미러 정상회담, 중공 고립되나/마윈 조사받으며 두들겨 맞았나/시진핑 국제외교무대서 탕핑/중공 건당기념일 앞두고 베이징 비상 박상후의 문명개화 6월 16일 바이든과 푸틴이 스위스 제네바에서 정상회담을 가졌습니다. 양측은 소환한 대사들을 곧바로 복귀시키기로 합의해 역대 최악인 양국관계는 일단 회복됐습니다. 푸틴과 바이든은 모두 이번 회담에 만족한 표정입니다. 바이든은 대중공압박을 취하고 있는 상태에서 러시아를 적으로 돌리면 곤란하다는 현실인식을 한 것으로 해석됩니다. 한편 중공은 이에 앞서 중러 관계는 산과 같아 움직이지 않는다고 밝혔지만 결국 미러는 다시 정상적인 관계가 될 공산이 커졌습니다. 러시아 푸틴이 위협으로 보고 있는 세력은 첫번째가 NATO, 두번째가 러시아 남부의 극단이슬람 세력, 세번째가 중공입니다. 이번에 바이든은 푸틴에게 두 초강대국이 잘해보자는 말을 건넸습니다. 미국과 자웅을 겨룰 국가는 중공이 아니라 러시아라는 바이든의 속내가 드러났습니다. 이번 방송에서는 7월1일 중공건당 100주년을 앞둔 베이징의 삼엄한 분위기와 홍색관광붐, 그리고 전 중앙당교 교수 차이샤의 시진핑 평가를 더했습니다. 시진핑이 18개월동안 외국방문을 하지 못하고 국내에 고립돼 있는 것은 유례가 없다고 지적했습니다. 고립이 점차 심화되고 있는 상황에서 시진핑이 정적을 어떻게 탄압했는지에 대한 궈원구이의 최신 폭로와 마윈의 근황에 대해서도 짚어봤습니다. https://youtu.be/d0qpGXofNHs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 성범죄 무고로 징역살이한 남자 증거를 조작 은폐한 경찰 미친 광대 https://youtu.be/Pi7HOGGSZoQ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 연합뉴스 宋, 광주참사에 "하필 버스정류장 앞..액셀만 조금 밟았어도" rhodes 그래????그럼 먼저 동일 조건으로 실험해보는건 어때??? 당신이 실패하면 골로 가는거겠지만 --->저 새끼들은 인간이 아니다. <강도가 칼로 찔러도, 피해자가 잘 피했으면 죽지 않았을 텐데>라는 말과 똑같은 논리이다. 송영길 저 새끼를 건물 밑에 깔고 살아나올 수 있는지 보아야 한다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 초조한 이준석과 유승민, 이준석 카미카제 역할? 최재형 vs 유승민 구도? (윤석열 중도 포기, 안철수 행방불명 예상) Scott 인간과 자유이야기 https://youtu.be/qogonXJ93lI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 지금 혁명하지 않으면 함께 다 죽는다 fhak1212 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11349222948 이미 오래 전에 미친놈,깡패들에 의해 무법천지의 세상이 되었다. 겉으로만 법이 작동하고 있었을 뿐. 군대건 경찰서건 법원이건 공직사회 전체가 이미 범죄자 소굴이고 불륜,성폭력,사기,직권남용 등으로 엉망진창인데 일반사회는 어떻 겠는가. 이제는 전기고지서를 가지고 강제집행장이라고 우기는 놈들까지 등장하였으니.. "그냥 니들끼리 다해먹어라." "나는 악마에게 영혼 을 팔아서라도 함께 죽을 각오를 하였으니.." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Niall Ferguson The most depressing finding of this report is how deeply illiberal the American students are who describe themselves as liberal. The worst of it is their disgusting enthusiasm for informing on professors and one another. 보고서에 따르면 미국의 대학생들이 자신들을 리버럴이라고 부르지만, 사실은 지극히 반자유주의자들이다. 그들은 교수나 학생들을 밀고하는데 큰 열정을 보이고 있다. https://t.co/Z72cwuMRYy?amp=1 ---> 미국의 대학이 이 지경이 될 줄을 상상이나 했나! 三十年河東，三十年河西이라는 중국 속담이 있다. 황하가 물길을 자주 바꾸어서, 하나의 마을이 30년 전에는 황하의 동쪽에 있다가, 30년 후에는 황하의 서쪽에 있게 된다는 말이다. 과연 이 조류는 다시 변화를 거듭해서 예전의 자유시장경제가 살아날 날이 있을지 궁금하다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why Big Business Ends up Supporting the Regime Ryan McMaken Faced with a "join us or be destroyed" ultimatum from federal regulators or lawmakers, most private firms choose the "join us" option. 대기업들은 왜 정권을 지지하게 되나. <우리 편을 들래, 아니면 죽어볼래>라는 협박을 연방 규제관이나 의원들에게 받으면, 대부분의 사기업들은 정권에 빌 붙게 된다. https://mises.org/wire/why-big-business-ends-supporting-regime --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 사람들이 마음을 바꾼다고 해서 그들이 비합리적인 것은 아니다. 감정은 인식의 도구가 아니다. 인간의 생활을 향상시키는 다양한 상품들은 이성에 의해 발견된 것들이다. 감정을 도입함으로써 행동경제학은 주류 경제학의 인간 로봇을 좀 인간적으로 만들기는 했다. 하지만 그들의 가치 기준이 늘 항구적이기 때문에 행동경제학의 인간도 역시 인간 로봇일 뿐이다. 심리학은 목적과 가치의 내용을 다루는 학문이다. 하지만 경제학은 인간은 의도적인 행동을 한다는 전제에서 출발한다. 경제학에 심리학을 도입하면, 경제학은 그 보편성을 상실하게 된다. 가치 평가는 평가하려는 사물과 상관 없이 독자적으로 존재할 수 없다. 평가하려는 사물이 없으면 가치 평가도 없다. 사람은 육체 노동을 할 수도, 운전을 할 수도, 길을 걸을 수도, 식당에서 음식을 먹을 수도 있다. 이런 모든 행동들의 공통점은 그것들이 의도적 행위이라는 사실이다. 사람들은 목적과 수단이라는 틀 안에서 움직인다. 그들은 다양한 수단을 이용해 자신들의 목적을 성취한다. 개인의 목적에 의해 가치 평가의 기준과 선택이 정해지게 된다. 개인의 목적에 의해 수단과 선택의 가치 평가를 결정하므로, 동일한 상품을 두고도 목적이 다른 개인들은 다르게 평가하게 된다. 즉 자동차를 구입할 때, 가까운 직장을 가기 위한 것이라면 소형차라도 좋지만, 차로 캠핑을 하고 오프로드를 즐긴다면, 소형차는 거의 고려 대상이 되지 못한다. 행동경제학은 인간의 행동이 비이성적이라고 주장한다. 그럼으로써 인간의 비이성적인 행동으로부터 개인들을 보호하기 위해 정부가 개입해야 한다는 근거를 주고 말았다. People Change Their Minds. That Doesn't Make Them Irrational. Frank Shostak According to a relatively new field of economics called behavioral economics (BE), emotions play an important role in an individual’s decision-making process. On this the Nobel laureate Vernon Smith writes, People like to believe that good decision making is a consequence of the use of reason, and that any influence that the emotions might have is antithetical to good decisions. What is not appreciated by Mises and others who similarly rely on the primacy of reason in the theory of choice is the constructive role that the emotions play in human action. For example, if consumers become more optimistic regarding the future, then this is going to send an important message to businesses regarding investment decisions. According to BE followers, whether consumers are generally patient or impatient determines whether or not they are inclined to spend or save today. Behavioral economists emphasize the importance of personality. An emphatic person is regarded as more likely to make altruistic choices. Impulsive people are more likely to be impatient and not so good at saving up for their retirement. Venturesome people are more likely to take risks—they will be more likely to gamble. But can individuals ascertain the facts of reality by means of emotions? According to Ayn Rand, emotions are not the tools of cognition. An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception. Various goods that support and enhance a man’s life are discovered by reason. Once individuals have established that a particular tool is likely to enhance their life and well-being, individuals have to figure out how to produce it. The figuring out is done by means of reason and not by means of emotions. By means of reason man can establish the relationship between things and their suitability to support man’s life. Reason therefore is the man’s means of survival. Through various experiments the practitioners of BE have concluded that people do not always behave rationally. What the BE practitioners have discovered has nothing to do with whether people are rational or not, however. It has to do with the flawed premise of popular economics that people’s preferences are constant, the proposition that people are like machines that never change their minds. Obviously, people do change their minds, so it is not surprising that the BE practitioners have discovered that real people's behavior systematically deviates from that of the human machine as depicted by the mainstream economics. Despite the criticism of mainstream economics, BE retains the constant valuation scale of individuals in its analysis. By introducing emotions, BE supposedly makes the human robot of mainstream economics more humane. Nevertheless, because of the constant valuation scale, it remains a human robot. Observe that psychology is an important element in behavioral and experimental economics on the ground that human action and psychology are supposedly interrelated disciplines. However, there is a distinct difference between economics and psychology. Psychology deals with the content of ends and values. Economics, however, starts with the premise that people are pursuing purposeful conduct. It does not deal with the particular content of various ends. According to Murray N. Rothbard, A man's ends may be "egoistic" or "altruistic," "refined" or "vulgar." They may emphasize the enjoyment of "material goods" and comforts, or they may stress the ascetic life. Economics is not concerned with their content, and its laws apply regardless of the nature of these ends. Whereas Psychology and ethics deal with the content of human ends; they ask, why does the man choose such and such ends, or what ends should men value?7 Economics deals with any given end and with the formal implications of the fact that men have ends and utilize means to attain these ends. Consequently, economics is a separate discipline from psychology. By introducing psychology into economics, one obliterates the generality of the economic theory. Contrary to mainstream thinking, both Ludwig von Mises and Rothbard held that valuations do not exist by themselves (valuation scale) regardless of the things to be valued. On this Rothbard wrote, “There can be no valuation without things to be valued.” Valuation is the outcome of the mind valuing things. It is a relation between the mind and things. The Misesian framework of consumer choices Following the Misesian framework of thinking labeled as praxeology, we can ascertain the distinguishing characteristic and the meaning of human action. For instance, one can observe that people are engaged in a variety of activities. Thus, they may be performing manual work, driving cars, walking on the street, or dining in restaurants. The distinguishing characteristic of these activities is that they are all purposeful. Furthermore, we can establish the meaning of these activities. Thus, manual work may be a means for some people to earn money, which in turn enables them to achieve various goals like buying food or clothing. Dining in a restaurant can be a means of establishing business relationships. Driving a car may be a means for reaching a particular destination. People operate within a framework of means and ends; they use various means to secure ends. We can also establish from the above that actions are conscious and purposeful. Behavioral and experimental economists such as Vernon Smith reject the view that human action is conscious and purposeful. According to Smith, He [Mises] wants to claim that human action is consciously purposeful. But this is not a necessary condition for his system. Markets are out there doing their thing whether or not the mainspring of human action involves self-aware deliberative choice. He vastly understates the operation of unconscious mental processes. Most of what we know we do not remember learning, nor is the learning process accessible to our conscious experience…. Even important decision problems we face are processed by the brain below conscious accessibility. Yet to object that human action is conscious and purposeful is itself purposeful and conscious action. Means-ends and consumer choices Note again that by mainstream thinking individuals are presented as if a scale of preferences were hardwired in their heads. The valuation scale determines choices regarding goods and services. Why have individuals decided to assign importance to a particular good versus some other good? The reply here is the valuation scale. The individual in this framework is reduced to a machine that automatically selects goods based on the valuation scale. This must be contrasted with the Mises’s framework of conscious and purposeful action, where reason determines individuals’ valuations. In the framework of means-ends, individuals assess or evaluate various means at their disposal against their ends. Individuals’ ends set the standard for valuations and thus choices. By choosing a particular end, an individual also sets a standard of 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. Observe that my standard of grading these institutions is my end, which is to provide my child with a good education. Alternatively, if my intention is to buy a car, there are all sorts of cars available in the market, and as such, I have to specify to myself the specific ends that the car will help me to achieve. For instance, a factor I may need to consider is whether I plan to drive long distances or just a short distance from my home to the train station and then catch the train. My end will dictate how I will evaluate various cars. Perhaps I will conclude that for a short distance a secondhand car will do the trick. Since an individual's ends determine the valuations of means and thus choices, it follows that the same good will be valued differently by the individual as a result of changes in his ends. These ends and means change constantly as the world changes and as individuals change their minds about things. Hence, the various results obtained from laboratory experiments, or from questionnaires do not advance our understanding of human action as far as economics is concerned. It is impossible for a researcher ahead of time to determine what is "rational" for a person to pursue as a goal. Implications for Public Policy Casting doubt on the notion that reason is the main faculty that guides human actions, behavioral economics in contrast emphasizes the importance of emotions as the key driving factor of human actions. By means of psychological analysis, the practitioners of behavioral economics have supposedly demonstrated that people’s conduct is irrational. Consequently, the practitioners of behavioral economics may have unintentionally laid the foundations for the introduction of government controls to "protect" individuals from their own irrational behavior. For instance, wide fluctuations in financial markets can be attributed to irrational behavior, which can damage the economy. Hence, it will make a lot of sense to restrain this irrationality by a dosage of restraining regulations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------