윤석열, 검찰총장직 사퇴…"정의·상식 무너져" ---> 정의와 상식이 무너진 건, 윤석열이 박 대통령의 구속을 위해 혈안이 되었을 때 벌써 시작되지 않았나? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 홍준표 윤석열 총장이 지금 사표 낸다면 그것은 잘못된 결단이 될 겁니다. 지금은 70년 검찰의 명예를 걸고 문재인 대통령 연루 여부 세가지 사건에 전 검찰력을 쏱아야 할 때입니다. 살아 있는 권력은 수사 하지 않고 지금 사표를 내면 죽은 권력이던 이명박.박근혜 수사를 매몰차게 한것 마져 정의를 위한 수사가 아니고 벼락 출세를 위한 문재인 청부 수사였다고 인정할수 밖에 없고, 검찰 수사권을 해체 시킨 당시의 마지막 총장이였다는 오명을 벗어 나기 어려울 겁니다. 아울러 어제 대구지검 방문도 정치권 진입을 타진해 보기 위한 부적절한 행보 였다는 것을 여실히 보여주는 검찰총장 답지 않은 정치 행위를 했다는 오해도 받을 수 있습니다. 정면 돌파 하십시오 나는 윤총장의 기개와 담력을 나는 믿습니다. 정치는 소임을 다 하신후 하셔도 늦지 않습니다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 中 실사격 군사훈련 내세워 남중국해 봉쇄, 미국 강력 반발 김영호 교수 https://youtu.be/RDo1LFKlq2U ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 경제 성장의 엔진은 저축과 투자를 통한 자본 축적이다. In Defense of Savings Peter G. Klein I can't recall the last time I heard something on National Public Radio in defense of savings but, there it was, in this morning's Marketplace segment on Karen Petrou's new book Engine of Inequality: The Fed and the Future of Wealth in America. Savings, Petrou asserts, are the "engine of wealth accumulation." Petrou, whose work has been discussed on these pages before, identifies the Fed's massive and unprecedented monetary expansion since 2008 as a prime driver of inequality in the US. As she explains to host David Brancaccio: [T]he cost of being middle, even upper-middle, class, and lower- or moderate-income, has gone way up. So all but the top 10% of Americans already have more debt than assets. We don’t need more debt, we need more employment and economic growth. And we critically need savings. That’s the engine of wealth accumulation. And right now, if you put your money into your savings account, you lose money because rates are negative in real terms, and they have been pretty much ever since 2008. Saving is a losing game. Investing is a winner’s game, but most Americans aren’t in the stock market. The top 1% of Americans have over half of our stock. Of course, the Austrians have been arguing—long before 2008!—that the engine of economic progress, not just simply for individuals but for the economy as a whole, is capital accumulation via savings and investment, not "aggregate demand" fueled by monetary and fiscal stimulus. Petrou is interested in individual and household inequality, not economic growth. Because inequality is the topic de jour among the intelligentsia, her book is getting a fair hearing. It is certainly true that the Fed's policies have exacerbated inequality and, while that is not the most important critique of the Fed or of central banking per se, it seems to be gaining popularity. Even Ben Bernanke felt compelled to respond to the criticism, albeit unconvincingly. Austrians including Zoran Balanc, Karl-Friedrich Israel, and Louis Rouanet have written recently about the effects of central banking on inequality. Petrou's book should help to shine more light on this debate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 나는 어떻게 머리 로스바드를 알게 되었나. 나는 로스바드의 책에서 나의 조국 이태리의 정치의 실패와 비능률이 어디에서 비롯되었는지 알게 되었다. How I Discovered Murray Rothbard Roberta Modugno It was 1995, and I was a young scholar, an assistant professor of history of political thought at Roma Tre University. My professor encouraged me to study the American feminist movement of the nineteenth century. As young scholars usually do, I wrote a research project and submitted it for a fellowship at the Italian Center for Research (CNR). Thanks to my professor I was invited as a visiting scholar to the Department of History at Princeton University by Professor Nell Irving Painter, who taught women’s and blacks’ history. I got the CNR scholarship, and in the spring of 1995 I left for Princeton. In the meanwhile, something new had happened in my life. I had met Professor Dario Antiseri, one of the most preeminent classical liberal Italian philosophers, and he realized that actually, maybe for my familiar cultural environment, I had a passion for classical liberalism. At this point he proposed that I join, as a research fellow, his Centro di Metodologia delle Scienze Sociali at Luiss University, my alma mater. The center was devoted to research in the Austrian school of economics. Dario Antiseri knew that I was leaving for Princeton, and just the day before my flight he called me and gave me the idea of looking for those American scholars who attended Ludwig von Mises’s seminar at New York University (after Mises migrated to the US). He suggested a book which could have been useful, Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of an Idea, by Karen Vaughn. When I arrived at Princeton, I almost immediately went to the Firestone Library, where I found the Vaughn book and for the first time saw the name of Murray N. Rothbard, beside others. I was very curious about this new and original author. When I began reading Power and Market, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, and The Ethics of Liberty, I literally discovered a new world. I was totally fascinated by the new political project proposed by Rothbard, his intrinsic consistency, and his drastically different way of interpreting the role of the state in relation to the individual and the civil society. In Rothbard’s writings I not only found something totally new to me, but I also found, explained in consistent and simple words, the reasons for the inefficiency and failure of most of the politics of my country, Italy, and of most of its institutions. When I came back to Italy, I did not write a book about the American feminist movement of the nineteenth century, but I wrote a book on Rothbard and Professor Antiseri helped me publish it. My other professor was very angry with me and threatened to ruin my academic career. I never gave up, and I persisted in studying Rothbard and libertarianism. Time gave me reason, because now I am a well-regarded Rothbardian scholar in Italy, and I am chair of history of political thought at Roma Tre University. Unfortunately, I never met Rothbard. I tried looking for him in the summer of 1995, but he had passed away during the winter. Fortunately, I had the honor of receiving a letter from JoAnn Rothbard on October 6, 1997, in which she declared: “I was very glad … to learn about your studies. I am very anxious to see your book on the libertarian thought of my husband.”1 Now I would like to mention at least two reasons for the relevance of Rothbard’s ideas nowadays. We all know that our Western civilization is under attack: capitalism, individualism, bourgeois values, ethics of labor, meritocracy, private property rights, and traditional families. These ideas are unpopular and are shared by a minority that Albert Jay Nock called the remnant, that is to say, people who have deeply studied theory and history and who have a sincere concern for the well-being of people and for civilization. This is the reason why Rothbard’s attempt to found an ethics of liberty on rationality has a special value. Here we are not talking about the naïveté of some natural law theorists of the modern time. Rothbard’s formulation is characterized by the rehabilitation of Aristotelian Thomist metaphysics for the foundation of natural law and the consequent anchoring of natural rights. If we want to defend our values and our civilization, we need at least a certain amount of universal ethics, that is to say that we must recognize that there is a basis of human nature, common to all human beings, in all times and places. The second issue is related to the covid-19 public health crisis. And here, too, Rothbard’s teaching can be precious. The clear failure of European central planning for the provision of anticovid vaccines resembles the failure of state intervention in socialism. Moreover, the monopoly of the state in delivering the vaccine doses created a panic not related to scarcity, but to the inefficiency of the bureaucracy in the distribution of vaccines. Why is it impossible, in Italy, to let the market do its job? Why is it impossible to pay for a vaccination? If some people could be free to choose to turn to private healthcare for vaccination, this would mean speeding up the immunization process, with an advantage for all, considering that this is a race against time and that we are very late. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------