부산386
문재인이 소득주도 성장 하겠다고 최저임금을 너무 올려 경제가 망하게 생겼다고 하면 대뜸, ‘그나마 자유한국당은 (저임금, 최저생계비 등) 그런 데는 관심도 없잖아’라고 말한다. 문재인이 집값 잡겠다고 민간택지에 짓는 아파트까지 분양가 상한제 하는 것은 시장원리에 반하는 정책이라고 하면 역시 비슷한 대답이 돌아온다. ‘그나마 자유한국당은 서울 집값 잡을 의지도 관심도 없잖아’
한마디로 문재인 정권이 無能하다는 건 이제 국민들도 어느 정도 인정을 하는데, 그래도 무능한게 無關心한 것보다는 낫다는 심리가 있는 것 같다. 문재인은 무능하지만, 지방 사람들, 집없는 사람들, 저임금 노동자들의 마음도 헤아리는 善意를 가진 사람이고, 보수 야당은 그런 데는 관심도 없는 서울공화국 대변당, 부자 대변당, 서울 땅부자 대변당이란 인식이 언제부터인가 국민 저변에 깊이 깔려있는 것 같다(문재인 정권 핵심 인사들도 다수 강남에 아파트를 몇채씩 가진 서울 집부자들임에도 불구하고).
평범한 국민인 내가 보기에도 보수가 反共이나 自由만 외치고 있기에는 현재 우리 사회의 正義와 公正이 너무 심하게 훼손된 것은 사실인 것 같다. 지난 50년간 서울 땅값이 지방보다 119배 올랐다고 하는데 서울 사람들이 지방 사람들보다 119배 더 노력한 건 아니지 않는가.
公正과 分配 正義라는 이슈에 대해서도 자유한국당은 적극적으로 국민에게 다가가야 한다. 反共과 自由만 외쳐서는 국민이 계속 외면한다. (조갑제닷컴, 발췌)
----> 이게 대부분의 사람들의 수준이다. 공정과 분배 정의는 좌파적 개념인데, 그것이 너무나 당연하다는 듯이 말하고 있다. 우파들은 지금까지 무엇이 자유주의적인 경제 이념인지 그들 자신도 잘 알지 못했고, 그것을 시민들에게 계몽하지도 않았다. 그 결과가 오늘의 보편적인 좌경화 현상이다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[앵커인터뷰] 인헌고 학생수호연합 최인호 대변인 - ‘파시즘’ 주입교육을 거부합니다(191021)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Law & Policy
"If you want to eradicate a people, you must destroy its women" - the Chinese government's attacks on Uyghur women as a way to destroy the culture.
한 민족을 뿌리뽑고 싶으면 여자들을 파괴하라.
중국 정부가 위구르 여성들을 공격하는 건, 그들의 문화를 파괴하기 위한 것이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This infrastructure-spending move smacks of desperation and supports arguments that #China's economy is in fact contracting. If it were really growing at the claimed 6.0%, why the panic?
이번 기간시설 지출은 중국의 경제가 수축하고 있다는 주장을
반증하고 있다. 경제가 정말 6% 성장하고 있다면, 이렇게 겁을
낼 필요는 없다.
China doubles value of infrastructure project
approvals to stave off economic slowdown amid
trade war
China doubles value of infrastructure project approvals to stave off economic slowdown amid trade war
*Sharp increase in infrastructure project approvals implies greater infrastructure spending in coming years, helping to stabilise China’s economy
*Actual infrastructure investment accelerated to 4.5 per cent in the first nine months of 2019, up from 4.2 per cent in the first eight months
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard McGregor
Forget the economy - the real risks the Xi administration needs to worry about are the 'blindside' ones that catch it by surprise.
시진핑 정부가 정말 걱정해야 하는 건 경제가 아니라, 숨어 있
는 위험 요소들이다.
China’s Xi Jinping has more to worry about than slowing economic growth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Wong 黃之鋒
4/ Mob assaults, disqualification of lawmakers, arbitrary arrests, unchecked police violence, undercover police, and deployment of paramilitary forces have become ubiquitous. People from all walks of life make every effort to raise global awareness on the situation in HK.
정부의 폭력과 불법이 일상이 되어 버린 홍콩,
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Batson
what if Chinese growth is not a puzzle after all? Martin Raiser argues that China's experience is consistent with four different theories of economic growth (all of which would also now point to a growth slowdown)
중국의 경제 성장은 4가지 경제 성장 이론에 부합한다.
중국 경제가 아시아 4마리 용과 유사하게 성장했다는 주장.
Despite these institutional specifics, China’s growth trajectory is quite similar to the East Asian “Tiger” economies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
두려움없이 몽땅 밝혀낸 문재인의 정체는? - 조우석 칼럼 - [뉴스타운TV]
일본 이상철 교수의 신간 평론
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
문재인이 망친 경제 5000만 국민이 알거지된다
문재인 "경제가 올 바른 방향으로 가고 있다"며 무능한 것도 모자라 독선에까지 빠져
이호승 경제수석은 “한국경제는 선방” “경제 하강 원인은 반도체 경기와 세계 경기 둔화 때문” “전문가들이 경제위기 얘기는 무책임”고 남의 탓으로 돌려
9월 취업자 35만 명 중 60대 이상 일용직 노인일자리 38만 명을 제와하면 -3만명
혈세로 노인들 일용직 일자리 늘려놓고 사상 최고의 취업율이라며 국민을 속이여
2년 새 초단기 근로자만 52만명 늘고, 주 36시간 이상의 풀타임 일자리 118만개 줄어
소비자물가는 2개월 연속 마이너스 기록하며 사상 초유의 디플레이션 공포
미국 헤리티지재단이 “문재인 진보정책이 한국경제에 위협이 되고, 한국 젊은이들의 고통을 키우고 있다”는 논평
망해가는 경제가 잘 돌아간다는 문재인
국내외 41개 기관의 한국 경제성장률 전망치 평균이 1.9%로 나타났다. 문재인이 약속했던 올 성장률은 2.6∼2.7%가 날개 없이 추락하고 있다. 설비투자는 1% 증가 목표에서 11.7% 감소, 수출 증가율은 3.1% 증가에서 9.8% 감소로 9월에는 -15로 뚝 덜어졌다. 이 정도면 국민 앞에 백배사죄부터 해야 한다. 민간기업 같으면 경영진이 총사퇴해야 할 실적이다.
그런데 문재인 진단과 대응은 정반대다. 이호승 청와대 경제수석은 “한국경제는 선방하고 있다”고 “경제 하강 원인은 반도체 경기와 세계 경기 둔화 때문”이라며 “일부 전문가들이 경제위기를 너무 쉽게 얘기하는 건 무책임하다”고도 했다. 경제가 죽어 가는데 몇 가지 좋은 지표를 들어 진실을 외면하자는 궤변이다. 곳곳에서 경제의 기초가 무너지고 있는 현실을 외면한 채 ‘남 탓’을 하고 있다. 최저임금의 과격한 인상, 주 52시간 근무제의 무차별 도입 등 소득주도성장에 더해 탈원전 등 국익 자해정책이 경제를 망치고 있다.
세금을 창출하는 양질의 일자리는 사라지고, 혈세로 노인들 일용직 일자리 늘려놓고 사상 최고의 취업율이라며 국민을 속이고 있다. 문재인은 천문학적 재정 투입을 하고 있음에도 민간소비 위축 속에 소비자물가는 2개월 연속 마이너스를 기록하며 사상 초유의 디플레이션 공포까지 확산 중이다.
오죽하면 미국 헤리티지재단이 “문재인 진보정책이 한국경제에 위협이 되고, 한국 젊은이들의 고통을 키우고 있다”는 논평까지 냈다. 경제선방이라는 환상과 궤변을 버리지 않으면, 한국경제는 더 깊은 수렁에 빠져들 뿐이다.
통계청의 통계 조작
통계청의 ‘9월 고용동향’에 따르면 9월 취업자는 35만 명이라고 했지만 60대 이상 일용직 노인일자리 38만 명을 제와하면 -3만명이된다 특히 30대 1만3000명 40대 17만9000명이 줄어들고 만 60세 이상 취업자는 38만 명 늘었다. 국민혈세로 급조해 낸 65대 이상 초단기 일자리 23만1000명이 늘어났는데 이들 주당 근로시간은 대부분 17시간 미만이다. 문재인이 늘릴 수 있는 일자리는 ‘60대 단기 공공 알바’뿐이란 사실이 더욱 분명해졌다.
제조업 취업자는 11만1000명 줄어 역대 최장인 18개월 연속 감소세를 보였고 금융업 취업자도 4만3000명 줄어 9개월 연속 감소를 기록했다. 제조업, 금융업 등에서 일자리를 만들어내지 않으면 고용 위기를 해결하기 어렵다. 문재인은 현실과 동떨어진 노동·환경·입지 규제 반기업 친노동정책으로 제조업체가 모두 외국으로 나가고 들어오는 외국인 직접투자는 거의 찾아볼 수 없다.
민간 투자를 적극적으로 허용하면 가장 많은 일자리 창출이 예상되는 병원 등 의료산업 분야도 규제로 묶여 투자를 막고 있다. 문재인은 세금으로 노인 일자리 만들어 국민을 속이고 있지만 오래갈 수는 없다.
자해 형 불황을 자초하는 문재인
9월 소비자물가 상승률이 전년 동기 대비 0.4% 하락해 8월(-0.04%)에 이어 두 달 연속 마이너스를 기록했다. 물가 통계를 낸 이후 54년 만에 처음 있는 일이다. 경기 침체 속의 지속적 물가 하락을 뜻하는 디플레이션(D)이 시작되고 있다.
정책 오류로 '잃어버린 20년'의 장기 불황을 자초한 일본의 실패를 그대로 따라가고 있다. 지금 한국 경제는 생산·투자가 부진하고 수출은 10개월 연속 마이너스를 기록 중이다. 제조업 생산능력이 13개월 연속 하락세이고 서민 경제는 얼어붙고 있다. 일자리 예산을 수십조원 썼지만 지난 2년 새 초단기 근로자만 52만명 늘려놓고, 주 36시간 이상의 풀타임 일자리는 118만개가 사라졌다.
그런데도 문재인은 경제의 활력을 되살리는 기업 친화적 정책이아니라 친노정책을 펴고 있다. 문재인은 시장 활력과 산업 경쟁력을 떨어트리고 기업을 해외로 내모는 자해성정책을 쏟아내고 있다.최저임금의 급격한 인상을 비롯한 고비용 정책, 세계에서 가장 과격한 주 52시간 근무제, 전 세계 추세와 거꾸로 가는 법인세 증세 등 역주행만 하고 있다.
싸고 질 좋은 전기를 제공하던 원전을 적폐로 몰아 국가경쟁력의 원천을 무너뜨리고, 혁신외치며 혁신을 막는 규제로 기업 숨통을 조이고, 폭력노조 민노총은 100만 노조시대를 구가하며 기업인을 폭력으로 숨통을 조이고 있다. 선심성 복지에 국민 세금을 수백 조를 쏟아 부어 재정은 파탄나고 일자리예산 수백 조를 쏟아 붓고 제대로 된 일자리는 하나도 만들어내지 못했다.그래도 문재인은 "경제가 올 바른 방향으로 가고 있다"고 주장한다.
무능한 것도 모자라 독선에까지 빠져 있다. 디플레이션의 소용돌이로 빨려들면서 '자해형 불황'이이어지면 망국경제로 피해자는 5000만 국민이다. 경제살리기 의해 문재인 퇴출이 시급하다. 2019.10.21
필자 이계성
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1970, S. Dillon Ripley of the Smithsonian Institution predicted that in 25 years between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals would be extinct. Thankfully, Ripley's guess was far from accurate.
1970년 스미소니언 연구소의 리플리는 25년 안에 모든 생존하
는 동물들의 75 ~ 80%가 멸종할 거라고 예측했다. 다행히도
그의 예측은 빗나갔다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Ridley
An interesting statistic: that China now burns more coal than all other countries put together: 1907m tonnes vs 1864m tonnes.
중국이 전세계의 기타 나라들보다 더 많은 석탄을 소비한다.
---> 그 (미세)먼지가 한국으로 날아온다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
If you borrow a million from the banks, they own you. Borrow a billion and you own them.
은행에서 백만 달러를 빌리면 당신은 은행의 소유가 된다. 하지만 10억 달러를 빌리면 당신이 은행을 소유하게 된다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimism does not mean being blind to the actual reality of a situation. It means maintaining a positive spirit to continue to seek a solution to any given problem. And it means recognizing that any given situation has many different aspects—positive as well as problematic.
낙관주의는 실제 상황을 무시한다는 뜻이 아니다. 그것은 어떤
문제이건 해결책을 찾으려는 긍정적인 정신을 계속 유지하는
것이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
수익의 추구는 왜 우리 모두에게 이로운가?
수익은 저축의 가장 효율적인 이용과 관련이 있다. 수익은 실질 저축이, 사람들의 삶과 복지를 개선하는데 있어, 최선의 방법으로 사용되었는지 알려주는 척도이다.
자본의 소유자는 위험을 감수해서 수익을 얻는 게 아니다. 그는 소비자의 가장 시급한 요구를 만족시키는 방식으로 그의 자본을 투자한다.
Why the Pursuit of Profit Makes Us All Better Off
Frank Shostak
In most cultures, profit is seen as the outcome of exploitation of some individuals by some other individuals. Hence, anyone who is seen as striving to make profits is regarded as bad news and the enemy of society and must be stopped in time from inflicting damage.
Profit however, has nothing to do with exploitation — it is about the most efficient use of real savings. Profit should be seen as an indicator of whether or not real savings are employed in the best possible way, as far as promoting people’s life and wellbeing is concerned.
If the employment of real savings results in the expansion of the pool of real savings, this could be seen as indicative that this employment was done in a profitable manner.
Conversely, if there is a decline in the pool of real savings as a result of the particular actions of individuals, then this could be seen as indicative of a loss. The actions that led to the loss thus caused the squandering of real savings.
Obviously, an expansion in the pool of real savings, which is the heart of economic growth and is manifested through profits, should be regarded as the key factor for raising individuals’ living standards.
Rather than being condemned, individuals that are instrumental in the expansion of the pool of real savings — which is manifested in terms of profits — should be praised.
For it is these individuals that are instrumental in raising the living standards of the population as a whole.
If anyone is responsible for the lowering of living standards, it is those individuals that squandered scarce real savings, thus weakening the process of real savings formation.
Profit or loss can be ascertained only in a market economy where prices of goods and various factors of production can be established, and profit emerges once an entrepreneur discovers that the prices of certain factors are low relative to the potential value of the products that these factors, once employed, could produce.
By recognizing the discrepancy and acting upon it, an entrepreneur removes the discrepancy. That is, he, eliminates the potential for further profit.
According to Murray Rothbard, every entrepreneur invests in a process because he expects to make a profit — because he believes that the market has underpriced and undercapitalized the factors in relation to their future rents. Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (Los Angeles: Nash), vol. 2, p.466.
But for an entrepreneur to make profits, he must engage in planning and anticipate consumer preferences. Consequently, those entrepreneurs who excel in their forecasting of consumers' future preferences will make profits.
By means of accurately forecasting the future requirements of consumers, businesses allocate real savings towards the generation of the infrastructure that permits to accommodate consumers’ future demands.
Planning and research however can never guarantee that profits will be secured. Various unforeseen events can upset entrepreneurial forecasts.
Errors, which lead to losses in the market economy, are an essential part of the navigational tools, which direct the process of allocating resources in an uncertain environment in line with what consumers’ dictate. Uncertainty is part of the human environment, and it forces individuals to adopt active positions.
Some commentators regard profit as a reward for risk taking. In the words of Ludwig von Mises, however,
A popular fallacy considers entrepreneurial profit a reward for risk taking. It looks upon the entrepreneur as a gambler who invests in a lottery after having weighed the favorable chances of winning a prize against the unfavorable chances of losing his stake. This opinion manifests itself most clearly in the description of stock exchange transactions as a sort of gambling.
Mises then suggests,
Every word in this reasoning is false. The owner of capital does not choose between more risky, less risky, and safe investments. He is forced, by the very operation of the market economy, to invest his funds in such a way as to supply the most urgent needs of the consumers to the best possible extent.
Mises then adds,
A capitalist never chooses that investment in which, according to his understanding of the future, the danger of losing his input is smallest. He chooses that investment in which he expects to make the highest possible profits.
Again, for a businessman the ultimate criteria for investing his capital is to employ it in those activities which will produce goods and services that are on the highest priority list of consumers. It is this striving to satisfy the most urgent needs of consumers that produces profits.
Within all other things being equal, profit is the manifestation of the expansion in the pool of real wealth and hence the pool of real savings.
Also, profit and loss are the instruments by means of which consumers pass the direction of production activities into the hands of those who are best fit to serve them. Hence policies that undertaken to curtail or to confiscate profits impair this function.
In an environment of government and central bank interference, the consequent distortion of prices makes it much harder to measure whether businesses are making profits. As a result, it becomes a challenging task separating wealth-generating activities from non-wealth generating activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
자본가들만이 아니라 모든 인간은 사익을 추구한다.
고전경제학자들은 자본주의로 인해 사익이 가장 생산적이고 사회적으로 이로운 방향으로 작용한다고 보았다. 하지만 사회주의자들은 막스의 주장에 따라 사익을 자본주의에 고유한 것이라고 보았다.
All Human Beings — Not Just Capitalists — Are Self-Interested
Chris Calton
In Why Not Socialism?, G. A. Cohen presents the scenario of a camping trip to highlight the desirability of socialism as the best form of social organization. After outlining a trip where the friends work together to provide food and firewood, rather than engaging in the division of labor and exchanging competitively, Cohen poses his challenge to the reader: “isn’t this, the socialist way, with collective property and planned mutual giving, rather obviously the best way to run a camping trip[?]”
The purpose of the camping allegory is to reveal his two guiding principles of egalitarianism and community. In reality, both principles relate to egalitarianism — Cohen defines his “egalitarian principle” as “socialist equality of opportunity,” but his community principle demands a distribution of resources that levels the inequalities Cohen admits will emerge between people who enjoy equal opportunities. He contrasts “community reciprocity” with “market reciprocity,” which “motivates productive contribution not on the basis of commitment to one’s fellow human beings and a desire to serve them while being served by them, but on the basis of a cash reward.”
Implicit in Cohen’s argument is the idea that the perfection of society is possible by crafting social and political institutions designs for human beings as they should be, rather than human beings as they actually exist. Socialism, as a form of economic organization, is not desirable because it would better accommodate human tendencies than market economies; it is desirable because it would impose desired behaviors on humans against their natural tendencies. In sum, Cohen advocates socialism because he believes people should not be self-interested.
Debating Self-Interest in Historical Context
When Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan, he triggered a debate over human nature and the role of government. Hobbes was concerned with the negative implications of self-interest, which created a “war of all against all.” He therefore advocated political absolutism — the complete surrendering of individual autonomy to an all-powerful government — to maintain social order and prevent the natural conflicts between men that self-interest engendered.
When John Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government, he agreed that self-interest was a component of human nature, but the dangers that concerned Hobbes were tempered by man’s natural capacity for reason. Self-interest was but one element of human nature, balanced by the rest.
The debate Hobbes and Locke set in motion was significant, but not because of their ideas of self-interest, which were mere appendages to their larger theories. Rather, the significance is derived from the novelty of debating the legitimacy of government outside the confines of traditional or religious justifications for authority, such as the “divine right of kings.” By looking for a secular justification of government, Hobbes and Locke found it necessary to consider the nature of man. With this consideration, self-interest was taken for granted as inherent in human nature, and disagreement waged over the potential consequences self-interest implied. Importantly, while Thomas Hobbes unequivocally viewed self-interest as socially bad, John Locke’s divergence was not in thinking that self-interest was socially good. More neutrally, he believed that because self-interest is a part of human nature, man has a natural right to act self-interestedly as long as his actions do not infringe on the rights of others.
It would be left to Bernard Mandeville to introduce the idea that self-interest could be socially beneficial. In The Fable of the Bees; or, Private Vices, Public Benefits , Mandeville defends “vice,” which he defines as “everything a man does to gratify any of his appetites without regard to the public.” He contrasts this with “virtue”— “every performance by which a man, contrary to the impulse of nature, tries to benefit others or to conquer his own passions out of a rational wish to be good” (emphasis added). Like Hobbes and Locke, Mandeville accepted that self-interest was natural to man, but he viewed it as socially good; the lesson of his fable was that self-interested actions can still confer social benefits, irrespective of intentions.
It is this view of self-interest that was famously distilled by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Throughout this debate, self-interest was unquestioningly accepted as an inalienable component of man’s nature. Philosophical opinion was merely divided over whether self-interest was socially destructive or productive.
When Smith’s followers combined his economics with moral utilitarianism, there was no longer any need to adopt one value judgment over the other—or, more precisely, there was no need to adopt any specific value judgment at all. Scientific inquiry, in the new field of political economy, only demanded the acceptance of self-interest as a fact. It was a premise necessary to any deductive enterprise aimed at understanding economic behavior.
Because the classical thinkers were specifically concerned with man’s economic activity, though, they adapted the concept of self-interest into an ideal form — the imaginary construction of a one-sided man exclusively concerned with economic accumulation, which they knew was unrealistic, but considered useful for economic theorizing. John Stuart Mill finally offered an explicit expression of this view in his 1836 essay “On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It ”:
Political Economy considers mankind as occupied solely in acquiring and consuming wealth; and aims at showing what is the course of action into which mankind, living in a state of society, would be impelled, if that motive . . . were absolute ruler of all their actions.
Although the Austrian economists — Ludwig von Mises in particular — would criticize ideal forms such as homo economicus as being incompatible with a complete theory of human action, Mill’s construction provided an important step in political economic theory. The utilitarian approach allowed them to avoid the distracting moral discourse that encouraged thinkers to either present self-interest as sweepingly “good” or “bad.” Instead, the new school of economists began thinking about how self-interest directed behavior in specific circumstances.
It was this view of self-interest that gave the most weight to free market theories. The classical economists never advocated capitalism because they believed self-interest was a moral good that capitalism created — this is a caricature of their ideas presented by political opponents. Whether self-interest was a “good” or “bad” part of human nature was unimportant because it is a part of our humanity either way. Instead, the classical economists sought to understand human nature so as to design institutions that facilitated the best social outcomes for human beings as they actually exist.
Socialists Claim Self-Interest Is Unique to Capitalism
This is a foundational difference between pro-market economists and their anti-capitalist opponents. When Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote their Communist Manifesto , they did not view self-interest as an immutable characteristic of human nature. They claimed that the “bourgeoisie . . . has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest,” implying that society deterministically dictates whether humans are self-interested or not.
Socialists have held this view ever since. The classical economists saw capitalism as directing human self-interest in the most productive and socially beneficial direction. The socialists, following Marx’s lead, saw self-interest as unique to capitalism. By abandoning capitalism, they could recreate human beings according to their imaginary ideal — the new socialist man.
One of the reasons that free market economists in the twentieth century anticipated the disasters that socialism would bring is because they understood that self-interest can indeed lead to horrible things under certain circumstances. People respond to incentives and they operate under institutional parameters. It is precisely this realistic view of self-interest that allowed economists — often leading advocates of capitalism — to come up with theories that clearly exposed the way self-interested actors could engage in socially detrimental behavior under particular conditions (usually involving state intervention), such as the theories of public choice, regulatory capture, and rent seeking.
The socialists believed that when capitalism was overthrown, man’s self-interest would be replaced by the more noble community interest that Cohen romanticized in Why Not Socialism? Even after the twentieth century saw 100 million peacetime deaths as a result from these ideals, advocates of socialism continue to advocate institutions designed for imaginary conceptions of human beings—humans as the socialists believe we all should be, rather than as we are.
Advocates of capitalism understand, as the classical economists understood centuries ago, that government and social institutions must be designed for the human beings that actually exist — callous self-interest and all.
---------------------------------------------------------
주진충: 효천을 치료하는 9가지 방법
朱進忠：這九種治療哮喘的方法存在嚴重錯誤
臨床過程中，經常遇見一些慢性支氣管炎合併感染和支氣管哮喘的咳喘，久治無效。綜其大要大致有：
1．表邪為主不先解表，僅與宣肺定喘
例如：患者趙X×，女，成。咳喘三個多月持續不止。某院診為喘息性支氣管炎合併感染，予抗生素，氨茶鹼等治療一個多月無效，轉請中醫治療兩個多月仍無效。又邀余治，遍試定喘湯、小青龍湯等20餘劑仍無功。餘思良久，難於措手，求教於恩師李翰卿先生。云：患者陣陣惡寒，身痛鼻塞，乃表寒之證，表寒者應先解表，而諸醫均以化痰定喘治之，致表邪不解，肺氣閉郁，喘咳不減，又病已將三月余，表氣已虛，非麻黃髮散所能治，因麻黃湯發汗較劇，過汗必損表陽，衛陽虛則易受外邪之復客，而喘咳難愈，故治宜桂枝加厚朴杏子湯調和營衛，宣肺定喘。方用：桂枝10克，白芍10克，炙甘草6克，生薑4片，大棗5枚，厚朴10克，杏仁10克。服藥2劑，喘咳果減，繼服10劑諸證消失而安。
2．氣逆作喘反用升浮之藥
例如：患者耿××，男，成。喘咳不止兩個多月，某院診為慢性支氣管炎合併感染，住院治療一個多月無效，又轉請中醫，先用定喘湯加地龍，繼用小青龍湯，射干麻黃湯等加減仍無功。細審其證，喘咳不能平臥，痰涎壅盛，咽喉不利，頭汗較多，脈滑，寸盛尺弱。思之，正與蘇子降氣湯證合拍，但又考慮麻黃乃喘家聖藥，恐僅用蘇子降氣湯無功，乃處蘇子降氣湯加麻黃治之。服藥2劑未見寸效，求教於恩師李翰卿先生。云：「證屬蘇子降氣湯證無疑，用之固然應該有效，但卻用之無效，關鍵在於麻黃一味。麻黃雖為喘家聖藥，但其性宣散升浮，本病痰濁壅盛，氣逆作喘，非降氣化痰納氣歸腎不能解，若再加入麻黃之升散，必使病勢上沖，而喘咳加劇，因此應去麻黃。」余宗其意，去麻黃，僅服2劑喘咳即減，繼服10劑而暫時緩解。
3．脾胃虛寒，斡旋不能者，反治肺腎
例如：患者李××，女，30歲。支氣管哮喘5年，遇夏必發，冬季反減，近兩年來冬夏俱喘，走路氣短。前醫始予定喘湯、小青龍湯無效。轉請余診，余診其脈弦大，治以黃芪鱉甲散去鱉甲、秦艽、天冬、桔梗、桑皮，加麥冬。7劑藥後喘咳大減，但繼服則無效，並見齒衄、鼻衄、泄瀉。再審其證，亦認為上方正確，予上方20劑，藥後氣短咳喘加劇，衄血同前，按其手足均厥冷，舌質淡暗，脈弦緊。反覆思考，衄雖火證為多，然虛寒者亦有之，且十幾天來胃脘滿痛，食欲不振。乃云：脾胃虛寒為本，痰飲蘊郁為標，因擬附桂理中合二陳湯方4劑，藥後非但衄血全止，亦且喘咳漸平。
4.腎不納氣者，反用麻黃之升宣
例如：患者李××，女，成。喘咳短氣10個多月，某院診為慢性支氣管炎合併感染、肺氣腫。住院治療8個多月無效，出院後求治於中醫，1個多月仍無功。審視其證：喘而短氣，面赤足冷，上半身煩熱，時時汗出，脈寸大尺微。思之，證脈相參，乃腎氣虛衰，虛陽上浮，納氣失職所致，欲以金匱腎氣丸治之。又思之，麻黃乃定喘要藥，地龍為解痙定喘之良藥。乃在金匱腎氣丸方中加入麻黃、地龍。服藥2劑非但無功，反有加重之勢。再思之，金匱腎氣丸滋陰溫陽，納氣歸腎，實屬合拍，而麻黃宣肺升浮，地龍通絡脈疏內風，於病為逆，應去之。處方：熟地24克，山藥12克，補骨脂10克，茯苓10克，澤瀉10克，丹皮10克，附子10克，肉桂10克，五味子10克，車前子10克(布包)，僅服1劑，喘咳、短氣即減，繼服10劑而大安。
5．心腎陽虛，水飲內停，上凌心肺者，反用宣肺化痰以傷正氣
例如：患者李××，女，成。支氣管哮喘反覆發作數十年，一年前因感冒而咳喘加重，某院診為支氣管哮喘合併感染，前後住院治療7個多月不見好轉，後又配合中藥射干麻黃湯、定喘湯、蘇子降氣湯、小青龍湯加減等治療8個多月亦無功。審視其證。除喘咳短氣不能平臥外，並見骨瘦如柴，飲食俱廢，畏寒肢厥，足冷至膝，手冷至肘，口乾不欲飲，舌淡而苔白，脈沉細促無力。反覆思考，證脈合參，診為心腎陽虛，邪水上泛，上凌心肺所致。而前醫所用諸方均以實治，故難奏功。乃擬真武湯原方1劑。其後某醫拿方視之，云：「病重藥輕，又無麻黃之定喘，不可服。」即刻在該方中加入了麻黃1劑服，結果服藥4劑，效果罔然，又邀余診。余云：「正虛之軀，過用克伐之品，已成正虛邪實之重證，麻黃髮散之力雖微，而傷正氣卻有力，應減去麻黃，加人參、杏仁，正氣稍復，痰飲可減。」處方：人參6克，杏仁6克，附子6克，白芍6克，茯苓6克，白朮6克，生薑1片。藥進2劑，咳喘稍減，繼服20劑喘咳停止而出院。
6．中焦氣滯，應予調理脾胃，反用肺藥
例如：患者李××，男，成。喘咳不止，食後加重三個多月，頻用中、西藥物治之不效。審視前醫之方，大都為定喘湯、小青龍湯、射干麻黃湯、生脈散加減。再察其證，雖喘而不能乎臥，但喘聲不劇，腹滿腹脹，脈弦緊。思考良久，乃云：「痰濕中阻，輪軸失轉。經云：五臟六腑皆令人咳，非獨肺也，此喘咳之機與此理相似耳。景岳雖有初喘治肺，久喘治腎之論，但不可一概而論。治宜平胃、二陳加減除痰濕，理脾胃，使輪軸恢復斡旋之機，肺氣自降，腎氣自納。」處方：半夏10克，陳皮10克，蘇葉6克，杏仁10克，厚朴10克，茯苓10克，神曲10克。服藥2劑，咳喘稍減，繼進20劑喘咳漸平。
7．肝鬱者，不去理肝，反予治肺
例如：患者 張××，女，成。哮喘反覆發作數十年，8個月前咳喘又作，在某院住院治療半年無效，出院後，配合中藥宣肺定喘，降氣化痰，納氣歸腎等方百劑仍無效。細審其證，喘而短氣，頻頻咳嗽，頭暈目眩，心煩心悸，胸脅竄痛，經期尤甚，夜間口乾，或口苦，納呆，再詢其病之始，月經期間生氣後加重，舌苔白，邊有瘀斑，脈虛弦滑。餘思良久，診為心肺俱虛，痰飲內聚，肝木失達，木火凌金之候。為擬益氣養陰，疏肝化痰，咳嗽遺尿方加減：柴胡10克，當歸10克，白芍10克，半夏10克，陳皮10克，青皮10克，紫菀10克，麥冬10克，黨參10克，五味子10克，黃芩10克。藥進3劑，喘咳果減，繼進40劑而喘平。
8．陰虛燥痰者，反用溫燥去痰
例如：患者蘇××，女，成。夏季喘咳發作數十年，今年入夏以來咳喘尤劇，頻頻應用中、西藥物三個多月無效。細審前醫所用諸方不外定喘湯、麻杏石甘湯、小青龍湯、射干麻黃湯等加減而成，舌苔薄白，脈弦滑。沉思良久，云：「夏季陽氣在外，肺主皮毛，主上焦，故里寒而肺熱；冬季陽氣人里，故肺寒而里熱，陰虛燥痰，人夏必甚，故夏季喘而冬季瘥，此時若以溫燥傷陰，燥火更甚，痰熱尤增，故治宜養陰潤燥化痰。處方：百合15克，麥冬15克，冬蟲夏草15克，淡菜10克，藥進2劑，咳喘即減，繼進10劑喘咳停止。
9．氣陰兩虛，痰飲阻滯者，不去扶正，但予祛邪
例如：患者徐××，女，78歲。慢性支氣管炎19年，氣胸手術後一年來經常氣短。近兩個月來咳喘氣短更加嚴重。某院診為肺氣腫，慢性支氣管炎合併感染，住院兩個多月，中、西藥物頻頻用之，不但無效，反而日漸加重。納呆神疲，時見神志朦朧，呼之遲遲始應，心悸怔忡，自汗盜汗，舌質紫暗，光剝無苔，脈虛大而數。審視再三，診為氣陰俱虛，痰鬱氣結，寒熱相夾之重證。為擬益氣養陰，化痰理氣。黃芪鱉甲散加減：黃芪15克，人參10克，地骨皮10克，紫菀10克，茯苓10克，柴胡10克，半夏10克，知母10克，生地10克，白芍10克，麥冬10克，肉桂10克，甘草6克。服藥1劑，喘咳即減，精神好轉，繼服10劑喘咳大減。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기