펀드빌더
구로다 전 지국장은 일본 ‘문예춘추’에 ‘한국 보수파들은 박정희를 보고 박근혜를 뽑아줬는데, 박근혜는 아버지로부터 벗어나기 위해 다른 식으로 애국하려 했다. 그를 지지하지 않는 세력을 위해 노력한 것인데, 그들로부터 어떠한 찬사도 받지 못하고 탄핵됐다. 한국의 전통 보수 세력도 함께 붕괴됐다
납치 일본인 구명 운동가인 니시오카 쓰토무 씨는 일본이 레이더 사건에 주목하는 이유를 "그 배에는 시신 1구와 함께 세 사람이 있었는데, 한국은 사흘 뒤 판문점을 통해 시신과 이들을 북한으로 돌려보냈다. 일본의 의심은, 그들이 김만철 씨처럼 탈북한 것인데, 한국이 북한과 관계를 의식해 바로 돌려보낸 것은 아니냐라는 것이다"라고 말했다… (발췌)
---->박 대통령은 좌파세력을 정확히 파악하지 못하고, 그저 그들을 감싸 안으면 문제가 해결된다고 믿었다. 그것이 그녀가 지금 감옥에 가 있는 이유 중의 하나이다.
그리고 레이더 조사 사건에 등장하는 북한 배는 공작선이라는 설과 탈북자들의 배라는 설이 있는데, 아마도 탈북자들일 가능성이 조금 더 크다. 거물급(?) 탈북자를 북한의 요구에 의해 한국이 중간에 포착해 북한에 돌려준 듯하다.
---------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
So the summit in February should not occur. The next time Trump and Kim meet, the American president should not have to plead for a declaration of nuclear and missile sites or beg for a firm timetable for denuclearization.
Trump should only meet Kim when he can congratulate the North Korean that American inspectors have verified he has surrendered every last vestige of his nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.
--------------------------------------------------
미국은 중국과의 관계를 재조정하고 있다?
---------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
If the U.S. Doesn’t Get China Right, Nothing Else Will Matter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
김태우 "우리들의 건배사는 '조국을 위하여'였다"
"우리들의 공식 건배사는 ‘조국을 위하여’였다."
청와대 민간인 사찰 의혹을 제기한 김태우 검찰 수사관이 21일 오전 서울 중구 프레스센터에서 열린 기자회견에서 이렇게 말했다. 건배사에 등장한 ‘조국’은 우리나라가 아니라, 민정수석을 가리키는 것이라고 김 수사관은 설명했다.
김 수사관은 "박형철 청와대 반부패비서관이 조국 민정수석에 충성한다는 말을 자주 했다"며 "회식 자리에서 상관들이 ‘조국을 위하여’라고 선창하면, 졸병들은 ‘민정아 사랑해’라고 화답하면서 폭탄주를 마셨다"고 밝혔다.
그러면서 "박 비서관은 조국 수석에 충성해야 한다면서 임종석 청와대 비서실장에 대한 비리 정보를 가져오라고 말하기도 했다"고 덧붙였다. ‘민정수석을 위하여 상관인 비서실장의 약점을 잡으라’는 지시로 해석될 수 있는 대목이다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
내일부터 손아줌마 뉴스 싹 사라질거다 。
그리고,, 1월 25일 김경수 무죄각 아니면 집행유예다。그 댓가로 ~차기 대선주자 박원슝이 뜰거다.
림쫑썩이 내일부터 청와대출근한단다.
고소 고발 조심해라,
우리는 또 속았다
[출처] 천기누설 한번 하고 간다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[외신번역] 한국을 겨냥한 일본의 대대적인 '경제제재' 가능성//반도체 관련 핵심부품 및 소재 '수출 금지' 가능성 높아!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2만5천년 전에 매머드 상아에 새긴 여성의 얼굴
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
원자력 에너지만이 지구를 구할 수 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
학자와 학문의 쇠퇴
학자들이 대학 교단에서 사라지고 있고, 그 자리를 전문가들이 채우고 있다. 그 첫 번째 피해자는 학생들이다.
교수직을 지닌 전문가들은 자신이 알고 있는 제한된 영역 밖에는 알지 못한다. 그들의 전문지식은 학생들이 이해하기 어렵고, 또 그 밖의 지식에 대해서는 그들 역시 아마추어들이다.
자연과학과 행동 과학에서 소위 말하는 “논문 결과의 재연 반복 불가” 위기는 학문의 위기를 불러왔다. 이는 통계의 부적절한 적용, 편향된 연구 기법, 책임의 부재, 정치적 집단사고 등에 기인한다.
전문가집단이 대학을 점령하는 한, 지식을 교육하고 지식을 발전시키는 대학 고유의 목적은 계속 저해될 것이다.
대학에 대한 국가의 개입을 철회하는 것이 학계를 재생하는 첫 번째 조치이고, 이는 연구에 대한 공적 자금의 지원을 삭감하거나 중단하는 것에서 시작되어야 한다.
The Decline of the Scholar and the Decline of Academia
Antony P. Mueller
The academic scholar, along with the great teacher, is vanishing from the faculties of the universities. Specialists occupy the places that they leave. The first victims of this process are the students. When the professorial specialists hold a lecture, they have little else to teach that goes beyond their tiny field of expertise. About the areas other than the field of specialization, the one-dimensional expert is as ignorant as the students. When the experts teach their specialization, the content is too advanced for the students to understand and should the experts go into the wider area of the discipline, their discourse becomes amateurish. The decline of wisdom in academia that has happened over the past decades results from this change.
Scholars, Teachers, and the Specialists
Of the three ideal types of university professors — the scholar, the teacher, and the specialist — the scholar is the one who combines both a profound knowledge of a field of expertise with a solid knowledge of other areas of knowledge. Until the 1970s, many universities in Europe and the United States had scholars. While only a few of these scholars enjoyed the serendipity that is the realm of the genius, many of them excelled in the same way as the great masters. The scholars spread knowledge combined with wisdom because a great scholar is not only a researcher but always also a great teacher.
With the scholar, the great teacher is also vanishing from university faculties. Different from the scholar, the great teacher in its pure form does not excel in a specialization. Yet his strength is a broad and accurate knowledge of the subfields of his discipline and his ability to bring his insights to the students. The great teacher opens the doors to knowledge. He knows about the many entrances that exist and the many ways of finding one’s way through the labyrinth of knowledge.
When there were still scholars and great teachers at the faculties, not only the students would profit but also the experts. The scholars and the great teachers in the departments were the promoters of communication. They brought the faculty together in a common discussion.
In the past, the great teachers and scholars would hold the introductory lecture. They would compare their chosen academic discipline with other areas and would help the students to go on with confidence or choose another path. In the modern university, this has ended. Nowadays, most colleges relegate the introductory courses to substitute professors. These assistants and adjuncts are at the beginning of their career and cannot be scholars or good teachers and that they likewise are also not yet experts. There are signs that this erosion is most advanced at the so-called “elite” institutions where also the dread of political correctness is most present and the cuddling of the American mind most advanced.
Rise of the Specialist
Over time, the lump-sum funding of the university had to make way for getting outside financing. The benefits of scholarship and teaching counted less while the new criteria for academic advancement favored the specialist whose competence is limited to a tiny field of expertise. To get funding, the disciplines had to put on the “mantle of science.” Scholarship had to make room for scientism.
While the paper output has grown, their quality has declined. Across the whole range of the natural and the behavioral sciences the so-called “irreproducibility crisis” has thrown doubts on the reliability of even the most prominent results. Failing to reproduce published research afflicts a wide range of disciplines, ranging from medicine and psychology to the social sciences. Investigations have revealed that subsequent studies cannot reproduce established findings. The problem encompasses the improper application of statistics, biased research techniques, lack of accountability, and political groupthink. The pressure of “publish or perish” has led to a scientific culture toward delivering positive results even if they are unwarranted by the data basis.
As some authors claim, most published research findings in medicine are false. Another study finds that researchers failed to reproduce most of another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own results. Other investigations show that outright fraud is behind the fabricated results. After the Sokol affair of years ago, new blunt hoaxes with made-up papers have revealed the political bias of some academic journals.
The more the specialists dominate in a university, the more the original purpose of a university to educate and advance knowledge will suffer. Numerical performance measurement, which is even misplaced in the business world, becomes a scourge in areas such as education that is much less fit for numerical evaluation than business. As Jerry Z. Muller explains in his Tyranny of Metrics, applying formal yardsticks to measure academic performance does little to advance knowledge but has led to gaming, cheating, and goal diversion. The cascade of rules and regulations hampers the attainment of the original purpose of the university. Misaligned incentives work in favor of the specialist, yet they drive the efforts away from the meaning of what a university should be.
In many areas, academic production has reached a stage of diminishing returns and scientific progress has become stagnant. Public trust in science is still holding up but the attraction of pseudo sciences is rising and there is only a small step from the popularity of pseudo sciences to anti-science. It is in the self-interest of the specialists who now dominate the departments that more scholars get hired.
A major step to diminish the rat race of publish or perish would come from phasing out public funding of science. It is a myth that scientific progress depends on public money. Without public funding the chance of innovative breakthrough does not diminish. On the contrary: public financing of research directs time and money not to innovation but to conventional research areas and traditional methods.
Conclusion
In many academic fields, the awareness is growing that the demise of the scholar has impoverished the intellectual life in the universities. The decline of the universities has accelerated over the past couple of decades. Driven by the encroachment of the state, the institutions of higher learning have succumbed to the government. Scientism has crowded out the scholars and the great teachers. The foremost victims of this process are the students who no longer receive a good education. Both in terms of the formation of students and of the research output that benefits do not justify the costs. The withdrawal of state intervention would be the first step to a rejuvenated academia, beginning with a cut and a stop of the public funding of research.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
공적 영역이라는 오류
최소의 통치가 최선의 통치라는 제퍼슨의 말처럼, 공적 영역을 축소하는 것은 언제나 도덕적, 경제적 이익이다.
The Fallacy of the "Public Sector"
Murray N. Rothbard
[This article is excerpted from Economic Controversies, chapter 21, "The Fallacy of the 'Public Sector'" (2011). It originally appeared in the New Individualist Review (Summer, 1961): 3–7.]
We have heard a great deal in recent years of the "public sector," and solemn discussions abound through the land on whether or not the public sector should be increased vis-à-vis the "private sector." The very terminology is redolent of pure science, and indeed it emerges from the supposedly scientific, if rather grubby, world of "national-income statistics." But the concept is hardly wertfrei; in fact, it is fraught with grave, and questionable, implications.
In the first place, we may ask, "public sector" of what? Of something called the "national product." But note the hidden assumptions: that the national product is something like a pie, consisting of several "sectors," and that these sectors, public and private alike, are added to make the product of the economy as a whole. In this way, the assumption is smuggled into the analysis that the public and private sectors are equally productive, equally important, and on an equal footing altogether, and that "our" deciding on the proportions of public to private sector is about as innocuous as any individual's decision on whether to eat cake or ice cream. The State is considered to be an amiable service agency, somewhat akin to the corner grocer, or rather to the neighborhood lodge, in which "we" get together to decide how much "our government" should do for (or to) us. Even those neoclassical economists who tend to favor the free market and free society often regard the State as a generally inefficient, but still amiable, organ of social service, mechanically registering "our" values and decisions.
One would not think it difficult for scholars and laymen alike to grasp the fact that government is not like the Rotarians or the Elks; that it differs profoundly from all other organs and institutions in society; namely, that it lives and acquires its revenues by coercion and not by voluntary payment. The late Joseph Schumpeter was never more astute than when he wrote, "The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the services of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind."
Apart from the public sector, what constitutes the productivity of the "private sector" of the economy? The productivity of the private sector does not stem from the fact that people are rushing around doing "something," anything, with their resources; it consists in the fact that they are using these resources to satisfy the needs and desires of the consumers. Businessmen and other producers direct their energies, on the free market, to producing those products that will be most rewarded by the consumers, and the sale of these products may therefore roughly "measure" the importance that the consumers place upon them. If millions of people bend their energies to producing horses-and-buggies, they will, in this day and age, not be able to sell them, and hence the productivity of their output will be virtually zero. On the other hand, if a few million dollars are spent in a given year on Product X, then statisticians may well judge that these millions constitute the productive output of the X-part of the "private sector" of the economy.
One of the most important features of our economic resources is their scarcity: land, labor, and capital-goods factors are all scarce, and may all be put to various possible uses. The free market uses them "productively" because the producers are guided, on the market, to produce what the consumers most need: automobiles, for example, rather than buggies. Therefore, while the statistics of the total output of the private sector seem to be a mere adding of numbers, or counting units of output, the measures of output actually involve the important qualitative decision of considering as "product" what the consumers are willing to buy. A million automobiles, sold on the market, are productive because the consumers so considered them; a million buggies, remaining unsold, would not have been "product" because the consumers would have passed them by.
Suppose now that into this idyll of free exchange enters the long arm of government. The government, for some reasons of its own, decides to ban automobiles altogether (perhaps because the many tailfins offend the aesthetic sensibilities of the rulers) and to compel the auto companies to produce the equivalent in buggies instead. Under such a strict regimen, the consumers would be, in a sense, compelled to purchase buggies because no cars would be permitted. However, in this case, the statistician would surely be purblind if he blithely and simply recorded the buggies as being just as "productive" as the previous automobiles. To call them equally productive would be a mockery; in fact, given plausible conditions, the "national product" totals might not even show a statistical decline, when they had actually fallen drastically.
And yet the highly touted "public sector" is in even worse straits than the buggies of our hypothetical example. For most of the resources consumed by the maw of government have not even been seen, much less used, by the consumers, who were at least allowed to ride in their buggies. In the private sector, a firm's productivity is gauged by how much the consumers voluntarily spend on its product. But in the public sector, the government's "productivity" is measured — mirabile dictu — by how much it spends! Early in their construction of national-product statistics, the statisticians were confronted with the fact that the government, unique among individuals and firms, could not have its activities gauged by the voluntary payments of the public — because there were little or none of such payments. Assuming, without any proof, that government must be as productive as anything else, they then settled upon its expenditures as a gauge of its productivity. In this way, not only are government expenditures just as useful as private, but all the government need to do in order to increase its "productivity" is to add a large chunk to its bureaucracy. Hire more bureaucrats, and see the productivity of the public sector rise! Here, indeed, is an easy and happy form of social magic for our bemused citizens.
The truth is exactly the reverse of the common assumptions. Far from adding cozily to the private sector, the public sector can only feed off the private sector; it necessarily lives parasitically upon the private economy. But this means that the productive resources of society — far from satisfying the wants of consumers — are now directed, by compulsion, away from these wants and needs. The consumers are deliberately thwarted, and the resources of the economy diverted from them to those activities desired by the parasitic bureaucracy and politicians. In many cases, the private consumers obtain nothing at all, except perhaps propaganda beamed to them at their own expense. In other cases, the consumers receive something far down on their list of priorities — like the buggies of our example. In either case, it becomes evident that the "public sector" is actually antiproductive: that it subtracts from, rather than adds to, the private sector of the economy. For the public sector lives by continuous attack on the very criterion that is used to gauge productivity: the voluntary purchases of consumers.
We may gauge the fiscal impact of government on the private sector by subtracting government expenditures from the national product. For government payments to its own bureaucracy are hardly additions to production; and government absorption of economic resources takes them out of the productive sphere. This gauge, of course, is only fiscal; it does not begin to measure the antiproductive impact of various government regulations, which cripple production and exchange in other ways than absorbing resources. It also does not dispose of numerous other fallacies of the national product statistics. But at least it removes such common myths as the idea that the productive output of the American economy increased during World War II. Subtract the government deficit instead of add it, and we see that the real productivity of the economy declined, as we would rationally expect during a war.
In another of his astute comments, Joseph Schumpeter wrote, concerning anticapitalist intellectuals, "capitalism stands its trial before judges who have the sentence of death in their pockets. They are going to pass it, whatever the defense they may hear; the only success a victorious defense can possibly produce is a change in the indictment." The indictment has certainly been changing. In the 1930s, we heard that government must expand because capitalism had brought about mass poverty. Now, under the aegis of John Kenneth Galbraith, we hear that capitalism has sinned because the masses are too affluent. Where once poverty was suffered by "one-third of a nation," we must now bewail the "starvation" of the public sector.
By what standards does Dr. Galbraith conclude that the private sector is too bloated and the public sector too anemic, and therefore that government must exercise further coercion to rectify its own malnutrition? Certainly, his standard is not historical. In 1902, for example, net national product of the United States was $22.1 billion; government expenditure (federal, state, and local) totaled $1.66 billion, or 7.1 percent of the total product. In 1957, on the other hand, net national product was $402.6 billion, and government expenditures totaled $125.5 billion, or 31.2 percent of the total product. Government's fiscal depredation on the private product has therefore multiplied from four to five-fold over the present century. This is hardly "starvation" of the public sector. And yet, Galbraith contends that the public sector is being increasingly starved, relative to its status in the nonaffluent 19th century!
What standards, then, does Galbraith offer us to discover when the public sector will finally be at its optimum? The answer is nothing but personal whim:
There will be question as to what is the test of balance — at what point may we conclude that balance has been achieved in the satisfaction of private and public needs. The answer is that no test can be applied, for none exists.… The present imbalance is clear.… This being so, the direction in which we move to correct matters is utterly plain.
To Galbraith, the imbalance of today is "clear." Clear why? Because he looks around him and sees deplorable conditions wherever government operates. Schools are overcrowded, urban traffic is congested and the streets littered, rivers are polluted; he might have added that crime is increasingly rampant and the courts of justice clogged. All of these are areas of government operation and ownership. The one supposed solution for these glaring defects is to siphon more money into the government till.
But how is it that only government agencies clamor for more money and denounce the citizens for reluctance to supply more? Why do we never have the private-enterprise equivalents of traffic jams (which occur on government streets), mismanaged schools, water shortages, and so on? The reason is that private firms acquire the money that they deserve from two sources: voluntary payment for the services by consumers, and voluntary investment by investors in expectation of consumer demand. If there is an increased demand for a privately owned good, consumers pay more for the product, and investors invest more in its supply, thus "clearing the market" to everyone's satisfaction. If there is an increased demand for a publicly owned good (water, streets, subway, and so on), all we hear is annoyance at the consumer for wasting precious resources, coupled with annoyance at the taxpayer for balking at a higher tax load. Private enterprise makes it its business to court the consumer and to satisfy his most urgent demands; government agencies denounce the consumer as a troublesome user of their resources. Only a government, for example, would look fondly upon the prohibition of private cars as a "solution" for the problem of congested streets. Government's numerous "free" services, moreover, create permanent excess demand over supply and therefore permanent "shortages" of the product. Government, in short, acquiring its revenue by coerced confiscation rather than by voluntary investment and consumption, is not and cannot be run like a business. Its inherent gross inefficiencies, the impossibility for it to clear the market, will insure its being a mare's nest of trouble on the economic scene.
In former times, the inherent mismanagement of government was generally considered a good argument for keeping as many things as possible out of government hands. After all, when one has invested in a losing proposition, one tries to refrain from pouring good money after bad. And yet, Dr. Galbraith would have us redouble our determination to pour the taxpayer's hard-earned money down the rathole of the "public sector," and uses the very defects of government operation as his major argument!
Professor Galbraith has two supporting arrows in his bow. First, he states that, as people's living standards rise, the added goods are not worth as much to them as the earlier ones. This is standard knowledge; but Galbraith somehow deduces from this decline that people's private wants are now worth nothing to them. But if that is the case, then why should government "services," which have expanded at a much faster rate, still be worth so much as to require a further shift of resources to the public sector? His final argument is that private wants are all artificially induced by business advertising, which automatically "creates" the wants that it supposedly serves. In short, people, according to Galbraith, would, if let alone, be content with nonaffluent, presumably subsistence-level living; advertising is the villain that spoils this primitive idyll.
Aside from the philosophical problem of how A can "create" B's wants and desires without B's having to place his own stamp of approval upon them, we are faced here with a curious view of the economy. Is everything above subsistence "artificial"? By what standard? Moreover, why in the world should a business go through the extra bother and expense of inducing a change in consumer wants, when it can profit by serving the consumer's existing, uncreated wants? The very "marketing revolution" that business is now undergoing, its increased and almost frantic concentration on "market research," demonstrates the reverse of Galbraith's view. For if, by advertising, business production automatically creates its own consumer demand, there would be no need whatever for market research — and no worry about bankruptcy either. In fact, far from the consumer in an affluent society being more of a "slave" to the business firm, the truth is precisely the opposite: for as living standards rise above subsistence, the consumer gets more particular and choosy about what he buys. The businessman must pay even greater court to the consumer than he did before: hence the furious attempts of market research to find out what the consumers want to buy.
There is an area of our society, however, where Galbraith's strictures on advertising may almost be said to apply — but it is in an area that he curiously never mentions. This is the enormous amount of advertising and propaganda by government. This is advertising that beams to the citizen the virtues of a product that, unlike business advertising, he never has a chance to test. If Cereal Company X prints a picture of a pretty girl declaiming that "Cereal X is yummy," the consumer, even if doltish enough to take this seriously, has a chance to test that proposition personally. Soon his own taste determines whether he will buy or not. But if a government agency advertises its own virtues over the mass media, the citizen has no direct test to permit him to accept or reject the claims. If any wants are artificial, they are those generated by government propaganda. Furthermore, business advertising is, at least, paid for by investors, and its success depends on the voluntary acceptance of the product by the consumers. Government advertising is paid for by means of taxes extracted from the citizens, and hence can go on, year after year, without check. The hapless citizen is cajoled into applauding the merits of the very people who, by coercion, are forcing him to pay for the propaganda. This is truly adding insult to injury.
If Professor Galbraith and his followers are poor guides for dealing with the public sector, what standard does our analysis offer instead? The answer is the old Jeffersonian one: "that government is best which governs least." Any reduction of the public sector, any shift of activities from the public to the private sphere, is a net moral and economic gain.
Most economists have two basic arguments on behalf of the public sector, which we may only consider very briefly here. One is the problem of "external benefits." A and B often benefit, it is held, if they can force C into doing something. Much can be said in criticism of this doctrine; but suffice it to say here that any argument proclaiming the right and goodness of, say, three neighbors, who yearn to form a string quartet, forcing a fourth neighbor at bayonet point to learn and play the viola, is hardly deserving of sober comment. The second argument is more substantial; stripped of technical jargon, it states that some essential services simply cannot be supplied by the private sphere, and that therefore government supply of these services is necessary. And yet, every single one of the services supplied by government has been, in the past, successfully furnished by private enterprise. The bland assertion that private citizens cannot possibly supply these goods is never bolstered, in the works of these economists, by any proof whatever. How is it, for example, that economists, so often given to pragmatic or utilitarian solutions, do not call for social "experiments" in this direction? Why must political experiments always be in the direction of more government? Why not give the free market a county or even a state or two, and see what it can accomplish?
-------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기