문재인 정권의 지소미아 파기를 국민혁명으로 저지하자
       대한민국수호예비역장성단 (2019.11.21.  ☎ 02-541-3700)

문재인 정권은 다수 국민이 반대하고 미국이 만류하는 한일 군사정보보호협정(지소미아)을 기어이 파기함으로써 북한과 중국이 원하는 대로 대한민국을 공산국가로 편입하려는 수순을 밟고 있다. 문재인 정권을 이대로 더 방치한다면 자유 대한민국은 지구상에서 사라지고, 국민의 반은 숙청의 대상과 보트 피플로, 나머지 반은 개･돼지의 삶을 살아야 할 것이다.

문재인 정권은 그동안 대한민국의 안보를 꾸준히 파괴하여 왔으며, 지소미아 파기는 그들의 음흉한 속셈을 만천하에 드러내는 비상시국의 출발이다. 군사주권의 포기인 중국에 대한 3不 약속, 사드기지 운용 반대와 비협조, 한미연합훈련 축소와 중단 및 항복 수준의 9.19 남북군사분야합의서 체결에 이은 지소미아 파기는 친중･종북 세력들이 그들의 공산화 음모를 실천에 옮기는 반국가적 행위이다.

문재인 정권은 지소미아 의미를 한･일간 군사정보를 교류하는 수준으로 격하시키면서 파기를 정당화하고 있다. 이는 그들이 우리 국민을 눈가리개 씌우고 포승줄로 꽁꽁 묶어서 북한으로 던져 버리는 것과 조금도 다를 바가 없다. 벌써 주한미군 1개 여단 철수가 거론되고 있고, 뒤이어 방위비 분담금 협상 결렬, 주한미군 철수, 국가 신용등급의 급속한 하락 등 그렇지 않아도 하향곡선을 그리고 있는 한국 경제는 이제 끝 모를 낭떠러지로 굴러 떨어질 것이다. (발췌)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

김문수

 황교안 대표가 1. GSOMIA 유지 2. 공수처법 반대 3. 연동형비례대표제 선거법 개정 반대를
  내걸고 청와대 앞에서 무기한 단식농성을 시작했습니다. 강기정 청와대 정무수석이 농성현장으로 달려와서 수습을 시도하기도 했습니다.
  추운 날씨에 단식농성을 시작했는데, 빨리 좋은 성과를 거두려면, 청와대 앞에서 전광훈 목사와 손잡고 싸우는 게 더 좋을 텐데, 국회의원들에게 이끌려 국회 앞으로 물러났습니다.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

윤다니엘    2019-11-21 오전 12:35

황대표가 청와대 앞 단식투쟁장에 나타나 전광훈목사님과 김문수전지사의 환영을 받았는데, 조금 후에 보니까 한국당 당직자들에게 거의 반강제로 끌려서 나가는 모습이 지금도 도무지 이해가 가지 않는다. 어제는 대통령 단독면담신청, 거절당하니까, 오늘 느닷없이 목숨건 단식투쟁한다고 청와대 앞에 나타나 '앞으로 이곳에서 여러분과 같이 투쟁하겠다고'선언해놓고, 느닷없이 사라졌다가, 국회앞 텐트 안에 앉아있네?! 청와대가 불허함으로 국회 앞으로 옮겼다고 한다. 준법정신이 그렇게도 투철하다면, 청와대 앞에는 나오지 말든지, 도무지 이분의 처신이 왜 이렇게 오락가락하는지 알 수가 없고 허탈하고 불쾌하기조차하다. 이제보니 처음부터 이분은 오락가락 뒤통수나 치면서, 정치감각이 제로인 무능한 사람이었나 보다. 대표를 끌고가는 당직자들 보니, 한국당 참 걱정된다. 차라리 창당하는 것이 스트레스 적게 받겠다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nassim Nicholas Taleb‏인증된 계정 

MODERNISM Before the formation of the Greek Nation-State & Nordic historical manufacturing, Greek "identity" was not built ar. Classical Greece,but Greek Orthodoxy Greek Restaurants, now called "Olympic", Acropolis, wd have been "Agios Nikolaos", "Ag. Dimitrios", "Aya Pelagia"

그리스 민족 국가가 형성되기 전에, 그리스의 "정체성"은 고전적 그리스가 아니라, 그리스 정교회를 중심으로 만들어졌다.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nassim Nicholas Taleb‏인증된 계정 

Nassim Nicholas Taleb 님이 리트윗했습니다 pratspective

Napoleon wanted power & glory. He liked flashy victories. Cambaceres who *wrote* the Napoleonic code liked influence. Napoleon lost everything but most of the world uses the Cambareces code dubbed "code Napoléon". The world is run according to C. Gabish?

나폴레옹은 권력과 영광을 원했고, 일시적인 승리에 도취했다.

나폴레옹 법전을 쓴 캉바세레스는 영향력을 원했다. 나폴레옹

은 모든 것을 잃었지만, 세상 사람들은 캉바세레스가 쓴 나폴

레옹 법전을 사용하고 있다.

---------------------------------------------------------

당파적인 의견은, 다른 당파적 의견과 비교할 필요도 없이, 그 자체로 무가치하다.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rachel Thomas‏

자신들이 객관적이라는 환상을 갖고 있기 때문에, 과학자들

은 가장 위험한 사람들이다.

--->과학자들은 자신들이 이익과 선입관과 편견으로부터 완전히 자유로울 수 있을까? 예수나 석가모니 정도의 성인이 아니라면, 그렇지 않을 것이다. 그렇다면 그들만이 객관적인 진실을 독점한다고 헛소리하지 말아야 한다.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

역사의 종말은 없고, 완전한 존재도 없다.

이상 사회에서는 역사가 있을 수 없다. 

역사란 변화의 기록이기 때문이다.

살아 있는 인간은 절대 완벽과 균형의 상태에 이르지 않는다.

 

There Is No End to History, No Perfect Existence

 

Ludwig von Mises

 

All doctrines that have sought to discover in the course of human history some definite trend in the sequence of changes have disagreed, in reference to the past, with the historically established facts and where they tried to predict the future have been spectacularly proved wrong by later events.

 

Most of these doctrines were characterized by reference to a state of perfection in human affairs. They placed this perfect state either at the beginning of history or at its end or at both its beginning and its end. Consequently, history appeared in their interpretation as a progressive deterioration or a progressive improvement or as a period of progressive deterioration to be followed by one of progressive improvement. With some of these doctrines the idea of a perfect state was rooted in religious beliefs and dogmas. However, it is not the task of secular science to enter into an analysis of these theological aspects of the matter.

 

It is obvious that in a perfect state of human affairs there cannot be any history. History is the record of changes. But the very concept of perfection implies the absence of any change, as a perfect state can only be transformed into a less perfect state — i.e., can only be impaired by any alteration. If one places the state of perfection only at the supposed beginning of history, one asserts that the age of history was preceded by an age in which there was no history and that one day some events which disturbed the perfection of this original age inaugurated the age of history. If one assumes that history tends toward the realization of a perfect state, one asserts that history will one day come to an end.

 

It is man's nature to strive ceaselessly after the substitution of more satisfactory conditions for less satisfactory. This motive stimulates his mental energies and prompts him to act. Life in a perfect frame would reduce man to a purely vegetative existence.

 

History did not begin with a golden age. The conditions under which primitive man lived appear in the eyes of later ages rather unsatisfactory. He was surrounded by innumerable dangers that do not threaten civilized man at all, or at least not to the same degree. Compared with later generations, he was extremely poor and barbaric. He would have been delighted if opportunity had been given to him to take advantage of any of the achievements of our age, as for instance the methods of healing wounds.

 

Neither can mankind ever reach a state of perfection. The idea that a state of aimlessness and indifference is desirable and the most happy condition that mankind could ever attain permeates utopian literature. The authors of these plans depict a society in which no further changes are required because everything has reached the best possible form.

 

In utopia there will no longer be any reason to strive for improvement, because everything is already perfect; history has been brought to a close. Henceforth, all people will be thoroughly happy. It never occurred to one of these writers that those whom they were eager to benefit by the reform might have different opinions about what is desirable and what not.

 

A new sophisticated version of the image of the perfect society has arisen lately out of a crass misinterpretation of the procedure of economics. In order to deal with the effects of changes in the market situation, the endeavors to adjust production to these changes, and the phenomena of profit and loss, the economist constructs the image of a hypothetical, although unattainable, state of affairs in which production is always fully adjusted to the realizable wishes of the consumers and no further changes whatever occur.

 

In this imaginary world tomorrow does not differ from today, no maladjustments can arise, and no need for any entrepreneurial action emerges. The conduct of business does not require any initiative; it is a self-acting process unconsciously performed by automatons impelled by mysterious quasi instincts. There is for economists (and, for that matter, also for laymen discussing economic issues) no other way to conceive what is going on in the real, continually changing world than to contrast it in this way with a fictitious world of stability and absence of change.

 

But the economists are fully aware that the elaboration of this image of an evenly rotating economy is merely a mental tool that has no counterpart in the real world in which man lives and is called to act. They did not even suspect that anybody could fail to grasp the merely hypothetical and ancillary character of their concept.

 

Yet some people misunderstood the meaning and significance of this mental tool. In a metaphor borrowed from the theory of mechanics, the mathematical economists call the evenly rotating economy the static state, the conditions prevailing in it equilibrium, and any deviation from equilibrium disequilibrium. This language suggests that there is something vicious in the very fact that there is always disequilibrium in the real economy and that the state of equilibrium never becomes actual.

 

The merely imagined hypothetical state of undisturbed equilibrium appears as the most desirable state of reality. In this sense some authors call competition as it prevails in the changing economy imperfect competition. The truth is that competition can exist only in a changing economy. Its function is precisely to wipe out disequilibrium and to generate a tendency toward the attainment of equilibrium. There cannot be any competition in a state of static equilibrium because in such a state there is no point at which a competitor could interfere in order to perform something that satisfies the consumers better than what is already performed anyway.

 

The very definition of equilibrium implies that there is no maladjustment anywhere in the economic system, and consequently no need for any action to wipe out maladjustments, no entrepreneurial activity, no entrepreneurial profits and losses. It is precisely the absence of the profits that prompts mathematical economists to consider the state of undisturbed static equilibrium as the ideal state, for they are inspired by the prepossession that entrepreneurs are useless parasites and profits are unfair lucre.

 

The equilibrium enthusiasts are also deluded by ambiguous thymological connotations of the term "equilibrium," which of course have no reference whatever to the way in which economics employs the imaginary construction of a state of equilibrium. The popular notion of a man's mental equilibrium is vague and cannot be particularized without including arbitrary judgments of value. All that can be said about such a state of mental or moral equilibrium is that it cannot prompt a man toward any action. For action presupposes some uneasiness felt, as its only aim can be the removal of uneasiness.

 

The analogy with the state of perfection is obvious. The fully satisfied individual is purposeless, he does not act, he has no incentive to think, he spends his days in leisurely enjoyment of life. Whether such a fairy-like existence is desirable may be left undecided. It is certain that living men can never attain such a state of perfection and equilibrium.

 

It is no less certain that, sorely tried by the imperfections of real life, people will dream of such a thorough fulfillment of all their wishes. This explains the sources of the emotional praise of equilibrium and condemnation of disequilibrium. However, economists must not confuse this thymological notion of equilibrium with the use of the imaginary construction of a static economy. The only service that this imaginary construction renders is to set off in sharp relief the ceaseless striving of living and acting men after the best possible improvement of their conditions. There is for the unaffected scientific observer nothing objectionable in his description of disequilibrium. It is only the passionate prosocialist zeal of mathematical pseudoeconomists that transforms a purely analytical tool of logical economics into an utopian image of the good and most desirable state of affairs.

 

[This article is excerpted from chapter 16 of Theory and History (1957).]

------------------------------------------------------

시장의 불안정보다 정부 정책의 불안정이 더 나쁘다.

좌파들은 사회가 단일한 계획 없이 굴러가는지 의아해했다. 아니다 시장 경제는 실제로는 계획되고 있다. 단지 중앙 계획자가 없을 뿐이다. 사회에서는 수십 수백만의 개인들이 그들 각자의 “계획”을 세우고 그에 따라 사업도 하고 자선도 베풀고 기타 조직도 운영한다.

돈으로 무엇인가를 계획하고 결정하는데 가장 적합한 사람들은 정부 관료들이 아니라 사업을 벌이기 위해 “작은 계획들”을 세우는 시장의 사람들이다.

 

The Instability of Markets Is Not Nearly as Bad as the Instability of Government Policy

 

Antony Sammeroff

 

A seductive (if poorly considered) critique of markets is the notion that they are so wildly unpredictable and inherently unstable that we need government to watch over them and intervene to mitigate their excesses. There is a great irony in this position which I will reveal.

 

Economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) made perhaps the most famous case for this view, coining the term "animal spirits" to describe the irrational, impulse-driven whims of market-actors based on arbitrary expectations that could only cause instability. The idea itself seems to make sense because it's hard for intellectuals, who love chewing over ideas and coming up with bright plans, to see how a society could run coherently without a single plan. The truth is, market economies are actually planned — there is just no central plan. What happens on a market is that lots of individuals make little plans to roll out their bright ideas into businesses, charities, and other organizations, hoping to influence as many people as possible. The plans which prove successful on the small scale attract resources and grow steadily in their impact. Other planners emulate them and adapt their own plans in light of their success. Meanwhile, those plans which prove to be failures never get far off the ground.

 

This means that, left to their own devices, markets have their own self-correcting mechanisms which Keynes appeared to have overlooked. While in any situation there may be entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers who do indeed make poor or irrational decisions and make mistakes (driven by their animal spirits) there will always be others who succeed as well. The mechanism of profit and loss allocates the pool of available capital to those producers who make good predictions as to what consumers (you and I) want over the long term and reallocate them away from those who use them badly. This limits the scope of damage caused by bad or incompetent decision-makers. Where people fail, the results of those failures will be limited to some small number of people. This can not be said of failures of government which might extend to affecting the entire society.

 

Now, here's the irony. Even allowing for Keynes his hypothesis that markets are inherently unstable, how can the prospect of intervention by government, at any time, into the economy do anything but make the market more unpredictable and make it more difficult for the "little planners" to make long-term decisions? Over the course of 20 years a government could change five or more times. With each change in administration the form of state intervention in the economy can change dramatically, as can the political philosophy driving it. Plans can be added or scrapped at any time. Government can increase or reduce taxes at whim, or increase or decrease spending. They can pass new tariffs, grant subsidies, institute licensing laws and regulations or scrap them. Government-mandated central banks (like the Bank of England or the Federal Reserve) can increase or decrease interest rates; expand the money supply or contract it. Plus what makes those calm and virtuous actors themselves immune to the influences of the animal spirits? Do they not too have emotional whims, not to mention voters and campaign contributors to please?

 

Yes, when the specter of government hangs looming over the economy conditions can rapidly and unpredictably change at any time, in countless ways, and this can only exacerbate the problem that the Keynesians plan to solve. Economist Robert Higgs called this the phenomenon of "Regime Uncertainty," where investors fear it may be hard or even impossible to foresee the extent to which future government actions will alter the "rules to the game." As a result, investors become averse to taking risk (much in the way that Keynes feared they might) not due to a lack of government intervention — but in anticipation of it!

 

Private investors have "skin in the game." Their own self-interest should motivate them to only take certain risks of personal loss, and investigate all the available information to make robust decisions. But public servants are forever fated to spending other peoples money on other people. The best people at making decisions with money are most likely not in government. They're probably out there in the free market making "Little Plans" to launch a new business or product that might one day spread out to the furthest reaches of the earth the way mobile phones are now reaching the world's poorest populations in Africa.

 

Antony Sammeroff

 

Antony Sammeroff co-hosts the Scottish Liberty Podcast and has featured prominently on other libertarian themed shows including The Tom Woods Show, Lions of Liberty, School Sucks Podcast and many more

---------------------------------------------------------------