경력 날조의 대가 김일성 3대, 그 버릇이 남한 좌파에게 옮겨붙었다!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--->부정부패의 소굴 주민센터. 주민센터만이 아니라 공무원들 모두가 국민들 목에 빨대 꽂고 사는 거머리들이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
주거침입죄의 형량을 10년 이상으로 올려야 한다
"강한 의심 들지만 증명은 안돼'…'신림동 원룸 사건', 강간미수 무죄 확정
출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2020/06/25/2020062502045.html
또 예를들어 주거침입강간죄는 주거침입 10년 + 강간 5년 으로
기본적으로 10년을 때리고 거기에 강간죄를 더하는 식으로 규정해야 한다
왜냐하면
주거침입 특히 일면식도 없는 사람의 집에 객관적이고 합리적인 이유나
위법성조각 사유없이 침입한다는 것은
최소 절도, 강간, 살인이라는 죄의 선행행위로
예방적 차원에서 형량을 최소 10년 이상으로 높여야 한다
주거침입을 하지 않으면 최소 주거에서는 절도 강간 살인이 발생하지 않기 때문이다
야간주거침입은 그보다 높은 15년 이상으로 헤야 한다 / 일베
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott 인간과 자유이야기
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
이번엔 누구? [이슈퀵 배승희]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
블락체인으로 국민의 손에서 선거를 가로채려는 선관위
문재인에 '조국펀드' 따로 보고" 법정 결정적 증언!
(진성호의 융단폭격)
MMT(현대 통화론)는 현대적이지도, 통화에 관한 것도, 이론도 아니다.
스테파니 켈튼의 주장은 단순하다: 연방정부의 지출은 조세수입에 의해 제약되지 않는다. 세금은 수요와 인플레를 통제하는 기능만을 한다. 연방정부의 차입은 금리를 조절하는 역할만을 수행한다. 정부의 재정은 경기를 부양하기 위해 원하는 만큼의 돈을 찍어 지출할 수 있다. 만일 인플레가 상승하면, 세금을 걷어 돈을 회수할 수 있다.
MMT는 이론이 아니라 엉터리 회계이다. 그에 따르면 정부의 적자는 민간의 흑자이다. 그리고 정부가 지출할수록, 시민들은 그만큼 부유해진다. 세수가 100달러일 때, 정부가 120달러를 지출하면, 미국인들은 20달러만큼 부자가 된다는 주장이다.
MMT는 황당한 이론이라서 무시하기 쉽지만, 무에서 유를 창조하고 싶은 충동은 인간의 내면에 잠재해 있고, 그런 충동은 조만간 정치를 통해 현실화 된다.
MMT: Not Modern, Not Monetary, Not a Theory
Jeff Deist
Modern monetary theory (MMT) has a new champion, and a new bible. Stephanie Kelton, economics professor at SUNY Stony Brook, is the author of The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy. Professor Kelton was an advisor to the Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns, and her ideas increasingly find purchase with left progressives. It is certainly possible that she has a future either in a Biden administration or even on the Federal Reserve Board, which is a testament to how quickly our political and cultural landscape has shifted toward left progressivism. And left progressivism requires a "New Economics" to provide intellectual cover for what is essentially a political argument for painless free stuff from government.
Kelton's essential argument, first advanced by MMT guru Warren Mosler in the 1990s, is quite simple: federal spending is unconstrained by revenue. Taxes function only to regulate demand and hence inflation; federal borrowing functions only to regulate interest rates. Sovereign government treasuries can create and spend as much money as they like to stimulate growth, especially when the economy is underperforming. If inflation spikes, taxes can be imposed to take money out of the economy.
Thus the only constraints on unlimited government spending are political. Unleashing ourselves from these "self-imposed" constraints, as Mosler puts it, is purely a matter of political will. Revenue is irrelevant to how you fund a government, so why not use government to fund the economy as a whole?
I direct readers to Dr. Bob Murphy's recent substantive review of Kelton's book here, as Bob does a thorough and effective job of debunking MMT and providing Austrian rebuttals to her claims regarding money, debt, and deficits. But I would make three quick points of my own:
MMT is not modern. Kings have used seigniorage and currency debasement for centuries to fund their endeavors, always at the expense of their subjects.
MMT is not monetary. It is primarily a fiscal approach to state finance, focused on tax policy as the economic accelerator and brake. Its roots predate the US Federal Reserve Bank, and in fact predate the present notion of "monetary policy." MMT finds origins in early twentieth-century chartalism, whose proponents opposed gold in favor of paper money issued by government and mandated as legal tender. It is also a genealogical heir to the Greenbackers of the late 1800s, who believed Congress should direct the issuance of unbacked paper currency.
MMT is not a theory. It is accounting. In fact, it relies on an accounting subterfuge which bizarrely claims government deficits represent private (societal) surpluses. Because government is the font from which currency springs, all financial assets (denominated in that currency of issue) exist thanks to government! Thus, under "national accounting," the more government spends, the richer we the people get. When tax revenue is $100 but government spends $120, Americans are richer by $20. And so on. This is not a theory; this is accounting gimmickry almost purposefully designed to obscure what's really going on.
In the relentlessly circular world of MMT, government is the source of all finance and in effect all wealth. Taxpayers don't fund government, because after all government first provides the "tokens" (currency) taxpayers need to pay their IRS bills! Government funds taxpayers, which is broadly speaking what the American left really believes. It's a version of Obama's "You didn't build that" rewritten into policy.
But let’s not kid ourselves: the US federal government already finances its operations of MMT. Twenty twenty federal spending may exceed $8 trillion as Congress and the Trump administration blow the roof off the authorized $5 trillion budget with COVID relief bills. More than half of that amount, maybe as much as $4 trillion, will be "deficit financed"—a nice way of saying not financed by tax revenue. This is a first in American history, to put it mildly.
This $4 trillion will not simply issue forth from Treasury Department printing machines, as Kelton would prescribe, but the effect is the same: the Treasury issues debt to cover the shortage, which the "public" buys, implicitly understanding that the Fed will always provide a ready market for such debt. And where does the Fed get the money to buy Treasurys? It creates it from nothing, in Keltonite fashion.
Chicagoites, market monetarists, supply-siders, NDGP targeters, and other free market proponents frankly don't have much to say about MMT. They already accept the premise of "monetary policy," i.e., that government or central banks should issue and control money in society. They already accept treating the money supply and interest rates as forms of policy tools. They already accept deficits and taxes as methods to prime or slow the economy. So although they may object to how Ms. Kelton wants to use money politically, they can't much object to whether money is used politically.
Kelton deserves credit for writing a book aimed at lay audiences instead of for her peers in academic economics. Unlike most of those peers, she seems genuinely interested in helping us understand how the world works. And unlike most left progressive academics, she also seems interested in helping average people improve their lot in life. Perhaps most importantly, she does not display the kind of contempt and anger toward Red State America we see from the Paul Krugmans and Noah Smiths.
It's easy for those of a free market bent to dismiss MMT out of hand, but the impulse to create something from nothing resides deep in the human psyche, and politics is where this impulse finds expression. We should not underestimate the allure of MMT in the midst of our current upheavals, because it appears to make possible every left progressive program: unlimited public works and federal jobs, useless and uneconomic green energy schemes, reparations for black Americans, Medicare for All, free college, free housing, and a host of others. MMT is the perfect economic proposal for those who sincerely and deeply believe wealth simply exists in America, and will continue to exist, regardless of incentives. All we need to do is figure out how to more fairly divvy it up—and so why not through government spending?
The promise of something for nothing will never lose its luster. MMT should be viewed as a form of political propaganda rather than any kind of real economics or public policy. And like all propaganda, it must be fought with appeals to reality. MMT, where deficits don't matter, is an unreal place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
우한 폐렴보다 무서운 치명적인 바이러스, 국가 조직
현실 상황을 대처하지도 못하고, 제대로 반영하려 하지도 않는 관료조직과 초국가 조직들이 바로 치명적인 바이러스이다.
미제스와 하이에크는 1920년대에 사회주의 하에서는 경제적 계산이 불가능하다는 정리(定理)를 발견했고, 세계사는 그것 없이는 이해할 수가 없다.
인류의 미래는 인간의 영혼을 감염시키는 사회주의라는 치명적인 바이러스에 스스로를 면역하는 능력에 달려 있다.
The State: The Deadliest Virus
Jesús Huerta de Soto
The deadliest virus is the institutionalized coercion which lies in the very DNA of the state and may even initially permit a government to deny the outbreak of a pandemic. Evidence has been suppressed, and heroic scientists and doctors have been harassed and silenced simply because they were the first to realize and expose the gravity of the problem. As a result, weeks and months have been lost, at an enormous cost: hundreds of thousands of people have died due to the worldwide spread of an epidemic which, in the beginning, the shamefully manipulated official statistics made appear less dangerous than it actually was.
The deadliest virus is the existence of cumbersome bureaucracies and supranational organizations, which did not manage or wish to monitor the reality of the situation, but instead endorsed the information received, while offering constant support and even praising—and thus becoming accessories to—all the coercive policies and measures adopted.
The deadliest virus is the notion that the state can guarantee our public health and universal welfare, when economic science has demonstrated the theoretical impossibility of the central planner’s giving a coherent and coordinating quality to the coercive commands it issues in its attempt to achieve its pompous objectives. This impossibility is due to the huge volume of information and knowledge which such a task would require and which the planning agency lacks. It is also, and primarily, due to the fact that the institutional coercion typical of the agency impacts the social body of human beings, who alone are capable of coordinating themselves (and do so spontaneously) and creating wealth. Such coercion prevents the emergence of precisely the firsthand knowledge the state needs to bring about coordination with its commands. This theorem is known as the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism. Mises and Hayek discovered the theorem in the 1920s, and the events of world history cannot be understood without it.
The deadliest virus is the dependency and complicity shown toward the state by countless scientists, experts, and intellectuals. When authorities are drunk with power, this symbiosis leaves a manipulated civil society unarmed and defenseless. For instance, the Spanish government itself urged citizens to take part in mass demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people while the virus was already spreading exponentially. Then, just four days later, the decision was announced to declare a state of alarm and coercively confine the entire population to their homes.
The deadliest virus is the demonization of private initiative and of the agile and efficient self-regulation characteristic of it, combined with the deification of the public sector in every area: the family, education, pensions, employment, the financial sector, and the healthcare system (a particularly relevant point at present). Over 12 million Spanish people, including—quite significantly—almost 90 percent of the more than 2 million government employees (and among them a vice president of the Spanish government), have freely chosen private healthcare over public healthcare. The doctors and nurses of the public healthcare system work hard and selflessly, and their heroic efforts are never sufficiently recognized. However, the system cannot possibly do away with its internal contradictions, its waiting lists, or its proven incompetence in the matters of universal prevention and the protection of its own workers. But, by a double standard, any minor defect in the private sector is always immediately condemned, while far more serious and flagrant defects in the public sector are viewed as definitive proof of a need to spend more money and increase the size of the public sector even further.
The deadliest virus is the political propaganda channeled through state-owned media and also through private media outlets which, nonetheless, are dependent on the state as if it were a drug. As Goebbels taught, lies repeated often enough to the population can be turned into official truths. Here are a few: that the Spanish public healthcare system is the best in the world; that public spending has continued to decrease since the last crisis; that taxes are to be paid by “the rich” and they are not paying their fair share; that the minimum wage is not detrimental to employment; that maximum prices do not cause shortages; that a universal minimum income is the panacea of well-being; that the northern European countries are selfish and unsupportive, because they do not wish to mutualize the debt; that the number of deaths officially reported reflects the actual number of deaths; that only a few hundred thousand people have been infected; that we are performing more than enough tests; that face masks are unnecessary, etc. Any moderately diligent citizen can easily verify that these are all lies.
The deadliest virus is the corrupt use of political terminology involving misleading metaphors to mesmerize the population and make people even more submissive and dependent on the state. We are told that we are fighting a “war,” and that once we win, we will need to begin the “reconstruction.” But we are not at war, nor is it necessary to reconstruct anything. Fortunately, all of our capital equipment, factories, and facilities are intact. They are there, waiting for us to devote all of our effort and entrepreneurial spirit to getting back to work, and when that happens, we will very quickly recover from this standstill. However, for this to occur, we must have an economic policy that favors less government and more entrepreneurial freedom, reduces taxes and regulations, balances public accounts and puts them on a sound footing, liberalizes the labor market, and provides legal certainty and bolsters confidence. While such a free market policy enabled the Germany of Adenauer and Erhard to recover from a far graver situation following World War II, Spain will be impoverished and doomed to move at idling speed if we insist on taking the opposite path of socialism.
The deadliest virus consists of the deification of human reason and the systematic use of coercion, which the state embodies. It appears before us in sheep’s clothing as the quintessence of a certain “do-goodism” that tempts us with the possibility of reaching nirvana here and now and of achieving “social justice” and ending inequality. However, it conceals the fact that the Leviathan thrives on envy and thus fuels hatred and social resentment. Hence, the future of humanity depends on our ability to immunize ourselves against the most deadly virus: the socialism which infects the human soul and has spread to all of us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기