천영수 2019-08-15 오전 7:51
그래서요? 박근혜를 감옥에서 꺼 내어 대통령 자리에 복귀시키려고요?
박근혜 탄핵이 조작 선동에 의한 것은 국민들 다 압니다. 문재인도 압니다. 문제는 그러한 빌미를 잡혔다는 것과 국민들은 선동이든 뭐든 이를 용인하고 있는 것입니다. 당내에서는 물론 국민들의 신망을 잃은 게지요. 정치는 게임입니다. 게임에서 진 것입니다. 스포츠에서 오심은 추후에 바로 잡을 기회가 있지만 정치에서는 그런 장치가 없습니다.
이회창이 좌익들의 조작 선동에 의해 두 번이나 대선에서 낙마했습니다. 후에 조작 선동이란 게 밝혀지고 관련자들은 감옥에 갔지만 이회창은 제자리를 찾지 못했습니다. 박근혜는 이회창보다 덜 분한 경우입니다. 대퉁령 해봤잖아요? 지키지를 못한 게지.
지금은 박근혜를 생각할 때가 아닙니다. 문재인 몰아내는 게 우선입니다. 나라 망하고 나면 박근혜고 뭐고가 없습니다. 친박들은 분통이 터지겠지만 더 이상 자유우파 내에서 좌충우돌 사납게 분란을 일으켜서는 안 됩니다.
애국자유수호자 2019-08-15 오전 5:27
자한당 탄핵찬성위원들의 우매한 선택 과정은 김평우 변호사가 지적한 엉터리 선동 언론의 기사에 의거하여 엮이게 되어 부하뇌동했고, 법리적 근거도 없었구요. 그결과로 현재의 문정부가 그냥 태어난것입니다.
천영수 2019-08-14 오후 8:33
물론 탄핵에 앞장 서거나 가담한 자들의 잘못이 크지요. 그러나 이들을 제대로 배려하지도 못하고 각을 세우고 내치려한 박근혜 책임이 더 큽니다. 한 두 사람이면 몰라도 소속당에서 반 이상 돌아섰다면 이는 그들의 배신이 아니라 박근혜의 부덕으로 보는 것이 옳지 않을까요? 박근혜가 절대적 존재인가요?
애국자유수호자 2019-08-14 오후 7:54
박근혜의 오만이 아니라, 탄핵 찬성 자유한국당 의원의 오만과 무지때문에 그렇게 된것이지요. 태극기 시민과 자유 우파국민앞에서 지금이라도 석고대죄하고 우파는 뭉쳐야 내년 선거에 이길수 있읍니다. 지금의 자유한국당 체제로는 절대 안되지요. 탄핵 찬성자한당 위원들은 내년선거에서 모두 사퇴하고 새인물로 교체하는 것이 바람직한일입니다. 박근혜 전대통령이 감옥에서 말해봤자 현재의 언론은 한줄도 보도 안합니다. 우종창기자의 거짓과 진실 단 귀절이라도 방송하는 언론, 종편 방송 없는 이나라가 과연 나라인가요? 젊은이 선동과 역사왜곡은 잘 할수... 한심합니다. 자한당 제발 정신차리시오. 새로운 투쟁 방법을 찾아야 내년 선거에서 필승할 수 있읍니다. 김경재 전 총재의 유튜브방송내용을 귀담아 들어보면 해법이 있읍니다. (조갑제닷컴 댓글)
----------------------------------------------------------
외신번역] 한국에서 사라진 '일본산 불화수소'의 최종 목적지는 어디인가? / 김필재
----------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
Chinese regimes often fail from the outside in. That's what must scare #XJinping about the protests in #HongKong, which sits on the edge of #China.
중국 정권은 종종 변방으로부터 붕괴되었다. 이것이 시진핑이 홍콩 사태를 두려워하는 이유이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
It takes two to sign a trade deal. No one, in Beijing's supercharged atmosphere, wants to take responsibility for a compromise, and that includes the "all-powerful" #XiJinping. #China is beginning to delink from the #US.
중국에서는 시진핑 황제를 비롯해 어느 누구도 미국과의 타협안에 책임을 지려고 하지 않는다. 이것이 미중 협상이 이뤄지지 않는 이유이다. 중국은 미국과 분리되고 있다.
----------------------------------------------------------
胡平：中国社会道德滑坡的根本原因
https://www.chinesepen.org/blog/archives/111295 …。今日
中国的道德沦丧，从根本上讲是专制暴政的结果。专制政权的
存在，本身就在降低人们的道德水平。专制政权存在的时间越
长，人们道德水平的下降就越甚。
오늘날 중국 도덕의 타락의 근본 원인은 전제 폭정의 결과이다. 전제 정권은 사람들의 도덕 수준을 낮추며, 정권이 오래 지속될수록 도덕 수준은 점점 낮아진다.
----->한국의 문죄인 독재 정권이 지속될수록 국민의 도덕 수준과 상식 수준이 점점 낮아질 것이다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MacroPolo
THREAD. Zhongguancun, Silicon Delta, Tencent, Baidu... this is what we talk about when we talk about tech in China. But did you know that these massive tech clusters & companies were born out of a 30-year-old state-created innovation program?
종관춘, 실리콘 델타, 텐센트, 바이두 등은30년간의 국가적 혁신 프로그램에서 태어난 것이다.
---->한국의 오원철에 의해 창원 산업단지가 만들어진 것과 유사하게 국가 주도로 태어났다는 말인듯.
https://macropolo.org/china-torch-program-innovation/
“Perhaps it shouldn’t be so surprising, then, that China “suddenly” became innovative. The Torch program is just one example of how China has played to its strength—deploying government resources to accelerate clustering effects and hoping that they will pan out.“
프로그램의 명칭은 토치(불꽃) 프로그램.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
2) You can be fooled by people, and you can be fooled by fields. For instance I was fooled by behavioral economics...
사람뿐만 아니라 행동 경제학에 의해서도 속아넘어갈 수 있다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
자본주의의 탄생
자본주의 전기(前期)의 생산 시스템은 제한적이고, 그 역사적 바탕은 군사적 정복이었다.
자본주의가 덜 효율적인 장인들의 생산 방식을 대신해서 공장의 기계적 생산을 도입한 건 사실이지만, 그것이 자본주의의 핵심은 아니다. 이전의 생산 방식과 자본주의를 구별 짓는 가장 주요한 양상은 그 새로운 마케팅 원리이다.
자본주의는 단순히 대량 생산이 아니라, 대중의 수요를 만족시키기 위한 대량 생산이다.
부자가 되기 위해서는 단지 한번 저축을 하고 축적된 자본을 소유하는 것으로 족하지 않다. 그것을 반복해서 소비자의 필요를 가장 잘 만족시키는 곳에 투자해야 한다.
19세기의 역사가와 정치학자들은 노동자들이 산업 생산품의 주요 소비자라는 사실을 깨닫지 못했다.
모든 시대에서 대중을 경멸하는 독창적인 생각의 선구자들을 가능하게 한 것은 사유재산이었다. 공장주이자 물주였던 엥겔스가 없었다면, 마르크스 역시 그의 자본론을 쓰지 못했을 것이다.
The Rise of Capitalism
Ludwig von Mises
The precapitalistic system of production was restrictive. Its historical basis was military conquest. The victorious kings had given the land to their paladins. These aristocrats were lords in the literal meaning of the word, as they did not depend on the patronage of consumers buying or abstaining from buying on a market.
On the other hand, they themselves were the main customers of the processing industries, which, under the guild system, were organized on a corporative scheme. This scheme was opposed to innovation. It forbade deviation from the traditional methods of production. The number of people for whom there were jobs even in agriculture or in the arts and crafts was limited. Under these conditions, many a man, to use the words of Malthus, had to discover that "at nature's mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him" and that "she tells him to be gone." But some of these outcasts nevertheless managed to survive, begot children, and made the number of destitute grow hopelessly more and more.
But then came capitalism. It is customary to see the radical innovations that capitalism brought about in the substitution of the mechanical factory for the more primitive and less efficient methods of the artisans' shops. This is a rather superficial view. The characteristic feature of capitalism that distinguished it from precapitalist methods of production was its new principle of marketing.
Capitalism is not simply mass production, but mass production to satisfy the needs of the masses. The arts and crafts of the good old days had catered almost exclusively to the wants of the well-to-do. But the factories produced cheap goods for the many. All the early factories turned out was designed to serve the masses, the same strata that worked in the factories. They served them either by supplying them directly or indirectly by exporting and thus providing for them foreign food and raw materials. This principle of marketing was the signature of early capitalism as it is of present-day capitalism.
The employees themselves are the customers consuming the much greater part of all goods produced. They are the sovereign customers who are "always right." Their buying or abstention from buying determines what has to be produced, in what quantity, and of what quality. In buying what suits them best they make some enterprises profit and expand and make other enterprises lose money and shrink. Thereby they are continually shifting control of the factors of production into the hands of those businessmen who are most successful in filling their wants.
Under capitalism private property of the factors of production is a social function. The entrepreneurs, capitalists, and land owners are mandataries, as it were, of the consumers, and their mandate is revocable. In order to be rich, it is not sufficient to have once saved and accumulated capital. It is necessary to invest it again and again in those lines in which it best fills the wants of the consumers. The market process is a daily repeated plebiscite, and it ejects inevitably from the ranks of profitable people those who do not employ their property according to the orders given by the public. But business, the target of fanatical hatred on the part of all contemporary governments and self-styled intellectuals, acquires and preserves bigness only because it works for the masses. The plants that cater to the luxuries of the few never attain big size.
The shortcoming of 19th-century historians and politicians was that they failed to realize that the workers were the main consumers of the products of industry. In their view, the wage earner was a man toiling for the sole benefit of a parasitic leisure class. They labored under the delusion that the factories had impaired the lot of the manual workers. If they had paid any attention to statistics they would easily have discovered the fallaciousness of their opinion. Infant mortality dropped, the average length of life was prolonged, the population multiplied, and the average common man enjoyed amenities of which even the well-to-do of earlier ages did not dream.
However, this unprecedented enrichment of the masses was merely a by-product of the Industrial Revolution. Its main achievement was the transfer of economic supremacy from the owners of land to the totality of the population. The common man was no longer a drudge who had to be satisfied with the crumbs that fell from the tables of the rich. The three pariah castes that were characteristic of the precapitalistic ages — the slaves, the serfs, and those people whom patristic and scholastic authors as well as British legislation from the 16th to the 19th centuries referred to as the poor — disappeared. Their scions became, in this new setting of business, not only free workers, but also customers.
This radical change was reflected in the emphasis laid by business on markets. What business needs first of all is markets and again markets. This was the watchword of capitalistic enterprise. Markets — that means patrons, buyers, consumers. There is under capitalism one way to wealth: to serve the consumers better and cheaper than other people do.
Within the shop and factory the owner — or in the corporations, the representative of the shareholders, the president — is the boss. But this mastership is merely apparent and conditional. It is subject to the supremacy of the consumers. The consumer is king, is the real boss, and the manufacturer is done for if he does not outstrip his competitors in best serving consumers.
It was this great economic transformation that changed the face of the world. It very soon transferred political power from the hands of a privileged minority into the hands of the people. Adult franchise followed in the wake of industrial enfranchisement. The common man, to whom the market process had given the power to choose the entrepreneur and capitalists, acquired the analogous power in the field of government. He became a voter.
It has been observed by eminent economists, I think first by the late Frank A. Fetter, that the market is a democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote. It would be more correct to say that representative government by the people is an attempt to arrange constitutional affairs according to the model of the market, but this design can never be fully achieved. In the political field it is always the will of the majority that prevails, and the minorities must yield to it. It serves also minorities, provided they are not so insignificant in number as to become negligible. The garment industry produces clothes not only for normal people, but also for the stout, and the publishing trade publishes not only westerns and detective stories for the crowd, but also books for discriminating readers.
There is a second important difference. In the political sphere, there is no means for an individual or a small group of individuals to disobey the will of the majority. But in the intellectual field private property makes rebellion possible. The rebel has to pay a price for his independence; there are in this universe no prizes that can be won without sacrifices. But if a man is willing to pay the price, he is free to deviate from the ruling orthodoxy or neo-orthodoxy.
What would conditions have been in the socialist commonwealth for heretics like Kierkegaard, Schopenauer, Veblen, or Freud? For Monet, Courbet, Walt Whitman, Rilke, or Kafka? In all ages, pioneers of new ways of thinking and acting could work only because private property made contempt of the majority's ways possible. Only a few of these separatists were themselves economically independent enough to defy the government into the opinions of the majority. But they found in the climate of the free economy among the public people prepared to aid and support them. What would Marx have done without his patron, the manufacturer Friedrich Engels?
This article is excerpted from Liberty & Property, part 2 (2009)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기