조갑제
오늘은 식목일이다. 이틀 전 조선일보에 脫원전에 따른 태양광 발전소 건설로 지난 3년간 여의도 면적의 15배나 되는 山林이 사라졌다는 기사가 실렸다.
나무 232만 그루를 잘라 버렸다. 상암동 경기장의 6000배 넓이의 산림이 없어졌으니 그만큼 온실가스 흡수 능력도 약화되고 미세먼지가 더 많아진 셈이다.
그래도 환경단체가 침묵한다. 탈원전, 태양광 건설, 4대강 보 해체는 문재인 정권의 反인류적 자연파괴, 환경파괴로 기록될 것이다.
--------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
김정은이 모종의 중대 행위를 앞두고 있다는 분석.
--------------------------------------------------------------
X판 5분전! 대한민국!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
https://youtu.be/by4BwiqseUw
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
문재인 정권이 밀어붙이는 3대 악법 핵심 정리!
김문수 티비
이상로 국회 법제사법위원회 수석전문위원을 모시고, 문재인 정권과 범여권이 밀어붙이는 3대 악법(검경 수사권 분리, 공수처 설립, 연동형 비례대표제 도입)을 정리했습니다.https://youtu.be/by4BwiqseUw
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
문죄인 때문에 한전 적자나서 노후 변압기도 제때에 교환 못하고 있다고 함
그 바람에 기술직원들 수시 확인 하러 다닌다고 함
속초산불 발원 원인이 변압기라면 노후 변압기 이거나 수명 다된 변압기일 가능성 높다고 함
봄에는 전력 사용이 비교적 안정되서 변압기 터지는 사고발생이 거의 없는데
수명다됐거나 노후된 변압기는 약간의 과부하에도 터질 확률이 아주 높다고 함
공론화 해서 변압기 전수 조사 해야된다고 함
앞으로 이런일이 자주 발생될거라고 하더라.
문죄인 개새끼
[출처] 한전직원 지인과 통화 했는데 feat. 속초 산불
---> 오늘 아침 뉴스에 보니 변압기가 아니라 개폐기라고 하는데,
확인을 해봐야 할 것 같다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
영화를 만든 이유가 그거였구먼
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
중국은 수정주의자들이 아니다. 그들은 혁명적이다. 시진핑은 현대판 진시황이 되고 싶어한다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
미국은 생존을 위협하는 중국의 도전을 무시하고 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI 남한내 간첩 명단 X파일 확보!!! (김영호 교수, 이옥남 실장) / 신의한수
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
풍력 발전기는 오염을 일으키고 환경친화적이지 않으며,
지구의 에너지 제공에 하나도 보탬이 되지 않는다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
자유와 민주제의 핵심은 자치이다. 그리고 자치란 개인은 누구의 지배도 받지 않고, 그 자신 스스로 주체적으로 살아야 한다는 것이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What They Don’t Teach You at the University of Washington’s Ed School
written by Nick Wilson
워싱턴 교육대학원이 주입하는 것은 교수 방법이 아니라,
사회적 정의 실천 방법이었다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
당신이 무엇인가 선한 일을 하고 있다고 믿으면,
당신을 반대하는 사람은 악이 된다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
경영으로 세계를 변화시키는 사람들, 기업가
사람들의 생활을 개선하는 사람들은 정치가들이 아니라, 혁신가, 기업가, 시장의 개척자들이다.
변화와 개선을 만드는 것은 기술 자체가 아니라 우버처럼 창조적 파괴를 하는 기업가들이다.
Entrepreneurs: Changing the World through Business
Per Bylund
Politics is hardly an effective force for bringing about positive change in society. Instead, real change, and especially such that changes people’s lives for the better, comes from elsewhere. It comes from business, and specifically from innovators, entrepreneurs, and pioneers in the market. And very often it does so despite politics and the state — or even in direct conflict with it.
While technology often gets the credit for achievements of the market place, this is too much of a simplification. It is not technology per se that produces the changes and improvements; it is but a common (and eye-catching) means. The real change is brought about through entrepreneurship, specifically through what Mises called the entrepreneur-promoters: the pioneers, the disrupters, the creative destroyers.
These innovative and trailblazing entrepreneurs are often thought of as creators of something new. For example, it is easy to see the immense change brought to the market for personal transportation by new and innovative players like Uber and Lyft. By providing a new type of transportation — ride-sharing — these entrepreneurial firms placed themselves outside of the existing regulatory framework for taxi cabs. And thus they broke new ground and forced deregulation of the often guild-like taxi industry.
Ride-sharing is an obvious and important example of the enormous change that entrepreneurship can have on society — for the better, by providing new goods and services, and thus improving people’s lives. This is the power of the market. But that is too limiting a definition of disruptive entrepreneurship. Such change can also be brought about by incumbent business firms who pursue new and innovative business models.
A Membership-Based Auto Industry
An example of such is the recently advertised change in how automobile manufacturer Volvo intends to do business. While other automobile manufacturers are stuck, partly due to protective regulation, with producing automobiles sold through a vast dealership network, Volvo intends to stop selling automobiles. Yes, you heard that right.
The new program, Care by Volvo, is a flat-rate membership in which you are provided access to your automobile — with maintenance, service, and even insurance included. While this seems like an interesting twist on the face of it, it is a new business model that has the potential to revolutionize the automobile industry. Drivers no longer need to own their cars, and they also, as a result, do not need to worry about anything with the usage of their car. There is an immense convenience gain.
But think one step further. If a Volvo membership, rather than owning an automobile, means you have the right to a vehicle, this could change everything. Imagine going out of town, and being provided with an identical (or, if you prefer, different) Volvo when you arrive at your destination airport. The Care by Volvo program is effectively competing with the rental car business.
Further imagine that “your” Volvo is a self-driving car, as automobiles will soon be, and your leaving town means not only that you can be picked up at the airport by your preferred car, but also that the car in your driveway, or which dropped you off at the airport, can be used by others.
The future that Volvo likely envisions is one in which there is no need for ownership of automobiles because they can provide the transportation service without hassle everywhere and always. The gain is not only that resources become better utilized as automobiles no longer are parked for long stretches of time in one’s driveway or garage, but also that consumers no longer have to make capital-intensive investments in something as banal as personal transportation.
With much more efficient use of transportation resources, one can imagine how automobile manufacturers such as Volvo not only take on rental car agencies and taxi cabs, but also (out)compete public transportation systems like busses, trains, and subways.
Rather than automobile manufacturing being a stagnated industry “of the past,” and under threat from the anti-oil movement, Volvo’s business model innovation can completely change the playing field and revolutionize the entire transportation sector of the economy. (And I haven’t even mentioned how Volvo also envisions soon offering only electric vehicles .)
The driving force here is obvious: entrepreneurship. But the disruption is not from a new player, but from a player thinking anew. The step for Volvo going from a lease-or-sell model to membership is not a huge one in terms of the production or distribution process. The difference lies in how they imagine best serving their customers, and by thinking of their customers first – or the actual value of what they do, in a very Mengerian sense – they realized they should think differently about their business. Their dealership locations become member care facilities.
By explicitly thinking of and making consumer value the purpose and goal of their business, Volvo has recreated themselves. As a result, they could disrupt the automobile industry. And in the process, they may erase the boundary between different industries involved in providing the value of personal transportation: automobile manufacturing, car rentals, taxi cabs, public transportation.
This is an entirely predictable evolution. The only reason these are considered different industries in the first place is that they started out offering different types of services based on the technology of the day. But what they really do is not to provide technological solutions to consumers, but to provide value. By recognizing this simply but often forgotten fact, artificial boundaries dissolve and more value is attainable for both businesses and consumers. Herein lies the power of business and entrepreneurship to change the world: by serving the rest of us. (볼보 홍보처럼 보일 수도 있는 글이다.)
Per Bylund is assistant professor of entrepreneurship & Records-Johnston Professor of Free Enterprise in the School of Entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
자본주의는 유일하게 도덕적인 경제체제이다.
인간 관계에서 가장 기본적인 도덕은 타인의 권리를 침해하지 않는 것으로, 2천년 전 키케로가 “각자에게 각자의 정당한 몫을 주는 것”이라 했던 것이다.
미제스는 이렇게 말했다. “사유재산은 협동과 협력의 기반으로, 각자의 참가자들은 동료들의 성공을 자신의 성취를 위한 수단으로 여긴다.”
Capitalism (aka Self-Ownership) Is the Only Moral Economic System
Gary Galles
With all the “turn that over to the government, too, so someone else will have to provide it for you” proposals that have come from Democrat Presidential hopefuls already, candidates are actually being asked if they are a “socialist” or a “capitalist.”
Bernie Sanders, who has called for “economic rights” guarantees to be treated as Constitutional rights, admits being a socialist. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who may want even more people to live at everyone else’s expense, is on the same bandwagon: “Capitalism is an ideology of capital--the most important thing is the concentration of capital and to seek and maximize profit.” Consequently, “capitalism is irredeemable.”
However, other candidates, proposing or supporting very similar changes, have claimed they are (modified) capitalists.
Elizabeth Warren has said “I am a capitalist to my bones…I believe in markets. What I don’t believe in is theft.” Along the same lines, she has said, “I love what markets can do. I love what functioning economies can do. They are what make us rich; they are what create opportunity. But only fair markets, markets with rules. Markets without rules is about the rich take it all…And that’s what’s gone wrong in America.” Kamala Harris offered a similar complaint that “the rules aren’t applying equally to all people.” Joe Biden asked, “What happened to a moral responsibility, to a moral capitalism?” Beto O’Rourke followed up his claim to be a capitalist with “Having said that, it is clearly an imperfect, unfair, unjust and racist capitalist economy.”
Unfortunately for these candidates (and for Americans if voters don’t understand better), every one relies on false assumptions about markets and governments.
Senator Sanders fails to see that his call for more positive rights to things, from education to health care, must violate Americans’ negative rights (prohibitions laid out against others, especially government, to prevent unwanted intrusions). The Declaration of Independence, echoing John Locke, asserts that all have unalienable rights, including liberty, and that our government’s central purpose is to defend those negative rights, which is further reinforced in our Bill of Rights. Each citizen can enjoy them without infringing on anyone else’s rights. Negative rights impose on others only the obligation not to invade or interfere. But when the government creates new positive rights, extracting the resources to pay for them necessarily takes away others’ unalienable rights. That is, you cannot add new positive rights to existing negative rights, you can only do so by destroying some of the negative rights that define the idea that became America.
AOC, as she is now typically called, shows that she “learned” things that contradict what she should have learned in her economics major. She subscribes to what Marx intended in naming capitalism—making it seem that the owners of capital gain and others are hurt. But capitalism is better defined as a system of private ownership of resources, including one’s labor, not simply ownership of capital, coordinated by solely voluntary arrangements. Private property prevents the physical invasion of a person’s life, their liberty, or their property without their consent. By preventing such invasions, private property is an irreplaceable defense against aggression by the strong against the weak. No one is allowed to be a predator by violating others’ rights. In such a system, capitalists need the voluntary consent of laborers in their arrangements, preventing capitalists from exploiting laborers. In Herbert Spencer’s words, “far from being, as some have alleged, an advocacy of the claims of the strong against the weak, [capitalism] is much more an insistence that the weak shall be guarded against the strong.”
Elizabeth Warren’s supposed endorsement of markets, but opposition to markets without rules is senseless. There are no markets without rules in capitalism. The core rule is that of private property, which requires arrangements to be voluntary, which in turn rules out the possibility of the theft she supposedly objects to. If there is theft, or fraud that allows it, that represents a government failure to defend someone’s property rights or a piecemeal violation of equal property rights by government, neither of which justifies still more government intervention to fix, unless it is to better defend private property rights now being violated or stop violating them itself. And Kamala Harris’ complaint that “the rules aren’t applying equally to all people” is subject to the same criticism.
Joe Biden’s “What happened to a moral responsibility, to a moral capitalism?” reflects a similar confusion. The most basic moral or ethical basis for any human relationship is to not violate others’ rights, which Cicero called “giving each his own,” over two millenia ago. Or, as Adam Smith wrote in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, “The man who barely abstains from violating either the person, or the estate, or the reputation of his neighbors…does everything which his equals can with propriety force him to do, or which they can punish him for not doing. We can often fulfill all the rules of justice by sitting still and doing nothing.” Yet Biden seems to think that policies that require the violation of unwilling Americans’ rights is more moral than one that does not.
Beto O’Rourke’s endorsement of capitalism, then described as “imperfect, unfair, unjust and racist,” seems to reflect a similar view, but mainly reflects serious confusion. What American would endorse something that meets his description of capitalism, unless he was a sadist?
For each of these candidates, even a rudimentary understanding of private property rights and voluntary arrangements eviscerates their evaluations of capitalism, and sweeps away any reliable basis for their proposed “solutions.” In fact, both logic and history attest to the damage their proposals can create. As Ludwig von Mises explained it, private property is the basis for “joint action and cooperation in which each participant sees the other partner’s success as a means for the attainment of his own,” in sharp contrast to any “us versus them” zero- or negative-sum view of social interaction which treats someone’s gains as others’ losses. In capitalism (which is actually inconsistent with the government- created or enabled crony capitalism we see all around us), even those who would be tyrants, if given the opportunity, must focus their efforts on providing willing service to others to induce their voluntary cooperation. In contrast, the drive for power that animates these politicians who condemn a capitalism they plainly don’t comprehend would increasingly turn others into their unwilling servants.
Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. He is the author of The Apostle of Peace: The Radical Mind of Leonard Read.
----------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기