[도발] “국가채무 속이지 않았다”는 文정권, 못 믿겠다 동아일보 김순덕 https://www.donga.com/news/dobal/article/all/20210601/107219613/1)%EC%9D%B4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 관직을 주지 않자 앙심을 품고 박통을 배신한 이준석 (거짓말이 일상인 젊은 정치인) Scott 인간과 자유이야기 https://youtu.be/aNJnXeZJuEw -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 흰옷이 정민을 향해 뛰어들었다! 이거 빼박아닌가? 피집사 https://youtu.be/bCOxRu9VABs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [이슈&한반도] 북한, ‘제1비서’ 직책 신설…한미정상회담 첫 반응 / KBS 2021.06.05 --->이전에는 없던 직책이다. 김정은이 사망했다는 설이 맞다면, 제1 비서가 새로운 통치자가 되는 것이고, 그렇지 않다면, 우리의 총리와 같은 직책으로 보인다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 주성하는 아무리 보아도 그저 간첩이다! 라인강09 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11347056755 소위 탈북자가 북한 전문 기자로 활동을 한지도 이미 10년이 되어간다. 이렇게 탈북자 출신 기자로 유명한 친구들이 두명이 있는바,, 한명은 강철환 이고 또한명은 주성하 이다. 그러나 이 두명의 활동 상황은 매우 다르다! 동아일보에서 활동을 하는 주성하는 너무도 노골적인 친북활동으로 이제는 간첩이라는 신분을 감추지도 못하고 있다. 동아일보의 주성하 칼럼난에 가서 댓글을 보면 온통 간첩, 우마오당의 선동들로 가득 하다. 이 딴짓을 하나도 억제 하지 않는 주성하가 간첩이 아니라면 도대체 누가 간첩이냐???? 그래도 강철환은 상당히 낫다! 너무도 파렴치하고 교묘하게 북괴의 논리로 남한 사회를 끝없이 교란 하고 있는 주성하 보다 최소 10배는 더 낫다 ! 요즈음 주성하의 유튜브에 보면 글보다는 상당히 노골적 간첩질이 적다 ! 아마도 조회수와 구독자수를 먼저 늘리라는 지령을 받은 모양이다!!! 그러나 조만간 저자는 분명 자신의 본성을 들어내고 또 다시 아주 노골적 선동을 계속하게 될 것이다 !! 이처럼 우리 사회에 정착하여 탈북 유명인사가 된 자들 중에 약 85%는 간첩으로 추정된다. 그래서 나는 전과는 달리,, << 소위 단순 무식한 통일을 극력 반대를 하는 것이다 !! >> " 이런자들을 그대로 방치한 상태의 통일 이라는 것은 결코 통일이 아나라 그저 극한의 혼란이며,, 적화의 다른 모양새일 뿐이다 !!! " 북한 주민들과 탈북자에게 남한의 투표권을 주는 것은 최소 약 40년 후에나 고려해 볼만 하다 할 것이다!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr.오@owind 메르스때 사망자가 38명 나왔을때가 생각 납니다. 문좌파 야당, 언론이 얼마나 지독하게 정부여당이 무능하여 사람이 죽어 나간다고 공격했습니까? 지금 그들은 백신으로 국민을 학살하는데 아무도 문제를 제기하기 않습니다. 이런일이 벌어질수 있는건 코로나 계엄령 때문이 아니겠습니까? 백신 사망자가 278명, 영구장애자 중환자가 1294 명 이라고 합니다. 우리 국민이 전부 2차 접종까지 완료하면 산술적으로 10배 이상의 사망자와 중환자가 나올것입니다. 백신 접종 이래도 해야 합니까? 저는 코로나보다 백신이 더 위험하다고 생각합니다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr.오 @owind 늙어서도 진보를 외치는 자들의 글을 읽어보면 자신의 생각은 하나도 없습니다. 고대부터 올라가면 플라톤 그이후로 헤겔, 레닌, 마르크스, 모택동, 김일성의 짜집기와 재탕입니다. 아마도 그들이 없었으면 글도 못쓰고 말도 못했을 겁니다. 진보는 마약처럼 달콤하여 젊은시절 빠지면 평생 중독된채 살기도 합니다. 너무나도 오랫동안 위선적으로 살아서 위선이 몸에 동화되있습니다. 모든 말이 거짓말인데 진실처럼들리므로 본인마저 속습니다. 평등, 평화, 정의, 지상낙원 어쩌구 저쩌구... 성장 과정중에 필연적으로 이상과 불일치하는 현실에 대한 반항심, 분노가 만들어집니다. 그것이 진보를 참을수 없을만큼 강하게 끌어당기는 것입니다. 그것이 고공에서 시위하게 만들고 투신하게 만들고 몸에 불을 붙이게 만드는 것입니다. 사상도 철학도 나이에 따라 달라집니다. 나이에 따라 입맛이 다르듯이. 아이들이 단 것을 좋아하는 것은 단것이 몸에 좋아서가 아닙니다. 마찬가지로 젊은이들이 진보를 추구하는 것은 진보가 옳아서가 아닙니다. 수만명을 먹여 살리는 탁월한 능력자들은 진보를 외치지 않습니다. 일을 하기에도 시간이 모자라기 때문입니다. 탁월한 능력자의 혜택을 받으며 먹고 살만한 인간들이 진보를 외칩니다. 진보는 정치도구, 선동의 도구, 최면의 도구며 본심을 감추는 가면 입니다. 진보는 모두가 평등하게 잘사는 유토피아를 향한 것이 아니라 더 많은 권력과 부를 향하고 있습니다. 그래서 진보주의자들이 대부분 먹고 살만한 사람들인 것입니다. 능력도 없으면서 진보를 외치는 인간들의 진보의 태도를 보면 구역질이 날 정도입니다. 어떤인간은 굽신대고, 어떤 인간은 기여다닙니다. 어떤 인간은 거들먹거리며 성실히 사는 사람을 시대에 뒤쳐진 자라 경멸하고, 어떤놈들은 깡패들처럼 이리저리 몰려 다닙니다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BREAKING!!! 트럼프 대통령, “우린 생각보다 빨리 백악관을 되찾을 것입니다!” (트럼프를 위한 라틴계 인스타그램 21.6.5) https://youtu.be/teB4z13VcUc ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 금 본위제는 평화와 번영의 상징이다. 케인즈는 금 본위제가 야만적이라고 말했는데, 그렇다면 영국인이 영어를 쓰는 것도 야만적인가? 금을 화폐로 쓴 것은, 영국인이 영어를 쓰는 것처럼 역사적 사실이다. 금 본위제는 자본주의 시대의 세계 표준이었고, 복지와 자유, 민주제를 신장시켰다. 복지와 평화, 자유와 민주제로 향한 변화를 저지하고 싶어하는 사람들은 모두 금 본위제를 혐오했다. 그들이 보기에 금 본위제는 그들이 파괴하고 싶어하던 정책과 선언의 상징이었다. 국가주의자들(흔히 민족주의자로 번역되지만 개인적으론 국가주의가 옳다고 생각)은 자국을 세계 시장에서 단절하고 자립적인 경제를 건설하려고 했으므로, 금 본위제를 싫어했다. 가격과 임금을 조작하고 싶어하던 개입주의자들에게도 금 본위제는 방해물이었다. 하지만 금 본위제를 가장 극렬히 반대하던 집단은 여신 팽창을 고집하던 자들이었다. 그들은 여신을 팽창하기만 하면 모든 경제적 문제가 다 해결된다고 믿고 있었다. 금리를 철폐하고 가격과 임금을 인상시켜 만민을 기쁘게 하고 기생적인 자본가와 착취적인 고용주들을 벌주면, 모든 사람들이 번영하고 행복해질 수 있다는 것이었다. 금 본위제는 변덕스런 정당과 압력단체의 야심과 주장에 관계 없이 화폐의 구매력이 결정되게 한다. 그것이 바로 금 본위제의 장점이다. 금 본위제는 윤전기로 돈을 찍어내서 모든 사람을 부자로 만들 수 없다는 간단한 진리에 기반한다. 이에 반해 금 본위제를 싫어하는 사람들은 무소불위의 정부가 종이조각으로 부를 창출할 수 있다는 환상에 빠져 있다. Governments Don't Hate Gold Because It's Gold. They Hate It Because It's Not Fiat Money. Ludwig von Mises [This article is excerpted from chapter 17 of Human Action.] Men have chosen the precious metals gold and silver for the money service on account of their mineralogical, physical, and chemical features. The use of money in a market economy is a praxeologically necessary fact. That gold—and not something else—is used as money is merely a historical fact and as such cannot be conceived by catallactics. In monetary history too, as in all other branches of history, one must resort to historical understanding. If one takes pleasure in calling the gold standard a "barbarous relic," one cannot object to the application of the same term to every historically determined institution. Then the fact that the British speak English — and not Danish, German, or French — is a barbarous relic too, and every Briton who opposes the substitution of Esperanto for English is no less dogmatic and orthodox than those who do not wax rapturous about the plans for a managed currency. The demonetization of silver and the establishment of gold monometallism was the outcome of deliberate government interference with monetary matters. It is pointless to raise the question concerning what would have happened in the absence of these policies. But it must not be forgotten that it was not the intention of the governments to establish the gold standard. What the governments aimed at was the double standard. They wanted to substitute a rigid, government-decreed exchange ratio between gold and silver for the fluctuating market ratios between the independently coexistent gold and silver coins. The monetary doctrines underlying these endeavors misconstrued the market phenomena in that complete way in which only bureaucrats can misconstrue them. The attempts to create a double standard of both metals, gold and silver, failed lamentably. It was this failure that generated the gold standard. The emergence of the gold standard was the manifestation of a crushing defeat of the governments and their cherished doctrines. In the 17th century, the rates at which the English government tariffed the coins overvalued the guinea with regard to silver and thus made the silver coins disappear. Only those silver coins that were much worn by usage or in any other way defaced or reduced in weight remained in current use; it did not pay to export and to sell them on the bullion market. Thus England got the gold standard against the intention of its government. Only much later the laws made the de facto gold standard a de jure standard. The government abandoned further fruitless attempts to pump silver standard coins into the market and minted silver only as subsidiary coins with a limited legal tender power. These subsidiary coins were not money, but money-substitutes. Their exchange value depended not on their silver content, but on the fact that they could be exchanged at every instant, without delay and without cost, at their full face value against gold. They were de facto silver printed notes, claims against a definite amount of gold. Later in the course of the 19th century, the double standard resulted in a similar way in France and in the other countries of the Latin Monetary Union in the emergence of de facto gold monometallism. When the drop in the price of silver in the later 1870s would automatically have effected the replacement of the de facto gold standard by the de facto silver standard, these governments suspended the coinage of silver in order to preserve the gold standard. In the United States, the price structure on the bullion market had already, before the outbreak of the Civil War, transformed the legal bimetallism into de facto gold monometallism. After the greenback period, there ensued a struggle between the friends of the gold standard on the one hand and those of silver on the other hand. The result was a victory for the gold standard. Once the economically most advanced nations had adopted the gold standard, all other nations followed suit. After the great inflationary adventures of the First World War, most countries hastened to return to the gold standard or the gold-exchange standard. The gold standard was the world standard of the age of capitalism, increasing welfare, liberty, and democracy, both political and economic. In the eyes of the free traders its main eminence was precisely the fact that it was an international standard as required by international trade and the transactions of the international money and capital market. It was the medium of exchange by means of which Western industrialism and Western capital had borne Western civilization into the remotest parts of the earth's surface, everywhere destroying the fetters of age-old prejudices and superstitions, sowing the seeds of new life and new well-being, freeing minds and souls, and creating riches unheard of before. It accompanied the triumphal unprecedented progress of Western liberalism ready to unite all nations into a community of free nations peacefully cooperating with one another. It is easy to understand why people viewed the gold standard as the symbol of this greatest and most beneficial of all historical changes. All those intent upon sabotaging the evolution toward welfare, peace, freedom, and democracy loathed the gold standard, and not only on account of its economic significance. In their eyes the gold standard was the labarum, the symbol, of all those doctrines and policies they wanted to destroy. In the struggle against the gold standard, much more was at stake than commodity prices and foreign-exchange rates. The nationalists are fighting the gold standard because they want to sever their countries from the world market and to establish national autarky as far as possible. Interventionist governments and pressure groups are fighting the gold standard because they consider it the most serious obstacle to their endeavors to manipulate prices and wage rates. But the most fanatical attacks against gold are made by those intent upon credit expansion. With them, credit expansion is the panacea for all economic ills. It could lower or even entirely abolish interest rates, raise wages and prices for the benefit of all except the parasitic capitalists and the exploiting employers, free the state from the necessity of balancing its budget — in short, make all decent people prosperous and happy. Only the gold standard, that devilish contrivance of the wicked and stupid "orthodox" economists, prevents mankind from attaining everlasting prosperity. The gold standard is certainly not a perfect or ideal standard. There is no such thing as perfection in human things. But nobody is in a position to tell us how something more satisfactory could be put in place of the gold standard. The purchasing power of gold is not stable. But the very notions of stability and unchangeability of purchasing power are absurd. In a living and changing world there cannot be any such thing as stability of purchasing power. In the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy there is no room left for a medium of exchange. It is an essential feature of money that its purchasing power is changing. In fact, the adversaries of the gold standard do not want to make money's purchasing power stable. They want rather to give to the governments the power to manipulate purchasing power without being hindered by an "external" factor, namely, the money relation of the gold standard. The main objection raised against the gold standard is that it makes operative in the determination of prices a factor that no government can control — the vicissitudes of gold production. Thus an "external" or "automatic" force restrains a national government's power to make its subjects as prosperous as it would like to make them. The international capitalists dictate and the nation's sovereignty becomes a sham. However, the futility of interventionist policies has nothing at all to do with monetary matters. It will be shown later why all isolated measures of government interference with market phenomena must fail to attain the ends sought. If the interventionist government wants to remedy the shortcomings of its first interferences by going further and further, it finally converts its country's economic system into socialism of the German pattern. Then it abolishes the domestic market altogether, and with it money and all monetary problems, even though it may retain some of the terms and labels of the market economy. In both cases it is not the gold standard that frustrates the good intentions of the benevolent authority. The significance of the fact that the gold standard makes the increase in the supply of gold depend upon the profitability of producing gold is, of course, that it limits the government's power to resort to inflation. The gold standard makes the determination of money's purchasing power independent of the changing ambitions and doctrines of political parties and pressure groups. This is not a defect of the gold standard; it is its main excellence. Every method of manipulating purchasing power is by necessity arbitrary. All methods recommended for the discovery of an allegedly objective and "scientific" yardstick for monetary manipulation are based on the illusion that changes in purchasing power can be "measured." The gold standard removes the determination of cash-induced changes in purchasing power from the political arena. Its general acceptance requires the acknowledgment of the truth that one cannot make all people richer by printing money. The abhorrence of the gold standard is inspired by the superstition that omnipotent governments can create wealth out of little scraps of paper. It has been asserted that the gold standard too is a manipulated standard. The governments may influence the height of gold's purchasing power either by credit expansion — even if it is kept within the limits drawn by considerations of preserving the redeemability of the money-substitutes — or indirectly by furthering measures that induce people to restrict the size of their cash holdings. This is true. It cannot be denied that the rise in commodity prices that occurred between 1896 and 1914 was to a great extent provoked by such government policies. But the main thing is that the gold standard keeps all such endeavors toward lowering money's purchasing power within narrow limits. The inflationists are fighting the gold standard precisely because they consider these limits a serious obstacle to the realization of their plans. What the expansionists call the defects of the gold standard are indeed its very eminence and usefulness. It checks large-scale inflationary ventures on the part of governments. The gold standard did not fail. The governments were eager to destroy it, because they were committed to the fallacies that credit expansion is an appropriate means of lowering the rate of interest and of "improving" the balance of trade. No government is, however, powerful enough to abolish the gold standard. Gold is the money of international trade and of the supernational economic community of mankind. It cannot be affected by measures of governments whose sovereignty is limited to definite countries. As long as a country is not economically self-sufficient in the strict sense of the term, as long as there are still some loopholes left in the walls by which nationalistic governments try to isolate their countries from the rest of the world, gold is still used as money. It does not matter that governments confiscate the gold coins and bullion they can seize and punish those holding gold as felons. The language of bilateral clearing agreements by means of which governments are intent upon eliminating gold from international trade, avoids any reference to gold. But the turnovers performed on the ground of those agreements are calculated on gold prices. He who buys or sells on a foreign market calculates the advantages and disadvantages of such transactions in gold. In spite of the fact that a country has severed its local currency from any link with gold, its domestic structure of prices remains closely connected with gold and the gold prices of the world market. If a government wants to sever its domestic price structure from that of the world market, it must resort to other measures, such as prohibitive import and export duties and embargoes. Nationalization of foreign trade, whether effected openly or directly by foreign exchange control, does not eliminate gold. The governments qua traders are trading by the use of gold as a medium of exchange. The struggle against gold, which is one of the main concerns of all contemporary governments, must not be looked upon as an isolated phenomenon. It is but one item in the gigantic process of destruction that is the mark of our time. People fight the gold standard because they want to substitute national autarky for free trade, war for peace, totalitarian government omnipotence for liberty. It may happen one day that technology will discover a method of enlarging the supply of gold at such a low cost that gold will become useless for the monetary service. Then people will have to replace the gold standard by another standard. It is futile to bother today about the way in which this problem will be solved. We do not know anything about the conditions under which the decision will have to be made. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------