----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
이게 진짜 팩트 아니냐..
100명 중 부득이하게 일한사람이 1~3명이라 치면 나머지는 다 편하게 돈벌려고 한게 팩트지.
이거는 나도 우리 할아버지 할머니 한테 들었다.
TV에 위안부 나오는거보고 쌍욕을 하시더라.
왜냐하믄 울 할머니 할아버지가 일제강점기에 일본에 일하러 가셨거든 ㅋㅋ 강제? ㅋ
돈을 많이줘서 자원해서 갔댄다 두분 포함 모든 사람이.
그래서 할머니가 늘 하는말이 위안부보고 저 X년들 돈 편하게 벌라고 봉지벌려 놓고 이제와서 피해자인척 한다고 ㅉㅉ
암튼.
1줄 요약
피해자가 있는건 ㅇㅈ. 그러나 모든 매춘부가 피해자는 아니다. / 일베
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
The only surprise is that anyone supports #MoonJaein.
유일하게 놀라운 일은 누군가 문죄인을 지지하고 있다는 것이다.
David Maxwell
Support for South Korea's Moon Hits Record Low as Woes Pile Up https://conta.cc/30A4JLY
문죄인의 지지율이 사상 최저를 기록했다.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
#China, thanks to #XiJinping, is returning to the 1950s. Our job is to make sure he destroys only his own state, not the rest of the world.
시진핑 덕분에 중국이 1950년대로 회귀하고 있다. 우리의 할 일은 시진핑이 중국만을 파괴하도록 하는 것이다.
Bill Bishop
Free at Sinocism - Excerpt from "China's New Red Guards: The Return of Radicalism and the Rebirth of Mao Zedong" by Jude Blanchette @niubi https://sinocism.com/p/excerpt-from-chinas-new-red-guards?r=2e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=twitter …
중국의 새로운 홍위병: 모택동의 환생과 급진주의의 귀환,
------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Greer
Huang Qifan gave a speech on the trade war a few days ago . It is eye opening. The ideas in it aren't really new, but they are expressed with such frankness (+with so little Communist cant) that I triple checked this guy is who I thought he was.
중국의 황치판이 미중 무역분쟁에 관해 밝힌 견해.
중국 당국의 생각을 알 수 있는 연설.
T. Greer
Huang is a central committee member. Currently works as Financial and Economic Affairs Committee of the NPC. Not a small fry.
He divides his speech into four sections. The first section discusses why the 2013-now is actually a "new era" in China's economic development.
The next section sketches both his explanation for why America and China are having trade "friction" and why China should not cave to the Americans.
Appended to this is a subsection on why the Chinese political and economic system is flatly better than America/Europe's.
The third section explains the economic advantages China has in the trade war--e.g., why the trade war will not sink the Chinese economy, but will certainly sink the US economy.
The final section concerns action items for the government.
This speech was really, really long. I am not going to cover the entire thing. (I think it would be worth having someone translate all of it. But google does a pretty good job, only messes up on a few spots, so if you want to read the full thing but don't read Chinese try that).
I am going to focus on the "here is why America is increasing 'trade friction' with China" along with the argument for "here is why socialism with Chinese characteristics is superior to capitalism" section, 'cuz I think that is most interesting.
Huang starts off by explicitly addressing the argument for ceding to American demands (what he rather colorfully compares to 'letting them punch our face... in hopes they will feel pity for us and decide to stop"). His rebuttal to this argument is very simple: look at Japan.
Japan, he says, is a vassal state (属国）of the Americans. Since 1945 the Japanese have done everything the Americans have ever wanted them to. And what has been the result of Japanese benevolence/cravenness? Nothing! Despite Japan toeing the American line time and again, the
United States "bullies" Tokyo. The 1980s trade show off is the central example of his case, but he spends a whole paragraph talking about how humiliating it must be to be Shinzo Abe. Abe spends all of this time "fawning over Trump, playing golf for him" but has it resulted
in Abe obtaining anything? To the contrary, there was this one time when a big ol red carpet was laid out for the two guys at a state dinner, and Trump walked right down the center of it. To stay by his side, Abe had to walk off of the red carpet all together.
And that, Huang reminds us, "was in Japan!" Abe plays all that golf and Trump still hogs the red carpets of Japan. How embarrassing to be Abe--and how foolish, Huang says, to think that personal relationships or chemistry between leaders matter. What matters is national interest.
And it is in America's interest to keep down China.
Huang uses numbers to justify the point. We went from 4% of America's GDP to 60% in just 40 years. Give it another 15 and we will be ahead of them. The Americans will not allow it.
They have been the global top dog（世界的老大） for several decades. As big boss, they have broken rules whenever they feel the need, conflating their domestic rules with international ones. Huang specifically ties the Meng extradition case to the Iraq war as examples of American
rule-breaking and "bullying." Having acted this way as the big boss for so long, the Americans fear that China will do the exact same thing to them once China becomes #1 (他想着如果有一天你也是老大了，你也这么来对我那怎么办) so the Americans will try to hold you down.
Interestingly, Huang doesn't really condemn the Americans for this. He calls it "inevitable." And that is one of the themes of this speech--with or without Trump, America trying to hold China down is inevitable. That is just what powerful countries to do challengers.
Now this is where things get interesting. He says, in effect, that the Americans are right to fear being surpassed by China. Why? 'cuz Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is simply a far better way to reach the top and stay there than the American system will ever be.
to support this contention Huang provides 5 points where Socialism with Chinese Characteristics > American capitalist democracy.
황은 중국 특색의 사회주의가 미국의 자본주의 민주제보다 우수하다고 주장한다. (집합적 정신병 또는 경제에 대한 무지)
1) The Chinese are constantly able to reform their governing structures and their economy. The Americans, in contrast...
have not seen intentional, systematic change in their economic system since the 1980s. They made changes in the '80s, prospered from those changes in the '90s, but have been unable to doing since.
The Chinese, in contrast, change every five years.
"互相折腾，没什么制度性进化，而我们是一个与时俱进的社会"
i.e. "When you compare the two, there system does not evolve. Ours advances with the times."
On to POINT TWO:
Socialism With Chinese Characteristics gives equal weight to economic growth and "social justice" (social equity? social fairness? 社会公平）
Huang's main point here is that the economic growth of the last forty years had lifted many people out of poverty, while in America only
the rich gain from the country's economic development. (he also specifically cites Piketty's book, his riff being that China has much longer to go before inequality will be a social problem the way it is in USA b/c USA is already developed).
POINT THREE: The Party has mastered the art of stable change. In America, a new party comes in and reverses whatever the last administration spent the last 4/8 years doing. One step forward, one step back, for ever.
In China, change comes with preservation, and since it is the
same people at the helm, change can be promoted without need to tear the system out from the roots for political effect.
POINT FOUR: Over the last forty years, China has never had a serious economic crisis. In contrast, America has one about once a decade.
POINT FIVE: The Chinese economy is really, really big. It is big enough to swallow any problems. "A storm that will destroy a pond will just cause waves on the sea" (狂风暴雨能倾翻一个池塘翻不了大海).
To this Huang adds a note about the US system, suggesting that it is too debt laden to survive in health much larger. He notes that America kept debt at 70% of GDP through the 20th century, but since the Great Recession it has lost control of its debt. That will be its downfall.
And that is about it. He also has a list of reasons why China will be able to weather the next round of the trade war better than USA can, but I will let others go translate those. I thought his broader conception of why Chinese Communism>US Democracy/Capitalism worth sharing.
Actually I will share one more line. On US trade war intentions, he has this to say:
"所以在这个意义上我们是不能掉以轻心的，这会人家不是跟你闹着玩的，他要你的命不是要你的钱."
"We can't take this lightly. It is not a joke. They don't want your money--they want your life."
Since this thread is going mini viral, a few other things I’ve written up that are relevant:
*Translation of a speech by Xi Jinping on what “socialism with Chinese characteristics” means
https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2019/06/xi-jinping-explains-his-political.html …
A note on the Party’s consensus on what American intentions towards China are, as seen from their own documents: https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2019/07/two-case-studies-in-communist-insecurity.html …
完整版]黄奇帆最新演讲：新时代中国开放新趋势和中美贸易摩擦（兼谈当前的香港问题
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
변희재
드루킹 "김경수 '이재명 떨궈도 되지 않나..남경필 밀겠다'"고 말해..
이 말은 저한테 자주 했었지요.
드루킹은 김경수야말로 문재인의 최측근 실세이고
임종석도, 박원순도, 이재명도 모두 다 아웃될거라 했습니다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Today’s #ClimateStrike confirms that the green movement has become a religious cult. They preach about the end of the world. They say mankind will be punished by hellfire in the form of global warming. They worship St Greta. This is an irrational movement.
환경 운동은 사이비 종교가 되었다. 그들은 지구의 종말에 대해 설교한다. 그들은 인류가 지구 온난화의 지옥불 속에서 단죄될 거라고 말한다. 그들은 성 그레타(어린이 환경 운동가)를 숭배한다. 이것은 비이성적인 운동이다.
Brendan O’Neill on Sky
https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1174979909963243520
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Phillips
"What are witnessing is not the imminent extinction of the planet. It is the extinction of reason"
우리가 목격하는 것은 지구의 임박한 멸종이 아니라, 이성의 멸종이다.
Yet the fact is that there’s no convincing evidence that anything out of the ordinary is happening to the atmospheric temperature, which has risen and fallen over the millennia and which was considerably warmer many centuries ago.
As Forbes magazine noted here, over the past 150 years the world has warmed by a mere 0.8 degrees – and even that has tapered off to essentially flatlining over the last decade and a half.
There’s also no convincing evidence that any such rise in temperature is caused mainly by high carbon emissions.
As climate scientist Vijay Jayara wrote: “There is poor correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature. Between 2000 and 2018, global temperature showed no significant increase despite a steep increase in carbon dioxide emissions from anthropogenic sources. The same was the case between the years 1940 and 1970. When carbon dioxide concentration increases at a constant and steady rate and temperature doesn’t follow the pattern, we can be certain that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of global temperature.
“…NASA’s page on solar influence clearly states that changes in the sun largely determine Earth’s atmospheric and surface temperatures. Astrophysicists and climatologists measure these changes in the sun in terms of quantifiable phenomena such as sunspot activity and solar cycles. However, in recent times, NASA has succumbed to pressure from climate doomsday proponents. NASA’s original page on the sun’s impact on our climate system is now hidden from the public domain” [my emphasis].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spyros Makridakis
The saga of uncertainty in medicine continues in NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/upshot/why-doctors-still-offer-treatments-that-may-not-help.html#commentsContainer …
WHY DOCTORS STILL OFFER TREATMENTS THAT MAY NOT HELP Evidence-based medicine has made progress since doctors’ infamous bloodletting of George Washington, but less than you might think.
의사들은 왜 도움이 되지 않는 치료를 제공하는 걸까?
뉴욕타임즈 기사.
본인의 책 <서구의학은 파산했다>
------------------------------------------------------------------
PaulSkallas
Wow, Jordan peterson is a Klonopin addict. The coward decides to blame his addiction on his wife. Terrible. This guy keeps getitng worse and worse. Drug addict telling you to clean your room while he pops pills and preaches bogus psych theories all day.
조던 피터슨이 클로나제팜 중독자였다. 그는 자신의 중독이 아내 때문이라고 책임을 돌렸다. 이 사람은 점점 악화되고 있다. 약물 중독자가 자신은 약을 먹으면서 사람들에게 엉터리 심리학을 강의하고 있었다.
---->우파의 투사였고 유명인이었는데 안타깝다.
https://youtu.be/SPwaixIuTrU (피터슨의 딸이 올린 비디오)
----------------------------------------------------------
‘Saint Wolfgang and the Devil' by Michael Pacher (1471-75)
악마의 엉덩이에도 얼굴이 달렸다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Kay
great piece by a new @Quillette writer, university of Melbourne philosopher Holly Lawford-Smith, about how gender activists are trying to turn philosophy into just another redoubt of sloganeering activists
@Quillette
"Since when did analytic philosophers, normally sticklers for precise language, describe views they don’t like as 'violence'?"
언제부터 정확한 언어를 고집하던 분석철학자들이 그들이 싫어하는 견해를 “폭력”이라는 용어로 기술했나?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Lehmann
It’s hugely irresponsible to instill such anxiety in kids over something they have no control over
@ariarmstrong
Here's what I see: Adults whipping up climate hysteria among children, feeding them platitudes while leaving them utterly ignorant about how to seriously address global warming (e.g., advance nuclear power), and then proclaiming we have to "look to the children" to save us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
캐나다 건강보험의 거짓 약속
캐나다에서 주민이 치료를 받으려면 거의 20주를 기다려야 한다. 그 결과 1993년에서 2009년 사이에 2만5천에서 6만3천 여명의 캐나다 여성이 사망한 것으로 추산된다.
2018년의 건강보험의 비용은 20세기 초기의 비보험 시대에 쓰인 비용의 23배이다.
The False Promise of Canada's Health Care System
Lee Friday
Canada’s socialized health care is a failure, as measured against the service the government promised to provide. Tom Kent, the senior government policy person when the Medical Care Act was passed in 1966, described the government's objectiv : “The aim of public policy was quite clearly and simply ... to make sure that people could get care when it was needed without regard to other considerations.”
However, according to a Fraser Institute survey, the median waiting time for patients in Canada from a referral by a general practitioner to the date of actual treatment, was 19.8 weeks in 2018, compared to 9.3 weeks in 1993. Waiting for treatment has deadly consequences: “Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have noted that patients in Canada die as a result of waiting lists for universally accessible health care.” The Fraser Institute “estimates that between 25,456 and 63,090 … Canadian women may have died as a result of increased wait times between 1993 and 2009.”
When the price of something falls, all else being equal, demand rises. Since socialized health care is funded with debt and taxes, the price at the point of service is zero, and demand explodes. Supply must be rationed because it can never keep pace with demand at a zero price. The government was fully aware of this basic economic principle in 1966. Its promise to provide care “when it was needed” was always a fake promise, a pretense for expanding the power and scope of government at the expense of thousands of dead Canadians.
Canada’s Socialized Health Care – A Simple Definition
Each year, the state forces you to purchase a product which you may not want or need, for a price which it dictates, raises, and confiscates annually. Then, the state often refuses to deliver the product without refunding your purchase price, while forbidding you from purchasing a replacement product elsewhere within its jurisdiction.
A False Premise
Kent described the impetus to universal health care : "... many poorer people just did not get care when it was needed."
In an imperfect world, it is probably true that some people did not receive care when it was needed. However, the increasingly poor performance of socialized health care gives us reason to doubt whether more people lacked access to care under a private system, than under the current system. Former U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, a medical doctor by trade, wrote:
“Before those programs [Medicare, Medicaid] came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility toward the less fortunate, and free medical care for the poor was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by-the-script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.”
“… thousands of privately funded charities provided health services for the poor. I worked in an emergency room where nobody was turned away for lack of funds.”
The Canadian experience mirrors the U.S. experience described by Paul.
Health Care Costs
In the early 20th century, medical care was private, and many Canadians contracted with doctors to provide annual medical care at a cost of one day’s wages.
In 2018, Canada’s socialized health care cost approximately $4,389 per capita.
Let’s consider a household of two working parents with two children, and conservatively (high estimate) assume this household had a median income of $100,000 in 2018. Annual income (260 working days) converts to $385 daily income or $193 per worker. Therefore, the cost of socialized health care for each parent is about 23 working days ($4,389 / $193), or about 1 calendar month. And between them, they must work another 46 days to pay for their children’s health care.
The cost of socialized health care in 2018 was twenty-three times the cost of private health care in the early 20th century, measured by how long a person must work to pay for health care. (Again, I am being conservative by not including private costs in 2018 for dentists, alternative practitioners e.g. naturopaths, prescription drugs, private health insurance for non-hospital/physician services, etc., all of which would raise the per capita cost by roughly 50% )
Moreover, between 1997 and 2019 , “the cost of public health care insurance for the average Canadian family increased 3.2 times as fast as the cost of food, 2.1 times as fast as the cost of clothing, 1.8 times as fast as the cost of shelter, and 1.7 times faster than average income.” Notably, government intervention in these four categories is much less severe than it is with health care.
A common objection to this analysis goes something like this: “The high price of health care is not caused by the government’s monopoly. Rather, it reflects the rising cost of modern medical technology.” This argument is unconvincing. There are many complex products — e.g. computers — where competition and technological innovation produce lower prices. Indeed, this is typical of unhampered markets.
Restricted Supply
Competition in the medical-care-market has been restricted — thereby raising prices — by politicians, bureaucrats, and the elitist medical establishment for so long that we have forgotten the lessons of our ancestors, who were not fooled by attempts to impose licensing criteria. As Ronald Hamowy wrote in Canadian Medicine, A Study In Restricted Entry (p 125):
“Despite the actions of the College to suppress unregistered physicians, the public continued to firmly oppose prosecution of these practitioners throughout the nineteenth century. Nor did they believe the College and the medical journals when they insisted that their campaign against “quacks” was designed to separate … educated from unqualified physicians.”
“… many, especially poorer, Canadians persisted in consulting unlicensed physicians, whose fees were lower and who appeared no less competent in prescribing medications than did their registered brethren. The profession’s attempt to suppress these doctors was not motivated out of a selfless interest in improving the quality of medical care offered the public, but out of a desire to lessen competition, which would in turn increase their incomes.”
Curiously, there were some principled politicians amongst our ancestors. In 1851, the medical establishment drafted a bill that would grant them the power of regulating, through licensing, the number of persons who would be legally permitted to practice medicine. Parliament rejected the bill, with one politician proposing a substitute bill, the opening paragraph of which read, in part (Hamowy, p 322):
“… experience has shewn that penal enactments have not deterred unqualified persons from practising Physic, Surgery, and Midwifery, but, on the contrary, such enactments have often had the effect of preventing benevolent persons, well qualified, from lending their aid to relieve physical suffering, and it is therefore expedient and proper to repeal such penal clauses as may exist in any Acts now in force in Upper Canada …”
The medical establishment eventually got what it wanted when principled politicians were relegated to minority status, where they remain today.
Voters, however, seem to believe the government’s performance is superior to that of market entrepreneurs. As long as they continue to ignore the wisdom of their ancestors, Canadian voters are ultimately responsible for the government’s fake promise and deadly stranglehold on health care.
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