도리스 데이가 폐렴으로 향년 97세로 사망했다. 지상에서의 쇼는 끝났지만, 그녀는 천국에서 새로운 쇼를 계속할 것이다.

https://youtu.be/YV5ynRFzrIM

The party's over
It's time to call it day
They've burst your pretty balloon
And taken the moon away

It's time to wind up
The masquerade
Just make your mind up
The piper must be paid

The party's over
The candles flicker and dim
You danced and dream
Through the night
It seemed to be right
Just being with him

Now you must wake up
All my dreams must end
Take off your makeup
The party's over
It's all over, my friend

Now you must wake up
All my dreams must end
Take off your makeup
The party's over
It's all over, my friend

그녀의 최초 히트곡 센티멘털 저니sentimental journey의 가사처럼, 그녀는 하늘로 가는 편도선 차표를 끊고 총총히 멀고먼 여행을 떠났다. 편히 쉬소서.

https://youtu.be/PUw125JMVFI

Gonna take a sentimental journey
Gonna set my heart at ease
Gonna make a sentimental journey
To renew old memories

Got my bag, got my reservation
Spent each dime I could afford
Like a child in wild anticipation
Long to hear that all aboard

Seven, that's the time we leave, at seven
I'll be waitin' up at heaven
Countin' every mile of railroad track
That takes me back

Never thought my heart could be so yearny
Why did I decide to roam
Gotta take that sentimental journey
Sentimental journey home

Sentimental journey

---------------------------------------
Novelist John Updike disclosed his deep-rooted crush on Day in a 1976 New Yorker essay: “Singing or acting, she manages to produce, in her face or in her voice, an ‘effect,’ a skip or tremor, a feathery edge that touches us.”

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

그가 구속된 이유는 광주에서의 활약 때문이었군!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"전두환이 광주에 가서 사살명령 내렸다"는 주장은 "터무니없는 거짓말"(당시 보안부대장)

조갑제

https://youtu.be/NSSExMZ1ZbY

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

한변은 13일 보도자료를 내고 “자유시장 경제에 대한 국민의 염원을 담아 헌법소원을 제기한다”고 했다.

한변은 우선 최저임금 미지급 시 벌금을 부과하는 것과 관련, “국가가 일방적으로 정한 최저임금 미지급을 이유로 형사처벌로 사적 계약관계에 개입하는 것은 위헌이라 아니할 수 없다”고 했다. 이 단체는 주52시간 위반 처벌의 경우는, “보완책 없이 근로시간 규제를 하면서 지키지 않으면 사업주를 형사 처벌하는 것은 위헌적인 처사이고, 이로 말미암아 노사 관계뿐 아니라 기업의 생산성 등 사회•경제적 비용이 커질 것은 명백하다”라고 설명했다. (조갑제닷컴 발췌)

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

출처: 일베
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

국무부 카이론 스키너의 발언은 이미 오래 전에 나왔어야 했다. 

스키너: 중국과의 싸움은 또다른 이데올로기 그리고 문명과의 싸움이다.

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

중국은 미국에 대한 수출 감소가 초래하는 손실을 제거하고 통제할 능력이 있다. 사람들 가두는  거 말고,제거할 다른 능력이 있을까? 

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

합의를 하지 않으면 중국은 크게 손해를 볼 것이라고 시진핑에게 말했다. ---트럼프

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

태양광 사업자들이 전기를 파는 것보다 더 많은 돈을 정부 보조금으로 받고 있다.

---> 그러면 당연히 전기를 팔려고 하기 보다 태양광 사업을 고집하겠지. 

보조금 타먹는 게 누워서 떡 먹기 아닌가.

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

평균은 복잡계에 대해 아무 것도 가르쳐주지 않는다.

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

탈레브 --- 나는 무엇보다 재정 적자를 우려하고 있다.

경제 위기가 닥쳤을 때 적자가 심하면 정부의 운신의 폭이 좁아진다. 개인도 마찬가지로 빚이 많으면 경제가 나빠질 때 파산의 위험성이 커진다.  현재 한국의 재정적자는 1700조 원에 이른다. 

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

미래가 더 불확실할수록, 결정을 내리기 더 쉽다. 만일 판매

량이  어떻게 될지 예측할 수 없다면, 부채를 줄여서 부채

로 인한 위험을 피해야 한다.

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

시장 경제에 반대하는 좌파들의 싸구려 속임수

좌파들이 쓰는 “복지”라는 단어는, 그것을 반대하는 모든 사람들은, 선량한 다수에 손해를 끼치면서 사적인 이익을 추구하는 악당들이라는 의미를 내포하고 있다. 좌파들은 자신들의 정책만이 복지 정책이라고 고집함으로써, 싸구려 논리적 속임수로 우리를 속이려 하고 있다.

 

The Case Against the Market Economy

 

Ludwig von Mises

[Human Action (1949)]

 

The objections which the various schools of Sozialpolitik raise against the market economy are based on very bad economics. They repeat again and again all the errors that the economists long ago exploded. They blame the market economy for the consequences of the very anticapitalistic policies which they themselves advocate as necessary and beneficial reforms. They fix on the market economy the responsibility for the inevitable failure and frustration of interventionism.

 

These propagandists must finally admit that the market economy is after all not so bad as their "unorthodox" doctrines paint it. It delivers the goods. From day to day it increases the quantity and improves the quality of products. It has brought about unprecedented wealth. But, objects the champion of interventionism, it is deficient from what he calls the social point of view. It has not wiped out poverty and destitution. It is a system that grants privileges to a minority, an upper class of rich people, at the expense of the immense majority. It is an unfair system. The principle of welfare must be substituted for that of profits.

 

We may try, for the sake of argument, to interpret the concept of welfare in such a way that its acceptance by the immense majority of nonascetic people would be probable. The better we succeed in these endeavors, the more we deprive the idea of welfare of any concrete meaning and content. It turns into a colorless paraphrase of the fundamental category of human action, viz., the urge to remove uneasiness as far as possible. As it is universally recognized that this goal can be more readily, and even exclusively, attained by social division of labor, men cooperate within the framework of societal bonds. Social man as differentiated from autarkic man must necessarily modify his original biological indifference to the well-being of people beyond his own family. He must adjust his conduct to the requirements of social cooperation and look upon his fellow men's success as an indispensable condition of his own. From this point of view one may describe the objective of social cooperation as the realization of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Hardly anybody would venture to object to this definition of the most desirable state of affairs and to contend that it is not a good thing to see as many people as possible as happy as possible. All the attacks directed against the Bentham formula have centered around ambiguities or misunderstandings concerning the notion of happiness; they have not affected the postulate that the good, whatever it may be, should be imparted to the greatest number.

 

However, if we interpret welfare in this manner, the concept becomes meaningless. It can be invoked for the justification of every variety of social organization. It is a fact that some of the defenders of Negro slavery contended that slavery is the best means of making the Negroes happy and that today in the South many whites sincerely believe that rigid segregation is beneficial no less to the colored man than it allegedly is to the white man. The main thesis of racism of the Gobineau and Nazi variety is that the hegemony of the superior races is salutary to the true interests even of the inferior races. A principle that is broad enough to cover all doctrines, however conflicting with one another, is of no use at all.

 

But in the mouths of the welfare propagandists the notion of welfare has a definite meaning. They intentionally employ a term the generally accepted connotation of which precludes any opposition. No decent man likes to be so rash as to raise objections against the realization of welfare. In arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to call their own program the program of welfare, the welfare propagandists want to triumph by means of a cheap logical trick. They want to render their ideas safe against criticism by attributing to them an appellation which is cherished by everybody. Their terminology already implies that all opponents are ill-intentioned scoundrels eager to foster their selfish interests to the prejudice of the majority of good people.

 

The plight of Western civilization consists precisely in the fact that serious people can resort to such syllogistic artifices without encountering sharp rebuke. There are only two explanations open. Either these self-styled welfare economists are themselves not aware of the logical inadmissibility of their procedure, in which case they lack the indispensable power of reasoning; or they have chosen this mode of arguing purposely in order to find shelter for their fallacies behind a word which is intended beforehand to disarm all opponents. In each case their own acts condemn them.

 

There is no need to add anything to the disquisitions of the preceding chapters concerning the effects of all varieties of interventionism. The ponderous volumes of welfare economics have not brought forth any arguments that could invalidate our conclusions. The only task that remains is to examine the critical part of the welfare propagandists' work, their indictment of the market economy.

 

All this passionate talk of the welfare school ultimately boils down to three points. Capitalism is bad, they say, because there is poverty, inequality of incomes and wealth, and insecurity.

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

사회보장의 파산이라는 블랙홀이 다가왔다

 

올해 말에 사회보장 비용은 지출이 수입보다 커지게 된다. 이런 추세대로 간다면 사회보장 기금은 2035년 고갈되어 공식적으로 파산한다. 메디케어 역시 2026년에 파산 예정이다.

누군가 혜택 연령을 올린다든지 자산을 조사해서 혜택을 주어야 한다든지 구체적인 해결안을 내놓으면, 의원들은 노인들에 대한 전쟁이라며 면박을 주었는데, 이는 “노년층의 표를 얻어야 해!”라는 말과 같은 뜻이었다.

정부가 천문학적인 빚더미 위에 있는데도 아직 기본소득제이나 대학 수업료 면제 등을 주장하는 민주당의 정치인들도 있다.

 

The Social Security Black Hole Has Arrived

 

Andrew Moran

 

The fiscal black hole surrounding Social Security and Medicare had been talked about long before mankind got its first glimpse of the interstellar phenomenon. Like the particles and electromagnetic radiation absorbed in the galactic monster’s path, the American people face an event horizon, a point of no return. Unless drastic actions are taken by good folks in the swamp, the only hope for the next generation of retirees is that scientists discover a wormhole connecting this reality with an alternative universe that practices prudence and responsibility.

 

Social Insecurity and Medican’t

According to the Social Security Administration’s trustee report, the cost of maintaining this entitlement program will exceed the revenue it generates next year. The last time this happened was in 1982.

 

Last year, SS received $1.003 trillion in income, including $885 billion from the payroll tax, $83 billion in interest, and $35 billion from taxing benefits. At the same time, it spent about $1 trillion: $988.6 billion on benefits, $6.7 billion on administration, and $4.9 billion on retirement expenses.

 

With the 1.8% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) later this year, SS expenses will exceed the money it receives. Based on current trends, SS will exhaust its reserves by 2035 and officially be insolvent. The other disappointing takeaway is that the projected bankruptcy date is one year sooner than previous estimates .

 

Medicare also faces a gaping budget hole. The overseers of this government benefit say it is slated for bankruptcy by 2026. This would result in hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical care providers receiving only a portion of their payments.

 

It isn’t all bad news. Social Security’s disability program is expected to remain in the black for an extra 20 years to 2052.

 

Solutions

The report concludes by urging lawmakers to “take action sooner rather than later to address these shortfalls, so that a broader range of solutions can be considered and more time will be available to phase in changes while giving the public adequate time to prepare.”

 

Authors presented some recommendations. For instance, to save Medicare, it has been suggested to raise the payroll tax by 0.91 percentage points or cut 19% in spending.

 

It is unclear what Republicans and Democrats plan to do about the pending financial Armageddon, except offer vague statements about tackling the problem. Any time someone presents a concrete and reasonable solution, such as raising the eligibility age or performing a means-test on benefits, it gets shouted down by the establishment as a war on seniors, which is code for “we will get the elderly vote!”

Rep. Steve Womack (R-AK) says the nation “cannot afford to ignore this reality any longer”:

 

“The programs that millions of Americans pay in to and expect to have in the future are going broke — driving up federal spending, growing our deficits, and crowding out other priorities in the process.”

 

For now, President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that cuts are not on the table. But a handful of Democratic presidential candidates propose that expanding Medicare is possible despite its depleting finances; they also think a basic income , free tuition , and slave reparations are practical ideas when the nation is crippled by $22 trillion in debt and $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities and expenditures, so what does that tell you?

 

Doom and Gloom

The pending insolvency of these programs is a drain on the economy and capital investment. Despite spending nearly $2 trillion, or 45% of the federal budget, every year on Social Security and Medicare, they are drowning in red ink, and there is no relief in sight. The analysts blame these developments on the growing number of retirees, but it could be much more than that.

 

For years, politicians have been known for kicking the can down the road; that can isn’t just dented, it has been crushed by too many loafers and high heels. These esteemed ladies and gentlemen have refused to engage in the present, choosing to allow future generations to handle their own gross incompetence. Well, it looks like millennials and Generation Z will be unable to enjoy their winter years. Instead, they will be left out in the cold, working until they are six feet underground or ashes in an urn.

 

Thanks, government! The people knew they could count on you.

 

Originally published at LibertyNation.

 

Andrew Moran is the Economics Correspondent at LibertyNation.com and is the author of The War on Cash.

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

의도적 무시에 관한 고찰

미국 공산당의 이론가였던 허버트 앱데커Aptheker가 역시 공산주의자이며 <검은 자코벵, 1938>의 저자인 제임스를 의도적으로 무시한 이유는 무엇인가? <검은 자코벵>은 1791년 당시 노예 정권을 무너뜨리고 헤이티 공화국을 세운 산 도밍고 혁명을 다룬 책이다. 그 이유는 제임스가 레온 트로츠키의 추종자였기 때문이다.

 

A Study in Willful Blindness

 

David Gordon

 

Herbert Aptheker: Studies in Willful Blindness. By Anthony Flood. Independently published, 2019. I +93 pages.

 

Anthony Flood tells that in “the early 1970s, I was an acolyte of Herbert Aptheker(1915-2003). Known mainly for his writings on African-American history he was also, during the Cold War and even after, a theoretician of the Communist Party USA (CP).” (p.1) Flood became Aptheker’s research assistant and friend, but he eventually turned in disgust from his mentor, repulsed by Communist tyranny and atrocities.

 

Flood has documented a striking example of the way Aptheker’s rigid adherence to the Stalinist line corrupted his historical writing. Aptheker is best known as a historian for his American Negro Slave Revolts, his doctoral dissertation, published in 1945. In that book, he never cites the West Indian Marxist C.L.R. James’s Black Jacobins (1938), a study of the San Domingo Revolution of 1791 that overthrew the slave regime and established the Haitian Republic. Aptheker fully recognized the significance of the event; why then does he ignore James’s book? “What scholars virtually never even mention. . .is Aptheker’s life-long practice of rendering James invisible.”(p.15)

The answer, Flood suggests, is that James was a follower of Leon Trotsky. “Aptheker could not have missed the reviews it garnered in scholarly journals and the mainstream press. And yet in the few pages he devoted to that revolt in American Negro Slave Revolts, he neither cited Black Jacobins nor even listed it in his bibliography. For a card-carrying Stalinist like Aptheker, however, there was no lower form of life than a Trotskyist. “(p.80)

 

By no means did James ignore Aptheker. To the contrary, he attacked Aptheker for downplaying the role of blacks in abolitionist organizations. The Stalinists, James claimed, viewed blacks as subordinate shock troops of a prospective revolution rather than independent actors, and this Stalinist line Aptheker faithfully followed. True to his policy of treating James as an invisible man, Aptheker never responded to James’s criticism.

 

Flood discusses a number of other examples of the corrupting effects of Aptheker’s Communist bias, such as his tendentious The Truth about Hungary, approving the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and his claim in a newspaper article written in 1950 that the lack of revolts in North Korea showed that the Communist regime in power had popular approval.

 

Flood’s book is enlivened by stories of his conversations with Aptheker and Aptheker’s bitter enemy, the philosopher Sidney Hook, who was one of Flood’s professors. His careful account of the “invisible man” in Aptheker’s historiography is a valuable contribution.

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