제목 : 당분간 집에만 계세요. 저는 의사입니다. 이번에는 좀 다릅니다. 지금 코로나19 수도권 위기 상황이 너무나 심각해서 글을 쓰게 되었습니다. 코로나 사태에 대해서 여야 정치인도, 재난 본부도 믿지 말고 지금 믿을 것은 내 자신밖에 없습니다. 저는 의사로서 과거에 질병관리본부 역학조사관으로 근무한 적이 있습니다. 지금은 병원 근무는 안 하고, 기업 대상 보건관리 전문가로 활동하고 있습니다. 일종의 기업 보건 상담, 컨설팅을 하고 있습니다 이미 뉴스를 통해 다들 잘 알고 계시기는 하겠지만, 전문가 그룹의 일원이었던 내가 보기에 지금은 너무나도 위험한 상황입니다. 대폭발이 일어나기 직전입니다. 지금 어떻게든 빨리 가라앉히지 못하면 다같이 유럽의 길(엄청나게 죽었죠?)로 가게 됩니다. 우리 개인이 할 수 있는 최선의 방법을 고려하고 택해야 합니다. 최대한 집콕입니다. 집밖에 나가면 안 됩니다. 어쩔 수 없이 나가야만 한다면, 마스크 중무장, 손소독제 수시 사용 등 엄청나게 조심해야 합니다. 마스크 아끼지 마시고, 사람을 만나고 왔다면 끈으로 돌돌 묶어서 교양있게 버리세요. 무조건 버리세요. 현재 수도권에는 완전히 광범위하게 퍼져서 어디에나 코로나 지뢰밭입니다. '설마 내가 코로나에?' 이런 생각은 절대 하지 마십시오. 설마가 사람 잡습니다............................. 보건 시스템의 붕괴로 인해 병원에 즉시 갈 위험을 감수하고 싶지 않은 경우를 대비하여 보건 전문가 인 저희 보건 전문가들이이 메시지를 준비했습니다. ◉ 감염후 3 일째부터 증상이 나타납니다 (바이러스 증상). ➙ 1 단계; ◉ 신체 통증 ◉ 눈의 통증 ◉ 두통 ◉ 구토 ◉ 설사 콧물 또는 코 막힘 ◉ 부패 ◉ 불타는 눈 ◉ 배뇨시 화상 ◉ 열이 나는 느낌 ◉ 목 긁힘 (인후염) ➙ 증상의 일수를 1 일, 2 일, 3 일 세는 것이 매우 중요합니다. ➙ 2 단계; (4 일에서 8 일까지) 염증성. ◉ 미각 및 / 또는 후각 상실 ◉ 최소한의 노력으로 피곤함 ◉ 흉통 (늑골) ◉ 가슴의 압박감 ◉ 허리 통증 (신장 부위) ➙ 바이러스는 신경 종말을 공격합니다. ◉ 피로와 숨가쁨의 차이 : • 공기 부족은 사람이 아무 노력도하지 않고 앉아 있고 숨이 차는 경우입니다. • 피로는 사람이 단순한 일을하기 위해 움직이고 피곤함을 느끼는 것입니다. ➙ Covid-19에 걸렸는지 어떻게 알 수 있습니까?! ◉ 목이 가렵다 ◉ 목 건조 ◉ 마른 기침 ◉ 고온 ◉ 호흡 곤란 ◉ 냄새와 맛의 상실 이 정보를 자신만을 위해 보관하지 말고 모든 가족과 친구에게 제공 하십시오 --->일베에 올라온 글인데, 우한 폐렴의 증상이 의심되면 가장 먼저 본인이 쓴 <우한 폐렴 치료 방안, 1, 2>를 참고해서 약을 복용하면 된다. 의사들은 흔히 물을 많이 마시라는 충고를 하는데, 이는 절대 따라하면 안 된다. 물도 음식의 하나이므로 목이 마려울 때에만 적당량 마셔야 한다. 물을 쓸데 없이 많이 마시면, 몸에서 소화되지 못하고 남은 물들이 갖가지 병을 만들고, 폐렴의 바이러스도 여기에 기생해서 번식하게 된다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 習總加速師一定要挺住啊！一不小心，萬一脖子以上部位截肢，我們上哪兒找這麽優秀的滅共加速師啊！ 시진핑의 뇌동맥류 수술 소식에 올라온 트윗인것 같은데 내용이 재미있다. "시총리는 반드시 버텨내십시오! 만일 잘못해서 모가지 위에 달린 게 날아가버리면, 우리는 어디 가서 속성으로 중국을 망치는 그런 우수한 사람을 찾을 수 있겠소? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 전광훈 “대한민국이 이겼다…尹 죽이면 될줄 알았다면 착각” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 늘푸른박 네스빌에 있는 딥스들의 첩보 통신망(전화 도청) 파괴 무기는 EMP ,,,긴말 필요 없다 딥스 및 바이든 패거리 끝났다 내슈빌에서 폭발은 된 것은 딥스들의 AT & T / NSA 강화 스위칭 시설 "스파이 허브" 건물이다 --->일베의 늘푸른박은 네쉬빌의 폭발 사고가 딥스들의 첩보통신망을 파괴한 트럼프 쪽의 공격이라고 주장하고 있다. 나중에 사건 전개를 보면 그의 말이 맞는지 알 수가 있다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Niall Ferguson But in the end one is left with a feeling of revulsion at the way Trump went from insouciance to idiocy to malevolence: deliberately making matters worse. I defy anyone to read this piece and not be disgusted by his pathologically solipsistic conduct. 닐 퍼거슨은 상당히 좋아하던 사학자인데, 이런 글을 보면 미국 지식인의 상당수가 트럼프에게 편견을 가지고 대한다는 느낌이다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 셀리그먼과 니어링이 벌인 1921년 1월 23일의 자본주의 대 사회주의 논쟁. 셀리그먼은 논쟁의 초점은 부가 어떻게 분배되어야 하는가 보다, 그것이 어떻게 창조되는지에 두어야 한다고 주장했다. 니어링은 기생적인 자본가에 의해 노동자들이 착취되고 있고, 노동자들의 임금이 기아선까지 삭감되고 있으며, 전쟁, 시장의 공황, 불황 등이 자본가들에 의해 조성된다고 주장했다. 셀리그먼은 미제스를 알지 못했지만, 미제스는 이 역사적인 토론을 알고 있었고, 그의 1927년 책 <자유주의>에서 언급하기도 했다. Debating Socialism: The Seligman-Nearing Debate at 100 pulpit Rob Weir The Setting Sunday, January 23, 1921. It was a good day to watch a fight. An audience of thirty-five hundred packed the Lexington Theater in midtown Manhattan. What was the fare for the afternoon? A boxing match? A wrestling bout? A martial arts exhibition? No, this was something else. This was an intellectual battle, a three-round debate between two economics professors on the resolution “That capitalism has more to offer to the workers of the United States than has socialism.” Arguing the affirmative was an establishment figure, Edwin R.A. Seligman, a scion of a wealthy New York banking family and chairman of Columbia’s economics department. Arguing the negative was the radical activist Scott Nearing. Nearing had earned his PhD at the Wharton School in 1909 and was now teaching at the Rand School of Social Science, a school for activists run by the Socialist Party of America. A Tinderbox Today we can debate socialism with some degree of detachment. But in 1921 there was a tangible sense of vulnerability. Revolution was in the air. Germany’s loss in the Great War precipitated a constitutional crisis—the November Revolution of 1918—triggering revolts and a series of short-lived socialist republics. Hungary was rocked by a series of revolutions between 1918 and 1920. And, of course, there was the mother of all revolutions: the Bolshevik Revolution and the resulting Russian Civil War. This was also the time of the Red Scare. In 1919 Italian anarchists, followers of Luigi Galleani, mailed several dozen bombs to prominent politicians, journalists, and industrialists. This was answered by the Palmer Raids, in which Wilson’s Justice Department rounded up ten thousand foreigners with suspected radical ties. The unrest continued. In September 1920 Wall Street was bombed. Thirty-eight died. Would revolution come to the United States as it had in Europe? The question was far from academic. There was ample reason for discontent. The postwar economy was in rough shape, with declining GDP, price deflation, and high unemployment. People were suffering. Seligman’s Argument Seligman framed the debate in four key ways: 1. The interesting question is not how wealth is distributed, but how it is created. 2. We need to compare actual capitalism with actual socialism, not theoretical socialism to actual capitalism. Capitalism is progressive. It advances and improves. 3. It is not enough for socialists to argue that their system will produce good outcomes. They also must demonstrate that these results cannot also be produced under capitalism. 4. Seligman then proceeded to present his evidence, both for the gradual improvement of the worker under capitalism, and for the current abysmal conditions of the worker in Russia. Finally, Seligman, anticipating his opponent’s complaints, proposed a set of reforms: My program of social reform is this. I will put it shortly under these seven heads, and not one of them needs socialism: equality of opportunity through increase of education and the disappearance of unjust privileges; second, the raising of the level of competition by law and public opinion; third, increasing the participation in industry through what is called “industrial democracy” and what is rapidly going on under representative government today; fourth, diminution of the instability of employment through the application of the principle of insurance which we have already applied to accidents and which we are beginning to apply elsewhere; fifth, conservation of national resources in order to prevent the waste which is responsible for much of the present-day trouble; sixth, social control of potential monopoly which has been proceeding apace and which has even reached unheard of lengths in some modern countries; finally the resumption for the community of swollen and unduly large fortunes through the use of taxation which must go, however, only to that point of not stifling and killing the spirit of enterprise which socialism would bring about. Nearing’s Argument Nearing stuck to the orthodox Marxist line: the workers are exploited by the parasitic capitalists, who deprive the workers of their surplus value. The jobs are “owned” by the capitalists, who drive down wages to starvation levels. Capitalists are responsible for war. Capitalists are the cause of market panics and depressions. In the United States, a worker goes to work on a machine owned by the boss. He works on materials owned by the boss. He turns out a product owned by the boss. He lives in a country where the organized power of the boss concentrated in the banking system is supreme over every phase of life. He is a slave—industrial slave—because he cannot call one economic right his own and we socialists want to have industry not only owned by those who participate in it but we want to have those who participate in industry direct the industry in which they participate. Industrial self-control, self-government in industry…simple ideas, ownership by the worker of his own job, the control by a man of his own economic life. In response to assertions that conditions in Russia were far from a workers’ paradise, Nearing put the blame on capitalists and their blockade and invasion of Russia. Could You Have Argued Better at the Time? To us today, the debate skews to the left. Seligman was not defending laissez-faire. He was not arguing for a greater degree of capitalism. He was arguing against its total extinguishment, against a socialist advocating for the expropriation and nationalization of all industry. In contemporary terms, this played out like a debate between Elizabeth Warren and a young Bernie Sanders. Reading from the distance of a century, our views have been informed by our lived and historical experiences. We know of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro. We know of the famines and the poverty, the backwardness and depravity, of numerous failed socialist experiments. We’ve read Václav Havel and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. We’ve seen the wall come down in Berlin and the red star come down in Budapest. None of this was known to Seligman. He had no failed examples of socialism to critique. The best he had were dispatches from Russia, the ink still drying. Seligman also lacked a solid theoretical framework for critiquing socialism. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk’s 1896 Karl Marx and the Close of His System was a technical critique that would have been impossible to use in a debate before a general audience, even if Seligman had known of it. Similarly, although Ludwig von Mises had just made his key economic calculation argument in 1920, there is no sign that Seligman, in January 1921, knew of this essay by a then unknown Austrian economist writing in a German-language journal. And again, even if Seligman had known the argument, would a technical argument of that nature have been effective within the context of a popular debate? It was only in later years, in 1936, that Mises’s more accessible work Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis would appear in English. What Did Mises See? Ironically, although Seligman appears to have missed Mises’s own thinking on socialism, Mises knew of the Seligman-Nearing debate. Somehow the transcript from this New York City music hall debate made it to Mises in Vienna, where he mentioned it in his 1927 book, Liberalism. In an appendix to that book Mises listed works that he considered to be “the most important literature” on the subject. The classic texts of Locke, Mill, and Bastiat were listed. But Mises also included more obscure, contemporary titles. In a section on American liberal writings, Mises wrote: Also instructive is the record of the public debate held in New York on January 23, 1921, between E.R.A. Seligman and Scott Nearing on the topic: “That capitalism has more to offer to the workers of the United States than has socialism.” What about this debate led Mises to commend it as “instructive”? We can only speculate, but I suspect Mises might have found sympathy with his own thoughts in these remarks by Seligman: Socialism is bringing about a situation, the most horrible, the most frightful, the most hideous that the world has ever seen—the disappearance of culture, the disappearance of cities, the disappearance of civilization, and the rapid progression of universal starvation among the workers themselves. That is socialism in practice. Mises expressed similar sentiments in Liberalism: Everywhere today political power is in the hands of the antiliberal parties. The program of antiliberalism unleashed the forces that gave rise to the great World War and, by virtue of import and export quotas, tariffs, migration barriers, and similar measures, has brought the nations of the world to the point of mutual isolation. Within each nation it has led to socialist experiments whose result has been a reduction in the productivity of labor and a concomitant increase in want and misery. Whoever does not deliberately close his eyes to the facts must recognize everywhere the signs of an approaching catastrophe in world economy. Antiliberalism is heading toward a general collapse of civilization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 기업의 저축은 문제가 되지 않는다 10개의 빵을 만든 제빵사는, 그 빵으로 일주일을 버틸 수도 있고, 소비재를 살 수도 있고, 오븐의 부품을 교체할 수도 있다. 저축된 그의 빵은 경제 활동을 저해하지 않고 오히려 유지하게 한다. Why the Corporate Paradox of Thrift Isn't Really a Problem Frank Shostak According to some commentators, cost cutting by companies in order to protect profits can in fact set in motion an economic slump. It is held that if everyone tries to cut costs and save more, demand for goods and services from retrenched workers weakens, and as a result corporate revenues and profits come under pressure. This, in turn, sets in motion new layoffs, and this again eats into revenues and makes profits disappear. Economists call this the "corporate paradox of thrift." By this logic, if everyone tries to cut costs and save more, no one ultimately saves more. Therefore, if every company decides to cut costs, this is going to hurt revenues and hence profits. The conclusion, then, is that, collectively, it is impossible to lift profits through cost cutting. On the contrary, it will lead to an economic slump. One solution advocated is for the central bank to counter the negative side effects of cost cutting through easy monetary policy. The corporate "paradox of thrift" follows the famous Keynesian "paradox of thrift," which asserts that if individuals in the economy as a whole try to increase aggregate savings, not only will it not succeed but in fact may also lower aggregate output, income, and employment. This is because increased savings at a given level of aggregate income mean decreased consumption. With a fall in aggregate income, people will find it much harder to save, and this thus implies that aggregate savings in the economy will decline because people have decided to save more. According to Keynes: "Every such attempt to save more by reducing consumption will so affect incomes that the attempt necessarily defeats itself."1 In this way of thinking, while saving may pave the road to riches for an individual, if the nation as a whole decides to save more, the result may be poverty for all.2 To Be Successful, Businesses Must Abide by Consumers' Demand As a rule, a businessman who wants to be successful must stay on guard as far as consumers' demands are concerned. Therefore, whenever he observes a growing demand, he is likely to respond by lifting the production of goods. This means that in order to accommodate the rising demand and thereby secure higher profits, a businessman is likely to increase his demand for the various factors of production. Conversely, when demand is slowing down, the businessman’s production of goods is likely to follow suit. Consequently, to protect his profits the businessman is likely to reduce his demand for the various factors of production in line with the decline in the production of goods. Note that a major factor behind businesses embarking on cost cutting is the emerging economic slowdown. This means that businesses are simply responding to the slowdown; they do not cause it. What is it, then, that sets in motion the economic slowdown that causes businesses to react in this way? Central Bank Monetary Policies Are the Key Cause of Boom-Bust Cycles The systematic intervention of the central bank sets the platform for the recurrent boom-bust cycles. For instance, when the economy is perceived as not expanding quickly enough, the central bank loosens its monetary stance. This in turn gives rise to various bubble activities—an economic boom emerges. The economic boom is in fact a massive misallocation of resources. On account of the interest rates artificially lowered by the central bank, businesses decide to undertake various capital projects that prior to the easy monetary policy were not considered viable. Once the boom is perceived as being too strong, the central bank tightens its monetary stance. This undermines various capital projects and various bubble activities that emerged on the back of previous loose monetary policy—an economic bust is now set in motion. Once the slump becomes too “painful,” the central bank loosens its monetary stance—setting in motion a new economic boom. Therefore, the process of systematic intervention by the central bank generates new booms that are followed by busts.3 Is an Increase in Savings Bad for Economic Activity? Savings are popularly seen as a leakage that weakens the flow of spending, thereby weakening overall economic growth. But this is not so. When a baker produces ten loaves of bread and consumes one loaf, his saving is nine loaves of bread. The baker may decide to do several things with his saved bread. He could use the saved bread to sustain himself over the coming week, he could exchange some of the bread for other consumer goods, or he could exchange it for various parts that will enhance his oven. Observe that at no time has his saved bread caused a "leakage" and, hence, a fall in economic activity. On the contrary, saving is exactly what sustains economic activity. When the baker exchanges his bread for shoes or shirts, he enhances his well-being and enhances the well-being of the shoemaker and the shirt producer. It is his saved bread that sustains the shoemaker and the shirt producer, enabling them to continue in their production of shoes and shirts. Furthermore, if the baker decides to exchange his bread for, say, parts or machinery that improve his oven, his productivity increases and his production of bread follows suit. This, in turn, enables the baker to save more and acquire a greater variety of goods and services. Now, if everyone were to decide to raise their level of savings, i.e., to raise the amount of final consumer goods supplied to the market, how could this lower the pace of economic activity? The fact is that a greater production of goods would only support a greater demand for goods. After all, when a baker produces bread, he is not producing everything for his personal consumption. Most of the bread that he is producing is exchanged for other goods and services that he needs. Hence, his production enables him to acquire other goods and services. Introducing Money The introduction of money does not alter what we have said so far. Now a producer of a consumer good exchanges his saved goods for money. In exchanging his savings for money, he has still supplied the other producer with his saved goods. The money received by the producer is fully backed by his unconsumed production. Whenever people acquire capital goods such as machinery, they transfer money to the individuals who are employed in the making of the machinery. With money, the machinery maker can choose to exchange it not only for consumer goods but also for various services. The service provider who receives the money could in turn exchange it for consumer goods and services to support his life and well-being. Without the medium of exchange, i.e., money, no market economy and hence no division of labor could take place. Note, however, that money is not the means of payment but the means of exchange: individuals pay with the goods and services they produce—they do not pay with money. Money only facilitates payments. Money enables the goods of one specialist to be exchanged for the goods of another specialist. By means of money, an individual can channel savings, i.e., unconsumed consumer goods, to other individuals, which in turn permits the widening of the process of wealth generation. Despite its importance as the medium of exchange according to Rothbard, Money, per se, cannot be consumed and cannot be used directly as a producers' good in the productive process. Money per se is therefore unproductive; it is dead stock and produces nothing.4 Again, money's main job is simply to fulfill the role of the medium of exchange. Money does not sustain or fund real economic activity. Why Cost Cutting Is Good for the Economy If a company trims costs in order to make a profit, what is wrong with this? By making the transition from a loss to a profit, the company in fact makes more efficient use of its resources. The use of its resources now generates a positive return, i.e., the company has created real wealth. According to Mises, The only goal of all production activities is to employ the factors of production in such a way that they render the highest possible output. The smaller the input required for the production of an article becomes, the more of the scarce factors of production is left for the production of other articles.5 Consider a farmer who plants ten seeds and harvests only five seeds. Obviously, he cannot continue with this practice for long before he eventually runs out of seeds. He will then be faced with the threat of starvation. Hence, the farmer is forced to alter his conduct, i.e., to find better land or acquire a better way of planting his seeds. Why would a change that generates a surplus be bad? With a greater crop, the farmer could improve his well-being and also increase his savings, giving rise to a much greater future crop, all other things being equal. The crux of the matter remains the same in that profit adds to real wealth and hence raises the living standards of individuals in the economy. What about all the workers who were made redundant? Surely, their incomes are likely to fall and this is going to weaken the demand for goods and services. But a general rise in profits because of cost cutting lifts the overall real wealth in an economy, and this generates growing employment opportunities. In a market economy, retrenched workers would have to adjust to new conditions and find jobs elsewhere; they would have to find jobs that contribute to wealth generation. Conclusion We suggest that cost cutting by companies is an essential element in correcting previous erroneous decisions in order to be able to return to a situation where real wealth can be generated again. As a rule, cost cutting takes place in response to an emerging economic slowdown. Hence, it does not set in motion the economic slowdown, as popular thinking has it. The suggestion by some commentators that the central bank must stimulate demand to keep economic activity "going" by means of monetary pumping to counter companies’ costs cutting is, in fact, a recipe for economic disaster. Central bank monetary policies are the key cause behind the menace of boom-bust cycles. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------