서울남부지법 형사합의12부(오상용 부장판사)는 구속적부심에서 민주노총 김명환 위원장을 구속 6일 만에 석방했습니다.
김명환 위원장은 작년 5월21일과 올해 3월27일, 4월 2∼3일 등 4차례에 걸쳐 국회 앞에서 민주노총 집회를 주최하고, 집회 참가자들이 경찰관을 폭행하거나 장비를 파손하고 경찰 차단벽을 넘어 국회로 진입하도록 하여, 특수공무집행방해, 공용물건 손상, 일반교통방해, 공동건조물침입, 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 위반으로 구속됐습니다.
법치는 무너지고, 폭치(暴治)와 권치(權治)가 기승을 부립니다. 박근혜 대통령을 잡아가두고 있는 근거는 법전에도 없는 '적폐청산'입니까?
------------------------------------------------------
탄핵 촉발 태블릿 PC, 무엇이 진실인가? - 미디어연대 현안 생방송토론회
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
https://twitter.com/ACRONYM_R/status/1143863749641531394
An amazing thread. Bluster, inaccuracies (about hurricanes) and self-promotion from @MichaelEMann versus, facts citations and accuracy from @curryja in testimony before Congress.
엉터리 기후학자 마이클 맨이 인터넷 상에서 주디스 커리라는 학자를 공격하라고 주문하고 있다.
지금 기후학은 좌우의 전쟁터가 되었다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
페이스북의 사기 수법
Facebook Con: Will It Lead To Its Collapse
by: Jaffer Ali
I am not much into prediction. It seems like prediction is the chief marker of a charlatan. But let me make the case for how Facebook snookers hundreds of thousands of advertisers and if these guys ever catch wind, they will pull ALL advertising from its platform.
Here is how their advertising system works. First, FB gladly gives the marketers and their agencies *free tracking* for impressions, clicks and orders. FB places a pixel on marketers’ order receipt pages and the fun begins.
Understand, this is similar to the cliché of allowing the fox to guard the hen house. Every person that orders from you AND also has a FB account, has Facebook looking for ways to attribute orders to their platform. The more orders that they can attribute to FB, the more they can charge for advertising.
So let’s take a look at the following scenario. Let’s say you send an email ecommerce offer to 1 million people. Let’s say out of that million, only 100,000 open the email with maybe 20,000 people visiting your site.
Assume out of those 20,000 people that 3% will place an order, making 600 orders. So far so good. Now if 80% of those people have FB accounts and somehow saw the ad you placed on its platform, FB wants to attribute all of those 80% as coming from FB, EVEN IF THEY NEVER CLICKED FROM FACEBOOK.
You see the essence of the Facebook con is not to use the last click to attribute the sale. No, they want to say that those people who saw your ad on FB made them buy from you. Most agencies also do not want to use “last click attribution” because they often get paid based on a percentage of how much money the marketer spends on media. The agencies are aligned with whatever makes the marketer spend more money, so as is the habit of great cons, accomplices are wittingly and unwittingly recruited.
My company has tested FB with agencies three times AND bought advertising directly. We always test, even though we think we will get negative results. But our company, PulseTV.com did something differently. We ran independent 3rd party tracking alongside Facebook’s tracking. Plus we insisted on using last click attribution. For those not in the online advertising industry, this means that sales would be attributed to the last media source from which a buyer clicked.
If the person last clicked from Facebook, the order was attributed to them. If the person last clicked from an email we sent them, the email list that generated the click and order would get the attribution. This is the fairest way to even the playing field for every media source you use.
Results?
Facebook attributed 3X more orders using its tracking system than the independent 3rd party tracking system.
The practical issue is that FB’s media rates continue to escalate amidst this deceptive way of tracking orders. And the problem is compounded when you market online, the penetration of US Households with Facebook approaches 90%. But wait, there’s more! Agencies encourage marketers to upload the emails of all their customers so they can be targeted on FB’s platform. They also make this *free* but charge marketers around $10/M (per thousand) to reach marketers’ own customers. Never mind that it costs us about $.05/M to reach our customers by sending them email. This is not a typo, We pay five pennies to reach 1000 of our customers via sending them email. And when you upload those emails and put banners in front of them AND you also send emails to those customers, FB will attribute ALL of the sales to Facebook.
How do they get away with this?
- They give tracking services away free. PulseTV, we pay $2000/month for independent tracking and this is the best expense we pay. It strips bull***t from the numbers.
- Agencies are aligned more with FB’s attribution methodology than with marketers’ interests
- Most media buyers have no skin in the game, it is not THEIR money being spent.
- Every ad trade publication touts getting away from using the “last click”. THEIR interests are aligned with whichever companies pay their way. Conferences don’t want me speaking but want agency hacks.
- Of course marketers also are using lifetime value metrics to exacerbate excess media spending.
We have been at this game a long time. We know that there is always a reckoning, but a long con takes its time to permeate through a system. And this particular fraud takes place by cleverly stacking the deck and controlling the parameters of discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 그냥 " 날치기 " 통과 라고해야
단순국민 알아듣기 쉽다
-- 뭔 "패스트트랙?" --
쉬운말두고 와이리 어려운말 쓰노?
(이단어 만든 분의 술수에 놀아나는거 아임 ?) >
< 패스트트랙 워낙정밀분석 >
패스트트랙
= 패스트푸드
= 날로먹기
= 날치기
= 무장해제 (정치권)
= 5000만 학살
1. 대통령& 장관 & 여당 & 야당위원 모두 포함하여
5000만이 학살된다( 법안 통과시킨자들 포함 )
-성경에도 자기함정에 자기가 빠진다는 의미의 말씀이 있다
2. 운좋으면 요덕수용소로 가게된다
3. 더운좋으면 한번가면 돌아오지 못한다는
아오지탄광으로 가고
출처: 일베 , 발췌
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
출처 에포크타임스
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
중앙은행의 저금리 정책에 심각한 문제가 있다.
저금리는 부자들에게 유리하고, 월급쟁이들에게 불리하며 기존의 대기업에 혜택을 준다.
CNN Admits There Are Serious Problems with Central Banks' Low-Interest-Rate Policy
Ryan McMaken
On Monday, CNN reported on how, in spite of all the talk about job growth in recent years, wealth accumulation and incomes have been significantly and negatively impacted for many groups in the United States.
Much of what the article explored has been emphasized ever since the Great Recession started. The impact on younger earners, for example, has long been noted: "people entering the labor market during recessions have lower lifetime earnings."
What was most interesting about the CNN article, however, was its admission that a persistent low-interest rate policy — one pursued by the central bank since the 2008 financial crisis — brings with it a serious downside. In a section titled "The mixed blessing of low interest rates" author Lydia DePillis discusses how low-interest rates have reduced the standard of living for those on mixed incomes, and has destabilized pension funds. Low rates have also made big firms even bigger at the expense of smaller firms:
But just like taking painkillers for too long can have side effects, the Fed's monetary policy remedy gave rise to some unintended consequences. For example, low bond yields led the big funds that control trillions in investment to put their money into private equity and hedge funds that paid high rates. As a result, initial public offerings, which allow a wider group of people to benefit from the creation of new businesses, virtually dried up.
Meanwhile, low interest rates have been bad news for pension funds, which mostly depend on bond yields in order to remain solvent. Public pensions' assets amounted to just 66% of their liabilities in 2016, down from 86% in 2007, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts . For the 100 largest private pensions, that ratio was 87.1% in 2018, according to the actuarial firm Milliman, compared to 105.7% in 2007.
For retirees counting on fixed-income securities like government bonds, low interest rates can also mean a lower standard of living.
"Low interest rates, while they have a lot of benefits, have a lot of costs for society as well," said
Kevin Kliesen, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
And that's just short-term rates, which the Fed controls directly. Long-term interest rates were in decline before the financial crisis, and the ensuing recession depressed them even further; Fed officials are now struggling to nudge inflation up to their 2% target.
Those low interest rates may be sapping the economy of its vitality. One study published this year found that they give larger firms a greater incentive to invest than smaller ones. That fuels market concentration and reduces business dynamism — that is, the ability of startups to disrupt incumbents.
"As interest rates go down, they disproportionately favor market leaders as opposed to market followers," said Atif Mian, a finance professor at Princeton University who coauthored the study. That effect, he found, "is large enough for low interest rates to not have any expansionary effect on the economy any more."
Thre are three big takeaways here, and it's surprising CNN has mentioned them.
* Low interest rates have produced a quest for yield that favors the wealthy over the middle class.
* Low interest-rate policy hurts regular people who depend on fixed incomes and low-risk sources of interest income.
* Low interest rates favor large established firms over startups.
In other words, low interest rates favor the rich over the middle class, while widening income gaps.
This won't be terribly surprising to those who follow the Austrian-school critique of ultra-low-interest and easy money policies.
Although critics of markets and so-called "neoliberalism" insist on ignoring the destructive power of central banks, the fact remains expansionary monetary policy serves to increase income inequality while favoring the already-wealthy. In other words, central banks are the cause of so much that capitalism is blamed for.
How Central Banks Destroy Wealth
Central-bank policy is problematic in a variety of ways. One of them — not mentioned by the CNN report — is the Cantillon effects brought about through the creation of money which is used first by financial institutions closer to the central bank and the easy-money spigots.
A second problem results when a "yield famine" results from low-interest-rate policy, but regular people can't afford fancy yield-chasing investment products that are available to the wealthy.
Thus, ordinary people are left trying to gain interest income from government bonds, savings accounts, and CDs. In many cases, this strategy may not even allow the investor to keep up with price inflation.
A third problem stems from issues on the production side of the economy.
The CNN story notes a recent report suggesting large firms benefit more from low rates than small firms. The report, titled "Low Interest Rates, Market Power, and Productivity Growth" (by Ernest Liu, Atif Mian, and Amir Sufi) found that "the gap between the leader and follower increases as interest rates decline, making an industry less competitive and more concentrated." In other words, low interest rates reduce competition and increase monopoly power of a small number of firms.
Moreover, the authors conclude their report
introduces the possibility of low interest rates as the common global “factor” that drives the slowdown in productivity growth. The mechanism that the theory postulates delivers a number of important predictions that are supported by empirical evidence. A reduction in long term interest rates increases market concentration and market power in the model. A fall in the interest rate also makes industry leadership and monopoly power more persistent.
The rise of low-interest-rate-induced monopoly power then stifles innovation, leading to lower productivity, and slower global economic growth. According to Liu, et al, this is not limited to the United States. It can be observed as a result of central-bank policy worldwide.
Last year, analyst Karen Petrou described how low rates have favored large
As our research shows, QE exacerbates inequality because it takes safe assets out of the U.S. financial market, driving investors into equity markets and other financial assets not only to place their funds, but also in search of yields higher than those possible with ultra-low rates. The Fed hoped that soaking up $4.5 trillion in safe assets would stoke lending, and to a limited degree it did. However, new credit largely goes to large companies and other borrowers who have used it for purposes such as margin loans and stock buy-backs, not investment that would support strong employment growth. Growing household indebtedness in the U.S. is principally consumption or high-price housing driven and thus also a cause – not cure – of inequality.
Far from propelling middle class consumers to ever-higher levels of prosperity, low-interest rate policy is leading either to stagnation of losses in wealth.
But these revelations should not be shocking.
After all, Edward Wolff's 2014 article "Household Wealth Trends in the United States, 1962-2013" suggests that our low-interest-rate world has done little to increase economic well being or counteract the effects of recessions:
From 2007 to 2010, house prices fell by 24 percent in real terms, stock prices by 26 percent, and median wealth by a staggering 44 percent. Median income also dropped but by a more modest 6.7 percent and median non-home wealth plummeted by 49 percent. The share of households with zero or negative net worth rose sharply from 18.6 to 21.8 percent.
However, from 2010 to 2013, asset prices recovered with stock prices up by 39 percent and house prices by 8 percent. Despite this, both median and mean wealth stagnated, while median income was down by 1.3 percent but mean income rose by 0.9 percent. The percent of households with zero or negative net worth remained unchanged.
According to wolf in this 2017 follow-up, as of 2016, "median wealth was still down by 34 percent."
The evidence is mounting against the usual narrative which states that low-interest rate policy has been a clear good because it has stimulated demand and consumption.
On the contrary, there is reason to believe low-interest rate policy has lowered productivity, lessened economic growth, and favored large firms at the expense of small firms and innovation.
Median incomes have also suffered.
But central banks are clearly afraid to do anything but kick the low-interest can down the road. The Fed's multi-trillion-dollar balance sheet isn't going anywhere, and the Fed has no appetite for raising rates. But when the next recession hits, it's likely the Fed and the world's central banks will dish up more of the same: near-zero rates in the name of recovery and wealth creation. But this strategy's record of delivering has been questionable at best.
Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute.
--------------------------------------------------------
정부의 책무성이란 진짜 책무성이 아니다.
정부의 책무성 부재로, 시민들의 부(富)가 관료들과 유착한 기업으로 흘러가고 있다.
Government "Accountability" Isn't Real Accountability
Lee Friday
While stressing the importance of accountability within government, most writers fail to define this word in any meaningful way. Here is a typical example: “Accountability in government or in business has never been more important. We need to know our political leaders have integrity, are transparent and will rely on science and evidence to make critical decisions for all Ontarians.” [emphasis added]
Integrity, transparency, science, and evidence are mere by-products of genuine accountability.
Accountability is the defining feature of the business world, which increases the prosperity of successful business firms and the consumers they serve. In contrast, accountability does not exist within government. Thus, as the size and scope of government increases, the prosperity of the general public decreases.
Defining Accountability
If you break your neighbor’s window, accident or not, you pay for the replacement. Whether you paid willingly, or were pressured to pay, the other neighbors are likely to agree this is an appropriate remedy. You caused the damage, and you paid money to reverse the damage. The compensation comes out of your own pocket. You have been held accountable for your actions.
In contrast, when a ruling party loses an election, most people say that politicians have been held accountable for their mistakes. In fact, the pundits always tell us, “If you don’t like the government, then don’t forget to vote, because this is your opportunity to hold politicians accountable.”
Really? That’s how we define accountability in politics? Is our anger and frustration alleviated when we kick the bums out of office? Is it enough to see teary-eyed politicians deliver concession speeches on election night?
Consider this example: Under Ontario’s Green Energy Act, the Liberal government signed numerous long-term contracts with energy producers at guaranteed prices. Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault admitted that the government’s green energy policies have contributed to sky-rocketing hydro costs across the province. In 2015, Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk said “the excess payments to generators over the market price cost consumers $37 billion during that period (2006 to 2014) and are projected to cost another $133 billion from 2015 to 2032.”
Have these politicians used their personal resources to remedy the situation by reimbursing consumers tens of billions of dollars? No! The Liberals lost the 2018 election, but they have not been held accountable for their actions. Likewise, if I walk around the neighborhood and break all the windows in all the houses, then lose my job, have I been held accountable in the eyes of my neighbors? Not likely.
Let’s consider two more examples to further emphasize the lack of accountability within government versus the universal accountability which characterizes the actions of private individuals and businesses.
Private Security Versus Public Police
From Bruce Benson’s book To Serve and Protect, Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice:
Rossmoor, a private development covering about seven square miles in Walnut Creek, California, started with about eighty-three hundred exclusively adult residents in 1979 … and is protected by private security.
The vast majority of calls [to the security force] are not to report crimes; instead, they involve medical emergencies and crime prevention actions such as vacation checks and escorting visitors.
The security force has not been granted police powers by the government, so its personnel’s authority to arrest is the same as any private citizen’s, and they must call the public police when a criminal incident actually occurs, but deterrence is so effective that Walnut Creek public police respond to only about twenty-five such calls a year from Rossmoor.
Nonetheless, it is estimated that in 1980 if Rossmoor had terminated its private security arrangement, Walnut Creek would have created two additional twenty-four-hour patrol beats at a cost to city taxpayers of about $1.5 million per year. In comparison, the twenty-two-person private force and related security arrangements cost Rossmoor residents $555,000 in 1979.
Walnut Creek Police Chief Joel Bryden said “The number of violent crimes in 2008 in Rossmoor was zero. … Although Rossmoor has 15 percent of the population of Walnut Creek, the community only accounts for .05 percent of crime.”
If Rossmoor residents are unhappy with the performance of Securitas, they can refuse to renew the Securitas contract, and hire another private firm to do the job. That is how Securitas is held accountable for its actions. In its quest for profits, Securitas is highly incentivized to prevent crime.
In contrast, the Walnut Creek police department is NOT incentivized to prevent crime because they externalize their costs to taxpayers on a continuing basis, regardless of their performance for which they are not held accountable. The perverse nature of this arrangement is seen through the prices paid for protection. If public police had to replace Securitas, the cost would nearly triple, and the costs of crime would likely rise, as evidenced by crime rates elsewhere in Walnut Creek.
Peace and prosperity are reduced due to the lack of accountability within government. In this case, the reduction of peace is seen through the high crime rate of Walnut Creek (other than Rossmoor). The reduction of prosperity is seen through the exorbitant cost and inefficiency of the Walnut Creek police department. These resources should be reallocated in the marketplace. The tax savings realized through the elimination of the Walnut Creek police department would allow all Walnut Creek residents to hire private security firms, while retaining the greater portion of tax savings which they — not the government — can each decide to save, spend, or invest as they wish, all of which makes them more prosperous.
Many individuals, businesses, and communities use private security companies because they offer protection services far superior to that of public police, who, as it turns out, are not actually required to protect the citizens who are forced to pay their salaries. If employed more extensively throughout the country, private security firms would likely produce significantly lower crime rates. Consequently, the emergence of a far more peaceful society should trigger a massive ripple effect throughout inefficient governmental police/judicial bureaucracies, which would be hard pressed to justify why their budgets should not be drastically cut. Reallocation of most of these scarce resources, not within the government, but into the free market, would further increase overall prosperity.
Infrastructure
The City of Toronto estimated that it would cost between $65,000 and $150,000 to build a set of stairs over a rocky path in a community park. Stunned by this estimate, 73-year-old Adi Astl, who said “I’ve been watching people tumbling down the slope and hurting themselves,” took it upon himself to build the stairs, at a cost of $550. (See here, here, here, and here.)
“Astl says members of his gardening group have been thanking him for taking care of the project, especially after one of them broke her wrist falling down the slope …” But the City of Toronto quickly removed the stairs, claiming them to be unsafe, and promised to build new stairs within the week, at a cost of $10,000. Some media outlets “obtained quotes from contractors … in the $5,000 to $10,000 range.”
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the city-built-stairs are better constructed, and safer, than Astl’s stairs. With that said, there is no doubt that Astl’s stairs were much safer than the sloping rocky path that the city was content to live with for many years. As Astl’s wife, Gail Rutherford, said “These people in the park have been asking for stairs for 10 years. It’s a long time. So now they’re being done in 10 days.” City Hall acted quickly, and much less expensively, because it was publicly embarrassed.
The final bill for government infrastructure projects, both large and small, often greatly exceeds the initial cost estimates, which, as we have seen, are usually outrageous to begin with. Why? Because politicians and bureaucrats are not accountable to taxpayers.
Conclusion
Notice how wealth was transferred from Ontario consumers to Ontario energy producers, from Walnut Creek taxpayers to an ineffective Walnut Creek police department, and from Toronto taxpayers to City Hall’s favored contractor. These are just three examples among thousands at every level of government in virtually every country. All such schemes rely on a lack of accountability for their development. No one is required to reverse the damage they caused. The government is nothing more than a mechanism for a coercive transfer of wealth.
Thus, accountability within government cannot be improved, but we can reduce the damage resulting from the lack of accountability by reducing the government’s budget. How much? The sky is the limit. When we decrease the size and scope of government, we increase the freedom, peace, and prosperity of the people. These are simple concepts which writers in the mainstream media would do well to understand.
Following a 23-year career in the Canadian financial industry, Lee Friday has spent many years studying economics, politics, and social issues. He operates a news site at www.LondonNews1.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기