6.25 전쟁 정전협전 1개월 후 파주 민가의
어린이들 - 1953년 9월 1일
[출처] 1953년 파주의 여름
------------------------------------------------------------------------
米、フィリピン沖に原子力空母展開 軍事、人権で対中圧力が本格化
미국, 필리핀 바다 원자력 항공모함 전 군사 인권 대중국 압박본격화
[zakzak] 2018.11.17
マイク・ペンス副大統領が１５日、シンガポールでの東アジアサミット（ＥＡＳ）で、中国による南シナ海の軍事拠点化を猛批判したうえ、フィリピン周辺海域で原子力空母２隻による演習を行ったのだ。米議会でも、中国当局によるウイグル族への人権弾圧を徹底追及する法案が提出された。「冷戦」から「熱戦」に突入したとの指摘もある経済面に加え、軍事と人権分野でも対中圧力を本格化させたといえる。中国はさらに、ジリ貧状態に陥ることになりそうだ。
ドナルド・トランプ米政権が、共産党独裁・中国との「対決姿勢」を行動で示した。
도널드 트럼프 행정부가 공산당 독재 · 중국과의 "대결 자세"를 행동으로 보여 주고 있다.
ドナルド・トランプ米政権が、共産党独裁・中国との「対決姿勢」を行動で示した。マイク・ペンス副大統領が１５日、シンガポールでの東アジアサミット（ＥＡＳ）で、中国による南シナ海の軍事拠点化を猛批判したうえ、フィリピン周辺海域で原子力空母２隻による演習を行ったのだ。米議会でも、中国当局によるウイグル族への人権弾圧を徹底追及する法案が提出された。
미 의회에서도 중국 당국이 위구르족의 인권탄압을 철저 추궁하는 법안이 제출되었다. '냉전'에서 '열전'으로 돌입했다는 지적이다 경제면뿐만 아니라 군사와 인권분야에서도 대 중국 압박이 본격화. 중국은 또한 시세 하락상태에 빠지게 될 것.
"남중국해에서 중국이 군사 거점화를 추진하고 있는 것은 불법이며 위험하다"
펜스는 15일 싱가포르에서 열린 동아시아 정상 회의에서 중국의 행동을 이렇게 비판했다.
中国の李克強首相は米国を念頭に、「紛争に第三国は介入するべきではない」と主張したが、ペンス氏は「米国はインド太平洋の一部で当事国だ」と強く反論した。
중국 리커창 총리는 미국을 염두에 두고, "분쟁에 제 3국이 개입해서는 안된다"고 주장했지만, 펜스 씨는 "미국은 인도 태평양의 일부 당사국"이라고 강하게 반박했다.
米国の対中対決姿勢強化は、ペンス氏の言葉に加え、行動でも示されている。
東アジアサミット開幕前日の１４日、米海軍第７艦隊は、世界最強の原子力空母「ロナルド・レーガン」と「ジョン・Ｃ・ステニス」による空母打撃群が、フィリピンの周辺海域で作戦行動を実施中であると発表した。
동아시아 정상회의 개막 전날인 14일 미 해군 제 7함대는 세계 최강의 원자력 항공모함 '로널드 레이건호'와 '존 C 스테니스호"에 의한 항공모함 타격 군이 필리핀 해역에서 작전을 실시 중 이라고 발표했다.
[출처] [외신] 미 7함대 '로널드 레이건호' '존 C 스테니스호 긴급출동
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laws signed away, hands tied on trade: welcome to Mrs May's black hole Brexit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
자본주의는 폐기물을 줄인다. 폐기물이 많이 발생할수록 이윤이 줄어들기 때문이다.
사람들은 제조업자들이 타인을 고려하지 않는다고 풍자하지만, 이윤을 내기 위해 업자들은 비용과 손실을 축소하기 위해 노력할 수 밖에 없다.
Capitalism Means Less Waste — Because More Waste Often Means Less Profit
Gary Galles
In “How Capitalists Created a “War on Waste”,” Chris Calton did an excellent job of laying out how the “profit motive encourages the natural reduction of waste,” without requiring government coercion. Selling part of the output of a productive process that would otherwise be thrown away or require costly disposal is as much a source of profit as any other way of increasing revenue or decreasing costs. Further, he illustrated the power of those positive environmental incentives with multiple striking examples. In other words, he taught readers something important.
However, Mr. Calton’s article raises a question — why aren’t students who have taken economics courses already intimately familiar with this topic? It appears to be a natural application of market entrepreneurship and the analysis of production processes that produce multiple outputs — joint products, or productive complements.
I believe the core reason is that the topic of productive complements is too-seldom taught in principles of microeconomics or intermediate microeconomics texts.
Every economics student is shown how “both-and” relationships exist on the demand side (e.g., coffee and donuts), and how an increase in the price of the “other” goods in such bundles will decrease the demand for their complements. However, students are much less often shown how “both-and” relationships exist on the production or supply side (e.g., beef and hides as joint outputs from raising cattle) and how an increase in the price of the “other” goods in such bundles will increase the supply of their productive complements.
For an article titled “Productive Complements: Too Often Neglected in the Principles Course?”, my co-authors and I surveyed a set of economics principles texts to see how many introduced productive complements. We found four major texts that incorporated the subject, but eighteen that did not. We even went back to the first edition of Paul Samuelson’s Principles of Economics book and found that he did not discuss it either. We also extended our survey to a smaller set of intermediate microeconomics texts, none of which discussed the topic.
Without being taught that productive complements are important supply shifters in supply and demand analysis, students do not learn to look in that analytical direction. And not knowing to look often means not recognizing even obvious and important application of the analysis--such as the inherent market incentive to reduce waste. And this not only blinds students to important applications, it represents a substantial dumbing-down of what economics students must learn.
Almost a century ago, in his 1920 text, Alfred Marshall not only talked about “the case of joint products: i.e., of things which cannot easily produced separately; but are joined in a common origin, and may therefore be said to have a joint supply,” he provided several examples. He analyzed applications involving not just beef and hides, but wheat and wheat straw, wool and mutton, and cotton and cotton-seed oil. He even derived a rule for the supply price of a productive complement in competitive markets.
Even earlier, William Stanley Jevons argued in 1871 that “these cases of joint production, far from being 'some peculiar cases,' form the general rule, to which it is difficult to point out any clear of important exceptions.” And it is hard to disagree when we ask how many production processes have only one potentially valuable output and generate nothing that needs to be disposed of or generates negative externalities, such as pollution of one form or another.
We live in a world where claims of “market failure” are seemingly ubiquitous (though not developed to the point of showing that mechanisms relying on government coercive power would in fact do better). However, people seem far less aware of how profit incentives push producers to reduce costs and damage, even if we might caricature them as “not caring about others,” because they do care about their bottom lines. However, students who have been exposed to economics should know this. And for that, they need to learn more about productive complements. That would not only remove their blinders about a cornucopia of interesting and useful entrepreneurial applications, it would also expand their horizons to free market environmentalism and deflate one of the more common defamations that can keep people from fairly considering the advantages of voluntary arrangements over government coercion.
Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. He is the author of The Apostle of Peace: The Radical Mind of Leonard Read.
------------------------------------------------
China is an oligarchic regime. It has an official ideology, but this
ideology is not enforced where Karl Marx said it had to be enforced,
namely, in the mode of production. The mode of production in China is
state capital, and it is funded by the Chinese central bank. The Chinese
central bankers are Keynesians by default. All central bankers are
Keynesians by default. The irony here is that Keynes really didn't pay
that much attention to the central bank. He believed in salvation
through government deficits, not salvation through monetary inflation.
But this changed after his death in 1946. After Paul Samuelson's famous
economics textbook appeared in 1948, Keynesianism moved in the direction
that it occupies today: both deficits and central bank inflation.
ideology is not enforced where Karl Marx said it had to be enforced,
namely, in the mode of production. The mode of production in China is
state capital, and it is funded by the Chinese central bank. The Chinese
central bankers are Keynesians by default. All central bankers are
Keynesians by default. The irony here is that Keynes really didn't pay
that much attention to the central bank. He believed in salvation
through government deficits, not salvation through monetary inflation.
But this changed after his death in 1946. After Paul Samuelson's famous
economics textbook appeared in 1948, Keynesianism moved in the direction
that it occupies today: both deficits and central bank inflation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
혁신은 경제적 자유를 필요로 한다.
개인의 자유의 핵심은 전통적인 사고 방식, 행동 방식에서 벗어날 기회를 갖는다는 것이다. 하지만 권력자에 의한 계획은 개인의 단계에서의 계획을 배제해버린다.
Innovation Requires Economic Freedom
Ludwig von Mises
[Excerpted from chapter 16 of Theory and History (1957).]
A civilization is the product of a definite worldview, and its philosophy manifests itself in each of its accomplishments. The artifacts produced by men may be called material. But the methods resorted to in the arrangement of production activities are mental, the outcome of ideas that determine what should be done and how. All the branches of a civilization are animated by the spirit that permeates its ideology.
The philosophy that is the characteristic mark of the West and whose consistent elaboration has in the last centuries transformed all social institutions has been called individualism. It maintains that ideas, the good ones as well as the bad, originate in the mind of an individual man. Only a few men are endowed with the capacity to conceive new ideas.
But as political ideas can work only if they are accepted by society, it rests with the crowd of those who themselves are unable to develop new ways of thinking to approve or disapprove the innovations of the pioneers. There is no guarantee that these masses of followers and routinists will make wise use of the power vested in them. They may reject the good ideas, those whose adoption would benefit them, and espouse bad ideas that will seriously hurt them.
But if they choose what is worse, the fault is not theirs alone. It is no less the fault of the pioneers of the good causes in not having succeeded in bringing forward their thoughts in a more convincing form. The favorable evolution of human affairs depends ultimately on the ability of the human race to beget not only authors but also heralds and disseminators of beneficial ideas.
One may lament the fact that the fate of mankind is determined by the — certainly not infallible — minds of men. But such regret cannot change reality. In fact, the eminence of man is to be seen in his power to choose between good and evil. It is precisely this that the theologians had in view when they praised God for having bestowed upon man the discretion to make his choice between virtue and vice.
The dangers inherent in the masses' incompetence are not eliminated by transferring the authority to make ultimate decisions to the dictatorship of one or a few men, however excellent. It is an illusion to expect that despotism will always side with the good causes. It is characteristic of despotism that it tries to curb the endeavors of pioneers to improve the lot of their fellow men.
The foremost aim of despotic government is to prevent any innovations that could endanger its own supremacy. Its very nature pushes it toward extreme conservatism, the tendency to retain what is, no matter how desirable for the welfare of the people a change might be. It is opposed to new ideas and to any spontaneity on the part of the subjects.
In the long run even the most despotic governments with all their brutality and cruelty are no match for ideas. Eventually the ideology that has won the support of the majority will prevail and cut the ground from under the tyrant's feet. Then the oppressed many will rise in rebellion and overthrow their masters.
However, this may be slow to come about, and in the meantime irreparable damage may have been inflicted upon the common weal. In addition, a revolution necessarily means a violent disturbance of social cooperation, produces irreconcilable rifts and hatreds among the citizens, and may engender bitterness that even centuries cannot entirely wipe out. The main excellence and worth of what is called constitutional institutions, democracy, and government by the people is to be seen in the fact that they make possible peaceful change in the methods and personnel of government.
Where there is representative government, no revolutions and civil wars are required to remove an unpopular ruler and his system. If the men in office and their methods of conducting public affairs no longer please the majority of the nation, they are replaced in the next election by other men and another system.
In this way the philosophy of individualism demolished the doctrine of absolutism, which ascribed heavenly dispensation to princes and tyrants. To the alleged divine right of the anointed kings it opposed the inalienable rights bestowed upon man by his creator. As against the claim of the state to enforce orthodoxy and to exterminate what it considered heresy, it proclaimed freedom of conscience. Against the unyielding preservation of old institutions become obnoxious with the passing of time, it appealed to reason. Thus it inaugurated an age of freedom and progress toward prosperity.
It did not occur to the liberal philosophers of the 18th and early 19th centuries that a new ideology would arise which would resolutely reject all the principles of liberty and individualism and would proclaim the total subjection of the individual to the tutelage of a paternal authority as the most desirable goal of political action, the most noble end of history, and the consummation of all the plans God had in view in creating man.
Not only Hume, Condorcet, and Bentham but even Hegel and John Stuart Mill would have refused to believe it if some of their contemporaries had prophesied that in the 20th century most of the writers and scientists of France and the Anglo-Saxon nations would wax enthusiastic about a system of government that eclipses all tyrannies of the past in pitiless persecution of dissenters and in endeavors to deprive the individual of all opportunity for spontaneous activity. They would have considered that man a lunatic who told them that the abolition of freedom, of all civil rights, and of government based on the consent of the governed would be called liberation. Yet all this has happened.
The historian may understand and give thymological explanations for this radical and sudden change in ideology. But such an interpretation in no way disproves the philosophers' and the economists' analysis and critique of the counterfeit doctrines that engendered this movement.
The keystone of Western civilization is the sphere of spontaneous action it secures to the individual. There have always been attempts to curb the individual's initiative, but the power of the persecutors and inquisitors has not been absolute. It could not prevent the rise of Greek philosophy and its Roman offshoot or the development of modern science and philosophy.
Driven by their inborn genius, pioneers have accomplished their work in spite of all hostility and opposition. The innovator did not have to wait for invitation or order from anybody. He could step forward of his own accord and defy traditional teachings. In the orbit of ideas, the West has by and large always enjoyed the blessings of freedom.
Then came the emancipation of the individual in the field of business, an achievement of that new branch of philosophy, economics. A free hand was given to the enterprising man who knew how to enrich his fellows by improving the methods of production. A horn of plenty was poured upon the common men by the capitalistic business principle of mass production for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses.
In order to appraise justly the effects of the Western idea of freedom we must contrast the West with conditions prevailing in those parts of the world that have never grasped the meaning of freedom.
Some Oriental peoples developed philosophy and science long before the ancestors of the representatives of modern Western civilization emerged from primitive barbarism. There are good reasons to assume that Greek astronomy and mathematics got their first impulse from acquaintance with what had been accomplished in the East.
When later the Arabs acquired a knowledge of Greek literature from the nations they had conquered, a remarkable Muslim culture began to flourish in Persia, Mesopotamia, and Spain. Up to the 13th century Arabian learning was not inferior to the contemporary achievements of the West. But then religious orthodoxy enforced unswerving conformity and put an end to all intellectual activity and independent thinking in the Muslim countries, as had happened before in China, in India, and in the orbit of Eastern Christianity.
The forces of orthodoxy and persecution of dissenters, on the other hand, could not silence the voices of Western science and philosophy, for the spirit of freedom and individualism was already strong enough in the West to survive all persecutions. From the 13th century on, all intellectual, political, and economic innovations originated in the West. Until the East, a few decades ago, was fructified by contact with the West, history in recording the great names in philosophy, science, literature, technology, government, and business could hardly mention any Orientals.
There was stagnation and rigid conservatism in the East until Western ideas began to filter in. To the Orientals themselves slavery, serfdom, untouchability, customs like sutteeism or the crippling of the feet of girls, barbaric punishments, mass misery, ignorance, superstition, and disregard of hygiene did not give any offense. Unable to grasp the meaning of freedom and individualism, today they are enraptured with the program of collectivism.
Although these facts are well-known, millions today enthusiastically support policies that aim at the substitution of planning by an authority for autonomous planning by each individual. They are longing for slavery.
Of course, the champions of totalitarianism protest that what they want to abolish is "only economic freedom" and that all "other freedoms" will remain untouched. But freedom is indivisible. The distinction between an economic sphere of human life and activity and a noneconomic sphere is the worst of their fallacies. If an omnipotent authority has the power to assign to every individual the tasks he has to perform, nothing that can be called freedom and autonomy is left to him. He has only the choice between strict obedience and death by starvation.
Committees of experts may be called to advise the planning authority whether or not a young man should be given the opportunity to prepare himself for and to work in an intellectual or artistic field. But such an arrangement can merely rear disciples committed to the parrot-like repetition of the ideas of the preceding generation.
It would bar innovators who disagree with the accepted ways of thought. No innovation would ever have been accomplished if its originator had been in need of an authorization by those from whose doctrines and methods he wanted to deviate. Hegel would not have ordained Schopenhauer or Feuerbach, nor would Professor Rau have ordained Marx or Carl Menger.
If the supreme planning board is ultimately to determine which books are to be printed, who is to experiment in the laboratories and who is to paint or to sculpture, and which alterations in technological methods should be undertaken, there will be neither improvement nor progress. Individual man will become a pawn in the hands of the rulers, who in their "social engineering" will handle him as engineers handle the stuff of which they construct buildings, bridges, and machines.
In every sphere of human activity an innovation is a challenge not only to all routinists and to the experts and practitioners of traditional methods but even more to those who have in the past themselves been innovators. It meets at the beginning chiefly stubborn opposition. Such obstacles can be overcome in a society where there is economic freedom. They are insurmountable in a socialist system.
The essence of an individual's freedom is the opportunity to deviate from traditional ways of thinking and of doing things. Planning by an established authority precludes planning on the part of individuals.
--------------------------------------
올려진 짤은 내가 사고를 겪을때 타던배임
엊그제 양구 GP 총상의 대처를 보고 참 한심하다는 생각밖에 안든다.
기사보니까 지피에 착륙장이없어서 착륙장 있는곳까지 차로 후송하다 사망 했다는데 이게 말이나 되는 소리임?
적어도 레스큐 헬기 조종사는 착륙장이 없어도 다양한 상황에서 구조에 최선을 다하게끔 고도의 조종훈련을 받은자만 헬기를 조종 할수있다.
전쟁터나 최전방에 헬기 착륙장 만들어놓고 구조하는나라 단한군데도 없다. NG 다큐 컴벳 레스큐의 내용에도 정해진 착륙장 없이 현장상황에 따라 구조하는데 기껏 지피 초소 정도는 그냥 누워서 떡먹기더라 착륙이 안돼도 호이스트 바스켓 구조 얼마든지 할수 있다. 또 그런 상황까지 철저히 훈련받는게 응급구조 헬기 대원들이다.
내가 1993년도에 올려진 선박짤의 냉동운반선에서 2등기관사로 승선중이던때 소말리아 아덴만 해상에서 항해중 갑판원 한명이 작업중 두 다리가 절단되는 사고가 일어났다.
가까운 소말리아나 예멘은 내전중 이거나 그런 응급구조 헬기가 없어서 오만이란 나라에서 응급구조 헬기를 보내줬고 헬기는 배위에서 호버링 하면서 구조요원 두명과 바스켓을 내리고 구조요원이 응급처치후 바스켓에 부상자 태우고 오만으로 가는데 단 10분도 안걸리더라.
다행히 부상자는 두다리가 완전절단 사고임에도
골든타임내 응급처치를 잘해서 감염없이 두다리를
재봉합하고 재생가능한 상태가 됐었슴
나 또한 1996년에 동원산업 참치선망선 웨스턴 킴호에 일등기관사 근무하면서 메인 엔진 수리중 오른손목이 거의 절상되는 사고를 당하고 키리바티란 나라에서 보내준 응급헬기 타고 헬기내에서 응급처치받고
병원으로 후송되어 절단되는 불상사는 면하고 지금은 손기능이 절반정도 돌아왔다.
양구 지피 같은 곳에 헬기가 착륙 안되면 호버링 바스켓 구조라도 해야지.
똥별 새끼들아 군인 목숨은 개나 주라 이거냐?
변명이라고 하는게 착륙장 없어서 구조가 늦었다.?
헬기가 잘만들어진 착륙장만 다니라고 만들어진
항공기냐?
말도 안되는 소리 작작해라 빨갱이 새끼들아
김정은 지령받고
항공 비행금지구역 만든건 말안하고 고작 말하는거 착륙장 없어서?
에라이 카악퉤
[출처] 난 응급헬기 구조 어디든지 가능 하다는걸 몸소 겪은몸이다. 경험썰
*사진 생략
--------------------------------------
일본이 개발한 산업용 로봇
일본이 개발한 산업용 로봇
-------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기