------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New U.S. Visa Rules Threaten to Deport 369,000 Chinese Students
Bloomberg News
중국 학생 37만 여명이 본국 귀국의 위험에 처했다.
미국과 중국의 디커플링
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
코로나는 실험실에서 유출된 바이러스고, 이 바이러스는 과거의 어느 전염병과 달리 인간의
멸망까지도 가능하게 할지도 모른다는 것이다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
모사드와 北 룡천역 김정일 제거 비밀작전
모사드 요원이 룡천역 폭발 작전에 관여했다는 얘기인데, 정말이라면 007 영화 같은 일이다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
뉴스속보] 전세계 돈다발 살포 '10경3200조'..."세계 주식·부동산 요동친다"!!!~~**[정완진TV]
---> 우주가 계속 팽창하고 있다는데, 세계의 통화도 우주처럼 무한대로 팽창하는 듯하다. 이 미친 통화 정책의 끝은?
[정완진TV] 카드론 연체율 '급등'...'이상징후' 나타났다?~~**[멋진아재TV]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
루스벨트의 뉴딜은 실패한 정책인데 그걸 따라하겠다고 하고, 거기에 또 태양광까지 들어가 있으니, 정말 한국 경제 죽이는 정책이 아닐 수 없다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
이성윤, 문제다 [공병호TV]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
하지만 당신이 유명해지거나 학문적, 정치적 찬사를 듣게되면 잃을 게 많아진 당신은 매우 취약하게 된다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
통화의 유통 속도에 대한 미제스의 비판
화폐가 역동적인 이유는 그것이 여러 사람들의 손을 거치기 때문이 아니라, 다양한 개인들과 기업들이 현금으로 보유하기 때문이다. 화폐가 제공하는 서비스는 그 회전에 있지 않고, 어떤 미래의 쓰임에 대비해 현금으로 대기 상태로 있다는 것이다.
통화의 유통 속도라는 개념의 큰 단점은, 그것이 개인의 행동을 관찰해서 나온 개념이 아니라, 전체 경제 체제라는 시각에서 나온 개념이기 때문이다.
수리 경제학은 시장 경제에서 개인들의 행동을 무시하고, 경제 시스템 자체가 전체주의적이고 독재가가 유일한 사람인 것처럼 간주하고 있다.
Mises on the Velocity of Circulation
Ludwig von Mises
[Editor’s note: this essay was found among Bettina Bien Greaves’s files. A note in her handwriting indicates that it was written in 1944 and that Mises used it in his 1959 seminar. In this short essay, Mises in his characteristically lucid and forceful manner goes over the basics of monetary theory and shows why the concept of velocity of circulation is useless for understanding changes in the purchasing power of the monetary unit. The original text is reproduced here with the inclusion of some minor edits in Bettina Greaves’s hand.]
Within the fictitious concept of a uniformly turning economic system there is no change at all. All economic data remain unchanged and consequently today repeats only what happened yesterday and the day before yesterday, and tomorrow will repeat what happened today. In such an imaginary world there is no uncertainty about the future. Nobody is under the necessity of providing anything for unforeseen events because no such events can possibly occur.
In such a world there is no need for cash holding. Everybody knows in advance what amounts of money he will have to pay at any future date. He can therefore convert all his liquid funds into time deposits with the banks. The sole bank or the whole banking system of such a world does not need any reserves because the total amount becoming due at any date corresponds exactly to the total amount of new time deposits deposited with them on the same date. The banks can therefore sell their total gold reserves to people who employ the metal for non-monetary uses. Money evaporates into a merely nominal unit of accounting, a kind of counter of the character which some economists erroneously ascribed to the actual money of a living and changing economic system. There is, in such a world, neither “liquidity” nor “liquidity preference” in the Keynesian sense of these terms. If we were to apply the misleading popular terminology which calls such a uniformly turning economic system a system of static equilibrium, we would have to say: money is not an element of a static system, it is necessarily always an element of dynamism. But it should be remembered, money is dynamic not because it changes hands, but because it lies—“idle,” as people say mistakenly—in the cash holdings of various individuals and corporate bodies.
The service that money renders does not consist in its turnover. It consists in its being ready in cash holdings for any future use.
Money is never “idle.” It always renders to somebody the only service that it can render, namely being a part of a man’s cash holdings.
Cash holdings are sometimes greater and sometimes smaller with the same individual. But nobody ever has cash holdings greater than he wants to have. If he thinks that his cash holdings are excessive, he invests the surplus either by buying (producers’ or consumers’ goods) or by lending it. (Time deposits are one method of lending money.) It is a judgment of value to call somebody’s cash holding “hoarding.” The individual concerned believes that under the given state of affairs the best policy (or let us say: the minor evil) is to increase his cash holdings. It does not matter whether I approve of his behavior or not. His behavior—not my subjective opinion about its expediency—is a factor influencing the formation of market prices.
It is futile to distinguish between “circulating” money and “idle” money. Money changes hands without being ownerless for any fraction of time. Money may be in the process of transportation, travelling in railroad cars or in other means of transportation. But it is, even from the legal point of view, always in somebody’s possession.
In a changing world everybody is under the necessity of keeping an amount of ready cash on hand. This desire creates the demand for money and makes people willing to sell goods and services in exchange for money. A realistic theory of the value and the purchasing power of money must therefore start from a recognition of these desires. The changes in the purchasing power of the monetary unit are brought about by changes arising in the relation between the demand for money, i.e., the demand for money for cash holding, and the quantity of money available.
The main deficiency of the velocity of circulation concept is that it does not start from the actions of individuals but looks at the problem from the angle of the whole economic system. This concept is one of the elements in the so called equation of exchange which in itself is a vicious mode of approaching the problem of prices and purchasing power. It is assumed that, other things being equal, prices must change in proportion to the changes occurring in the total quantity of money available. This is not true.
Mathematical economics disregards the actions of the individual members of a market society. It looks upon the affairs of a market society in which the individuals and the corporate bodies formed by them are the only agents as if the system were totalitarian with the dictator as the only agent. Of course, such a totalitarian system is to some extent thinkable, although thinking it through to its ultimate logical consequences must needs lead to insoluble contradictions. But at any rate in such a system there are neither prices and wage rates nor money. There are only rations allotted to the subjects for their consumption. The technical tools of this allotment—for instance: rationing cards, assignments of definite quantities of goods and so on—are not money. Nobody would call a railroad ticket “money” and handing it over to the conductor “payment.”
The only method appropriate for dealing with the problems of a market society is the step by step method. It asks in our case: who gets the additional money, when and to what amount? And further: how does this affect cash holdings, prices, and wage rates? In answering this question we must discover that changes in the quantity of money available can never change prices and wage rates proportionately.
Money is of course a social institution. But it is an institution of a society based on the division of labor, private ownership of the means of production and market exchange. In such a society the individuals—not a holistic entity—determine values and prices. A method that disregards the actions of the individuals and operates with holistic concepts is inadequate for the study of such a society.
------------------------------------------------------------
경제학이 정치의 희생양이 된다면
경제학 역시 물리학이나 화학처럼 거짓말로 치부하거나 무시하거나 입법으로 억압할 수 있는 게 아니다. 정치에 의해 경제학이 조작되고 왜곡되면, 이 사회의 번영과 평화는 끝장나고 빈곤과 폭력이 난무할 것이다.
Will Economics Fall to Politics?
Jeff Deist
The intense pressure to politicize every aspect of academia will not spare economics, and why would it? A society willing to topple statues is hardly one to worry about pulling down a body of knowledge, especially one skillfully characterized by the Left as a political program rather than an actual social science.
cartoon
Keep in mind that the English literary canon and "Western civ" generally are under fire on campuses across America. What we think of as important and seminal works in classics, literature, philosophy, and history increasingly are questioned and discarded. Even hard-science STEM curricula are not immune—and not simply for the lack of diversity among those working and teaching in STEM fields, but because the knowledge itself is deemed too Western and Anglocentric. Even physical sciences are not considered objective in our grim political world.
2+2=4, says who?
We cannot imagine economics is immune from this gross politicization. The dismal science is similarly full of dead white men: names like Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Alfred Marshall, Paul Samuelson, along with Austrians like Hayek and Mises, come to mind when naming seminal works. Do we think this edifice will not be attacked on identitarian grounds, even apart from the general belief that economics is mostly a fake discipline designed to provide phony intellectual cover for business interests?
Academic economists supposedly have skewed, and still skew, more "conservative" than their deeply left-wing colleagues in social science departments—at least according to this perishable 2010 study by the New York Fed. But this is not really true today, and is less so every year. According to Forbes, 70 percent of economists supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in 2016 and most are Democrats.
So while university economists might be less left-leaning than academia generally, they may well be further left than the general population. This is readily apparent if you spend much time consuming fintwit, shorthand "financial Twitter," where economists and finance types who are active on the platform gather. In the fintwit universe, old horses like Paul Krugman find themselves elbowed aside by deeply progressive younger voices like Noah Smith at Bloomberg, Marshall Steinbaum at the University of Utah, and modern monetary theory proponent Stephanie Kelton at SUNY Stony Brook. These writers focus with particular zeal on "remaking" economics, questioning whether any past knowledge, however painstakingly developed, fits the modern world. We need a "new economics," always one that serves "people over profits"—which is another way of saying serves their preferred political program of democratic socialism.
Increasingly, economics is understood not as a discipline with principles, axioms, and laws, but rather a malleable tool run by legislative or central bank fiat. Economies can be commanded. After all, Congress just appropriated more than $2 trillion in the CARES Act, with no new taxes, and the Trump administration has plans for another round of trillion-dollar stimulus. If the $600 weekly federal add-on to unemployment benefits is extended into August and beyond, are we not approaching a form of universal basic income? The Fed, for its part, has already created more than $3 trillion in "liquidity" just since February of this year, and appears willing to increase its balance sheet to $10 trillion as needed to soothe corporate bond markets.
Any casual observer is hard pressed not to wonder whether government cannot simply create money and credit indefinitely. Why can't this "new normal" system keep us all housed and fed even after the coronavirus crisis fades? Why can't we substitute politics for economics, and in fact redefine the latter as a state program?
Those of us who believe in markets and property better wake up. Send everyone you know this link, for starters, and equip yourself with the intellectual ammunition to fight the reality deniers. Economics cannot be faked, ignored, or legislated away any more than physics or chemistry. Economics, as Mises understood, is the study of social cooperation. When economics falls to politics, peace and prosperity fall to poverty and violence.
-------------------------------------------------
]
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기