신재민 전 사무관,
'공익 위한 폭로니까 즐겁게 한다.'
-->이런 사람이 공무원 사회에 남아 있다는 게 아직 희망이 있다는 증거이다.
-------------------------
이언주
정경두 국방장관, 천안함 사건, 우리가 이해하고 넘어가자고요? 뭘 이해하고 넘어가자는 건지 분명히 밝히십시오. 북한이 우리 함정은 폭침시킨 거를요, 아님 우리 아이들, 병사들을 죽인 거를요? 당신이 그러고도 국방장관입니까? 당장 그 군복 벗으십시오. 자격이 없습니다.
------------------------------------------------
김태우에 이은 신재민의 '내부자 고발'
류근일 2019/1/2
운동권의 특징은 무엇인가? 자기들은 지고지선(至高至善) 그 자체이기 때문에 잘못을 저지를 수 없으며, 설령 잘못된 짓을 하는 경우라 할지라도 그것은 거룩한 목적을 위한 수단이기 때문에 정당화될 수 있다고 믿는다는 점이다. 운동권의 ‘내로남불’ 이면에는 바로 그런 사고(思考)가 도사리고 있다.
이래서 저들은 비위사실이 드러나도 똥 뀐 놈이 더 성낸다고, 길길이 뛰며 부인하고 변명하고 반박하지, 절대로 ‘대국민사과’ 따위는 하지 않는다. 잘못 시인, 자책, 사과는 그들의 DNA엔 없다. 운동권은 자신들의 과오, 실책, 오판, 오류를 단 한 번도 인정해본 적도 없고, 할 마인드도 되어있지 않다. 메아 꿀빠, 메아 울띠마 꿀빠(내 탓이요 내 큰 탓이오)란 그들에게선 한 번 보고 죽으려도 없다. (발췌)
---------------------------------------------------
한국의 2018년도 수출이 전년대비 5.5% 증가한 6054.7억 달러를 기록했다. 수입의 경우는 같은 기간 11.8% 오른 5349.9억 달러를 기록, 무역액은 사상 최대인 1조 1405억 달러로 집계됐다. (조갑제닷컴 발췌)
----> 아직 한국 경제가 그마나 버티고 있는 이유이다.
---------------------------------------------------
무서운 세상. 타의로 자살이 만들어지는 세상.
----------------------------------------------
 이번 자살 해프닝을 봐도 그렇지만 신재민이란 사람은 매 우 순진한 청년이었다. 그는 촛불 난동에 참여할 만큼, 우리 나라의 정치 상황에 무지했고, 또 자신이 공익적인 제보를 하면 민변 등이 반 기고 그를 의인으로 치켜세울 거라고 예상했던 듯하다. 하 지만 오히려 그들의 냉대를 받고, 진정성마저도 의심 받 자 극단적인 선택을 생각하기도 했던 것이다. 이것이 아마 일반적인 요즘 젊은이들의 모습이 아닐까 생 각된다. 청년들이 촛불난동은 좌파의 쿠데타였고, 지금 의 좌파 정권은 합법을 가장한 반역을 하고 있다는 사실 을 깨닫게 해야만, 우리의 정치가 바뀔 수 있다.
-------------------------------------------------
대만에 자유가 살아 있는한 시진핑은 절대 안심하지 못한다. 미국은 중국 침략자들이 이 활기찬 민주 국가를 접수하지 못하도록 해야 한다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
중국이 현대적인 시장 경제를 지향한다면, 댱국자들은 경제에 대한 개입을 멈춰야 한다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 집단이 손실을 기록했다. -------------------------------------------------  --------------------------------------------------- 중국의 휴대폰을 이용한 페이 시스템이 미국에 도입된다면, 미국 은행들은 커다란 타격을 받을 것이다.   ------------------------------------------------------- 민주당은 지난 30년 동안 합법과 불법 이민의 경계를 없애버렸다.  |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
신재민 어제 기자회견에서 사회자 같은 사람이 나서서 추가적인 것은 나중에 하겠다고 하고 기자회견 신재민 본인이 30분 질의응답 받겠다는거 15분 이내로만 하라고 하고 중간에 짜르면서 끝낸거 기억하냐
왜 이럴까 했더니
민변이 양심고백 할 때 안 도와주다가 일 커지니까 형사사건 한정으로만 수임해 준다고 했다고 한다.
그러고는 법률 조언 하는 척 하면서 추가폭로 못하게 막은 거다
게다가 왜 기자회견 마치고 변호사 만나고 나서 자살하냐
정말 이게 나라냐
[출처] 신재민 추가폭로 막은 곳 민변
---------------------------------------------------------------------
신재민 유서의 일부. 양심이 있는 청년의 고뇌가 보인다.
---------------------------------------------------------------
차명진
세금이 넉넉하게 걷힐 것으로 예상되는데 퍼주기용 자금을 넉넉하게 확보해 놓기 위해 미리 돈을 꿔 놓는다? 그 정도는 정책 집행자의 정권 아부용 잔머리로 치부할 수 있다.
진짜 괘씸한 것은 정권교체 연도인 2017년에 채권을 발행해서 넉넉한 재정이라는 단물은 새 정권이 빨아 먹고 나라 빚이라는 적폐는 전 정권에게 뒤집어 씌우려는 간사함이다.
국민들은 이번 사건을 통해 문재인 정부 국정과제 1호인 적폐청산의 속살을 들여다 보게 됐다.
우선 그들이 적폐청산 한다고 설치는 의도가 진짜 정의 구현용이 아니라 전 정권에 대한 국민 공분을 일으켜 문재인 정권의 지지율을 관리하기 위한 것임을 알게 됐다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
중국이 대만을 합병하려는 욕망이 세계 평화에 최대의 위협이다.
----------------------------------------------------------
전문가들은 2019년 유로존의 붕괴를 예상하고 있다.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
차명진
세금이 넉넉하게 걷힐 것으로 예상되는데 퍼주기용 자금을 넉넉하게 확보해 놓기 위해 미리 돈을 꿔 놓는다? 그 정도는 정책 집행자의 정권 아부용 잔머리로 치부할 수 있다.
진짜 괘씸한 것은 정권교체 연도인 2017년에 채권을 발행해서 넉넉한 재정이라는 단물은 새 정권이 빨아 먹고 나라 빚이라는 적폐는 전 정권에게 뒤집어 씌우려는 간사함이다.
국민들은 이번 사건을 통해 문재인 정부 국정과제 1호인 적폐청산의 속살을 들여다 보게 됐다.
우선 그들이 적폐청산 한다고 설치는 의도가 진짜 정의 구현용이 아니라 전 정권에 대한 국민 공분을 일으켜 문재인 정권의 지지율을 관리하기 위한 것임을 알게 됐다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
일자리는 기업가만이 만들 수 있다. 기업가를 겁주고 해외로 쫓고 있는데, 양질의 일자리가 만들어 질 수 없다. 
------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
막스의 이데올로기론
막스는 모든 인간은 계급의 이해에 의해 사고가 결정되고, 모든 부르주아 경제학과 기타 학문은 거짓이라고 주장했다.
하지만 모든 인간의 사고가 계급의 이해에 의해 결정된다면, 왜 막스의 견해만 진리라고 받아들여야 할까? 더구나 막스와 엥겔스 모두 유복한 자산가, 귀족, 자본가들이었다.
The Marxian Doctrine of "Ideology"
Murray N. Rothbard
Even Marx must dimly recognize that not "material productive forces," not even "classes," act in the real world, but only individual consciousness and individual choice. Even in the Marxian analysis, each class, or the individuals within it, must become conscious of its "true" class interests in order to act upon pursuing or achieving them. To Marx, each individual's thinking, his values and theories, are all determined, not by his personal self-interest, but by the interest of the class to which he supposedly belongs. This is the first fatal flaw in the argument; why in the world should each individual ever hold his class higher than himself? Second, according to Marx, this class interest determines his thoughts and viewpoints, and must do so, because each person is only capable of "ideology" or false consciousness in the interest of his class. He is not capable of a disinterested, objective search for truth, nor of pursuit of his own interest or of that of all mankind. But, as von Mises has pointed out, Marx's doctrine pretends to be pure, non-ideological science, and yet written expressly to advance the class interest of the proletariat. But, while all "bourgeois" economics and all other disciplines of thought were interpreted by Marx as false by definition, as "ideological" rationalizations of bourgeois class interest, the Marxists
were not consistent enough to assign to their own doctrines merely ideological character. The Marxian tenets, they implied, are not ideologies. They are a foretaste of the knowledge of the future classless society which, freed from the fetters of class conflicts, will be in a position to conceive pure knowledge, untainted by ideological blemishes.
David Gordon has aptly summed up this point:
If all thought about social and economic matters is determined by class position, what about the Marxist system itself? If, as Marx proudly proclaimed, he aimed at providing a science for the working class, why should any of his views be accepted as true? Mises rightly notes that Marx's view is self-refuting: if all social thought is ideological, then this proposition is itself ideological and the grounds for believing it have been undercut. In his Theories of Surplus Value, Marx cannot contain his sneering at the "apologetics" of various bourgeois economists. He did not realize that in his constant jibes at the class bias of his fellow economists, he was but digging the grave of his own giant work of propaganda on behalf of the proletariat.
Von Mises also raises the point that it is absurd to believe that the interests of any class, including the capitalists, could ever be served better by a false than by a correct doctrine. To Marx, the point of philosophy was only the achievement of some practical goal. But if, as in pragmatism, truth is only "what works," then surely the interests of the bourgeoisie would not be served by clinging to a false theory of society. If the Marxian answer holds, as it has, that false theory is necessary to justify the existence of capitalist rule, then, as von Mises points out, from the Marxian point of view itself the theory should not be necessary. Since each class ruthlessly pursues its own interest, there is no need for the capitalists to justify their rule and their alleged exploitation to themselves. There is also no need to use these false doctrines to keep the proletariat subservient, since, to Marxists, the rule or the overthrow of a given social system depends on the material productive forces, and there is no way by which consciousness can delay this development or speed it up. Or, if there are such ways, and the Marxists often implicitly concede this fact, then there is a grave and self-defeating flaw in the heart of Marxian theory itself.
It is a well-known irony and another deep flaw in the Marxian system that, for all the Marxian exaltation of the proletariat and the "proletarian mind," all leading Marxists, beginning with Marx and Engels, were emphatically bourgeois themselves. Marx was the son of a wealthy lawyer, his wife was a member of the Prussian nobility, and his brother-in-law Prussian minister of the interior. Friedrich Engels, his lifelong benefactor and collaborator, was the son of a wealthy manufacturer, and himself a manufacturer. Why were not their views and doctrines also determined by bourgeois class interests? What permitted their consciousness to rise above a system so powerful that it determines the views of everyone else?
In this way, every determinist system attempts to provide an escape-hatch for its own believers, who are somehow able to escape the determinist laws that afflict everyone else. Unwittingly, these systems become in that way self-contradictory and self-refuting. In the 20th century, Marxists such as the German sociologist Karl Mannheim attempted to elevate this escape-hatch into High Theory: that somehow, "intellectuals" are able to "float free," to levitate above the laws that determine all other classes.
[This article is excerpted from volume 2, chapter 12 of An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought (1995).]
-----------------------------------------------------------
열심히 일만 한다고 가난에서 벗어날 수는 없다.
선진국의 근로자들이 후진국의 근로자보다 적은 시간을 일하고도 부자인 이유는, 부자 나라들의 근로자 평균 생산성이 더 높기 때문이다.
하지만 높은 생산성을 얻으려면 두 번째 요소가 필요한데, 그것은 바로 자본이다. 다시 말해 기술과 선진적인 생산 기술이다.
열심히 일하는 것도 중요하지만, 그것이 근로자의 생산성을 개선하고, 더 많은 수익을 내기 위해서는 반드시 자본 형성이 동반되어야 한다. 단순히 노동이 그 자체로 경제를 발전시킨다는 생각은 경제의 기본을 모르는 소리이다.
Hard Work (Alone) Won't Get Your Country Out of Poverty
Jorge Eduardo García
Work is a determining factor for personal success and social development. Furthermore, there is a socially accepted mantra around work that surrounds it with an aura of mysticism. It is said that hard work is what drives a person, and therefore a whole country. Is this true? This article tries to explain why the idea of hard work as the only determinant for development is incomplete. Work alone does not achieve the economic development desired by all.
Hard Work?
When you start talking about hard work, it is hard to find the best way to explain it: do you explain it on the basis of strength or intelligence? An easy way to try to measure it is based on the work hours of each individual worker. Graph 1 shows the average hours worked per year. Graph 2 shows the average hours worked per week in different OECD countries.
그래프 생략
On the surface you can see a simple pattern: richer countries work fewer hours. Does it make sense, then, to believe that people who work the most hours are the ones who live better? The primary data seems to indicate the contrary; yet this idea goes against common sense. In almost all societies and religions hard work and effort are welcome. But if they do not determine the development of a country, what does?
As Time Passes, We Work Less: A Comparison Between Generations
The previous questions require a more detailed analysis of the data. Why do richer countries work “less hard” than poorer ones? Why is the effort of those who work the most not rewarded by a better quality of life? To understand these questions we need to add variables to the analysis: an important variable to analyze is how the number of hours worked has changed over the years. Graph 3 shows the annual number of average working hours for three different generations, with an approximate gap of 20 years per observation.
After the 70s, there was a pronounced decrease in the number of hours dedicated to work in OECD countries; the trend is more evident in European countries. In the case of Japan, the decrease was more than a quarter in 40 years.
But time by itself does not explain anything. Therefore, it is important to remember that all OECD countries have grown economically in those 40 years. The resulting relationship is between economic development over time and the decrease in annual working hours. This is why the poorest countries work more hours. This can be seen more clearly in Graph 4, which shows the development of annual working hours over 40 years for three world economic powers. Even though the decrease is less pronounced in the United States than in other countries, the trend has been a downward one over the years.
Analyzing the data for annual working hours and comparing them against GDP per capita shows that the richness-quantity of hours worked ratio that we are assuming to is true (Graph 5). The higher the GDP per capita, the fewer hours worked per year. In societies, wealth causes less need for work. But this raises the question of "why."
Hard Work or More Productive Work?
The quick answer to the question of why workers in developed economies work less than in poorer countries is because the average productivity of workers in rich countries is higher. Having more access to technology and techniques that make work more efficient, requires less work hours to achieve the same result — perhaps even a better one. Graph 6 shows the relationship between productivity and average annual working hours for 2014. Productivity is measured as GDP per hour worked.
There is a strong relationship between productivity and annual working hours per worker. More work is not needed to produce more. However, to achieve greater productivity a second factor is necessary: capital. Worker productivity improves with technology or better production techniques. To have access to both, capital assistance — both physical and human — is necessary.
Hard Work, from our Grandparents
Developed countries spent decades and centuries of working and saving in order to reach the capital that they currently have. As we previously mentioned, work does not automatically bring economic development. However, work makes the way to the formation of capital through saving. As discussed in another Market Trends article, capital accumulation is the foundation of economic development, and the lack of capital is the most well-known poverty traps today. Yet many countries managed to get rid of their poverty traps in the last 200 years through hard work and saving. This means that many generations have decided not to consume all of their present production and decided to save in order to have a better future. These savings were then invested by disruptive entrepreneurs and innovators who created value. Finally, this capital increased the productivity of the following generations and gave way to the quality of life that we see in first world countries. This is why salaries in these countries are higher than in less developed countries and why less labor is needed in these countries. Since capital improved the marginal productivity of labor — the marginal contribution of each worker to the productive chain — his salary increases because his performance is better.
The Cultural Factor of Work and Saving
Something to take into account when analyzing the importance of work in economic development is culture. Culture in economics is a vital factor to understand social-economic dynamics. A culture dedicated to work and one that praises persistence and perseverance increases a country’s chances of emerging from underdevelopment. These characteristics are present in most of the countries of East Asia. The so-called “Asian tigers” are a good example of work culture, saving, and investment — values that have made these countries experience a great economic development in 70 years.
However, other cultures do not have the same culture of saving and, therefore, their work does not yield much fruit. Latin America lacks capital primarily because of its low levels of savings, barely surpassing the average for sub-Saharan Africa. The absence of a culture of saving in Latin American society is a constant that has condemned it to economic backwardness and underdevelopment.
There are many explanations for the lack of saving culture in Latin America. However, behavioral economists claim that a determining factor is the difficulty that people have when calculating future needs. It is not very intuitive for the average person (who also does not have proper education) to discount the value of their postponed consumption in order to receive more in the future. And to complicate things, their low incomes do not allow them to constantly save, since that money is needed to cover their most basic needs. This is why foreign investments are so important for developing countries: the need for capital can be met without the need to restrict consumption and the current standard of living. It’s a shame that certain groups fail to understand this logic and who, through their actions, keep millions of people in poverty.
Conclusion
Hard work is important, but it has to go hand-in-hand with capital formation in order to improve worker productivity and generate more returns with less effort. Capital, both physical and intellectual, allows workers to have better living standards, either through higher incomes or by needing less hours to complete their work. This is why savings and investment are the most important factors in the development of economies. Believing that work by itself will succeed in moving a country forward is to ignore the basic premises of economics. Even worse, this train of thought continues to condemn millions to live in poverty.
Originally published by UFM Trends.
Jorge Eduardo García is currently completing the fourth year of a degree in Economics with a specialization in Finance at the Francisco Marroquín University.
---------------------------------------------------------
이국동
《金匮要略》曰：“胸痹心中痞气，气结在胸，胸满，胁下逆抢心，枳实薤白桂枝汤主之。人参汤亦主之。”胸痹，胸满，胁下逆抢心者，此为心脾俱实，枳实薤白桂枝汤主之；若不瘥，则为心实脾虚，桂枝人参汤主之。
“胸痹，胸中气塞、短气，茯苓杏仁甘草汤主之。桔枳姜汤亦主之。”胸痹，短气，胸中气息阻塞，无可奈何，此为脾虚水停胸中，茯苓杏仁甘草汤主之；若不瘥，则为脾实，桔皮枳实生姜汤主之。
“夫短气有微饮，当从小便去之，苓桂术甘汤主之。肾气丸亦主之。”短气有微饮，小便不利者，此为肾气实，苓桂术甘汤主之；若不瘥，则为肾气虚，肾气丸主之。
“病溢饮者，当发其汗，大青龙汤主之，小青龙汤亦主之。”病溢饮者，此为实，大青龙汤主之；若不瘥，则为虚实夹杂，小青龙汤主之。
“里水，越婢加术汤主之，甘草麻黄汤亦主之。”里水者，一身面目黄肿，其脉沉，小便不利，故令病水，此为肺实脾虚，越婢加术汤主之；若不瘥，则为肺脾两实，甘草麻黄汤主之。
引申义：
“风水恶风，一身悉肿，脉浮，不渴，续自汗出，无大热，越婢汤主之。”假如一身悉肿，脉沉，不汗出，则为少阴病，麻黄附子甘草汤主之。即“水之为病，其脉沉小，属少阴。浮者为风，无水，虚胀者为气。水，发其汗即已。脉沉者，宜麻黄附子甘草汤。浮者，宜杏子汤。”杏子汤，法当为麻黄杏子甘草汤，即为越婢汤方根。越婢汤加桂枝杏仁，即为大青龙汤。可见越婢汤证比大青龙汤证之阳邪要轻一些。越婢汤证之阳邪轻一些的表现，应为没有身疼重，因为大青龙汤证有身疼重。
又如《伤寒论》92条：“病发热、头痛，脉反沉，若不瘥，身体疼痛，当救其里，四逆汤方。”此条“病发热、头痛”，省略了身体疼痛，脉反沉者，可与桂枝麻黄各半汤加附子，若不瘥，身体疼痛，则为里虚，可与四逆汤。
再如《伤寒论》100条：“伤寒，阳脉涩，阴脉弦，法当腹中急痛，先与小建中汤；不瘥者，小柴胡汤主之。”伤寒阳脉涩，为寸脉实而涩，此为卫气实；阴脉弦为尺脉弦，此为荣气虚。阳脉涩则卫气不能入营，阴脉弦则腹中筋脉挛急，故曰法当腹中急痛。此腹中急痛为什么不先与小柴胡汤？因为腹中痛不是柴胡汤证常见病位，而是小建中汤证常见病位，如《金匮要略》曰：“虚劳里急……腹中痛……小建中汤主之。”“妇人腹中痛，小建中汤主之。”柴胡汤证腹中痛者，常与柴胡证并见，此条没有柴胡证，故不先与小柴胡汤。小建中汤证为荣虚卫实，与小建中汤，若不瘥，则为脾虚肝实，小柴胡汤主之。这就是“观其脉证，知犯何逆，以法治之。”
--------------------------------------------------
《金匮要略》曰：“胸痹心中痞气，气结在胸，胸满，胁下逆抢心，枳实薤白桂枝汤主之。人参汤亦主之。”胸痹，胸满，胁下逆抢心者，此为心脾俱实，枳实薤白桂枝汤主之；若不瘥，则为心实脾虚，桂枝人参汤主之。
“胸痹，胸中气塞、短气，茯苓杏仁甘草汤主之。桔枳姜汤亦主之。”胸痹，短气，胸中气息阻塞，无可奈何，此为脾虚水停胸中，茯苓杏仁甘草汤主之；若不瘥，则为脾实，桔皮枳实生姜汤主之。
“夫短气有微饮，当从小便去之，苓桂术甘汤主之。肾气丸亦主之。”短气有微饮，小便不利者，此为肾气实，苓桂术甘汤主之；若不瘥，则为肾气虚，肾气丸主之。
“病溢饮者，当发其汗，大青龙汤主之，小青龙汤亦主之。”病溢饮者，此为实，大青龙汤主之；若不瘥，则为虚实夹杂，小青龙汤主之。
“里水，越婢加术汤主之，甘草麻黄汤亦主之。”里水者，一身面目黄肿，其脉沉，小便不利，故令病水，此为肺实脾虚，越婢加术汤主之；若不瘥，则为肺脾两实，甘草麻黄汤主之。
引申义：
“风水恶风，一身悉肿，脉浮，不渴，续自汗出，无大热，越婢汤主之。”假如一身悉肿，脉沉，不汗出，则为少阴病，麻黄附子甘草汤主之。即“水之为病，其脉沉小，属少阴。浮者为风，无水，虚胀者为气。水，发其汗即已。脉沉者，宜麻黄附子甘草汤。浮者，宜杏子汤。”杏子汤，法当为麻黄杏子甘草汤，即为越婢汤方根。越婢汤加桂枝杏仁，即为大青龙汤。可见越婢汤证比大青龙汤证之阳邪要轻一些。越婢汤证之阳邪轻一些的表现，应为没有身疼重，因为大青龙汤证有身疼重。
又如《伤寒论》92条：“病发热、头痛，脉反沉，若不瘥，身体疼痛，当救其里，四逆汤方。”此条“病发热、头痛”，省略了身体疼痛，脉反沉者，可与桂枝麻黄各半汤加附子，若不瘥，身体疼痛，则为里虚，可与四逆汤。
再如《伤寒论》100条：“伤寒，阳脉涩，阴脉弦，法当腹中急痛，先与小建中汤；不瘥者，小柴胡汤主之。”伤寒阳脉涩，为寸脉实而涩，此为卫气实；阴脉弦为尺脉弦，此为荣气虚。阳脉涩则卫气不能入营，阴脉弦则腹中筋脉挛急，故曰法当腹中急痛。此腹中急痛为什么不先与小柴胡汤？因为腹中痛不是柴胡汤证常见病位，而是小建中汤证常见病位，如《金匮要略》曰：“虚劳里急……腹中痛……小建中汤主之。”“妇人腹中痛，小建中汤主之。”柴胡汤证腹中痛者，常与柴胡证并见，此条没有柴胡证，故不先与小柴胡汤。小建中汤证为荣虚卫实，与小建中汤，若不瘥，则为脾虚肝实，小柴胡汤主之。这就是“观其脉证，知犯何逆，以法治之。”
--------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
황황 살롱에서 가져온 글인데, 무슨 일인지 복사를 못하도록 해놓았다.
--------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기