--->제발 그렇게 되기를 기원한다.
---------------------------------------------------------
문재인의 검경 장악 법안은 이미 국회로 다 넘어가 있습니다.
변희재
박상기 법무장관 문무일 검찰총장 시절 다 합의되어
국회로 다 넘어갔습니다.
조국이 저기 대해 할 일이 아무 것도 없습니다.
그냥 국회 가서 가끔 인사 정도 하는 것.
그런데 만약 문재인의 검경장악법안을 통과시키는 게 목적이라면
민정수석 지위에서 뒤에서 공작하는게 더 낫죠.
조국이 무대로 올라온 이유는
약먹인 개돼지들과 함께 연방제 개헌 적화통일 선동을 위한 것입니다.
민정수석과 법무장관의 가장 큰 차이는
마이크를 잡을 수 있냐 없냐의 문제이니까요.
유시민의 노무현 찬양 미화, 지금과 똑같은 구도입니다.
실제로는 친문세력
민변과 법원의 우리법연구회 조직으로
검찰, 법원을 보수정권과는 비교도 안되는 수준으로
다 장악해놓았습니다.
그래놓고, 마치 기득권 관료들이 개혁에 저항하는 것처럼
위장하여, 마치 집단 다구리를 당하는 양 쇼를 합니다.
그 거짓선동의 대장이 유시민,
노무현, 조국 똑같이 포장하고 있습니다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
#China's regime is becoming more "repulsive," but also more dangerous, more belligerent, more sinister, more corrupt.
Jonathan Cheng
George Will: "Every day, week, month and year that passes, the PRC’s regime becomes more repulsive and the contrast with Taiwan’s democratic identity becomes more dramatically defined. Time is on Taiwan’s side, as long as the U.S. Navy is, too."
…
미국의 해군이 대만을 지키는 한, 시간은 민주주의 대만의 편이다.
---------------------------------------------
Dali L. Yang
Unifying China has been an obsession for many of its leaders since the first emperor did so in 221 B.C. Xi Jinping is no exception. https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-chinas-xi-the-hong-kong-crisis-is-personal-11569613304?shareToken=st4e6148d3ceca4abe8232d75808c21e36 … via @WSJ For China’s Xi, the Hong Kong Crisis Is Personal... ...
진시황 이후로 중국의 통합은 수많은 지도자들의 집념이었다. 시진핑도 예외는 아니다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Crane
So, today is the day recognized as Confucius's birthday: September 28, 551BCE.
What would he say about the protests on this day, right now, in Hong Kong?
If we believe Mencius is a faithful advocate of Confucius's way of thinking, here is something to keep in mind:
1/
오늘, 9월 28일은 공자의 생일이다. 공자는 현재의 홍콩 사태에 대해 뭐라고 할까? 맹자가 공자의 충실한 제자라고 한다면, 여기에 맹자가 그와 관련해 한 말들이 있다.
天視自我民視，天聽自我民聽
"Heaven sees according as my people see; Heaven hears according as my people hear."'
2/
This line occurs in 5.5 (Wan Zhang 1.5) and it describes how a leader gains the Mandate of Heaven.
Mencius says that the Mandate of Heaven cannot be transferred from one person to another. A new leader has to be accepted by Heaven and by the people.
3/
"Heaven" is hard to understand; it does not speak (天不言). One crucial means for apprehending Heaven is the people's reaction to a leader. If people reject a leader it is a clear sign of a lack of a Mandate of Heaven.
4/
If the several months of protest in Hong Kong tell us anything, it is that Carrie Lam does not have the Mandate of Heaven. We could extend that to mean that Xi Jinping, since he props her up, also does not have the Mandate of Heaven.
Happy Birthday Confucius.
fin/
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Hawley
Important essay from @ElbridgeColby — as we deal w/ Iran, must keep focus in Mideast on counterterrorism, not policing the region. And above all, must not turn attention away from China and its threat to our people & prosperity
이란 때문에 중국에 대한 경계를 늦추어서는 안 된다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
People's Daily, China
China sent a warning to U.S. warship Wayne E. Meyer and demanded it to leave China's territorial waters off the Xisha Islands after the latter trespassing into the area on Friday without permission of Chinese government
Zulutime
@PDChina 님에게 보내는 답글
The Paracel islands are more than 200 miles off the coast of China's Hainan province, in international waters. Furthermore, offshore islands in the Western Pacific are within America's sphere of influence.
파라셀 군도는 중국의 하이난 섬에서 200마일 이상 떨어진 공해 상에 있다.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSIS Korea Chair
Does U.S.-China competition have a uniform impact on South Korea and North Korea? Join Ajou Univ. Kim Heung-Kyu, @mwlippert and @BonnieGlaser at @CSIS, Armitage International's Richard Armitage, and @EwhaWomansUniv Choi Byung-il tomorrow via our live webcast #CSISLive!
미중 분쟁은 남북한에 어떤 영향을 끼치고 있는가?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
이것을 고치지 못하면 가망이 없다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
문 재앙과 민주당, 윤석열 해임 카드 워밍업에 착수했다. 그런데 변수는?
현재 조국 사태가 문재인 국정농단 게이트로 발전하는 국면에서
위기감을 느낀 쩝쩝이가 찾고있는 마지막 돌파구는 바로
윤석열 해임.
야당의 저항, 국민 저항이 만만치 않아 쩝쩝이와 민주당도 피를 흘리겠지만
그것이 "모든 것이 까발겨져" 죽는 것 보다는 낫다고 생각하는 모양이다.
이번 서초동 관제 데모가 명분을 쌓기위한 발동이라고 보면된다.
(관제 데모에 실제 참가 인원은 5천 명에서 만 명 정도라고 한다)
우리 모두 윤석열과 검찰 응원 해야되지 않겠나? / 일베
-----------------------------------------------------------------
진화론의 오용에 관한 걱정은 많이 하면서, 백지론Blank Slate ideology의 오용에 대한 우려는 왜 하지않는가?
수많은 주민을 학살한 모택동과 크메르 루즈들은 모두 인간은 백지 상태로 태어난다고 믿었고, 그런 인간만이 순결하며 아름답다고 믿었다.
【서울=뉴시스】안채원 기자 = 보수성향 시민단체가 문재인 대통령과 지난 28일 '검찰개혁 촛불집회'에 참석한 정치인 등을 고발한다고 30일 밝혔다.
'행동하는 자유시민'은 이날 오후 서울중앙지검에 '제7차 검찰개혁 촛불문화제'에 참석한 전·현직 국회의원과 주최 측을 포함한 집회참가자(불상자)를 특수공무집행 방해죄로 고발한다고 밝혔다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
승자라기 보다는, 덕을 좀 보았다고 할 수 있다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Ridley
"Just a century ago, life was back-breaking. Plentiful energy made better lives possible, without having to spend hours collecting firewood, polluting your household with smoke, achieving heat, cold, transportation, light, food and opportunities."
한 세기 전만 해도, 삶은 고달펐다. 하지만 풍부한 에너지 덕분에 우리의 생활이 나아졌다. 땔감을 구하기 위해 몇 시간을 허비하지 않아도, 그 연기로 집안을 오염시키고 않아도, 우리는 그 에너지 덕분에 냉난방, 운송, 조명, 식량, 기회 등을 얻었다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You read the classics because the human condition doesn’t change
You read the classics bc if something endures for centuries it does not do so by accident
You read the classics b/c otherwise you remain in the dark of an eternal present, without exemplars & prey for manipulators
고전을 읽는 이유는, 인간의 조건은 변하지 않기 때문이다.
고전을 읽지 않으면 영원한 현재라는 어둠 속에 갇히게 되어서, 어떤 모범도 없고, 타인에 의해 조작되기 쉽다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Never include in your company name "Forever", "Long Term (Capital)", or "Amaranth (Capital)" (flower that never dies).
회사 이름에 "영원" "장구(長久)" "아마란스(죽지 않는 꽃)"을 넣지 말라!
--->저런 단어를 넣은 기업들이 다 망했다.
한국에 "새천년 어쩌구"하는 정당도 망했다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a little strange that we spend so much time worrying about misuses of evolutionary theory but no time at all worrying about misuses of Blank Slate ideology. Both have been used to rationalize evil political movements.
수많은 주민을 학살한 모택동과 크메르 루즈들은 모두 인간은 백지 상태로 태어난다고 믿었고, 그런 인간만이 순결하며 아름답다고 믿었다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
gregorio catarino
Carmen Cartiness Johnson "A Tulip Is"
아름다운 색의 향연
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
블랙 스완의 세계를 위한 10가지 원칙
(오래된 글이지만 다시 읽어도 역시 좋은 글)
(오래된 글이지만 다시 읽어도 역시 좋은 글)
TEN PRINCIPLES FOR A BLACK-SWAN-ROBUST WORLD
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Introduction
In his "Ten Principles for a Black Swan-robust world", Nassim Nicholas Taleb is on the ramparts assuming an activist role in urging us "to move voluntarily into Capitalism 2.0 by helping what needs to be broken break on its own, converting debt into equity, marginalising the economics and business school establishments, shutting down the 'Nobel' in economics, banning leveraged buyouts, putting bankers where they belong, clawing back the bonuses of those who got us here, and teaching people to navigate a world with fewer certainties."
"Then we will see an economic life closer to our biological environment: smaller companies, richer ecology, no leverage. A world in which entrepreneurs, not bankers, take the risks and companies are born and die every day without making the news."
The themes Taleb develops in this manifesto are an outgrowth of his 2008 Edge original essay "The Fourth Quadrant: A Map of the Limits of Statistics". (Aslo, see The Black Swan Technical Appendix.)
— John Brockman
NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB, essayist and former mathematical trader, is Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering at New York University’s Polytechnic Institute. He is the author of Fooled by Randomness and the international bestseller The Black Swan.
Nassim Taleb's Edge Bio Page
TEN PRINCIPLES FOR A BLACK-SWAN-ROBUST WORLD
1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small. Nothing should ever become too big to fail. Evolution in economic life helps those with the maximum amount of hidden risks – and hence the most fragile – become the biggest.
2. No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains. Whatever may need to be bailed out should be nationalised; whatever does not need a bail-out should be free, small and risk-bearing. We have managed to combine the worst of capitalism and socialism. In France in the 1980s, the socialists took over the banks. In the US in the 2000s, the banks took over the government. This is surreal.
3. People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus. The economics establishment (universities, regulators, central bankers, government officials, various organisations staffed with economists) lost its legitimacy with the failure of the system. It is irresponsible and foolish to put our trust in the ability of such experts to get us out of this mess. Instead, find the smart people whose hands are clean.
4. Do not let someone making an “incentive” bonus manage a nuclear plant – or your financial risks. Odds are he would cut every corner on safety to show “profits” while claiming to be “conservative”. Bonuses do not accommodate the hidden risks of blow-ups. It is the asymmetry of the bonus system that got us here. No incentives without disincentives: capitalism is about rewards and punishments, not just rewards.
5. Counter-balance complexity with simplicity. Complexity from globalisation and highly networked economic life needs to be countered by simplicity in financial products. The complex economy is already a form of leverage: the leverage of efficiency. Such systems survive thanks to slack and redundancy; adding debt produces wild and dangerous gyrations and leaves no room for error. Capitalism cannot avoid fads and bubbles: equity bubbles (as in 2000) have proved to be mild; debt bubbles are vicious.
6. Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning. Complex derivatives need to be banned because nobody understands them and few are rational enough to know it. Citizens must be protected from themselves, from bankers selling them “hedging” products, and from gullible regulators who listen to economic theorists.
7. Only Ponzi schemes should depend on confidence. Governments should never need to “restore confidence”. Cascading rumours are a product of complex systems. Governments cannot stop the rumours. Simply, we need to be in a position to shrug off rumours, be robust in the face of them.
8. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains. Using leverage to cure the problems of too much leverage is not homeopathy, it is denial. The debt crisis is not a temporary problem, it is a structural one. We need rehab.
9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible “expert” advice for their retirement. Economic life should be definancialised. We should learn not to use markets as storehouses of value: they do not harbour the certainties that normal citizens require. Citizens should experience anxiety about their own businesses (which they control), not their investments (which they do not control).
10. Make an omelette with the broken eggs. Finally, this crisis cannot be fixed with makeshift repairs, no more than a boat with a rotten hull can be fixed with ad-hoc patches. We need to rebuild the hull with new (stronger) materials; we will have to remake the system before it does so itself. Let us move voluntarily into Capitalism 2.0 by helping what needs to be broken break on its own, converting debt into equity, marginalising the economics and business school establishments, shutting down the “Nobel” in economics, banning leveraged buyouts, putting bankers where they belong, clawing back the bonuses of those who got us here, and teaching people to navigate a world with fewer certainties.
Then we will see an economic life closer to our biological environment: smaller companies, richer ecology, no leverage. A world in which entrepreneurs, not bankers, take the risks and companies are born and die every day without making the news.
In other words, a place more resistant to black swans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
외부효과의 윤리
외부효과란 자신의 행동으로 인해 사람들에게 끼쳐지는, 사전에 예상치 못했던, 좋은 또는 나쁜 효과이다.
하지만 외부효과의 정의에 따르면, 우리가 하는 모든 행동은 국가의 규제 대상이 될 수 있다.
또한 정부의 개입 역시 또 다른 외부 효과에 지나지 않을 뿐이다.
The Ethics of Externalities
Predrag Rajsic
Some theorists claim that externalities are probably the most legitimate reason for state intervention in human interactions. The ethical case for intervention is that it can presumably increase overall economic efficiency. This article demonstrates that, even if one accepts this ethical principle, the usual choice of externality-generating actions that are believed to justify state intervention is purely arbitrary.
In fact, according to the definition of actions with external effects, any human action in a multi-individual society would qualify for regulation under the banner of improving economic efficiency (i.e., internalizing externalities). However, the nature of human existence renders this internalization impossible. Thus, we end up with a paradoxical situation where every action inevitably fails the ethical criterion we have put in front of ourselves.
What Are Externalities?
There are varying definitions of externalities, but probably the most common definition is that externalities are beneficial or harmful effects of one's action on others that were not taken into account in the decision to act. For example, one of the common examples used is industrial emissions of gases into the atmosphere. It is said that the factory owner(s) or manager(s) would not take into account the harmful effect of the emitted gases on other members of the society. Consequently, the factories would produce more industrial output than they would have produced had they taken into consideration the negative effects of their actions on others. This would be a negative externality.
However, there are also positive externalities, where one unintentionally produces benefits to others.1 A frequently used example is education. In this case, too little of the beneficial activity (education) is being performed if left to individuals' voluntary transactions. As a result, both in the cases of negative and positive externalities, "inefficiencies" arise. It is claimed that the total social welfare could be increased by adjusting the amount of the externality-creating activities to their socially optimal levels.
Government intervention is commonly believed to be the correcting mechanism. In the cases where too much of an action is being performed, the government should coercively limit the externality-creating action (regulations, taxes, penalties, quotas, etc.) Alternatively, actions that result in positive externalities should be encouraged using the means available to the government (i.e., subsidies).2
These government interventions are supposed to move the economy to the output mix as close as possible to the mix supposedly predicated by the model of perfect competition. In this sense, the model of perfect competition is adopted as a measuring stick for determining the ethical validity of individual action. According to this principle, one ought not act without taking into account the effect of his or her actions on all other individuals within the economy.
The Limits of Externalities
The first question one might ask is how many externality-creating actions there are. One could then start forming a list of the currently official external effects and quickly notice that this list has been expanding over time. One of the most recent additions to the list is the provision of environmental goods and services.
One might then naturally ask where the limit to this expansion is.3 I will use the basic truth that human knowledge of the relationship between one's own actions and other people's well-being is always incomplete to show that there is actually no limit to expanding the list of actions that create unaccounted external effects in societies (so long as they are composed of more than one individual). The following thought experiment illustrates why this is the case.
Think about all the things you did today. You got up at a certain point in time. You probably had a shower and brushed your teeth. Maybe you ate a nutritious breakfast or perhaps you skipped the breakfast altogether. Maybe you were polite to the people around you but it is also possible that some of you weren't. You might have driven carefully to your work but perhaps some of you weren't particularly attentive while driving. Maybe you went to the gym on your break.
Perhaps, if you got up 15 minutes later, you would have contributed to congestion resulting in some people being late for work. You might have even contributed to an increased number of accidents (without actually being involved in one). The people that were spared from congestion or an accident because you got up 15 minutes earlier benefited from your actions. However, if you did not evaluate these benefits when deciding when to get up, your getting up at a certain point in time constitutes an externality-creating activity.
Having a nutritious breakfast might have contributed to your good mood, which benefits everyone who comes in contact with you. Maybe this effect carries through to the people that come into contact with the people with whom you previously interacted. Maybe you even saved or prolonged some people's lives by creating a chain of events originating from the point of your having a healthy breakfast.
But what if these same actions saved a life of a woman who gave birth to a serial killer or a genius inventor or a great artist? The possibilities are endless. In any case, you have not taken all these potential effects into account when deciding whether to have breakfast or not. Indeed, it would be a special kind of mental torture to engage in such an accounting procedure every time one makes a decision.
Similarly, if you were kind to the people around you, you might have taken into account the effect that this action has on your own well-being, but if you have not considered the effect of your actions on the well-being of all other members of the society, you have just created a positive externality. On the other hand, maybe you don't care about treating other people kindly and you are rude to everyone you meet. In this case, you impose a negative externality. People are being harmed by your behavior without your having to experience any of the "cost" of your action. If these people were somehow able to make you feel their pain, you might have reduced the extent of your rudeness.
Oh, by the way, how do you look? Do people like your physical appearance? Maybe they are pleased when they see you clean, fit, and slim or with tasteful makeup. But some people might enjoy seeing you in a more natural light, in your everyday looks. There might even be people who find your physical appearance unpleasant in either form.
While you may be working on your appearance to achieve personal benefits in interactions with the people in your immediate surroundings, there may be many people who enjoy your appearance that you never considered when making your decisions. There also may be people who dislike your neat looks. Maybe they envy you and it is painful for them to look at your athletic figure. On the other hand, if you belong to those that don't maintain their personal hygiene, or if you don't have an athletic figure, some people might dislike seeing you in public.
Either way, you are creating external effects on other people by the way you present yourself to them. Some people can enjoy the beneficial effects of looking at you while others might have to face some harmful effects. These effects are external because you have not taken the experiences of all other people into account when making the decision to present yourself in public.
We could continue this list indefinitely only to realize that in order to properly determine the effect of each of our actions on others, we would need to be able to observe a parallel world in which we have taken an alternative action and compare the two outcomes. Then we would need to repeat this "exercise" for all the possible courses of action we can come up with until we find the course of action that we value the most, given its effects on every member of the society. We would need to do this every conscious moment of our lives because we constantly act.
In fact, this is not enough. The second condition for our internalization of externalities through action is that we would need to have insight into everyone's evaluation of different alternative outcomes of our action in order to put our own value judgment on each person's well-being. This is why you will never know the actual effect of your getting up at 6:15 as opposed to 6:30 this morning.4
Thus, anything we do affects many people in many different ways. For most of these interactions we have no means of determining the nature of our effect on others. Even if we had every intention of doing so, it is inevitable that we would not be able to take into account the effect of our actions on other individuals in the society. In other words, anything we do inevitably produces external effects.
Consequently, we tend to focus only on actions for which it is relatively straightforward to identify the most immediate potential cause-and-effect relationships while ignoring all other relationships. For example, if the immigration officials did not allow Nikola Tesla, the inventor of the alternate current (AC) generator, to enter the United States in 1884, we would have never known that this action would have prevented Tesla from building the first AC generating plant in Niagara Falls, New York. The immigration restriction would not have been qualified as an action that could potentially prevent the electrification of the world at the time. Instead, this would have been recorded as one less immigrant on US soil.
The reason we focus on more repetitive and seemingly more "predictable" actions is that these actions allow us to observe some regularity and pattern. Examples of such actions are emissions of gases into the atmosphere, disposal of solids or liquids into water bodies, generation of air vibrations, production of a pleasant panorama (e.g., farm sights), building of human capital (e.g., education).
But there is no objective reason to stop here. The same principle could be applied to other repetitive actions like keeping personal hygiene, being polite (or rude) to others, being a hard worker (or lazy), getting up and going to bed at a particular point in time, being a loving (or incompetent) father, husband, mother, or wife. The list could go on forever.
Thus, according to the definition of externalities, anything we do would qualify for regulation by the state. But a more careful investigation reveals why this would be a superficial conclusion.
The state is not some magical force that acts according to laws different from the laws of human action. The state apparatus is composed of human beings and thus is subject to the same logic as any other group of individuals. Consequently, like any action, the actions of government officials inevitably result in unaccounted-for external effects.
Like any human being, they too are incapable of identifying the causal relationships between their actions and the well-being of most individuals in society. Thus, even if we assumed that internalization of externalities is the ultimate normative principle, relying on a group of individuals to implement this principle does not make much sense.
Conclusion
Finally, we must conclude that externalities are a consequence of the laws of nature, not some anomaly in a model of perfect competition. This does not, however, mean that one should not care about how his or her actions affect others.
What it simply means is that if we are to be honest about the nature of external effects of human action, we need to admit that internalization of externalities, as an offshoot of the utilitarian theory of rights, is a poor choice for an ethical standard simply because no action can ever meet this standard. Thus, there are good reasons for assessing other methods of evaluating human action.
[Originally published March 2011.]
1.Note that the effects of one's actions are always evaluated relative to an alternative outcome. Consequently, avoiding an action that results in negative externalities would constitute an action that produces positive externalities.
2.This article uses examples of Canadian policies intended to internalize externalities. Comparable policies exist in many other jurisdictions, like the United States, the EU, and New Zealand.
3.Walter Block noted that this limit might be quite wide by pointing out that even wearing socks produces positive externalities in the form of sparing others from smelling one's feet.
4.Even if one possessed these two supernatural abilities and were able to identify all possible states of the world originating from his or her actions and had insight into the evaluation of each state by each individual within the society, there is a third obstacle. There is no objective way to use individual valuations to come up with a uniquely preferred state of the world. In other words, even if you knew everything there is to know about the effect of your actions on other people, there is no reason why the action you chose would be preferred by all involved parties. See Kenneth J. Arrow, "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare," The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 58, No. 4. (Aug., 1950), pp. 328–346.
------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기