문정인 사단 대놓고 행동 개시 이봉규 티비 https://youtu.be/gg7_7xWGCTE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 윤총장 부친 (ft. 윤뽕 주의) https://www.fmkorea.com/3194743882 선술집에 모였던 이들은 연세대 상대 79학번 동문들이었다. 이들이 말하던 ‘윤 교수님’은 윤기중 응용통계학과교수(현 명예교수)다. 윤 교수는 우리 경제의 경기변동 모델을 수치적으로 분석하고 불평등의 원인과 배경 등을 규명하는데 큰 업적을 세운 학자로 알려져 있다. 학계에 따르면 윤 교수는 자유주의 경제학자로 자유주의 경제의 기본 취지와 원칙만 제대로 지켜도 경제력 집중과 불평등의 문제를 해소할 수 있다는 시각을 갖고 있는 학자로 알려져 있다. 정경유착 같은 문제만 해도 시장경제 결함 때문이 아니라 우월적 지위를 가진 강자들의 반칙 때문인 만큼 원칙으로 돌아가야 한다는 주장을 편 것으로 전해진다. / 발췌 --->문득 윤총장의 아버지가 경제학자로서 어떤 생각을 가진 사람인지 궁금해 구글링 해보니, 위와 같은 글이 올라와 있었다. 위의 두 문장은 서로 모순이다. 윗 문장에서는 윤 교수가 불평등의 원인과 배경을 규명한 학자라면서, 아래 문장에서는 자유주의 경제학자로 소개되어 있다. 자유주의 경제학자라면 경제적 불평등은 매우 자연스런 현상으므로, 그것을 굳이 연구할 필요가 없다. 그런데 그것을 연구했다니, 윤 교수라는 사람은 좌파적 생각을 가진 사람으로 보아야 한다. 그런 아버지의 영향을 받았다면 윤총장도 좌파적 생각을 주입 받으며 자랐다고 보아야 한다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 코로나 이후 엄청난 세계적 경제 호황이 오는 이유는? 김영호교수의세상읽기 https://youtu.be/CuNgcbK8g04 --->안심소득제를 주장한 성신여대 경제학과의 박기성이라는 교수의 말이다. 이 사람도 좀 사이비 경제학자의 냄새를 풍긴다, 코로나 이후에 그동안 그동안 하지 못했던 각종 소비활동을 하면 경제가 활성화 되기는 하겠지만, 호황까지는 미지수이다. 그동안 각국 정부가 경기를 부양한다고 엄청난 재정지출을 했으므로, 이게 경제에 상당한 부담이 될 것이다. 그리고 미국에 좌파 대통령이 집권했으므로, 각종 반기업 정책으로 기업들을 못살게 할 것이므로, 세계적 경제 호황이 올 것 같지는 않다. ------ 한국 경제상황 각자 알고 대처하세요/ 아봉규 티비 https://youtu.be/I0m031fRobI ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 현재 AZ백신 비상 걸린 이유 ㄷㄷ debrief http://www.ilbe.com/view/11333307153 중앙일보 기사. AZ(아스트라제네카) 한국 2분기 백신 접종 불분명. 인도 하루 5만 명이 넘는 신규 환자의 속출, 이중 변이 사례 확인 등 자국 내 2차 유행 본격화 분석이 나오면서 백신의 자국 수요가 우선이라며 인도가 생산하는 백신의 해외 반출을 금지함. 이미 공급된 물량을 제외한 2분기부터 배송될 물량은 비용지급에도 불구하고 전달받지 못할 상황임. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why Times 정세분석 752] 프랑스도 깜짝 놀란 중국의 사상 침투 (2021.4.1) https://youtu.be/-QLYcvnsygU --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Me Home, Country Roads - The Petersens (LIVE) https://youtu.be/qap9Qm-Q894 이런 음악 가족이 있다니, 놀랍다! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [단독] '中 알몸김치' 관리책임 식약처 대변인실… "중국은 대국, 한국은 속국" 황당발언 뉴데일리 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 중앙일보 [단독]하필 선거 앞두고…교사·경찰·군인 상여금 당겨 뿌렸다 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 짝수달에만 나오던 국고채 50년물, 5월부터 매달 발행한다 기재부 "연물별 발행량 예측가능성 제고, 투자계획 적시성 높여" 4월 국고채 14.5조 발행…일반인에 2.76조 우선 배정 / 뉴스1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 부르주아지 협상은 어떻게 세상을 부유하게 했나 사람을 죽이고 그들의 재물을 빼앗고 제국을 건설함으로써 원초적인 자본의 축적을 이루었고, 그럼으로써 자본주의적 생산양식을 획기적으로 시작해서 거대한 부를 이루었다면, 그런 일은 이미 더 오랜 과거에 일어났어야 하고, 그것도 북서 유럽이 아닌 다른 곳에서 일어났어야 했다. 대영 제국은 영국의 재정 수입에 부담이었다. 디즈레일리 총리는 이미 1852년 이렇게 말했다. “이 망할 놈의 식민지들은 우리 목에 걸린 맷돌과 같아!” 영국인, 그리고 서구인 나아가 세계인들이 부자가 된 것은 윤리과 수사 그리고 사상에 변화가 일어났기 때문이다. 평범한 사람들에게 생명과 자유와 행복 추구의 권리를 주면, 그들은 세상의 모든 새로운 생각들을 하기 시작한다. How the "Bourgeois Deal" Enriched the World David Gordon Leave Me Alone and I’ll Make You Rich: How the Bourgeois Deal Enriched the World by Deirdre Nansen McCloskey and Art Carden University of Chicago Press, 2020 xvii + 227 pages McCloskey and Carden endeavor to explain one of the most striking facts of world history. Since about 1800, there has been an enormous increase in the average standard of living throughout the world. Before that date, almost everyone was poor, but things changed with what they call the Great Enrichment. “The Enrichment was really, really ‘great’: three thousand percent per person”(p. xi, emphasis in original). The authors contend “that human liberty—and not the machinery of coercion or investment, or even science by itself—is what made for a Great Enrichment, from 1800 to the present” (p. ii). The book is a “popular riff” (p. xvi) by Carden, condensed from three large volumes by McCloskey, but, in style as well as substance, the book is McCloskey’s. McCloskey is one of the world’s leading economic historians, especially well known for her work on the nineteenth-century British economy, and the book is at its strongest in the refutations presented of a number of theories of the Great Enrichment. According to Marxism, capitalism arose through plunder and slavery. (The authors prefer to speak of “innovism” rather than “capitalism,” but I won’t join them in using this ugly neologism.) McCloskey and Carden counter this with a devastating objection: [I]mperial exploitation is the least original thing the Europeans did after 1492. Slavery and empires have been commonplace yet never produced a Great Enrichment. The slave trade along the east coast of Africa, sending black slaves … into the markets of Cairo and of Constantinople/Istanbul was on the same scale as that from the west coast…. Yet the eastern trade didn’t make Egypt or the Byzantine or Ottoman Empire rich, not on even close to the scale of the Great Enrichment. (p. 85, emphasis in original) They reiterate this vital point in another key passage: We are saying, to be precise, that war, slavery, imperialism, and colonialism were on the whole economically stupid. Suppose killing people, taking their stuff, and establishing empire could create an “original accumulation of capital,” that would jump start the “capitalist mode of production,”and thereby create a Great Enrichment. If so … it would have happened a long time ago and not in northwestern Europe. Imperialism isn’t a new idea. (pp. 118–19, emphasis in original) If imperialism did not create capitalism, neither did it sustain it. The economist Lance Davis and the historian Robert Huttenbach showed decisively long ago that even the vaunted British Empire … was a drain on British income. Benjamin Disraeli, before his 1872 conversion to imperialism, had in 1852 complained that “these wretched colonies … are a millstone around our neck.” He was right in 1852 and wrong in 1872. (p. 85) What, then, did create the Great Enrichment? McCloskey and Carden say that it was new ideas. We argue … that the British got rich—and then Westerners and then much of [the] world, and all humans in the next few generations—because of a change in ethics and rhetoric and ideology…. Routine profit or routine exploitation can’t make you or your world rich. It has to be a new idea that raises everyone’s game, and there need to be thousands of them. The source of the new wave of molecules, we claim, was the new permission to have a go, inspired by the shocking new ethics and rhetoric and ideology of liberalism. Give ordinary folk the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—against ancient tyranny … — and they commence thinking up all manner of new ideas…. People started in the new liberalism … to talk differently about one another. Equality of standing and of permission and of legal rights became the new theory, against the hierarchy in all previous times. (pp. 86–87) There is a great deal to this, but McCloskey’s theory seems open to objection, or, at any rate, qualification. As the authors rightly note, the Great Enrichment has spread all over the world, including to China, but high economic growth there has not been accompanied by political liberalism. This is not merely a matter of the inertia of the past failing to catch up with the theory professed in that country by the advocates of free market reforms. To the contrary, those who opened up the Chinese economy did not at all renounce the dictatorship of the Communist Party. Even applied to the model case of Britain, McCloskey’s theory needs to be modified. Did the British classical liberals claim equal legal standing to the Crown and to the aristocracy? Certainly they claimed legal rights that the Crown could not set aside, but, with some exceptions, they did not go so far as the position McCloskey ascribes to them. If we cannot fully accept McCloskey’s theory, we must acknowledge its considerable merits, based as it is on her profound knowledge of economic history. Unfortunately, this is not enough for her, and she ventures into disciplines such as the history of political thought, where she displays a less sure hand than she does in economic history. She tells that the “view in 1651 of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes was that without an all-powerful king there must have been once upon a time a “war of all against all.”… Double gak. Not nice. People on their own, Hobbes supposed, are cruel and selfish and above all unable to organize themselves voluntarily. To tame them, they need a ‘leviathan,” as he called it in the title of his 1651 work—that is, a great beast of a government. Only a top-down king … would protect peace and civilization. (pp. 3–4) Contrary to what she here suggests, the state of nature for Hobbes is one without any government at all, not a society lacking an absolute monarch. People living in the limited monarchies of the Middle Ages, though their situation was for Hobbes unsatisfactory, were not in the state of nature. Further, although it is indeed true that Hobbes preferred monarchy to other forms of government, he recognized other sorts of rule as legitimate, and, though the point is much in dispute, he appears to have accepted Cromwell’s rule after he returned to England. She is no better on Rousseau. She says that Rousseau “imagined that the right of a free and dignified individual to say no should be trumped by a mysterious ’general will,’ which Rousseau and similarly placed experts or Communist Party officials could so easily discern, and impose on others by coercive measures” (p. 180). Though McCloskey is right that Rousseau opposed individual rights as understood by classical liberalism, she has grievously misrepresented the general will, which is established by popular vote under certain conditions, not imposed by experts. In a valuable discussion, McCloskey says that the “word honest shifted from aristocratic to bourgeois honor” (p. 149, emphasis in original). In its aristocratic meaning, “[h]onest here meant ’dignified and suitable to rank,’ and the honesty was a matter of social standing…. The modern use of honest as ‘truth-telling and keeping one’s word’ does appear in English as early as 1500, but the meaning ‘honorable by virtue of high social standing’ dominates its usage until the eighteenth century” (p. 150, emphasis in original). This, to repeat, is a valuable point, but if it is intended to suggest, as I think it is, that aristocrats before the bourgeois era would have felt free to lie in business dealings, since doing so would not tarnish their honor, that is dubious in the extreme. The teaching of the church, expounded for example by St. Augustine and St. Thomas, was that lying was absolutely forbidden. McCloskey writes in a clear and lively style, though it not to everyone’s taste: a sample of what I have in mind is the “Double gak” comment in the passage on Hobbes quoted above. Fortunately, the longueurs in other books of hers about “Aunt Deirdre” are absent, perhaps excised by Carden. I am surprised at the solecism in this passage: “They will continue their virtuous labors with the hearty approval of we economists and economic historians and liberal philosophers.” (pp. 52–53, emphasis added). The frequent references to Trump, evidently a King Charles’s head for McCloskey, are a bit annoying. To sum up, in Leave Me Alone and I’ll Make You Rich, McCloskey and Carden help us to understand the Great Enrichment, a central fact in world history. They rightly stress the importance that ideas about liberty and free markets played in bringing about that development, and they decisively refute Marxist and other myths about economic history. In my remarks above, I have ventured a few criticisms of the book, so I cannot complain against them that although I have left them alone, they have failed to make me rich. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 사회주의 뉴스피크의 성공 사회주의자들은 용어의 의미를 그 반대로 바꾸는 의미론적 혁명을 벌여왔다. The Success of Socialist Newspeak Ludwig von Mises The socialists have engineered a semantic revolution in converting the meaning of terms into their opposite. In the vocabulary of their “Newspeak,” as George Orwell called it, there is a term “the one-party principle.” Now etymologically party is derived from the noun part. The brotherless part is no longer different from its antonym, the whole; it is identical with it. A brotherless party is not a party, and the one party principle is in fact a no-party principle. It is a suppression of any kind of opposition. Freedom implies the right to choose between assent and dissent. But in Newspeak it means the duty to assent unconditionally and strict interdiction of dissent. This reversal of the traditional connotation of all words of the political terminology is not merely a peculiarity of the language of the Russian Communists and their Fascist and Nazi disciples. The social order that in abolishing private property deprives the consumers of their autonomy and independence, and thereby subjects every man to the arbitrary discretion of the central planning board, could not win the support of the masses if they were not to camouflage its main character. The socialists would have never duped the voters if they had openly told them that their ultimate end is to cast them into bondage. For exoteric use they were forced to pay lip-service to the traditional appreciation of liberty. It was different in the esoteric discussions among the inner circles of the great conspiracy. There the initiated did not dissemble their intentions concerning liberty. Liberty was, in their opinion, certainly a good feature in the past in the frame of bourgeois society because it provided them with the opportunity to embark on their schemes. But once socialism has triumphed, there is no longer any need for free thought and autonomous action on the part of individuals. Any further change can only be a deviation from the perfect state that mankind has attained in reaching the bliss of socialism. Under such conditions, it would be simply lunacy to tolerate dissent. Liberty, says the Bolshevist, is a bourgeois prejudice. The common man does not have any ideas of his own, he does not write books, does not hatch heresies, and does not invent new methods of production. He just wants to enjoy life. He has no use for the class interests of the intellectuals who make a living as professional dissenters and innovators. This is certainly the most arrogant disdain of the plain citizen ever devised. There is no need to argue this point. For the question is not whether or not the common man can himself take advantage of the liberty to think, to speak, and to write books. The question is whether or not the sluggish routinist profits from the freedom granted to those who eclipse him in intelligence and will power. The common man may look with indifference and even contempt upon the dealings of better people. But he is delighted to enjoy all the benefits which the endeavors of the innovators put at his disposal. He has no comprehension of what in his eyes is merely inane hair-splitting. But as soon as these thoughts and theories are utilized by enterprising businessmen for satisfying some of his latent wishes, he hurries to acquire the new products. The common man is without doubt the main beneficiary of all the accomplishments of modern science and technology. It is true, a man of average intellectual abilities has no chance to rise to the rank of a captain of industry. But the sovereignty that the market assigns to him in economic affairs stimulates technologists and promoters to convert to his use all the achievements of scientific research. Only people whose intellectual horizon does not extend beyond the internal organization of the factory and who do not realize what makes the businessmen run, fail to notice this fact. The admirers of the Soviet system tell us again and again that freedom is not the supreme good. It is “not worth having,” if it implies poverty. To sacrifice it in order to attain wealth for the masses, is in their eyes fully justified. But for a few unruly individualists who cannot adjust themselves to the ways of regular fellows, all people in Russia are perfectly happy. We may leave it undecided whether this happiness was also shared by the millions of Ukrainian peasants who died from starvation, by the inmates of the forced labor camps, and by the Marxian leaders who were purged. But we cannot pass over the fact that the standard of living was incomparably higher in the free countries of the West than in the communist East. In giving away liberty as the price to be paid for the acquisition of prosperity, the Russians made a poor bargain. They now have neither the one nor the other. [Excerpted from Liberty & Property.] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------