2019년 2월 22일 금요일

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

전라도 광주 태극기집회 이재호씨 사이다 발언. 문재인은 국민을 쪽팔리게 하지마라!!



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
선생보다 더 성숙하게 사고하는 초등생.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

상황이 심상치 않다. 북한은 이번 기회를 회담을 지연시키는 데 이용하고 있고, 중국은 회담에 은근히 숟가락을 얻으려 하고 있다. 그리고 문죄인은 한국의 민주제를 파괴하고 있다.
미국은 중국이 지적재산권 도용을 멈출 때까지 더 큰 제재를 가해야 한다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
미국인 카이 리를 구속해 인질 외교를 하려는 중국
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
트럼프는 김정은을 설득하거나 유인할 수 없다. 단지 몽둥이로 굴복시킬 수 있을 뿐이다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Understanding China's AI Strategy

Clues to Chinese Strategic Thinking on Artificial Intelligence and National Security
By Gregory C. Allen

6. China’s government sees AI as a promising military “leapfrog development” opportunity, meaning that it offers military advantages over the US and will be easier to implement in China than the United States.


7. China’s government and industry believe that they have largely closed the gap with the United States in both AI R&D and commercial AI products. China now sees AI as “a race of two giants,” between itself and the United States.


10. China's leaders seek to preserve access to foreign technology in the short term but believe that they must promote domestic independence in the longterm. This has long been China's goal, but it has taken on new urgency.



14. Where China is behind in AI and semiconductors, present trends suggest that the gap will narrow. This is a key government priority, receiving enormous attention and investment.





16. China's success in commercial AI and semiconductor markets has direct relevance to China's geopolitical power as well as its military and espionage AI capabilities.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
우리는 포스트 패로디 사회에 살고 있다. 이곳에서는 현실보다 더 한심한 무엇을 만들어낼 수 없다. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[대통령을 묻어버린 거짓의 산 176편] 판사 수 늘리려는 의도가 뭐냐? 로스쿨은「노무현 작품」

우종창

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

유은혜와 파쇼 선봉장들!

김기수 변호사



국공립 유치원 원아당 세금114만원 사립유치원 원아당 지원금 +학부모부담 56만원ㅡ사립은 국공립의 반금액으로 국공립보다 만족한교육을 훨씬 잘하고 있다. 국가 세금 훨씬 덜쓰고 잘 교육하고 있는데..... 왜 이정부는 왜 사립을 잡는가 교육부 장관 자기 능력으로 안되니 검찰 경찰 국세청 공정거래위 원회까지 동원하여 개인재산유치원을 국가가 빼앗으려고한다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Queen - Don't Stop Me Now (Official Video)


 https://youtu.be/HgzGwKwLmgM

Tonight, I'm gonna have myself a real good time
I feel alive and the world I'll turn it inside out, yeah
And floating around in ecstasy
So don't stop me now don't stop me
'Cause I'm having a good time, having a good time
I'm a shooting star, leaping through the sky
Like a tiger defying the laws of gravity
I'm a racing car, passing by like Lady Godiva
I'm gonna go, go, go
There's no stopping me
I'm burnin' through the sky, yeah
Two hundred degrees
That's why they call me Mister Fahrenheit
I'm traveling at the speed of light
I wanna make a supersonic man out of you
Don't stop me now, I'm having such a good time
I'm having a ball
Don't stop me now
If you wanna have a good time, just give me a call
Don't stop me now ('cause I'm having a good time)
Don't stop me now (yes, I'm havin' a good time)
I don't want to stop at all
Yeah, I'm a rocket ship on my way to Mars
On a collision course
I am a satellite, I'm out of control
I am a sex machine, ready to reload
Like an atom bomb about to
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh explode
I'm burnin' through the sky, yeah
Two hundred degrees
That's why they call me Mister Fahrenheit
I'm traveling at the speed of light
I wanna make a supersonic woman of you
Don't stop me, don't stop me
Don't stop me, hey, hey, hey
Don't stop me, don't stop me
Ooh ooh ooh, I like it
Don't stop me, don't stop me
Have a good time, good time
Don't stop me, don't stop me, ah
Oh yeah
Alright
Oh, I'm burnin' through the sky, yeah
Two hundred degrees
That's why they call me Mister Fahrenheit
I'm traveling at the speed of light
I wanna make a supersonic man out of you
Don't stop me now, I'm having such a good time
I'm having a ball
Don't stop me now
If you wanna have a good time (wooh)
Just give me a call (alright)
Don't stop me now ('cause I'm having a good time, yeah yeah)
Don't stop me now (yes, I'm havin' a good time)
I don't want to stop at all
La da da da daah
Da da da haa
Ha da da ha ha haaa
Ha da daa ha da da aaa
Ooh ooh ooh
-----------------------------------------------------
미국인들의 역사에 대한 무지는 국가적 문제이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------


"With novelists, names and dates are wrong, the rest is true.
With historians, names and dates are correct, the rest is

false."
-----------------------------------------------
세이의 법칙이 돌아왔다.
세이의 법칙은 “x의 공급(판매)은 y에 대한 수요(구입)를 낳는다”로 요약된다.
착한 정부는 생산을 장려하고, 나쁜 정부는 소비를 촉진한다.
 
Say's Law Is Back
 
Mark Skousen
 
“Keynes . . . misunderstood and misrepresented Say’s Law. . . . This is Keynes’s most enduring legacy and it is a legacy which has disfigured economic theory to this day.”
 
—Steven Kates[1]
 
In researching my forthcoming book, The Story of Modern Economics (to be published by M. E. Sharpe next year), I came across a remarkable new work by Australian economist Steven Kates, Say’s Law and the Keynesian Revolution. According to Kates, John Maynard Keynes created a straw man in order to produce a revolution in economics. The straw man was Jean-Baptiste Say and his famous law of markets. Steven Kates calls The General Theory “a book-length attempt to refute Say’s Law.”
 
But to refute Say’s Law, Keynes gravely distorted it. As Kates states, “Keynes was wrong in his interpretation of Say’s Law and, more importantly, he was wrong about its economic implications.” And Kates is sympathetic to Keynesian economics!
 
How Keynes Got It Wrong
In the introduction to the 1939 French edition of The General Theory, Keynes focused on Say’s Law as the central issue of macroeconomics. “I believe that economics everywhere up to recent times has been dominated . . . by the doctrines associated with the name of J.-B. Say. It is true that his ‘law of markets’ has long been abandoned by most economists; but they have not extricated themselves from his basic assumptions and particularly from his fallacy that demand is created by supply. . . . Yet a theory so based is clearly incompetent to tackle the problems of unemployment and of the trade cycle.”
 
Unfortunately, Keynes failed to understand Say’s Law. By incorrectly stating it as “supply creates its own demand,” he proposed, in effect, that Say meant that everything produced is automatically bought. Hence, Say’s Law cannot explain the business cycle.
 
Keynes went on to say that the classical model under Say’s Law “assumes full employment.” Other Keynesians have continued to make this point, but nothing could be further from the truth. Conditions of unemployment do not prohibit production and sales from taking place that form the basis of new income and new demand.
 
Moreover, Say’s Law specifically formed the basis of a classical theory of the business cycle and unemployment. As Kates states, “The classical position was that involuntary unemployment was not only possible, but occurred often, and with serious consequences for the unemployed.”
 
Production and Consumption
Exactly what is Say’s Law? Chapter 15 of Say’s A Treatise on Political Economy describes his famous law of markets: “A product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value.” When a seller produces and sells a product, the seller instantly becomes a buyer who has spendable income. To buy, one must first sell. In other words, production is the cause of consumption, and increased output leads to higher consumer spending.
 
In short, Say’s Law is this: The supply (sale) of X creates the demand for (purchase of) Y.
 
Say illustrated his law with the case of a good harvest by a farmer. “The greater the crop, the larger are the purchases of the growers. A bad harvest, on the contrary, hurts the sale of commodities at large.”
 
Say has a point. According to business-cycle statistics, when a downturn starts, production is the first to decline, ahead of consumption. And when the economy begins to recover, it’s because production starts up, followed by consumption. Economic growth begins with an increase in productivity, new products, and new markets. Hence, production spending is always ahead of consumption spending.
 
We can see why this is the case on an individual basis. The key to a higher standard of living is, first, an increase in your income, that is, your productivity, either by getting a raise, changing jobs, going back to school, or starting a money-making business. It would be foolish to achieve a higher standard of living by spending savings or going into debt to buy a bigger house or new automobile before you increase your productivity. You may be able to live high on the hog for a while, but eventually you will have to pay the piper . . . or the credit card bill.
 
According to Say, the same principle applies to nations. The creation of new and better products opens up new markets and increases consumption. Hence, “the encouragement of mere consumption is no benefit to commerce; for the difficulty lies in supplying the means, not in stimulating the desire of consumption; and we have seen that production alone, furnishes those means.” Then Say added, “Thus, it is the aim of good government to stimulate production, of bad government to encourage consumption.”
 
The Cause of the Business Cycle
Say’s Law states that recessions are not caused by failure of demand (Keynes’s thesis), but by failure in the structure of supply and demand. Recession is precipitated by producers miscalculating what consumers wish to buy, thus causing unsold goods to pile up, production to be cut back, income to fall, and finally consumer spending to drop. As Kates elucidates, “Classical theory explained recessions by showing how errors in production might arise during cyclical upturns which would cause some goods to remain unsold at cost-covering prices.” The classical model was a “high-sophisticated theory of recession and unemployment” that with one fell swoop by the illustrious Keynes was “obliterated.”
 
In his broad-based book, Kates highlights other classical economists, including David Ricardo, James Mill, Robert Torrens, Henry Clay, Frederick Lavington, and Wilhelm Röpke, who extended Say’s Law. Many classical economists focused on how monetary inflation exacerbated the business cycle. They were precursors of the Austrians Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.
 
Free-market economists, such as W. H. Hutt and Thomas Sowell, have tried to rehabilitate Say’s Law, but none carries the punch of Steven Kates.
-------------------------------------------------
케인즈 추종자들이 답하지 못하는 2가지 간단한 질문
 
Two Simple Questions Keynesians Can't Answer
 
Gary North
 
Let us say that a carpenter wishes to cut fifty boards for the purpose of laying the floor of a house. He has marked his boards. He has set his saw. He begins at one end of the mark on the board. But he does not know that his seven-year old son has tampered with the saw and changed its set. The result is that every board he saws is cut slantwise and thus unusable because [the board is] too short except at the point where the saw first made its contact with the wood. As long as the set of the saw is not changed, the result will always be the same.-- Cornelius Van Til
 
I first read this in the summer of 1963. I spent the academic year 1963/64 studying under Dr. Van Til. I have never forgotten this analogy. Just as a sharp buzz saw cannot cut straight if it is set at a crooked angle, sharp people cannot think straight if they are set at a crooked angle. You can sharpen a crooked buzz saw ever so precisely. It will still not cut straight. The same is true of intellectual defenders of obvious nonsense. This analogy has served me well ever since.
 
Over the years, I have become convinced about just how well this analogy applies to Keynesians.
 
Keynesians have above-average IQs. Sometimes they are mathematically skilled. They graduate from institutions of higher learning with advanced degrees. Yet becoming a Keynesian intellectually incapacitates the person who has chosen this intellectual career path. He must become a defender of obvious nonsense. The more rigorously that a Keynesian trains himself to defend the system, the more crooked he cuts, conceptually speaking.
 
Keynes's One Big Idea
John Maynard Keynes offered only one central idea: Government spending overcomes recessions by increasing consumption. This was an ancient error in 1936, the year that The General Theory was published. He dressed up this ancient error with incoherent jargon. His disciples then added irrelevant equations and superfluous graphs.
 
Keynes never bothered to deal with this crucial question: "Where does the government get the money that it spends into the economy?" This remains the crucial question that Keynesians need to answer. Yet for all of their equations, for all of their incomprehensible jargon, and for all of their rhetoric, they never face this question.
 
It is such a simple question. It has a simple answer. A government can obtain money from only three sources: taxation, lending, and monetary inflation. There are no other sources.
 
National governments run massive deficits most of the time. They certainly run massive deficits in depressions and recessions. So, they do not get all of their income from taxation. If they did, they would not run deficits. Keynesians understand that raising taxes in a recession would depress the economy. So, Keynesian policy-makers recommend that the national government borrow money. From whom? Either from the private sector or the central bank.
 
To believe that government borrowing increases wealth is to believe that politicians and salaried bureaucrats are wiser spenders than money-owners are -- people who invest their own money. This is a universal belief among Keynesians. They trust the short-term economic judgment of people with no skin in the game. They trust people who spend other people's money.
 
In short, they trust people like themselves: salaried anonymous bureaucrats who are immune from public scrutiny. They cannot be fired because of the failure of their recommendations.
 
I prefer to trust the free market, which is guided by competitive monetary bids of people with skin in the game. If they guess wrong, they lose money -- their own money, not yours and mine.
 
What about you? Which system do you trust?
 
Private Investing vs. Government Spending
Here is an obvious question that free market economists should ask Keynesians directly, but they never do: "What would the lender who lends money to the government have done with his money had he not lent to the government?" It is a simple question. It has an obvious answer: he would have invested it. The lender was not going to use his money on consumer goods. He owns lots of goods. He does not need lots more goods.
 
Furthermore, people in a recession cut back on their consumer spending. This is true of rich people, upper-middle-class people, middle-class people, lower-middle-class people and even poor people. Rich people see investment opportunities: capital goods selling at fire-sale prices. The rest of the population gets scared. So, most people put their money in the bank. What does the bank do with the money? It does not put it in a vault, drawing no interest. It buys investment assets. It may make loans to consumers, but consumers tend to be frightened in recessions. They cut back on debt. Maybe a bank makes loans to consumers who want immediate spending, and therefore who run up their credit card debt at high rates. But, as a group, they borrow too little to make a difference for the overall economy. There are not that many of them.
 
The Pareto 20/80 distribution curve of wealth tells us that the vast majority of any nation's wealth, approaching 80%, is owned by the top 20% of citizens. This was true when Vilfredo Pareto made the discovery in the 1890's, and it remains true today.
 
Most productivity comes from about 20% of the population. Therefore, most of a nation's wealth is owned by this same group. Most of a nation's income is directed into the bank accounts of this same group. This should come as no surprise. The reason for this was explained over two centuries ago by J. B. Say in his famous law: "Production creates its own demand [assuming no government-enforced price floors]." Keynes, more than any other economist, rejected Say's law. The General Theory is an incoherent tirade against Say's law.
 
The General Theory really is incoherent. If you don't believe me, try to read it. This is why it is rarely quoted except by critics who cannot resist quoting obvious nonsense. No one cites Keynes verbatim in order to win an argument. That is because you can't win an argument by citing incoherent jargon and obvious nonsense.
 
The man who persuaded the academic world to adopt Keynesianism was not Keynes; it was Paul Samuelson. This began in 1948, when his lower-division college textbook, Economics, was first issued. It has never been out of print. Every edition from 1961 to 1976 sold about 300,000 copies. It is in its 19th edition. It has been the most successful college-level textbook in history. It made Samuelson a multimillionaire from book royalties. It was Samuelson, not Keynes, who became the pied piper of classroom economics. But he was a reverse pied piper. He did not lead the plague-infected conceptual rats out of the afflicted community. He led them in from impoverished villages across the mountains.
 
Here was Samuelson's assessment of impact of The General Theory. He wrote a laudatory essay in 1946, which was published in the arcane journal, Econometrica. He wrote clearly and forthrightly, which has never been Econometrica's style.
 
Herein lies the secret of the General Theory. It is a badly written book, poorly organized; any layman who, beguiled by the author's previous reputation, bought the book was cheated of his five shillings. It is not well suited for classroom use. It is arrogant, bad-tempered, polemical, and not overly generous in its acknowledgments. It abounds in mares' nests or confusions. In it the Keynesian system stands out indistinctly, as if the author were hardly aware of its existence or cognizant of its properties; and certainly he is at his worst when expounding its relations to its predecessors. Flashes of insight and intuition intersperse tedious algebra. An awkward definition suddenly gives way to an unforgettable cadenza. When finally mastered, its analysis is found to be obvious and at the same time new. In short, it is a work of genius.
 
It was not a work of genius. It was a work of conceptual self-deception. It was defended with verbal incoherence. It was Samuelson's self-appointed task to try to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear. He persuaded three generations of academic economists that they have wisely (and profitably) devoted their lives to promoting massive government debt that cannot be paid off and will not be paid off.
 
Ludwig von Mises correctly characterized Keynesian economics in 1948, the year of Samuelson's textbook: the economics of stones into bread.
 
Four Questions, Then Two
You don't have to have an IQ above 100 to be able to torpedo Keynesianism. You just ask these questions.
 
1. "Where did the money come from that the government spends into circulation?"
 
2. If the government runs a deficit, which is what Keynesians recommend in recessions, it did not get all of its money through tax revenues. "Did the borrowed money come from private lenders or from the central bank?"
 
3. "If the money came from private lenders, what would the lenders have done with their money if they had not loaned it to the government?"
 
4. If the money did not come from private lenders, then it must have come from the central bank. "How does money created out of nothing create wealth?"
 
These are really two questions. (1) "What would lenders to the government have done with their money if the government had not offered the promise of guaranteed repayment?" That money would have been spent either on consumption or production. This raises a second question: (2) "Why would either of these options be worse for the economy than spending by government bureaucrats?"
 
To understand the fallacies of Keynes, you don't need to understand equations, graphs, and jargon. You just need the ability to follow an argument based on this principle: there is no such thing as a free lunch. Put differently, you cannot get bread out of stones.
 
Keynesian economists are not skilled in the use of logic, let alone responding coherently to it. They are trained from their Economics 1 course until the day they retire from college teaching not to reason from obvious premises to economic conclusions. They get no tenure consideration for arguing coherently without equations and graphs. They are probably going to be penalized if they attempt to do this. Graduate students in economics learned this fact of academic life no later than their senior year in college. If they did not learn it, their grades would not have been sufficiently high to get them into grad school.
 
Keynes's War on Thrift
Keynes became famous for his criticism of thrift. What he criticized was thrift in the private sector. Thrift was great as far as he was concerned if the thrifty person bought government bonds, and the government then spent the money on anything. You think I exaggerate? Here is a direct quote from Keynes' General Theory.
 
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing( p. 129).
 
Here is what he wrote on page 220.
 
In so far as millionaires find their satisfaction in building mighty mansions to contain their bodies went to live in pyramids to shelter them after death, or, repenting of their sins, erect cathedrals in and down monasteries or foreign missions, the day when abundance of capital will interfere with abundance of output may be postponed. Quote to dig holes in the ground, unquote paid for out of savings, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services.
 
Notice that he did not call for millionaires to invest. He called on them to spend. He did not ask them to direct their money toward production: he directed them to spend their money as fast as possible. It is spending by millionaires on consumption, not the savings of millionaires for future consumption by others, that is the key to wealth creation in the mental universe of Keynes and his disciples.
 
Keynes called on governments to spend on public pyramids and burying bottles of money because he did not trust the millionaires to keep spending on mansions and their own personal pyramids. He knew they would invest in capital goods. He attacked the idea that millionaires could benefit the economy by saving and investing in the private sector. His book is dedicated to a refutation of investing during a recession. The entire Keynesian movement, which dominates academia and policy-making today, rests on this intellectual premise: "Consume, don't invest, during recessions."
 
Why would millionaires trust the government with their money? Because the government promises to guarantee the return of their money. But why should millionaires believe this promise? Because governments back up this promise with the threat of violence. Governments have the power to send tax collectors into people's homes and stick guns in their bellies. "Hand over your money," says the man with a badge. Governments come before millionaires and say this: "We sell promises to return your money. We can guarantee this because we have the power of taxation. Therefore, you can be certain that you will get your money back. You have our word. What's not to trust?"
 
Present Orientation and Class Position
Keynes was the defender of present-orientation. He was the defender of "consumption now." He was, in this sense, a defender of lower-class economics. Edward Banfield, a Harvard political theorist in the late 1960's, wrote a section on lower-class and upper-class attitudes in his book, The Unheavenly City (1968). He identified lower-class thinking as present-oriented. The lower-class person thinks little about the future. Lower-class people want to consume now. They borrow at high interest rates in order to get this consumption. Upper-class individuals are the opposite. Keynesian economics is a defense of lower-class economics.
 
Anti-Keynesian economists in universities dare not use this kind of rhetoric against Keynes and Keynesians. They would not get tenure if they used it early in their careers. They would not be published in mainstream, tenure-generating academic journals. They would become pariahs. Fortunately, I am not part of academia. So, I can call a spade a spade. Keynesianism really is best encapsulated in the famous phrase by Keynes: "In the long run, we are all dead." In the meantime, Keynesians give this advice to politicians: "Borrow and spend, inflate and spend, monetize government debt, and never pay it off."
 
Keynesian economics is the economics of debt-addicted, lower-class spendthrifts: modern governments.
 
Keynesians are apostles of big government. In his concluding remarks in his 1946 article on Keynes, Samuelson wrote:
 
With respect to the level of total purchasing power and employment, Keynes denies that there is an invisible hand channeling the self-centered action of each individual to the social optimum. This is the sum and substance of his heresy. Again and again through his writings there is to be found the figure of speech that what is needed are certain "rules of the road" and governmental actions, which will benefit everybody, but which nobody by himself is motivated to establish or follow. Left to themselves during depression, people will try to save and only end up lowering society's level of capital formation and saving; during an inflation, apparent self-interest leads everyone to action which only aggravates the malignant upward spiral.
 
The message is clear. "Left to themselves," people cannot be trusted with their own money. That would mean resource allocation by the metaphorical invisible hand of the market's process of voluntary exchange. Keynesians prefer to trust the economy to the palsied hands of tenured bureaucrats and the grasping hands of elected politicians, who want access to other people's money in order to buy votes from special-interest groups.
 
I would rather live in an economy governed by the invisible hand of the free market than in an economy governed by the palsied hands of government bureaucrats and the grasping hands of politicians. I would rather live in an economy in which customers are in authority rather than politicians and bureaucrats. Customers spend their own money. Politicians and bureaucrats want to spend my money. I resent this. I can spend my money more wisely than politicians and bureaucrats can. Keynes did not believe this. Neither did Samuelson.
 
The free market economy is governed by the sanctions of profit and loss. The Keynesian economy is governed by the sanctions of badges and guns. I recommend the former: greater personal liberty and greater per capita wealth.
 
Conclusion
Keynesian economics is counter-intuitive. It was answered, line by line, by Henry Hazlitt in his coherent and devastating critique of Keynes: The Failure of the "New Economics." It was published in 1959. It sank without a trace. Why? Because it was hostile to the prevailing climate of academic opinion. Also, it was easy to read. That is always out of fashion in academia. Fortunately, it is available today from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. You can even download it for free. It is 450 pages long. Yet even Hazlitt, for all of his penetrating insights written in the vernacular and devoid of equations and graphs, did not boil down his critique into two simple questions.
 
This is odd. The heart of his classic book on economics, Economics in One Lesson (1946), was this insight: the fallacy of the thing not seen. The book calls on readers to ask this question: "What would property owners have done with their money if they had not suffered violence?" This is the question that undergirds my two questions.
 
1. "What would lenders to the government have done with their money if the government had not offered the promise of guaranteed repayment?"
 
2. "Why would this have been worse for the economy than spending by government bureaucrats?"
 
Keynesians never answer these two questions in anything resembling common language. That is because they cannot answer it this way without sounding ridiculous.
 
Keynesianism is a long parade of would-be emperors without clothes. They attempt to cover their conceptual nudity with academic fig leaves: equations, graphs, and jargon. This was Keynes' strategy. It was also Paul Samuelson's.
 
These men are the wizard of Oz. They are, collectively, the man behind the curtain.
 
Call me Toto.
 
Toto did not complete the procedure. Pulling back the curtain was step one. He should have completed the procedure by lifting his leg on the wizard. That is what humbugs deserve whenever they impose economic quackery with deception backed by government power.
 
In the movie, the now-unemployed wizard departed from Oz by ascending in a hot-air balloon. The junior wizards of Keynesian economics will not find their departure so easy. They hold their tenured positions in governments and universities, isolated and secure from downturns in private labor markets. But the day is coming when governments around the world are going to default on their economic promises to the voters. Keynesians will be called upon by politicians to provide justifications for this default, and also provide explanations showing why it is not really the governments' fault. It is the free market's fault. When they attempt to fulfill their role in public affairs as court prophets, defending massive government failure in the name of Keynes, they will be seen by the enraged public as intellectual laughingstocks and charlatans.
 

They have always been charlatans. They should have been laughingstocks. I recommend patience. The day of fiscal reckoning draweth nigh.
-----------------------------------------------
작성자: 시간:

댓글 없음:

댓글 쓰기

피드 구독하기: 댓글 (Atom)