문재인 대통령의 이미선 임명강행으로 좌파독재의 마지막 퍼즐이 맞춰졌다
문재인 대통령이 전자결재로 이미선을 헌법재판소 재판관으로 임명 강행한 오늘은 대한민국 헌법이 모욕당한 날이다. 헌법재판소의 권위가 땅에 떨어진 날이다.
오늘 4월 19일은 국민과 야당의 마지막 열망을 걷어 차버리고 문재인 정권이 좌파독재를 길을 스스로 선택한, 좌파독재 퍼즐 완성의 날이다. (전희경 자유한국당 대변인, 발췌)
--------------------------------------------------------------
황교안 페이스북
“문재인 대통령과 끝까지 싸우겠습니다”
입으로는 정의를 외치면서 실은 불공정한 주식거래로 막대한 부를 축적한 이미선 후보자,
이 땅의 사회적 약자를 대변하고 정의를 지켜야 하는 헌법재판관에 결국 임명되었습니다.
‘인사 대참사’가 발생했고, ‘인사 독재’를 보았습니다.
속았습니다. 저도 속았고 우리당도 속았습니다. 우리 국민은 문재인 대통령에게 속았습니다. 국민을 마치 조롱하듯 깔보듯 무시했고, 민생의 엄중한 경고도 묵살했습니다.
‘국민의 뜻을 받드는 대통령이 되겠다’ 라는 그 말, ‘내 삶을 책임지는 국가’ 라는 그 말,
‘사람이 먼저다’ 라는 그 말, 모두가 거짓말이었습니다.
국민 여러분! 말로 하지 않겠습니다. 이제 행동으로 하겠습니다. 문재인 대통령의 무능과 오만, 문재인 세력 그들만의 국정 독점, 그 가시꽃들의 향연을 뿌리 뽑겠습니다. 오직 국민의 명령에 따라 국민만을 바라보며 끝까지 싸우겠습니다.
“살고 싶습니다” 이 싸움의 명분은 ‘절박함의 끝을 잡고 살고싶다’ 라고 외치는 국민의 절규입니다. 이 투쟁의 이유는 ‘국민속으로 돌아가겠다’ 라는 우리의 처절한 몸부림입니다. 국민여러분, 함께해주십시오 ‘자유민주주의의 봄’을 함께 만듭시다.
<문재인 STOP! 국민이 심판합니다!>
- 일시 : ‘19.4.20(토) 13:30~15:30
- 장소 : 세종문화회관 앞 ~ 효자동 주민센터
입으로는 정의를 외치면서 실은 불공정한 주식거래로 막대한 부를 축적한 이미선 후보자,
이 땅의 사회적 약자를 대변하고 정의를 지켜야 하는 헌법재판관에 결국 임명되었습니다.
‘인사 대참사’가 발생했고, ‘인사 독재’를 보았습니다.
속았습니다. 저도 속았고 우리당도 속았습니다. 우리 국민은 문재인 대통령에게 속았습니다. 국민을 마치 조롱하듯 깔보듯 무시했고, 민생의 엄중한 경고도 묵살했습니다.
‘국민의 뜻을 받드는 대통령이 되겠다’ 라는 그 말, ‘내 삶을 책임지는 국가’ 라는 그 말,
‘사람이 먼저다’ 라는 그 말, 모두가 거짓말이었습니다.
국민 여러분! 말로 하지 않겠습니다. 이제 행동으로 하겠습니다. 문재인 대통령의 무능과 오만, 문재인 세력 그들만의 국정 독점, 그 가시꽃들의 향연을 뿌리 뽑겠습니다. 오직 국민의 명령에 따라 국민만을 바라보며 끝까지 싸우겠습니다.
“살고 싶습니다” 이 싸움의 명분은 ‘절박함의 끝을 잡고 살고싶다’ 라고 외치는 국민의 절규입니다. 이 투쟁의 이유는 ‘국민속으로 돌아가겠다’ 라는 우리의 처절한 몸부림입니다. 국민여러분, 함께해주십시오 ‘자유민주주의의 봄’을 함께 만듭시다.
<문재인 STOP! 국민이 심판합니다!>
- 일시 : ‘19.4.20(토) 13:30~15:30
- 장소 : 세종문화회관 앞 ~ 효자동 주민센터
-------------------------------------------------------
< 문재인 정권의 국민행동본부를 겨냥한 탄압을 강력 규탄한다!
‘노무현 분향소’ 철거에 대한 보복인가? 애국(愛國)단체를 겨냥한 현(現) 정권의 ‘표적수사’에 분노를 금할 수 없으며 끝까지 맞서 싸울 것이다!
최근 문재인 정권은 ‘국민행동본부’에 대한 압수수색 영장을 발부하여 검찰, 경찰, 국세청 등의 사정기관을 총동원하여 은행 계좌 추적, 회원 명부 압수(개인정보보호법 위반에 해당), 국세청 세무조사 등 본 단체를 겨냥한 사실상의 표적수사 및 애국단체 탄압을 자행하고 있다. (발췌) 2019. 4. 8. 국민행동본부>
‘노무현 분향소’ 철거에 대한 보복인가? 애국(愛國)단체를 겨냥한 현(現) 정권의 ‘표적수사’에 분노를 금할 수 없으며 끝까지 맞서 싸울 것이다!
최근 문재인 정권은 ‘국민행동본부’에 대한 압수수색 영장을 발부하여 검찰, 경찰, 국세청 등의 사정기관을 총동원하여 은행 계좌 추적, 회원 명부 압수(개인정보보호법 위반에 해당), 국세청 세무조사 등 본 단체를 겨냥한 사실상의 표적수사 및 애국단체 탄압을 자행하고 있다. (발췌) 2019. 4. 8. 국민행동본부>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
중국의 기업들이 34개 국에서 40 개가 넘는 항구를 건설하고 있다. 중국의 물류 회사들은 전세계의 전략 요충지에 그들의 기지를 건설했다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---->2006년 이후 중국이 갑자기 성장한 까닭은? 경제학자들이 해답을 찾아야 할 것 같다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
이미선을 헌재재판관에 임명함으로써
코드 헌재의 마지막 퍼즐이 완성되었다
인권법소속 헌재재판관이 6명이기 때문에
저들이 마음만 먹으면 무슨일이든 할수 있게 되었다
우선 좌익민주화촛불세력들은
국가보안법 위헌 소송을 하거나
자유한국당 해산을 청구할 것이다
실제로 인권법소속 헌재재판관들이
국보법을 위헌 결정을 내리거나
자유한국당 해산 결정을 내리더라도
대다수 개돼지 조선놈들은 눈하나 꿈쩍않거나
꿀먹은 벙어리처럼 입닫고 가만히 앉아있을 것이다
이제 좌익민주화촛불세력들이 대한민국을 공산화시키는 건
땅짚고 헤엄치기라고 할 수 있다
[출처] 헌재는 이제 헌법이 아닌 정권 수호 기관
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[풀현장2] 4월 20일 '문재인 STOP(멈춤), 국민이 심판합니다' 규탄대회
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--->좌파들에 의한 현대판 분서갱유 사건!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
개선이 일어나면 변화가 낮설어 사람들은 움츠러든다. 하지만 인간의 삶은 변화를 피할 수 없다, 따라서 개선과 변화를 두려워하지 말아라.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--->내가 생각하는 문제의 진정한 원인은. 좌파 학생들이 반문명적인 사상으로 대학을 점령하고 있다는 데 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
두 사람의 토론이 형편 없었다는 평가이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
인간의 행동과 가치는 어떻게 가격을 결정하나
주류 경제학은 한계 효용 감소의 법칙을 개인이 특정 상품을 소비함으로써 얻는 만족감으로 설명한다.
예를 들면 아이스크림을 먹을 때, 하나, 둘, 세 개로 늘어가면 우리가 얻는 만족감 또는 효용이 줄어든다는 것이다. 그에 따라 우리가 거기에 지불하는 가격도 점점 내려간다는 것이다.
하지만 주류 경제학의 이런 설명에 따르면, 인간의 행동은 이성이 아닌 생물학적 필요에 따라 좌우된다.
하지만 멩거는 한계 효용 감소의 법칙을 개인이 자신의 다양한 목적을 확보하는 수단으로 사용한다는 사실로 설명했다.
그리고 이때 각각의 목적의 우선순위는 개인의 생명과 복지(福祉)를 유지하는데 필요한 유용성에 의해 결정된다.
예를 들어, 제빵사인 존이 하루에 빵 4개를 만들면, 빵 하나로 먼저 자신의 배를 채우고, 또 하나의 빵으로 셔츠를 사고, 또 하나의 빵으로 토마토를 사고, 나머지 하나로 비둘기를 먹인다면, 존이 빵 하나로 제일 먼저 하는 행위, 즉 자신의 배를 채우는 일이 존에게 가장 유용성이 큰일이고, 셔츠와 토마토로 내려갈수록 그 유용성은 조금씩 감소된다.
이렇듯 빵을 사용하는 목적은 자의적으로 결정되지 않고, 자신의 복지를 유지하는데 있어 중요성에 따라 단계별로 결정된다.
효용은 양에 대한 것이 아니라, 각 개인이 자신의 삶과 관련해 배정하는 우선순위에 대한 것이다.
우선순위는 더하기 빼기를 할 수 없으므로, 현대 경제학에 도입된 각종 수학적 방법은 엉터리라고 할 수 있다.
How Human Action and Human Values Determine Prices
Frank Shostak
Why do individuals pay much higher prices for some goods versus other goods? The common reply to this is the law of supply and demand. What is behind this law? To provide an answer to this question economists refer to the law of diminishing marginal utility.
Mainstream economics explains the law of diminishing marginal utility in terms of the satisfaction that one derives from consuming a particular good. For instance, an individual derives vast satisfaction from consuming one cone of ice cream.
The satisfaction he will derive from consuming a second cone might also be big but not as big as the satisfaction derived from the first cone. The satisfaction from the consumption of a third cone is likely to diminish further, and so on.1
From this, mainstream economics concludes that the more of any good we consume in a given period, the less satisfaction, or utility, we derive out of each additional unit.
Consequently, if the additional utility of a product declines as we consume more and more of it; the price that we are willing to pay per unit also declines.
Utility in this way of thinking is presented as a certain quantity that increases at a diminishing pace as one consumes more of a particular good.
Given that utility — presented as some total quantity also labeled as total utility — it becomes possible to introduce mathematics here to ascertain the addition to this total labeled as additional utility or marginal utility.
By the mainstream way of thinking, the law of declining marginal utility is derived from so-called diminished satisfaction of consuming a particular good. After consuming several ice cream cones, an individual feels that he is satiated.
On this way of thinking, human action is not navigated by reason but by biological needs. According to Ludwig von Mises,
It is impossible to describe any human action if one does not refer to the meaning the actor sees in the stimulus as well as in the end his response is aiming at.
The Menger Explanation
According to Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School of Economics, individuals rank various goals that they wish to achieve by their importance in maintaining life.
Various ends that individuals consider as the most important for the maintenance of life are assigned the highest ranking. The less important ends are assigned lower ranking.
Consider John the baker, who has produced four loaves of bread. The four loaves of bread are his resources or means that he employs to attain various goals.
Let us say that his highest priority or his highest end, as far as his life is concerned, is to have one loaf of bread for personal consumption.
This means that out of the production of four loaves of bread John will retain for his personal consumption one loaf of bread. (If John will not consume the loaf of bread this could endanger his life).
The second loaf of bread helps John to secure his second most important goal, as far as life is concerned, and that is to consume five tomatoes.
Let us say that John was successful and finds a tomato farmer that agrees to exchange his five tomatoes for a loaf of bread.
John uses the third loaf of bread to exchange it for the third most important end, which is to have a shirt. Finally, John decides that he will allocate his fourth loaf to feed wild birds.
Observe that to attain the second and the third end John had to exchange his resources — loaves of bread — for goods that would serve to achieve his ends.
To secure the end of having a shirt John had to exchange his loaf of bread for the shirt. The loaf of bread is not suitable by itself to fulfil the services that the shirt provides.
The suitability of the means is what gives it value as far as a particular end is concerned. From this, we can infer that a given end dictates or establishes, so to speak, the specific means or resources that individual selects for the attainment of that end.
For instance, to secure the end of having a shirt John must decide whether it is going to be a leisure shirt or a work shirt.
John will have to select among various shirts the most suitable for his specific end — let us say to have a work shirt. Being a baker John may conclude that the shirt must be of white color and made out of thin rather than thick material to keep him comfortable while working next to a hot oven.
As far as John's life is concerned, feeding wild birds is ranked the lowest among the ends that John is aiming at given his pool of resources — four loaves of bread.
Note that the first loaf of bread is employed to secure the most important end, the second loaf of bread the second most important end and so on. The grading of various ends is done with respect to their usefulness in maintaining life and wellbeing.
Observe, that the end assigns the importance to the resource employed to secure the end.
This implies that the first loaf carries much higher importance than the second loaf because of the more important end that the first loaf secures as far as John’s life is concerned.
The Least Important End Sets the Standard of Valuation
Now, John regards the four loaves of bread in his possession as interchangeable. This implies that each loaf will have the same value as far as John is concerned. How does this fit with the fact that each loaf accommodates ends that are valued by John in a descending order? This contradiction is resolved once it is realized that John assigns to each loaf of bread the importance as imputed from the least important end, which is feeding wild birds. Why does the least important end serve as the standard for valuing the loaves of bread?
Imagine John uses the highest end as the standard for assigning value to each loaf of bread. This would imply that he values the second, third, and fourth loaves much higher than the ends he secures.
If this is the case, what is the point of trying to exchange something that is valued more for something that is valued less? (We have seen that to satisfy his second end to obtain five tomatoes he would exchange one loaf of bread. However, if John values a loaf of bread higher than five tomatoes obviously no exchange will take place).
The fourth loaf of bread is the last unit in John's total supply. It is also called the marginal unit, i.e., the unit at the margin.
This marginal unit secures the least important end. Alternatively, we can also say that as far as John’s life is concerned, the marginal unit provides the least benefit.
If John had only three loaves of bread this would mean that each loaf would be valued according to the end achieved by the third loaf — having a shirt. This end is ranked higher than the end of feeding wild birds.
From this, we can infer that as the supply of bread declines the marginal utility of bread rises. This means that every loaf of bread will be valued much higher now than before the supply of bread has fallen.
Conversely, as the supply of bread rises, its marginal utility falls and each loaf of bread is now valued less than before the increase in the supply took place.
Note that the law of declining marginal utility was derived here from the fact that individuals use means to secure various goals or various ends.
Also, note that the ranking of various goals is determined by their usefulness in maintaining individuals’ life and wellbeing.
In John the baker’s case, the least important loaf of bread determines the value of bread out of a given supply of bread.
As the supply of bread increases, its value will decline because the marginal loaf of bread serves the least important goal as far as life maintenance is concerned.
Again, the first loaf of bread will permit to attain the most important goal as far as John the baker’s life is concerned. The second loaf of bread will permit to attain the second most important goal, etc.
Individuals Do Not Set Goals Arbitrarily
Note that ends are not set arbitrarily but graded in accordance with their importance in maintaining life and wellbeing.
Whilst it is true that valuations are done by the subject i.e. an individual, they are however, not arbitrary. Individuals are valuing available means at their disposal against the goals that will enable them to maintain their life and wellbeing. In this sense, subjective valuations are in accordance with the facts of reality i.e. not arbitrary.
If John had ranked his ends randomly then he would have run the risk of endangering his life. For instance, if he had allocated most of his resources to clothing and feeding wild birds and very little to feeding himself he would run the risk of weakening his body and becoming seriously ill.
Furthermore, marginal utility is not, as the mainstream perspective presents, an addition to the total utility but rather the utility of the marginal end.
There is no such thing as addition to total utility because of the additional unit of a good. Utility is not about quantities but about priorities or the ranking that each individual sets with respect to his life.
Obviously one cannot add priorities. Since total utility does not exist as such, various mathematical methods that were introduced in economics and in the modern portfolio theory (MPT) to deal with total utility and marginal utility are questionable.
According to Rothbard,
Many errors in discussions of utility stem from an assumption that it is some sort of quantity, measurable at least in principle. When we refer to a consumer’s “maximization” of utility, for example, we are not referring to a definite stock or quantity of something to be maximized. We refer to the highest-ranking position on the individual’s value scale. Similarly, it is the assumption of the infinitely small, added to the belief in utility as a quantity, that leads to the error of treating marginal utility as the mathematical derivative of the integral “total utility” of several units of a good. Actually, there is no such relation, and there is no such thing as “total utility,” only the marginal utility of a larger-sized unit. The size of the unit depends on its relevance to the particular action.
Summary and Conclusions
The heart of price determination is the law of declining marginal utility. According to mainstream economics, this law is linked to the intensity of individual’s satisfaction with respect to a particular good. The satisfaction declines with the greater supply of a particular good. On this way of thinking, the intensity of satisfaction is the key in determining the price of a good.
The alternative approach of what gives value to a good is the usefulness of the good to secure individuals’ ends. The importance of various ends is established in accordance with their importance in maintaining individuals’ life and wellbeing.
--------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기