민주당이 김경수 경남지사를 법정구속한 “댓글조작 업무방해·공직선거법 위반 판결”에 대해 권력과 여론동원으로 삼권분립정신을 짓밟고 있습니다.
첫째, 민주당은 170쪽 판결문을 읽어봤는지 묻지 않을 수 없습니다. 저는 직접 재판도 받아보고, 많은 판결문을 읽어봤지만 이런 명판결문은 보기 드뭅니다.
둘째, 드루킹 일당과 김경수는 “불법댓글공동체”입니다.
1. 경공모, 경인선이라는 4,540명의 댓글조작공동체가 있었습니다. 도두형 변호사, 윤평 변호사, 장심건 변호사, 박권종 회계사 등이 함께 했고, 윤평 변호사는 2017.4.14. 문재인후보 법률인권특보로 임명되었고, 문재인 대통령 당선후 청와대 행정관으로 추천됐습니다.
2. 파주 출판단지에 느릅나무라는 위장 출판사에 “산채”를 차려서 숙식을 하며 문재인 대선후보를 위해 불법댓글선거운동을 했습니다.
3. 문재인후보의 경선과 대선과정에 8833만건이 넘는 댓글조작을 했습니다.
4. 도두형 변호사가 오사카 총영사로 임명되지 않은데 대한 반발로, 드루킹이 돌아서면서, 모든 자료를 재판부에 제출하고 일관되게 진술하였습니다.
셋째, 불법댓글공동체 운영자인 드루킹 김동원이 문재인 대통령 당선 후 김경수 경남지사에게 배신감을 느끼며 돌아서서, 모든 범행증거자료를 재판부에 제출하고 일관된 자백을 하고 있기 때문에 판결문에는 증거가 차고 넘칩니다.
이제 남은 것은 불법댓글공작의 유일ㆍ최대 수혜자인 문재인 대통령에 대한 특검뿐입니다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
나경원
김경수 특검은 유일하게 기간이 연장되지 않은 특검이자 반쪽 특검이다. 자유한국당은 김경수 특검의 온쪽 특검을 위해서 다시 한 번 특검을 추진할 수밖에 없다
청와대 특감반 진상조사단 및 김경수 드루킹 특별위원회 연석회의에 참석해 김경수 구하기에 나선 여당의 모습은 헌법도 없고 대한민국도 없는 모습이다.
여당은 대한민국의 근간인 법치주의, 삼권분립 등을 송두리째 부정하면서 김경수 구하기에 집권당 대표의 진두지휘 하에 정말 올인하고 있다.
결국 김경수 구하기의 김경수는 깃털이 아닌가 하는 합리적 의심을 가능케 하는 부분이라고 생각한다. 김경수 드루킹 사건의 최대 수혜자인 몸통을 보호하기 위해서 소위 난리 법석, 야단법석이 아닌가’ 이런 생각이 든다.
-----------------------------------------------------
5.18 입만 뻥긋해도 7년 감옥살이한다. 우파의 원로 언론인들에게 부탁드립니다.
이상로 위원
조갑제와 정규재에 대한 비판. 조갑제는 자신이 본것만이 진
리라고 믿는 황당한 착각에 빠져 있다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
과학 기술
산업경쟁력에 조국의 미래가 달렸다.
그게 박정희의 생각이었다.
경제력이 있어야 문화도 있는거다.
조선처럼 인문학 있어봐야 경제력이 없으면
인문학도 발전 못하고
일제식민지나 되는거다.
대한민국이 북괴처럼 거지 깡통을 차고 있다면
한류란 것이 생기기나 했을까?
가난해서 잘 씻지도 못해 머리에 기름기가 번들거리고, 화장실도 더럽고
옷도 더럽고 냄새나고 머리와 배속에 기생충이 득실대는 후진국이라면
한글이나 한국어의 영향력을 말할 수 조차 없었을 것이다.
인문학이
올바른 이념과 국가관을 형성해준다면 모를까
이미 빨갱이들에 장악되어
21세기에 마녀사냥이나 하는 나라다.
그나마 돈이 있어
한류란 것도 생겼지만
이것도 나라 경제가 쪼그라들고나면 바로 사라질 것이다.
선지국은 산업혁명에 참여해서 국가 경쟁력이 높아진 나라들이다.
뒤늦게라도 산업혁명 막차를 탄 일본이 선진국이 되었다.
엔지니어나 과학자가 될 수재들이
대신에 정치학과나 법학과 따위나 간다면
대가리에 온갖 그럴싸한 철학과 개소리를 축적해서
똑똑한 소리는 한없이 지껄여 대겠지만
그런 나라는 선진국이 될 수도 없고
선진국 근처까지 갔더라도 결국 그 문턱을 못넘고
퇴보할 것이다.
[출처] 경제력에 조국의 미래가 달렸다
--->철학자보다 일베 회원이 더 정확한 사고를 하고 있다. 인
문학을 하려면 먼저 경제적 기초가 있어야 한다. 이탈리아 르
네상스도 사실은 당시 이탈리아 도시 국가들의 번창하던 무
역이 있어서 가능했다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
외국인들도 이제는 한국의 좌파 경제정책을 지적하고 있다.
-------------------------------------------------------
중국 인공지능 뉴스 앵커와 인공지능 정부 대변인 사이의 최초의 인터뷰를 보고 싶다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
영국 또는 미국이 대륙 세력에 의해 저지될 거라는
매킨더의 예상
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEA에서 새로 출간한 책 <사회주의: 절대 사라지지 않는, 실패한 사상, ‘Socialism: the failed idea that never dies’>
IEA releases new, comprehensive book on socialism
Today the Institute of Economic Affairs unveils a new book from our Head of Political Economy Dr Kristian Niemietz: ‘Socialism: the failed idea that never dies’.
This one-of-a-kind, comprehensive book systematically charts the rise and fall of some of the most prolific socialist experiments in history – from the Soviet Union and Maoist China, to Venezuela and Castro’s Cuba. In each example from the past century, these regimes were celebrated and supported by members of the Western elite – right up until they failed.
Every attempt to build a socialist society has ended in varying degrees of economic failure and political repression. But rather than renounce socialism as a failed idea, the overwhelming response from those who defended these experiments is that such examples do not represent ‘real socialism’, as ‘real socialism has never been tried’.
While contemporary socialists distance themselves from historical examples of socialism, author Dr Kristian Niemietz highlights how they fail to explain what exactly they would do differently to make a socialist utopia work practically. They define ‘real’ socialism in terms of the outcomes they would like to see, rather than the institutional setup that would produce such outcomes.
This book is a crucial contribution to the debate, particularly now that socialism is back in vogue. It brings to light the fallacies of the arguments of those who continue to defend socialism, willfully ignoring the real-world evidence.
Niemietz sets out why socialist economies eventually stagnate and fail, and he calls on policymakers to pay more attention to international best practice. Searching for progressive solutions to issues on a policy-by-policy basis, he argues, would be far more fruitful than chasing after the next socialist utopia.
‘Not real socialism’: the case of Venezuela
As long as a socialist experiment is in its prime, its socialist credentials are rarely in doubt. But when things go wrong, this very quickly changes.
The reception of socialism in Western countries tends to go through three distinct phases:
The honeymoon period
The excuses-and-whataboutery period
The not-real-socialism stage
This pattern can be found in almost every real-world socialist experiment. ‘Socialism: the failed idea that never dies’ charts these phases using several examples, one of which is Venezuela. Many well-known commentators, politicians, academics and authors have hailed Venezuela as the ‘Socialism of the 21st Century’. But now these same people claim that it was never ‘real socialism’.
The honeymoon period
• Venezuela-mania began in 2005 – it was upheld by its supporters, not just as a huge success story in its own right, but also a model to be replicated around the world.
• Then-president Hugo Chavez promised a return to the free-spending ways of the 1970s and the oil price explosion meant he could deliver on that. Government spending increased from less than 30 per cent of GDP to over 40 per cent.
• Chavez introduced microeconomic interventions such as price controls and exchange rate controls, which then begat further interventions.
The excuses-and-whataboutery period
• When these interventions did not work or when private actors did not behave the way the government wanted, they railed against the industry, intervened, and ‘revenge nationalisations’ began.
• These nationalisations were not led by strategic considerations. The government did not have a recognisable theory about which sectors should be state run and which sectors private ownership was tolerable. Rather, they used nationalisations to punish ‘uncooperative’ private sector actors.
• Chavez’s ‘Socialism of the 21st Century’ became an ad hoc ‘revenge socialism’, characterised by contempt for the rule of law and private property rights.
• The rapid expansion of public spending programmes increased the scope for, and inevitably led to, corruption, patronage and nepotism.
The demise and ‘not-real-socialism’ stage
• Venezuela’s economic woes soon turned into a full-blown crisis, which provoked widespread discontent in response to which the government increasingly resorted to authoritarian measures.
• As a consequence, Venezuela ceased to be a showcase that Western socialists would triumphantly hold against their opponents.
• Since the consequences of economic implosion in Venezuela have become clear, the common response among those who previously supported the regime has been to downplay the socialist aspects of Venezuela’s economy and to present its crisis as general case of ‘mismanagement’ and ‘poor leadership’.
Why socialist economies fail
Lack of knowledge
Socialism’s relative failure and capitalism’s relative success has much more to do with capitalism’s capacity to generate economically relevant knowledge.
• Market prices have proven to be an indispensable way of disseminating information about conditions of supply and demand.
• Planned economies have no way of replicating this knowledge-collecting, knowledge-disseminating function of market prices.
• Deprivation of information leads to worse economic decisions.
Lack of market competition
Market competition is an ongoing trial and error process coupled with extensive feedback mechanisms. We don’t know from the outset how to organise a successful enterprise or industry (let alone an entire economy). We find out by trying lots of things, with most of them failing.
• Socialist economics lacks the knowledge-creating capacity of competition.
Commenting on the publication of the book, author Dr Kristian Niemietz, Head of Political Economy at the Institute of Economic Affairs, said:
“There can be no doubt that socialism is back in fashion again. Especially among Millennials, socialism is now considered ‘hip’, ‘edgy’ and ‘cool’.
“But the fact that it’s popular doesn’t make it right. Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society, all of which have ended in varying degrees of economic failure, and political repression. Socialists’ response to this devastating record is to simply shrug all these examples off as ‘not real socialism’.
“As I show in this book, the not-real-socialism defence is only ever deployed after the event, that is, after a socialist experiment has already been widely discredited. Virtually all socialist projects have gone through honeymoon periods, during which they were enthusiastically praised by plenty of prominent Western intellectuals. It is only when their failures can no longer be denied that they get retroactively reclassified as ‘not real socialism’. Socialism is always the ‘real’ thing for a while – until it becomes an embarrassment for the socialist cause, at which point it suddenly ceases to be so.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
세상에 배관공이 사라지면 우리는 곧 그들의 중요성을 깨닫게 된다. 하지만 만일 소위 말하는 전문가들(관료, 정치학자 등)이 사라진다면, 그들의 엄마를 제외하고는, 누구도 그들을 기억하지 않을 것이다.
----------------------------------------------
지금은 푸틴이 진실을 말하고 있다.
푸틴: 미국 대통령들은 허수아비다. 검은 양복을 입은 남자들이 워싱턴을 통치하고 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------
미제스의 책 <인간 행동>
나(미제스)는 전적으로 경제 문제를 다루는 주관주의적 방법, 즉 한계 효용 개념에 기반해 경제 이론을 구축하려 했다. 나는 당시 인플레라 불리고 요즘 적자 재정과 마중물 붓기라는 이름으로 열렬히 주창되는 정책으로는, 나라를 번영에 이르게 할 수 없다는 점을 밝혔다.
슬픈 사실이지만 사람들은 이론에서도 또는 경험에서도 배우려 하지 않는다. 적자 재정과 저금리 정책으로 인해 발생한 파국이 있었어도, 또 하이에크나 해즐릿 등에 의해 내(미제스) 이론이 옳다는 증명이 있었어도, 종이 돈의 광란은 막지 못했다.
나는 유럽에서 사회주의와 개입주의 등이 문명과 번영을 파괴하는 것을 목격하고, 그것이 미국에서 재연되지 않기를 바라며 이 책을 썼다.
The Why of Human Action
Ludwig von Mises
[Found among the papers of Bettina Bien Greaves and reprinted from Plain Talk (1949), Editor's comment: Those millions of illiterate and semi-literate armed men now in action from the borders of the Yellow Sea to the mountains of Greece have been set in motion by a ponderous and little-read study of economics — Das Kapital — written nearly a century ago by a German scholar named Karl Marx. Today when Marxist theory has half of the world in an iron grip and the other half is lost in an intellectual wilderness, the publication of Ludwig von Mises' life-work, Human Action — a thousand-page treatise on economics — may well prove a history-making event in reversing the Marxist tide.
As a contemporary critic of state socialism, Professor von Mises has no peer. Famous as the head of the so-called Austrian school of economics, of which Hayek is perhaps his best-known pupil, and noted as the author of Omnipotent Government and Bureaucracy, Mises long ago predicted the rise of the police state wherever statism triumphed.
Dr. von Mises taught at the University of Vienna for a quarter of a century. A refugee from Hitler's National Socialism, he now makes his home in the United States. Anticipating the appearance of his monumental study, we asked him to write for us his own explanation of the mainspring of Human Action.]
Economics versus Pseudo-Economics
There are no ivory towers to house economists. Whether he likes it or not, the economist is always dragged into the turmoil of the arena in which nations, parties and pressure groups are battling. Nothing absorbs the minds of our contempornries more intensely than the pros and cons of economic doctrines. Economic issues engross the attention of modern writers and artists more than any other problem. Philosophers and theologians deal today more often with economic themes than with those topics which were once considered as the proper field of philosophical and theological studies. What divides mankind into two hostile camps, whose violent clash may destroy civilization, is antagonistic ideas with regard to the economic interpretation of human life and action.
Politicians proclaim their utter contempt for what they label as "mere theory." They pretend that their own approach to economic problems is purely practical and free from any dogmatic prepossessions. They fail to realize that their policies are determined by definite assumptions about causal relations, i.e., that they are based on definite theories. Acting man, in choosing certain means for the attainment of ends aimed at, is necessarily always guided by "mere theory"; there is no practice without an underlying doctrine. In denying this truth, the politician tries in vain to withdraw the faulty, self-contradictory and a hundred-times refuted misapprehensions directing his conduct of affairs from the criticism of the economists.
The social function of economic science consists precisely in developing sound economic theories and in exploding the fallacies of vicious reasoning. In the pursuit of this task the economist incurs the deadly enmity of all mountebanks and charlatans whose shortcuts to an earthly paradise he debunks. The less these quacks are able to advance plausible objections to an economist's argument, the more furiously do they insult him.
Sound Money versus lnflationism and Expansionism
At the beginning of our century the governments of the civilized nations were committed either to the so-called classical gold standard or to the gold exchange standard. Their conduct of monetary and credit policies was, to be sure, not free from mistakes, and they indulged in a certain amount of credit expansion. But they were, when compared with conditions after 1914, moderate in their expansionist ventures and spurned the fantastic projects of the so-called monetary cranks who advocated boundless inflation and credit expansion as the patent medicine for all economic ills.
Yet this rejection of the plans which aimed at making people prosperous through increasing the quantity of money and fiduciary media was not founded upon a satisfactory cognition of the inevitable and undesired consequences of such a policy. The governments were disinclined to deviate from traditional standards of monetary management because with the older statesmen the memory of the troubles engendered by earlier inflations had not yet been obliterated and some vestiges of the prestige of the classical economists still prevailed. Professors and bankers loathed the writings of Ernest Solvay, Silvio Gesell and a host of other expansionists. But hardly anybody knew why these authors were wrong and how to refute them. In fact the doctrines generally accepted by the treasuries, the central banks, the financial press and the universities did not differ essentially from the ideas advanced by the cranks. These champions of a sweeping social reform to be accomplished by monetary measures only drew from the official doctrine its ultimate logical consequences. It was to be expected that in a coming emergency, such as a great war or revolution, those in office would turn away from their cautious reserve and that orgies of inflation and credit expansion would be rife.
Such was the state of monetary and credit theory when I published my Theory of Money and Credit. I tried to construct a theory entirely based upon the modern subjectivist methods of dealing with economic issues, the marginal utility concept. I demonstrated that what at that time was called inflation and is today passionately praised under the labels of deficit spending and pump-priming can never make a nation more prosperous. It may bring about a shift of income and wealth from some groups of the population to other groups, but it invariably tends to impair the prosperity of the whole nation. I pointed out that interest, i.e., the higher valuation of present goods as against future goods, is an ineluctable category of human conduct which does not depend on the particular structure of society's economic organization and cannot be abolished by any statutes or reforms. The endeavors to keep the rate of interest below the height it would attain on a market not sabotaged by credit expansion are in the long run doomed to failure. In the short run they result in an artificial boom which inevitably ends in a crash and slump. The recurrence of periods of economic depression is not a phenomenon inherent in the very course of affairs under laissez-faire capitalism. It is, on the contrary, the outcome of the reiterated attempts to "improve" the operation of capitalism by "cheap money" and credit expansion. If one wants to avert depressions, one must abstain from any tampering with the rate of interest. I thus elaborated the theory which supporters and critics of my ideas very soon began to call the "Austrian theory of the trade cycle."
As I had expected, my theses were furiously vilified by the apologists of the official doctrine. Especially abusive was the response on the part of the German professors, this self-styled "intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern." In exemplifying one of my points, I had resorted to the hypothetical assumption that the purchasing power of the German mark might drop to a millionth fraction of its previous equivalent. "What a muddle-headed man who — if only hypothetically — dares to introduce such a fantastic assumption!" shouted one of the reviewers. But a few years later the purchasing power of the mark was down to one-billionth of its prewar amount!
It is a sad fact that people are reluctant to learn either from theory or from experience. Neither the disasters manifestly brought about by the deficit spending and low-interest-rate policies nor the confirmation of my theories by such eminent thinkers as Frederick van Hayek, Henry Hazlitt and the late Benjamin M. Anderson have up to now been able to put an end to the popularity of the fiat money frenzy. The monetary and credit policies of all nations are headed for a new catastrophe, probably more disastrous than any of the older slumps.
The Economic Theory of Socialism
Sixty years ago Sidney Webb boasted that the economic history of the century is an almost continuous record of the progress of socialism. A few years later an eminent British statesman, Sir William Harcourt, asserted: "We are all Socialists now." There could not be any doubt that all nations pursued policies which were bound to result finally in the establishment of all-round planning exclusively by the government, i.e., socialism or communism.
Yet nobody ventured to analyze the economic problems of a socialist system. Karl Marx had outlawed such studies as merely "utopian" and "unscientific." As he saw it, the mythical productive forces which inevitably determine the course of history and direct the conduct of men" independently of their wills" will in due time arrange everything in the best possible way; it would be a vain presumption of mortal men to arrogate to themselves a judgment in these matters. This Marxian taboo was strictly observed. Hosts of pseudo-economists and pseudo-experts dealt with alleged shortcomings of capitalism and praised the blessings of government control of all human activities; but hardly anybody had the intellectual honesty to investigate the economic problems of socialism.
To put an end to this intolerable state of affairs I published several essays and finally my book on Socialism. The main result of my studies was the proof that a socialist commonwealth would not be in a position to apply economic calculation. When socialism is limited to one or to a few countries only, the Socialists can still resort to economic calculation on the basis of prices determined on the markets of non-socialist countries. But once all countries adopt socialism, there is no longer any market for the factors of production, they are no longer sold and bought and no prices are determined for them.
This means that it becomes impossible for a socialist management to reduce the various factors of production to a common denominator and thereby to resort to calculation in planning future action and in appraising the result of past action. Such a socialist management would simply not know whether or not what it plans and executes is the most appropriate procedure to attain the ends sought. It would operate in the dark. It would squander scarce factors of production, both material and human (labor). The paradox of planning is precisely that it abolishes the conditions required for rational action based on weighing of cost (input) and result (output). What is advocated as conscious planning is in fact the elimination of conscious purposive action.
The Socialist and Communist authors could not help admitting that my demonstration was irrefutable. To save face they radically reversed their argument. Until 1920, the year in which I first published my thesis, all Socialists had declared that the essence of socialism is the elimination of the market and of market prices. All the blessings which they expected from the realization of socialism were described as the result of this abolition of the price system. But now they are anxious to show that markets and market prices can be preserved even under socialism. They are drafting spurious and self-contradictory schemes of a socialism in which people "play" market in the way children play war or railroad. They do not comprehend in what respect such childish play differs from the real thing it tries to imitate.
The Middle Way
Many politicians and authors believe that they could avoid the necessity of choosing between capitalism (laissez-faire) and socialism ( communism, planning). They recommend a third solution which — as they say — is as far from capitalism as it is from socialism. In imperial Germany this third system was called Sozialpolitik; in the United States it is known as the New Deal. Economists prefer the term used by the French, interventionism. The idea is that private ownership of the means of production should not be entirely abolished; but the government should "improve" and correct the operation of the market in interfering — by means of orders and prohibitions, of the power to tax and of subsidies — with the operations of the capitalists and entrepreneurs.
I tried to show that interventionism cannot work as a permanent system of society's economic organization. The various measures recommended must necessarily bring about results which — from the point of view of their own advocates and the governments resorting to them — are more unsatisfactory than the previous state of affairs which they were designed to alter. If the government neither acquiesces in this outcome nor derives from it the conclusion that it is advisable to abstain from all such measures, it is forced to supplement its first steps by more and more interference until it has abolished private control of the means of production entirely and thus established socialism. The conduct of economic affairs, i.e., the determination for what purposes the factors of production should be employed, can ultimately be directed either by buying and abstention from buying on the part of consumers or by government decrees. There is no middle way. Control is indivisible.
It is interventionism that produces all those evils for which a misguided public opinion indicts laissez-faire capitalism. As has been pointed out above, the endeavors to lower the rate of interest by means of credit expansion generate the recurrence of depression. The attempts to raise wage rates above the height they would attain in an unhampered market result in prolonged mass unemployment. "Soak-the-rich" taxation results in capital consumption. The joint outcome of all interventionist measures is general impoverishment. It is a misnomer to call the interventionist state the welfare state. What it ultimately achieves is not improving but lowering the common man's standard of living. The unprecedented economic development of the United States and the high standard of living of its population were achievements of the free enterprise system.
The Interconnectedness of All Economic Phenomena
Economics does not allow of any breaking up into special branches. It invariably deals with the interconnectedness of all phenomena of acting and economizing. All economic facts condition one another mutually. Each of the various economic problems must be dealt with in the frame of a comprehensive system assigning its due place and weight to every aspect of human wants and desires. All monographs remain fragmentary if not integrated into a systematic treatment of the whole body of social and economic relations.
To provide such a comprehensive analysis is the task of my book Human Action, a Treatise on Economics. It is the consummation of lifelong studies and investigations, the precipitate of half a century of experience. I saw the forces operating which could not but annihilate the high civilization and prosperity of Europe. What I aimed at in writing my book was to contribute my share to the endeavors of our most eminent contemporaries to prevent this country from following the path which leads to the abyss.
------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기