(스압/요약 포함) 북한 원전 사태 총정리 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11320942906 예전부터 팔로우하던 페북에서 퍼가도 된다길래 일일히 캡쳐해왔다 3줄 요약 - 문재인 정부에서 세계 1위 원전 기술 폐기하고 국민 쥐어짜 세금 탕진 뿐만 아니라 중국에 갖다 바치기까지 했는데, 이를 수사하려 하자 검찰 압박해왔음 - 감사 진행 사실을 어떻게 알아내서 몰래 파일 삭제해 은폐해놓고 "내가 신내림 받았나보다"라고 답변, 그 파일들의 내용은 북한에 핵 기술의 집약체인 원전을 몰래 지어주려 했던 것 - 이완용도 나라를 팔아 먹었을지언정, 적국에 직접 국민들 죽일 무기 기술을 갖다바치진 않았음 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 북한원전의 비밀에 대해 araboja 메르 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11320648734 2018년에 쓴글을 업데이트함. 앞 부분은 2018년에 일베를 간 아래 링크글인데 지금 다시 봐도 비슷하게 가고 있음. 북한 철도의 비밀을 Araboja(feat 노잼 주의) | 일베-일간베스트 | 일베저장소 (ilbe.com) 1. 독일 베를린올림픽에서 마라톤 금메달을 딴 손기정은 서울역에서 기차를 타고 베를린을 감. 1936년 이었음. 개성-신의주 구간을 히카리호는 시속 57km로 달림. 2. 서울보다 먼저 평양에 지하철이 생김. 1973년이었음. 북한은 산악지대가 많아 도로가 발달되지 못해서 철도운송이 중요했기에, 일제시대부터 철도운송에 많은 투자를했고 해방이 되면서 좋은 철도 인프라를 공짜로 먹음. 한국보다 훨씬 더 기차와 관련된 제반 시설이 좋았다는 말임. 3. 문제는 김일성이 철도에 큰 뻘짓을 해버림. 4. 철도를 전철화 한 것임. 5. 전체 철도의 80%를 전철로 만듬. 6. 전철은 전기먹는 하마라 어마어마한 전기가 필요하게 됨. 7. 전철로 결정한 이유는 있었음. 석탄이 많은 나라니 화력발전을 해서 전기를 만들수 있고, 수풍댐 이라는 대형 발전소가 있어 수력발전으로도 전기를 만들수 있겠다 싶어 그렇게 밀어붙이게 됨. 8. 그런데 옥수수가 문제를 일으킴. 9. 김일성은 옥수수를 곡식의 왕 이라고 부르며 븍한 전역을 옥수수밭으로 만드는 주체농법을 밀어붙임. 주체농법이란 거름이 많은 부식토에 옥수수알을 키운뒤 싹이 나면 밭에 옮겨심어서 효율을 높이는 방법임. 부식토에 난 수많은 싹들을 모두 옮겨 심기 위해 웬만한 산들의 나무를 다 베어버리고 옥수수 밭을 만들게 됨. 10. 산의 나무를 다 베고 옥수수를 심어버리자, 비가 올때 뿌리로 산사태를 막아주던 나무들이 사라져서 민둥산이 되었고, 비만 오면 산사태가 나기 시작함. 그중 몇몇 산사태는 석탄을 캐는 탄광들을 덮치게 됨. 11. 큰 탄광 몇개가 산사태에 매몰되자, 석탄을 원하는 만큼 캘 수 없게 되고, 석탄이 제대로 공급이 안되니 석탄을 연료로 하는 화력발전소가 제대로 가동될 수 없었으며, 대안으로 생각했던 수풍댐은 수력발전이라 수량이 적은 겨울철에는 쓸모가 없었음. 12. 화력발전소와 수력발전소가 제대로 가동이 안되니, 전력이 부족해졌고, 전력이 부족하니 전기먹는 하마인 전철이 멈춰섬. 전철이 서버리니 광산에서 캔 석탄을 화력발전소로 옮길수가 없어짐. 13. 화력발전소는 석탄이 없어 전기를 못 만들고, 석탄광산은 전기가 없으니 석탄을 캘수가 없게 됨. 북한의 탄광이 갱도식이라 발전기가 멈추면 갱도에 지하수가 차버려 멈추게 됨. 나라 전체가 악순환에 빠져버림. 14. 식량이 없고, 전기를 못 만들자 나라 자체가 멈춰서며 300만명이 굶어 죽었다는 고난의 행군이 시작됨. 인구 17만 김책시에서만 하루에 200명이 굶어죽는 일이 생김. 15. 이때 인민들은 먹을것을 구하기 위해 중국으로 탈북을 하고, 그중 일부는 한국으로 들어옴. 엄청난탈북자들이 들어와서 하나원이라는 민간인 수용 및 교육시설까지 만들게 됨. 16. 김일성은 전기가 얼마나 위험한지 몰랐음. 전기는 필요한 양보다 많이 생산하면 쓸모없는 잉여전력이 되고, 1kw라도 모자라게 되면 전체 전력이 한꺼번에 멈추는 블랙아웃이 발생하게 되는 무서운 ㄴ이었음. 17. 전기가 제대로 공급이 안되자 전기먹는 하마인 전철이 서고, 전철이 서자 물류가 멈춰버림. 선상님이 쌀을 해주항에 엄청 내려줬는데, 굶고있는 인민에게 가져다줄 길이 없어 계속 굶어죽는 일이 생김. 18. 물류가 서고 수많은 사람이 굶어죽는 고난의 행군이 오자 인민들은 철로의 나사를 빼서 팔고, 당은 철로를 지탱하는 자갈이나 침목관리도 할수 없게 됨. 위의 사진처럼 철도가 ㅆㅊ이 남. 19. 현재까지도 이런 상황이 이어져서 현재 북한 기차들의 평균 속도는 시속 15km임. 부산-서울 정도를 가는데 23일까지 걸리는 경우가 생기고, 제대하는 병사가 열차안에서 굶어죽는 일도 생기게 됨. 사흘안에 목적지에 도착하면 대박이라고 함. 20. 기차가 제 속도로 달리기 위해서는 기관차만 신형을 넣으면 되는게 아님.기차가 달리는 길인 철로의 강철도 맛이 가 있는데다 철로밑의 자갈이나 침목도 없거나 썩어서 속도를 내면 열차가 탈선해버림. 북한에서 제일 신형인 평양과 중국을 오고가는 열차가 시속 40킬로로 달리고 있음. 21. 올해 1차 남북선언에서 문재인이 앞으로 북측과 철도로 연결되면 남북이 모두 고속철도를 이용할 수 있다고 함” 북한에 일반 철로도 아니라 고속열차를 깔겠다는 말임. 22. 기존 철로가 워낙 ㅆㅊ이라 고쳐서 깔수있는 상황도 아니라서 새로 깔아야됨. 가장 짧은 구간은 경의선 350km만 깔아도 최소 25조 정도 비용이 나옴. 23. 우리 세금이 빠져나가는 문제 외에 다른 부담도 있음. 24. 현대전은 보급 및 수송의 전쟁임. 25. 현재 북한의 열악한 수송망으로는 휴전선 일대에 쟁여놓은 화력이 소모되면 후방에서 보급이 올라오기 힘듬. 전력이 조루라는 말임. 26. 철도가 현대화되면 북한군의 전쟁수행능력은 급상승하게 됨. 27. 수소차도 문제임. 전기차가 상식이지만 탈원전과 신재생 때문에 전기차를 밀기가 힘듬. 28. 전기차의 문제는 전기를 많이 쓰는것임. 특히 충전속도를 빨리하기 위한 급속충전이 전기를 많이 씀. 29. 이마트 주차장에 있는 2천대를 한꺼번에 급속충전하면 1기가. 원전1대 발전량이 필요함. 30. 신재생에너지도 문제임. 신재생에너지는 태양열과 풍력이 주력이라 여름에는 전기가 남아돌고 겨울에는 전기가 모자람. 31. 신재생비중이 높아지면 높아질수록 때로는 남고, 때로는 모자라는 일이 반복되어 전기 관리가 힘들게 됨. 32. 대안으로 수소가 나오고 있지만 수소의 문제는 공급임 33. 현재 수소는 국내의 3개 석유화학단지가 공장을 돌리는 과정에서 덤으로 만들어 짐. 부생수소라고 부름 34. 다른 화학공정을 돌리는 와중에 덤으로 나오다보니 1킬로에 5천원 정도로 공급을 할 수 있음. 35.이걸 수소운반 특수트럭에 실어서 충전소까지 운반하는 과정에서 비용이 추가로 들어서 킬로당 8천원에서 만원 정도가 현재 가격임. 36. 석유화학단지에서 나오는 부산물에서 나오는 수소는 양이 얼마 되지 않아 앞으로 전기차에 들어갈 대부분 수소는 수입을 해야됨 37. 가스공사 발표에서 답을 찾았음. "공사는 수소를 수입할때 북방자원을 우선 활용" 38. 북한임 39. 북한이 충분하게 가지고 있는 자원이 갈탄임. 탄화수소에서 탄소를 떼면 수소가 됨 40. 6.13탄광, 우리는 아오지탄광이라고 부르는 함북의 탄광 한곳에서만 1억5천만톤이 매장되어 있음 41. 일본은 호주에서 갈탄을 액화시켜 배로 수입하려고 하지만, 우리는 이번에 건설해주려고 하는 철도를 통해 갈탄을 수송해서 국내에서 수소를 만들려는 것 같음 42. 수소차로 가면 금강산 관광이나 개성공단에 비교가 안되는 돈이 갈탄값으로 북한에 들어갈 수 있음. 43. 갈탄은 북한에 돈을 줄수 있지만 전기를 주지는 않음. 44. 전기는 원전으로 줄수가 있음. 45. 원전의 장점은 외부 원조가 끊겨도 소량의 우라늄만 있으면 계속 전기 공급을 할 수 있는 것임. 46. 북한은 원폭개발을 통해 우라늄 공급망을 갖춰놓은 상황. 47. 원전을 통해 북한에 전기가 충분히 공급되고, 철도로 운송이 강해지면 북한이 세지는게 있음. 48. 북한의 전쟁수행능력임. 한줄요약 음모론은 싫지만, 하는짓이 빅 피쳐각임. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott 인간과 자유이야기 과거엔 Deep State란 표현을 제한되게 사용하려고 노력했는데, 트럼프 대선 이후, 너무 자주 사용했고, 거기다 소아ㅅㅇ, 인신제사설이 가세해서 지나치게 악마화가 되어 제대로된 비판이 오히려 불가능해졌다. 엄밀하게 이야기하면 정치인을 배제하고 "권력화된 관료 계급"에 국한해야한다. 쉽게 이야기하면 "늘공"으로, 선거로 당선된 정치인들도 통제가 불가능할 정도로 조직의 논리와 이익에 충실한 "늘공" 계급이 뿌리깊게 자신만의 그림자 권력을 구축한 것으로 볼 수 있다. 국가 보건 부문의 닥터 파우치, CIA 지나 헤스펠, FBI 후버 국장 등. 펜타곤도 마찬가지다. 미국에서 연방 공무원들이 박봉에 시달리다가 민간에 나오면 별볼일 없는 사람도 3~5년 안에 재산이 2~4백만불씩 불어나 있는 경우를 자주 볼 수 있다. 연방 공무원 시절 구축한 권력을 바탕으로 민간에 나오면, 로비스트나 각종 기관, 기업의 고위직으로 날라가서 몇 년만에 한 재산 챙기는 모습은 일상에 가깝다. 미국도 상당히 부패한 나라다. 여기에 국제적인 레버리지를 더하면 뭔 떡고물을 챙겨먹는지는 미지수다. 헐리우드 영화의 3/4는 구라다. 미국 사법기관들이 헌터 바이든 사건을 뒤지지 않는 이유가 있다. 자신의 차례를 기다리는 것이다. 솔직히 자식이 좋은 민간기업 가는 것보다 연방 공무원이 되면 더 축하를 하는 나라이기도 하다. --->저런 관료조직과 정치인들을 청소해야 하는데, 그런 혁명적인 행동을 할 인물이 보이지 않는다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nassim Nicholas Taleb #Skininthegame: only what people do counts. The rest is cheap signaling, bureaucratic BS, or just blather. 단지 인간의 행동만이 중요하다. 그 나머지는 값싼 장식이거나 관료적 헛짓거리이고 또는 그냥 헛소리일 뿐이다. 2/ The reasons idiots who score high on IQ tests don't get it is because these tests are devoid of context. They select for context free-thinkers. 멍청이들이 지능검사는 높지만 이해하지 못하는 이유는, 이들 지능검사들이 상황이 결여되어 있기 때문이다. 그들은 상황과 격리된 사상가들을 선택한다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil Cooke Twitter suspends Christian magazine for saying Biden’s trans nominee is a man, not a woman 크리스천 잡지들이 바이든의 트랜스젠더 지명자가 여자가 아니라 남자라고 말했다고, 트위터가 계정을 정지시켰다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Wave of Abusive Federal Prosecutions Is Coming William L. Anderson With the Capitol riots, Biden has his 9/11. Now come the legal assaults against Americans. 의사당 난입 사태로 바이든은 그의 9/11을 얻은 것이다. 이제 미국인들을 향한 법적 공세가 시작될지도 모른다. Federal criminal law provides these antiliberty groups the kinds of devices that can be used to criminalize speech and turn garden-variety dissenters into criminals. We should not be surprised if ambitious US attorneys in the Biden administration, cheered on by the likes of the New York Times and MSNBC, decide it is time to do just that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 當歸四逆加吳茱萸生薑湯 (傷寒論-355) 若其人內有久寒者.宜當歸四逆加吳茱萸生薑湯. 몸 안에 오랫동안 한기가 있던 사람에게는 당귀사역가오수유생강탕을 복용케 한다. 아래 처방에서 통초가 무엇인지 여러 의견이 있다. 그래서 황황 교수는 아예 통초를 빼고 처방을 한다. 그래도 약효에는 큰 차질이 없다. (當歸四逆加吳茱萸生薑湯方) 當歸三兩 桂枝三兩.去皮. 芍藥三兩 細辛三兩 甘草二兩.炙. 通草二兩 大棗十五枚.擘.一法.十二枚. 生薑半斤.切. 吳茱萸二升 1.少陰病，脈微而弱，身痛如掣者，此榮衛不和故也，當歸四逆湯主之。 2.傷寒，手足厥逆，脈細欲絕者，當歸四逆加人參附子湯主之；若其人內有久寒者，當歸四逆加吳茱萸生薑附子湯主之。 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 국제 수지의 통화적 접근 방법론적 개인주의의 원칙에 따른 미제스의 국제 수지 분석 The Monetary Approach to the Balance of Payments Joseph T. Salerno Leland Yeager offers an illuminating discussion of a serious problem that has historically plagued monetary theory and continues to do so to this day: the failure to clearly distinguish between the individual and the overall viewpoints when analyzing monetary phenomena. I wish to emphasize particularly Yeager's insight that the source of this problem lies in the failure of monetary theorists to heed "the sound precept of methodological individualism," which dictates that bridges be constructed between the two viewpoints "by relating propositions about all economic phenomena, including the behavior of macroeconomic aggregates, to the perceptions and decisions of individuals." In detailing and critically analyzing the errors engendered by this confusion of viewpoints in monetary theory, Yeager has taught an elementary, yet much needed, lesson in the principles of economic reasoning and the dire consequences of neglecting them. I daresay this lesson would have been wholly unnecessary had economists attended more closely to the earlier lessons taught by Ludwig von Mises, certainly the foremost exponent and practitioner of methodological individualism in twentieth-century monetary theory. Since I am in fundamental agreement with the thrust of Yeager's argument, I shall utilize one illustration in his discussion to elucidate an especially neglected contribution to monetary theory made by Mises in his consistent application of methodological individualism to the explanation of monetary phenomena. In this connection, I wish to focus attention on Yeager's treatment of the modern monetary approach to the balance of payments. I propose to show, first, that the valid and vitally important insight on which the monetary approach rests forms the basis of Mises's own elaboration of balance-of-payments theory and, second, that Mises's approach is not open to the objection that Yeager raises against the monetary approach, precisely because Mises firmly adheres to the precept of methodological individualism. This enterprise, it may be noted, has important implications for the contemporary formulation of the monetary approach as well as for doctrinal research into its historical antecedents. On the doctrinal side, it is a matter of setting the record straight. Several studies have appeared recently of the doctrinal roots of the monetary approach. With one minor exception,1 all of them have completely neglected Mises's contribution. Hopefully, greater familiarity with Mises's approach to the balance of payments, which so strongly anticipates the monetary approach, will spark a rethinking of the latter approach and lead to its reformulation on sounder methodological foundations. The fundamental insight of the monetary approach is that the balance of payments is essentially a monetary phenomenon. The very concept of a balance of payments implies the existence of money; as one writer puts it, "Indeed, it would be impossible to have a balance-of-payments surplus or deficit in a barter economy."2 This being the case, any endeavor to explain balance-of-payments phenomena must naturally focus on the supply of and demand for the money commodity. The monetary approach consists in the rigorous delineation of the implications of this simple yet powerful insight for the analysis of balance-of-payments disequilibrium, adjustment, and policy. As I shall attempt to demonstrate, Mises fully anticipated the modern monetary approach by explicitly recognizing these implications. Mises grounds his balance-of-payments analysis on the insight that the balance of payments is a monetary concept. He states that, "If no other relations than those of barter exist between the inhabitants of two areas, then balances in favor of one party or the other cannot arise."3 Mises thus conceives of money as the active element in the balance of payments and not as a residual or accommodating item that passively adjusts to the "real" flows of goods and capital: The surplus of the balance of payments that is not settled by the consignment of goods and services but by the transmission of money was long regarded as merely a consequence of the state of international trade. It is one of the great achievements of Classical political economy to have exposed the fundamental error in this view. It demonstrated that international movements of money are not consequences of the state of trade; that they constitute not the effect, but the cause, of a favorable or unfavorable trade balance. The precious metals are distributed among individuals and hence among nations according to the extent and intensity of their demand for money.4 Mises uses his marginal-utility theory of money to explain the "natural" or equilibrium distribution of the world money stock among the various nations. Regarding the case of a 100 percent specie standard, he writes that the proposition is as true of money as of every other economic good, that its distribution among individual economic agents depends on its marginal utility … all economic goods, including of course money, tend to be distributed in such a way that a position of equilibrium among individuals is reached, when no further act of exchange that any individual could undertake would bring him any gain, any increase of subjective utility. In such a position of equilibrium, the total stock of money, just like the total stocks of commodities, is distributed among individuals according to the intensity with which they are able to express their demand for it in the market. Every displacement of the forces affecting the exchange ratio between money and other economic goods [i.e., the supply and demand for money] brings about a corresponding change in this distribution, until a new position of equilibrium is reached.5 Mises goes on to conclude that the same principles that determine the distribution of money balances among persons also determine the distribution of money stocks among nations, since the national money stock is merely the sum of the money balances of the nation's residents.6 In thus building up his explanation of the international distribution of money from his analysis of the interpersonal distribution of money balances, Mises sets the stage for an analysis of balance-of-payments phenomena that conforms to the precept of methodological individualism. Like the later proponents of the monetary approach, Mises envisages balance-of-payments disequilibrium as an integral phase in the process by which individual and hence national money holdings are adjusted to desired levels. Thus, for example, the development of an excess demand for money in a nation will result in a balance-of-payments surplus as market participants seek to augment their money balances by increasing their sales of goods and securities on the world market. The surplus and the corresponding inflow of the money commodity will automatically terminate when domestic money balances have reached desired levels and the excess demand has been satisfied. Conversely, a balance-of-payments deficit is part of the mechanism by which an excess supply of money is adjusted. The role played by the balance of payments in the monetary-adjustment process is clearly spelled out by Mises in the following passage. In a society in which commodity transactions are monetary transactions, every individual enterprise must always take care to have on hand a certain quantity of money. It must not permit its cash holding to fall below the definite sum considered necessary for carrying out its transactions. On the other hand, an enterprise will not permit its cash holding to exceed the necessary amount, for allowing that quantity of money to be idle will lead to loss of interest. If it has too little money, it must reduce purchases or sell some wares. If it has too much money, then it must buy goods.… In this way, every individual sees to it that he is not without money. Because everyone pursues his own interest in doing this, it is impossible for the free play of market forces to cause a drain of all money out of the city, a province or an entire country. If we had a pure gold standard, therefore, the government need not be the least concerned about the balance of payments. It could safely let the market take care of maintaining a sufficient quantity of gold within the country. Under the influence of free-trade forces, gold would leave the country only if a surplus of cash balances were on hand. Conversely it would always flow into the country if cash balances were insufficient. Thus, for Mises, the monetary-adjustment process ensures that gold money, like all other commodities, is imported when in short supply and exported when in surplus.7 An implication of this view of the balance of payments as a phase in the monetary adjustment process is that international movements of money that do not reflect changes in the underlying monetary data can only be temporary phenomena. "Thus," writes Mises, "international movements of money, so far as they are not of a transient nature and consequently soon rendered ineffective by movements in the contrary direction, are always called forth by variations in demand for money."8 Although Mises therefore does regard the long-run causes of balance-of-payments disequilibrium as exclusively monetary in nature, he does not make the error, which Yeager attributes to the more radical, global-monetarist proponents of the monetary approach, of identifying a balance-of-payments surplus with the process of satisfying an excess demand for domestic money or a deficit with the process of working off an excess supply of domestic money. Mises explicitly recognizes that changes occurring on the "real" side of the economy, for example, a decline in the foreign demand for a nation's exports, may well have a disequilibrating impact on the balance of payments, even in the absence of a change in the underlying conditions of monetary supply and demand. However, in Mises's view, such nonmonetary disturbances of balance-of-payments equilibrium are merely short-run phenomena. It is one of the functions of the balance-of-payments adjustment mechanism to reverse the disequilibrating flows of money that attend these disturbances and to restore thereby the equilibrium distribution of the world money stock, which is determined solely by the configuration of individual demands for money holdings. If the state of the balance of payments is such that movements of money would have to occur from one country to the other, independently of any altered estimation of money on the part of their respective inhabitants, then operations are induced which re-establish equilibrium. Those persons who receive more money than they will need hasten to spend the surplus again as soon as possible, whether they buy production goods or consumption goods. On the other hand, those persons whose stock of money falls below the amount they will need will be obliged to increase their stock of money, either by restricting their purchases or by disposing of commodities in their possession. The price variations, in the markets of the countries in question, that occur for these reasons give rise to transactions which must always re-establish the equilibrium of the balance of payments. A debit or credit balance of payments that is not dependent upon an alteration in the conditions of demand for money can only be transient.9 The foregoing passage illustrates the difference between Mises and the global monetarists, who deny the possibility that international flows of money can proceed from nonmonetary causes. Their denial is tantamount to claiming that all international movements of money are necessarily equilibrating, since they are undertaken solely in response to disequilibrium between national supplies of and demands for money. As Yeager has pointed out, this line of reasoning leads to the outright and fallacious identification of balance-of-payments surpluses and deficits with the process of adjusting national money stocks to desired levels. It is not difficult to pinpoint the source from which this erroneous line of reasoning stems: it is the tendency of the monetary approach to depart from the sound precept of methodological individualism and to focus on the nation rather than the individual as the basic unit of analysis. In so doing, it has naturally, although quite illegitimately, applied to the nation analytical concepts and constructs that are appropriate only to the analysis of individual action. In particular, the monetary approach attempts to explain balance-of-payments phenomena by conceiving the nation in the manner of a household or firm that is consciously aiming at acquiring and maintaining an optimum level of money balances. The concept of what Ludwig Lachmann has called "the equilibrium of the household and of the firm" is then invoked to describe the actions which the nation-household must and will undertake in the service of this goal.10 As Lachmann explains, the concept of household-firm equilibrium is implied in the very logic of choice.11 An economic agent will always choose the course of action consistent with his goals and their ranking given his knowledge of available resources and of technology. His actions are, therefore, always equilibrating in the sense that they are always aimed at bringing about a (possibly only momentarily) preferred state of affairs. In the context of the issues dealt with by the monetary approach, the implication of this analytical concept is that the nation will never alter the level of its stock of money unless it is dissatisfied with it, that is, unless there is an excess supply of or demand for domestic money. A further implication is that all international movements of money will be equilibrating, the result of deliberate steps undertaken by nations to adjust their actual money balances to desired levels. National payments, surpluses and deficits, then, are logically always associated with the adjustment of monetary disequilibrium. To argue that balance-of-payments disequilibria may arise, even temporarily, for reasons unrelated to monetary disequilibrium is to argue that the economic agent, in this case the nation, has taken leave of economic rationality. Why else acquire or rid oneself of money balances, if not as a deliberate act of choice aimed at securing a more preferred position? Thus the global monetarists are prepared to deny, for example, that a shift in relative demands from domestic to foreign products would create even a temporary deficit in the balance of payments in the absence of the development of an excess supply of domestic money. This clearly illustrates the confusion that results when monetary theorists lapse into methodological holism and apply to hypostasized entities such as the nation concepts whose use is inappropriate outside the realm of individual action. The concept of household-firm equilibrium has meaning only within the framework of the logic of choice. And the logic of choice itself is meaningful only within the context of individual action. By virtue of his thoroughgoing methodological individualism, Mises maintains a firm grasp on the all-important distinction between the equilibrium of the individual actor and interindividual equilibrium in his balance-of-payments analysis. This difference between Mises's approach and the monetary approach may be seen in their divergent analyses of the effects on the balance of payments of a change emanating from the "real" or "goods" side of the economy. Assuming an international pure specie currency and starting from a situation of monetary and balance-of-payments equilibrium, let us suppose that domestic consumers increase their expenditures on foreign imports and that this increase reflects increased valuations of foreign products relative to domestic products. Let us further assume that the overall demand for money balances remains unchanged and that no other changes in the real or monetary data occur elsewhere in the system. Under these conditions, those proponents of the monetary approach who are inclined to identify balance-of-payments surpluses and deficits with the process of adjusting monetary disequilibrium would naturally deny any disequilibrating effect on the balance of payments, since the nation, by hypothesis, does not wish to alter its level of money balances but merely its mix of consumers' goods. The adjustment will thus proceed entirely in the goods sphere, with the nation simply increasing its exports of domestic products, which it now demands less urgently, to pay for the increased imports of the now more highly esteemed foreign products, while the level of its money balances remains unchanged. For Mises, however, things are not simple, since the adjustment process does not consist of the mutually consistent choices and actions of a single macroeconomic agent. Rather, it involves a succession of configurations of mutually inconsistent individual equilibria representing numerous microeconomic agents who are induced by the price system to bring their individual actions into closer and closer coordination until a final interindividual equilibrium is effected. As a consequence, in Mises's analysis there will indeed emerge an initial balance-of-payments deficit and corresponding outflow of money from the nation as domestic consumers shift their expenditures from domestic products to foreign imports. Now, from the point of view of these individual domestic consumers, this outflow of money is certainly "equilibrating" in the logic-of-choice sense, because it demonstrably facilitates their attainment of a more preferred position. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the economic system as a whole, far from serving to adjust a preexisting monetary disequilibrium, this flow of money disrupts the prevailing equilibrium in the interindividual distribution of money balances and is therefore ultimately self-reversing. Thus, the domestic producers of those goods for which demand has declined experience a shrinkage of their incomes, which threatens to leave them with insufficient money balances. On the other hand, the foreign producers, the demand for whose products have increased, experience an augmentation of their incomes and a consequent buildup of excess money balances. Without going into detail, suffice it to say that the steps undertaken by both groups to readjust their money balances to desired levels will initiate a balance-of-payments adjustment process that will reestablish the original, equilibrium distribution of money holdings among individuals, and hence among nations. Mises thus arrives at the same long-run, comparative-static conclusion as the proponents of the monetary approach do, to the effect that the change in question will not result in any alteration in national money stocks. However, his focus on the individual economic agent leads him to analyze the dynamic macroeconomic process by which the comparative-static, macroeconomic result emerges. Before concluding, I wish to briefly note two other important ways in which Mises anticipated the monetary approach. The first involves the global perspective of the monetary approach, which contrasts so sharply with the narrowly national focus of closed-economy macro-models typical of the various Keynesian approaches to the balance of payments. The monetary approach views the world economy as a unitary market with the various national commodity and capital submarkets fully integrated with one another and subject to the rule of the law of one price. As a consequence, arbitrage insures that a particular nation's prices and interest rates are rigidly determined by the forces of supply and demand prevailing on the world market. The analytical importance of the global perspective, which has revolutionized modern balance-of-payments analysis, was grasped completely by Mises: The mobility of capital goods, which nowadays is but little restricted by legislative provisions such as customs duties, or by other obstacles, has led to the formation of a homogeneous world capital market. In the loan markets of the countries that take part in international trade, the net rate of interest is no longer determined according to national, but according to international, considerations. Its level is settled, not by the natural rate of interest in the country, but by the natural rate of interest anywhere…. So long and in so far … as a nation participates in international trade, its market is only a part of the world market; prices are determined not nationally but internationally.12 I might add that Mises's individualist and subjectivist analytical focus enables him to deal more trenchantly than the writers on the monetary approach with the objection that the existence of internationally nontraded goods and services, for example, houses, haircuts, ice cream cones, severely limits the operation of the law of one price and thus undermines the unity of the world price level. The response of the proponents of the monetary approach, such as Jacob Frankel and Harry Johnson, is the empirical assertion that the elasticities of substitution between the classes of traded and nontraded goods approaches infinity in both consumption and production, a condition that places extremely narrow limits on the range of relative price changes between the two classes of goods.13 Mises, on the other hand, disposes of the objection theoretically.14 His argument is based on the important insight that the location of a good in space is a factor conditioning its usefulness and, therefore, its subjective value to the individual economic agent. For this reason, technologically identical goods that occupy different positions in space are, in fact, different goods. To the extent that the overall valuations and demands of market participants for such physically identical goods differ according to their locations, there will naturally be no tendency for their prices to be equalized. Mises is able to conclude logically, therefore, that the existence of so-called nontraded goods whose prices tend to diverge internationally does not constitute a valid objection to the worldwide operation of the law of one price in the case of each and every good and the corollary tendency to complete equalization of the purchasing power of a unit of the world money. A final respect in which Mises can be considered as a forerunner of the monetary approach is in his analysis of the causes and cures of a persistent balance-of-payments disequilibrium. For Mises and for the monetary approach, a chronic balance-of-payments deficit can only result from an inflationary monetary policy that continuously introduces excess money balances into the domestic economy via bank-credit creation. The deficit and the corresponding efflux of gold reflects the repeated attempts of domestic money holders to rid themselves of these excess balances, which are being re-created over and over again by the inflationary intervention of the monetary authority. The deficits will only be terminated when the inflationary monetary policy is brought to a halt or the stock of gold reserves is exhausted. Tariffs and other protectionist measures will fail to rectify the situation, since they do not address the fundamental cause of monetary disequilibrium. The connection between inflationist, interventionist monetary policies and chronic balance-of-payments disequilibrium is delineated by Mises in the following passage: If the government introduces into trade quantities of inconvertible banknotes or government notes, then this must lead to a monetary depreciation. The value of the monetary unit declines. However, this depreciation in value can affect only the inconvertible notes. Gold money retains all, or almost all, of its value internationally. However, since the state — with its power to use the force of the law — declares the lower-valued monetary notes equal in purchasing power to the higher-valued gold money and forbids the gold money from being traded at a higher value than the paper notes, the gold coins must vanish from the market. They may disappear abroad. They may be melted down for use in domestic industry. Or they may be hoarded.… No special government intervention is needed to retain the precious metals in circulation within a country. It is enough for the state to renounce all attempts to relieve financial distress by resorting to the printing press. To uphold the currency, it need do no more than that. And it need do only that to accomplish this goal. All orders and prohibitions, all measures to limit foreign exchange transactions, etc., are completely useless and purposeless.15 In conclusion, Mises's contribution to balance-of-payments analysis should be hailed not only as a doctrinal milestone in the development of the monetary approach but, much more importantly, as a shining exemplar of methodological individualism in monetary theory.16 [This article is excerpted from Money, Sound and Unsound, chapter 6: "Ludwig von Mises and the Monetary Approach to the Balance of Payments: Comment on Yeager." This essay originally appeared in Method, Process, and Austrian Economics: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises, ed. Israel M. Kirzner (New York: D.C. Heath and Company, 1982), pp. 247–56.] 1.The exception is Thomas M. Humphrey, "Dennis H. Robertson and the Monetary Approach to Exchange Rates," Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Review 66 (May/June 1980), p. 24, wherein Mises is briefly mentioned as one whose contributions to the monetary approach have been largely overlooked. 2.M.A. Akhtar, "Some Common Misconceptions about the Monetary Approach to International Adjustment," in The Monetary Approach to International Adjustment, eds. Bluford H. Putnam and D. Sykes Wilford (New York: Praeger, 1978), p. 121. 3.Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, new enl. ed., trans. H.E. Batson (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1971), p. 182. 4.Ibid. 5.Ibid., pp. 183–84. 6.Ibid., p. 184. 7.Ludwig von Mises, On the Manipulation of Money and Credit, ed. Percy L. Greaves, trans. Bettina Bien Greaves (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Free Market Books, 1978), pp. 53–54. 8.Mises, Theory of Money and Credit, p. 185. 9.Ibid., pp. 184–85. 10.Ludwig M. Lachmann, Capital, Expectations, and the Market Process: Essays on the Theory of the Market Economy, ed. Walter E. Grinder (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1977), p. 117. 11.Ibid., pp. 117, 189. 12.Mises, Theory of Money and Credit, pp. 374–75. 13.Jacob A. Frenkel and Harry G. Johnson, "The Monetary Approach to the Balance of Payments: Essential Concepts and Historical Origins," in The Monetary Approach to the Balance of Payments, eds. Jacob A. Frenkel and Harry G. Johnson (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1976), pp. 27–28. 14.Mises, Theory of Money and Credit, pp. 170–78. 15.Mises, Manipulation of Money and Credit, p. 55. 16.Limitation of space has precluded a discussion of Mises's analysis of the exchange rate. Suffice it to say that Mises anticipated the monetary approach to the exchange rate, both in his pathbreaking explanation of the purchasing-power-parity theory (which predated Cassel) and also in his integration of expectations into the explanation of short-run exchange-rate movements. Moreover, Mises brought his global perspective to bear in his insight that the exchange rate between national currencies is to be explained on the same principles as the exchange rate between parallel currencies circulating in the same nation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

재앙이의 경제적 효과. (재앙이 보유국) 시비걸면엠창새끼 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11320527390 박근혜 때 1년 국가예산 400조. 문재인 때 1년 국가예산 4년만에 555조 8천억으로 점프~ (+155조) 추경예산 2017년~2019년 = 21조5천억원 2020년 코로나 1,2,3,4차 추경예산 총 66조 8천억원 총 88조 3천억원 문재인 정권이 사용한 예산 428.8조 + 496.6조 + 512.3조 + 555.8조 = 1,993조 5천억원 + 알파(2017년예산 400.5조+ 2017~2020년까지 추경예산 88.3조) = 2,482조 3천억원. 박근혜 2017년 3월 10일 탄핵, 2017년 예산 400조 5천억원도 거의 문재인 정권이 씀. 대략 2500조원 가까이 썼다고 생각하면 됨. (2500조란 돈이 얼마냐면 5천만 국민 1인당 5000만원 돌아가는 돈. 재앙이가 국민 1인당 5천만원씩 삥뜯어서 4년간 뻘짓거리 했다고 생각하면 됨.) 노무현 떄 165조원이던 국가부채 문재인 임기 시작 때 660조원이던 국가부채가 2021년 기준 956조로 껑충! 약 300조원 증가. 이대로 가면 문재인 정권임기 끝나는 2022년까지 총 410조원 가량이 증가될 걸로 예상됨. (가계부채 410조원, 즉 5천만 국민 1인당 빚이 820만원 증가했단 소리) 노무현-이명박-박근혜 정권에 걸쳐 총 13년에 걸쳐 늘린 410조원짜리 국가부채가.. 문재인 임기 5년동안에 발생하게 됨. (문재인의 무능함은 전임대통령 3명의 무능함의 총합에 필적) 국가부채는 2198조원 가계부채는 1600조원 기업부채는 1118조원 총 4916조원이 존재함. 공식국가채무(정부 부채)는 728조원 공공기관 부채는 525조원 연금충당 부채는 944조원 (딱보니 공무원 연금+국민연금이겠네) 이거 다 합치면 2198조원. 문제는 이 기사가 2019년 기사니까.. 2021년인 지금은 훨씬 더 높아졌겠지. 가계부채도 장난아님 기업부채도 장난아닌 속도로 폭증 중.. 가계부채는 2003년(노무현 임기 시작) 472조1천억원에서 2008년(이명박 임기 시작) 723조5천억원으로 늘었고 2013년(박근혜 임기 시작) 1천조를 돌파한 1천19조원을 기록했다. 노무현 때 가계부채 251조 늘어나고, 이명박 때 가계부채 296조 늘어나고 박근혜는 기사에 안나와 모르겠지만.. 박근혜-문재인 거치면서 총 618조원 늘어남. 이후에도 상승세를 이어가며 지난해(2019년) 1천600조3천억원을 찍었고 올해(2020년)는 2분기 기준으로 1천637조3천억원까지 늘었다. *해설: 노시개 정권 시절을 거쳐 급증하기 시작한 가계부채 427조원이. 이명박-박근혜-문재인 시기를 거쳐서 지금은 1637조원에 달한다. => 노무현때부터 문재인에 이르기까지 국민들의 삶은 팍팍해졌고, 부동산 폭등으로 인해 주택담보대출 등 가계부채가 훨씬 늘어났다. *********** 예금취급기관이 비금융 기업에 빌려준 대출을 집계한 기업부채는 지난해 1천118조원으로 GDP 대비 58.3%다. 기업부채는 2013년 705조8천억원,(박근혜 임기시작) 2016년 871조원에서(박근혜 탄핵 전) 2018년 1천26조7천억원으로 1천조원대를 뚫었다. (문재앙 임기 2년차) 올해(2020년) 2분기기준으로는1천233조8천억원까지 늘어난 것으로 나타났다. (문재인 임기 4년차) 문재앙 임기 내에서 대략 기업부채는 최소 200조 이상 늘어났고, 빠진 기간 고려하면 300조원 정도는 늘어났을듯.. 반면, 박근혜 집권기에는 기업부채가 현재보다는 훨씬 적게 증가한 편..(4년동안 166조원 증가) 문재앙 임기 때엔 거의 박근혜 정권 때보다 2배 이상 기업부채가 증가한 것으로 보임. (문재앙 임기 3년 동안 200조 이상 증가, 임기 전체 합치면 300조원 넘을 듯..) 박근혜 임기 시절인 2016년 예산안 문재인 2021년 올해 예산안 보건-복지-고용에 박근혜 정권때에 비해 80조원 가량 더 쓰는데도 불구하고.. 일자리는 폭망.. 경제도 폭망.. 복지예산도 고갈직전.. 박근혜 일자리 창출 능력의 1/100도 못한 재앙이. 흑자로 운영되는 건강보험공단도 적자로 돌변.. 문재앙 표 탈원전 태양광떄문에.. 흑자로 운영되던 한국전력도 적자로 돌변.. 그 결과 국민과 기업이 내게 될 전기요금 인상 검토 중.. 똥팔육 머저리들이 펼친 탈원전 엉터리 정책에 한전이 적자로 개박살나고 있으니, 부랴 부랴 말 뒤집고 전기요금 인상 추진하려다가, 국민들한테 개쌍욕 쳐먹고 눈치 보며 오락가락하는 중.. *한국인 1인당 연간 쌀 소비량은 1970년대엔 136킬로그램, 요즘은 1년에 1인당 62.9킬로그램을 먹는다. 그러니 북한도 대충 1인당 100킬로 이상 필요하다고 볼 수 있다. 북괴새끼들 먹을거 없다고 식량난에 수백만명 죽어나가고, 겨우겨우 사료용 강냉이 수입해서 옥수수 죽이나 끓여먹던 놈들이... 갑자기 배가 불렀는지 쌀주겠다는데도 거부함. ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 남한에서는 쌀 소비량은 줄어들고, 2017년 기준으로 351만톤의 쌀이 창고에 쌓여있었는데.. (1년 쌀 생산량은 430만톤, 쌀소비량은 390만톤, 매년 수입쌀 포함 81만톤이 남아돔) **** 참고로 351만톤이면 어마어마한 분량임. (1인당 쌀 100킬로씩 먹는다고 치면, 3510만명이 1년 먹을 정도의 식량이라고 볼 수 있다. 북한인구는 2500만명 북한도 자체 쌀생산량이 있어서 부족분은 매년 수십만톤 정도임) 쌀 100kg이면, 대략 1달에 8.3kg이고, 30일 기준 하루에 277그램인데.. 밥한공기가 대략 쌀 100그램이니까. 밥 2~3끼 분량이라고 보면 됨. 어차피 북한주민들 안나눠주고 평양 놈들이랑 북괴군 놈들만 먹는다치면.. 이거 북한군 7~10년치 군량으로도 쓸 수 있는 수준이다. 그런데 갑자기 쌀창고에서 저 엄청난 쌀들이 사라져버림. 80kg 한가마니로 치면 쌀포대가 4387만5000개, 20kg 포대로 치면 쌀포대가 1억7550만개. 근데 시중에 쌀이 없어서 쌀값이 폭등하네.. 씨발? 어이가 없는 일 아니냐? 게다가, 북한산 석탄 실은 배가 들어와서 한전 산하 발전소에 석탄을 납품하지 않나.. 북핵개발로 경제제재를 받고 있는 북한 거지새끼들이 돈이 넘쳐서 평양에 고층건물을 수두룩하게 올리고 있지 않나.. 갑자기 남한 K-1탱크, MLRS랑 비슷한 무기를 배치하질 않나.. 신무기를 싹 바꿔서 열병식을 하지 않나.. 한국 디지털 군복이랑 빼박 디지털위장복을 생산해서 입히질 않나. (저 디지털 패턴이 뭐 컴퓨터로 입력해서 일종의 계산식으로 패턴을 찍어내는 거라던데..) (씨발 아무래도 이 자생간첩새끼들이 남한 국방 키운답시고 존나게 k-국방 자랑질하면서, 국방과학연구소에서 존나 개발하게 만들게 한 그 설계도랑 기술, 자금 막 퍼주는 듯. USB나 이동식 HDD 하나면 충분하잖아.) 온통 수상한 거 투성이다. 합리적 의심이 생길 수 밖에 없지 않겠노.. 아니 씨발, 그냥 간첩선이 대놓고 드나드는데.. 정부가 방조, 방관하다 못해 이걸 주도한 정황이 있어. ㅋㅋㅋ 이 새끼들은 대한민국 정부가 아니라.. 스스로 간첩 정체성을 드러내는 행위를 했다 이기야. 간첩은 뭐다. 때려잡아야 한다!! 그리고 마지막으로 옛날 우리나라 예산 그래프를 한번 보자. 1960~90년대 위대한 경제발전이 이뤄졌을 때.. 그 예산 보이노? 고작 몇천억 몇조원... 당시에 몇억달러 차관받은걸로 이 나라를 일으켜세웠던거다.. 게다가 영양가 좆또 없던 문민정부라는 새끼들이 세금을 미친듯이 올리더니.. 사실상 1990년대 중후반엔 월급도 1백만원 넘어가던 시대인데..(지금이 그때보다 임금-물가 2~3배 정도 올랐나 ?) 예산을 거의 5배~10배는 올려서 팍팍 쓰는데도 나라 꼴이 이 모양이다. 근데 박정희(박근혜)의 숨겨진 재산이 수백조원 타령하던 여당 국개 자생간첩 새끼들봐라.. 씹새끼들 꼴랑 4년만에 예산 2500조 가량을 써제끼고도 아무것도 못한 새끼들이 뭔 혓바닥이 길어? 무능한 위선자 씹새끼 똥팔육 운동권 도적떼놈들은 정치를 못하게 해야 한다. 단 하루, 1분 1초라도.. 요약 1.문재앙 정권은 4년동안 거의 2400조 이상의 예산을 탕진했다. (국민 1인당 5천만원 가량을 삥뜯어서 개삽질함.) 2.그로인한 경제효과는 개조또 없슴. 오히려, 국가부채만 민간, 기업, 정부 부채 할것없이 폭증 중.. 3.북한은 경제 제재 속에서도 이상하게 돈이 넘치고, 쌀도 넘치고, 심지어 신무기까지 남한판 짝퉁 같은걸로 순식간에 개발 배치.. (어지간한 무기가 설계하려면 십수년 걸리고 어마어마한 예산과 기술력이 드는건 생각하면 말도 안되는 개발-배치 속도임) 4.반면 남한은 남아돌던 쌀이 사라져서 쌀값 폭등.. 예산은 수십, 수백조를 썼는데, 일자리는 악화, 경제는 파탄, 기업은 줄도산. 폐업. 북핵은 고도화되고 있는데, 수십조 국방예산으로 요격할 준비도 안함.(사드 추가도입 등) 씨발 이런 상황에 성인지예산이니 개뻘짓 수행 중.. 근데 예산이 어디로 갔는지 안보임. (세금 세탁? 북한 퍼주기? 합리적 의심이 듬) 5.아무리 개나 소나 정치한다고 해도 이런 자생간첩 버러지 새끼들은 정치 1분 1초도 하게 냅둬선 안됨. <출처: 일베, 도표가 올라가지 않아 글만 게재. > --->위의 글에 따르면 문재앙이 지난 4년 동안 2400조의 돈을 뿌렸다. 이렇게 많은 돈을 뿌린 이유는, 흥청망청 소비해서 번영에 이를 수 있다는 케인즈의 엉터리 경제학 때문이다. 돈을 뿌리면 그 돈이 돌고 돌아 경제를 활성화시킨다고 믿은 것이다. 일견 그럴 듯해보이지만, 경제를 모르는 정치가들의 머리에서 나온 엉터리 경제학이다. 케인즈는 그들의 정책에 그럴듯한 이론으로 포장해 학문으로 만들어준 것이다. 2400조를 뿌렸는데도 현재 한국의 경제를 보면 케인즈 경제학이 얼마나 날림이라는 것이 드러난다. 엉터리 경제학이 나라를 망치는데 일조한 것이다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 미-중, 양안관계 이렇게 봐야 박상후의 문명개화 https://youtu.be/fUaFFyHamAs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 누구도 똑같은 강을 두 번 건널 수 없다. 두번 째 건널 때는 이전과 같은 강이 아니기 때문이고, 건너는 사람 역시 시간이 흘러 동일한 사람이 아니기 때문이다. ---- 나심 탈레브 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nassim Nicholas Taleb VaR & tools "modern" portfolio theory have been blowing up funds & banks since first use in 1987. Blew up FNMAe & almost all banks in 2009, LTCM in 1998, First Op of Chicago in 1987, AQR in 2020 .... Yet it is still in use. They deserve to blow up. Just not with taxpayer funds. 현대 포트폴리오 이론은 1987년 첫번째 응용한 이래로 펀드와 은행들을 파산시켰다. 하지만 아직도 사용되고 있다. 그들은 파산해도 마땅하다. 단지 납세자의 돈이 아니라면. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 경제학자 윌리엄 앨런의 경제학 명언들 *시장의 과정들은 우리가 서로를 사랑하고 협조하기를 요구하지 않는다. 시장의 제도와 가격은 사유 자산들을 사용할 수 있는 옵션과 인센티브를 제공한다. 우리는 가치 있는 상품과 서비스를 타인들에게 제공해서 개인적으로 번영한다. *자유란 다양한 제안 중에 하나를 선택할 자유를 말한다. 나에게 옵션을 달라 그리고 내가 선택을 할 때, 참견하지 말고 옆으로 물러나 있어라. *목적이 자원의 효율적인 이용이라면, 인간들은 아직 사유재산과 가격 체제에 의해 운영되는 경제보다 더 나은 경제체제를 발견하지 못했다. *정치가들은 일반적으로 뛰어난 경제학자가 아니다. A Fond Farewell to the "Midnight Economist" Gary Galles This month, UCLA economist William R. Allen, whom Peter Boettke called “a force in the great UCLA tradition of economic education,” passed away at ninety-six. As I was privileged to work with him both as a graduate student and subsequently, I would like to offer a few thoughts. Bill influenced me even before graduate school. I used his phenomenal book with Armen Alchian, University Economics, as an undergraduate. I was blown away by its clarity and power (Don Boudreaux called it “Among the ten greatest books ever written in economics,” with “keener instincts into economic forces at work than are had by some Nobel laureates in economics.”), which was a major reason I chose UCLA for graduate school. Then I used it there as a teaching assistant. I was unable to take classes from Bill. But I worked with him on various free market projects. Mainly, I worked in connection with his famed Midnight Economist broadcasts. Named for its radio time slot, it clearly and consistently developed the principles of economics to a lay audience from 1978 to 1992. In doing so, I “caught” some things that have stuck with me. I saw the importance of good writing. My “tastes” became for a good argument were heightened. And I became (and stayed) sold on communicating economic principles to “real” people in understandable language, because I think that has the greatest potential to change the world for the better. After leaving graduate school, Bill let me use his Midnight Economist scripts for a booklet of some of my favorites, which I edited, with added questions, to stimulate class discussion. Since my closest connection to Bill Allen is via The Midnight Economist, I would like to mark his passing with some of my favorite wisdom from it, which stands in sharp contrast with public policy discourse. *Economic analysis…elegant tools and rigorous techniques of thought must be supplemented with accumulated learning and developed wisdom in order to distinguish the profound from the superficial, the appropriate from the inapt and the inept, and the feasible from what cannot work well. *A world of scarcity is inherently a hard world. But…what ground rules and institutions can we evolve and adopt which will enable people to live together peacefully and productively? *People usually have done as well in their personal affairs as they have been permitted to do….Much of our misery has stemmed from dumb economics—inefficient institutions, inappropriate property fights, wasteful processes, debilitating policies. *The best of achievable worlds will still be a world of scarcity—and thus a world of choices, costs, and competition. But good economics will help us to do best, even if not well, in a hard world. *Market processes, with efficient production and exchange…do not require that we like one another and are inspired by purity of heart to cooperate with one another. Market institutions and prices provide options and incentives to use our privately-owned resources well…we individually prosper by supplying valuable goods and services to others. *With appropriate ground rules of the market, we can—quite amazingly—channel acquisitive instincts and aggressive inclinations to mutual advantage and the common good. *Do we ration goods among competing claimants through fighting and force? That is suicidal anarchy. Do we ration through governmental directives? That is stultifying repression. Do we ration through market processes? That is efficient freedom. *Negotiated harmony…[is] a matter of rights to use of property. When those rights rest with a governmental third-party dispenser of privileges, the society and the firms inevitably fight and resources are badly used as alternatives are restricted and costs are ignored. But when those property rights are privately owned, market negotiations replace grabs for politically exercised power and persuasion is used through appeals to the interests of the other party. The choice…is not difficult. *Freedom of individual choice is compatible with—and, indeed, required for—socially efficient use of a scarce resource, with people paying and receiving market-clearing prices….To obtain more, one efficiently produces what others want… neither producer nor consumer…imposes his will on the other. Each has only the right to offer for sale or to purchase. *Each person is the appropriate, relevant judge of his own condition…no matter what the preferences and assessments of others may be. *Freedom must mean the right to choose among offerings….Give me options—and then stand aside while I make my own choices. *When the objective is efficiency in using resources, the mind of man has not conceived, and the machinations of man have not evolved, a better arrangement than a private property, price-directed economy. *The market produces sinews of adaptability to and survival in an unfriendly world. *Economics is not to be the ultimate arbiter of morality and ethics. Indeed, economics is amoral, being simply a technique of thought to help explain—dispassionately—certain cause-and-effect relationships. *In uncoerced exchange, both parties gain, and, if no one else is hurt, it might seem pretty clear that the transaction should be permitted. *Moral outrage…is not an adequate substitute for systematic thought. *In their own interests, people will listen to the market, and adjust to it, if government does not block the message….But…we can frustrate its beneficial operation. *Political sorts commonly are not very good economists. *There are those anxious to diddle with data, not to comprehend the world, but to promote a political purpose. *Controls…bring only regimentation, shortages, less wealth, and loss of much personal liberty. *In a purported spirit of “fairness” and a striving for “equity,” we sometimes stipulate maximum prices….Such stipulation does not eliminate scarcity. It does not eliminate competition. Rather, it simply curtails one form of competition, so alternative forms must now be used. *“Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” observed Oliver Wendell Holmes in an era of very low taxation. But more taxes do not necessarily produce more civility. *Compared with the marketplace….The fundamental problem of government is not so much inadequate ethics as of deficient rules, which provide inadequate information, faulty guidance and ineffectual constraints. No politician’s quickie gimmick of market subversion will make us wealthy. *In the world of economics….We can easily mislead ourselves by stopping the thought process too quickly, noting only immediate characteristics of problems and effects of policies, overlooking indirect implications and consequences. Rest in peace, Bill. Thank you for the lessons. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[출처: 중앙일보] 윤건영 “소설”이라더니···北원전 건설안, 산업부 파일에 있었다 "원전 마피아" 최재형 때리던 與, 北원전 문건 공개에 돌변 <중앙> ------------------------------------------------------------------- 이노스케 / 일베 댓글 문크 예거 운지 투하 1. 청와대 울산시장 선거개입 사건 주요 참고인 민정수석실 백재영 수사관 숨진 채 발견 2. 국무조정실 가상화폐 담당 정기준 경제조정실장 숨진 채 발견 3. 법무부 소속 출입국 담당 공무원 한강투신 자살 4. 금융증권범죄합동수사단 변창훈 검사 투신 자살 5. 버닝썬 수사하던 강남경찰서 강력반 이용준 형사 변사체 낚시터에서 발견 6. 세월호 관련 수사 받던 이재수 기무사령관 오피스텔에서 투신 자살 7. 기자회견을 예고했던 금융투자협회 권용원 회장 자택에서 숨진 채 발견 8. 조국 사모펀드 주담보 대출해준 상상인저축은행 간부 숨진 채 발견 9. 조국 사모펀드 운용에 가담했던 수사 참고인 모텔서 자살 10. 드루킹 여론조작 사건에 연루되어 수사받던 노회찬 의원 투신 자 11. 조진래 창원시장후보 별장에서 숨진 채 발견 12. 박원순 서울시장 핀란드대사관 인근에서 연락두절 후 북악산에서 넥타이로 목매 자살 13. 정의연 윤미향 자금 관리책 손모 소장 샤워기줄로 목매 자살 14. 정의연 윤미향 재판 담당 이모 부장판사 중식당에서 식사 중 쓰러져 사망 15. 옵티머스 펀드에 연루되어 수사 받던 이낙연 당대표 비서실 부실장 자살 중요한 수사 참고인이 죽은 것이 문재인 때문에 죽었다고는 단정 지을 수 없지만 중요한 수사 참고인이 갑작스럽게 사망하면서 더 이상 수사가 윗선으로 연결되지 않았다는 것은 팩트임 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 한국 경제 미래가 극단적으로 심각한 상황인 이유를 .araboja 3줄요약 1. 한국경제 지금은 겉으로는 매우 좋아보이지만 실속은 썩어버린 상태 2. 인구구조 개혁, 연금 개혁 등 모든 역량을 개혁에 쏟아부어야함. 3. 그러나 포퓰리즘 정권 들어서면 이민 준비하는게 더 빠를거다. --->일베의 글인데, 한국의 미래가 암울한 이유를 인구 감소 때문이라고 보고 있음. 하지만 인구 감소는 경제적 불안에서 비롯되는 부작용이기도 하다. 경제가 불안하고, 좋은 직업이 없으므로, 사람들은 결혼을 미루거나, 출산을 미룬다. 그게 바로 인구 감소라는 현상으로 나타나고 있는 것이다. 더 근본적인 문제는 한국, 나아가 근대의 대의민주제의 시스템에 문제가 있어왔는데, 근래 들어 그 부작용이 폭발 직전의 임계점까지 왔다는 데 있다. 국민을 위해 존재하는 관료와 정치인들이, 이제는 아주 공공연히 그들의 사익을 추구하면서 대중을 개돼지로 여기고 있는 것이다. 이것을 좀 어려운 말로 글로벌리즘이라고도 한다. 그리고 복지라는 말로 위장된 각종 제도들이 근대의 합리(또는 불합리)성 위에 설계되었지만, 사실은 모두 언제 터질지 모르는 시한폭탄과 같은 불안 요소가 되어버렸다. 그래서 헌법을 비롯한 사회 전체의 혁명적인 변화가 있어야 하지만, 이런 걸 깨달은 사람도 별로 없고, 또 알고 있다 해도, 좌파들이 득세한 지금의 세상에서 그걸 실행할 수 있는 사람도 별로 없다는 것이 문제다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 트럼프에게 맡겨진 서양의 운명, 사회주의자 소굴이 된 다보스포럼 시대정신 연구소 https://youtu.be/vQmCYbBOneI --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 디지털 통화들이 통화의 세계를 바꾸고 있다. 법정 통화라는 형태의 정부 제정 통화는 역사적으로 보면 변이였다. 인류 역사에서는 사적인 돈과 유사 화폐들이 서로 경쟁을 했기 때문이다. 그런데 이제 새로운 사적인 화폐들이 나타나 경쟁을 하고 있다. 아마존, 구글, 페이스북, 애플 등이 모두 금융시장에 진입하고 있어서, 아마존은 몇몇 국가에서 대출과 금융 서비스를 실시하고 있고, 애플과 구글, 페이스북은 결제 시스템을 도입했다. 페이스북이 2019년 디지털 화폐인 리브라를 시장에 진입하겠다는 계획을 발표하자, 정치가와 관료들은 그것이 돈 세탁과 세금 탈루에 이용될 수 있다는 우려를 표명했다. 후에 페이스북은 리브라를 디엠으로 바꾸고, 디엠을 디지털 통화의 보편적인 플랫폼으로 만들고, 동시에 디엠 코인을 유통시키려는 계획을 발표했다. 디엠 코인은 개도국 시민들에게 환영받을 것으로 예상되는데, 문제는 이들 나라의 승인을 받아야 한다는 것이다. 하지만 이는 국가의 화폐 독점을 깨는 것이다. 하이에크는 정부의 통화 독점을 깨는 것은 우회적인 방법으로 새로운 통화를 도입하는 거라고 예견한 바 있다. 지난 금융위기 기간에 탄생한 비트코인은 바로 그런 통화의 하나였다. 정치가와 관료, 거대 금융 기업들의 끝없는 탐욕을 통제하려면 통화는 반드시 자유화되어야 하고 윤전기로 마음대로 찍어낼 수 없게 해야 된다. 디지털 통화와 달리 암호화폐는 개인들에 의해 암호화 방법으로 배타적으로 운용될 수 있다. 암호화폐는 블록체인 기술에 기반하고 있고, 기술적으로 보면 순전한 정보이자 수학일 뿐이다. Digital Currencies Are Changing the Money Landscape Pascal Hügli Government-mandated money in the form of legal tender is a historical anomaly. For much of mankind’s history private monies and quasi monies competed alongside each other. Now, again, a new era of private money competition is resurging and reshaping our world. Money, finance, and banking are currently experiencing the “Great Unbundling.” Value chains within finance are being broken up across the spectrum. Customers or users are no longer obtaining their money services as an all-in-one package from a single universal bank but increasingly follow a best-in-class approach in which the best offers from many different providers are chosen. This trend of the fragmentation of financial services has also been recognized by the tech giants of our time. Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook are all pushing into the financial sector. Amazon, for example, already offers loans and other financial services in some countries. Apple and Google Pay are already part of our everyday lives through iOS and Android devices. Facebook recently launched its payment system, Facebook Pay. WhatsApp's payment system was already active in Brazil when it was halted by the Brazilian central bank (the service is bound to relaunch soon). Facebook’s Libra Money Scheme Never Went Away As far as the largest social network in the world is concerned, the goals have been set even higher. In mid-2019, the tech giant announced its intention to launch the digital currency libra, which would be based on a consortium of several members. Soon after this announcement regulators and politicians all around the world began speaking up against this endeavor. Their fear: libra would be an ideal vehicle for money laundering and tax evasion that could potentially destabilize today’s financial order. After a lot of headwind, the people behind the project not only rebranded libra but came up with version 2.0, called Diem. Not only was the conglomerate consisting of twenty-seven members, with Facebook as one associate, renamed the Diem Association, the project has also changed its structure and goals significantly. While with the first design proposal much of the emphasis was on the libra stablecoin, Diem is designed to become a generic platform for digital programmable currencies. As such, a digital dollar, euro, or pound (e.g., ≋USD, ≋EUR, or ≋GBP) is supposed to be running on Diem’s infrastructure. These digital versions would each be backed by a reserve of assets made up of cash or cash equivalents and very short-term government securities (essentially government bonds) in the respective national currency. At the same time, a Diem coin (≋XDX), a price-stable multicurrency coin, is to be supported on the Diem payment system. Being a multicurrency stablecoin, the diem coin will be backed by a basket of the several single-currency stablecoins available on the Diem network. Thus, Diem will not rely solely on one national currency, but will be composed of a handful of different government currencies. The concept is similar to the Special Drawing Rights of the International Monetary Fund. Incorporating these national currencies into the Diem system can be interpreted as a step to win the favor of critics in the Western hemisphere. Can Diem Compete with Government Fiat Monies? After all, Diem is faced with a dilemma. Its founders envision the diem coin as an efficient cross-border settlement coin as well as a neutral, low-volatility option for people and businesses in countries that do not have a single-currency stablecoin on the network yet. This means that Diem will mainly be to the advantage of developing nations. In order to launch this project, though, the approval and favor of developed countries is needed. What politicians initially disliked about libra: the possible launch of a new private money by a large private company. Ultimately, this was seen as an attack on today's sacred cow among politicians, economists, and technocrats: the state’s monopoly of money. Now that Diem’s major focus is no longer a new global currency existing on its own, but a global payment system and a global financial infrastructure that is based on digital versions of today’s dominant national currencies, critics might change their view. The setup as it stands now would certainly be to the benefit of the US and other governments, as Diem’s coin would serve as a major demander of their securities. In a sense, Diem could ironically also turn out to be fiat’s last chance to keep its relevancy or at least would be a great geopolitical secret weapon against the digital currency initiatives initiated and eagerly pursued by the Chinese. The Diem a.k.a. libra story shows one thing all too clearly: challenging the state’s monopoly over money is no easy task. Hardly any initiative is met with greater resistance, as officials as well as economists know the sort of power they have by controlling money and its issuance. Friedrich A. Hayek knew and articulated this well: “I don't believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can't take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something that they can't stop.” Notwithstanding libra/Diem, a new monetary era has been initiated by a potential new form of money called bitcoin. Born at the height of the financial crisis, bitcoin represents the antithesis to the existing financial order. The cryptoasset is an attempt to wrest money as a force influencing the economy, politics, and society from the hands of centrally planned God players. Money should be scarce and decentralized in order to tame the endless appetite of politicians, functionaries, and economic giants. In the eyes of its supporters, bitcoin is a counterreaction to the shameful misuse of fiat money. In the eyes of bitcoin enthusiasts, the efforts of fintech and Big Tech are not the solution, but part of the system, while the system is the real problem. Whether money is supported by the state and issued by private banks or even corporations, the problem remains the same: it remains in centralized hands and cannot be kept self-sovereign. Digital payment solutions such as Diem that want to turn current money into fiat money 2.0 are merely “lipstick on a pig,” according to bitcoin aficionados. They will not solve the fundamental problem of monetary socialism that ails our monetary system. Money is still tied to intermediaries, and every payment made is recorded in a central database controlled by a third party. Transactions can be censored at any time if necessary. A Credible Alternative? For this reason, a distinction must be made between digital currencies and cryptocurrencies. The latter can be exclusively controlled by individuals using cryptographic methods. So-called cryptographic values can thus be held and used directly by their owners and without intermediaries, similar to bearer instruments or material objects. Instead of being managed by an intermediary, crypto values and cryptoassets are based entirely on a blockchain. This is a distributed database nobody has sole control over. The blockchain is ultimately a computer protocol based on programming code. From a technical point of view, this makes the cryptoassets pure information and mathematics. Consequently, bitcoin stands for an alternative way of imagining a financial system. Today, our financial system is a conglomerate of abstract constructs such as contracts, promises, and balance sheets. This bears witness to the fact that our economy has been getting ever more abstract. The great philosopher and sociologist George Simmel had already noted this tendency toward ever-greater abstraction in 1900, in his work The Philosophy of Money. It can be assumed that this development will continue in the future. Money in the narrower sense, also known as base money, is likely to recede more and more. Money in the broader sense, i.e., money surrogates such as bank deposits, credit cards, and other credit agreements, is likely to become even more prominent. This development is driven by the financialization of the past decades, which has led to a stronger fusion of the economic and financial worlds. This amalgamate requires a financial alchemy that is now based on three basic building blocks: institutions, incentives, and human participation. In the existing financial system, the human element predominates. Contracts and promises are framed by institutions, but they are executed and enforced by human hands. In contrast, bitcoin at the protocol level reduces the human element to an unprecedented extent and gives the other two components more weight. On the one hand, technology and incentives to keep the human element in check are becoming more important due to mathematics, cryptography, and computer science. A financial alchemy as we know it today, but one based on bitcoin, is likely to depend less on the human element and more on computers, formulas, and code to control, execute, and enforce it. What kind of financial alchemy is better in an objective sense cannot be determined at this point in time. This is for the future to decide. As with the discovery of bitcoin, the decision will be made between different types of money that are in direct competition. There’s a traditional world that will be upgraded and take the form of CBDCs (central bank digital currencies) and tokenized assets still based on fiat state money. And there is a more decentralized new world that is being developed, dominated by more private versions of money in the form of bitcoin, ether, and other cryptoassets that will host tokenized assets (such as gold) as well. Pascal Hügli is the chief research officer at Schlossberg&Co, a Swiss asset manager focused on protecting its clients' wealth from unprecedented and increasing monetary socialism around the globe. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

오늘 sbs 끝까지 판다 원전수사 정리 기사다 니들이 사람이라면 한번씩은 봐라/ 일베 1. "월성 원전 감사원 요구 자료 빼자"…삭제 파일 목록 입수 원본 링크 : https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1006189029&plink=COPYPASTE&cooper=SBSNEWSEND https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1006189029 2. '월성 원전' 靑 보고 문건 여럿…수정 지시로 재작성 원본 링크 : https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1006189032&plink=COPYPASTE&cooper=SBSNEWSEND 3. 반대 단체 동향 파악…집회신고서도 입수 원본 링크 : https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1006189033&plink=COPYPASTE&cooper=SBSNEWSEND 4. 뽀요이스 · 북원추…'북한 원전 추진' 폴더 삭제 https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1006189034 5. 파견 국장이 독단적으로?…"산업부 조직적 비호" https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1006189035 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [사설] 최저금리에도 나랏빚 이자만 20조원, 빚으로 이자 갚는 날 온다 조선일보 김종달 2021.01.27 11:38:46 그래도 어차피 차기 정권은 좌파몫. 지금까지 경험해보지 못한 제1야당의 무능으로는 아무것도 할수없음. ○○들...대통령과 집권여당이 이렇게 개판치고 있는 상황에서 반사이익을 누리지 못하고 있는 제1야당의 모습을 보면서 대한민국 정치는 이제 한계에 달한듯 하다. 김종인을 비상대책위원장으로 초대할때부터 뻔했다. 김규정 2021.01.27 09:47:18 후진국 되는것이고 제2의 IMF에 중국 경제식민지가 되는것이 시간문제입니다 . 필요한곳에 쓰야할돈들이 그냥 정권유지를 위해서 허공에 날린 책임은 시간이 지나면 부메랑되어 날아 옵니다 못사는 나라가 괜히 못사는것이 아님을 공부는 안하고 데모만 하고 술먹고 혼숙하던놈들이 알겠습니까 . 망쪼가 들었습니다 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 中공산당 100주년 축하한 文, 자유국가 지도자론 이례적/ 조선 --->월남의 패망을 보고 희열을 느끼고, 중국을 높은 산봉우리라고 우러러보고, 청와대 수석으로 있을 때 북한의 의견을 먼저 들으려 했던 놈이 오죽 하겠나? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 동네 북이 된 바이든, 꼴방에서 일하다. 법무장관에게 엄중 경고 받았다 시대정신 연구소 https://youtu.be/pcoNbJ-6W9I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 고대 그리스에서 배우는 경제적 자유의 중요성 최근의 연구에 따르면 고대 그리스는 경제적 자유를 누렸던 기간에 번영했던 것으로 드러났다. 학자들에 따르면, 기원전 5세기의 아테네 경제는 현대의 시장경제와 유사하게 기능했다고 한다. 하지만 같은 시기의 스파르타에서는 농업과 목축에서의 자급자족에 집중한 폐쇄적인 경제 체제였고, 시민들은 기업가적 활동을 제재받았다. 스파르타 경제의 실패는 문화가 경제 발전에 중요하다는 사실을 알려준다. Lessons on Economic Freedom from Ancient Greece Lipton Matthews Economic freedom isn't a modern invention. Throughout history, we find time and time again that those areas with the most economic freedom were the most prosperous. Activists in favor of economic freedom often limit themselves, however, to only a few times and places, and most lean on modern studies showing the benefits of the marketplace. It is possible to take a broader view, however, and market defenders could strengthen their argument by revisiting the larger historical track record of economic freedom. Recent research shows that ancient Greece, for example, prospered during periods of economic freedom: Andreas Bergh and Carl Hampus Lyttkens in “Measuring Institutional Quality in Ancient Athens,” argue that economic freedom in ancient Athens was comparable to highly ranked modern economies such as Hong Kong and Singapore. The authors note that well-defined property rights, freedom to trade, and light regulations conduced an environment where commerce could thrive, thereby improving living standards. Due to the absence of draconian regulations, Athenians were able to freely experiment without a high degree of government opposition. Although Bergh and Lyttkens admit the limitations of their study, they nonetheless aver that economic freedom played a pivotal role in the success of ancient Athens: “We suggest that we may have uncovered one of the mechanisms through which democracy affects the material and cultural success of Athens.” Furthermore, George Bitros and Anastassios Karayiannis in their article “Morality, Institutions and Economic Growth: Lessons from Ancient Greece” attribute the economic prowess of Athens to freedom in market institutions: The Athenian economy in the 5th century BC functioned much like a modern market economy…. Economic agents acted upon prices determined from the mechanism of demand and supply and aimed at getting the best value for their efforts….Trade disputes were resolved through an efficient legal system and arbitration. Yet when discussing the Spartan economy the writers offer a remarkably different narrative: By contrast, during the same period, the economy of Sparta operated in a closed economy context with its main focus on self-sufficiency in agricultural and husbandry products….Citizens were deliberately discouraged to undertake entrepreneurial activities….Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that this economy operated under a set of legal arrangements that stifled the efforts of citizens for material improvement and suppressed all human inclinations for economic progress. Being a militaristic state, Sparta had little interest in entrepreneurship; instead, citizens were encouraged to master the art of plundering in order to advance the objectives of the state. Unfortunately, the violent culture inculcated by Sparta discouraged reverence for property rights and individual agency. The economic failures of Sparta duly inform us that culture is crucial to development. As Bitros and Karayiannis conclude: To summarize, Sparta was organized as a military city-state. Citizens did not have private lives. They sacrificed themselves for the wellbeing of their city-state. Hence the moral norms they were trained to follow, both while serving in the army and later on, were compatible with the institutions that had been set up to advance the military objectives of Sparta….These were sufficient to make Sparta the top military power in the period under consideration without much else. No justice and no aidos; No fairness in economic transactions, because there were none, and no economic progress, because all economy related institutions had been planned centrally to attain self-sufficiency. Humans are creative, yet when their ingenuity is enslaved by the force of government, the result is primarily stagnation and suffering. Similarly, Josiah Ober posits that intense competition made ancient Greece a laboratory for institutional innovations that sparked growth. He notes: The Greek world was arguably exceptional in its development of new social institutions that served to increase the level and value of social cooperation. Valuable institutional innovations were spurred by high levels of local inter-community competition and spread by inter-community learning….A state that succeeded in developing a more effective way to capture the benefits of cooperation across its population gained a corresponding competitive advantage vis à vis its local rivals. The ancient Greeks teach us to appreciate the vital role of markets in fostering development and the significance of creating a competitive market for ideas. Greek poets and philosophers are frequently invoked to convey moral lessons. We should use the economy of ancient Greece as a reminder to critics of the market that the prosperity induced by economic freedom is indeed a timeless truth. The legacy of ancient Greece transcends its monumental accomplishments in philosophy and literature. Lipton Matthews is a researcher, business analyst, and contributor to mises.org, The Federalist, and the Jamaica Gleaner. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 鹽茶水洗眼方 염차수 세안방 綠茶葉洗淨、沖泡、加鹽，鹹度適口即可。裝在茶杯內，蓋好，置涼。然後以兩眼輪流「飲」之，不斷眨動眼皮，讓眼球得以充分滋潤和清洗。次數不拘，多多益善。對治一切眼疾，保護眼睛健康。鹽茶水要保持清潔、新鮮，不可多日存放積垢生腐。根據經驗，天寒或可用上二、三日；天氣暖和的時候，只要看到茶水表面起了浮沫，則須即時更換。譬如夏天必須用當天泡的鹽茶水。茶杯蓋要能夠把杯沿也蓋好，因為眼睛要挨著它「喝水」的。也可以把鹽茶水放進冰箱，每天倒出一小杯來用，這樣可以連續使用多日，您留心看到它變質，起浮沫了，就要換掉。 （來源：東天目山昭明太子泉水洗眼方，李炳南老居士稀鹽水洗眼方，傳統的茶水洗眼方，三方合一。 녹차에 소금을 적당량 넣은 후에, 그 물로 눈을 닦아 눈병을 치료하는 방법 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

중앙일보 [단독]백령도 40㎞ 앞까지 왔다, 中군함 대놓고 서해 위협 정부 소식통 “중국 함정 거의 매일 동경 124도 선 넘어 한국쪽 진입” 시진핑, 해양주권 강화 지시 이후 중국 앞마당 만들기 ‘서해공정 닉네임은왜2자냐 (일베 댓글) 바로 이거임. 중국을 견제하기 위해 한미일 공조를 강화해야 된다고 하면 가끔 허구헌날 무슨 무슨 왕, 무슨 무슨 튜브나 쳐보는 국뽕새끼들이 한국은 중국 동부지역까지 도달하는 미사일을 수천발 가지고 있어서 중국은 한국을 공격하지 못한다느니 개소리하는데 그건 전면전 상황이고 이런 식으로 툭툭 찔러보는 쨉 펀치 도발로 얼마든지 한국을 군사적으로 괴롭힐 수 있음. 중국의 군사비는 미국의 절반 수준에 근접했고 아시아 지역 군사비 지출 2, 3, 4위인 인도, 일본, 한국의 군사비를 모두 합친 것보다 더 많음. 일단 함정 수, 전투기 숫자부터 비교가 안되게 중국이 많음. 그 많은 군함들을 돌려가며 쨉 던지듯 툭툭 찔러대며 도발하면 함정 수가 한정적인 우리나라 해군은 피로가 누적될 수밖어 없음. 대만의 전투기가 작년 영공을 계속 침범하는 중국 전투기에 대응해 반복 출격하다 과잉 운행으로 기기오작동이 발생해 추락한거랑 같음. 중국은 지금 우리한테만 저렇게 치고빠지기 식의 도발을 하는게 아니라 대만의 방공식별구역과 일본의 센카쿠 해역도 거의 매일 침범하다싶이 하고 있음. 일본도 매번 대응 출격하느라 피로도가 쌓이고 있다함. 심지어 중국은 서쪽에서는 인도한테도 툭툭 건드려보고 있음. 미국의 개입이 없으면 중국이 아시아패권을 먹을 가능성이 높은 이유임. 이런데도 한미일 삼각동맹 강화해야 된다고 하면 조선족새낀지 반미반일 친중친북에 미쳐사는 운틀(운동권틀딱)인지 모를 병신들이 우린 미사일이 많아서 중국도 우릴 함부러 침공 못한다고 국뽕에 쩔어사는 거 보면 참 걱정이다 이노스케 (일베댓글) 대륙의 악마와 계약을 맺은 문크 예거의 활약상 1. 월성 원전을 강제로 조기 중단하고 중국산 태양광 부품 납품 몰아줌 2. 중국산 태양광 부품을 한국에서 재포장해서 국산으로 인정해주고 국고보조금 지원해줌 3. 중국 자본 사모펀드가 2차전지 산업을 독점하고 중국산 2차전지가 국고보조금을 싹쓸이함 4. 중국산 철강을 메이드인 코리아로 둔갑 시켜서 미국에 덤핑할수 있도록 중국 도와줌 5. 중국식 스마트 시티 국책 사업 추진하면서 중국 건설기업들에게 일감 몰아줌 6. 정부보조금받는 시민단체가 5배 이상 늘어났고 그 중 대다수가 반일/반미성향임 7. 자국민은 부동산 규제하고 외국 자본 사모펀드가 부동산에 투기할 수 있도록 규제 풀어줌 8. 문재인 정부 외교부 장관이 한국은 중국을 포위하는 쿼드에 참여하지 않을 것이라고 함 9. 중국의 허락 없이 미국의 미사일 방어시스템에 참여 하지 않겠다고 중국에게 약속해줌 시진핑이 발표한 중국몽에는 2025년까지 한반도를 중국 통제 아래 두겠다는 항목이 있음 https://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2018/03/02/2018030200258.html 한국보다 군사력이 강하고 핵무기를 보유하고 있는 한국 바로 옆에 있는 독재 국가가 한국을 통제 아래 두겠다는 구체적인 계획을 발표했다는 것이 한국이 처한 현실임 한국은 원유 공급을 해외 수입에 의존하고 있고 호르무즈 해협 말라카 해협 남중국해 등에서 미국 해군이 한국의 유조선을 보호해줘서 중동의 원유가 한국의 항구까지 들어올수 있고 한국의 유조선은 일본의 센카쿠 열도 영해를 반드시 통과해야 한국의 항구까지 들어올수 있음 수출을 하기 위해 한국의 항구에서 출발한 상선은 미국 해군의 보호를 받으며 무역을 함 한국은 미국 해군의 보호 아래서 바다로 진출하여 자유 무역을 하며 경제 성장한 국가임 한국이 현재 처한 현실을 직시하고 현실주의적 외교를 추구하는 것이 보수적 외교이고 한국 입장에서는 미국의 인도 태평양 전략에 참여하는 것이 가장 현실적인 국가전략임 --->바이든이 오바마와 유사한 대중국 정책을 펼치면, 그의 재임 기간에 미국의 경제는 쇠락하고, 동아시아는 일본을 제외하고 옛날 당나라 때처럼 조공국들이 될 것 같다. 중국과의 디커플링을 통해 중국의 경제를 붕괴시키지 않으면 세계는 평화를 찾을 수가 없다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 시진핑, 다보스 연설에서 ‘미국과 전쟁 불사’ 공개 협박, 미국의 대응은? 김영호 교수의 세상 읽기 https://youtu.be/97SpfW3a8yw ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 속보) 삼성 사장이 왜 거기 있는가? 대한항공게이트 추가증거 나왔다 시대정신 연구소 https://youtu.be/HaVtlGimrF8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ When migrants come, culture migrates too Politicians and the mainstream media in Europe have done their best to downplay the post-2015 wave of harassment or assault My new book, Prey, documents the wave of sexual harassment, assault and rape that followed the surge in immigration that occurred in the wake of the Arab revolutions and reached a peak in 2015 and 2016 아얀 히르시 알리의 글. 사학자 닐 퍼거슨의 아내이기도 한 그녀가, 2015, 16년 아랍의 혁명 이후 아랍인들이 유럽으로 몰려들었고, 그로 인해 성폭행, 폭력사태가 증가했다고 주장하고 있다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jerry Capital My Notes on Statistical Consequences of Fat Tails "Insurance can only work in Mediocristan; you should never write an uncapped insurance contract if there is risk of catastrophe. The point is called the catastrophe principle." "{thick tailed}, extreme events away from the centre of the distribution play a very large role. Black Swans are not "more frequent", they are more consequential. The fattest tail distribution has just one very large extreme deviation, rather than many departures from the norm" "As tails fatten, to mimic what happens in financial markets for example, the probability of a single event staying within one standard deviation rises... we get higher peaks, smaller shoulders, and a higher incidence of a very large deviation" Beta, Sharpe Ratio and other common hackneyed financial metrics are uninformative "When variance is infinite, R^2 should be 0. But because samples are necessarily finite, it will show, deceivingly, higher numbers than 0. Effectively, under thick tails R^2 is useless, uninformative, and often downright fraudulent" "What is called evidence based science, unless rigorously disconfirmatory, is usually interpolative, evidence-free, and unscientific" "Stating 'violence has dropped' because the number of people killed in wars has declined from the previous year or decade is not a scientific statement" Robust/Fragile/Antifragile "Is robust what does not produce variability across perturbation of parameters of the probability distribution. If there is change, but with an asymmetry, concave or convex response to such perturbation, the classification is fragility/antifragility" Naive Empiricism: never compare thick tailed variables to thin tailed ones. The rationality of of common people with a good tail risk detector, compared to the ignorance of experts. People are more calibrated to consequences and properties of distributions than psychologists claim." "Under fat tails there is no "typical" disaster or collapse... Verbal binary predictions or beliefs cannot be used as guages... Binary bets can never represent *skin in the game* under fat tailed distributions" ......................... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 인플레란 무엇인가? 일반적으로 통화의 증발에 의해 인플레가 발생하고 가격이 상승하는데, 일부 인사들은 인플레의 원인이 통화의 증가가 아니라, 가격의 인상이라고 주장한다. 물가 지수price level을 말하는 사람들은 온도계의 수은처럼 균일하게 모든 물가가 오르고 내린다고 생각하지만, 물가는 그렇게 균일하게 오르내리지 않는다. 정부가 돈을 새로 찍어 지출했을 때, 초기에 그 돈을 받아쓰는 사람들은 인플레가 시작하기 전이므로, 후에 받아쓰는 사람들에 비해 유리하다. 인플레에는 치명적인 약점이 하나 있는데, 그건 인플레가 계속될 수 없다는 거다. 결국 인플레는 통화에 파탄을 내고 끝나게 된다. 케인즈는 “시간이 오래 가면 우리 모두는 죽는다”고 했는데, 문제는 그 오래라는 기간이 과연 얼마냐는 것이다. 퐁파두르 마담은 “우리가 죽은 뒤에 대홍수가 오든 말든!”이라고 말했는데, 그녀는 일찍 죽어 별일 없었지만, 마담 뒤 바리는 조금 더 오래 살았다가 단두대에 목이 잘리고 말았다. 금본위제도는 한가지 큰 장점이 있는데, 금본위제도 하에서는 화폐의 양이 정부나 정당의 정책과 독립할 수 있다는 점이다. 1880년대에 한 도시의 재난을 돕기 위해 의회가 만 달러의 지원금을 의결했는데, 당시 대통령 클리블랜드는 이를 부결하면서 이렇게 말했다. “정부를 지원하는 건 시민들의 의무이지만, 시민들을 지원해주는 것은 정부의 의무가 아니다.” 1936년 케인즈는 자신의 저서에서 이렇게 말했다. “실업은 나쁜 것이고, 그것을 제거하려면 우리는 반드시 통화를 팽창해야 한다.” 요약하자면 케인즈는 이렇게 말했다. “통화를 팽창해야만 완전 고용을 이룰 수 있다. 그러므로 인플레로 통화의 가치를 떨어뜨려서 노동자들을 속여라.” Understanding the Roots and Causes of Inflation Ludwig von Mises [This is the fourth lecture from Mises's "Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow"] If the supply of caviar were as plentiful as the supply of potatoes, the price of caviar—that is, the exchange ratio between caviar and money or caviar and other commodities—would change considerably. In that case, one could obtain caviar at a much smaller sacrifice than is required today. Likewise, if the quantity of money is increased, the purchasing power of the monetary unit decreases, and the quantity of goods that can be obtained for one unit of this money decreases also. When, in the sixteenth century, American resources of gold and silver were discovered and exploited, enormous quantities of the precious metals were transported to Europe. The result of this increase in the quantity of money was a general tendency toward an upward movement of prices in Europe. In the same way, today, when a government increases the quantity of paper money, the result is that the purchasing power of the monetary unit begins to drop, and so prices rise. This is called inflation. Unfortunately, in the United States, as well as in other countries, some people prefer to attribute the cause of inflation not to an increase in the quantity of money but, rather, to the rise in prices. However, there has never been any serious argument against the economic interpretation of the relationship between prices and the quantity of money, or the exchange ratio between money and other goods, commodities, and services. Under present day technological conditions there is nothing easier than to manufacture pieces of paper upon which certain monetary amounts are printed. In the United States, where all the notes are of the same size, it does not cost the government more to print a bill of a thousand dollars than it does to print a bill of one dollar. It is purely a printing procedure that requires the same quantity of paper and ink. I. In the eighteenth century, when the first attempts were made to issue bank notes and to give these bank notes the quality of legal tender—that is, the right to be honored in exchange transactions in the same way that gold and silver pieces were honored—the governments and nations believed that bankers had some secret knowledge enabling them to produce wealth out of nothing. When the governments of the eighteenth century were in financial difficulties, they thought all they needed was a clever banker at the head of their financial management in order to get rid of all their difficulties. Some years before the French Revolution, when the royalty of France was in financial trouble, the king of France sought out such a clever banker, and appointed him to a high position. This man was, in every regard, the opposite of the people who, up to that time, had ruled France. First of all he was not a Frenchman, he was a foreigner—a Swiss from Geneva, Jacques Necker. Secondly, he was not a member of the aristocracy, he was a simple commoner. And what counted even more in eighteenth century France, he was not a Catholic, but a Protestant. And so Monsieur Necker, the father of the famous Madame de Staël, became the minister of finance, and everyone expected him to solve the financial problems of France.A But in spite of the high degree of confidence Monsieur Necker enjoyed, the royal cashbox remained empty—Necker’s greatest mistake having been his attempt to finance aid to the American colonists in their war of independence against England without raising taxes. That was certainly the wrong way to go about solving France’s financial troubles. There can be no secret way to the solution of the financial problems of a government; if it needs money, it has to obtain the money by taxing its citizens (or, under special conditions, by borrowing it from people who have the money). But many governments, we can even say most governments, think there is another method for getting the needed money; simply to print it. If the government wants to do something beneficial—if, for example, it wants to build a hospital—the way to find the needed money for this project is to tax the citizens and build the hospital out of tax revenues. Then no special “price revolution” will occur, because when the government collects money for the construction of the hospital, the citizens—having paid the taxes—are forced to reduce their spending. The individual taxpayer is forced to restrict either his consumption, his investments or his savings. The government, appearing on the market as a buyer, replaces the individual citizen: the citizen buys less, but the government buys more. The government, of course, does not always buy the same goods which the citizens would have bought; but on the average there occurs no rise in prices due to the government’s construction of a hospital. I choose this example of a hospital precisely because people sometimes say: “It makes a difference whether the government uses its money for good or for bad purposes.” I want to assume that the government always uses the money which it has printed for the best possible purposes—purposes with which we all agree. For it is not the way in which the money is spent, it is the way in which the government obtains this money that brings about those consequences we call inflation and which most people in the world today do not consider as beneficial. For example, without inflating, the government could use the tax-collected money for hiring new employees or for raising the salaries of those who are already in government service. Then these people, whose salaries have been increased, are in a position to buy more. When the government taxes the citizens and uses this money to increase the salaries of government employees, the taxpayers have less to spend, but the government employees have more. Prices in general will not increase. But if the government does not use tax money for this purpose, if it uses freshly printed money instead, it means that there will be people who now have more money while all other people still have as much as they had before. So those who received the newly-printed money will be competing with those people who were buyers before. And since there are no more commodities than there were previously, but there is more money on the market—and since there are now people who can buy more today than they could have bought yesterday—there will be an additional demand for that same quantity of goods. Therefore prices will tend to go up. This cannot be avoided, no matter what the use of this newly-issued money will be. II. And more importantly, this tendency for prices to go up will develop step by step; it is not a general upward movement of what has been called the “price level.” The metaphorical expression “price level” must never be used. When people talk of a “price level,” they have in mind the image of a level of a liquid which goes up or down according to the increase or decrease in its quantity, but which, like a liquid in a tank, always rises evenly. But with prices, there is no such thing as a “level.” Prices do not change to the same extent at the same time. There are always prices that are changing more rapidly, rising or falling more rapidly than other prices. There is a reason for this. Consider the case of the government employee who received the new money added to the money supply. People do not buy today precisely the same commodities and in the same quantities as they did yesterday. The additional money which the government has printed and introduced into the market is not used for the purchase of all commodities and services. It is used for the purchase of certain commodities, the prices of which will rise, while other commodities will still remain at the prices that prevailed before the new money was put on the market. Therefore, when inflation starts, different groups within the population are affected by this inflation in different ways. Those groups who get the new money first gain a temporary benefit. When the government inflates in order to wage a war, it has to buy munitions, and the first to get the additional money are the munitions industries and the workers within these industries. These groups are now in a very favorable position. They have higher profits and higher wages; their business is moving. Why? Because they were the first to receive the additional money. And having now more money at their disposal, they are buying. And they are buying from other people who are manufacturing and selling the commodities that these munitions makers want. These other people form a second group. And this second group considers inflation to be very good for business. Why not? Isn’t it wonderful to sell more? For example, the owner of a restaurant in the neighborhood of a munitions factory says: “It is really marvelous! The munitions workers have more money; there are many more of them now than before; they are all patronizing my restaurant; I am very happy about it.” He does not see any reason to feel otherwise. The situation is this: those people to whom the money comes first now have a higher income, and they can still buy many commodities and services at prices which correspond to the previous state of the market, to the condition that existed on the eve of inflation. Therefore, they are in a very favorable position. And thus inflation continues step by step, from one group of the population to another. And all those to whom the additional money comes at the early state of inflation are benefited because they are buying some things at prices still corresponding to the previous stage of the the exchange ratio between money and commodities. But there are other groups in the population to whom this additional money comes much, much later. These people are in an unfavorable position. Before the additional money comes to them they are forced to pay higher prices than they paid before for some—or for practically all—of the commodities they wanted to purchase, while their income has remained the same, or has not increased proportionately with prices. Consider for instance a country like the United States during the Second World War; on the one hand, inflation at that time favored the munitions workers, the munitions industries, the manufacturers of guns, while on the other hand it worked against other groups of the population. And the ones who suffered the greatest disadvantages from inflation were the teachers and the ministers. As you know, a minister is a very modest person who serves God and must not talk too much about money. Teachers, likewise, are dedicated persons who are supposed to think more about educating the young than about their salaries. Consequently, the teachers and ministers were among those who were most penalized by inflation, for the various schools and churches were the last to realize that they must raise salaries. When the church elders and the school corporations finally discovered that, after all, one should also raise the salaries of those dedicated people, the earlier losses they had suffered still remained. For a long time, they had to buy less than they did before, to cut down their consumption of better and more expensive foods, and to restrict their purchase of clothing—because prices had already adjusted upward, while their incomes, their salaries, had not yet been raised. (This situation has changed considerably today, at least for teachers.) There are therefore always different groups in the population being affected differently by inflation. For some of them, inflation is not so bad; they even ask for a continuation of it, because they are the first to profit from it. We will see, in the next lecture, how this unevenness in the consequences of inflation vitally affects the politics that lead toward inflation. Under these changes brought about by inflation, we have groups who are favored and groups who are directly profiteering. I do not use the term “profiteering” as a reproach to these people, for if there is someone to blame, it is the government that established the inflation. And there are always people who favor inflation, because they realize what is going on sooner than other people do. Their special profits are due to the fact that there will necessarily be unevenness in the process of inflation. III. The government may think that inflation—as a method of raising funds—is better than taxation, which is always unpopular and difficult. In many rich and great nations, legislators have often discussed, for months and months, the various forms of new taxes that were necessary because the parliament had decided to increase expenditures. Having discussed various methods of getting the money by taxation, they finally decided that perhaps it was better to do it by inflation. But of course, the word “inflation” was not used. The politician in power who proceeds toward inflation does not announce: “I am proceeding toward inflation.” The technical methods employed to achieve the inflation are so complicated that the average citizen does not realize inflation has begun. One of the biggest inflations in history was in the German Reich after the First World War. The inflation was not so momentous during the war; it was the inflation after the war that brought about the catastrophe. The government did not say: “We are proceeding toward inflation.” The government simply borrowed money very indirectly from the central bank. The government did not have to ask how the central bank would find and deliver the money. The central bank simply printed it. Today the techniques for inflation are complicated by the fact that there is checkbook money. It involves another technique, but the result is the same. With the stroke of a pen, the government creates fiat money, thus increasing the quantity of money and credit. The government simply issues the order, and the fiat money is there. IV. The government does not care, at first, that some people will be losers, it does not care that prices will go up. The legislators say: “This is a wonderful system!” But this wonderful system has one fundamental weakness: it cannot last. If inflation could go on forever, there would be no point in telling governments they should not inflate. But the certain fact about inflation is that, sooner or later, it must come to an end. It is a policy that cannot last. In the long run, inflation comes to an end with the breakdown of the currency; it comes to a catastrophe, to a situation like the one in Germany in 1923. On August 1, 1914, the value of the dollar was four marks and twenty pfennigs. Nine years and three months later, in November 1923, the dollar was pegged at 4.2 trillion marks. In other words, the mark was worth nothing. It no longer had any value. Some years ago, a famous author, John Maynard Keynes, wrote: “In the long run we are all dead.” This is certainly true, I am sorry to say. But the question is, how short or long will the short run be? In the eighteenth century there was a famous lady, Madame de Pompadour, who is credited with the dictum: “Après nous le déluge” (“After us will come the flood”). Madame de Pompadour was happy enough to die in the short run. But her successor in office, Madame du Barry, outlived the short run and was beheaded in the long run. For many people the “long run” quickly becomes the “short run”—and the longer inflation goes on the sooner the “short run.” How long can the short run last? How long can a central bank continue an inflation? Probably as long as people are convinced that the government, sooner or later, but certainly not too late, will stop printing money and thereby stop decreasing the value of each unit of money. When people no longer believe this, when they realize that the government will go on and on without any intention of stopping, then they begin to understand that prices tomorrow will be higher than they are today. Then they begin buying at any price, causing prices to go up to such heights that the monetary system breaks down. I refer to the case of Germany, which the whole world was watching. Many books have described the events of that time. (Although I am not a German, but an Austrian, I saw everything from the inside: in Austria, conditions were not very different from those in Germany; nor were they much different in many other European countries.) For several years, the German people believed that their inflation was just a temporary affair, that it would soon come to an end. They believed it for almost nine years, until the summer of 1923. Then, finally, they began to doubt. As the inflation continued, people thought it wiser to buy anything available, instead of keeping money in their pockets. Furthermore, they reasoned that one should not give loans of money, but on the contrary, that it was a very good idea to be a debtor. Thus inflation continued feeding on itself. And it went on in Germany until exactly November 20, 1923. The masses had believed inflation money to be real money, but then they found out that conditions had changed. At the end of the German inflation, in the fall of 1923, the German factories paid their workers every morning in advance for the day. And the workingman who came to the factory with his wife, handed his wages—all the millions he got—over to her immediately. And the lady immediately went to a shop to buy something, no matter what. She realized what most people knew at that time—that overnight, from one day to another, the mark lost 50% of its purchasing power. Money, like chocolate in a hot oven, was melting in the pockets of the people. This last phase of German inflation did not last long; after a few days, the whole nightmare was over: the mark was valueless and a new currency had to be established. V. Lord Keynes, the same man who said that in the long run we are all dead, was one of a long line of inflationist authors of the twentieth century. They all wrote against the gold standard. When Keynes attacked the gold standard, he called it a “barbarous relic.” And most people today consider it ridiculous to speak of a return to the gold standard. In the United States, for instance, you are considered to be more or less a dreamer if you say: “Sooner or later, the United States will have to return to the gold standard.” Yet the gold standard has one tremendous virtue: the quantity of money under the gold standard is independent of the policies of governments and political parties. This is its advantage. It is a form of protection against spendthrift governments. If, under the gold standard, a government is asked to spend money for something new, the minister of finance can say: “And where do I get the money? Tell me, first, how I will find the money for this additional expenditure.” Under an inflationary system, nothing is simpler for the politicians to do than to order the government printing office to provide as much money as they need for their projects. Under a gold standard, sound government has a much better chance; its leaders can say to the people and to the politicians: “We can’t do it unless we increase taxes.” But under inflationary conditions, people acquire the habit of looking upon the government as an institution with limitless means at its disposal: the state, the government, can do anything. If, for instance, the nation wants a new highway system, the government is expected to build it. But where will the government get the money? One could say that in the United States today—and even in the past, under McKinley—the Republican party was more or less in favor of sound money and of the gold standard, and the Democratic party was in favor of inflation, of course not a paper inflation, but a silver inflation. It was, however, a Democratic president of the United States, President Cleveland, who at the end of the 1880s vetoed a decision of Congress, to give a small sum—about $10,000—to help a community that had suffered some disaster. And President Cleveland justified his veto by writing: “While it is the duty of the citizens to support the government, it is not the duty of the government to support the citizens.” This is something which every statesman should write on the wall of his office to show to people who come asking for money. I am rather embarrassed by the necessity to simplify these problems. There are so many complex problems in the monetary system, and I would not have written volumes about them if they were as simple as I am describing them here. But the fundamentals are precisely these: if you increase the quantity of money, you bring about the lowering of the purchasing power of the monetary unit. This is what people whose private affairs are unfavorably affected do not like. People who do not benefit from inflation are the ones who complain. If inflation is bad and if people realize it, why has it become almost a way of life in all countries? Even some of the richest countries suffer from this disease. The United States today is certainly the richest country in the world, with the highest standard of living. But when you travel in the United States, you will discover that there is constant talk about inflation and about the necessity to stop it. But they only talk; they do not act. VI. To give you some facts: after the First World War, Great Britain returned to the prewar gold parity of the pound. That is, it revalued the pound upward. This increased the purchasing power of every worker’s wages. In an unhampered market the nominal money wage would have fallen to compensate for this and the workers’ real wage would not have suffered. We do not have time here to discuss the reasons for this. But the unions in Great Britain were unwilling to accept an adjustment of money wage rates downward as the purchasing power of the monetary unit rose. Therefore real wages were raised considerably by this monetary measure. This was a serious catastrophe for England, because Great Britain is a predominantly industrial country that has to import its raw materials, half-finished goods, and food stuffs in order to live, and has to export manufactured goods to pay for these imports. With the rise in the international value of the pound, the price of British goods rose on foreign markets and sales and exports declined. Great Britain had, in effect, priced itself out of the world market. The unions could not be defeated. You know the power of a union today. It has the right, practically the privilege, to resort to violence. And a union order is, therefore, let us say, not less important than a government decree. The government decree is an order for the enforcement of which the enforcement apparatus of the government—the police—is ready. You must obey the government decree, otherwise you will have difficulties with the police. Unfortunately, we have now, in almost all countries all over the world, a second power that is in a position to exercise force: the labor unions. The labor unions determine wages and then strike to enforce them in the same way in which the government might decree a minimum wage rate. I will not discuss the union question now; I shall deal with it later. I only want to establish that it is the union policy to raise wage rates above the level they would have on an unhampered market. As a result, a considerable part of the potential labor force can be employed only by people or industries that are prepared to suffer losses. And, since businesses are not able to keep on suffering losses, they close their doors and people become unemployed. The setting of wage rates above the level they would have on the unhampered market always results in the unemployment of a considerable part of the potential labor force. In Great Britain, the result of high wage rates enforced by the labor unions was lasting unemployment, prolonged year after year. Millions of workers were unemployed, production figures dropped. Even experts were perplexed. In this situation the British government made a move which it considered an indispensable, emergency measure: it devalued its currency. The result was that the purchasing power of the money wages, upon which the unions had insisted, was no longer the same. The real wages, the commodity wages, were reduced. Now the worker could not buy as much as he had been able to buy before, even though the nominal wage rates remained the same. In this way, it was thought, real wage rates would return to free market levels and unemployment would disappear. This measure—devaluation—was adopted by various other countries, by France, the Netherlands, and Belgium. One country even resorted twice to this measure within a period of one year and a half. That country was Czechoslovakia. It was a surreptitious method, let us say, to thwart the power of the unions. You could not call it a real success, however. After a few years, the people, the workers, even the unions, began to understand what was going on. They came to realize that currency devaluation had reduced their real wages. The unions had the power to oppose this. In many countries they inserted a clause into wage contracts providing that money wages must go up automatically with an increase in prices. This is called indexing. The unions became index conscious. So, this method of reducing unemployment that the government of Great Britain started in 1931—which was later adopted by almost all important governments—this method of “solving unemployment” no longer works today. In 1936, in his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Lord Keynes unfortunately elevated this method—the emergency measures of the period between 1929 and 1933—to a principle, to a fundamental system of policy. And he justified it by saying, in effect: “Unemployment is bad. If you want unemployment to disappear you must inflate the currency.” He realized very well that wage rates can be too high for the market, that is, too high to make it profitable for an employer to increase his work force, thus too high from the point of view of the total working population, for with wage rates imposed by unions above the market only a part of those anxious to earn wages can obtain jobs. And Keynes said, in effect: “Certainly mass unemployment, prolonged year after year, is a very unsatisfactory condition.” But instead of suggesting that wage rates could and should be adjusted to market conditions, he said, in effect: “If one devalues the currency and the workers are not clever enough to realize it, they will not offer resistance against a drop in real wage rates, as long as nominal wage rates remain the same.” In other words, Lord Keynes was saying that if a man gets the same amount of sterling today as he got before the currency was devalued, he will not realize that he is, in fact, now getting less. In old fashioned language, Keynes proposed cheating the workers. Instead of declaring openly that wage rates must be adjusted to the conditions of the market—because, if they are not, a part of the labor force will inevitably remain unemployed—he said, in effect: “Full employment can be reached only if you have inflation. Cheat the workers.” The most interesting fact, however, is that when his General Theory was published, it was no longer possible to cheat, because people had already become index conscious. But the goal of full employment remained. VII. What does “full employment” mean? It has to do with the unhampered labor market, which is not manipulated by the unions or by the government. On this market, wage rates for every type of labor tend to reach a point at which everybody who wants a job can get one and every employer can hire as many workers as he needs. If there is an increase in the demand for labor, the wage rate will tend to be greater, and if fewer workers are needed, the wage rate will tend to fall. The only method by which a “full employment” situation can be brought about is by the maintenance of an unhampered labor market. This is valid for every kind of labor and for every kind of commodity. What does a businessman do who wants to sell a commodity for five dollars a unit? When he cannot sell it at that price, the technical business expression in the United States is, “the inventory does not move.” But it must move. He cannot retain things because he must buy something new; fashions are changing. So he sells at a lower price. If he cannot sell the merchandise at five dollars, he must sell it at four. If he cannot sell it at four, he must sell it at three. There is no other choice as long as he stays in business. He may suffer losses, but these losses are due to the fact that his anticipation of the market for his product was wrong. It is the same with the thousands and thousands of young people who come every day from the agricultural districts into the city trying to earn money. It happens so in every industrial nation. In the United States they come to town with the idea that they should get, say, a hundred dollars a week. This may be impossible. So if a man cannot get a job for a hundred dollars a week, he must try to get a job for ninety or eighty dollars, and perhaps even less. But if he were to say—as the unions do—“one hundred dollars a week or nothing,” then he might have to remain unemployed. (Many do not mind being unemployed, because the government pays unemployment benefits—out of special taxes levied on the employers—which are sometimes nearly as high as the wages the man would receive if he were employed.) Because a certain group of people believes that full employment can be attained only by inflation, inflation is accepted in the United States. But people are discussing the question: Should we have a sound currency with unemployment, or inflation with full employment? This is in fact a very vicious analysis. To deal with this problem we must raise the question: How can one improve the condition of the workers and of all other groups of the population? The answer is: by maintaining an unhampered labor market and thus achieving full employment. Our dilemma is, shall the market determine wage rates or shall they be determined by union pressure and compulsion? The dilemma is not “shall we have inflation or unemployment?” This mistaken analysis of the problem is argued in England, in European industrial countries and even in the United States. And some people say: “Now look, even the United States is inflating. Why should we not do it also.” To these people one should answer first of all: “One of the privileges of a rich man is that he can afford to be foolish much longer than a poor man.” And this is the situation of the United States. The financial policy of the United States is very bad and is getting worse. Perhaps the United States can afford to be foolish a bit longer than some other countries. The most important thing to remember is that inflation is not an act of God; inflation is not a catastrophe of the elements or a disease that comes like the plague. Inflation is a policy—a deliberate policy of people who resort to inflation because they consider it to be a lesser evil than unemployment. But the fact is that, in the not very long run, inflation does not cure unemployment. Inflation is a policy. And a policy can be changed. Therefore, there is no reason to give in to inflation. If one regards inflation as an evil, then one has to stop inflating. One has to balance the budget of the government. Of course, public opinion must support this; the intellectuals must help the people to understand. Given the support of public opinion, it is certainly possible for the people’s elected representatives to abandon the policy of inflation. We must remember that, in the long run, we may all be dead and certainly will be dead. But we should arrange our earthly affairs, for the short run in which we have to live, in the best possible way. And one of the measures necessary for this purpose is to abandon inflationary policies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------