韓國이, 日本을 '자유진영 동반자'로 인정하지 않아서
생긴 일
펀드빌더
|
韓國이, 日本을 자유진영 동반자로 인정하지 않을 때, 어떤 문제점이 발생할까? 28일 아베 수상의 시정연설에 이미 답은 나와있다.
그것은, 韓國으로서는 가장 아프게 느껴질 <北韓과의 直거래>다.
결론적으로, '북한 수교 카드'는 日本으로서는 北韓 核·미사일 위협으로부터 자유로워짐과 동시에, 反日에 몰두하는 韓國(韓中)에 대한 통렬한 복수 효과도 얻게 되는 '절묘한 手'가 된다. 日本은, 韓國(문재인 정권)의 극심한 '反日'만 없었어도, 이같은 카드를 주저했을 것이다. 안타깝게도, 文在寅 정권이 非이성적 反日 폭주로 나오는 바람에, 더이상 日本은 韓國에 대한 '미안한 마음'(배려) 없이 이런 카드를 거침없이 뽑아들게 되었다. (발췌)
--------------------------------------------------------
하태경 페이스북
“문 대통령, 민주노총 요구 들어주면 호흡기로 연명하는 한국 경제 숨통 끊어질 것”
- 2019.1.28. 바른미래당 제60차 최고위원회의 모두발언 -
문재인 대통령께 정말 간곡히 부탁드린다. 민주노총 요구 들어주면 안 그래도 호흡기로 연명하는 한국 경제 숨통을 끊어 놓는 것이다. 한국 경제 회생 불가능해진다. 나라 경제가 완전히 파탄난다.
민주노총이 문재인 대통령에게 탄력근로 축소, 최저임금과 통상임금의 범위 동일화, 비정규직의 정규직 전환 등의 요구를 들어줘야 경사노위에 참여하겠다고 했다. 무뢰한도 이런 무뢰한이 없다. 민주노총은 경사노위에 참여해주는 것이 뭔가 대단한 양보라도 되는 것처럼 생각하는 모양이다.
--------------------------------------------------------------
물 쓰듯이 돈을 쓴다는 말이 있는데, 정말 무슨 똥깐의 휴지 쓰듯이 돈을 쓰고 있다.
하지만 저 돈은 국민의 피와 땀이었거나, 아니면 피와 땀으로 갚아야 하는 돈이다.
-----------------------------------------------------------
출처: 일베
--------------------------------------------------------------------
시진핑이 모든 신앙을 박멸하려 하고 있다.
미국이 화웨이를 경제 간첩 행위와 이란과의 공모 혐의로 기소하다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“김명수 대법원장은 문재인의 사냥개냐”
-친이계 좌장 이재오 자한당 상임고문-
“사람이 체면을 버릴 때가 있는데 나는 지금이 그때라고 본다”
“이명박 대통령의 항소심 재판은 순조롭게 진행돼 증인심문이 몇차례 되고 있다”
“중요증인들이 법정에 출석해 사실대로 진술하고 있다.
재판진행에 아무런 문제도 없다”
“그런데 김명수는 벌써 담당부장판사를 세번째 갈아치우고 있다”
“첫번째 조모판사는 경북 출신이라고 갈아치우더니
두번째 판사는 재판진행이 문재인 정권 마음에 들지 않는다고 갈아치웠다.
세번째 판사는 말 잘 듣는 사냥개를 앉히려는 모양이다
[출처] “대법원장 김명수는 문재인 사냥개냐”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
저는 어떤 정치집단에도 가입한적없고 종교도없는 평범한 국민입니다
우선 손혜원이란 괴물을 누나로두게되고 전국민을 거짓말로속이고 여론을 호도하는 사람을 가족으로 두게되서 죄송하단 말씀을 드리면서 손혜원의 거짓말을 하나하나 밝히겠습니다.
1.저희가족은 50년이 넘도록 지금까지 여호와의 증인입니다.조부모와 부모,4남2녀 인데 돌아가신아버님과 둘째형님과 저만 여호와의증인이 아니고 나머지는 모두 여호와의증인입니다.물론 손혜원이도 어렸을적부터 대학때까지 여화의 증인이었습니다.아실지 모르겠지만 그종교는 국가와 가족보다 자기들 종교가 우선하기때문에 제가 자랄때부터도 집안에서 차별이 너무많았습니다.그들은 어떤일에도 딱 두가지로 구분합니다.앞뒤사정,누구의 잘잘못을 가리기전에 여화의증인이냐 아니냐...로 말이죠.제가 가족들과 20년넘게 교류안한이유도 그이유가 가장큽니다.손혜원이도 그종교의 교리로 성장해서 그런지 자기말만 옳고 자기와의견이 다른사람은 다른게아니라 틀린거고,남의 말은 경청안하고,아집과 독선과 眼下無人과 唯我獨尊으로 성격이 된겁니다.지금도 임기응변과 거짓말로 일관하고 손혜원의 실체와 내면을 알지못하는 민주당지지세력과 순진한 묵포시민들을 부추켜서 온 나라를 둘로 갈라놓고 있습니다.저는 정치를 모르지만 선동열같은 훌륭한전설을 입에담지못할 독설로 남의 인생을망가뜨리면서 자기의 범죄는 당연하다고 하는 궤변에 기가 막힙니다
2.손혜원이가 도와줬다는 한달250만원은 제처가 손혜원이가 사장으로있는 하이핸드코리아의 신촌과 서울역에 근무하면서 받은 급여입니다.주말에도 10시까지 근무하면서 받은 급여를 무상으로 준거처럼 말하고 있는겁니다.또 5년6개원일한사람을 아무이유없이 해고했으며노동부에서 6개원간 받는 실업급여인가하는것도 못받게방해해서 노동부조사후에 받을수있었습니다
3.목포 창성장이 누구것인가?
2017년5월에 제처는 손혜원의 갖은 모욕과 무시를 견디며 손혜원의 업체에서 근무하고있었는데 어느날 손혜원이 제아들의 인감을 가져오라하면서 목포에 여관하나를 제아들이름으로 사야겠다는 말을합니다.제처는 거절할수있는 분위기가 아니었고 내용도 모르고 허락합니다.2017년 6월에 3000만원이통장에 들어오고 10분만에 손혜원이가 지시한 일면식도없는 사람에게 제처가 송금합니다.3개원후 제아들통장으로 다시4200만원이 들어오고 똑같이 손혜원이가 지시한 모르는 사람에게 10분만에 제처가 송금합니다.손혜원이가 창성장이외에 또다른 땅을 산거는 나중에 제가 알아냈습니다.손혜원이가 세명의청년들이 미래를위해서 창성장을 샀다고 말하는데 그럼 다른땅은 왜산거지 말을 안합니다.그게 내아들을 위해 증여한거라고 말하는데 공동명의한 세명은 지금도 서로 모르는 사이입니다.증여라면 증여세,취득세를 우리가 내야하는거아닌가요? 2018년2월에 제아들명의통장으로 손혜원이가720만원을 보내왔고 손혜원이의 지시대로 제처가 세무서에 증여세를 냈습니다.근데,취득세는 목포에있는 어떤세무사가 우리랑 상관없이 냈고 창성장수리비나 리모델링비도 우리는 낸적도없고 얼마가 소요됐는지 알지도 못합니다.우리는 관심이없었습니다.왜냐?우리것이 아니니까요.집주인이라면 당연히 가지고있어야할 등기권리증(집문서)도 우리는 본적도 없고 가지고있지않습니다.왜냐? 우리것이 아니니까요.ㅊ창성장에 방이몇갠지 수익이나 손해가 얼마나났는지 우린 단한번이라도 들은적도없고 알고싶지도않습니다.누가 운영하는지도 모릅니다.이게 내아들꺼라고 생각하십니까?증여를 자기건물담보잡혀서대출받아서 합니까?진짜 명절때 조카들한테 천원짜리하나 안주던 돈에 무서운 여자가 증여했다고 생각하십니까?
4.문화
손혜원이가 문화를사랑하고 목포를 사랑해서 했다구요?ㅋㅋㅋ 손혜원이의 가식을 모르시는 국민들이시니까....하긴...
손혜원이는 문화로 포장해서 모든겅 돈벌이로 생각한겁니다.하늘이 공평한건지 그녀에겐 자식이없습니다.삼신할머니가 진짜계신거같습니다.그래서 자식에대한사랑도 모르고 조카들도 자기수족같이부리고 그들의 인생을 자기가 좌지우지하려고하죠.손에얽혀있어서 말들을 안해서그렇지 조카들도 다들 치를 떱니다.황씨성을가지신 어떤장인의 작품을 3억원인가에 팔아서는 월급300여만원준건 아시죠?그렇게 돈에 무서운여자입니다.자기가 문화에 대단한 조예가있는것처럼 과대포장하고있는데 지나가는 개가 웃을일입니다.팩트는 문화란 이름으로포장해 치부의 수단으로 사용한겁니다.멀쩡히 대학다니는 제아들을 자개공으로만들려고 자개공을하라고했어요.미친여자아닙니까?저도 제아들에게 너하고싶은거하라고 말하는데 지가 뭔데 내아들에게 자개공을하라고합니까?아마 제아들을 평생부려먹을 심산이었나봅니다.
5.창성장 에 공동명의올라있는 세명의청년들이 그 여관을 운영할꺼라고 손혜원이가 말했는데 제아들이외의 두명은 손혜원이밑에서 일하는 채씨딸과 손혜원이의 보좌관자식이라고합니다.여러분!손혜원이밑의 이사라고하는 그여자와 국회의원보좌관이란사람들이 과연 지자식들 목포에 있는 여관으로 보낼까요? 과연 23살먹은 대학생 아이들이 목포로가서 그여관운영을 하려고 산거라고 보십니까?
제가 맹세합니다.그어린애들이 목포로가서 그여관 운영을 직접한다면,또 손혜원이가 얼떨결에 말한대로 재산을 모두 목포시에 헌납한다면 분신자살하겠습니다.저는그럴기회가없을꺼같네요.왜냐? 두가지다 절대 일어나지않을꺼니까요
6.마지막으로..
돈에 팔려 남편과 자식을 버리고 목포로 내려가 손혜원이의각본대로 꼭두각시처럼 움직이고 거기 빌붙어있는 제 전부인에게 부디 200살까지 잘먹구 잘살라고 전하고 싶습니다
읽어주신분들께 감사드립니다
2019.01.29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
사람들이 소비자로서 시장에 참여하는 지역에서는 인구가 감소한다. 반대로 경제적 자유가 없는 곳에는 인구증가가 멈추지 않는다.
-------------------------------------------
미국 중서부가 혹한으로 얼어붙었다. 망할 놈의 지구온난화는 어떻게 된건가?
--------------------------------------------------
Je suis pour le principe de subsidiarité qui me semble le plus efficace politiquement et économiquement. Politiquement, je suis localiste. L’individu ne doit être géré que par des gens qui vivent avec lui." 탈레브I am for the principle of subsidiarity which seems to me the most effective politically and economically. Politically, I am localist. The individual should only be managed by people who live with him. " (구글번역기)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
경쟁이 아닌 선택의 자유가 자본주의와
다른 체제의 차이점이다.
자본주의가 경쟁 체제라는 전제를 받아들이면, 좌파들의 프레임에 스스로를 가두고 그들과 불공평한 게임을 하게 된다.
자본주의는 사유재산권의 기초 위에 신체적 폭력이나 절도, 강제, 사기 등을 배제하고 자발적으로 상품과 서비스를 교환하는 시스템이다.
결핍이 있기 때문에 경쟁이 존재한다. 따라서 어떤 시스템에서도 경쟁이 존재한다. 사회주의도 경쟁을 없앨 수는 없다.
사람들이 부족한 자원과 제한된 시간 속에서 선택을 하기 때문에, 결핍이 있는 한 어떤 경제 체제 하에서도 경쟁은 있다. 따라서 자본주의의 본질적인 모습은 경쟁이 아니라 선택이다.
Freedom of Choice is What Sets Capitalism Apart — Not Competition
Antony Sammeroff
Capitalism has often been described by as “a system of competition” by its adversaries, or a system “based on competition.” Naturally, this assertion is usually coupled with a spirited oration on how this “tooth n’ nail” competition psychologically corrupts us – pitting man against man in a “race to the bottom.”
Many of capitalism’s most vocal advocates have, themselves, imbibed this premise uncritically. They leap to a fervent defenses of competition, extolling its virtues — real or perceived. In my view, this is a mistake. To accept without evaluation the presupposition that capitalism is a system of competition — in contrast to other hypothetical systems of cooperation (namely socialism and communism) — is to frame the very debate itself in leftist terms and play the game on an unfairly tilted game-board.
Competition Is Fierce for Government-Controlled Resources
This is not to say that those who defend competition do not raise some worthy points. For example: If not competition, then what is the alternative? Is there to be one central provider of each good and service available who gets to decide on our behalf how it is best to be produced and then allocated? Add to that, that if competition is wrong in the market, then why not in the political sphere? Surely democracy is out of the question if competition is a corrupting factor, because what do political candidates do if not compete for office? Think of the competition this generates between political parties, not to mention the ensuing competition between firms and individuals for preferential treatment from politicians and legislators, competition between lobbyists, think-tanks, and voters, to receive benefits out of the public purse. If the free and voluntary section of society is a system of competition, how much more so is government? Surely democracy is a “system of competition.” Politicians are competing for the very machinations of control in our society. For the right to pass and enforce laws which apply to everyone (whether they agree with them or not) and to force them to pay for their enforcement. They are not simply competing for market share where the winner of the competition is the one that satisfies the most demand. We can sidestep the more mundane economic arguments in favor of competition for the moment, such as the case that it increases efficiency and cheapens goods while driving innovation, as we are all familiar with them already.
Capitalism Is About Voluntary Exchange
This is not to say that competition is necessarily an evil either. The problem lies in defining capitalism as “a system of competition” — in comparison to other systems which are supposedly “cooperative” — is a rhetorical ploy. Those who profess it may honestly believe it to be so, but it’s not true. Capitalism is not “a system of competition.” any more than any other system. Capitalism (at least in its free-market, laissez faire ideal) is a system of the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the absence of physical coercion, theft, compulsion or fraud, predicated upon the fundamental right to own and accumulate property.
Or, for brevity: Capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange, predicated upon the right to own property.
One might even venture, therefore, that it is capitalism that is the system most characterized by cooperation.
Granted, upon seeing this definition, many would still debate us over the morality of accumulating property. Or perhaps whether the “negative” right to ownership when it comes to the rich should take precedence over the “positive” right to healthcare or education at their expense when it comes to the poor. We can even debate whether the relationship between capitalists and their employees are really free of coercion given the power disparity between the two groups. Indeed these are debates I delight in exploring further. However, none of this is a justification for defining capitalism as a system of that is more competition-based than others.
Because Scarcity Exists, Competition Will Always Exist Under Any System
After all, it is not the presence of private property or the free exchange of goods that creates the presence of competition in a capitalist system. Scarcity causes that. In any situation of scarcity of resources, there is bound to be some form of competition over those resources (as well as over how those resources are allocated).
If we have a system that allows voluntary exchange, some competition is bound to arise out of that, but that would happen under any system. Even if you had a completely communistic society, which was centrally planned and involved no exchange of money whatsoever, people’s time would still be limited. If you were a filmmaker in this society, you would probably want as many people to see your films as possible. As would every other film-maker. This would put you at least somewhat in competition with them. Does this mean that communism, too, is a system of competition? Certainly you would be competing for the only customer — the sponsorship of the state. Corruption and cronyism would surely be the result. Who gets their film made and who doesn’t? Who allocates the highly desirable job of being a film-maker over the undesirable job of being a street-sweeper or refuse collector, and how can their favor be courted? The competition will commence, but instead of being decided by the free and voluntary exchange of film-goers, investors and film-makers it will be decided by someone else, I would argue, in a rather more authoritarian fashion. (For a particularly vivid and chilling illustration of how communism substitutes market competition over customers (which is at least tied to the provision of desirable services) for the completely unmeritocratic competition over gaining favor from the corrupt power structure of the state, I refer the reader to Ayn Rand’s first novel, We The Living.)
Competition is just a feature of living in a world of scarcity, and would exist in any system. Socialism cannot do away with competition – nor can any other system.
Opportunity Cost Means Competition Is Everywhere
The implications of these facts reach into any circumstances of scarcity beyond the economy. For example, supposing two friends each invite me over to dinner of an evening, I might have to make a choice between their invitations which will result in one of them losing out on my company. Does this then mean that friendship is a system of competition?
We can’t see all of our friends all of the time, or even all of them at the same time. Even if we do, we are bound to have to split our attention between them. In addition to that we can only maintain so many close friendships at once, and we definitely can’t be friends with everyone. All of this means that inevitably we have to make choices. We each make decisions on who to make and maintain friendships with based upon our value judgements, conscious or unconscious. Perhaps based on how happy we feel around them, how long we have known one another, how much we have in common, how much we trust someone or how loyal they have shown themselves to be, how much they educate, enrich or enlighten us, or perhaps based upon what roles roles they allow us to fulfill in their lives. There can be countless other reasons. The fact is we decide. People who feel that they will benefit from our company, for whatever reason, will make attempts to spend time with us. We will invariably begin to make choices on who to spend time with based upon our values, schedule, and what other activities we are willing sacrifice to see them. These are basic facts of life, but they hardly make friendship a system of competition.
Similarly, on the market, our time and resources are limited. We make value-based judgments about choices of products and services to consume based upon what utility we think they will bring to us, sacrificing some options to others. Maybe we will choose a coffee shop based on which has the best tasting coffee, or maybe based on which provides the nicest atmosphere, or maybe based on which is closest, or where the customer service is best, or which is the cheapest, or which we have gone to the longest and therefore find familiar, or perhaps even based on which we think has the best ethos — for example, because they are a social enterprise that only sells fair trade produce and deliberately seeks to employ and train disadvantaged people. The fact is we decide. Each service provider believes they will benefit from our custom and will make attempts to attract us, placing an upward pressure on the quality of services and a downward pressure on price which we may correctly identify as a form of competition. Since human beings are not infallible, sometimes someone might buy a coffee that they don’t end up liking, but over the long term the competition is likely to be won by the satisfaction of customers.
The Benefits of Free Choice
The miraculous wonder we miss when we focus our attention upon the competition which derives from choice is the ability to choose itself. For example, supposing two commercial events are being held on the same evening. Each prospective patron will want to choose whichever event appeals to them the most, and for whatever reasons they choose based upon what they value in an event. Now, to simply mention that these events are “in competition” would be to completely miss the crucial point that event-goers (who are in the majority compared to event-organizers) have a choice of two events which they may prefer to go to one of rather than one alone.
In fact, there is actually far more cooperation involved in providing people with goods and services than there is competition. To accomplish anything in the marketplace, one must cooperate with buyers, sellers, managers, employees, suppliers, customers, advertisers, promoters, marketers, collective buyers, and so on. Leonard E. Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, illustrated this in his most famous essay, I, Pencil, first published in 1958. In it he noted that not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make a pencil. He goes onto explain that the cedarwood is sourced from Oregon and the logs milled in California. The graphite is mined in Ceylon, mixed with clay from Mississippi, then treated with a hot mixture which includes candelilla wax from Mexico to increase its strength and smoothness. The six coats of lacquer come separately from the growers of castor beans and the refiners of castor oil. In fact, when you include those who manufacture and transport the equipment involved in these processes you cannot help but marvel at the fact that millions of people have a hand in its creation. They are working in concert, in cooperation, and as a result you can get a pencil for pennies.
Market Competition Brings Choice Out of Scarcity
Because people make choices with scarce resources and limited time, competition will be an inherent part of any economic system so long as there is scarcity. The primary feature of free market capitalism is not competition, but choice. Rather than moderate the amount of competition in an economy, state intervention will replace competition to serve customers and convince them to voluntarily spend their money on a wide array of ever-expanding goods and services. We can contrast this with other systems in which competition rages over who can gain the favor of those who control the levers of government. That is where the real “tooth and nail” begins.
Antony Sammeroff co-hosts the Scottish Liberty Podcast and has featured prominently on other libertarian themed shows including The Tom Woods Show, Lions of Liberty, School Sucks Podcast and many more.
------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기