[출처: 중앙일보] [단독] 경찰 "4·15 총선, 부여서 투표지 분류기 오류 있었다" pesc**** 민경욱 의원에게 투표지 한장 전달한 참관인에게는 징역 2년6개월을 선고하고 개표 상항지 찟은 선관위 직원은 무죄로 한 것이 말이 되냐? 민주당 180석이 이런 식으로 만들어 진 것이다. 저 선관위 조해주를 감옥에 처 넣어야한다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "북한도 이 정도로 미치진 않았다" 탈북 유학생, 미국 대학 비판 "대학이 원하는 사고방식 강요" "좋은 학점 받고 졸업하려면 조용해야" / 연합뉴스 --->탈북자 박연미 씨의 미국 대학 사회 비판. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 어제 오늘 이틀간 중국 상황 응아냐 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11348727045 1. G7 정상회담 최초로 중국 견제 공동성명 2. 나토 정상회담 최초로 중국 견제 공동성명 3. 이탈리아, 중국 일대일로 프로젝트 참여 재검토 선언 4.헝가리, 자국 수도에 지을려던 중국 푸단대 분교 건설계획이 헝가리 자국민들의 거센 반발로 철회 5. 아세안, 중국과의 외무장관회담에서 중국이 제안한 모든 우호적 제스쳐 거부 이게 어제, 오늘 이틀 동안 벌어진 일들임. 여기서 이탈리아, 헝가리는 그나마 유럽에서 중국에 우호적이던 나라였고 아세안은 역내 외국 투자순위에서 1위가 중국인 지역임. 그런데도 전부 반중으로 변모 중. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 증거(證據)와 증상(症狀) 민주팔이그만 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11348746846 증거(證據)는 범죄의 결과물입니다. 그래서 인과율(因果律)에 따라 증거가 없으면, 무죄(無罪)가 됩니다! 증상의 사전적 의미는 "병을 앓을 때 나타나는 여러가지 현상이나 모양" 입니다. 증상(症狀)은 병의 결과물입니다. 그래서 증상이 없으면 무병(無病)입니다! "무증상 감염자"란 용어는 거짓말입니다! 참 쉽죠! 이 글이 어렵다고 느껴지면 병원에 가보세요! 그 원인은 치매일 가능성이 높습니다! 거짓말에 놀아나서 1년 넘게 마스크 착용하고 다니신 기분은 어떤가요? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이병태 교수의 박사 학위가 수상함 (1/2부) Scott 인간과 자유이야기 https://youtu.be/PU_exFbTZdY --->몇년전 이병태의 얼굴을 본 이후로, 그리고 그의 언행을 관찰한 이후로 좀 이상한 놈이라고 생각하고 있었는데, 이번에 마각이 드러나려나. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MBN [속보] '건물 붕괴참사' 개입의혹 조폭출신 전 5·18단체 회장 해외도피 --->이미 연락 받고 도망간 거야! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 文정권 내전으로 장기집권 토대 마련 정권교체 불가능? - 이계성의 구국의 소리 제124회 2021.06.11 [뉴스타운TV] 뉴스타운 티비 https://youtu.be/mf98BO35-9o -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [충격분석] 2022년 3.9 대선 및 前後 분석과 대한민국 운명을 예측한다! - 손상윤 뉴스타운 회장 2021.06.09 [뉴스타운TV https://youtu.be/YhZOWkv6Uzk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 전라도 지역 특별 인터뷰] 고정간첩의 증언, "북한의 지시대로 되고 있다!!" - 전광훈 목사 2021.06.15 https://youtu.be/Oqr_SF29qNc ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 경기부양책은 왜 경기를 부양하지 못하는가? 1936년의 제도적 조건으로 인해 케인즈식 인플레 정책이 딱 한번 거의 성공에 가까운 성과를 얻었다. 하지만 그것은 당시의 특수한 상황 덕분이었으므로, 2번째 부터는 인플레 정책이 통하지 않았다. 오늘의 경기부양책은 이런 역사적 사실을 무시하고, 인플레를 모든 경제적 문제를 해결하는 정책으로 사용하고 있다. Why Stimulus Does Not Stimulate Robert Blumen Congress is hard at work on a stimulus bill. Doubtless their efforts will pay off. Does anyone stop to ask what it is about stimulus that stimulates? And what, exactly, does it stimulate? Start by spending a lot of money that the government does not have, borrow the difference, and the central bank prints the difference and buys up the debt. But does that increase the production of useful things? To answer this, we look at an unlikely friend, Keynes and his General Theory. The British Austrian school economist William Harold Hutt penned a devastating critique of the new economics, The Keynesian Episode: A Reassessment. In this book, Hutt explained why Keynes’s views were able to gain a foothold in the Britain of 1937. The economy was stuck in an intransigent slump of many years’ duration. The cause of the problem? Many workers were priced out of the labor market by unrealistically high wage demands. A welfare system that enabled them to remain unemployed contributed to the problem. The wages that were too high had been negotiated by labor unions using the threat of strike, and the full awareness that the government would look the other way when unions employed coercive measures. Other workers were forced into underemployment, doing something less remunerative or a job they cared for less. Say’s law is the observation that each supply of a good to the market constitutes a demand for some noncompeting good. As workers add to supply, they add to demand. In reverse, when workers withdraw their services, they cease their contributions to supply and in so doing withdraw their ability to demand to the same degree. The withdrawal of demand made conditions worse in other industries not constrained by labor union contracts, and made the more marginal workers in those industries unnecessary (or at best able to work only at a lower wage). The solution—according to Hutt—was that statesmen and economists should have told the public the truth. Naming and shaming the antisocial behavior of the price-fixing labor unions and calling for cuts to the public benefits that encouraged nonparticipation were called for. Visionary leaders could have fought the good fight for free labor markets, participation in labor by all who wished, more production, and lower prices. A rising standard of living would have ensued. However, bold moves were at the time considered “politically impossible.” The phrase was a way of saying that those who could have spoken out but did not would have sacrificed their political careers, even if they had moved public opinion toward the truth. The message would have required more than a bit of political skill to sell the idea to the public. On the same issue, Hayek wrote that Keynes assumed that “a direct lowering of money wages could be brought about only by a struggle so painful and prolonged that it could not be contemplated.” No doubt the harsh message—that those on the dole would have been required to lift their sorry backsides off the couch and pull their own weight—would have been unpopular at first. But it would have been in service of the greater good. Instead, the Keynesian policy of inflation won. Inflation can clear out markets in surplus. Sort of. Not very well. But if the prices of goods that businesses sell were to rise faster than wages, labor would become more affordable to business. This is a bit like a decline in nominal wages while the money supply remains unchanged. If the process worked exactly as intended, real wages would fall and surplus labor would be put back to work. One possible reason that things went as intended in Britain in 1936 is that the wages in the unionized parts of the labor market were set by long-duration agreements between industry and the unions. There were no such restrictions preventing consumer prices from rising or falling, so the inflation would tend to act on consumer prices and wages would lag, at least until the next round of contract negotiations. And that is what happened the first time. When the labor unions figured it out, and demanded inflation indexing in their contracts, or annual cost-of-living adjustments, it stopped working. Hutt makes a distinction between unanticipated and anticipated inflation. In the latter case, market actors front run inflation by raising their asking prices before the money is created. Deliberate inflation from that time forward produced only what Hutt called “purposeless inflation”—an inflation that created many negative effects but did nothing to bring idle resources back into productive use. Absent the special conditions present in Britain in 1936, Keynesian economics would not have been even plausible. If wages could keep up with prices, inflation would not bring idle resources back into employment. Today, in the United States, are we in the same situation as Britain in 1936? The US economy does have an excess of unemployed workers, empty storefronts, and idle resources of all kinds. Why not give it a go? A bit of stimulus could not hurt. Not. So. Fast. While the first part is true—we have a lot of idle resources—the problem is not a pricing problem. The problem is that businesses have been prohibited from operating. As The Onion explains, “Study Finds Most Restaurants Fail within First Year of It Becoming Illegal to Go to Them.” In a similar vein, the Babylon Bee published “California Ends Exploitation of Workers for Good by Banning All Jobs.” Resources are not priced out of the market. People and businesses are instead banned from producing. This is a problem that pricing cannot solve because the transactions are not allowed. Venues can legally operate only at a reduced capacity at which they are not profitable. We have a “making it illegal to produce things” problem. And stimulus can’t do anything about that even if you are stupid enough to be a Keynesian. The inflation policy might have worked once, and only once, but even then not well. In Britain in 1937, due to a perfect constellation of factors, inflation had its fifteen minutes. The institutional arrangements of the time prevented wages from not only falling but also rising quickly; there was relatively unregulated markets for goods; and the public was not conditioned to expect inflation and had not prepared for it. The conditions for its success had been exploited. Fooled once, the public got smarter. Unions began to bargain for inflation indexing. Wall Street front runs the Fed. Financial markets now rise in anticipation of central bank asset purchases. Yet the Keynesian revolution gave us stimulus as a permanent policy option. Stimulus is now untethered from its roots. At one time it was a cynical response to institutional conditions that prevented wages from keeping up with prices. Today, no longer a particular response to the unique conditions in one place and time, stimulus has become a universal solvent to heal all economic ills. Stimulus has become 1) wish for something, 2) print money, 3) profit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------