델타포스 우크라이나 바이든 아지트 급습/미국을 위한 애국행동, 16일까지 최후통첩/중공에 구걸한 조지아 래펜스퍼거 박상후의 문명개화 https://youtu.be/_P0Pdtgpmkg -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 미국 조지아주 상원의원 개표방송중에 표가 증발해버렸다?? [바실리아TV] https://youtu.be/DbjOgamPD4I 1. 조지아주 상원선거 개표 50% 정도 진행중, 공화당표 3만표 사라짐 2. 방송 시청 중 우연히 촬영한 것으로 추가 조작이 있을 수 있음 3. 개표기와 집계서버에서 방송사로 바로 전달하는 구조, 즉 실수가 아니라 조작임 4. 1만표 정도 공화당이 지는 상황에서 새벽1시 개표중단 ㅋㅋㅋ * 미국 시간으로 6일 재개표시 민주당 승리로 조작예상 한줄요약: 조작이 없었다면 공화당 2만표로 이기는 거임 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 교통방송 털보새끼 만 없앨것이 아니라, 교통방송 자체를 패쇄 없애야 한다...교통방송이 왜있는거야? 최강한국테스형 / 일베 다 네비게이션 가지고 다니고, 스마트폰으로 날씨, 교통정보 다받고 있는데 지금 굳이 교통방송이라는게 의미가 있는지 모르겠다. 더군다나 세금으로 빨갱이 선동 짓거리나 하면서 세금 축내는데. 도대체 교통방송의 순기능이 뭐야? 다 유튜브, 개인방송, 스트리밍 음악감상 하고 있는데 더이상 존재해야할 이유가 없어. 털보만 없앨게 아니라 방송사 자체를 아에 취소 시켜야 한다. 털보만 거기 빨갱이 있는거 아냐. 털보가 빨갱이면, 교통방송 전체가 다 빨갱이 선동당했다고 보면 된다. 교통방송 패쇄말고는 답없어. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 주관적 가치는 자의적인 가치가 아니다 사람들은 하나의 상품이 자신의 삶의 유지에 얼마나 중요한지 정하고, 거기에 따라 상품에 가치를 배당한다. 개인이 삶의 유지에 중요하다고 생각하는 다양한 목적들은 내림차순에 따라 가치가 정해진다. 제빵사인 존이 4개의 빵을 만들어 첫 번째 빵으로 배를 채우고, 두 번째 빵으로는 셔츠와 바꾼다고 할 때, 우리는 빵을 사용하는 목적이 빵에 중요성을 부여한다고 할 수 있다. 즉 먹고사는 일이 가장 중요하므로, 자신이 먹어야하는 첫 번째 빵이 가장 중요하고, 두 번째 빵은 중요도에서 그 다음이다. 목적은 자의적으로 정해지는 게 아니라, 삶의 유지에 중요한 정도에 따라 순서가 매겨진다. 예를 들어, 제빵사가 자신이 만든 빵 4개를 옷을 사고, 새들의 먹이로 주어버리고 자신은 먹지 않는다면, 그는 굶어죽을 것이다. 효용은 양에 관한 것이 아니라, 개인들이 자신의 삶과 관련해 정하는 우선순위이다. 가치 평가란 언제나 현실의 사실과 관련해 이루어진다. 만일 사람들이 가치평가를 자의적으로 하면, 그들은 자신의 복지와 생명을 위험에 빠뜨릴 수도 있다. Subjective Value Is Not the Same as Arbitrary Value Frank Shostak Why do individuals pay much higher prices for some goods versus other goods? To provide an answer to this question economists refer to the law of diminishing marginal utility. Mainstream economics explains the law of diminishing marginal utility in terms of the satisfaction that one derives from consuming a particular good. For instance, an individual may derive vast satisfaction from consuming one cone of ice cream. However, the satisfaction he will derive from consuming a second cone might also be large but not as large as the satisfaction derived from the first cone. The satisfaction from the consumption of a third cone is likely to diminish further, and so on. From this, mainstream economics concludes that the more of any good we consume in a given period, the less satisfaction, or utility, we derive out of each additional, or marginal, unit. It is also establishes that because the utility of a good declines as we consume more and more of it, the price that we are willing to pay per unit of the good also declines. Utility in this way of thinking is presented as a certain quantity that increases at a diminishing rate as one consumes more of a particular good. Utility is regarded as a feeling of satisfaction or enjoyment derived from buying or using goods and services. According to this way of thinking, an individual’s utility scale is wired in his head. This scale determines for the individual whether he will purchase a particular good. If preferences are constant, it is possible to capture these preferences by means of a mathematical formula, so it is held. This formulation is labeled as a utility function. In addition, given that utility is presented as a total quantity, it becomes possible to ascertain the addition to this total, which is labeled as additional utility or marginal utility. Does it, however, make sense to discuss the process of a good’s valuation without referring to the purpose that this good serves? Menger’s Explanation of How Valuations Are Formed According to Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian school of economics, an individual assigns values to goods in accordance to the importance of these goods to his life maintenance. Various ends that an individual finds important to his life maintenance are then valued in a descending ranking. On this Menger wrote, As concerns the differences in the importance that different satisfactions have for us, it is above all a fact of the most common experience that the satisfactions of greatest importance to men are usually those on which the maintenance of life depends, and that other satisfactions are graduated in magnitude of importance according to the degree (duration and intensity) of pleasure dependent upon them. Thus if economizing men must choose between the satisfaction of a need on which the maintenance of their lives depends and another on which merely a greater or less degree of well-being is dependent, they will usually prefer the former. Consider John the baker, who has produced four loaves of bread. The four loaves of bread are his resources or means, which he employs to attain various ends. Let us say that his highest priority or his highest end is to have one loaf of bread for himself. This means that John will retain for his personal consumption one loaf of bread. The consumption of a loaf of bread is of utmost importance as far as his life maintenance is concerned. John exchanges his second loaf of bread for five tomatoes, which help John to secure his second most important end. For John the five tomatoes are going to enhance his life and well-being. John then exchanges his third loaf of bread for a shirt—his third most important end. Finally, John decides that he will allocate his fourth loaf to feeding wild birds. Feeding the birds is ranked as number four on John’s priority list as far as his life and well-being are concerned. Ends Determine the Importance of Means Observe that to achieve the second and the third end John had to exchange his resources—loaves of bread—for goods that would serve to achieve his ends. To achieve the end of having a shirt John had to exchange his loaf of bread for the shirt. The loaf of bread is not suitable by itself to fulfill the services that the shirt provides. The suitability of the means is what gives them value with respect to a particular “end.” For instance, in securing the end of having a shirt, John must decide whether it is going to be a leisure shirt or a work shirt. John will have to select among various shirts the most suitable for his specific end—let us say to have a work shirt. Being a baker John may conclude that the shirt must be of white color and made out of thin rather than thick material to keep him comfortable while working next to a hot oven. Note that his selection is based on the facts of reality—he requires for working purposes a comfortable shirt. In this sense, the shirt chosen promotes John’s life and well-being. As far as John is concerned, feeding wild birds is among the least important given his pool of resources—four loaves of bread. As can be seen, John employed the first loaf of bread to secure his most important end, the second loaf of bread to secure his second most important end, etc. From this, we can infer that the end assigns the importance to the resource employed to secure this end. This implies that the first loaf of bread carries much higher importance than the second loaf of bread because of the more important end or goal that the first loaf secures. Why the Value of Goods Is Determined by the Least Important End Because John regards each of the four loaves of bread in his possession as same, this means that each loaf could be employed by him to secure any of his ends. How, then, does he value each loaf of bread in his possession? He assigns to each loaf of bread the importance as imputed from his least important end, which is feeding wild birds. Why does the least important end serve as the standard for valuing the loaves of bread? If John used the highest end as the standard for assigning value to each loaf of bread, this would imply that he values the second, third, and fourth loaves much more than the ends he secures. (Remember the second loaf of bread helps John to secure his second most important end; the third loaf of bread, the third most important end; and the fourth loaf of bread, the fourth most important end). However, if this is the case, what is the point of trying to exchange something that is valued more for something that is valued less? Note that to secure his second end of obtaining five tomatoes John would exchange one loaf of bread. If John values a loaf of bread more than five tomatoes obviously no exchange will take place. However, if each loaf is valued in accordance with the least important end, (end number four) which is feeding wild birds, then five tomatoes, are going to be valued by John higher than a loaf of bread. Consequently, an exchange is going to take place. Since the fourth loaf of bread is the last unit in John's total supply, it also called the marginal unit—the unit at the margin. This marginal unit secures the least important end. Alternatively, we can also say that the marginal unit provides the least benefit as far as life maintenance is concerned. If John had only three loaves of bread this would mean that, each loaf would be valued according to end number three—having a shirt. This end is ranked higher than the end of feeding wild birds. From this, we can infer that as the supply of bread declines, the marginal utility of bread rises. This means that every loaf of bread will be valued much higher now than before the supply of bread fell. Conversely, as the supply of bread rises, its marginal utility falls, as each loaf of bread is now valued less than before the increase in the supply took place. Note that the law of declining marginal utility is derived here from the fact that individuals use means to secure ends. Ends Are Not Set Arbitrarily Ends are not set arbitrarily but are graded in accordance with their importance in maintaining life. If John had ranked his ends arbitrarily, then he would have run the risk of endangering his life. For instance, if he had allocated most of his resources to clothing and feeding wild birds and very little to feeding himself, he would have run the risk of becoming seriously ill. Note that by choosing a particular end an individual also sets a standard for evaluating various means. For instance, if my end is to provide a good education for my child, then I will explore various educational institutions and will grade them in accordance with my information regarding the quality of education that these institutions are providing. This means my standard of grading these institutions is my end, which is to provide my child with a good education. Another limitation for attaining various goals is the availability of suitable means. Thus, to quell my thirst in the desert, I require water. Diamonds in my possession will be of no help in this regard. There Is No Such Thing as Total Utility Marginal utility is not, as the mainstream perspective posits, an addition to the total utility, but rather the utility of the marginal end. There is no such thing as adding to total utility as a result of an additional unit of a good. Utility is not about quantities but about priorities or the ranking that each individual sets with respect to his life. A particular end sets the value of the corresponding means. Ends are not established arbitrarily but in accordance to their suitability to support people’s lives and well-being. In this sense, valuations are always in reference to the facts of reality. If people formed valuations arbitrarily, they would run the risk of endangering their lives and well-being. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 가브리엘 천사가 하루밤 사이에 우리의 돈을 두 배로 해주면 무슨 일이 생길까? 다음날 사람들은 물가가 오르면서 전보다 더 부자가 되지 않았다는 사실을 발견한다. 진정한 자원, 노동력, 자본, 자연자원, 생산성 등은 하나도 변하지 않았기 때문이다. The Angel Gabriel and Monetary Inflation Robert Aro Six hundred dollars, two thousand, or how about one million per person? How much money should a government give its people to get the wheels of commerce turning again? If starting with the premise that many are struggling because they don’t have enough money, the obvious solution for government is to “give them more money.” Unfortunately, this idea has never worked and will never work. The idea of money creation for the purpose of wealth creation is nothing new. In 1912, when Mises published The Theory of Money and Credit, he cited David Hume, who in the eighteenth century discussed what would happen if overnight “every Englishman [were] miraculously endowed with five pieces of gold.” Years later, Murray Rothbard used the ideas of Hume and Mises in works such as The Austrian Theory of Money and The Case against the Fed in what became known as the “Angel Gabriel model.” In The Mystery of Banking Rothbard uses the model to show that an increase to the money supply confers no social benefit to society: The Angel Gabriel is a benevolent spirit who wishes only the best for mankind, but unfortunately knows nothing about economics. He hears mankind constantly complaining about a lack of money, so he decides to intervene and do something about it. And so overnight, while all of us are sleeping, the Angel Gabriel descends and magically doubles everyone’s stock of money. If such an injection to the money supply were to happen today, many distinguished economists, politicians, and central planners might very well praise such “stimulus,” saying it’s exactly what the economy needs! In the morning, Rothbard explains, everyone would be ecstatic to find they are now twice as rich as they were the previous night because they now have twice the amount of dollars in their “wallets, purses, safes and bank accounts.” They would go out to spend their money, but as the day went on they would find prices getting higher and higher. Eventually, he insists, they would find that: Society is no better off than before, since real resources, labor, capital, goods, natural resources, productivity, have not changed at all. The notion of “increasing the money supply” overnight, carries further implications such as unpredictable changes in prices and consumer preferences, plus a whole host of economic problems. But the overarching idea is that an increase in the money supply does not lead to better societal outcomes, specifically because there is no such thing as an “optimal money supply.” Therefore, whether the money supply is doubled or halved, it does not equate to a society that is twice or half as rich. These ideas were formulated centuries ago. Yet they appear to be lost on those who hold a monopoly on our currency. Consider our real-life Angel Gabriel policy expected next year, only this time, rather than a $600 check per person, imagine $1 million is sent instead. Once the money is received, most people will find an increased demand to buy assets such as real estate, land, or stocks. Most people would not significantly increase their purchases of household items like hair dryers, bed sheets, or even eggs. We have no reasonable method to anticipate how much prices will change; but we can anticipate there will be countless changes to prices. The level of price distortion and economic chaos the $1 million per person would unleash remains unfathomable to those in developed economies. Whatever the outcome, it would be disastrous. While $1 million per person sounds extreme, we can similarly say that even though $600 per person is understandably less extreme, the same economic chaos and negative outcomes exist, the only difference being the degree of damage. We can say $1 million destroys the economy at a quicker pace than $600. But this does not take away the fact that both outcomes are bad, nor does it mean $600 is good because it is “less bad,” than $1 million. The real question becomes: Why do we use economic policies that have no known positive effects, only detrimental ones? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------