목숨 건 트럼프, 긴급 군사작전 준비 | 신세기TV https://youtu.be/mPiPCxEEFQk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 군사적 반격으로 밖에 볼 수 없는 시그널들!】​​【선거 후 45일! 지금까지의 상황 총정리!​】​​​​ (이진실기자의 자유포커스) https://youtu.be/ICJha7Ix4vE ---->트럼프가 계엄령을 선포하면, 중국은 은밀히 미국의 좌파들과 합세해 흑인폭동과 유사한 폭동을 일으킬 가능성이 크다. 하지만 계엄령 선포로 인한 후유증이 크므로 트럼프는 되도록 온건한 방 법으로 부정선거에 대처하는 듯하다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [칼럼] 양질의 일자리를 창출하고 싶은가? 그렇다면 박정희를 배워라 김용삼 대기자 ----> 헛소리다! 정부가 주도해서 일자리를 창출하던 시대는 지나갔다. 박 대통령이 성공할 수 있었던 이유는, 그 앞에 독일과 일본이라는 사례가 있었기 때문에 가능했다. 한국은 보호무역 정책으로 경제 성장을 이루었지만, 지금은 선진국을 바로 코 앞에 두고 있고 우리의 산업도 최첨단을 달리고 있다. 정부도 어떤 사업을 해야 돈이 되는지 정확히 알지 못한다. 기업들이 자유로운 환경에서 치열하게 경쟁해서 새로운 사업을 찾아야 한다. 박근혜 대통령도 아버지 흉내를 내다가 망했다. (그녀의 재임 기간에 계속해서 좋은 일자리가 없어서 공무원 시험 열풍이 불었다.) 새로운 패러다임이 필요한 시기인데, 소위 보수라는 인간들이 옛노래나 다시 부르려하고 있다. 한국은 혁명적인 변화가 필요하고, 그래야만 지금의 경제적 위기를 헤쳐나갈 수 있다. 가장 중요한 것은 정치 권력을 줄여서 대통령을 소통령으로 만들고, 국회의원들을 없애고 로또 민주제를 실시해야 한다. (본인의 책 <대한민국, 이렇게 망한다>에서 상세히 주장했다.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "10 old books feel very aged, out of place, out of sync. 200 year old books feel contemporary. 2000 year old bks feel fresh." - Nassim Nicholas Taleb #LindyEffect 10년 된 책은 낡아 보이고, 200년 된 책은 최근에 나온 듯이 보이고, 2000년 지난 책은 막 나온 책처럼 보인다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 적절한 화폐의 양은 얼마여야 할까? 돈의 가격이란 화폐 단위의 구매력을 말한다. 만일 돈의 공급이 증가하면, 화폐의 가격이 하락해서, 화폐 단위의 구매력 역시 동반 하락하게 된다. 마술사의 힘으로 모든 사람들의 돈이 갑자기 두배로 늘어나면 우리는 두 배로 부자가 될까? 그렇지 않다. 우리를 진정으로 부자로 만드는 것은 상품이 풍성하다는 것인데, 땅이나 노동력, 자본 등의 결핍으로 인해 그 풍성함이 제약된다. 즉 마술사의 힘으로 땅이나 노동력, 자본이 두 배로 증가하지 않는 이상, 우리는 두 배로 부자가 될 수 없다. 따라서 화폐의 공급은 그 구매력을 낮추고, 공급이 줄어들면 구매력은 높아진다. 여기에서 우리는 화폐의 양은 문제가 되지 않는다는 사실을 알게 된다. 구매력이 변하면서 시장은 거기에 적응하기 때문이다. The "Proper" Supply of Money Murray N. Rothbard [A selection from What Has Government Done to Our Money?] Now we may ask: what is the supply of money in society and how is that supply used? In particular, we may raise the perennial question, how much money "do we need"? Must the money supply be regulated by some sort of "criterion," or can it be left alone to the free market? First, the total stock, or supply, of money in society at any one time, is the total weight of the existing money-stuff. Let us assume, for the time being, that only one commodity is established on the free market as money. Let us further assume that gold is that commodity (although we could have taken silver, or even iron; it is up to the market, and not to us, to decide the best commodity to use as money). Since money is gold, the total supply of money is the total weight of gold existing in society. The shape of gold does not matter—except if the cost of changing shapes in certain ways is greater than in others (e.g., minting coins costing more than melting them). In that case, one of the shapes will be chosen by the market as the money-of-account, and the other shapes will have a premium or discount in accordance with their relative costs on the market. Changes in the total gold stock will be governed by the same causes as changes in other goods. Increases will stem from greater production from mines; decreases from being used up in wear and tear, in industry, etc. Because the market will choose a durable commodity as money, and because money is not used up at the rate of other commodities—but is employed as a medium of exchange—the proportion of new annual production to its total stock will tend to be quite small. Changes in total gold stock, then, generally take place very slowly. What "should" the supply of money be? All sorts of criteria have been put forward: that money should move in accordance with population, with the "volume of trade," with the "amounts of goods produced," so as to keep the "price level" constant, etc. Few indeed have suggested leaving the decision to the market. But money differs from other commodities in one essential fact. And grasping this difference furnishes a key to understanding monetary matters. When the supply of any other good increases, this increase confers a social benefit; it is a matter for general rejoicing. More consumer goods mean a higher standard of living for the public; more capital goods mean sustained and increased living standards in the future. The discovery of new, fertile land or natural resources also promises to add to living standards, present and future. But what about money? Does an addition to the money supply also benefit the public at large? Consumer goods are used up by consumers; capital goods and natural resources are used up in the process of producing consumer goods. But money is not used up; its function is to act as a medium of exchanges—to enable goods and services to travel more expeditiously from one person to another. These exchanges are all made in terms of money prices. Thus, if a television set exchanges for three gold ounces, we say that the "price" of the television set is three ounces. At any one time, all goods in the economy will exchange at certain gold-ratios or prices. As we have said, money, or gold, is the common denominator of all prices. But what of money itself? Does it have a "price"? Since a price is simply an exchange-ratio, it clearly does. But, in this case, the "price of money" is an array of the infinite number of exchange-ratios for all the various goods on the market. Thus, suppose that a television set costs three gold ounces, an auto sixty ounces, a loaf of bread 1/100 of an ounce, and an hour of Mr. Jones' legal services one ounce. The "price of money" will then be an array of alternative exchanges. One ounce of gold will be "worth" either 1/3 of a television set, 1/60 of an auto, 100 loaves of bread, or one hour of Jones' legal service. And so on down the line. The price of money, then, is the "purchasing power" of the monetary unit—in this case, of the gold ounce. It tells what that ounce can purchase in exchange, just as the money-price of a television set tells how much money a television set can bring in exchange. What determines the price of money? The same forces that determine all prices on the market—that venerable but eternally true law: "supply and demand." We all know that if the supply of eggs increases, the price will tend to fall; if the buyers' demand for eggs increases, the price will tend to rise. The same is true for money. An increase in the supply of money will tend to lower its "price"; an increase in the demand for money will raise it. But what is the demand for money? In the case of eggs, we know what "demand" means; it is the amount of money consumers are willing to spend on eggs, plus eggs retained and not sold by suppliers. Similarly, in the case of money, "demand" means the various goods offered in exchange for money, plus the money retained in cash and not spent over a certain time period. In both cases, "supply" may refer to the total stock of the good on the market. What happens, then, if the supply of gold increases, demand for money remaining the same? The "price of money" falls, i.e., the purchasing power of the money-unit will fall all along the line. An ounce of gold will now be worth less than 100 loaves of bread, 1/3 of a television set, etc. Conversely, if the supply of gold falls, the purchasing power of the gold-ounce rises. What is the effect of a change in the money supply? Following the example of David Hume, one of the first economists, we may ask ourselves what would happen if, overnight, some good fairy slipped into pockets, purses, and bank vaults, and doubled our supply of money. In our example, she magically doubled our supply of gold. Would we be twice as rich? Obviously not. What makes us rich is an abundance of goods, and what limits that abundance is a scarcity of resources: namely land, labor and capital. Multiplying coin will not whisk these resources into being. We may feel twice as rich for the moment, but clearly all we are doing is diluting the money supply. As the public rushes out to spend its new-found wealth, prices will, very roughly, double—or at least rise until the demand is satisfied, and money no longer bids against itself for the existing goods. Thus, we see that while an increase in the money supply, like an increase in the supply of any good, lowers its price, the change does not—unlike other goods—confer a social benefit. The public at large is not made richer. Whereas new consumer or capital goods add to standards of living, new money only raises prices—i.e., dilutes its own purchasing power. The reason for this puzzle is that money is only useful for its exchange value. Other goods have various "real" utilities, so that an increase in their supply satisfies more consumer wants. Money has only utility for prospective exchange; its utility lies in its exchange value, or "purchasing power." Our law—that an increase in money does not confer a social benefit—stems from its unique use as a medium of exchange. An increase in the money supply, then, only dilutes the effectiveness of each gold ounce; on the other hand, a fall in the supply of money raises the power of each gold ounce to do its work. We come to the startling truth that it doesn't matter what the supply of money is. Any supply will do as well as any other supply. The free market will simply adjust by changing the purchasing power, or effectiveness of the gold-unit. There is no need to tamper with the market in order to alter the money supply that it determines. At this point, the monetary planner might object: "All right, granting that it is pointless to increase the money supply, isn't gold mining a waste of resources? Shouldn't the government keep the money supply constant, and prohibit new mining?" This argument might be plausible to those who hold no principled objections to government meddling, though it would not convince the determined advocate of liberty. But the objection overlooks an important point: that gold is not only money, but is also, inevitably, a commodity. An increased supply of gold may not confer any monetary benefit, but it does confer a non-monetary benefit—i.e., it does increase the supply of gold used in consumption (ornaments, dental work, and the like) and in production (industrial work). Gold mining, therefore, is not a social waste at all. We conclude, therefore, that determining the supply of money, like all other goods, is best left to the free market. Aside from the general moral and economic advantages of freedom over coercion, no dictated quantity of money will do the work better, and the free market will set the production of gold in accordance with its relative ability to satisfy the needs of consumers, as compared with all other productive goods. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Faithful Hamer The higher the international corruption index for a delegation’s home country, the more tickets those UN delegations accumulated in Manhattan. 유엔 주재 대표의 본국이 부패 지수가 높을수록, 그 대표는 더 많은 불법 주차 티켓을 발부 받았다. Who Thinks They’re Above the Law?: A Selection from Joseph Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World (2020) “Representing 149 countries, diplomats to the United Nations in New York City were immune from having to pay parking tickets until November 2002. With diplomatic immunity, they could park anywhere, double-park, and even block driveways, business entrances, and narrow Manhattan streets without having to pay fines. The effect of this immunity was big: between November 1997 and the end of 2002, UN diplomatic missions accumulated over 150,000 unpaid parking tickets totaling about $18 million in fines. While bad for New Yorkers, this situation created a natural experiment for two economists, Ted Miguel and Ray Fisman. Because nearly 90 percent of UN missions are within one mile of the UN complex, most diplomats faced the same crowded streets, rainy days, and snowy weather. This allowed Ted and Ray to compare the accumulation of parking tickets for diplomats from different countries. The differences were big. During the five years leading up to the end of immunity in 2002, diplomats from the UK, Sweden, Canada, Australia, and a few other countries got a total of zero tickets. Meanwhile, diplomats from Egypt, Chad, and Bulgaria, among other countries, got the most tickets, accumulating over 100 for each member of their respective diplomatic delegations. Looking across nations, the higher the international corruption index for a delegation’s home country, the more tickets those delegations accumulated. The relationship between corruption back home and parking behavior in Manhattan holds independent of the size of a country’s UN mission, the income of its diplomats, the type of violation (e.g., double-parking), and the time of day. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 매핵기라고 반드시 반하후박탕이 듣는 건 아니다. 刘姓青年，男性，每逢春季即觉咽部不适，似乎有痰，吐之不出，咽之不下，似中医“梅核气”之证。 脉之，脉象沉弱，舌苔薄白稍腻，按金匮方给予半夏厚朴汤小剂量治疗，因咽部属身体的上部，故用小量，法“治上焦如羽”之意。 两剂药后，病无进退，思考再三，觉得半夏厚朴汤为“梅核气”专病专方，应该有效啊，但为什么无寸效呢？本方原是治疗女性情志不遂致使出现“咽部似有脔肉，吐之不出，咽之不下”的方子，故可能对于女性患者情绪不好的可能效果会更好一些，此病例是男性，且无情绪方面的问题，从四诊来看，舌苔薄白稍腻，应有痰湿，脉象沉弱，应是阳气不能宣发，斟酌再三，更方苓桂术甘汤，小剂量代茶饮，两剂后大效，自述嗓子舒服多了，目前仍用本方巩固。 讨论：金匮里面的方子，大多如岳美中教授所说的属专病专方，疗效确切，但在识病的同时更要识证，不能固守一方，不知变通，要以法治病，而非以药、以方治病，不然将会南辕北辙，相去甚远。 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------