SNS상 유포되고 있는 내용에 따르면 박근혜전대통령의 체중이 37킬로그램이란사실이 충격 그 자체가 아닌가? 이 소문이 사실이라면 피골상접(皮骨相接)이 따로 있을 것인가? 
---->조갑제닷컴의 문무대왕의 글에서 발견한 문장인데, 사실이라면 정말 좌파들에 대해서는 분노가 박 대통령에 대해서는 연민이 느껴진다. 하늘에 계신 아버지 박정희 대통령의 혼령이어, 당신의 딸을 보호해주소서!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
김문수 페이스북

문재인 대통령의 대북특사가 뭘 하자는 사람들인지 모르겠습니다.
  첫째, 대한민국의 대북특사인지? 김정은의 대남특사인지? 그것도 모자라 김정은의 대미특사까지 하려는 것 같습니다.
  둘째, '북핵 폐기' 특사인지? '종전선언, 경제지원' 특사인지?
  셋째, '김정은 기쁨조'인지? '대한민국 지킴이'인지? 보면 볼수록, 저는 헷갈립니다.
--------------------------------------------------------
조갑제

대한민국을 김정은이 합법적으로 약탈하도록 하자는 게 판문점 선언의 국회비준동의!

북한식 문법으로 써진 판문점선언을 국회에서 비준동의를 하게 되면 대한민국은 북한노동당정권의 부하가 되는 길을 공식화, 법제화하게 된다. 판문점 선언엔 수많은 독소조항이 있는데 '민족경제'라는 甘言利說이 그것이다. 
------------------------------------------------------------
이동복


필자가 얼마 전 <조갑제닷컴>에 게재한 바 있지만 문제의 <판문점 선언>과 1973년 4월30일자 <베트남에서의 전쟁 종결과 평화 회복을 위한 파리평화협정>의 문면을 비교, 검토해 보면 두 ‘문건’은 사실상 ‘이란성(二卵性) 쌍둥이’라는 사실을 간파하는 것이 어렵지 않다. 
두 문건은 모두 ‘민족’·‘자주’·‘화해’·‘화합’·‘단결’·‘외세’·‘평화’ 등 ‘통일전선’ 전략의 틀 안에서 공산주의자들이 철저하게 이념적으로 오염시킨 어휘(語彙)들을 구사하여 “외세 간섭 배제”라는 미명(美名) 아래 미국과의 안보 동맹 체제를 무력화 내지 해체시키고 나아가서 폭력에 의한 체제 전복이나 아니면 무력에 의한 정복의 방법으로 공산화 통일을 추구하는 데 대한 ‘면허장(免許狀)’에 지나지 않는 것이다. (발췌)
-------------------------------------------------------------

손병호

[치매환자의 흥분상태]

文이 탁자를 넘은 저 믿을 수 없는

행동에 대한 소식이 지금 급속도로

확산되고 있습니다.

그래서인지 나의 病歷(병력)을 아는

지인들로부터 저 상태를 묻는 전화를

20여통 받았어요.

국민들이 대단히 당황하고 충격을

받았다는 증거입니다.

치매환자가 흥분 상태가 되면 저런 행동을 합니다.

이번에 5인의 졸개들이 평양에 가서

혼밥 만찬으로 치욕을 당했지만,

文은 김정은이 “9월 18일”회동을 승인한

것에 고무되어 흥분상태를 제어하지

못하고 회의하다 말고 책상을 넘어가서

오줌누러 가는등 저도 지가 뭘했는지

몰랐을 겁니다.

아마 그 장면은 내일부터 해외토픽

사진으로 퍼져나갈 겁니다.

...

사실 文은 지금 흥분 할만 합니다.

지금 文과 주사팔의 모든 구멍은 막혔어요.

그 어디에도 활로가 보이지 않습니다.

경제폭망,

석탄과 쌀의 이동으로 받는 의심,

추락하는 지지율,

뒤틀리는 인사,

조여 오는 대미관계,

껄끄런 이해찬의 등장,

좌빨 내부의 암투시작,등등

무엇 하나 희망적인게 없습니다.

文이 현재 기댈 수 있는 것은

오직 북한 뿐입니다.

김정은과 한판쑈를 벌려 추락하는

지지율을 끌어 올리는 구멍만 보입니다.

그런데 文의 그런 사정을 훤히 아는

김정은이 호락호락 文을 구원해줄지

조마조마 했었는데, 졸개들이 가서

9.18회동을 타결하고 왔다니 흥분 할만도 합니다.

책상을 넘던 장면도...

임종석이 회의를 주재하고, 막상 회의를

주재해야 할 文은 옆에서 멍때리고 앉아

있다가 갑자기 벌떡 일어나서 그런 추태를 벌였다는군요.

어쨌든 文의 현상태로는 10일만에

좋아져서 평양에 갈 수 있는 정신은 안되는 것으로 보입니다.

문은 정식 치매로 보입니다.

저 정도면 완치 힘들어요

내가 치매를 1년간 앓아봐서 압니다.

어떤 순간이 되면 이 상황이 현실이

아니라 꿈을 꾸는 것 같아요.

그러면 이런 현상이 일어납니다.

그리고 평소에도 한곳에 꼿히면

그것 이외엔 다른 것은 일체 생각 못해요.

나는 기차에서 내리는 문은 옆뎅이에

있다는 생각만 했어요. 뒤나 앞으로

가야만 출구가 있다는 생각을 못합니다.

그래서 문이 의자 뒤로 돌아서 화장실로

간다는 것을 생각해내지 못한 겁니다. ...

그냥 화장실 입구가 눈에 보이는

오직 직선거리만 생각한 겁니다.

문은 화장실을 가기 위한 길이 비록

험난하지만 물건너고 산넘고 책상을

넘더라도 오줌눌 생각만한 겁니다.

저 상태가 되면 아마 책상보다

더한 것도 넘어가려 했을겁니다.

나는 일시성인 야매 치매라서 버~얼써

완치되어 현재 나이롱 환자지만,

문은 정식 치매로 보입니다.

저 정도면 완치 힘들어요

---> 화면을 보니, 책상으로 문죄인의 길을 막아놓아서, 문이 돌발적으로 그걸 넘어가려다 생긴 해프닝 같기도 하다. 참모들은 문죄인이 책상 안쪽으로 들어와서, 일일이 악수를 하리라고 예상하지 못했을 수도 있다. 

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

오직 법의 통치만이 가난의 악순환을 깰 수 있다.

법의 지배가 확립되지 않은 나라는 아무리 원조를 퍼부어도 모두 정치가와 관료들의 주머니로 들어가고 말았다. 가난한 나라들은 무엇보다 법의 지배가 먼저 실행되어야 한다.

법의 지배를 실현하기 위한 방법으로 차터 도시charter cities나, 국가의 사법부를 선진국에 외주를 하는 방법 등이 제기되고 있다.

 

Only the Rule of Law Can Break the Poverty Cycle

By Marian L. Tupy | @HumanProgress

 

 

How do you stimulate economic growth in poor countries with faulty institutions? In the past, some thought foreign aid was the answer. But, as we have found out over the past 60 years or so, foreign aid cannot spur growth in countries lacking the rule of law, property rights and accountable government.

 

In many places, the Democratic Republic of Congo is a prime example, billions of dollars in aid have stolen by rapacious government officials. Meanwhile, ordinary people are just as poor, if not poorer, as they were in colonial times.

 

 

Since institutions, such as the rule of law, are an important component of economic development, faulty ones must be fixed. The problem is how.

 

Professors Daron Acemoglu from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and James Robinson from the University of Chicago wrote what many consider a definitive account of the importance of good institutions in their 2012 book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty.

 

The authors note that good, or “inclusive”, institutions allow ordinary citizens to participate in the political and economic life of the country. That leads to greater equality before the law, which, in turn, provides an incentive structure that rewards talent and creativity.

 

The rule of law, in turn, reduces the likelihood of corruption and abuse of power, by substituting discretionary power with general rules. Moreover, a functioning rule of law necessitates separation of powers. It removes legislative and judicial functions from the executive, such as the Zairean dictator Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga (which translates as: the warrior who knows no defeat because of his endurance and inflexible will and is all powerful, leaving fire in his wake as he goes from conquest to conquest), and returns them to elected legislators and independent judiciary.

 

But are good institutions sufficient for growth? Professor Deirdre McCloskey of the University of Illinois at Chicago disagrees and argues in a trilogy of books on “The Bourgeois Era” that ideas and rhetoric (holding innovators and entrepreneurs in high esteem, for example) are also key to enrichment. As she explains:

 

“A big change in the common opinion about markets and innovation, I claim, caused the Industrial Revolution, and then the modern world. The change occurred during the 17th and 18th centuries in northwestern Europe. More or less suddenly the Dutch and British and then the Americans and the French began talking about the middle class, high or low — the ‘bourgeoisie’ — as though it were dignified and free. The result was modern economic growth.”

Whatever the case may be, no one would argue that a corrupt dictatorship with arbitrary enforcement of laws and regulations, and shaky property rights, is a good candidate for growth. So a country’s institutions must be changed from bad to good.

 

But this is a tricky business, and there is no effective blueprint for the creation of good institutions. Parts of the world, Africa comes to mind, have actually experienced profound institutional deterioration after independence and are finding it very difficult to change course.

 

Paul Romer, Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of the World Bank thinks “charter cities” might provide an answer. Under Romer’s plan, a developing country would set “aside a tract of land for a new charter city. This charter city would be administered by a developed third-party guarantor government, and citizens from the host country (and maybe other countries) could move in and out as they please. The point of the charter cities idea is to give citizens the choice about where they want to live and to provide the basic rules and amenities required for economic growth.”

 

The government of the notoriously corrupt Honduras has attempted to follow a similar idea, but the effort has stalled in the Honduran Supreme Court.

Another option would be to “outsource” parts of the judiciary in a developing country to another country which has a well-developed rule of law, or even private arbitration. Such an arrangement can be effective in convincing foreign and domestic investors that a particular place is safe for investment. It might have echoes of a bygone era, but a number of British overseas territories and former colonies have retained Britain’s Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as their court of last resort.

 

 

To be fair, appeals to the Privy Council have worked better in some countries, such as St Lucia, than others, such as Jamaica. After all, decisions of the Privy Council still need to be enforced by the local, often corrupt or dysfunctional, government. But, the impact of changes to legal arrangements, such as the one mentioned above, can be dramatic. Consider Belize, which permitted appeals to the Privy Council in the past, but then replaced its highest legal authority with the Caribbean Court of Justice in 2003. Its rule of law score has suffered as a result.

Since the rule of law took thousands of years to evolve in the West, it is hardly surprising it is yet to blossom in those developing countries whose history and traditions have been very different. That’s why if they cannot transpose the rule of law from abroad, they should consider outsourcing it to independent parties elsewhere. Yes, national pride may end up a little dented, but surely it’s far more shameful to remain mired in perpetual poverty.

 

This first appeared in CapX.

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

지난날 식사 준비는 하루가 걸리는 고된 노동이었지만, 지금은 취미가 되었다.

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

좌파들은 유럽을 동경하지만, 알고보면 미국이 훨씬 좋다

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

“경제는 엔진이다”라는 수사는 왜 틀린 것인가.

경제는 엔진이나 기계라기보다는 복잡한 생태계와도 같다.

시장은 분업 체제 하에서 상호 협조하는 다양한 개인들의 상호작용에 의해서 작동되는 과정이다. 시장을 변화시키는 세력은 개인들의 가치 판단과 그 가치 판단에 따른 행동들이다.

경제를 규제한다는 말은 개인의 행동과 선택을 금지한다는 뜻이다.

좌파들은 시장을 ‘혼돈’으로 보고, 중앙의 감독관에 의해 의식적인 통제가 있어야 한다고 간주한다. 만일 그렇게 될 경우, 좌파들이 스스로 현명한 감독관이 되어 부족한 자원들을 배분하게 된다. 하지만 그런 사회에서 사람들은 장기판의 졸(卒)처럼 권력자들에 의해 이리저리 휘둘리게 된다.

 

Why the "Economy Is an Engine" Metaphor is So Wrong

 

Brian Balfour

 

Is the economy “overheating,” or is it “humming” along smoothly? Should the Federal Reserve “prime the pump” to spur investment, or “pump the brakes?”

 

Such questions of course use an engine metaphor to describe the economy. But why?

 

In fact, the economy is more like a complex ecosystem rather than an engine or machine.

 

Indeed, a machine is consciously designed to accomplish one main purpose, and its parts fitted together to achieve that objective.

 

The economy, in contrast, is comprised of a complex, constantly evolving web of transactions between buyers and sellers. Elaborate and intricate patterns of production and exchange involving human beings emerge, based on the multitude of their individual preferences and desires. These patterns are constantly in flux.

 

Unlike a machine, which is made to accomplish a singular goal or purpose, the economy does not have one goal or purpose, but billions of them.

 

What is ‘the Market’?

In his 1949 magnum opus “Human Action,” economist Ludwig von Mises provided an insightful description of the economy. Referring to it as “the market,” Mises wrote:

 

“The market is not a place, a thing, or a collective entity. The market is a process, actuated by the interplay of the actions of the various individuals cooperating under the division of labor. The forces determining the – continually changing – state of the market are the value judgments of these individuals and their actions as directed by these value judgments.”

 

Note Mises’ emphasis on the market not being any sort of entity, meaning that it can have no designed purpose or desired outcome. Rather, he describes the economy as a process, one comprised of “the adjustment of the individual actions of the various members of the market society to the requirements of mutual cooperation.”

 

Thus, the economy is not an entity or organization with a will of its own. Instead, it is a self-organizing process of individuals and entities interacting with each other that involves constant adjustment by its participants.

 

Individuals are constantly altering their needs and wants and adjusting to changing prices and choices. Entrepreneurs are continually adjusting to consumer preferences, and attempting to anticipate demand, in a world offering near unlimited options and combinations with which to create goods and services, but scarce resources.

 

The Goal is Control

So why the desire by progressives and many on the Left to reduce the economy to a cold, faceless machine with a purpose of its own?

 

The answer can be reduced to two words: social control.

 

It is much easier for government planners to control the economy when the public perceives it as some mechanical entity, that can be improved simply by pushing the right buttons or turning the right dials.

 

For instance, during the depths of the Great Recession, Paul Krugman in 2008 found inspiration from one of his favorite John Maynard Keynes quotes, ““we have magneto [alternator] trouble.” Krugman likened the economic downturn to an instance of a “crucial part” of the “economic engine” malfunctioning, and rhetorically asking “(a)nybody know a good mechanic?”.

 

Giving the Economy a Will of its Own

Or worse still, is attempting to personify the economy itself, as Hillary Clinton and countless others put it: “an economy that works for everyone.” As if the economy is an entity with a will of its own, that decides who it “works” for, and a goal in mind that it is “working” toward.

 

Engines should be designed and controlled by an external force to ensure it is working “properly.” A massive entity with a will of its own needs oversight to ensure those intentions are not evil.

 

So imagine how much easier it is to sell the public on government controls of a tool or engine, or reining in the sinister intentions of a villainous entity, compared to what government economic intervention really is: controlling the voluntary actions of human beings attempting to improve their lives as they best see fit.

 

Beyond protecting property rights and enforcing contracts to ensure against theft, harm or fraud; state intervention in the market necessarily involves the ruling class forcibly overriding the preferences of you, your neighbors and your loved ones.

 

Regulating “the Economy” Means Overriding Individual Preferences

Most government regulations involve restrictions on the actions of people. Certain behaviors are prohibited or mandated, often with the threat of punishment. That doesn’t sound quite as romanticized as finding a “good mechanic” to fix a “malfunctioning engine”, does it?

 

Or consider government wealth redistribution programs. These involve the state forcibly taking the earned income of some to give as an unearned benefit to others, while much of the loot goes to bureaucrats tasked with administering these behemoth schemes. If this more accurate description was actually used, I doubt the “economy that works for everyone” sales pitch would gather much support.

 

Since their beginning, Leftists have viewed the market as “chaos” unless guided by the conscious direction of a centralized overseer. What makes such thinking so dangerous is that Leftists have the hubris to appoint themselves as the wise overlords who decide how scarce resources should be allocated among their subjects. In such a system, people are mere pawns on a chessboard to be moved around by the planners.

 

Such truths are hidden by economic planners who deftly conceal their lust for social control by characterizing the economy as a sort of machine in need of an operator, or an entity with a will of its own that – without the proper guidance – would wreak havoc and destruction on society.

 

But peel back that cloak, and realize that central planning, regulations and government intervention of all sorts involves the forcible control of the actions of flesh and blood humans.

 

For the economy is not an engine, or a tool, and does not perform any “work.” The economy is you and me.

 

Brian Balfour is Executive Vice President for the Civitas Institute, a free market advocacy organization in Raleigh, North Carolina

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