이민복(대북풍선단장)
북한의 밤나무들은 사라졌다. 황해도 나의 고향에도 밤이 많았는데 1960년대까지이다. 그 다음 왜 다 사라졌을까. 일제시대와 해방 후 개인농까지는 떨어진 밤을 주었다고 한다. 사회주의가 확립된 1960년대부터는 작대기를 가지고 털어야 했다. 떨어진 밤을 줍기에는 행차 뒤 나팔이기 때문이다.
그 작대기는 금방 도끼로 변한다. 작대기질보다 가지 찍는 것이 더 빠르기 때문이다. 뛰는 놈 위에 난다고 그 다음은 톱이 등장한다. 가지보다 밑둥을 잘라 한꺼번에 가져가는 것이 장땡이기 때문이다. 결국 너도 못 먹고 나도 못 먹게 되었다. 이 속도는 화목과 결부되어 더욱 빨라졌다. 1970년대에 벌써 다 이루어진 것이다. 사회주의 20년 만이다.
밤나무와 같이 경제도 마찬가지이다. 1970년대에 이미 침체기에 들어섰고 그때부터 하강을 긋는다. 인간을 신으로 만드는 판에 통계는 조작할 수밖에 없다. 이것에 기초한 북한연구는 다 공허한 것이 된다. 내 것이 되는 여기서는 보이지 않는 손들이 밤나무를 보호한다. 내 것이 되지 않는 저기서는 저렇게 된다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<사회주의자 법무장관 조국은 즉각 사퇴하라!>
-북한 사회주의를 직접 경험한 탈북 지식인 시국선언문-
우리는 조국 씨가 법무장관이 됨으로써 우리가 알고, 믿고 찾아왔던 대한민국의 자유민주주의 시장경제 체제의 법치가 무너져 내리고, 사회주의 체제로의 전환이 시작되었다고 생각하며 향후 발생할 심각한 사태를 우려한다.
이제 우리는 북한의 체제전환으로 인한 대혼란과 갈등이 아닌, 자유민주주의 체제의 대한민국이 사회주의 체제로의 전환으로 인한 대혼란과 엄청난 고통을 감내해야 할 절체절명의 전환점에 서 있음을 경고한다.
이에 우리 탈북 지식인 ○○○명은 자유를 찾아온 3만 4000여 탈북인들을 대변하여 문재인 대통령이 조국 법무장관을 즉각 해임하고, 더이상 사회주의 체제와 공산주의로 향하는 연방제 통일을 위한 지옥행 행진을 멈출 것을 강력히 촉구한다. (발췌)
2019년 9월19일
이제 우리는 북한의 체제전환으로 인한 대혼란과 갈등이 아닌, 자유민주주의 체제의 대한민국이 사회주의 체제로의 전환으로 인한 대혼란과 엄청난 고통을 감내해야 할 절체절명의 전환점에 서 있음을 경고한다.
이에 우리 탈북 지식인 ○○○명은 자유를 찾아온 3만 4000여 탈북인들을 대변하여 문재인 대통령이 조국 법무장관을 즉각 해임하고, 더이상 사회주의 체제와 공산주의로 향하는 연방제 통일을 위한 지옥행 행진을 멈출 것을 강력히 촉구한다. (발췌)
2019년 9월19일
탈북 지식인 ○○○명
--------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
공지영, 진중권에 "돈·권력 주면 한국당 갈수
도 있겠구나"
if42****
공지영 님..당신의 신념이 이나라를 곮게 만드는 건 아닌지 작가로서 성찰해 주십시오. 허구적 감성이 진실일 순 없습니다.. 글구, 모든 권력은 국민으로부터 나오는 것이지 문프로부터 나오는 것은 아니지 않을까요? 이게 촛불이 꿈꾸던 나라인가요? 이번 조국 사태를 겪으며 유시민 등등의 인텔리 지식인들이 얼마나 좌편향되었고 옳고 그름에 대한 사리분별력이 없음을 알게 되면서 날마다 경악하는 중입니다. 당신들의 민낯이 상대쪽보담 더 더러운 것 같아서 나날이 실망과 절망으로 분노하고 있습니다
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
Youthful protestors, leading an insurgency in #HongKong, are supported by an extensive network in society: https://on.wsj.com/2l91eh1 . This suggests #China cannot prevail because in the territory it is outnumbered. An outside power cannot defeat a united people.
.
홍콩의 청년 시위대는
사회의 광범위한 네트워크에 의해 지지되고 있다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg인증된 계정
At $28 billion so far, the farm rescue is more than twice as expensive as the 2009 bailout of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, which cost taxpayers $12 billion
미중 무역분쟁의 여파로 트럼프가 농민에 뿌린 280억 달러는,
2009년 디트로이트 3대 자동차회사를 구제한 120억 달러보다
2배 많다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lingling Wei
Lingling Wei 님이 리트윗했습니다 Bill Bishop
Deputy-level Chinese negotiators didn’t bring any major new offers to DC this week and instead reiterated the need for a “balanced” agreement. Beijing still wants a deal no doubt but they’re betting on the political needs of Trump as election approaches. “Time is on our side.”
선거가 다가옴에 따라, 시간이 자기들 편이라고
믿고 있는 중국 당국
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s Scarily Easy To Track Someone Around A City Via Their Instagram Stories
By cross-referencing just one hour of footage from public webcams with stories taken in Times Square, BuzzFeed News confirmed the full identities of a half dozen people.
인스타그램의 내용으로 누군가의 동선을 추적하는 건 쉽다
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
시발...광주에는 일자리 존나 넘쳐나네
나는 디자인쪽인데 이직관련 고민중이라 워크넷 함 뒤져보고 있었는데
광주쪽은 시발 일자리 존나 많네.. 심지어 지방에 디자인쪽 망해서 다 서울 올라오는 판에
광주가 서울보다 연봉도 더 쎔 ㄷㄷ
시발 지자체 돈 몰아주고 정부사업 떼먹기 하니까 그쪽만 살판나는거 같노..
니들 업계도 한번 대충 훑어봐라. 거짓말 아님
광주쪽은 시발 일자리 존나 많네.. 심지어 지방에 디자인쪽 망해서 다 서울 올라오는 판에
광주가 서울보다 연봉도 더 쎔 ㄷㄷ
시발 지자체 돈 몰아주고 정부사업 떼먹기 하니까 그쪽만 살판나는거 같노..
니들 업계도 한번 대충 훑어봐라. 거짓말 아님
바닐종족쥐
맞다
광주쪽에서 정부사업관련해서 일이 널렸다
건설 쪽도 그렇고
광주쪽에서 정부사업관련해서 일이 널렸다
건설 쪽도 그렇고
앞집아저씨
내 아는 사람도 정부사업 받아 먹는 사람인데 (세금냠냠)
전라도로 아예 회사 옮김.
전라도 욕하면서도 일은 해야 겠당께 하고 내려감.
전라도로 아예 회사 옮김.
전라도 욕하면서도 일은 해야 겠당께 하고 내려감.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
수정아지수해줘2019.09.24 16:30:46
애초에 돼지열병 처음 돌았을 때 휴전선 인근 멧돼지는 아예 씨를 말려버린다는 개념으로 접근했어야 함. 근데 씹선비 관료 새끼들이랑 환경단체 눈치보는 환경부 새끼들 반대로 유해조수조차 맘대로 퇴치를 못함.
공무원 새끼들은 나라가 망하든 말든 소송 안당하고 민원 안맞고 편히 시간 보내는 게 최우선 과제임. 이게 대한민국 현실이지.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
나미비아, 데드블레이(Deadvlei)
한장의 유화처럼 보이는 위 짤은 그림이 아니라 사진이다. 사진의 노을진 하늘처럼 보이는 배경은 세계에서 가장 거대한 모래언덕이다.
출처 일베
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
함박도 공군 첩보대원들
“휴전 협정 이후에도 함박도는 분명 대한민국 땅이었다”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
문재인 부부에게 이상한 일들이 생겼습니다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Teachers should not be regurgitating XR’s doomsday narrative to fearful youngsters."
교사들은 두려움에 떠는 아이들에게 기후 변화 종말론을 가르
쳐서는 안 된다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
유엔에서 보리스 존슨 영국 총리가 한 말
"세상에는 호랑이보다 유럽연합의 관료가 더 많습니다. 시베
리아 호랑이보다 영국 상원의원 수가 더 많습니다. 해답은 뭘
까요? 관료들과 상원의원들을 호랑이 밥으로 주는 겁니다!"
--->
나도 동의한다. 나는 한국의 국회의원들도 저기 "밥"에 포함되
어야 한다고 믿는다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Gasic
Actions > words.
One 
of the best rules I know.
of the best rules I know.
--------------------------------------------------------------
시장 참여자들의 평균 행동을 안다고 해서 시장의 보편적 행
동을 이해한다고 할 수 없다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
탈레브
In other words:
+ Studying the psychology of individuals will never allow you to understand that of the market (determined by extremes, not sum).
+ Rationality for indiv. does not translate into "rationality" for group.
Saying it the way it is:
Evolutionary biologists are dumb.
진화 생물학자들은 멍청하다
------------------------------------------------------
Nassim Nicholas Taleb인증된 계정
2) These simple comments by the 2 fellows destroy +5 decades of evolutionary psychology/biology, etc. I mean really shatter current methods.
아래의 두 논평이 50년간의 진화심리학, 생물학을 파괴해버리
고 있다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nassim Nicholas Taleb인증된 계정
3) People have no problem getting Nietzsche, Le Bon, & other's point that crowds composed of sane individuals can go crazy.
It is harder to get the reverse: that some groups of unfit individuals can be fitter than others with better individuals.
체 등의 주장을 사람들은 이해하고 있다.
하지만 그 역은 이해하기 어렵다. 즉 불량 개인들로 이루어진
집단이 우수한 개인들로 이루어진 집단보다 더 뛰어날 수 있
다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Book Defending Free Speech Has Been Banned | James Flynn
언론 자유를 옹호한 나의 책이 금지 되었다. ---제임스 플린
연대 유석춘 교수가 위안부는 매춘녀라고 발언했다가 강의가 중단되는 일이 일어났다. 세계 도처에서 좌파들의 정치적 올바름으로 인해 언론의 자유, 학문의 자유가 억압되고 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
철학자 남편과 물리학자 아내의 불협화음?
독일어도 잘 못하면서 헤겔 철학을 연구하고, 원자를 당구공처럼 이해하는 엉터리 물리학 지식의 소유자 남편. 그리고 이런 남편을 결혼한 후에야 처음으로 발견한 독일 아내!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"The sentimental person thinks things will last-the romantic
person has a desperate confidence that they won't." F. Scott Fitzgerald, This Side of Paradise
감상적인 사람은 세상이 지속될 거라 생각하고, 낭만적인 사
람은 그렇지 않을 거라는 절실한 신념을 갖고 있다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
경제학은 인간 행동의 탐구이다.
경제학은 권력자들의 오만에 대한 도전이다.
경제학은 연역 시스템이다. 인간 행동이라는 범주에서 시작하는 데에 경제학의 탁월함이 있다.
10. The Procedure of Economics
(미제스의 책 <인간행동>에서)
The scope of praxeology is the explication of the category of human action. All that is needed for the deduction of all praxeological theorems is knowledge of the essence of human action. It is a knowledge that is our own because we are men; no being of human descent that pathological conditions have not reduced to a merely vegetative existence lacks it. No special experience is needed in order to comprehend these theorems, and no experience, however rich, could disclose them to a being who did not know a priori what human action is. The only way to a cognition of these theorems is logical analysis of our inherent knowledge of the category of action. We must bethink ourselves and reflect upon the structure of human action. Like logic and mathematics, praxeological knowledge is in us; it does not come from without.
All the concepts and theorems of praxeology are implied in the category of human action. The first task is to extract and to deduce them, to expound their implications and to define the universal conditions of acting as such. Having shown what conditions are required by any action, one must go further and define--of course, in a categorial and formal sense--the less general conditions required for special modes of acting. It would be possible to deal with this second task by delineating all thinkable conditions and deducing from them all inferences logically permissible. Such an all-comprehensive system would provide a theory referring not only to human action as it is under the conditions and circumstances given in the real world in [p. 65] which man lives and acts. It would deal no less with hypothetical acting such as would take place under the unrealizable conditions of imaginary worlds.
But the end of science is to know reality. It is not mental gymnastics or a logical pastime. Therefore praxeology restricts its inquiries to the study of acting under those conditions and presuppositions which are given in reality. It studies acting under unrealized and unrealizable conditions only from two points of view. It deals with states of affairs which, although not real in the present and past world, could possibly become real at some future date. And it examines unreal and unrealizable conditions if such an inquiry is needed for a satisfactory grasp of what is going on under the conditions present in reality.
However, this reference to experience does not impair the aprioristic character of praxeology and economics. Experience merely directs our curiosity toward certain problems and diverts it from other problems. It tells us what we should explore, but it does not tell us how we could proceed in our search for knowledge. Moreover, it is not experience but thinking alone which teaches us that, and in what instances, it is necessary to investigate unrealizable hypothetical conditions in order to conceive what is going on in the real world.
The disutility of labor is not of a categorial and aprioristic character. We can without contradiction think of a world in which labor does not cause uneasiness, and we can depict the state of affairs prevailing in such a world. But the real world is conditioned by the disutility of labor. Only theorems based on the assumption that labor is a source of uneasiness are applicable for the comprehension of what is going on in this world.
Experience teaches that there is disutility of labor. But it does not teach it directly. There is no phenomenon that introduces itself as disutility of labor. There are only data of experience which are interpreted, on the ground of aprioristic knowledge, to mean that men consider leisure--i.e., the absence of labor--other things being equal, as a more desirable condition than the expenditure of labor. We see that men renounce advantages which they could get by working more--that is, that they are ready to make sacrifices for the attainment of leisure. We infer from this fact that leisure is valued as a good and that labor is regarded as a burden. But for previous praxeological insight, we would never be in a position to reach this conclusion.
A theory of indirect exchange and all further theories built upon it--as the theory of circulation credit--are applicable only to the interpretation of events within a world in which indirect exchange [p. 66] is practiced. In a world of barter trade only it would be mere intellectual play. It is unlikely that the economists of such a world, if economic science could have emerged at all in it, would have given any thought to the problems of indirect exchange, money, and all the rest. In our actual world, however, such studies are an essential part of economic theory.
The fact that praxeology, in fixing its eye on the comprehension of reality, concentrates upon the investigation of those problems which are useful for this, does not alter the aprioristic character of its reasoning. But it marks the way in which economics, up to now the only elaborated part of praxeology, presents the results of its endeavors.
Economics does not follow the procedure of logic and mathematics. It does not present an integrated system of pure aprioristic ratiocination severed from any reference to reality. In introducing assumptions into its reasoning, it satisfies itself that the treatment of the assumptions concerned can render useful services for the comprehension of reality. It does not strictly separate in its treatises and monographs pure science from the application of its theorems to the solution of concrete historical and political problems. It adopts for the organized presentation of its results a form in which aprioristic theory and the interpretation of historical phenomena are intertwined.
It is obvious that this mode of procedure is enjoined upon economics by the very nature and essence of its subject matter. It has given proof of its expediency. However, one must not overlook the fact that the manipulation of this singular and logically somewhat strange procedure requires caution and subtlety, and that uncritical and superficial minds have again and again been led astray by careless confusion of the two epistemologically different methods implied.
There are no such things as a historical method of economics or a discipline of institutional economics. There is economics and there is economic history. The two must never be confused. All theorems of economics are necessarily valid in every instance in which all the assumptions presupposed are given. Of course, they have no practical significance in situations where these conditions are not present. The theorems referring to indirect exchange are not applicable to conditions where there is no indirect exchange. But this does not impair their validity.
The issue has been obfuscated by the endeavors of governments [p. 67] and powerful pressure groups to disparage economics and to defame the economists. Despots and democratic majorities are drunk with power. They must reluctantly admit that they are subject to the laws of nature. But they reject the very notion of economic law. Are they not the supreme legislators? Don't they have the power to crush every opponent? No war lord is prone to acknowledge any limits other than those imposed on him by a superior armed force. Servile scribblers are always ready to foster such complacency by expounding the appropriate doctrines. They call their garbled presumptions "historical economics." In fact, economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics.
It is impossible to understand the history of economic thought if one does not pay attention to the fact that economics as such is a challenge to the conceit of those in power. An economist can never be a favorite of autocrats and demagogues. With them he is always the mischief-maker, and the more they are inwardly convinced that his objections are well founded, the more they hate him.
In the face of all this frenzied agitation it is expedient to establish the fact that the starting point of all praxeological and economic reasoning, the category of human action, is proof against any criticisms and objections. No appeal to any historical or empirical considerations whatever can discover any fault in the proposition that men purposefully aim at certain chosen ends. No talk about irrationality, the unfathomable depths of the human soul, the spontaneity of the phenomena of life, automatisms, reflexes, and tropisms, can invalidate the statement that man makes use of his reason for the realization of wishes and desires. From the unshakable foundation of the category of human action praxeology and economics proceed step by step by means of discursive reasoning. Precisely defining assumptions and conditions, they construct a system of concepts and draw all the inferences implied by logically unassailable ratiocination. With regard to the results thus obtained only two attitudes are possible; either one can unmask logical errors in the chain of the deductions which produced these results, or one must acknowledge their correctness and validity.
It is vain to object that life and reality are not logical. Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both. It is vain to object that life and history are inscrutable and ineffable and that human reason can never penetrate to their inner core. The critics contradict themselves in uttering words about the ineffable and [p. 68] expounding theories--of course, spurious theories--about the unfathomable. There are many things beyond the reach of the human mind. But as far as man is able to attain any knowledge, however limited, he can use only one avenue of approach, that opened by reason.
No less illusory are the endeavors to play off understanding against the theorems of economics. The domain of historical understanding is exclusively the elucidation of those problems which cannot be entirely elucidated by the nonhistorical sciences. Understanding must never contradict the theories developed by the nonhistorical sciences. Understanding can never do anything but, on the one hand, establish the fact that people were motivated by certain ideas, aimed at certain ends, and applied certain means for the attainment of these ends, and, on the other hand, assign to the various historical factors their relevance so far as this cannot be achieved by the nonhistorical sciences. Understanding does not entitle the modern historian to assert that exorcism ever was an appropriate means to cure sick cows. Neither does it permit him to maintain that an economic law was not valid in ancient Rome or in the empire of the Incas.
Man is not infallible. He searches for truth--that is, for the most adequate comprehension of reality as far as the structure of his mind and reason makes it accessible to him. Man can never become omniscient. He can never be absolutely certain that his inquiries were not misled and that what he considers as certain truth is not error. All that man can do is to submit all his theories again and again to the most critical reexamination. This means for the economist to trace back all theorems to their unquestionable and certain ultimate basis, the category of human action, and to test by the most careful scrutiny all assumptions and inferences leading from this basis to the theorem under examination. It cannot be contended that this procedure is a guarantee against error. But it is undoubtedly the most effective method of avoiding error.
Praxeology--and consequently economics too--is a deductive system. It draws its strength from the starting point of its deductions, from the category of action. No economic theorem can be considered sound that is not solidly fastened upon this foundation by an irrefutable chain of reasoning. A statement proclaimed without such a connection is arbitrary and floats in midair. It is impossible to deal with a special segment of economics if one does not encase it in a complete system of action.
The empirical sciences start from singular events and proceed from the unique and individual to the more universal. Their treatment is subject to specialization. They can deal with segments without paying [p. 69] attention to the whole field. The economist must never be a specialist. In dealing with any problem he must always fix his glance upon the whole system.
Historians often sin in this respect. They are ready to invent theorems ad hoc. They sometimes fail to recognize that it is impossible to abstract any causal relations from the study of complex phenomena. Their pretension to investigate reality without any reference to what they disparage as preconceived ideas is vain. In fact they unwittingly apply popular doctrines long since unmasked as fallacious and contradictory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기