처: 일베

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

교육은 권리가 아니라 경제적 재화이다.

시장에는 이미 Coursera, Khan Academy, and Lynda 등과 같은 사립 교육 기관들이 있다.

정부가 서비스를 제공하는 경우에 관료들의 무능력은 더 많은 예산과 더 큰 관료적 특권을 부여받는다.

 

Education Is Not a Right

 

José Niño

 

Among issues in American politics, public education remains a sacred cow for many voters.

 

Political elites incessantly remind us that public education is a fundamental pillar of civilization. Without public education, we would continue to be uneducated savages.

 

All the innovations we see before us like the Internet would not be possible if it weren’t for the state-provided education pipeline.

 

Or so we are told.

 

Misunderstanding Rights

Academics and politicians assert that education is a “right,” thus compelling the state to step in and maintain a monopoly on the service.

 

Education, despite what conventional wisdom says, is an economic good, not a right. By definition, economic goods are scarce and satisfy the necessities and desires of consumers. Unfortunately, myopic elected officials often ignore this inconvenient truth.

 

This misconception emerges from a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a right, specifically the overemphasis of positive rights over negative rights. Professor Aeon Skoble does an excellent job in breaking down the differences between positive and negative rights:

 

“Fundamentally, positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions. If we are free and equal by nature, and if we believe in negative rights, any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements.”

 

In sum, negative rights like life, liberty, and property prohibit others, especially government entities, from interfering with their persons or property.

 

Positive rights hold individual rights in contempt. Interventionists and politicians use abstractions such as “society” to justify the forceful confiscation of resources from one group of people to another group of people without any form of compensation or consent.

 

Since the emergence of the Bismarckian welfare state, positive rights have formed the pillar of public policymaking in the West and countless other countries. From education down to pensions, there exists a religious devotion to the idea the state must mandate individuals to either participate in a certain activity or be forced to give up their income to provide another individual with said good or service.

 

Free Education is Not so Free After All

Nearly two centuries of government involvement in education has conditioned citizens to believe that not only is education an entitlement, but it is somehow free. This outlook is myopic at best.

 

A substantial segment of the population doesn’t even use public education. Those who opt out of public education like homeschoolers and private schoolers are still forced to subsidize others who attend public schools. As Frederic Bastiat observed, the “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

 

Bastiat’s astute observation, unfortunately, flies over the heads of the masses, who have been duped by politicians and the intelligentsia into believing these services are “free” and must be provided by the collective whole of society.

 

The real tragedy in this equation is the misallocation of resources that would otherwise have been used for more productive activities. People see the public schools, but they don’t look beyond stage one. They overlook the productive endeavors that could have been created had that money not been redistributed in the first place.

 

It’s no stretch to say that under a system where people can keep their money they still have the ability to build their own educational arrangements on the free market.

 

Therein lies the beauty of an economy free from government coercion. Entrepreneurial ventures would emerge spontaneously and tailor their services according to consumer preferences, not by bureaucratic design or the whims of political elites.

 

Education is another Market Service

There is nothing magical about education; it functions like any other good or service. For most professions there is an inherent demand for educated workers. So, it stands to reason that people will work in their own self-interest to educate themselves or build educational institutions to give others the necessary tools for joining the work force.

 

In fact, there already exist parallel educational institutions such as Coursera, Khan Academy, and Lynda where people can acquire high demand skills at reasonable prices.

 

Not to mention alternative forms of schooling like Montessori education also give us a sneak preview to what education would look like on the free market.

 

The Never-Ending Cycle of Bureaucracy

But when we start declaring everything a right, thus requiring government involvement, a new set of problems emerge.

 

When the state appropriates a sector of the economy, it not only monopolizes it, the state destroys any semblance of economic calculation. Destroying the ability of property owners to compares costs and gains, or discern profits and losses, ensures incoherent economic decision-making and a sub-optimal experience for consumers of said products or services.

 

This observation has gone from the theoretical to the practical.

 

In the United States, the Department of Education’s budget started out at $14.5 billion in 1979 and currently stands close to $70 billion. When other spending initiatives like the school breakfast and lunch and Head Start programs are included, the total comes out to nearly $100 billion .

 

Completely disregarding indicators of American government schools underperforming against international competitors, the federal government continues its futile quest intervening in education.

 

In the land of government services, incompetence is rewarded with bigger budgets and larger bureaucratic privileges. On the other hand, free enterprise responds to consumers, who have the power to put organizations out of business if their services are not up to par.

 

The concept of education having to enjoy a government monopoly exemplifies the arrogance of political actors who think that free people are incapable of bringing educational services to the free market.

 

We have the potential of living in a Jetson’s world of education, but the political class insists on using Flintstones practices like state coercion to provide education.

 

Jose Nino is a Venezuelan-American political activist based in Fort Collins, Colorado.

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

사회주의가 실패하는 4가지 이유

사회주의경제 계획의 오류는, 자본주의 경영권을 사회주의 관료들이 차지한 후에도, 경영이 이전처럼 계속될 거라고 믿은 것이다.

사회주의의 현실은 명령과 복종이며, 사회주의의 본질은 전체주의적 폭정이다.

 

4 Reasons Why Socialism Fails

 

Antony P. Mueller

 

The new “democratic socialists” want to make their followers believe that one could redistribute wealth and income and socialize a large part of the economy without harming production and productivity. They claim that a comprehensive control of the economy by the government would bring more justice and more prosperity. The democratic socialists want more planning and less market. Yet this postulate ignores that socialism does not fail by accident or circumstance. Socialism fails because it suffers from four fundamental design defects.

 

First, socialism eradicates private property and markets and thus eliminates rational calculation.

Second, socialism allows soft budgets, so there is no mechanism in place to discard inefficient production methods.

Third, abolishing private property and replacing it by the state distorts the incentives.

Four, the socialist system with its absence of private property and of free markets inhibits the economic coordination of the system of division of labor and capital.

 

The Importance of Market Prices

Socialism cannot bring prosperity because it destroys the market functions of private property. Under socialism, private ownership of the means of production no longer exists, and thus there are no market prices for capital goods available. Institutionally, socialism consists in abolishing the market economy and replacing it with a planned economy. By doing away with private property of the means of production, one wipes-out market information and valuation. Even if the socialist administration puts price tags on the consumer goods, and the people may own consumer goods, there is no economic orientation about the relative scarcity of capital goods.

 

Many supporters of socialism suppose that business management is nothing more than a kind of registration or simple bookkeeping. Vladimir Lenin believed that the knowledge of reading and writing, and some expertise in the use of the basic arithmetic operations and some training in accounting, would be enough for the conduct of business operations. The socialists promote engineering and science, but they believe that there is no need for the entrepreneur. The regime may spend heavily on education but when there is no entrepreneurial economy, the people will stay poor, nevertheless.

 

The Role of Scarcity

The socialists ignore scarcity. They assume that a plan could stipulate the allocation of goods and services according to needs and wants. Yet the planners must answer how such a plan should find its standards of valuation. Without prices and markets, there is no orientation about which factors of production are more and which are less valuable. The socialist planners have no knowledge of the costs of the production process. Without markets, the prevailing value structure remains unknown.

 

Supply in relation to want makes goods valuable. In a market economy, the relative prices show the degrees of scarcity. By observing the prices, the market participants receive the information that guides them to align their economic decisions to the market signals. The price system informs about relative scarcities. There is no need for a comprehensive system of detailed information about the origin and nature of the scarcity beyond the prices to make a rational decision. The price system reduces complexity for the individual decision maker to the single number of the price. In a market economy, the economic participants need only partial knowledge to act rationally. In capitalism, the motivation to gain profits and to avoid costs work as an incentive to behave rationally. In a market economy, the prices provide information and incentives simultaneously for the seller and the buyer.

 

All production faces the problem of an almost unlimited number of ways how to produce a good. One can manufacture a commodity with very different raw materials, technologies, and combinations of the production factors and in an endless variety of designs.

 

Setting Priorities

Along with the technological feasibility of a project, one must calculate its profitability. Without costs in relation to sales, a technical evaluation makes no sense. That a project is technically viable does not mean that its realization is also worthwhile. What appears efficient from a technical point of view need not be so in terms of economic expediency. With costs left out of the consideration, socialist production is blind to the risk of producing goods that cost more than they are worth. In a socialist economy, even a benevolent dictator could not provide the right mix of goods in terms of price and quality

 

Socialists suppose that to implant their rule on the economy all that is necessary is to socialize the private companies, replace the management, and install worker councils, and the new economic order would flourish. The early socialists expected that abundance would follow not least because now the workers would get what before went into the hands of the capitalists as profits. Yet the socialists ignored that the socialization of the means of production was just the beginning. They failed miserably in running the economy.

 

The error of socialist economic planning is to assume that business management could also continue as before after socialist operators take over the capitalist management. While the socialist regime can train administrators and engineers and put the party members in the position of directors, these new leaders cannot decide according to relative scarcities because there is no longer a private property-based entrepreneurial price system available.

 

The reality of socialism is the command and obedience. Without orientation from markets and prices, brute force rules the allocation of the goods. The claim to combine socialism and democracy is as much a fraud as the assertion that socialism would bring prosperity. Socialism’s true face is totalitarian despotism .

 

It is no wonder that even a degenerate capitalism produces more prosperity than the best socialism. Therefore, the task ahead cannot be to remove capitalism in favor of socialism but to make capitalism better. In other words: make it more capitalist.

 

German-born Antony Mueller teaches economics at the Federal University of Sergipe (UFS) in Brazil.

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