[사설] 556조 초슈퍼 예산에 빚 내서 재난지원금? 염치도 없나 한경 입력2020.11.29 코로나 3차 대유행에 따른 거리두기 강화로 재난지원금 추가 지급이 필요하다는 주장이 국회에서 제기되고 있다. 사상 최대 규모(약 556조원)의 내년도 초슈퍼예산을 심사 중인 가운데 3차 재난지원금 논의가 불붙은 것이다. 여야가 입이라도 맞춘 듯, 그 규모도 3조5000억~3조6000억원으로 구체화하고 있다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- deve**** 검찰이 권력수사를 하면 검찰개혁하자, 판결이 불리하게 나오면 사법개혁하자, 언론이 정권 비판하면 언론개혁하자 국민이 정권 비판하면 저놈 토착왜구다 하는게 이번 정권이의 선과악의 논리. / 조선일보 댓글 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1978년부터 무려 20년 연속 당선된 11선 하원의장 출신인 공화당의 거물급 인사 뉴트 깅리치가 "2020 선거는 최근 200년 동안 가장 큰 절도 사건" 이라고 못 박았다. 한국의 국민당인지 뭔지하는 개잡당 새끼들 스스로 4.15는 부정선거 아니라고 입에 거품 무는 꼴과 수준이 달라도 너무 다르다. 20년간 "깅리치 혁명"이라 불리우며 공화당 정체성의 초석을 놓은 초대형 거물급 인사가 완전한 부정선거로 못 박음으로써 이제 한국언론 양아치 새끼들이 설 땅이 없어졌다. 미국 사정 제대로 못 읽고 아직도 "바이든 차기 대통령" 운운하는 것들이 기자랍시고 설치는 한심한 헬조선 상황/ 일베 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2020 미국 대선 “복잡한 수학 공식 필요없어…트럼프, 경합주 3곳 손쉽게 탈환” 선거 전문가 한동훈 2020년 11월 29일 주요 경합주 3곳에서 도널드 트럼프 미국 대통령이 손쉽게 승부를 뒤집을 수 있으리라는 분석이 나왔다. 2016년 대선 당시 트럼프 선거캠프에서 데이터·전략 국장으로 활동했던 선거 분석 전문가 맷 브라이너드는 25일 에포크타임스에서 “경합주 3곳에서 ‘미심쩍은 투표지’ 숫자가 바이든과 트럼프 간 표차보다 많다”고 밝혔다. 경합주 3곳은 모두 득표율 격차가 1%포인트 미만으로 매우 근소한 애리조나(0.3%P), 조지아(0.2%P), 위스콘신(0.7%P) 등이다. 그가 말한 수상한 투표지는 △선거일 전에 다른 주로 이사한 유권자 투표 △두 번 이상의 중복 투표 △우체국 등 실제 거주지가 아닌 주소로 등록한 유권자 투표의 세 종류다. 모두 선거 규정에 따라 무효처리돼야 할 투표들이다. 이 전문가는 선거 직후 팀을 구성해 펜실베이니아, 조지아, 미시간, 네바다, 위스콘신, 애리조나 등 경합주 6곳에서 ‘불일치’를 조사해왔다고 지난 24일 자신의 유튜브 채널을 통해 밝혔다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 과세는 도둑질이다. 뿐만 아니라 당신이 번 돈을 빼앗아감으로써, 정부는 당신에게 강제 노동을 강요하고 있는 것이다. Not only is taxation theft, but by taking away part of the money you earn, the government is forcing you to work for it. Taxation and Forced Labor David Gordon When the government taxes you, it is taking away your money without your consent, and this is theft. This argument is well known, but there is another, though related, problem with taxes on income that you earn. By taking away part of the money you earn, the government is forcing you to work for it. Robert Nozick advanced this argument in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, and what I’d like to discuss in this week’s column is a defense of Nozick’s argument by Adam D. Moore that was published this year in the Southern Journal of Philosophy. It’s especially timely to discuss Moore’s article now, because Moore uses a famous argument by the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson, who passed away last Saturday. Thomson asks us to consider this case: “Violinist: You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.” The violinist will die unless you remain hooked up to him for nine months. Do you have the right to detach yourself? Thomson thinks it is obvious that you do. You didn’t consent to the arrangement, and your body isn’t at the disposal of others, even if they need it in order to survive. (Thomson uses her example to defend the permissibility of certain cases of abortion, but that isn’t relevant here.) Moore varies the example in order to make it more relevant to his own argument. “Where in the original case Thomson has you hooked up for nine months, I will suppose that you are hooked up each day for several hours. Each day, the Society of Music Lovers kidnaps you and attaches the violinist. In five years, the violinist’s kidneys will be healed, and no further kidnappings will need to occur.” Moore says you would still be justified in detaching yourself, because the Society is using your body without your consent. He goes on to present a case of his own in which someone on an island has to work extra hours to support someone else unable to work. Here again Moore says you aren’t morally required to do so. It might be a nice thing to aid the person unable to work, but someone can’t be compelled to do this. The way the example applies to income taxes is obvious. When the government taxes your income, it is taking away the product of hours of your labor. Just as I would be appropriating your labor if I forced you to work several hours for me without paying you anything, the government by taxing your income is seizing hours of your labor. Moore considers an interesting objection to his argument. If you don’t want to pay income tax, couldn’t you avoid this by working less or for lower pay, so that your income fell below the minimum income for taxation? But why does the government have the right to put you in this unenviable position? Moore considers, in elaborate detail, a number of variations of the case, in each instance concluding that the government acts improperly. These I’ll leave to interested readers to examine for themselves. But isn’t Moore’s argument open to another objection? The government isn’t just taking away your hours of labor. It also provides you with benefits. Of course, most government programs are detrimental or at best useless, but never mind that. Moore responds by using another point that Nozick raised. People can’t confer benefits on you without your consent and then demand that you pay for them. “Nozick writes, ‘One cannot, whatever one’s purposes, just act so as to give people benefits and then demand (or seize) payment. Nor can a group of persons do this. If you may not charge and collect for benefits you bestow without prior agreement, you certainly may not do so for benefits whose bestowal costs you nothing, and most certainly people need not repay you for costless-to-provide benefits which yet others provided them.’” Most readers will already know how to answer the objection that the taxes aren’t imposed by a dictator but are the outcome of a democratic election. You can’t be forced to labor for others, even if your partial slavery is the result of a majority vote. The rejoinder that I am drawn to at this point is one word: democracy! In democratic societies we vote about how to share the benefits and burdens of social interaction. Everyone gets a vote, and the will of the majority decides the appropriate share of benefits and burdens. The idea is to join together two factors, accruing benefits and democracy, that will justify taxation and redistribution. But, imagine our original Violinist case and add in a small village where the principles of democracy and majority rule have been in place for centuries. After a brief campaign to get out the vote and save the violinist, the village votes unanimously–1 (your vote) to hook you up and begin your daily sessions with the violinist. I warrant that this would be immoral independent of the vote and the benefits. Moore with great ingenuity responds to a number of other objections, and I’ll mention just one more: Taxes are justified because citizens agree to them as part of a social bargain. In return for the benefits that society bestows on the fortunate—and by using the goods and services offered by society—these individuals are indebted and agree to this contract…[but] no one has actually signed this social contract. Minimally, for a contract to generate moral and legal norms it must take place in conditions that are fair and where the parties to the contract have enough information. For example, withholding crucial information (the “car” you are about to buy is a shell with no internal parts) or threatening someone (pointing a gun at someone to ensure they sign the contract) would invalidate whatever moral norms that might typically arise in a proposed contract. How would any of this work related to a social contract? Moreover, there may be individuals who simply “don’t use the facilities” so-to-speak. Not only have they not agreed to pay any taxes, but they also do not consume any societal benefits. We are greatly indebted to Moore for his fine analysis. But we don’t owe him any money for the benefit he has conferred on us, because we have signed no agreement to pay him. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 오수유탕은 중초, 하초의 허한虚寒과 탁음浊阴의 상충上冲으로 인한 각종 증후를 치료한다. 吴茱萸汤《伤寒论》用以治疗中、下二焦虚寒，挟浊阴上冲，所致的各种证候。 本方由吴茱萸、人参、生姜、大枣组成，吴茱萸温中，下气，散寒，降逆止呕，并有止痛作用。《本草经疏》说：“凡脾胃之气，喜温而恶寒，寒则 中气不能运化，或为冷食不消，或为腹内绞痛，或寒痰停积，以致气逆发咳，五脏不利。吴茱萸辛温，暖脾胃而散寒邪，则中自温，气自下，而诸证悉除。”人参， 大枣以益气补虚，可使中焦气盛，辅助补阳之药，以利于祛寒扶阳。生姜有散寒止呕、降逆、逐水饮的作用。诸药合用，成为一个温中、祛寒、补虚、降逆、止呕之 剂。可以治疗肝胃虚寒、浊阴上逆所致的呕吐、烦躁、头痛、手足厥逆等证。根据此方药物的性能，运用于临床以呕吐、头痛、烦燥、吐沫为主证者，但必须兼有手 足厥逆、脉沉迟等虚寒脉证，不论新久，均有一定的效验。 松原市中医院推拿按摩科赵东奇 一、呕吐（属胃寒者） 由于中阳不足，胃腑虚寒，不能腐熟水谷，浊阴之气上冲，故出现呕吐。证见食欲不佳，消化迟滞，食后呕吐，喜热怕冷，手足厥逆，脉多沉迟或虚缓无力，舌多色淡苔薄。 典型病例： 杨XX，男，42岁。偶尔食不适时即呕吐，吐出未经消化之食物及夹杂不少粘沫，吐出量并不多，为此未引起足够的重视，如此延续了将近十年。 近一年多以来病情加重，发展为每日饭后隔一至二小时，即频频呕吐不休，天气寒冷时尤其严重。曾用过不少止呕和胃健胃等药品，未曾获效。现手足厥逆，消化迟 滞，脉沉而迟。治以吴茱萸汤。 吴茱萸12克，人参6克，生姜30克，大枣5枚 服三剂后，呕吐减十分之五、六，继服三剂呕吐又复发到原来的程度。经询问情况才知道因当时未找到生姜，而以腌姜代替，不仅无效反而又使病情 反复。后配以生姜再进四剂，呕吐减十分之七、八，饮食增加，手足厥逆好转。宗此方化裁，共服20余剂，呕吐停止。观察一年来，未见复发。 二、头痛 吴茱萸汤治肝胃寒邪挟浊阴之气上逆，扰于清阳之府的头部而致的头痛。痛的部位多在正额和巅顶，痛时烦躁，恶心，吐沫，常见手足厥逆，脉多迟而弱。 典型病例： 张XX，男，30岁。患重感冒后引起头痛，疼痛剧烈难忍。并时时烦躁，恶心呕吐，吐出物皆痰涎之类，恶寒而不发热，手足不温、自觉口、鼻、 齿冰冷难忍。脉沉迟，舌色淡，苔滑。从表现证状和脉象看为中焦虚寒，复感外邪，引起浊阴之气上逆于清阳之府所致。治以吴茱萸汤，服一剂后，头痛顿减，呕吐 恶寒也有好转。守方共服三剂痊愈。 结语 吴茱萸汤所治由于虚寒引起的吐、利、烦躁、头痛等证，其药物的配合和疗效有很大的关系，其中生姜一味必不可少，更不能以干姜，腌姜等代替。 의이부자패장산 허한형虚寒型의 만성 맹장염 치료 薏苡附子败酱散 薏苡附子败酱散，是以薏苡仁、附子、败酱草组成。方中薏苡除湿排脓，《中国药植图鉴》说：“治肺水肿、湿性胸膜炎、排尿障碍、慢性胃肠病、 慢性溃疡。”附子温阳散结。败酱草解热毒排脓，消肿止痛，鲜者效果更好。《纲目》：“败酱善排脓破血，故仲景治痈，即古方妇人科皆用之。”《本草正义》： 败酱“能清热泄结，利水消肿，破瘀排脓”。《中药大辞典》：败酱“清热解毒，排脓破瘀”，治“产后瘀滞腹痛，痈肿疥癣”。《日华子本草》：败酱治“疮痍疥 癣丹毒”。仲景用本方治疗肠痈，以及由营血郁滞于里，使皮肤缺乏血液的滋养，而形成的“肌肤甲错”等证候。临床上用本方治疗阑尾炎脓已成的病证，效果之明 显，自不待说，并可治疗慢性阑尾炎，日久阳虚，脉迟，手足厥冷，缠绵不愈的属虚寒型者，效果也颇显著。另外，不论男女由多种原因造成的右少腹部疼痛，用本 方也有一定的效验。还可治疗鹅掌风。 《用方经验》本方条曰：“兼治遍身有疮疖如癞风，肌肤不仁，不知痛痒者。” 一、肠痈（阑尾炎） 本病是由于暴食暴饮、寒暑不节、饱食后负重疾走等原因，致湿热瘀血壅滞于肠间而成痈肿。证见右少腹疼痛、压痛、或按之肿硬、恶心呕吐、发热寒战等。本方适用于肠痈脓已成以及病久阳虚正不胜邪者。 典型病例： 胡xx，女，60岁。患慢性阑尾炎五、六年，右少腹疼痛，每遇饮食不当，或受寒、劳累即加重，反复发作，缠绵不愈。经运用西药青、链霉素等消炎治疗，效果不佳。又建议手术治疗，因患者考虑年老体衰，而要求服中药治疗。 初诊时呈慢性病容，精神欠佳，形体瘦弱，恶寒喜热，手足厥冷，右少腹阑尾点压痛明显，舌淡，苔白，脉沉弱。患者平素阳虚寒甚，患阑尾炎后，数年来更久服寒凉之药，使阳愈衰而寒愈甚，致成沉疴痼疾，困于阴寒，治宜温化为主。 熟附子15克，薏苡仁30克，鲜败酱全草15根，水煎服，共服六剂，腹痛消失，随访二年．概未复发。 二、鹅掌风和肌肤甲错 （一）鹅掌风 鹅掌风见《外科正宗》多因风湿凝聚，气血失养所致。或由接触传染而得，初起掌心及手指皮下，生小水泡搔痒，继而泡破，迭起白皮，脱屑，日久 皮肤粗糙变厚，甚则皲裂疼痛，入冬加重，自掌心可延及遍手，进一步发展可以引起指甲变厚，色灰黑而脆，病程缠绵，即手癣。亦包括手部慢性湿疹、掌蹠角化症 等。用本方治疗效果良好。 典型病例： 朱XX，男，56岁，肥皂工人。每年秋冬季患鹅掌风，起初手心发痒，皮肤变粗，继而流黄水，手掌皮肤逐渐变厚，呈鱼鳞状，奇痒难忍，到来年春天即自愈。给予薏苡附子败酱汤治疗，于未发作前两个月开始服用，连服30余剂，当年即未发，其后观察二年未曾复发。 （二）肌肤甲错 典型病例： 翟XX，女，19岁。于八、九岁以来即出现四肢及肩背部皮肤甲错，甲错部分呈盘状型，痒甚。每到夏天即基本上消失，逢冬即又发作，数年来一 直如此。1973年求治，细审其证状，患处皮肤异常粗糙，如鱼鳞形状，但与皮癣有明显分别，其他全身皮肤虽不似患处粗糙，但也是干燥、枯涩不润。考虑似仲 景所启示的内有瘀血，外失濡养所致的肌肤甲错，遂投以薏苡附子败酱汤。 处方：薏苡仁60克，熟附子9克，败酱草30克 连服20余剂后，不仅患处的皮肤改善，搔痒消失，就连全身皮肤也改变了原来的那种枯涩不润的状态，三年来未发作。到第四年诸证复发如前，又投以上方加减20余剂，痊愈。以后观察数年未见复发。 三、右少腹痛 由于多种原因造成的右少腹痛，以阑尾区压痛明显为用药依据，不论是否肠痈或其他疾患，用薏苡附子败酱散治疗皆有效验。另外，本方还可以治疗肚脐流水。 病例一： 田XX，女，43岁。因呕吐腹泻后，遗留右少腹痛半年之久，每因劳累、饱食或经前而加重。曾经妇科检查怀疑附件炎，外科考虑阑尾炎，运用中西药断续治疗数月未效。给予薏苡附子败酱汤治疗，服药二剂以后疼痛即减轻，又服四剂痊愈。随访半年未复发。 病例二： 张XX，女，39岁。患右少腹痛一年多，拒按，疼痛呈延续性，虽有暂止时，也不是绝对不疼，仍有隐微的痛觉。月经一年多以来一直不正常，每 次来时延绵三个月左右，量甚少，点滴淋漓。其间即使停止，最多停十数日又开始出血，仍延续数月不止。经数处医院诊断，皆诊为“功能性子宫出血”，用一般对 证治疗无效。一年多以来缠绵不愈。 患者虽以右少腹痛为主证，但阴道淋漓不断出血一年之久，属中医的崩漏证。右少腹痛和崩漏的发生几乎是同一时期，而且痛而拒按，并伴有头 晕、耳鸣、心悸、纳呆、手足厥冷、倦怠乏力等阴阳俱虚之证。其病因病机显然是寒凝血瘀于冲任而致少腹痛，血液受阻不得循经入络，滥于脉外，而发生崩漏。遂 以薏苡附子败酱汤（薏苡仁60克、附子12克、败酱30克）温阳散结，除湿消肿祛瘀止痛，又加以活血化瘀的丹皮来治疗，服药后下瘀血紫块甚多，腹痛崩漏一 并迅速治愈。 结语 1、薏苡附子败酱散治疗各种病证，如在有条件的季节和地区用鲜败酱草效果更好，汤剂每剂用量约20株，根茎最好保持完整。 2、薏苡附子败酱散治疗右少腹痛范围较广，除治疗阑尾炎以外，并可治疗附件炎、痛经以及因血瘀等原因造成的少腹痛，皆有效验。 3、鹅掌风之手皲裂为风湿凝聚，久而气血失养所致。肌肤甲错为各种原因致营血不能润养肌肤而呈干涩枯槁如鱼鳞状。“肌肤失养”为其主因。薏苡附子败酱散能温阳利湿散瘀消肿，使寒湿瘀血之瘀滞消散，经络通，肌肤得以濡养，则甲错、鹅掌风可愈。 总之，只要能谨守病机，就可举一反三，对“经方”应用自如。 감초건강탕 허한형 폐위肺痿병 치료 甘草干姜汤 甘草干姜汤在《伤寒论》中用以治疗伤寒因误治伤阳，引起四肢厥逆，烦躁、吐逆等证，《金匮要略》则以此方治疗虚寒型的肺痿病。 本方以炙甘草、干姜二味药组成。炙甘草能补中益气，干姜辛热温阳，主温肺胃之阳，辛甘合用为助阳之剂。因而可以治疗肺、胃虚寒造成的一部分 疾患。如：误汗下以后，表里俱虚，可以用本方以复阳；脾胃阳虚引起的胃痛以及吐逆疾患；肺痿属于虚寒者。并可治呕吐自利、吐涎沫、遗尿等证。凡属于肺胃之 气虚寒者，用此方治疗均有一定的效果。 诸前辈对此方的应用颇为广泛。 吴遵程曰：“甘草干姜汤，即四逆汤去附子也……其夹食，夹饮，面赤，足冷，发热，喘咳，腹痛，便滑，内外之邪相合，难以发散，或寒饮伤胃，宜合用理中，不便予参术者，皆可服之，真胃虚挟寒之圣剂也。” 《外台》：“治吐逆，水谷不下者，干姜甘草汤。”（即本方也——作者） 《伤寒绪论》曰：“伤寒，若心下结痛，无热证，不渴、不烦者，此寒实结胸也，甘草干姜汤……” 除以上论说外，并可治下列之病证。 一、吐涎抹 吐涎沫之证，多因中焦阳虚与肺冷而致，阳盛则失去温沫之权，肺冷则气虚不能温布津液，因而津液聚积化为涎沫，故多吐唾液或吐涎沫，以甘草干姜汤温复胃中之阳，温肺复气，使阳复而气温，津液得四布，则吐涎沫自愈。 典型病例： 李XX，女，65岁。患者形体肥胖，平素即不喜饮水，面部及下肢间有水肿，食稍有不适时即肠鸣腹泻，由此脾胃阳虚可知。一个多月以来，无明 显诱因忽唾液特多，唾出量一日一夜约一碗多，脉象沉迟。舌淡而胖，并有齿印。曾给服吴茱萸汤及五苓散数剂，病情不但不减，还续有增加。后宗《伤寒论》之 意，诊为肺胃虚寒，津液不能温布，故频频吐出。遂改用甘草干姜汤治之。 炙甘草15克，干姜15克。水煎服，一日一剂，连服五剂痊愈。 按：本例吐涎沫患者，是因中焦阳虚与肺冷而成，尤其是以肺冷为最，肺阳不足不能温布津液所致。在治疗方面，应以温肺助阳为主，前服五苓散、 吴茱萸汤都是治胃寒，逐水饮之药。用以治疗此病，似是而非，故服之无效。所谓差之毫厘，谬之千里也。后改用甘草干姜汤应手取效。故在临床上如辨证不确，虽 为小疾，也难于中窍。 二、小便失禁 甘草干姜汤，可治由虚寒引起的小便失禁。这一类型的小便失禁，是因上虚不能制下，下元虚寒，以致肾与膀胱气虚阳微，失其制约小便的功能，因而小便失禁，尿频，并兼不喜饮水或手足不温等证。 病例一： 任xx，男，60岁。偶尔小便淋漓失禁，自己认为这是一般老年人的普通现象，未引起重视。年复一年，竟然发展到小便完全不能自己控制，随时 溺出，痛苦万状。以炙甘草15克，干姜15克，水煎服，日服一剂。服30剂以后小便基本能自己控制，后将此方改为散剂，日服9克，以巩固之。 病例二： 乔xx，女，19岁，徒工。自幼有尿床的习惯，一直到现在，仍然是每晚尿床，不论冬夏，几乎夜夜如此。近几年来四出求医，间或有短期疗效，但不能巩固。年岁大了有此病患，颇为所苦。患者当时，面色不华，不喜饮水，手足不温，脉沉。诊为肺虚不能制下，下元虚寒所致。 炙甘草15克，干姜15克，白果10克，益智仁10克，水煎服，日服一剂。服到十剂时感到有明显效果，已经不是每晚尿床了，而是隔二、三日一次。照此方共服40余剂，又以此方配制蜜丸，继服半年多痊愈。 按：本例之小便失禁与猪苓汤之小便失禁有根本上的区别，此为上焦虚寒不能制下，致肾与膀胱气虚阳微，不能制约小便。猪苓汤为热伤津液，膀胱 气燥引起的小便失禁。又与单纯肾气虚寒不能制约小便有别。所以在治疗方面，此类型的小便失禁是以甘草干姜汤侧重温补中、上二焦，方能获得效果 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMF가 말하는 유동성 함정은 무엇이고, 그것은 왜 엉터리 이론인가, 저금리 정책 중에도 경제가 저조할 때, 경제학자들은 그것을 유동성 함정에 빠졌다고 판단한다. 케인즈는 이때 정부가 적극적으로 개입해 지출을 해야 한다고 주장한다. 케인즈의 생각에 따르면 통화 지출이 경제 성장의 견인차이고 저축은 경제에 해롭다. 하지만 사람들은 돈이 아니라 그들이 생산한 것으로 상품을 구입한다. 돈은 단지 교환의 매개물일 뿐이다. 만일 유동 화폐를 확대하는 것으로 경제 성장을 이룰 수 있다면, 대부분의 제3세계 국가들은 무작정 돈을 찍어내는 것으로 가난을 퇴치할 수 있다는 논리가 된다. Why the IMF Is Wrong about Liquidity Traps Frank Shostak In the Financial Times from November 2, 2020, the International Monetary Fund chief economist Gita Gopinath suggested that world economies at present are likely to be in a global liquidity trap. Gopinath has reached this conclusion because the yearly growth rate of the price indexes has been trending down despite very low interest rates policies. According to the IMF chief economist, central banks have lowered interest rates to below 1 percent and in some countries interest rates are at present negative. In the framework of a liquidity trap, it is held that the ability of central banks to stage an effective defense against various economic shocks weakens significantly. So how can one resolve the problem of the central banks' inability to produce the necessary defense of the economy? A possible way out of the liquidity trap, suggests Gopinath, is to employ aggressive loose fiscal policy. This means aggressive government spending in order to boost the aggregate demand. According to Gopinath, Fiscal authorities can actively support demand through cash transfers to support consumption and large-scale investment in medical facilities, digital infrastructure and environment protection. These expenditures create jobs, stimulate private investment and lay the foundation for a stronger and greener recovery. Governments should look for high-quality projects, while strengthening public investment management to ensure that projects are competitively selected and resources are not lost to inefficiencies. Furthermore, according to Gopinath, The importance of fiscal stimulus has probably never been greater because the spending multiplier—the pay-off in economic growth from an increase in public investment—is much larger in a prolonged liquidity trap. For the many countries that find themselves at the effective lower bound of interest rates, fiscal stimulus is not just economically sound policy but also the fiscally responsible thing to do. What exactly is the liquidity trap that the IMF chief economist is warning us about? The Liquidity Trap: What Is It All About? This popular framework of thinking originates from the writings of John Maynard Keynes, where economic activity is presented in terms of a circular flow of money. Spending by one individual becomes part of the earnings of another individual, and spending by another individual becomes part of the first individual's earnings. Recessions, according to Keynes, are a response to the fact that consumers—for some psychological reasons—have decided to cut down on their expenditure and raise their savings. For instance, if for some reason people become less confident regarding the future, they will cut back their outlays and hoard more money. Therefore, once an individual spends less, this will worsen the situation of some other individual, who in turn will also cut his spending. A vicious circle sets in—the decline in people's confidence causes them to spend less and to hoard more money. This lowers economic activity further, thereby causing people to hoard more, etc. Following this logic, in order to prevent a recession from getting out of hand, the central bank must lift the growth rate of money supply and aggressively lower interest rates. Once consumers have more money in their pockets, their confidence will increase, and they will start spending again, thereby reestablishing the circular flow of money, so it is held. In his writings, Keynes suggested that a situation could emerge where an aggressive lowering of interest rates by the central bank would bring rates to a level from which they would not fall further. As a result, the central bank would not be able to revive the economy. This, according to Keynes, could occur because people might adopt a view that interest rates have bottomed out and that interest rates should subsequently rise, leading to capital losses on bond holdings. As a result, people's demand for money will become extremely high, implying that people would hoard money and refuse to spend it no matter how much the central bank tries to expand the money supply. As a result, this is going to undermine the circular flow of money and the economy will plunge into an economic slump. On this Keynes wrote, There is the possibility…that, after the rate of interest has fallen to a certain level, liquidity-preference may become virtually absolute in the sense that almost everyone prefers cash to holding a debt which yields so low a rate of interest. In this event the monetary authority would have lost effective control over the rate of interest. Once an economy is seen to be weakening in the midst of a policy of very low interest rates, most economists regard this as a sign that it has fallen into a liquidity trap. Once this happens, if some other policies are not introduced, it is held that the economy is doomed to be stuck in a stage of permanent stagnation. To prevent this from happening it is recommended that authorities embrace an aggressive fiscal policy stance. This means that the government should step in and spend aggressively. The spending can be on all sorts of projects. Because of this spending, it is held, the consumer confidence is going to strengthen. With a higher level of confidence, consumers will lower their savings and raise their expenditure. Does Monetary Expenditure Cause Economic Growth In the Keynesian framework, the ever-expanding monetary flow is the key to economic prosperity. What drives economic growth is monetary expenditure. When people spend more of their money, this implies they save less. Conversely, when people reduce their monetary spending in the Keynesian framework, this is viewed as saving more. In this way of thinking, saving is considered bad news for the economy—the more people save, the worse things become. (The liquidity trap comes from too much saving and the lack of spending, so it is held.) Observe however, that people do not pay with money, as suggested by the Keynesian framework, but rather with the goods that they have produced. The chief role of money is as a medium of exchange. Hence, the demand for goods is constrained by the production of goods, not by the amount of money spent. (The role of money is to facilitate the exchange of goods.) Paraphrasing Jean-Baptiste Say, Mises wrote, Commodities, says Say, are ultimately paid for not by money, but by other commodities. Money is merely the commonly used medium of exchange; it plays only an intermediary role. What the seller wants ultimately to receive in exchange for the commodities sold is other commodities. To suggest that people could have an almost unlimited demand for money that supposedly leads to a liquidity trap would mean that people do not exchange money for goods any longer. Obviously, this is not a realistic proposition given the fact that people require goods to live. People demand money not in order to accumulate it, but to employ in exchange. Being the medium of exchange, money can only assist in the exchange of one producer's goods for another producer's goods. Real Saving Is the Heart of Economic Growth Various tools and machinery, or the infrastructure that people have established, is for only one purpose and it is to be able to produce the final consumer goods that are required to maintain and promote people’s lives and well-being. The quantity and quality of various tools and machinery determines the quantity and quality of final consumer goods. With more and better capital goods, i.e., tools and machinery, the workers' ability to produce more goods and of an improved quality is likely to increase. What permits the expansion of capital goods is real savings, which is the amount of consumer goods produced less the consumption of these goods by their owners. Note that real savings sustain the various individuals who are engaged in the various stages of production. The greater the production of consumer goods, all other things being equal, the larger the pool of saved consumer goods, i.e., the pool of real savings, is going to be. A larger pool of real savings can now sustain more individuals employed to enhance and expand the infrastructure. This of course means that through the increase in real savings, a better infrastructure can be built, which in turn sets the platform for a higher economic growth. Higher economic growth means a larger quantity of final consumer goods, which in turn permits more savings and more consumption. With more savings, a more advanced infrastructure can be generated, and this in turn sets the platform for a further strengthening of economic growth. Note that the savers here are wealth generators. It is wealth generators who save and employ their real savings in the buildup of the infrastructure. The savings of wealth generators are employed to sustain various individuals who specialize in the making and the maintenance of the infrastructure. (Real savings also sustain individuals who are engaged in the production of final consumer goods). According to Mises, The sine qua non of any lengthening of the process of production adopted is saving, i.e., an excess of current production over current consumption. Saving is the first step on the way toward improvement of material well-being and toward every further progress on this way. Now is it valid to argue that the expanding monetary flow supports economic growth? If this were the case, then most third world economies would have eliminated poverty by now through printing large quantities of money. Any attempt to grow an economy by means of monetary pumping results in the diversion of real savings from wealth generators to wealth consumers. It results in the depletion of the pool of real savings. This in turn undermines the process of real wealth generation. Can Government Really Grow an Economy? The IMF chief economist's notion that the government can grow an economy originates in idea of the Keynesian multiplier, in which an increase in government outlays gives rise to the economy’s output by a multiple of the initial government increase.4 But in similarity to loose monetary policy, loose fiscal policy sets in motion a diversion of real savings from wealth-generating activities to government-supported activities. To support the increase in government outlays, government has to divert real savings from the private sector of the economy. This means that wealth producers in the private sector are going to part with their real savings to support individuals who are employed in various government projects that are likely to be lower on individuals' priority lists. This in turn weakens the production of wealth and, all other things being equal, weakens the pool of real savings. It follows, then, that not only does the increase in government outlays fail to raise overall output by a positive multiple, but on the contrary it will result in the weakening of the process of wealth generation in general. By boosting consumption while weakening the process of real wealth generation, loose fiscal policies undermine the pool of real savings. According to Mises, there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens' spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity. Liquidity Trap and the Shrinking Pool of Real Savings As long as the growth of the pool of real savings stays positive, it can continue to sustain productive and nonproductive activities. Trouble erupts when a structure of production emerges that ties up much more consumer goods than it releases as a result of continuous loose monetary and fiscal policies over time. (The consumption of final consumer goods exceeds the production of these goods.) The excessive consumption relative to the production of consumer goods leads to a decline in the pool of real savings. As a result, fewer activities can be now introduced. This results in the economy plunging into a slump. Once the economy falls into a recession due to the falling pool of real savings, any government or central bank attempt to revive it is going to fail. Not only will these attempts fail to revive the economy, they will deplete the pool of real savings further, thereby prolonging the economic slump. The shrinking pool of real savings exposes the erroneous nature of the commonly accepted view that loose monetary and fiscal policies can grow an economy. The fact that central bank policies become ineffective is not due to the liquidity trap, but because of the decline in the pool of real savings. In the framework of a declining pool of real savings, fiscal policies will also be ineffective. But the policy ineffectiveness is always present whenever central authorities are attempting to “grow an economy.” The only reason why it appears that these policies “work” is because the pool of real savings is still expanding. Conclusion Contrary to the popular thinking, if world economies were to fall into a liquidity trap, i.e., monetary policy ineffectiveness, the key reason for this would not be a sharp increase in the demand for money, but the depleted pool of real savings. Major contributing factors to this depletion are previous loose monetary and fiscal policies. The IMF chief economist's recommendation to counter the so-called liquidity trap by boosting fiscal spending will only make things much worse through a further depletion of the pool of real savings. What is required to revive world economic growth is to provide businesses with a free environment for growth. For this to occur, all the loopholes for the generation of money out of “thin air” must be closed and government outlays must be cut to the bone. In addition, the various regulations on businesses, which undermine their ability to generate real wealth, must be removed. Again, the key to economic prosperity is the generation of an abundance of real wealth. Only businesses—not government bureaucrats—are capable of achieving this. ---->정부가 유동성 함정을 피하기 위해 지출하는 돈은 모두 낭비된다고 보아도 무방하다. 하지만 GDP를 산정할 때는 정부 지출을 모두 포함하기 때문에, 한국의 성장율이 무척 높게 나오는 해프닝이 벌어진다. 올해 무려 4번에 걸쳐 추경까지 해대며 시장을 돈을 퍼부었기 때문에 성장율은 올라갔지만, 국민들의 생활은 오히려 낙후되었다. --------------------------------------------------------- 미국 시바박사 분석방법 응용 수도권 415총선 분석결과 https://gall.dcinside.com/mgallery/board/view?id=dngks&no=1107008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

오늘 트럼프 진영에 유리한 뉴스들이 엄청 쏟아져 나옴. 각 주에서 본격적으로 부정선거 소송 절차에 들어가면서 청문회 생방송 시작된 곳도 있고 특히 펜실베니아 주법원이 선거 인증(승자선언) 절차를 멈추라고 공화당의 손을 들어주는 판결을 했음. (위 트윗. 트럼프가 빅뉴스라고 트윗함) 경합주 전부 소송걸려서 Pending되어 있는 상태인데 헬조선 언론 병신들만 "당선자" "당선자" 하면서 바이든이 무슨 대통령된 것처럼 기사씀 ㅋㅋㅋ 이번에 미국 대선 보면서 부정선거는 둘째치고 한국언론 기자들 수준에 정말 깜짝 놀랐다이기야!! 씨발놈들아!! 니들이 인간이가!! 1줄요약: 바이든에 조금이라도 유리한 가짜뉴스 나오면 "트럼프 승복!!" 이러면서 가짜뉴스 퍼트리고 트럼프에 유리한 뉴스 쏟아져 나오면 싹 아가리 함구하고 멀뚱멀뚱 딴짓함. 가만 보면 광우병부터 허위탄핵까지 전부 한국언론 이 개새끼들이 가짜뉴스 퍼트려서 일으킨 거임. 트럼프가 한국인이었으면 영락없이 당했을 듯... 헬조선 언론 영향력 쥐뿔도 없는 미국이라 한국언론이 쓰는 소설과 미국여론은 반대로 감.ㅋ /일베 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 지정학으로 가덕도는 중국 제2도련선 넘어서게 만드는 교두보 - 넘쳐나는 차이나머니, 자연스럽게 한국의 대중 속국화 불러 언론과 정치가들은 오로지 가덕도 신공항이 갖는 경제성만 예기하고, 이와 연관된 지역 세몰이와 선거에서의 표몰이만 쉴 새 없이 언급하고 있다. 그 누구도 가덕도가 건설되면, 새카맣게 몰려올 ‘중국민항기’와 그 속에 숨어서 들어올 ‘중국전투기’들과 관련된 국제안보와 국제정치적인 문제는 전혀 언급하지 않고 있다. ‘국제정치지리학’적인 관점에서 보면, 가덕도 신공항은 중국의 태평양진출을 열어주는 중국의 군사, 물류 교두보역할을 확실하게 담당할 수 있다. 그리고 대한민국의 해양진출을 책임져왔고, 여전히 미국과 일본과의 물류교두보역할을 해온 부산을, 중국의 ‘차이나타운’으로 만들 수 있는 지정학적 환경이 조성된다. [강량 정치학박사, 한국국가전략포럼 선임연구위원] https://www.lkp.news/news/article.html?no=11297 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Trump Calls on Supporters to Stand Tall: ‘Don’t Be Intimidated by These People’ President Donald Trump, calling in at a Senate Republican hearing in Pennsylvania on Wednesday, called on GOP surrogates and his supporters to not back down in the face of threats and push back as his legal team challenges the result of the election. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

미국 국민들의 생생한 목소리! "이건 트럼프를 넘어서 자유냐 아니냐의 문제" [강미은TV 방구석외신] -------------------------------------------------------------- 진중권 “무서운 일이 벌어져…586 운동권 독재의 길로” 진중권, 분노의 페북…검찰총장 직무정지 직설 비판 “자유민주주의 시스템이 무너지고 있다” --->종북좌파의 종점이 전체주의 독재 말고 뭐가 있나? 진중권, 이 한심한 인간아! ----------------------------------------------------------------- 가장 저평가된 철학자들 10명 List -- the most underrated philosophers: 10. Michael Polanyi 9. Nancy Cartwright 8. Karl Popper 7. Ernst Mayr 6. Gerald Edelman 5. David Hull 4. W. W. Bartley 3. Larry Wright 2. Thomas Kuhn 1. Friedrich Hayek ------------------------------------------------------------------

 

https://youtu.be/PnUNukGOFPo

미국의 부정선거는 우리 생각보다 더 드라마틱한 듯하다.  

트럼프가 이를 잘 대처하지 못한다면, 미국의 좌파들은 폭동과 내란으로 미국을 카오스로 몰고 갈 수도 있다. 정말 역사적인 장면을 우리는 티비 생중계로 보게 될 수도 있다.

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

 뉴스맥스 방금 파웰변호사 인터뷰 요약

- 이번주 블록버스터급 일들이 온다
- 부정선거 소송은 이번주 수요일부터 시작된다.  주지방법원 말고 무조건 연방대법원까지 간다
- 선거법소송 정도가 아니라 부정선거에대한 형사소송이다
- 내용이 방대하고 도미니언 처음부터 끝까지 다 파악했다. 반박불가 증거가 많다
-2016년 민주당 경선에서 도미니언 조작이 있었다는걸 샌더스도 알고 있었다. 할러리가 부정으로 대통령후보가 되었다
- 미시간 바이든 136000표 몰표에  대해 숫자 0 하나 더 잘못 붙여다는 주정부 해명이 거짓말이라는 완벽한 증거가 있다
- 조지아 소송준비 중인데, 조지아도 도미니언을 사용했다.
- CIA가 부정선거에 가담한 것으로 판단하고 있다 .  

출처 일베

----> 이번 트럼프의 싸움은 세계의 역사를 바꾸는 위대한 투쟁으로 기록될 것이다. 트럼프가 이기면 자유와 평화와 번영이 당분간 더 지속될 것이고, 만일 패배한다면 억압과 빈곤과 우울한 세계가 펼쳐질 것이다. 

중국과  한국의 좌파들은  4. 15 총선에서 이용한 부정선거 도구와 방법을 그대로 미국에서 다시 사용했다.  미국의 부정선거가 백일하에 밝혀지면, 한국의 부정선거를 밝히는 데에도 큰 도움이 될 것이다.