[VON칼럼] 주사파는 전향하라!
소위 대한민국 우파들이 이 지경이 된 이유는 반대한민국 세력의 핵심부가 북한이 아니라 남한에 있다는 사실을 모르고 있었기 때문이라고 본다. 1990년대 식량난 위기 이후 반대한민국 세력의 핵심부는 더 이상 북한이 아니라 북한을 지원하고 살려둠으로써 권력을 유지하고 대한민국을 장악해나간 남쪽에 있었다. 북한도 이들에게 매달려 있다.
1990년대에 패망한 북한을 유지해준 진짜 핵심부는 남한에 있다는 사실을 모르기 때문에 종북 종북하다가 송두리째 뺏긴 것이다. 편의상 종북이라는 말을 쓰지만 북한이 자신들의 체제를 유지하기 위한 논리조차 남쪽 자신들 패거리들에게 배운다는 것을 여러 통로로 확인할 수 있었다.
그런 면에서 황장엽 망명은 한반도 이념지도를 정교하게 바꾼 사건이다. 황장엽 망명으로 주체사상이 교묘하게 합법화되면서 소위 [사람중심] 정치세력이 제도권으로 들어올 수 있었다.
내가 황장엽 선생과 1999년부터 2010년 돌아가실 때까지 교류한 것은 하나님의 도우심이었다고 믿는다. 그래서 알게 된 사실을 한 가지 말하면 북한에는 두 개의 거대한 규범 덩어리가 있다. 북한헌법과 유일사상10대원칙이다.
지금 한국 방방곡곡 나붙은 [사람중심] 캐치프레이즈는 북한 헌법 3조와 8조의 [사람중심]과 일치하는 개념이다. [사람중심][사람사랑]은 북한 주체사상의 영향을 받아 세력화된 정치적 실체가 든 깃발이다.
그러나 실질적으로 북한의 체제유지 핵심 규범은 유일사상10대원칙이다. 이것이 진짜 북한 김일성 3대 우상화 정전이고 이것을 인정하고 수용하고 신념화하는 세력이 한국에서 국회에까지 진출했던 것이다. 이제는 청와대에도 적지 않다. 이러고도 대한민국이 잘 되기를 바란다!
북한헌법은 북한에서 장식적 규범에 불과하다. 황장엽 주체사상의 영향권에 있다고 보는 게 맞다. 특히 3조와 8조는 노골적으로 그렇다. 그래서 1980년대 주사파 운동권들은 스스로 김파와 황파로 나눈다. 황파는 스스로 남한에서도 합법화된 것으로 인식하고 보수 정당을 집요하게 파고든 것이다.
황장엽파 김일성파. 황장엽파의 수장이 소위 전향한 강철 김영환이다. 김일성파의 수장은 지금 감옥에 갇혀 있다.
문제는 무엇일까? 6.25전날처럼 자유민주주의 쪽이라는 사람들은 먹고 마시고 춤추고 부동산과 승진 자녀교육 말고 관심이 없었다. 그래서 그들에게 다 뺏긴 것이다.
자유민주주의는 세력이 없다. 지금 자유한국당은 가짜다. 자신들이 무슨 짓을 하는지조차 모른다. 어떻게 자유민주주의를 처절하게 사수하던 박근혜 김기춘 우병우 등의 의인들은 당신들 손으로 베나? 눈물이 앞을 가린다. (대한민국 애국자들은 다 이런 운명이어야 하나? 그래서 이 나라 사람들이 정떨어진다.)
황장엽 주체사상이 이기냐 김일성 주체사상이 이기냐 이 게임밖에 없다. 어느 쪽이 이기든 가난과 굶주림 학대 살육 수용소를 예비하고 있다. 그 사상들에는 가냘픈 개인을 품는 사랑이 포함되어 있지 않다. 전체주의고 국가가 다 해먹는 사회주의다. 나치보다 지독하다. 북한의 지옥도가 70년 보여줬듯.
금수산태양궁전에 미라로 누운 김일성이 망명지에서 쓸쓸히 눈감은 이승만을 이겼을까? 천만에.
한국 사람들은 배은망덕하고 비이성적인 면이 강하다. 그러나 또 사랑과 인내심 자비로움이 있는 좋은 사람들이 많다. 그들이 이승만처럼 싸우다 죽을지언정 순교자와 같은 길을 걸어 대한민국을 지킬 것이다.
한 가지 더. 주사파 중 내가 가장 혐오하는 부류는 임종석 송갑석 우상호 류의 패거리다. 1980년대 대중들에게 먹히는 비주얼과 웅변솜씨로 조직에 발탁된 당신들, 호의호식하면서 혁명가연 그만하지. 악취가 진동한다. 근사한 나라를 거짓과 선동으로 아작을 내면서 애들 미국 보낼 궁리하나?
/ 김미영 VON 대표 전환기정의연구원장
--------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
[경제 3각파도가 닥친다]
경제 전망은 바다의 안개처럼 한치앞을 볼 수 없고 경제의 3각파도인 고용침체, 경기불황, 인플레,가 몰려오는게 보입니다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
손병호
뱃사람들은 바다의 어지간한 비바람도 필요하면 바다로나갑니다.
그러나 바다에 안개가 자욱해서 30미터 앞이 안보이면 안나갑니다.
배는 자동차가 아니라서 브래이크를 잡아도 3-40미터갑니다.
충돌을 피할 수 없어요.
또한 비 바람부는 바다에서 뱃사람들이 제일 무서워하는게 삼각파도입니다.
파도가 옆이나 앞에서 일정하게 오면 아무리 10미터 높은 파도도 그 파도를 타면서 가기 때문에 괜찮치만
파도가 양 옆과 앞이나 뒤에서 몰려오면 파도를 탈 수 없기 때문에 침몰합니다.
씨잘데기없이 바다 얘기하는게 아닙니다.
안개와 삼각파도가 경제와 똑 같기 때문입니다.
지금 한국의 경제는 안개와 삼각파도까지 맞닥트렸습니다.
경제 전망은 바다의 안개처럼 한치앞을 볼 수 없고 경제의 3각파도인 고용침체, 경기불황, 인플레,가 몰려오는게 보입니다.
그중에 제일 위험한 고용침체가 먼저 왔습니다.
고용침체는 경제의 암이라고합니다. 암이 먼저 온 것이지요.
더구나 개뿔도 모르는 책상물림 장하성의 소득주도라는 개같은 지론을 실현시킨 답시고 실시한 최저임금 인상이 고용침체를 부추겼어요.
당연하게 뒤따라서 경기 불황이 왔어요.
지금 모든 도시의 중심가 상가에도 점포정리 딱지가 붙은 가게들이 즐비합니다.
이제 하나 남은 인플레도 저기 오는게 보입니다.
국민지지가 막강했던 필리핀의 깡패 대통령 두테르테도 인플레에 속절없이 추락 할 정도로 인플레를 이기는 정권은 없습니다.
전에도 말했지만 文의 북한 약발은 판문점 개업빨로 끝났어요.
마약도 자주쓰면 내성이 생겨서 약빨이 없듯이 김정은이 약발도 이젠 안 먹힙니다.
평양에서 온갖 잡스런 쑈를하고 왔지만 고작 10%상승했다가 그것도 한달만에 설물처럼 빠졌습니다.
보도엔 요즘 文의 신경이 날카로워져서 장관들이나 수석들이 바짝 긴장한 상태라는데,
언론은 文의 그런 변화는 국정에 대한 자신감의 표현이라고 알랑거리드만..
그야말로 개똥같은 말이고 유럽에서 받은 왕따의 충격과 돌아오자마자 경제가 무너지는 소리가 들리니 아무리 정신없는 천치라도 신경이 날카로울 수 밖에 없겠지요..
추측컨데 김정은에게 년내에 일정부분 경제제재를 풀도록 유럽정상들을 설득하겠다는 것과
종전선언을 관철시키겠다는 두가지 약속을 했는데,
두가지중 한가지도 속시원하게 풀리지 않는 와중에 경제가 이 모양이 되니, 아마 잠이 안올겁니다.
전에 놈현이 북한문제만 풀리면 모든게 좋다고 말했는데, 한마디로 개 풀뜯어먹는 소리입니다.
<북한문제>란 말에 [경제문제]를 넣으면 말이됩니다.
다시 말하지만 자유경제 체제의 국가에서 경제가 무너지면, 백약이 무효입니다.
김정은이 아니라 김정은이 하래비가 와도 용빼는재주 없어요.
지금은 경제의 삼가파도가 한국이란 바다에 거의 도달한 상태입니다.
조언하자면 현명한분들은 이 땐 꼭 필요한 것만 지출하고 무조건 지출을 줄입니다.
그래야만 이 파도를 이겨냅니다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
불장난은 하고 나면 집과 산을 태우지만, 일단 불을 보면 아이들은 황홀한 불꽃의 유혹에 빠져 끝내 불장난에 빠져든다. 좌파들의 복지 실험이 바로 그런 불장난이다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
미국은 1850년대와 유사한 상황으로 가고 있다. 당시 대립하는 두 정치세력이 있었고, 이것은 내전의 서막이 되었다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientists, intent on categorizing everything around them, sometimes divide themselves into the lumpers and the splitters. The lumpers, many of whom flock to the unifying field of theoretical physics, search for hidden laws uniting the most seemingly diverse phenomena: Blur your vision a little and lightning bolts and static cling are really the same thing. The splitters, often drawn to the biological sciences, are more taken with diversity, reveling in the 34,000 variations on the theme spider, or the 550 species of coniferous trees.
But there are exceptions to the rule. When two biologists and a physicist, all three of the lumper persuasion, recently joined forces at the Santa Fe Institute, an interdisciplinary research center in northern New Mexico, the result was an advance in a problem that has bothered scientists for decades: the origin of biological scaling. How is one to explain the subtle ways in which various characteristics of living creatures -- their life spans, their pulse rates, how fast they burn energy -- change according to their body size?
As animals get bigger, from tiny shrew to huge blue whale, pulse rates slow down and life spans stretch out longer, conspiring so that the number of heartbeats during an average stay on Earth tends to be roughly the same, around a billion. A mouse just uses them up more quickly than an elephant.
Mysteriously, these and a large variety of other phenomena change with body size according to a precise mathematical principle called quarter-power scaling. A cat, 100 times more massive than a mouse, lives 100 to the one-quarter power, or about three times, longer. (To calculate this number, take the square root of 100, which is 10, and then take the square root of 10, which is 3.2.) Heartbeat scales to mass to the minus one-quarter power. A cat's heart thus beats a third as fast as a mouse's.
The Santa Fe Institute collaborators -- Dr. Geoffrey West, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and two biologists at the University of New Mexico, Dr. Jim Brown and Dr. Brian Enquist -- have drawn on their different kinds of expertise to propose a model for what causes certain kinds of quarter-power scaling, which they have extended to the plant kingdom as well.
In their theory, scaling emerges from the geometrical properties of the internal networks animals and plants use to distribute nutrients. But almost as interesting as the details of the model is the collaboration itself. It is rare enough for scientists of such different persuasions to come together, rarer still that the result is hailed as an important development.
''Scaling is interesting because, aside from natural selection, it is one of the few laws we really have in biology,'' said Dr. John Gittleman, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Virginia. ''What is so elegant is that the work makes very clear predictions about causal mechanisms. That's what had been missing in the field.''
Dr. Brown said: ''None of us could have done it by himself. It is one of the most exciting things I've been involved in.''
It might seem that because a cat is a hundred times more massive than a mouse, its metabolic rate, the intensity with which it burns energy, would be a hundred times greater -- what mathematicians call a linear relationship. After all, the cat has a hundred times more cells to feed.
But if this were so, the animal would quickly be consumed by a fit of spontaneous feline combustion, or at least a very bad fever. The reason: the surface area a creature uses to dissipate the heat of the metabolic fires does not grow as fast as its body mass. To see this, consider (like a good lumper) a mouse as an approximation of a small sphere. As the sphere grows larger, to cat size, the surface area increases along two dimensions but the volume increases along three dimensions. The size of the biological radiator cannot possibly keep up with the size of the metabolic engine.
If this was the only factor involved, metabolic rate would scale to body mass to the two-thirds power, more slowly than in a simple one-to-one relationship. The cat's metabolic rate would be not 100 times greater than the mouse's but 100 to the power of two-thirds, or about 21.5 times greater.
But biologists, beginning with Max Kleiber in the early 1930's, found that the situation was much more complex. For an amazing range of creatures, spanning in size from bacteria to blue whales, metabolic rate scales with body mass not to the two-thirds power but slightly faster -- to the three-quarter power [explanatory box, page 2]. Evolution seems to have found a way to overcome in part the limitations imposed by pure geometric scaling, the fact that surface area grows more slowly than size. For decades no one could plausibly say why.
Kleiber's law means that a cat's metabolic rate is not a hundred or 21.5 times greater than a mouse's, but about 31.6 -- 100 to the three-quarter power. This relationship seems to hold across the animal kingdom, from shrew to blue whale, and it has since been extended all the way down to single-celled organisms, and possibly within the cells themselves to the internal structures called mitochondria that turn nutrients into energy.
The Scientists
Common Simplicity Starts to Emerge
Long before meeting Dr. Brown and Dr. Enquist, Dr. West was interested in how scaling manifests itself in the world of subatomic particles. The strong nuclear force, which binds quarks into neutrons, protons and other particles, is weaker, paradoxically, when the quarks are closer together, but stronger as they are pulled farther apart -- the opposite of what happens with gravity or electromagnetism. Scaling also shows up in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: the more finely you measure the position of a particle, viewing it on a smaller and smaller scale, the more uncertain its momentum becomes.
''Everything around us is scale dependent,'' Dr. West said. ''It's woven into the fabric of the universe.''
The lesson he took away from this was that you cannot just naively scale things up. He liked to illustrate the idea with Superman. In two panels labeled ''A Scientific Explanation of Clark Kent's Amazing Strength,'' from Superman's first comic book adventure in 1938, the artists invoked a scaling law: ''The lowly ant can support weights hundreds of times its own. The grasshopper leaps what to man would be the space of several city blocks.'' The implication was that on the planet Krypton, Superman's home, strength scaled to body mass in a simple linear manner: If an ant could carry a twig, a Superman or Superwoman could carry a giant ponderosa pine.
But in the rest of the universe, the scaling is actually much slower. Body mass increases along three dimensions, but the strength of legs and arms, which is proportional to their cross-sectional area, increases along just two dimensions. If a man is a million times more massive than an ant, he will be only 1,000,000 to the two-thirds power stronger: about 10,000 times, allowing him to lift objects weighing up to a hundred pounds, not thousands.
Things behave differently at different scales, but there are orderly ways -- scaling laws -- that connect one realm to another. ''I found this enormously exciting,'' Dr. West said. ''That's what got me thinking about scaling in biology.''
At some point he ran across Kleiber's law. ''It is truly amazing because life is easily the most complex of complex systems,'' Dr. West said. ''But in spite of this, it has this absurdly simple scaling law. Something universal is going on.''
Brian Enquist became hooked on scaling as a student at Colorado College in Colorado Springs in 1988. When he was looking for a graduate school to study ecology, he chose the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque partly because a professor there, Dr. Jim Brown, specialized in how scaling occurred in ecosystems.
There are obviously very few large species, like elephants and whales, and a countless number of small species. But who would have expected, as Dr. Enquist learned in one of Dr. Brown's classes, that if one drew a graph with the size of animals on one axis and the number of species on the other axis, the slope of the resulting line would reveal another quarter-power scaling law? Population density, the average number of offspring, the time until reproduction -- all are dependent on body size scaled to quarter-powers.
''As an ecologist you are used to dealing with complexity -- you're essentially embedded in it,'' Dr. Enquist said. ''But all these quarter-power scaling laws hinted that something very general and simple was going on.''
The examples Dr. Brown had given all involved mammals. ''Has anyone found similar laws with plants?'' Dr. Enquist asked. Dr. Brown said: ''I have no idea. Why don't you find out?''
After sifting through piles of data compiled over the years in agricultural and forestry reports, Dr. Enquist found that the same kinds of quarter-power scaling happened in the plant world. He even uncovered an equivalent to Kleiber's law.
It was surprising enough that these laws held among all kinds of animals. That they seemed to apply to plants as well was astonishing. What was the common mechanism involved? ''I asked Jim whether or not we could figure it out,'' Dr. Enquist recalled. ''He kind of rubbed his head and said, 'Do you know how long this is going to take?' ''
They assumed that Kleiber's law, and maybe the other scaling relationships, arose because of the mathematical nature of the networks both animals and trees used to transport nutrients to all their cells and carry away the wastes. A silhouette of the human circulatory system and of the roots and branches of a tree look remarkably similar. But they knew that precisely modeling the systems would require some very difficult mathematics and physics. And they wanted to talk to someone who was used to trafficking in the idea of general laws.
''Physicists tend to look for universals and invariants whereas biologists often get preoccupied with all the variations in nature,'' Dr. Brown said. He knew that the Santa Fe Institute had been established to encourage broad-ranging collaborations. He asked Mike Simmons, then an institute administrator, whether he knew of a physicist interested in tackling biological scaling laws.
The Collaboration
Learning to Speak New Languages
Dr. West liked to joke that if Galileo had been a biologist, he would have written volumes cataloging how objects of different shapes fall from the Leaning Tower of Pisa at slightly different velocities. He would not have seen through the distracting details to the underlying truth: if you ignore air resistance, all objects fall at the same rate regardless of their weight.
But at their first meeting in Santa Fe, he was impressed that Dr. Brown and Dr. Enquist were interested in big, all-embracing theories. And they were impressed that Dr. West seemed like a biologist at heart. He wanted to know how life worked.
It took them a while to learn each other's languages, but before long they were meeting every week at the Santa Fe Institute. Dr. West would show the biologists how to translate the qualitative ideas of biology into precise equations. And Dr. Brown and Dr. Enquist would make sure Dr. West was true to the biology. Sometimes he would show up with a neat model, a physicist's dream. No, Dr. Brown and Dr. Enquist would tell him, real organisms do not work that way.
''When collaborating across that wide a gulf of disciplines, you're never going to learn everything the collaborator knows,'' Dr. Brown said. ''You have to develop an implicit trust in the quality of their science. On the other hand, you learn enough to be sure there are not miscommunications.''
They started by assuming that the nutrient supply networks in both animals and plants worked according to three basic principles: the networks branched to reach every part of the organism and the ends of the branches (the capillaries and their botanical equivalent) were all about the same size. After all, whatever the species, the sizes of cells being fed were all roughly equivalent. Finally, they assumed that evolution would have tuned the systems to work in the most efficient possible manner.
What emerged closely approximated a so-called fractal network, in which each tiny part is a replica of the whole. Magnify the network of blood vessels in a hand and the image resembles one of an entire circulatory system. And to be as efficient as possible, the network also had to be ''area-preserving.'' If a branch split into three daughter branches, their cross-sectional areas had to add up to that of the parent branch. This would insure that blood or sap would continue to move at the same speed throughout the organism.
The scientists were delighted to see that the model gave rise to three-quarter-power scaling between metabolic rate and body mass. But the system worked only for plants. ''We worked through the model and made clear predictions about mammals,'' Dr. Brown said, ''every single one of which was wrong.''
In making the model as simple as possible, the scientists had hoped they could ignore the fact that blood is pumped by the heart in pulses and treat mammals as though they were trees. After studying hydrodynamics, they realized they needed a way to slow the pulsing blood as the vessels got tinier and tinier. These finer parts of the network would not be area-preserving but area-increasing: the cross sections of the daughter branches would add up to a sum greater than the parent branch, spreading the blood over a larger area.
After adding these and other complications, they found that the model also predicted three-quarter-power scaling in mammals. Other quarter-power scaling laws also emerged naturally from the equations. Evolution, it seemed, has overcome the natural limitations of simple geometric scaling by developing these very efficient fractal-like webs.
The Model
Strange Prediction Comes to Pass
Sometimes it all seemed too good to be true. One Friday night, Dr. West was at home playing with the equations when he realized to his chagrin that the model predicted that all mammals must have about the same blood pressure. That could not be right, he thought. After a restless weekend, he called Dr. Brown, who told him that indeed this was so.
The model was revealed, about two years after the collaboration began, on April 4, 1997, in an article in Science. A follow-up last fall in Nature extended the ideas further into the plant world.
More recently the three collaborators have been puzzling over the fact that a version of Kleiber's law also seems to apply to single cells and even to the energy-burning mitochondria inside cells. They assume this is because the mitochondria inside the cytoplasm and even the respiratory components inside the mitochondria are arranged in fractal-like networks.
For all the excitement the model has caused, there are still skeptics. A paper published last year in American Naturalist by two scientists in Poland, Dr. Jan Kozlowski and Dr. January Weiner, suggests the possibility that quarter-power scaling across species could be nothing more than a statistical illusion. And biologists persist in confronting the collaborators with single species in which quarter-power scaling laws do not seem to hold.
Dr. West is not too bothered by these seeming exceptions. The history of physics is replete with cases where an elegant model came up against some recalcitrant data, and the model eventually won. He is now working with other collaborators to see whether river systems, which look remarkably like circulatory systems, and even the hierarchical structure of corporations obey the same kind of scaling laws.
The overarching lesson, Dr. West says, is that as organisms grow in size they become more efficient. ''That is why nature has evolved large animals,'' he said. ''It's a much better way of utilizing energy. This might also explain the drive for corporations to merge. Small may be beautiful, but it is more efficient to be big.''
Size, by the Numbers
It might seem that since a cat is 100 times bigger than a mouse, its metabolism (the rate at which it burns energy) would be 100 times faster. But under Kleiber's law, metabolism scales to body mass to the three-quarter power. To calculate this, take 100 to the third power: 100 x 100 x 100 = 1,000,000. Then take the square root of this number twice. The answer is about 31.6.
단순히 말해 스케일링이란 크기가 변할 때 시스템이 어떻게 대응하는지를 말한다.
--------------------------------------------------------------
통계적 분석만으로는 인간의 행동을 이해할 수 없다
데이터를 이해하기 위해서는 경제학자는 사전에 먼저 이론을 가져야 하는데, 그 이론은 자체로 완전하고 데이터에서 유래하는 것이 아니어야 한다.
일관된 사고 방법이 없이 역사적 데이터만을 바라보면, 우리는 경제 성장의 원인을 설명하기 위해 어떤 이론이라도 갖다 맞출 수가 있다.
Statistical Analysis Isn't Enough to Understand Human Action
Frank Shostak
According to modern economics, various ideas that we have established about the world of economics emanates from historical data. By inspecting the data, an economist forms a view regarding its behavior. As long as the theory seems to explain the data, it continues to be regarded as valid. Once it fails to adequately explain the data it is replaced by a new theory. Note that on this way of thinking a theory is derived from the data.
According to most experts, the sharp increase in the living standards in the western world in the past few hundred years could be attributed to the accumulation of technical knowledge.
This conclusion was reached by observing that for the thousands of years most people lived in great poverty, but since the 18th century there was a massive increase in prosperity, which economists attribute to the sharp increase in technical knowledge.
Given this way of thinking it is not surprising that Paul Romer, this year’s Nobel Laureate in economics, has concluded that the heart of economic growth is the result of an expansion in technical knowledge.
According to Mises,
Experience of economic history is always the experience of complex phenomena. It can never convey knowledge of the kind the experimenter abstracts from a laboratory experiment.
To make sense of the data an economist must have a theory, which stands on its own feet, and did not originate from the data. By means of a theory, an economist could scrutinise the data and could try to make sense of it.
The key ingredient of such a theory is that it must originate from something real that cannot be refuted. A theory that rests on the foundation that human beings are acting consciously and purposefully fulfils this.
That human beings are acting consciously and purposefully cannot be refuted, for anyone that tries to do this does it consciously and purposefully i.e. he contradicts himself.
Ludwig von Mises, the founder of this approach, labelled this praxeology. By stating that human beings act consciously and purposefully Mises was able to derive the entire body of economics.
The knowledge that human actions are conscious and purposeful allows us to make sense out of historical data. On this Rothbard wrote,
One example that Mises liked to use in his class to demonstrate the difference between two fundamental ways of approaching human behavior was in looking at Grand Central Station behavior during rush hour. The "objective" or "truly scientific" behaviorist, he pointed out, would observe the empirical events: e.g., people rushing back and forth, aimlessly at certain predictable times of day. And that is all he would know. But the true student of human action would start from the fact that all human behavior is purposive, and he would see the purpose is to get from home to the train to work in the morning, the opposite at night, etc. It is obvious which one would discover and know more about human behavior, and therefore which one would be the genuine "scientist”.
Causes in Economics Originate from Human Beings
That man pursues purposeful actions implies that causes in the world of economics emanate from human beings and not from outside factors.
By looking at historical data without a coherent way of thinking one could fit any theory to provide an explanation of what the heart of economic growth is.
However, if we start from the fact that human beings are operating in the means-ends framework then one is likely to establish that without an expansion in the means of sustenance no sustainable expansion in economic growth is going to emerge.
For instance, to make a particular tool the toolmaker must have an idea of how to make this tool.
The idea alone however will not be sufficient to produce the tool. Various elements to make the tool must be produced first before it could be assembled.
In the various stages of production i.e. intermediate and final stages, individuals that are employed in these stages must be supported by providing them firstly with final consumer goods, which will sustain them.
The allocation of final consumer goods towards various individuals that are engaged in the various stages of production is what real savings is all about.
Observe that without the allocation of consumer goods towards the individuals in the various stages of production the tool will not be made notwithstanding that the toolmaker has the technical knowledge of how to make the tool.
The fact that the industrial revolution which started in early 18 th century was associated with massive economic growth does not imply that the key for this was technical knowledge.
There is no doubt that the emergence of new technological ideas are of great importance, nonetheless without the formation of capital the ideas would have been of little help. There is no doubt that the liberal ideas were an important factor in setting in motion what is called capitalism. The emerged environment that provided the incentive for capital formation also gave rise to technical ideas.
Conclusion
Historical data cannot produce much information about the facts of reality without a theory that “stands on its own feet” and is not derived from the data. Gazing at the data cannot assist an analyst in establishing causes in the world of economics. All that gazing will do is to help describe things. To ascertain the underlying causes one requires an explanation that can be made by a logically worked out theory. The role of historical data in all this is just to illustrate things but not to serve as proof.
---------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기