왜 北朝鮮은 붕괴(崩壞)되지 않는가?

아라키 가쓰히로

 ＂조선반도의 변화는 내부에서 일어나는 문제보다 주변 강

대국의 손익 계산에 따라 흘러가기 때문이다.＂  (조갑제닷컴, 대서양의 민들레 회원의 글, 발췌)

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

파로호(破虜湖), 이름이 거슬리면 아예 철거하지?

천영수

낚시꾼들에게는 익숙한 이름인 '파로호(破虜湖)'라는 댐이 있다. 행정구역상 강원도 화천군에 속해 있으며 춘천댐과 평화의 댐 사이에 있다. 일제가 4년여 공사로 1944년에 준공한 댐이다. 이 댐의 원래 이름은 하늘에서 내려다보면 큰 새가 날개를 펼친 것 같다는 의미의 '대붕호(大鵬湖)' 또는 지명을 딴 '화천댐'으로 불렀다고 한다. 
  
  6·25 전쟁 중이었던 1951년 봄, 이승만 대통령의 강력한 요청에 의해 미군과 국군은 중공군 수중에 있었던 화천발전소(파로호) 탈환 작전에 돌입했다. 화천댐(파로호)에 퇴로가 막힌 중공군을 한·미 연합군이 협공으로 대파한 '지암리·파로호 전투'였다. 국방부 군사편찬연구소 자료에 의하면 중공군 2만 4141명이 사살되었다고 한다. 어마어마한 숫자다. 그해 11월 현장을 방문한 이승만 대통령이 '오랑캐를 대파한 호수'라 하여 특별히 '파로호'라 칭하고, 친필 휘호를 남김으로 이후 파로호로 불리게 되었다. 
  
  그런데 최근 정부에서 이 파로호라는 이름을 원래 이름인 대붕호로 바꾸는 방안을 화천군에 요청한 것으로 알려졌다. 한·중 관계와 남북 평화 무드(?)를 감안하고 임시정부 100돌을 맞아 냉전의 상징인 파로호의 이름을 바꾸어야겠다는 것이다. 北·中에 알아서 기겠다는 꼴이다. 바꾸더라도 남북이 통일된 이후에 해도 될 일을 월급 받고 이런 문제만 생각하는 할 일없는 관리들이 있는가 보다. 
  
  국민들은 도탄에 빠뜨려놓고 온갖 쓸데없는 일에 공들이고 있는 정부다. 촉새의 입을 빌려 '이승만은 미국의 괴뢰'라는 화두를 던져 놓고 이승만 흔적 지우기의 일환이 아닌가 하는 의혹도 든다. 그런데 이승만이 지은 이름 이전에 일제가 만든 댐이니 이름을 바꿀 게 아니라 아예 댐을 철거하는 게 맞지 않나? 그러면 이승만 흔적과 일제의 흔적을 동시에 제거할 수 있으니 일거양득이겠다. 내친김에 철거(파괴) 전문 정부답게 가까운 곳에 있는 박정희 작품인 소양호도 철거하고.

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

김문수

문재인 대통령선거 댓글조작으로 구속됐던 민주당 김경수 경남지사를 서울고법 차문호 부장판사가 구속 77일 만에 보석 허가했습니다.
  
  첫째, 김경수 댓글조작 범죄의 최대 수혜자가 문재인 대통령 당선자임을 잘 보여주는 보석허가입니다.
  둘째, 김경수 지사를 계속 구속해서 무거운 형벌을 받게 되면, 자칫 드루킹처럼 범죄의 전모가 폭로되어 문재인 대통령 당선자와 민주당이 예상치 못할 정도의 피해를 입을지 모른다는 우려가 반영되었다고 생각합니다.
  셋째, 법치주의는 사라지고, '측근 무죄, 야당 유죄'의 정치재판이 기승을 부리고 있음을 뚜렷이 보여주고 있습니다.
  넷째, 박근혜 대통령은 구속재판 법정기한 2년이 지났지만, 교묘한 법 적용으로 석방하지 않으면서, 하루 밤 자고 나서 바로 오늘 김경수 경남지사를 석방하니, 촛불혁명재판의 민낯을 제대로 잘 보여주고 있습니다.

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

세월호의 민낯이 만천하에 드러났다.

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

일단 결론은 다들 알다시피 고인 장자연 시체 팔이, 돈, 좌

빨 정치인, 멍청한 좌빨들을 이용해 연예계에 복귀가 목적

으로 보인다.

[출처] 윤지오를.ARABOZA / 일베
--->윤지오에 대해 꽤 많은 정보를 올려놓았다. 

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

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

 문재앙 북한에 퍼주다 또 걸림....

1. 제3국 선박을 통해서 북한에 불법환적을 하다가

일본 초계기에 딱걸림....

2. 일본은 이사진을 미국에 넘김 , 미국은 이거 뭐냐고

한국에다가 물어옴

3. 작년 연말에 시끄러웠던 레이더, 초계기 사건은

 명확하게 찍힌게없어서 어찌저찌 발뺌하고 

적반하장 하면서 버텼지만

이번꺼는 ㅆㅂ 빼도박도 못하게 사진이 개선명함....

4. 원래는 한국 정부가 정밀 조사해야하는거지만

한국정부는 마치 문재앙 처럼 어버버 대면서 조사 안하고

있음....

[출처] 문재안 북한에 퍼주다 또 걸림..(작년말 레이더, 초계기 사건과 관련 있음)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

김정은은 미국의 자비를 나약함으로 오해하고 있다. 트럼

프의 인내심이 바닥이 나면, 그는 후회할 것이다.

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

중국의 못된 행동에 정면 대응할 때이다.

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

The Establishment Goes Trump on China

By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

대중 유화책을 지속한다면,  아시아의 동맹들이 

미국을 버리고 중국과 손을 잡게 될 것이다.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/establishment-adopts-trump-views-china-military-threat-trade/

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

모든 전체주의 국가는 개인 우상이 필요하다. 중국인들이 시진핑 사상을 학습할수록, 그들의 생산은 줄어든다. 그래서 중국인들은 자기들을 "서(西)조선"이라 부른다.

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

Gordon G. Chang‏ 

Gordon G. Chang 님이 리트윗했습니다 Mike Bird

This is what happened in #Japan before its crash. The signs of collapse in #China are now evident. Beijing can postpone the crisis, but by doing so it is only making the inevitable event worse

일본에 경제 위기가 왔을 때의 징조가 중국에 나타나고 있다.

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

Redenomination: boon or bane?

출처: 코리아 타임즈

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

트럼프 엿먹이려는 문재인의 위험한 지렛대

문죄인이 친중 행보를 함으로써 미국에 압력을 넣고, 자신의 친북 정책을 수용해달라는 멧시지라고 해석한다. 

https://youtu.be/HZ4LAx2dSAU

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

이언주 : 댓글이 무서워서, 그것이 여론인 줄 알고 (탄핵

에 찬성했다.) 

지난 탄핵의 주요 원인을 고백했다. 국회의원들 대다수가 

광화문의 촛불이 무서워서, 자신들이 살려고 탄핵에 찬성

했고, 좌파 하이에나들이 뜯어먹으라고 대통령을 내던졌

다. 

https://youtu.be/7zkRBzxk38M

55분 08초

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

기후는 언제나 변하고 있다. 지구의 기온은 상승과 하강

을 반복한다. 이미 1800년대에도 소빙하기가 있었다. 0.8

도 기온 상승은 위기가 아니다. 

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

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

경제성장이 자율적 질서에 따라 이뤄진다기 보다, 위로부

터의 계획에 의해 일어난다는 생각은 엉터리이고, 잘못된 

경제 지식이다.

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

 기후 변화를 부정하는 건 홀로코스트 부정과 같다고 말한 전 녹색당 당수

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

바다코끼리의 죽음을 해빙의 부족 때문이라고 엉터리 주

장을 했던 아텐보로에 대한 반박

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

재정 최적화

정태적 세계에서는 최대의 양을 선택하고

역동적 세계에서는 최고의 성장율을 선택한다.

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

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

S Stewart-Williams‏ 

Men and women don't have different brains in the way that they have different genitalia. But they *do* have different brains in the way that they have different faces. http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2017/08/debunking-male-female-brain-mosaic.html … HT @WiringTheBrain

남녀의 뇌가 다르다는 건 그들의 성기가 다르다는 것처럼 다르지는 않다. 그보다는 그들의 얼굴이 다르듯이, 그렇게 다양한 양상을 띄고 있다는 의미이다.

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

현대 문명은 저축과 투자 그리고 경제적 계산을 통해 만들어졌다.

 

원시 시대부터 자본재capital goods의 도움을 받아 생산의 시스템으로 나아가는 데에는 언제나 저축saving이 있었다.

자본재란 물질적인 것을 가르키고, 자본이란 자본재들의 공급의 가치를 화폐로 환산한 것이다. 문제는 가용 자본의 양을 유지하고 보존하는 것이었다.

한 사람이 많은 돈을 가지면, 그로 인해 다른 사람들은 적게 가진다는 생각이 보편적인 나라에서는, 대규모 저축은 불가능하다. 대규모 저축은 18세기부터 시작되었다.

18세기 이후로 저축과 투자를 가능하게 한 제도가 생겼고, 부자들만 아니라, 가난한 사람들도 참가했다.

우리가 높은 생활 수준을 누리지 못하는 이유는, 우리가 충분한 자본재를 갖고 있지 않아서, 원하는 물건을 생산할 수 없다는 것이다.

생산 요소의 결핍이란 자본재의 결핍을 뜻한다. 따라서 저축을 끝내고 이제 소비를 시작해야 한다는 생각은 정말 환상에 바탕을 둔 엉터리이다.

노동력을 줄이는 기계가 실업을 유발한다고 하지만, 인류의 전체 역사는 점점 더 많은 노동 절약 기계의 도입의 역사였다.

자본재가 더 많을수록 노동의 한계 생산성은 더 높아진다.

인플레를 통해 자본은 증가시킬 수 있을지 몰라도, 자본재는 증가시킬 수 없다.

 

 

The Making of Modern Civilization: Savings, Investment, and Economic Calculation

 

Ludwig von Mises

 

Institutionalism is used to ridicule the classical economists because they started with “Crusoe economics.” In the beginning a fisherman got the idea that he could catch more fish one day than he needed and then he could have some leisure time to manufacture fishing nets. These nets and saved fish are “capital goods”; I don’t call them “capital.”

 

Capital goods are the intermediate factors between the given natural factors of production and consumer goods. Nature—given resources and human labor are the given natural factors. But if they are to produce, they must be guided. The produced, intermediary factors of production—capital goods—are not only tools; they are also all other intermediary goods, half-finished products, and supplies of consumer goods which are used for the support of those who are producing with the aid of capital goods. The production process which we are organizing and operating today started in the early ages of history, in the remotest ages of history. If the children used up the nets and fish produced by their parents, capital accumulation would have had to start all over again. There is a continuous progress from simpler conditions to more refined conditions. It is important to realize this because we must know that, from the early beginnings on, the first step toward this system of producing with the aid of capital goods was saving, and has always been saving.

 

The concept of “capital” must be distinguished from the concept of “capital goods.” It is impossible to think and to deal with the problems of capital goods without using and referring to the concepts which we have developed in the complicated modern system of capital calculation. Capital goods are something material—something that could be described in terms of physics and chemistry. The concept of “capital” refers to the valuation of a supply of these capital goods in terms of money. This valuation of capital goods in terms of money is what marks the beginning of what may be called a new and higher period in human endeavors to improve the external conditions of mankind. The problem is how to maintain or to preserve the amount of capital available and how to avoid consuming the available capital goods without replacing them. The problem is how not to consume more, or if possible, how to consume less, than the amount of newly produced products. It is the problem of capital preservation, maintenance, and of course of increasing the capital available.

 

Under some circumstances, it is possible to deal with this problem without any special calculation or computation. If a farmer continues to produce in the same way and if the methods of construction and method of living haven’t changed, he can estimate his condition because he can establish comparisons in physical and biological terms—two barns are more than one barn, a dozen head of cattle is more than two cows, and so on. But such simple methods of computation are insufficient in an economic system in which there is change and progress. Replacement may not be in the same form as the factors which are used up. Diesel engines may be substituted for steam engines, and so on. Replacement and maintenance of capital under such conditions require a method of computation and calculation which can only be figured in terms of money. The various physical and external factors of production cannot be compared in any other way than from the point of view of the services they render to men, calculated in terms of money.

 

It was one of the fundamental errors of Aristotle that he believed that in exchanges the things which were exchanged must have the same value. Since the days of Aristotle, for two or three thousand years, the same error has prevailed again and again, leading great thinkers, as well as simple men, astray. The same error appears in the first pages of Marx’s Das Kapital, making everything Marx said about these problems useless. This error was repeated even much later in the writings of Henri Bergson, the eminent French philosopher.

 

There is no equivalence in exchange. On the contrary, it is differences that bring about exchange. You cannot reduce the terms of exchange and of trade to equivalence; you can only reduce them to differences in evaluation. The buyer values what he gets more highly than what he gives away; the seller values what he gives less highly than what he gets. Therefore, the equivalence that we use in determining the importance the various capital goods have in our lives can only be expressed in terms of prices. In calculating in terms of prices you can establish a system of prices, and determine whether or not a price has increased or decreased— that is, in terms of money. Without a price system there cannot be any calculation. In the socialist system, which cannot have a price system as we have it in the market system, there cannot be established calculation and computation.

 

In the system of economic calculation, we have the terms “capital” and “income”—terms and notions that cannot be thought of outside this system. “Capital” is the sum of the prices that can be obtained on the market for a definite given supply of capital goods. The businessman employs economic calculation in a specific way; he could not operate without this system of economic calculation. At the beginning of his enterprise he establishes a total value of all the capital goods at his disposal and calls it his “capital,” or the “capital” of his firm or corporation.

 

Periodically, he compares the value of the prices of all the capital goods available in the firm with the prices of these capital goods at the beginning. If there is an increase he calls it “profit.” If there is a decrease, he calls it “loss.” No other system would make it possible to establish whether what has been done has increased the capital available, improved it, or decreased it. From another point of view, the total surplus that he calls “profit” can also be called “income,” insofar as it makes it possible for the owner—corporation or individual—to consume this amount without reducing the amount of capital available and without, therefore, living at the expense of the future. Thus the concepts of “capital” and “income” developed only within this system of economic calculation.

 

If the total amount of “income” is consumed, then there is no change in the amount of capital available for the enterprise. If a part is saved, i.e., not consumed but reinvested—that is, if it is used to expand the stock of capital goods working in the enterprise—then we can say additional capital has been accumulated; the enterprise has earned some “income.” If the contrary is the case, if the amount consumed by the owner exceeds the income, then we have capital consumption, or capital decumulation, and there will be less available in the future for the production of consumer goods.

 

I don’t want to enter into how much knowledge the ancient Greeks and Romans had of these ideas. They had some knowledge at least, but by the Middle Ages it had entirely disappeared. Under the conditions of the Middle Ages, there was no need for such calculation. It developed slowly, step by step in the latter part of the Middle Ages in the countries in which at that time economic progress was much better than other countries, in Italy, for instance. As a result, some of the fundamental terms of accountancy preserve their Italian origin, for instance the word “capital” itself.

 

In the beginning, the terms of accountancy were not very clear. People were not very good at arithmetic, and we discover very bad errors simply in arithmetical problems even in the books of big fifteenth-century firms. Gradually these ideas developed more and more until the system of double-entry bookkeeping was developed. Our whole thinking is now influenced by these ideas, even the ideas of those who know nothing of the problems of accountancy and who are not in a position to read and interpret the balance sheet of a corporation. Accountants and bookkeepers are only the handymen in this fundamental way of dealing with all material and external problems. However, these problems concern others than accountants and bookkeepers. Goethe, who was a great poet, scientist, and a precursor of the science of evolution, described a merchant’s doubleentry accounting system as “one of the most marvelous inventions of the human spirit.” Goethe realized these ideas were fundamental to the modern system of producing and acting and that these concepts were a kind of practical mathematics and logic in the way people deal with all these problems.

 

In our age, public opinion and legislation have completely lost all understanding of these problems. This is due to modern income-tax legislation. First of all, in the legislation concerning income taxes, the law-giver calls salaries and wages “income” or “earned income.” However, the main characteristic of “income” in the economic sense is that it is that surplus over a businessman’s costs that may be consumed without reducing capital, i.e., without living at the expense of the future. You cannot consume “income” without deteriorating your opportunities for future production. The concepts of “capital” and “income” developed only within the system of economic calculation.

 

These income-tax laws also deal with “profits” as if they were salaries. The income-tax authors are very astonished if a firm doesn’t have a profit every year. They don’t realize that there are good years and bad years for an enterprise. One consequence was that during the depression in the early 1930s people used to say,“How unjust that a man who owns a big factory doesn’t have to pay any income tax this year, while a man who makes only $300 a month has to pay.” It was not unjust from the point of view of the law; that year the big factory owner had no “income.”

 

The authors in promulgating these income-tax laws had not the slightest idea of what “capital” and “income” in the economic system really meant. What they didn’t see was that the greater part of the great profits and great incomes wasn’t spent by the businessmen, but reinvested in capital goods and plowed back into the enterprise to increase production. This was precisely the way in which economic progress, improvement in material conditions, took place. Fortunately I do not have to deal with the income-tax laws, nor with the mentality that led to these laws. It is enough to say that, from the point of view of the individual worker, it would be much more reasonable to tax only income spent, not income saved and reinvested.

 

In many cases, it is difficult for a man in the late years of his life to make a living, or at least to earn as much as he had earned in his prime. To make it simple, take the situation of singers whose years of big earning are definitely limited.

 

What I want to deal with is the idea that saving in general, or that saving under special circumstances, is supposedly bad from the point of view of the welfare of the commonwealth and, therefore, that something should be done to restrict saving or to direct it into special channels. In fact, we may say, and nobody can deny it, that all material progress, everything that distinguishes our conditions from those of earlier ages, is that more has been saved and accumulated as capital goods. This also distinguishes the United States from, let us say, India or China. The most important difference is only a difference in time. It is not too late for them. We just started earlier to save some of the excess of production over consumption.

 

The most important institutional factor in the development of nations was the establishment of a system of government and of legislation that made large-scale saving possible. Large-scale saving was impossible and still is impossible today in all those countries in which the governments believe that when one man has more it must necessarily be the cause of other people’s distress. This was once the idea of all people. And it is today the idea of the people in many countries outside the countries of Western civilization. It is the idea that is now jeopardizing Western civilization by introducing different methods of government into the constitutions which made possible the development of Western civilization. It was also the idea prevailing in most European countries until the rise of modern capitalism, that is, until the age very inappropriately called the “Industrial Revolution.”

 

To show how strong this idea was, I quote from Immanuel Kant, one of the most important philosophers—but he lived in the east, in Kaliningrad, then called Königsberg: “If one man has more than necessary, another man has less.” This is mathematically perfectly true, of course, but mathematics and economics are two different things. The fact is that in all those countries in which people believed in this dictum and in which governments believed that the best way to improve conditions was to confiscate the wealth of successful businessmen—it was not necessary to confiscate the wealth of those who were unsuccessful—in all those countries, it was not possible to save and invest.

 

If someone asked me why the ancient Greeks did not have railroads, I would answer, “Because there was a tendency in those days to confiscate wealth. Why should people then invest?”The Greek philosopher Isocrates made some speeches which are still available to us. He said if a wealthy citizen stood trial in Athens he had no chance to win because the judges wanted to confiscate his wealth, expecting this would improve their situation. Under such conditions there couldn’t be any question of large-scale savings.

 

Large-scale savings developed only from the eighteenth century on. And from that time on there developed also those institutions which made saving and investment possible, not only by the well-to-do, but also of small sums by the poor man. In the early days the poor man could save only by hoarding coins. But coins don’t bear any interest, and the advantage he got from his savings was not very great. Moreover, it was dangerous to have such small hoards in his regular home; they could be stolen easily and they didn’t earn anything. From the beginning of the nineteenth century on, we had a large-scale development that made saving possible for the broad masses.

 

One of the characteristic differences between a capitalistic and a pre-capitalistic system is that in the capitalistic system even those who are not very well off are owners of savings and have small investments. Many people do not recognize this difference. Still today, in dealing with the problem of interest, statesmen, or politicians, as well as public opinion, believe that creditors are the rich and the debtors are the poor. Therefore, they think that a policy of easy money, a policy of lowering interest rates artificially by government interference, is in favor of the poor and against the rich. In fact, the poor and the less well-to-do own deposits with savings banks, have bonds, insurance policies, and are entitled to pensions. According to a newspaper account today, there are 61 /2 million owners of bonds (promises to pay) in this country. I don’t know whether or not this figure is accurate. But nevertheless these bonds are widely distributed, and so this means that the majority are not debtors but creditors. All these people are creditors. On the other hand, the owners of the common stock of a corporation that has issued bonds, or is indebted to banks, are not creditors, but debtors. Similarly the big real estate operator who has a big mortgage is also a debtor. Therefore, it is no longer true to say that the rich are creditors and the poor are debtors. Conditions in this regard have changed considerably.

 

One of Hitler’s great rallying cries was: “Do away with interest slavery. Long live the debtor; perish the creditor.” But one German newspaper recognized the error in this and wrote an article with the headline, “DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU YOURSELF ARE A CREDITOR?” I cannot say that this article was appreciated by Hitler.

 

There developed some years ago a hostility to saving and capital accumulation. This opposition to saving can’t be attributed to Marx, because Marx didn’t understand how capital was accumulated. Karl Marx didn’t foresee the development of large corporations and ownership by many small savers. A Russian economist who was influenced by Marx declared years ago that the whole economic system of capitalism was self-contradictory. Instead of consuming everything that was produced, a great part of the things produced is saved and accumulated as additional capital. There will be more and more for coming generations. What is the sense of this? For whom do they accumulate all this? Like a miser they accumulate, but who will enjoy what the saver earns? It is ridiculous; it is bad; something should be done about it.

 

John Maynard Keynes succeeded with his anti-saving program. According to him, there is danger in over-saving. He believed, and many people accepted his view, that opportunities for investment were limited. There may not be sufficient investment opportunities to absorb all the income that is set aside as savings. Business will become bad because there is too much savings. Therefore, it was possible to save too much. The same doctrine from another point of view had been prevalent for a very long time. People believed that a new invention—a labor-saving device—would produce what was called “technological unemployment.” This was the idea that led the early unions to destroy machines. Present-day unions still have the same idea, but they are not so unsophisticated as to destroy the machines—they have more refined methods.

 

As far as we can see, human wants are practically unlimited. What we need to fulfill satisfactions is more accumulation of capital goods. The only reason we don’t have a higher standard of living in this country is that we don’t have enough capital goods to produce all the things that people would like to have. I don’t want to say that people always make the best use of economic improvements. But whatever it is that you want, it requires more investment and more manpower to satisfy it. We could improve conditions, we could think of more ways to employ capital, even in the wealthiest parts of the United States, even in California. There will always be plenty of room for investment as long as there is scarcity of the material factors of production. We cannot imagine a state of affairs without this scarcity. We cannot imagine life in a “Land of Cockaigne,” where people have only to open their mouths and let food enter and where everything else people wanted was available.

 

 

Scarcity of the factors of production means a scarcity of capital goods. Therefore, the whole idea that we must stop saving and start spending is fantastic. In 1931 or 1932, Lord Keynes and a number of his friends published a declaration in which they stated there was only one means to avoid catastrophe and to improve economic conditions immediately— that was to spend, spend more, and still more. Economically we must realize that spending in this sense does not create jobs that investment wouldn’t have created just as much. It doesn’t matter whether you use your money for the purchase of a new machine or you spend it in a night club. According to Keynes’s theory the man who spends the money on a better life creates jobs, while the man who buys a machine and improves production is withholding something from the public. It is not true that when Keynes wrote his book conditions in Great Britain justified his theory of government spending to create full employment. What created the unfavorable situation in Great Britain was that British industries after World War I did not have the means required to improve the material equipment in their factories. Therefore, the British machines were inefficient when compared with the machines in some other countries, especially in the United States. As a result, the marginal productivity of labor was lower in Britain. But as the unions would not tolerate any significant reduction of wage rates to make British industry more competitive, the result was unemployment. What Great Britain needed was more investment to improve the productivity of the factors of production, just as they need to do the same today.

 

Lord Keynes was very peculiar about this idea. An American friend published an article dealing with his personal friendship with Lord Keynes. He tells a story about visiting Keynes in a Washington hotel. In washing his hands, the friend was very careful not to soil more than a single towel. Keynes then crumpled all of the towels and said in that way he was making more jobs for American chambermaids. From this point of view, the best way to increase employment would be to destroy as much as possible. I would have thought that idea had been demolished once and for all by Frédéric Bastiat in his broken window story. But evidently Keynes didn’t understand this tale of Bastiat’s. The fallacy that labor-saving machines create technological unemployment has not only been disproved by theoretical examination but also by the fact that the whole history of mankind consists precisely of the introduction of more and more labor-saving machines. Today we produce a greater amount of various amenities with a smaller amount of human labor. Yet there are more people and more employment. Therefore, it is not true that people are deprived of their jobs because some new machines are invented.

 

It is no less a fable, and it is also a very bad fable, that the accumulation of capital hurts the workers. The more capital goods available, the higher the marginal productivity of labor—other things being equal. If an employer considers the hiring of an additional worker or the firing of an additional worker, he asks himself what the employment of this man adds to the value of his products. If the employment of one worker more adds something to the quantities produced, the employer’s problem is, does his employment cost more than it brings from the sale of his production? The same problem arises when the employment of an additional amount of capital goods is considered.

 

The greater amount of capital available per head of the worker, the greater the marginal productivity of the worker and consequently the higher the wages the employer can pay. The more capital accumulated—other things being equal—the more workers can be employed at the same rates, or at higher rates.

 

Two businessmen—J. Howard Pew of Sunoco, and Irving Olds of U. S. Steel—have tried, without too much success, to explain to other businessmen the effect of inflation on their capital accumulation, inventories, depreciation, and so forth. Inflation raises the businessmen’s selling prices, creating the illusion that they are making profits. The government then taxes and uses for current expenses these apparent “profits” which would otherwise have been used for investment or set aside for depreciation and replacement.

 

If an individual takes out a policy with a private insurance company, the insurance company invests this money. Later, of course, when the insurance has to be paid out, it has to disinvest. Individuals come to the point where they must disinvest, but insurance companies expand from year to year, and as there is capital accumulation taking place in the whole country, the insurance companies as a whole do not have to disinvest. It is different with the Social Security system. The government talks about actuarial statistics but this does not mean what it means to an insurance company. What the individual pays, the government spends for current expenses. The government then gives to the “Social Security Fund” an IOU which it calls a “bond.” Thus the government “invests” in government bonds. When the government collects “Social Security” taxes, it says, “give me your money to spend and in return I promise that in 30 or 40 years the taxpayers will be willing to pay back the debt which we have incurred today.” Therefore the Social Security system is something very different from private insurance. It doesn’t mean something has been saved. On the contrary, the savings of individuals are collected by government for “social security” but they are used for current expenses. I am fully convinced the government will pay, but the question is, in what kind of dollars? The whole thing depends on the readiness of future Congresses and the future public to pay in good money. If people don’t like the paper money, they won’t use it. For instance, California stayed on hard currency during the Civil War era of the greenbacks.

 

Bismarck’s idea of social security was that he wanted everybody to receive something from the government. He compared the situation with that of the French, many of whom owned government bonds and received interest. He thought that was why the French were so patriotic; they were receiving something from the government. Bismarck wanted the individual German, too, to depend on the government. So he started an additional government bonus of 50 Marks to every old-age pensioner. This was called the Reichszuschuss [governmental supplementary allowance]. The problems of capital are problems of economic calculation. You cannot increase “capital goods” by inflation, although you can seemingly increase “capital.” The result is a discrepancy between capital goods and capital, as is pointed out by economic calculation.

 

Excerpted from Marxism Unmasked

 

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

名医经验——夏仲方

证治经验
治疗肾炎一得  
肾炎一病，祖国医学名为“肾风”、“风水”，病者以水肿为主证，遭受风湿之邪为发病的主要因素。将《金匮》论治风水的方法，施用于肾炎，最有实效；要诊治本病当首辨“证”之虚实。
  
急性肾炎多属实证，慢性肾炎多属虚证；水肿皮肤光亮、绷急、紧张，多为实证，水肿皮肤弹力弱，多为虚证；病人舌苔厚腻者多为实，舌淡或少苔者多为虚；脉象有力者多为实，脉象无力者多为虚。大便秘结、粪条粗硬者为实，大便快利、水泻者为虚（如大便成形而夹杂水分，登圊次数不多，也为实证）；小便短少，尿色深褐、赤褐，气味重，尿液浓者属实，尿量不少，甚至超过饮入量，尿色无异常，气味不重，尿次频繁等，皆作虚看。此外，病者体型肥胖或瘦削，肌肉坚实或松弛，皮肤老结或柔嫩，血色红润或苍白，以及毛发的疏密、粗细、黄黑等也都可作为辨别水肿实证或虚证的参考。
    治疗肾炎的常用方如下：  
一、越婢加术汤（麻黄、石膏、甘草、生姜、大枣、白术）：用于肾炎实证者。证见全身肿、下肢尤甚，脉沉，小便少，自汗出，口渴，或有气息喘粗者。对兼有发热而脉不沉者也适用。本方为急性肾炎所常用。方中麻黄、生姜发表利水，使水从汗泄，乃因势利导，无碍于自汗出症；白术以除肌表之湿；石膏性寒清热，为口渴而设。
  
二、大青龙汤（麻黄、桂枝、杏仁、甘草、石膏、生姜、大枣）：用于肾炎实证水肿，并发高热，恶寒，头痛，骨节疼，无汗，尿量尚可，脉浮紧，口渴，烦躁。本方即越婢加术汤，去术加桂枝、杏仁，发汗力强于越婢。使用要点在发热无汗，而尿量不太少，脉之强度过于越婢。
  
三、小青龙汤（麻黄、桂枝、细辛、干姜、半夏、五味子、芍药、甘草）：用于肾炎实证水肿，伴有气喘，咳吐稀薄泡沫痰，发热或有或无；脉浮而无大青龙证之紧张洪大，以浮细有力最为合适。本方能消散胸肺积水而从表泄，同时可退皮肤水肿。如伴有泛吐，胃呆，也可兼治。方中五味子，在急性实证时一般不用，易以生姜，其效更佳。
  
四、麻黄连翘赤小豆汤（麻黄、杏仁、桑白皮、连翘、赤小豆、甘草、生姜、大枣）：多用于皮肤病内攻，发为肾炎水肿实证，脉紧、发热、烦渴似大青龙证而较轻（无发热也可用）及小便浑赤而量少者。方中麻黄透表，连翘清解利尿，赤小豆利尿消肿，三味为主药。应用时加银花、苍术、黄柏，效果更显，大便秘结者，可酌加大黄以排毒利便。
  
五、五苓散（白术、桂枝、猪苓、泽泻、茯苓）：适用于肾炎属表虚里实证者，表虚脉弱，不一定有发热，里实是指烦渴、小便不利，渴饮即吐。诊为“水逆”，扪其上腹有振水音时，尤可选用。本方是利小便的代表方，肾炎使用机会较多。桂枝是方中“灵魂”，《别录》谓：通血脉，宣导百药。临床体会，桂枝上能除痰，下能利尿，中能健胃，外能发汗，里能通血。由于水饮上凌而发生搐搦，眼黑，脑痛，呕吐，怔忡等症（尿毒症），也可用本方治疗。必须注意，桂枝不宜大量地长期用或单味用，以免增加尿蛋白，若用小量并适当配伍，则不妨久服。
  
六、麻黄附子甘草汤（麻黄、附子、甘草）：适用于素体阳虚而患急性肾炎或慢性肾炎新加感冒，辨证属表实里虚者。皮肤水肿有相当紧张性，并有恶寒，发热，无汗，头痛等表实证（不发热者也可用），以及脉沉小等里虚证。不论病者肿势如何，凡出现少阴证者，即可用本方治疗。方中附子性热，功能温壮肾阳，服后往往不见汗出，多见小便增利而症状消失。肾炎之“炎”，不能认为炎炎火热，有时相反看到的是沉沉寒水，控制生命所系的命门之火淹没不彰，故必须“益火之源，以消阴翳”，来挽救垂危。
  
七、防己黄芪汤（防己、黄芪、白术、甘草、生姜、大枣），防己茯苓汤（防己、黄芪、甘草、茯苓、桂枝）：二方适用于肾炎虚证。证见脉浮弱，汗出恶风，发热有无不一定（有也不是高热症），皮肤肿弹力弱，肤面湿润，无五苓散证之烦渴、小便不利。二方在急性肾炎初期使用机会少，而对虚证肾炎水肿有卓效。二方比较，防己黄芪汤力较逊。黄芪有利尿功能，陆以
谓许
治一全身水肿人，气喘，二便闭，甚危，用大量黄芪加少许糯米，一服后，小便大通，喘平肿消。
  
八、当归芍药散（当归、芍药、茯苓、白术、泽泻、川芎）：用于慢性肾炎虚证，也可用于急性肾炎后期。证见脉弱或弦而无力，有贫血症象，尿睛尚可，肿势不甚，或伴头晕痛、心悸、胃肠停水、腹痛便溏者。本方为利血利水剂。仲景云：“血不利则为水，名曰血分。”凡水肿病而见贫血、郁血现象者，皆本方所治。
九、金匮肾气丸（熟地、山药、山茱萸肉、茯苓、泽泻、丹皮、桂枝、附子）：用于慢性肾炎虚证。证见脉沉弱或反常的弦劲紧张有力（此紧硬有力之脉，多伴高血压，不作实证）；贫血，面色暗晦，小便不利或过利；口渴，小腹不仁，腰酸痛，脚跟痛，脚弱、麻、冷，或反脚热；头响、晕、胀，心悸、失眠等症。主要以尿量异常、口渴及腰腹脚部症状为主。本方是虚证利小便方，也治小便反多者。方以大量地黄为主，《本经》谓其主逐血痹，填骨髓；《别录》谓其主破恶血，溺血，利大小肠。临床体会，地黄有利血利水之能，与当归芍药散同功。所不同者，本方配合萸、丹和小量桂、附，重点在治肾治肝，当归芍药散重点在治脾治心。归纳以上选方，实证常用麻黄剂，有热者配石膏、大黄；虚证常用之药：在气是芪、术，在血是归、地；虚寒者配附、桂，这是治疗肾炎的一个大法。

尿血症，是肾炎患者的常见症状。肉眼见到尿浑带血者，可随证加用蒲黄、茅根、栀子等止血利尿药，但用于实证有效。若只凭化验有红血球（肉眼看不见者）不必用此，按辨证适当处理，自然会好。至于虚证血尿，尤其是慢性期患者，宜用阿胶、地黄。若尿色浑浊暗黑似杂有灰尘样者，为瘀血尿，阿胶、地黄也非其治，须用琥珀末，日吞0.9～1.5g，可服至一月，至尿清为度。琥珀有利水散瘀安神之能，对瘀血尿有效，对整体无害。但慢性肾炎见贫血，而无瘀血征象，一般不宜用琥珀。
  
尿毒症，多见于肾炎慢性期，以呕吐，头昏痛，眼黑暗为主要症候，严重者惊厥、昏迷，类似《素问·奇病论》所说：“肾风而不能食，善惊，惊已，心气痿者死”之证。
  
仲景《伤寒论》少阴病篇中有许多症候与尿毒症相似，如317条通脉四逆汤证，309条吴茱萸汤证，316条真武汤证，318条四逆散证，320条大承气汤证（一法用大柴胡汤）。治疗尿毒症，可以选用少阴病篇的方法：
  
一、通脉四逆汤（附子、干姜、甘草、葱白）：适用于脉微欲绝，手足厥逆证。可急救心力衰竭。
  
二、吴茱萸汤（吴茱萸、人参、生姜、大枣）：适用于呕吐水饮，脑痛如裂证。不下利也可用。
  
三、真武汤（附子、白术、芍药、茯苓、生姜）：适用于心下悸，头眩，身shun动，泛吐证。
  
四、四逆散（柴胡、芍药、枳实、甘草）：适用于脉弦紧或滑，胸脘痞满证。肾炎高血压，且有胃肠充实症者，可以选用。
  
五、大承气汤（大黄、芒硝、厚朴、枳实）：适用于舌苔干燥厚垢，脉沉而有力（但不可用于脉沉涩者），脘腹满胀拒按，便秘，尿秘或尿赤少证。腹泻清水而心下痛者也可用。
  
六、大柴胡汤（柴胡、黄芩、芍药、半夏、枳实、大黄、生姜、大枣）：本方对于浆膜腔积水时最适宜。
  
以上六方用治尿毒症，其中通脉四逆汤、真武汤、吴茱萸汤三方治虚证；四逆散、大承气汤、大柴胡汤三方治实证。六方的作用，或温或补，或散或通，目的均在于排除“水毒”。尿毒症有因大吐劫伤津液，引起心力衰竭者，其证口干舌燥，无厚浊垢苔，二便不利，脉细软数。宜急投滋养津液以补救亡阴，可用麦门冬汤（麦门冬、半夏、人参、甘草、粳米、大枣），麦冬须用大量，外有水肿也不妨用。
  
《中藏经》云：人中百病，难疗者，莫过于水。肾炎发展到尿毒症阶段，病情变化迅速，往往朝方暮改，补泻无定，需随证治宜。

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