나치 정부는 결국에는 지시 경제, 명령 경제로 나아가게 된다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
◇대구 항체 보유율 7.6%…숨은 코로나 감염자 18만명 가능성
21일 대한의학회 국제학술지 JKMS(Journal of Korean medical science)에 따르면 지난 5월 25일부터 6월 5일까지 대구가톨릭대병원을 찾은 환자 103명과 보호자 95명 등 총 198명을 대상으로 실시한 항체 보유 여부 검사 결과가 게재됐다.
조선일보
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
중국붕괴, 빠르게 진행 중! … 중국공산당 지도부, 심리적 공황상태! ... 이슈방담#.169 ... 2020.07.20. ...[박훈탁TV]
부정선거 중앙일보 또 특종, 부여 투표용지가 시흥 고물상에서 발견됐다
성창경 티비
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
돈줄 마른 중국, 해외 화교에 개인소득세 징수한다/
주식거래수익, 부동산 양도소득도 예외없어
박상후의 문명개화
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020년 7월 20일] 중국 6월 경제 통계 -
정부의 힘과 민간의 무게
이박사의 중국 뉴스 해설
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
박원순 납치 살해 제보가 들어왔습니다 -
손상윤 뉴스타운 회장 2020.07.21 [뉴스타운TV]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Bonds are Fraying Fast in America’s Cities
전염병 대유행으로 인해 사람들이 변두리 시골로 이주하는 공간적 재조정이 일어날 수 있다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
우한 바이러스 대책에 쓰이는 비용을 걱정하면서,
왜 운송과 노동자 안전을 위해 지출하는 보험 성격의 비용은 걷정하지 않나?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
뉴런의 작동 원리를 이해한다고 해도, 그것으로 뇌가 어떻게 작동하는지 이해할 수는 없다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
부채에 빠진 세계 각국
단지 한 해만에 정부와 민간의 부채는 200조 달러에 이르렀고, 세계 전체 지디피에 대한 비율로는 35%가 넘는다.
이러한 세계적인 부양책은 정부의 지출을 증가시키고 인위적으로 낮게 책정된 채권 수익을 지탱할 뿐이다.
부채가 쌓여갈수록 성장은 느려지고 생산성과 고용율은 더 바닥을 치게 된다.
The World Is Drowning in Debt
Daniel Lacalle
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), global fiscal support in response to the crisis will be more than $9 trillion, approximately 12 percent of world GDP. This premature, clearly rushed, probably excessive, and often misguided chain of so-called stimulus plans will distort public finances in a way which we have not seen since World War II. The enormous increase in public spending and the fall in output will lead to a global government debt figure close to 105 percent of GDP.
If we add government and private debt, we are talking about $200 trillion of debt, a global increase of over 35 percent of GDP, well above the 20 percent seen after the 2008 crisis, and all in a single year.
This brutal increase in indebtedness is not going to prevent economies from falling rapidly. The main problem of this global stimulus chain is that it is entirely oriented toward supporting bloated government spending and artificially low bond yields. That is the reason why such a massive global monetary and fiscal response is not doing much to prevent the collapse in jobs, investment, and growth. Most businesses, small ones with no debt and no assets, are being wiped out.
Most of this new debt has been created to sustain a level of public spending that was designed for a cyclical boom, not a crisis, and to help large companies that were already in trouble in 2018 and 2019, the so-called zombie companies.
According to Bank of International Settlements, the percentage of zombie companies—those that cannot cover their debt interest payments with operating profits—has exploded in the period of giant stimuli and negative real rates, and the figure will skyrocket again.
That is why all this new debt is not going to boost the recovery; it will likely prolong the recession.
Debt is neither free nor irrelevant, as interventionists want us to believe, even if interest rates are low. More debt means less growth and a slower exit from the crisis, with lower productivity growth and a tepid employment improvement. The often repeated argument that “it would have been worse” if these bailouts and spending plans had not been implemented and that “nothing else could have been done” is easily rebuttable: the countries that will fall the least in 2020, recover first, and do so with the lowest unemployment rates are the ones that have maintained prudent spending plans, preserved the economic fabric, and address the health crisis with serious protocols. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands…Many countries have not fallen into the trap of massive government spending, have delivered better health and economic results than most nations, and have done so with lower levels of interventionism.
Many countries show that it is not necessary to cover the economy with enormous budget imbalances to guarantee health.
It is important to remember these figures of enormous indebtedness because of the disconnection between financial markets and the real economy, which has reached almost record levels and is presenting bubble-type features. First, these huge stimuli are probably too big, too soon, and clearly geared toward sustaining low-productivity sectors. All this is supported by a monetary policy that has gone from providing liquidity to being the enabler of asset bubbles.
The balance sheet of the European Central Bank has increased by almost €2 trillion so far this year and is already more than 52 percent of the eurozone’s GDP, much higher than that of the Federal Reserve, which is 32.6 percent of the US GDP, or the Bank of England, which is 31.1 percent. The Bank of Japan’s balance sheet already accounts for 117 percent of GDP, and its consequences should be a warning sign to all nations. Consumption has plummeted again in May and the country has been stagnant for two decades, with debt that will exceed 260 percent of GDP. Copying Japan is the recipe for secular stagnation.
The huge increase in the balance sheets of central banks to artificially keep bond yields low has pushed stock markets higher just as 80 percent of listed companies have abandoned their business profit targets and analysts are slashing estimates for 2020, 2021, and 2022 at the fastest speed in the past decade, according to JP Morgan and Bank of America.
This enormous action of central banks leads to an unprecedented disconnect between the real economy and the stock markets. The expansion of multiples has accelerated just as earnings estimates plummet.
By making sovereign bonds prohibitively expensive, two dangerous things happen: governments believe that low bond yields are due to their policies, and investors take much more risk than what they think they have in their portfolios.
All of this looks harmless if the bubble expands and the placebo effect works, but if macro earnings and employment data remain disappointing, the next crash may be worse than the economic shutdown, because it may add a financial crisis to the already weak economy. Unfortunately, when the next crash happens, governments and central banks will tell us that more stimulus is warranted.
Originally published at dlacalle.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
대의 민주제는 끝났다.
분권화와 민영화로 이를 대체해야 한다.
Three Reasons Representative Democracy Doesn't Work
Gor Mkrtchian
In representative democracies, voters ostensibly control the state through the politicians they vote for. However, most representative democracies fall far short of this goal. Three of the reasons for the trouble are the problems of scale, bundling, and omission. I will explore these three problems below and argue that privatization and decentralization can ameliorate them.
Scale
The viability of meaningful political representation withers as the ratio of representatives to voters decreases. There are 435 members in the House of Representatives in a country of 328 million people. This means that each member “represents” an average of 755,000 people. How exactly does one person represent the federal legislative preferences of 755,000 diverse people? How do two senators embody the will of 600,000 Wyomingites, let alone all the Californians and Texans? Scale alone renders American democracy to a great extent meaningless, and yet this is almost never talked about.
Bundling
The second problem with representative democracy is the issue known as “bundling.” Suppose candidate Smith is running against candidate Jones. Smith has his policies, and Jones has his. But what if you, the voter, like some of Smith’s policies and some of Jones’s? There is no picking and choosing Smith’s position on issue X and Jones’s position on issue Y as there is at a buffet or at the supermarket (market institutions). We’re left with rigid, take-it-or-leave-it, package deals. Walter Block contrasts the flexibility of the market with ham-fisted democracy:
The dollar vote occurs every day, the ballot box vote only every two or four years. The former may be applied narrowly, to a single product (e.g., the Edsel) while the latter is a “package deal,” an all or none proposition for one candidate or the other. That is, there was no way to register approval of Bush’s policies in areas 1, 3, 5 and 7, and for Clinton in 2, 4, 6, and 8. People were limited to choosing one or the other in the last presidential election.
In society outside the state (the market), no one can force you to pay for something you don’t want, or to go without something you’re willing to pay for. And the free rider problem has been addressed here.
Omission
The third problem can be called “omission.” Presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional elections typically revolve around only a handful of issues. But the state intervenes in nearly every aspect of our lives. If candidate Smith and candidate Jones spend their campaigns battling it out over, say, the income tax rate, environmental regulation, and school vouchers, who will “represent” the voters who care about the central bank, the welfare state, foreign policy, the debt, etc.?
Whenever the candidates agree on or simply ignore issues, as is necessarily the case for the vast majority of issues at stake in any given election, voting is largely useless in affecting these issues. At best, the citizen can vote for the candidate they hope will better address the ignored topic (in the event that it is addressed at all).
The problem of omission doesn’t just apply to controversial policies shunned by the bipartisan establishment. It applies to topics simply not interesting enough to be prominent on the campaign trail: volumes of arcane regulation, obscure federal agencies, military bases people don’t know exist in countries they’ve never heard of, etc.
What Is to Be Done? Privatization.
Notice how none of the above critiques mention lobbying, fraud, or corruption. Even if representative democracy were squeaky clean, it would be a mess. Then, what is to be done?
The first solution is privatization. Functions, resources, and perceived moral authority currently held by the state can instead be distributed among its competing institutions: the nuclear family, the extended family, the church, businesses, fraternal organizations, private schools and universities, clubs, charities, etc.
The critical difference is that adults only participate in these institutions voluntarily and to the extent that they choose to, in contrast to their interactions with the state (i.e., taxation, conscription). This freedom of association encourages detailed responsiveness on the part of these organizations toward the people who finance and sustain them.
Decentralization
Additionally, decentralization can ameliorate the unresponsiveness of the state by increasing accountability. The smaller (both in terms of geographic area and population) and more numerous the political units, the greater extent to which the rulers and the ruled are in the same boat.
If the political and bureaucratic decisions of Springfield are made by people living in DC, the decision-makers don’t need to live with the consequences of their own decisions to the same extent. But if all of Springfield’s political decisions are made in Springfield, the politicians and bureaucrats will have to lie in whatever bed they make. To a greater extent, if the rulers want to live well, their subjects have to live well.
Decentralization doesn’t just increase accountability. When a political unit is geographically smaller and less populous, the people within it are more likely to have similar worldviews, cultures, religions, languages, etc.
Where there are mosaics of many tiny states, each state can be closely tailored to the particular preferences of each locality without forcing distant and different peoples to live under the same rule. In contrast, enormous political units, by their sheer expansiveness, are more likely to encompass various bitterly opposed camps who will vie for zero-sum control of the same state apparatus.
Privatization and decentralization offer liberty, accountability, and harmony where the state offers phony representation and compulsion.
Author:
Gor Mkrtchian
Gor Mkrtchian is a research assistant at the Free Market Institute and a PhD student in the Department of Political Science at Texas Tech University. He received a BA in political science and theater studies from Yale University.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기