문재인 대통령이 조국을 임명하는 순간
첫째, "문재인의 양심과 사상과 살아온 행태가 조국과 같다"는 자기고백이 될 것입니다.
둘째, 문재인이 붉은 기생충 무리를 감싸고 도는 우두머리임을 선포하는 것입니다.
셋째, 자유대한민국의 대학생, 언론, 검찰, 국민의 공적임을 스스로 선포하는 짓입니다.
태풍은 지나갔지만, 청와대에는 태풍 직전의 고요가 흐릅니다.
-----------------------------------------
윤석렬이 조국과 사생결단 싸울 수밖에 없는 이유
가짜뉴스 잡는 TV
----------------------------------------------------------
황교안
"조국 임명 강행시 文정권 종말 시작"
-----------------------------------------------------------
#China's communists have no clue how to defeat a guerrilla insurgency in #HongKong, which is ironic because Mao came to power with guerrilla tactics.
모택동은 게릴라 전술로 중국을 차지했지만, 현재 중국 당국은 홍콩의 게릴라 전술에 대응하지 못하고 있다.
Nicholas Kristof
One problem with dictators is that they believe their own propaganda and consequently make poor decisions. That was Mao's problem in the 1960's famine, and it's Xi Jinping's problem today as he mishandles Hong Kong. Terrific piece on doubts about him on HK
독재자들의 문제는, 그들 자신의 선전을 믿고 잘못된 판단을 내린다는 것이다.
--------------------------------------------------
Bert Hofman（郝福满）
70 years of China's economic development and policies. From my presentation next week. Comments welcome!
도표로 정리한 중국의 70년 경제 개발과 정책
--------------------------------------------------------
5G 경쟁에서 중국이 앞서 나가고 있다.
The Chinese government has flexed its authoritarian,
top-down power to clear red tape for 5G, a super-
fast wireless technology that could transform the
global economy
In the Race to Dominate 5G, China Sprints Ahead
The super-fast wireless technology is expected to revolutionize everything from driving to surgery 월스트리트저널
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
중국의 일대일로 비판자들은 그것을 따사비(엄청난 돈의 소비)라고 부른다.
출처 이코노미스트
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sui-Lee Wee 黄瑞黎
Bold move by Fitch, which downgraded HK's credit rating because of "its continued integration into China’s national governance system, which will present greater institutional and regulatory challenges over time."
신용평가기관 피치가 홍콩의 신용도를 낮추었다. 이유는 시간
이 흐르면 중국에 흡수되고 규제가 심해져서 활력을 잃을 거라
는 유려 때문이다.
---------------------------------------------------------
소득주도 성장 과 반일주도성장
이새끼는 소득주도성장 선동하다 경제 개판만들어놓고 중국으로 튀었는데, 내 눈에 이건 성장을 위해 마련한 정책이 아니라 지지층을 만들기 위한 정책이다. 구실은 성장이었지만 실제목적은 지지층 확보였던 것임.
탄핵어부지리로 얻은 정권이다보니 지지층이 취약했다. 그래서 지지층을 형성하기 위해 최저임금 1만원과 복지확대로 대국민매수작전 들어간 것임. 이러면 집권기간 내내 이 시급1만원 수혜층과 복지수혜층의 표를 받을 거라 계산한 것임. 그런데 의외로 이 정책의 부작용이 심해서 일단 멈췄는데, 그래도 임금이 30%나 올랐다.
정책이 효과가 안나타나면 즉각 수정해야 될거 아니냐? 그런데 안했지, 왜 안했겠냐? 바로 이 지지층 확보가 정책의 목적이었기 때문임. 지금 상당히 줄긴 했지만 아직도 버티고 있는 문재인 지지율, 민주당 지지율 40~50% 구성층이 바로 시급 1만원과 복지수혜자들임. 이 건 한 번 만들어 놓으면 되돌릴 수가 없다. 이 덕분에 중소상공업자, 자영업자들 망하고, 정부는 엄청난 재정적자에 국가부채, 가계부채, 공기업적자 및 부채로 나라가 비틀거리고 있다.
뜬금없이 나타난 반일선동..
이게 왜 나왔겠냐? 무역으로 먹고 사는 나라가 뜬금없이 반일불매운동, 지금 보호무역으로 가장 큰 타격을 받고 있는 나라가 한국인데, 거기에 또 일본제품불매운동? 좀 이상하지 않냐? 무슨 구한말로 돌아간 듯한, 시대착오적인, 비웃음이 나오는 이 불매운동. 뭐 좀 이상하지 않냐?
난 이 반일선동과 반일불매운동이 징용공 배상문제가 원인이라고 생각하지 않는다. 징용공 배상액이 몇푼이나 한다고? 그런 문제가 외교관계까지 파탄낼 정도냐? 이 새끼들이 노리는 몇가지 목적이 있다. 이 걸 위해 징용공문제를 이용하는 것임. 소득주도성장과 마찬가지로 표면적 구실과 실제목적이 다름.
첫째로 일본제품불매운동으로 국산품이용 증대시켜 내수시장 부양목적.
둘째로 지지층결집시켜 내년 4월 총선대비.
세째로 친일파 선동으로 한국당 고립시키기.
넷째로 지소미아 파기시켜 중국, 북한 비위맞추기.
좆같은 문어대가리 탄핵미사일 쳐맞았으면,,, / 일베
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s pure laziness to think procrastination is caused by laziness.
“Procrastination is the soul rebelling against entrapment.” -@nntaleb
영혼의 반항이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex M H Smith
“The only true and effective ‘operator’s manual for spaceship earth’ is not a book that any human will ever write; it is hundreds of thousands of local cultures”
- Wendell Berry
는 책이 아니라, 수천, 수 만의 지역 문화들이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Norman
The only democrat I would have considered voting for has been politically disappeared @TulsiGabbard
내가 투표를 고려했던 유일한 민주당원은 정치적으로 사라졌
다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohsen
Somehow no sentence ever in books about complexity or systems thinking appealed to me as much as this one since I read it a few weeks ago.
"Push a complex system too far and it will not come
back."
복잡계를 너무 세게 압박하면, 그것은 다시 원형으로 복구되지
않는다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
restot
"Waiting", by Ignat Ignatov
무엇을 기다리는지 모르지만, 관능적이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Schatz ☦︎
“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.ʼ” —St. Anthony the Great
"너는 미치지 않았어. 너는 우리와 달라"
한국의 현재 상황을 예언한 글 같기도 하다. 한국 사회가
"좌파" 되기를 강요하고 있다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 Strange
This duck’s beak looks like a duck
부리가 오리를 닮은 오리
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no God, murder isn't wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Clark: Brexit. Is democracy at risk?
By Jonathan Clark
Jonathan Clark was a Fellow of Peterhouse; at Oxford, he was a Fellow of All Souls College; latterly he has been Visiting Professor at the Committee on Social Thought at Chicago, and Hall Distinguished Professor of British History at the University of Kansas. His latest book is a study of Thomas Paine.
Observers agree that this is the most impassioned episode in British politics for over a century. But it has been so under David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson alike. The last alone is not to blame. Why, then, is it so bitter? We ought to be able to debate whether GDP will be slightly higher or slightly lower in 15 years if we leave or if we remain in the EU without expulsions, mutual denunciations, threats, and lawfare. Other things are at stake, far beyond economists’ guesswork. At least two are at issue, for the Brexit crisis is at its heart a proxy war.
The first is democracy itself, for two conceptions of it are widely held in the UK, representative and direct. In 2019 they collide. What are they?
Representative democracy assumes that Parliament once seized sovereignty from the King, and the Commons then seized it from the Lords; or, alternatively, that if the People once had sovereignty, they surrendered it completely and for all time to members of the Commons, who, collectively, now have absolute authority. Being wise and restrained patricians, MPs rule in the national interest. This theory looks more unpersuasive the more one explores it.
Direct democracy assumes that sovereignty resides with autonomous individuals thanks to God’s gift or to Nature – thoughtful individuals who know all they need to know in order to govern, and who exercise their authority just as they please via universal suffrage. Again, this theory is not wholly plausible. Which of the two predominates is likely to depend on practice more than on theoretical argument.................
------------------------------------------------------
경제적 권력이라는 거짓말
사적인 강제력은 좀 모호하지만 “경제적 권력”이라는 말로 대체할 수 있다. 그리고 경제적 권력이 휘둘러지는 사례는 대기업 같은 곳에서 노동자가 해고되는 경우이다.
하지만 자세히 분석해보면 경제적 권력이란 단지 사용자가 노동자와 임금과 노동을 교환하지 않을 권리일 뿐이고, 그건 자유시장 경제에서 늘 일어나는 일이기도 하다.
The Myth of "Economic Power"
Murray N. Rothbard
A very common criticism of the libertarian position runs as follows: Of course we do not like violence, and libertarians perform a useful service in stressing its dangers. But you are very simpliste because you ignore the other significant forms of coercion exercised in society—private coercive power, apart from the violence wielded by the State or the criminal. The government should stand ready to employ its coercion to check or offset this private coercion.
In the first place, this seeming difficulty for libertarian doctrine may quickly be removed by limiting the concept of coercion to the use of violence. This narrowing would have the further merit of strictly confining the legalized violence of the police and the judiciary to the sphere of its competence: combatting violence. But we can go even further, for we can show the inherent contradictions in the broader concept of coercion.
A well-known type of “private coercion” is the vague but ominous-sounding “economic power.” A favorite illustration of the wielding of such “power” is the case of a worker fired from his job, especially by a large corporation. Is this not “as bad as” violent coercion against the property of the worker? Is this not another, subtler form of robbery of the worker, since he is being deprived of money that he would have received if the employer had not wielded his “economic power”?
Let us look at this situation closely. What exactly has the employer done? He has refused to continue to make a certain exchange, which the worker preferred to continue making. Specifically, A, the employer, refuses to sell a certain sum of money in exchange for the purchase of B's labor services. B would like to make a certain exchange; A would not. The same principle may apply to all the exchanges throughout the length and breadth of the economy. A worker exchanges labor for money with an employer; a retailer exchanges eggs for money with a customer; a patient exchanges money with a doctor for his services; and so forth. Under a regime of freedom, where no violence is permitted, every man has the power either to make or not to make exchanges as and with whom he sees fit. Then, when exchanges are made, both parties benefit. We have seen that if an exchange is coerced, at least one party loses. It is doubtful whether even a robber gains in the long run, for a society in which violence and tyranny are practiced on a large scale will so lower productivity and become so much infected with fear and hate that even the robbers may be unhappy when they compare their lot with what it might be if they engaged in production and exchange in the free market.
“Economic power,” then, is simply the right under freedom to refuse to make an exchange. Every man has this power. Every man has the same right to refuse to make a proffered exchange.
Now, it should become evident that the “middle-of-the-road” statist, who concedes the evil of violence but adds that the violence of government is sometimes necessary to counteract the “private coercion of economic power,” is caught in an impossible contradiction. A refuses to make an exchange with B. What are we to say, or what is the government to do, if B brandishes a gun and orders A to make the exchange? This is the crucial question. There are only two positions we may take on the matter: either that B is committing violence and should be stopped at once, or that B is perfectly justified in taking this step because he is simply “counteracting the subtle coercion” of economic power wielded by A. Either the defense agency must rush to the defense of A, or it deliberately refuses to do so, perhaps aiding B (or doing B's work for him). There is no middle ground!
B is committing violence; there is no question about that. In the terms of both doctrines, this violence is either invasive and therefore unjust, or defensive and therefore just. If we adopt the “economic-power” argument, we must choose the latter position; if we reject it, we must adopt the former. If we choose the “economic-power” concept, we must employ violence to combat any refusal of exchange; if we reject it, we employ violence to prevent any violent imposition of exchange. There is no way to escape this either-or choice. The “middle-of-the-road” statist cannot logically say that there are “many forms” of unjustified coercion. He must choose one or the other and take his stand accordingly. Either he must say that there is only one form of illegal coercion—overt physical violence—or he must say that there is only one form of illegal coercion—refusal to exchange.
We have already fully described the sort of society built on libertarian foundations—a society marked by peace, harmony, liberty, maximum utility for all, and progressive improvement in living standards. What would be the consequence of adopting the “economic-power” premise? It would be a society of slavery: for what else is prohibiting the refusal to work? It would also be a society where the overt initiators of violence would be treated with kindness, while their victims would be upbraided as being “really” responsible for their own plight. Such a society would be truly a war of all against all, a world in which conquest and exploitation would rage unchecked.
Let us analyze further the contrast between the power of violence and “economic power,” between, in short, the victim of a bandit and the man who loses his job with the Ford Motor Company. Let us symbolize, in each case, the alleged power-wielder as P and the supposed victim as X. In the case of the bandit or robber, P plunders X. P lives, in short, by battening off X and all the other X's. This is the meaning of power in its original, political sense. But what of “economic power”? Here, by contrast, X, the would-be employee, is asserting a strident claim to P's property! In this case, X is plundering P instead of the other way around. Those who lament the plight of the automobile worker who cannot obtain a job with Ford do not seem to realize that before Ford and without Ford there would be no such job to be obtained at all. No one, therefore, can have any sort of “natural right” to a Ford job, whereas it is meaningful to assert a natural right to liberty, a right which each person may have without depending on the existence of others (such as Ford). In short, the libertarian doctrine, which proclaims a natural right of defense against political power, is coherent and meaningful, but any proclaimed right of defense against “economic power” makes no sense at all. Here, indeed, are enormous differences between the two concepts of “power.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기