[긴급속보] 수도권 확진자 대폭발 ㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷ

 

중국발 입국 허용국, 대한민국

수도권 확진자, 675명

(서울 314, 경기 321, 인천 40)

 

vs....

 

중국발 입국 한시적 제한 3국,

확진자 460명

(대만 77명, 홍콩 157명, 싱가포르 226명)

 

3월 20일자 언론사 보도지침 :

중국발로 커진 수도권 확진자 급증을

유럽발 입국자 원인으로 몰고가라 !!!

ㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷ / 일베

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

 

태영호 확실히 좀 이상한데

 

 

김정은이 꼭 답방해야 한다고 주장 했었네?? 김정은 한테 민주주의를 가르친다고 하는데

김정은은 이미 어릴적 스위스 유학하며 민주주의의 꿀맛을 실컷 맛보던 놈임. 이런놈 한테

꼴랑 며칠 한국에 오게 만들어서 김정은 한테 민주주의를 가르친다는거 자체가 말이 안되는 소리고

 

인위적으로 환영 분위기 만들지 말아야 한다??? 이건 너무 당연한 하나마나 한 소리지

만약 환영인파를 강제로 동원하면 그거야 말로 큰일날 소리니까.

진짜 문제는 뒤에 나온 발언이다.

답방 도중 김정은 찬양하는 시위랑 반대하는 시위가 공존하게 놔둬야 한다는 소린데

이거 다시 말하자면, 종북세력이 길에서 날뛰게 놔둬야 한다는 소리이며

여기서 한발 더 나가면 국가보안법 없애자는 결론에도 도달할수 있는 것임

 

예전에 노무현이 말하던 공산주의를 인정해야 완전한 민주주의 라는 궤변이랑 존나 유사하지 않냐??

이 인간 알면 알수록 느낌이 쎄 한데????

 

과연 태영호가 김일성 김정일 김정은 개새끼 할수 있을까?

그것부터가 의문이다. / 일베

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

공무원 공기업 연간 인건비 150조 나라 곶간이 비어간다.

 

연간 150조가 공기업 공무원 인건비로 나감. 비대한 공무원 조직과 공기업 구조조정해라.이미 선진국은 다 민영화한 에너지공기업 석유공사 가스겅사 한전같은건 민영화하고 희망퇴직 실시로 불필요한 고연봉 인력들 좀 줄여라. / 일베

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

Brian Stoffel

 

By the end of Mar, entire country will be on lockdown. Hope it doesn't take that long If we had listened to @yaneerbaryam , @normonics, and @nntaleb when they issued their warning (Jan 26th, I believe), this wouldn't be necessary.

 

IF we have guts to do it, recovery starts May 1

 

탈레브 등의 경고를 들었더라면, 이 모든 혼란은 일어나지 않았을 것이다.

신속하게 행동하지 않으면, 현재의 위기는 편집증으로 발전하던지 아니면 그 무엇도 소용없다는 절망으로 나아가게 된다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spyros Makridakis

 

Nobody can doubt that the world will now spend tens of trillions to fight the coronavirus while spending would have been minimal in Jan, not to mention all the lives that would have been saved and the trillions of stock market losses avoided. I must admit I was wrong.

 

지금 수 조 달러를 들여서 싸우고 있지만, 만일 1월부터 행동했다면 최소한의 비용으로 우한 폐렴 사태를 막았고, 수많은 생명을 살렸을 것이다.

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

  170년 전 존 칼훈의 통찰

존 칼훈은 1850년 <정부에 대한 논문>에서 정치적 승리와 그 전리품을 얻기 위한 싸움으로 인해, 정치가 단합보다는 분열을 초래한다고 경고했다.

---투표는 단지 권력의 자리만을 바꿀 뿐이다. 그로 인해 권력의 억압과 남용을 견제하지 못한다.

---선거에서는 원칙과 정책이 모두 힘을 잃는다. 그 대신 거짓과 간계, 사기, 중상 등이 대중의 구미에 호소하고, 이성과 현명한 토론을 대신한다.

 

A Disquietingly Current Disquisition

 

Gary Galles

 

John Calhoun, among the most influential of America’s nineteenth-century statesmen, was born on March 18. As someone who served as a congressman, senator, secretary of war, secretary of state, and vice-president to two presidents with whom he strongly disagreed (and with whom he sometimes fought as president of the senate), he deserves attention. But tarred by his defense of slavery, any attention Calhoun now gets seems to be negative (e.g., Yale changed the name of Calhoun College to distance itself from his position on slavery).

 

However, Calhoun was also described by John F. Kennedy as “a masterful defender of the rights of a political minority against the dangers of an unchecked majority,” and he still provides one of the best explanations of Americans’ current extreme political disunity. His 1850 Disquisition on Government laid out why the battle for political dominance and its spoils, as real today as when Calhoun was an important participant, guaranteed bitter divisiveness rather than unity:

 

*"Government, although intended to protect and preserve society, has…a strong tendency to disorder and abuse of its powers, as all experience and almost every page of history testify."

*"Suffrage…only changes the seat of authority, without counteracting, in the least, the tendency of the government to oppression and abuse of its powers."

 

*"Obtain[ing] the majority—and, thereby, the control of the government and the advantages it confers…[means] aggrandizing and building up one portion of the community at the expense of the other."

*"It would be indispensable to success to avoid division and keep united…lead[ing] to the conversion of the honors and emoluments of the government into means of rewarding partisan services…to secure the fidelity and increase the zeal of the members of the party."

 

*"Principles and policy…lose all influence in the elections; and cunning, falsehood, deception, slander, fraud, and gross appeals to the appetites of the lowest…take the place of sound reason and wise debate."

 

 

*"[This] will divide the community…into two great parties…engaged in perpetual struggles to obtain the control of the government…[which] must necessarily form…attachments on the part of the members of each to their respective parties…and antipathies to the opposite party, as presenting the only obstacle to success."

*"Their mutual antipathies [will be] carried to such an excess as to destroy, almost entirely, all sympathy between them, and to substitute in its place the strongest aversion….devotion to party becomes stronger than devotion to country—the promotion of the interests of party more important than the promotion of the common good of the whole, and its triumph and ascendancy objects of far greater solicitude than the safety and prosperity of the community."

* "[This will] overpower all regard for truth, justice, sincerity, and moral obligations…falsehood, injustice, fraud, artifice, slander, and breach of faith, are freely resorted to, as legitimate weapons—followed by all their corrupting and debasing influences."

*The struggle to obtain the control of the government elevates to power the designing, the artful, and unscrupulous, who…aim exclusively at securing the ascendancy of party…at the expense of the good of the whole.

 

Every election year, Americans hear candidates deride our disunity and claim to be unifiers. But more attention than ever is actually focused on wedging us further apart, rather than returning to the core principles and inalienable rights against government abuse that can alone possibly unite us. But John C. Calhoun recognized 170 years ago just how much of politics consists of tooth-and-nail battles to impose partial slavery on electoral losers to benefit electoral winners, which only gets worse as the prize of controlling government becomes more valuable. Despite his support of slavery, it would be unwise to let Calhoun's failings blind us to his insights, so sorely needed now. As he wrote:

 

The possession of [government’s] control, as the means of directing its action and dispensing its honors and emoluments, will be an object of desire….Party conflicts…in such governments, can hardly ever terminate in compromise—The object of the opposing minority is to expel the majority from power; and of the majority to maintain their hold upon it. It is, on both sides, a struggle…that must determine which shall be the governing, and which the subject party.

 

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

계량적 방법은 인간의 행동이 반사적이라고 전제한다.

인간의 마음과 가치와 생각을 측정하는 항구적인 척도는 없다. 사람들은 마음을 바꾸기도 하고, 과거와는 다른 행동을 하기도 한다. 현실의 사실을 측정하는 기준을 정하는 것은 개인들의 목표이다.

경제학에서 수학을 사용하는 것은, 인간의 행동이 의도적인 선택이 아니라, 다양한 요인에 의해 반사적으로 작동한다는 주장과 같다.

계량적 방법은 사건을 기술하기는 하지만 설명하지는 못한다.

 

Fail: Quantitative Methods Presume That Human Action Is Reflexive

 

Frank Shostak

 

Most economists consider the use of sophisticated mathematical and statistical methods key to understanding the complexities of economics.

 

By means of mathematical and statistical methods, an economist establishes relationships between variables. For example, personal consumer outlays are related to personal disposable income and interest rates. Most economists would present this relation as a mathematical function:

 

C=a*Yd – b*i

 

C represents personal consumer outlays, Yd is personal disposable income, i stands for interest rate, a and b are parameters.

 

If a is 0.5, b is –0.1, Yd is 1000 and i the interest rate is 2%, then C will be 0.5*1000 – 0.1*2 = 499.8.

 

Parameters a and b are obtained using a sophisticated statistical method called the regression analysis.

 

By presenting the supposed relation between personal outlays, disposable income, and interest rates as a mathematical function the economist creates the impression of being scientific. Most people who are not familiar with mathematical and statistical methods are likely to be reluctant to question the analysis of the so-called scientific economist.

 

But is this quantitative approach a valid way to understand economic events?

 

Is the Quantitative Method Valid in Economics?

In the natural sciences, the employment of mathematics enables scientists to formulate the essential nature of objects. Using a mathematical formula, the response of objects to a particular stimulus in a given condition can be captured, and the same response will be obtained time and again.

 

This approach, however, is not valid in economics, which deals with human beings and not objects.

 

To pursue quantitative analysis implies the possibility of assigning numbers, which can be subjected to all the operations of arithmetic. To assign numbers, it is necessary to define an objective fixed unit. Such an objective unit, however, does not exist in the realm of human valuations.

 

There are no constant standards for measuring the minds, values, and ideas of men. People can change their minds and pursue actions that are contrary to what was observed in the past. It is individual goals or ends that set the standard for weighing the facts of reality.

 

The employment of mathematical functions implies that human actions are set in motion reflexively by various factors rather than by deliberate choice.

 

For instance, given levels of outlay on goods are not "caused" by income. Every individual decides how much of his income will be used for consumption and how much for savings. Although it is true that people respond to changes in their incomes, the response is not automatic, and it cannot be captured by a mathematical formula. An increase in an individual’s income does not automatically lead to one in his consumption expenditure. Every individual assesses the increase in income against the goals he wants to achieve. Thus, he might decide that it is more beneficial for him to raise his savings rather than raise his consumption.

 

Coin Tosses and Fires: Probability Theory in Economics

Modern economics also employs probability distributions. What is probability? The probability of an event is the proportion of times the event happens in a large number of trials.

 

For instance, the probability of obtaining heads when a coin is tossed is 0.5. This does not mean that when a coin is tossed ten times, five heads are always obtained. However, if the experiment is repeated a large number of times then it is likely that 50 percent will be heads. The greater the number of throws, the nearer the approximation is likely to be.

 

Alternatively, say it has been established that in a particular area, the probability of wooden houses catching fire is 0.01. This means that on the basis of experience 1 percent of wooden houses on average will catch fire. This does not mean that this year or the following year the percentage of houses catching fire will be exactly 1 percent; however, over time the average of these percentages will be 1 percent.

 

This information, in turn, can be converted into the cost of fire damage, establishing a case for insuring against fire. Owners of wooden houses might decide to spread the risk among themselves by setting up a fund. Every owner of a wooden house will contribute a certain proportion to the total amount of money that is required to cover the damages of those whose houses are damaged by fire.

 

Note that insurance against fire risk can only take place because we know its probability distribution and because there are enough owners of wooden houses to spread the cost of fire damage among them so that the premium is not excessive.

 

In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises labeled this type of probability class probability. According to him,

 

Class probability means: we know or assume to know, with regard to the problem concerned, everything about the behavior of a whole class of events or phenomena; but about the actual singular events or phenomena we know nothing but that they are elements of this class. (p. 107)

 

Thus, the owners of wooden houses are all members of a particular group or class that is going to be affected in a similar way by a fire. We know that on average 1 percent of the members of this group will be affected by fire. However, we do not know exactly who it will be. The important thing for insurance is that the members of a group be identical as far as a particular event is concerned.

 

Human Acts Are Not Like Coin Tosses

In economics, we do not deal with identical cases. Each observation is unique and not a member of any class—it is a class on its own. Consequently, no probability distribution can be established.

 

Let us take, for instance, entrepreneurial activities. Since entrepreneurial activities are not identical, probability distribution for entrepreneurial returns cannot be formed. For example, in year one, an entrepreneurial activity might yield a 10 percent return on investment. In year two another entrepreneurial activity might produce a return of 15 percent. In year three a third entrepreneurial activity might secure a return of 1 percent, and in year four a fourth one might generate a return of 2 percent. The average is 7 percent.

 

By no means does this imply that we can establish a probability distribution of returns on this basis as one can for the risk of fire or for obtaining heads in a coin toss. The returns in various years are the result of specific entrepreneurial activities. These activities are not alike and repeatable, and they cannot be regarded as members of the same class.

 

Profit emerges when an entrepreneur discovers that certain factors are undervalued relative to the potential value of the products that they could produce. By recognizing the discrepancy and doing something about it, the entrepreneur removes it, i.e., eliminates the potential for further profit.

 

The entrepreneur’s recognition of potential profits means that he had particular knowledge that other people did not have (Man, Economy, and State, p. 466). Mises called this case probability, which he defined thus:

 

Case probability means: We know, with regard to a particular event, some of the factors which determine its outcome; but there are other determining factors about which we know nothing. (Human Action, p. 110)

 

Mises held that case probability is not open to any kind of numerical valuation. Human action cannot be analyzed in the same way that one would analyze objects, whose class probability is relevant.

 

To make sense of data in economics one must try to understand how it emerged, not scrutinize it on its face through statistical methods.

 

The acceptance of probability distribution as a valid concept in economics leads to absurd results. It describes not a world of human beings who exercise their minds in making choices, but machines.

 

The employment of probability in economic analyses implies that a random process without method or conscious decisions generated the various pieces of economic data. But in order to survive, human beings must act consciously and purposefully. They must plan their actions and employ suitable means.

 

Contrary to popular thinking, advanced mathematical and statistical methods are not applicable in economics.

 

The use of numerical probability is only relevant in the sphere of noneconomics, where we deal with identical cases. This is however not so in economics, because human action cannot be analyzed as objects are.

Quantitative methods describe events, but they do not explain them. These methods do nothing to improve our knowledge of the driving factors in economic events, but rather distract economists from thinking about their essential causes.

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