양정철 조해주 큰일났다 부정선거 논란 대확산? 젊은 전문가 포럼 미라클웨이브의 강력 경고 https://youtu.be/_X2AaBE2aV4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 끝이 보인다 / 황교안의 참전 결정이 상황 반전에 도움 / 이 지경에도 불구하고 그냥 덮자는 후보들은 아웃될 것 / 주류언론들 보도하지 않을 수 없는 상황으로 가다 [공병호T https://youtu.be/Rub2lvv-Q_g --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [인터뷰] 유상범 "문 대통령, 드루킹 알았다는 증거 차고 넘쳐" 靑 앞에서 1인 시위…"드루킹 사건 최대 수혜자는 文, 사과해야" "드루킹 최측근 변호사, 文 인권특보 임명…대통령 책임 물어야" New Daily ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "검찰개혁, 文 직접 지시받는 이광철이 실행" 독점 인터뷰]“합법 가장한 독재정권” 文정부 고발한 권경애 변호사 ● “거짓 기록 ‘조국의 시간’이 역사가 되게 할 순 없었다” ● 법치 요구가 정치가 된 세상, 내부 폭로 결심 ● “나는 文정부의 ‘청부 지식인’이었다” ● 진실 외면하고 진영을 택한 김남국 ● “윤 총장이 조국 사퇴시키라고 고래고래…” ● 노무현 트라우마에서 시작된 일그러진 검찰개혁 ● 독재의 길로 접어든 문재인 정부와 파시즘 평행이론 조국 사태’의 실체를 파헤쳐 화제를 모은 책 ‘한 번도 경험해보지 못한 나라’(일명 ‘조국흑서’)의 공저자 권경애(56) 변호사가 검찰개혁과 관련, 문재인 정부의 청와대 민정수석실을 중심으로 무슨 일이 벌어졌는지 기록한 책 ‘무법의 시간’(천년의상상)을 펴냈다. 앞서 조국 법무부 장관 후보 지명 이후 벌어진 일련의 사태를 정리한 책 ‘조국의 시간-아픔과 진실 말하지 못한 생각’이 5월 31일 발간되자마자 단숨에 베스트셀러가 됐다. 이를 겨냥한 듯 권 변호사는 “승자의 거짓 기록이 역사가 되게 할 수는 없었다”며 ‘무법의 시간’으로 응수했다. 출처 신동아 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 130년 만에 부활한 ‘위안스카이 망령’...이번엔 대한민국 주권 뒤흔드나 [송의달의 글로벌 프리즘] 한국에 꿈틀거리는 위안스카이의 후예들 조선일보 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 화장지가 점점 짧아지고 있다. 연준에 의해 인플레가 조장되었기 때문이다. Toilet Paper Rolls Are Getting Smaller. Blame the Fed. Doug French When confronted by reporters about the size of their toilet sheet squares, a spokeswoman suggested it was the result of "innovations" allowing "consumers to, basically, wipe their butts more efficiently." 화장지가 작아지는데 대해 질문을 받은 기업의 대변인이 이렇게 말했다. "그것은 혁신의 결과입니다. 소비자로 하여금 밑을 닦을 때 더 효율적으로 닦을 수 있게 해주죠" https://mises.org/wire/toilet-paper-rolls-are-getting-smaller-blame-fed --->한국의 상품들도 작아지고 적어지고 있다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 김걸 교수의 사묘산 운용 경험 金傑運用加味四妙散經驗拾萃 作者 / 1王娜娜 1吳明陽 2金傑 1河南中醫藥大學第一臨牀醫學院 2河南中醫藥大學第一附屬醫院 編輯 / 許紅 ⊙ 校對 / 張芊芊 金傑教授從1999年至今一直從事臨牀教學科研工作，善於運用中西醫結合方法診斷治療精神、神經及心理障礙性疾病，臨牀療效顯著。筆者有幸跟隨金傑教授臨證學習，受益匪淺，現將其運用加味四妙散的經驗介紹如下。 1 加味四妙散的方解及其證治特點 四妙散載於清·張秉成《成方便讀》，而本方源自於元·危亦林《世醫得效方·卷第九》的蒼朮散加味而成。蒼朮散由黃柏、蒼朮各等分組成。原作散劑，可治療「一切風寒溼熱，令足膝痛，或赤腫，腳骨間作熱痛，雖一點，能令步履艱苦。及臀髀大骨疼痛，令人痿。一切腳氣，百用百效」。後至元·朱震亨《丹溪心法》一書中將其改稱爲二妙散。四妙散由二妙散加懷牛膝、薏苡仁共4味藥物組成，主治溼熱下注之痿、痺症。方中蒼朮味苦能燥溼、性辛溫、可散寒除痺，是燥溼健脾之要藥，《珍珠囊》有雲:「能健胃安脾，諸溼腫非此不能除。」黃柏味苦而性寒、沉降，善清溼熱且尤長於清下焦溼熱。如《脾胃論》所言:「黃柏之苦寒，降溼熱爲痿，乘於腎，救足膝無力，亦除陰汗、陰痿，而益精」，「如腳膝痿軟，行步乏力，或疼痛，乃腎肝中伏溼熱，少加黃柏」。據《神農本草經》載:「薏苡仁，主筋急，拘攣不可屈伸，風溼痺，下氣，久服輕身益氣」，是以方中用薏苡仁健脾胃、除溼痺、緩拘攣、舒筋絡;牛膝味苦酸、性平，《名醫別錄》曰:「補中續絕，填骨髓，除腦中痛腰脊痛，婦人月水不通，血結，益精，利陰氣」，《神農本草經》原文:「牛膝，味苦，主寒溼痿痺，四肢拘攣，膝痛不可屈伸，逐血氣。」金傑認爲四妙散方中蒼朮與黃柏配伍應用可共奏清熱燥溼之功效，使溼去而熱除，即邪氣盛、正氣不虛之二妙散功效；加入牛膝以補肝腎、強筋健，引蒼朮、黃柏入下焦而祛溼清熱；宗《黃帝內經》:「治痿獨取陽明」之旨，故用能獨入陽明經脈之薏苡仁以淡滲利溼，清熱除痺，舒利筋絡。金傑根據中醫學理論及多年臨牀經驗對四妙散進行加味，加入萆薢、木瓜、豨薟草、防己以增強祛風除溼、舒筋活絡之效，加入當歸、益母草以養血活血通絡，加入白芍、甘草即芍藥甘草湯以增平肝柔肝、緩急止痛之效，諸藥相合清熱燥溼、通筋利痺、標本兼顧，是治療溼熱痿、痺症之妙藥。臨證運用加味四妙散治療溼熱下注型吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵、不安腿綜合徵、腰椎病和抽搐等多種疾病，療效顯著。現代醫學認爲，吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵是以周圍神經和神經根的脫髓鞘病變及小血管炎性細胞浸潤爲病理特點的自身免疫性周圍神經病，經典的吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵被稱爲急性炎症性脫髓鞘性多發性神經病，臨牀表現爲急性對稱性弛緩性肢體癱瘓；不安腿綜合徵是指夜間或休息時出現的肢體難以忍受的不適感，運動、按摩可暫時緩解的一種綜合徵，其臨牀表現通常爲夜間睡眠時雙下肢出現極度的不適感，迫使患者不停地移動下肢或下地行走，導致患者嚴重的睡眠障礙。 2 典型病案 2.1 吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵 案1：王某，男，39歲，以「四肢無力2周」爲主訴於2015年5月21日入院。患者2周前感冒後出現四肢麻木無力、雙手持物無力、無言語不利、口角歪斜、頭痛頭暈、噁心嘔吐等症狀，未引起重視和治療。2周以來上述症狀進行性加重，逐漸出現行走不穩，遂來河南中醫藥大學第一附屬醫院住院治療，診斷爲「吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵」。患者既往無其他病史，否認腦出血及腦梗塞等病史。入院症見四肢無力，雙下肢膝以下發涼，腓腸肌壓痛，納眠可，二便調，舌質淡紅，苔黃厚膩，脈弦滑。查體神志清，言語流利清晰，雙上肢近端肌力Ⅲ級、遠端肌力Ⅱ級，雙下肢近端肌力Ⅲ+級、遠端肌力Ⅲ級，肌張力減低，腱反射減弱，病理反射未引出，淺深感覺未見明顯異常，共濟運動不能配合。顱腦磁共振成像檢查腦內未見明顯異常。肌電圖示周圍神經損害。中醫診斷痿證，證屬溼熱浸淫證，西醫診斷吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵。西醫給予營養神經、補充維生素、改善微循環等治療並對症處理。中醫以清熱利溼爲治法，方選四妙散加減：麩炒蒼朮、川牛膝、薏苡仁、豨薟草各30g，茯苓20g，當歸、益母草、木瓜、萆薢、白芍各15g，清半夏、黃柏各10g，陳皮、防己、炙甘草各12g，水煎服每天1劑，每日2次。配合針灸治療每天1次。治療3周後患者四肢麻木無力明顯減輕，可自行短距離行走，繼續治療4周後出院。出院症見四肢無力消失，雙下肢膝以下發涼、腓腸肌壓痛症狀消失，可自行長距離行走。雙上肢近端肌力Ⅴ-級、遠端肌力Ⅳ+級，雙下肢近端肌力Ⅴ-級，遠端肌力Ⅳ+級。隨訪患者3月病情無反覆。 2.2 不安腿綜合徵 案2：馬某，男，53歲，主訴雙下肢不適伴雙腓腸肌痙攣2周。2015年8月17日來診，症見雙下肢異樣不適感伴痙攣，雙腓腸肌痙攣夜間尤甚，常在夜間醒來揉按腿部，或下地行走活動稍有緩解，右下肢困沉，納眠可，二便正常，舌淡暗，苔黃膩，脈弦細。西醫診斷不安腿綜合徵，中醫診斷痺症，辨證屬溼熱下注、浸淫筋脈。治以四妙散加減：麩炒蒼朮、川牛膝、薏苡仁、益母草、豨薟草、木瓜、萆薢、白芍各30g，黃柏10g，當歸、防己、炙甘草各15g，水煎服每日1劑，每日2次。服藥6劑症狀大減，雙下肢異樣不適感明顯減輕，雙腓腸肌痙攣基本消失，偶覺右下肢困沉。守上方6劑以鞏固療效，服後症狀消失。 2.3 腰椎病 案3：瞿某，女，74歲，以「腰痛伴右下肢疼痛3年，加重3 d」爲主訴於2015年5月2日入院。患者3年前無明顯誘因出現腰痛伴右下肢疼痛、麻木，自覺晨起疼痛、麻木較輕，下午逐漸加重，曾於鄭州市某醫院診斷爲腰椎間盤突出症，住院治療(具體治療不詳)好轉後出院，3 d前因勞累後致上述症狀再發加重，今爲求中西醫結合治療入住我院。患者既往有冠心病、高血壓、腰椎間盤突出症，否認糖尿病和腦梗塞及腦出血等病史。入院症見腰痛、右下肢疼痛伴麻木，直腿高舉試驗陽性，納眠可，二便正常，舌紫暗，苔白厚，脈弦細滑。腰椎MRI示L1-2、L2-3、L3-4、L4-5、L5-S1椎間盤膨出、腰椎諸椎間盤變性、腰椎骨質增生、L3、L4椎體相對緣及L5、S1椎體相對緣終板變性。西醫診斷坐骨神經痛、高血壓病、冠狀動脈粥樣硬化性心臟病，中醫診斷痺症，肝腎虧虛證。西醫給予改善循環、營養神經等治療並對症處理，中醫給予四妙散合獨活寄生湯加減：麩炒薏苡仁、桑寄生、茯苓、鹽杜仲、牛膝各30g，麩炒蒼朮、黨參、秦艽、白芍、桂枝各15g，當歸、川芎各12g，獨活、防風、炙甘草、黃柏各10g，熟地黃20g，細辛3g，水煎服每日1劑，每日2次。治療1周後患者自訴腰痛及右下肢麻木等症狀均明顯減輕，右下肢疼痛已基本消失，繼續治療1周後出院。出院症見腰痛及右下肢疼痛、麻木消失，直腿擡高試驗陰性。 2.4 抽搐 案4：王某，女，60歲，主訴雙下肢不自主抽搐30餘年，加重伴雙上肢抽搐3d。2015年8月18日來診，症見雙下肢不自主抽搐夜間尤甚，3d前出現雙手抽搐，活動後加重，休息後抽搐緩解，但覺雙下肢沉困，納眠可，二便如常，舌暗紅，苔黃稍膩，脈弦細滑。西醫診斷肢體痙攣，中醫診斷痙證，溼熱下注證，治以四妙散加減：麩炒蒼朮、川牛膝、薏苡仁、益母草、木瓜、豨薟草各30g，當歸、防己、萆薢、炒白芍各15g，黃柏10g，炙甘草12g，服藥10劑後四肢已不抽搐，停藥則又發作，但程度較前明顯減輕，自覺症狀已減輕90%。繼服上方10劑症狀消失，隨訪1個月未再復發。 3 總結 加味四妙散治療病症衆多，但其所治疾病病機總與溼熱邪氣密切相關。金傑認爲隨着現代社會物質生活條件的改善，飲食習慣的變化，今人多飲食不節、恣食肥甘厚味、嗜食生冷之品，終致脾胃受損，溼熱合邪蘊結脾胃，百病乃生;加之長期處於溼熱環境中，或涉水淋雨，氣候突變，感受溼邪，溼熱相搏;或爲苦寒類藥物不當使用亦可損傷脾胃化生溼熱。溼熱侵襲人體常可導致「溼熱裹挾，如油入面，難捨難分」，是以徒清熱則溼不退，徒祛溼則熱愈熾;因溼性趨下、重着易襲陰位，多導致下肢困重無力或關節疼痛;溼邪爲陰邪易阻遏氣機，損傷陽氣致機體正氣受損，可致外邪乘虛侵襲，是故溼熱之邪又常挾他邪入侵;而溼爲有形之邪，熱爲無形之邪，熱邪須依附於溼邪方可留於經絡臟腑之間，致使局部關節屈伸不利甚或紅腫疼痛，終發爲痿證、痺症。金傑根據中醫學基本理論及多年臨證經驗，緊抓溼熱這一主要病機，運用古方四妙散加味治療溼熱引起的吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵、不安腿綜合徵、腰椎病和抽搐等現代疾病，收效甚佳。現代藥理研究亦表明，以蒼朮、黃柏爲主組成的方藥具有明顯的抗炎鎮痛、抑制免疫病理反應的作用。趙鵬飛研究發現，加味四妙散有減輕兔膝骨關節炎軟骨基質的降解、促進損傷軟骨修復的作用。 I 版權聲明：○ 本文摘自《中國中醫基礎醫學雜誌》2016年第11期第1555-1556頁。○ 版權歸相關權利人所有，如存在不當使用的情況，請與我們聯繫，立即刪除。I 投稿郵箱：445288908@qq.comI 諮詢合作：微信號：lianshangpuying ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

어제 국힘당 경선후보 간담회에서 황교안이 부정선거 문제를 제기했는데, 여기에 호응하는 후보가 한 명도 없었다. 일반적인 상식만 가져도 지난 4.15 총선, 그리고 이전의 대선까지도 조작을 의심해야 하는데, 일반인보다 머리도 좋고 아는 것도 많은 후보들이 모른 체 했다. 이들은 무엇인가 두려워 입을 닫고 있는 것인가, 아니면 어떤 정치적 목적을 위해 침묵을 하고 있는 것인가? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "집단 자살 사회" 예언적중! 한국의 출산율 사상최저 0.9명 달성 전망 “集体自杀社会”预言成真！韩国生育率恐跌至0.9，再创新低 (中,언론)..网罗文化 국제통화 기금 (IMF)의 라가르드 (Christette Madeleine Odette Lagarde) 국제통화 기금 (IMF) 총재는 2017 년 한국을 방문하여 한국을 "집단 자살 사회"(collective suicide)' 로 지목했다. 국제통화 기금 (IMF) 총재는 한국 사회에서 젊은이들이 "결혼을 포기하고 자녀를 생산하지 못하고 있으므로 그러한 현상이 한국의 경제 성장률을 낮추고 재정상황을 악화시키는 악순환에 빠지고 있는데 이는 한국 사회의 집단 자살이 아닌가?라고 말했다 "실제로 Lagarde의 예언은 적중했고 한국 사회는 0.9명의 세계최저의 출산율에 직면할 예정이다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 중앙선관위 핵심정보 공유 / 서버 최고관리자 비밀번호, 내외부에 널리 공유된 물증 / 결국 외부에서 다 주물럭 거릴 수 있었다는 이야기 / 퍼즐이 딱 맞춰지다 [공병호TV] https://youtu.be/pnLDYqmfM90 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 코로나19. 감춰진 진실. 사실과 진실의 다름. 공간조아 “코로나19는 계절성 감기에 불과하다, 이 공포는 가짜다” “코로나는 ‘글로벌 허위 경보’다. 위험은 과대평가됐다. 국가가 가짜 뉴스의 최대 생산지였다.” 2020년 5월에 유출된 독일 내무부 <위기관리분석> 공식보고서 “정부가 과학을 조작했다. 이탈리아 공중보건연구소에 따르면 96.3%가 ‘다른 질병’으로 사망했다.” 2020년 4월, 이탈리아 수트리 시장 비토리오 스가르비 https://m.blog.naver.com/nimaparis/222450956571 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 불황과 경기 회복에 대한 헛트W.H. Hutt의 견해 케인즈의 경기 부양을 위한 소비 정책은 단지 결핍된 소비재를 낭비함으로써 경기 회복을 느리게 할 뿐이다. 부양책으로 놀고 있는 자원을 사용하게 하면, 가격 조정 과정을 더디게 한다. 결핍된 노동과 자본은 사람들이 원하는 상품을 공급하기 위해 재조정되어야 한다. Recession and Recovery: W.H. Hutt’s View Robert Blumen There is a considerable Austrian literature on the unsustainable boom driven by credit expansion. When the boom ends, a depression begins. The depression is a transitional period of reduced production that lasts until entrepreneurs restructure capital and labor into sustainable uses. During the depression, there is unavoidable unemployment of both people and productive assets. The recovery is marked by an increase in production and the employment of resources that were idle during the bust. What happens during a depression? Should we expect it to end, or can an economy remain stuck at the bottom? Is “stimulus” required to start the recovery? The British Austrian economist “W.H.” Hutt In The Keynesian Episode: A Reassessment, provided a coherent theory of the downturn and recovery, driven by the market price system. Hutt incorporated the ideas of coordination through entrepreneurial forecasting and Say’s law to answer these critical questions. If prices adjust to balance supply and demand, how can there be so many unemployed resources, both capital and labor? If entrepreneurs are reasonably good at forecasting, why should many business firms fail at more or less the same time? Mises’s Austrian theory of the business cycle identifies the banking system issuing excess credit leveraged on deposits as the cause. The interest rate does not accurately reflect the scarcity of savings. The system as a whole sets off in a direction that would only make sense if there were more complementary labor and capital goods than exist in reality. Entrepreneurs set out to produce the wrong mix of capital goods of different types. The depression begins as some producers, somewhere in the supply chain, inevitably suffer losses. In some cases the inputs they need are not available in quantity and at a price that was expected; shortages and bottlenecks of scarce inputs drive the prices up. In others cases, the demand for their products is not what was expected. Planned allocations are found to be misallocations; continued progress in the same direction is unsustainable. Some businesses will experience losses, others fail entirely. Inventories must be marked down and even sold at a loss. Hutt used the term “discoordination” to describe the state of affairs. The first wave of unemployment comes at this point, as some firms realize their mistakes. An example of this is the notorious 90s tech bubble incarnation of pets.com. They were unable to economically ship heavy items such as bags of pet food. According to Investopedia, “Given the choice between ordering online and waiting for delivery or walking into the nearest store to buy the product and take it home immediately, the majority of people preferred the latter.” Today, most people prefer the former. Delivery times are almost as fast as going to the store, and the ease of home delivery predominates over driving, parking, and lugging a heavy bag of cat food back and forth to your car. The present success of this sector is due to the build-out of complementary capital in the form of logistics and transport systems to move the goods. The complementary infrastructure to get the products to the customer did not exist in 1999. Considerable savings and capital investment over the intervening years were necessary to make this business feasible today. The productive assets that were used for loss-generating activities during the boom were wasted. These resources had alternative uses. If more of the wrong thing was produced, then somewhere else, fewer goods that people did want and could pay for were not produced. Entrepreneurs in other industries were not able to expand as they otherwise would have, because they could not hire the labor or obtain the capital goods that were diverted into malinvestment. The office space, machinery, energy and workers were otherwise engaged. We can not say for sure what those industries were, but some neglected sectors such as tobacco products, gold mining, and energy boomed during the collapse of the dot-com bubble. Other firms were able to take advantage of the surplus of unemployed financial analysts and tech workers to grow. The recession brings to a halt those projects that should never have been started in the first place. But the impact of the recession is not limited to the industries where the misallocation took place. There is a secondary impact as the bubble unwinds. Hutt explained that “unemployment is infectious.”1 A self-reinforcing cycle amplifies the downturn. The feedback is driven by two reinforcing principles: inflexible prices and Say’s law. Say’s law is a modern term for principles that originated in the general glut debate. This was a historical controversy between two explanations of the post-Napoleonic war depression in England. Thomas Malthus blamed an overproduction of goods in general (a “general glut”); or, when looked at from the other direction, the purchasing power of the public could not keep up with production of goods and services.2 He advised what we would now call a “stimulus package.” Unproductive consumption should be encouraged to make up the difference. James Mill, Jean-Baptiste Say, and David Ricardo responded that there can never be such a thing as a deficiency of demand. The power to demand is derived from production. Everyone has the role of both a producer and a consumer. A good offered for sale constitutes a demand for a different good. When this is understood, it is obvious that demand as a whole and supply as a whole are only different ways of looking at the same thing—the two sides of the totality of market exchanges. The classical economists did not suggest that any production at all, of anything, creates the power to demand. Businesses must produce things that people want, and are willing to pay for. Even a good that can only be sold at a loss still provides the seller with some revenues. But when there are mistakes in production, not as much power to demand is created as was used up. If a good has no value to anyone, or perhaps creates greater liabilities than it can be sold for, then it does not contribute to demand at all. As Mises observed many years after the original controversy: With regard to economic goods there can never be absolute overproduction…. With regard to economic goods there can be only relative overproduction…. The attempts to explain the general depression of trade by referring to an allegedly general overproduction are therefore fallacious. Hutt applied Say’s law in reverse to the process of unemployment. Unemployed workers pause in their contribution to supply and so lose their power to demand. Workers not only demand consumer goods, but indirectly all of the higher-order capital goods required to produce them and the chain of services such as marketing and retailing that bring them to the consumer. The loss of demand for consumption goods ripples up the supply chain. As supply slows down, by Say’s law demand weakens as well. The sales revenues of firms in other industries decreases, and they may have to lay off workers as well. As these second-order layoffs decrease supply, they further decrease demand in a chain reaction. Hutt explained the process this way: [T]he individual firm is working at low pressure because other firms are working at low pressure. Each is inactive because the general power to consume has fallen; and the general power to consume has fallen because of and in proportion to the general decline in the activity of production.3 And: In a situation in which widespread layoffs of men are occurring, and physical assets are being thrust into idleness, the withholding of supplies … appears as a sort of evaporation of demands or as a sort of redundancy of excess of supplies, not as a withholding of supplies. Keynesian teaching accepts that appearance as reality.4 Hutt’s language might sound superficially like the Keynesian circular flow in which the spending of one party is the income of another. Hutt would agree that there is an interdependence between all participants in the market. We are all consumers and we are all producers. The interdependence is through production. As each consumer-producer stops producing, he loses his power to demand, and therefore to consume. Hutt would agree with Keynes that demand is depressed, but not for lack of consumption. The reinforcing nature of rigid prices contributes to the depressionary feedback cycle. “Each group of producers in pricing itself out of the market, priced out others also.”5 In a recession, “the self-aggravating process under which prices in key activities come to diverge still further above market-clearing levels can get almost completely out of hand.”6 Demand is lacking because production is not taking place. Production is depressed because firms can or must no longer accept the losses that result from producing the wrong things. But it takes time for entrepreneurs to figure out what the right things are. In many cases a different set of people will make the decisions about what to produce for the economy to recover than the ones who drove up the boom. Some assets need to change hands in bankruptcy. Prices must fall, but the new bids for capital and labor will come from a different set of firms producing a different mix of goods than during the prior boom. Must the disruption of production go on forever? Is there a bottom to the valley? The depression exists so long as the market for capital goods and idle labor does not . Once a place is found for the assets within the price system, production, and therefore supply, will resume. Prices must be restructured—mostly lowered—to enable the idle resources to be brought back into use. At each stage of production, costs must fall more than prices to give clear profit opportunities to entrepreneurs. This may be on top of a general deflation affecting all prices due to an increase in money demand, or, in the days before the Fed, a contraction of money supply. During the depression, Hutt explained, revenues are lower than during the boom. This means that businesses derive less revenue from each unit of labor and of capital. Yet as Hutt emphasized, any valuable productive resource has some use, somewhere, at some price. The equilibrium price theory, in which labor earns its discounted marginal value product, still applies, but the expected revenues are lower, and so the wage that a business can pay for the same work is lower during the depression than it was in the boom.7 [Businesses] are justifiably pessimistic, faced with low prospective yields. Hence the market-clearing prices of potentially profitable inputs are very much lower at that moment than they are destined ultimately to be.8 Hutt explains why the transition from recession to recovery is not instantaneous: “[I]n the course of entrepreneurial decision making, what we now call ‘market signals’ need time to be observed, and acted upon.”9 Many factors can influence a fall in demand for particular products. It can take weeks or months for a firm to determine that a fall in demand is not temporary, that they have more inventory than needed and price cuts will be necessary. Firms will to some extent try to wait it out, to avoid the costs of laying off and then rehiring and retraining competent employees. If the process takes longer, Hutt blamed mainly sellers for not accepting the changed reality. They are pulled by inertia toward keeping the memories of the boom. For a business that was not in the epicenter of the misallocations during the boom, this may be a good strategy. Demand for everyday products, housing, clothing, and transport will return to its former levels. Demand for the exemplars of the worst excesses of the boom may be permanently gone. Seen in a clear light, can houses in two dozen coastal cities really be worth 20 or 50 percent more each year for six years running, from 2000 to 2008? Or like Pets.com, failures in one bubble may become economic years later, when substantial savings and investment have been realized to create the complementary capital goods that were missing the first time around. Anything that impedes the market price system will slow the recovery: “[S]uch things as subsidized unemployment compensation and the maintenance of wage rates under private coercion or governmental edict…. Welfare activities often have deplorable effects; but worst of all … subsidize the “occupation of being unemployed.”10 [A]t wages rates equal to the “marginal prospective product” all labor is immediately employable. And I argued further that in the reemployment of labor (through pricing for market clearance) in any particular sector “will set in operation the required ‘groping’ process; this process will lead, in subsequent periods, to a rise in labor scarcity; and that scarcity will, in turn, result in the entrepreneur being forced to offer real wage rates which correspond to labor’s rising realized marginal product.”11 The adjustment will happen more rapidly to the extent that the sellers of inputs (labor and inventories in the supply chain) will accept price cuts. Lower costs, in the face of lower prospective demand will create the possibility for a profit margin even in the depths of the depression. Entrepreneurs who are rationally pessimistic require a greater margin of safety. Even when matters are at their worst, even when entrepreneurs generally fear that if they provide jobs for the unemployed, they might connect vocover their additional costs … they might still be prepared to shoulder the risks if only labor were generally prepared to accept wage rates which equated with labor’s temporarily low marginal prospective product.12 With profit margins opened up by lower costs, entrepreneurs tentatively begin to employ more of the idle resources. And then, Say’s law operates in the forward direction. The newly employed workers, or those who stayed in their jobs are able to produce, and to supply. This supply constitutes a demand for other noncompeting products, which contributes to the recovery of output in other industries: [Keynesians do not understand that the fall in the rigid asking prices of idle resources] does not always mean that prospective yields are bound to rise in [the same industry]. Yields will tend to rise for all noncompeting industries.13 Rigid prices can be caused by sellers being unsure of how to adapt to the fall in demand for their products. Hutt explained that it can take some time for a firm to determine if a decline in business is temporary or of a longer duration, and to estimate the best selling prices for their inventories under worse market conditions than expected when the inventories were acquired. Longer established firms may try to hold on to their employees to avoid the cost of laying off and rehiring. Institutional arrangements that prevent prices from falling serve only to prolong the adjustment period, or prevent it from happening at all. In Britain at the time of Keynes, there were efforts as a matter of policy to maintain nominal wages at or above their boom-time levels. In the American Great Depression, the National Recovery Administration sought to prevent both wage and price adjustments. The inability of these regulated markets to clear by lowering prices kept them stuck in surplus. Unemployed workers, by not producing, withdrew their power to demand other goods from other industries, prolonging the depression. Say’s law shows that when production is impaired, demand is weakened—only because the supply is not forthcoming. The Keynesian program of “stimulating” consumption can only make the process worse by squandering scarce consumption goods. Putting idle resources to work with stimulus only slows the process of price adjustment. The consumer’s ability to pay comes from his own production. What is needed is coordination through the price system so that all willing labor and useful resources may be used for the greatest contribution to supply. Production must be reorganized in such a way that scarce labor and capital are used to supply things that people want. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

일본 경제학자의 분석 충격 이봉규 티비 https://youtu.be/tZTVMiRaTH8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [배용석의 면역칼럼] (11) 2020년 코로나19 초기부터 집단면역을 시작한 스웨덴 결과는? / 파이낸스 투데이 --->성공적이라고 한다. 사망율도 낮고, 독감보다 낮다고 한다. 코로나 독재에서 벗어나려면, 코로나가 독감의 하나라는 걸 일반 국민들에게 알려야 한다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선비즈 [단독] 文정부 정책서민금융상품 ‘햇살론’, 100명 중 10명은 빚 못 갚아 csj5**** 돈 빌려주지말고 일자리 만들고 코로나 집값 잡으라고 문죄인아 seep**** 문재인의 목표는 자기들 빼고 전국민 다 거지화 시키는거지.. shev**** 열심히 변제하는 사람만 머저리 되는 대한민국 qhsw**** 세금손실분은 문재앙 재산에서 회수해라 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 결국 신대철이 이길 수 밖에 없는 진짜 이유. 크로커다일 남자훈련소 https://youtu.be/jJrdUUjcxzA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 디지털타임스 “소름 돋았다”는 조원진, 이준석 직격…“文의 앵무새 노릇 중단하라” “이 대표의 멘토인 유승민 전 의원은 박근혜 대통령을 배신해서 나라를 좌파사회주의세력에게 넘겨” “이 대표는 우파 국민을 배신하고 정권 교체의 최대 걸림돌이 될 것” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 호주) COVID19 사망 5명 / COVID19 백신 접종후 사망 399명 (Bitter candy) / 일베 여정훈 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 정규재(정함철) 부정선거 사기방송과 팩트체크 모험자본가 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11357303358 이틀전 정규가 팬앤마이크 방송에 정함철을 초대해서 민경국 부정선거 주장이 엉터리라는 방송을 하였음. 정함철이 정규재랑 김진태에게 영향력을 끼침. 자칭 선거전문가라고 하고 목소리 크게 이야기하니 둘 다 넘어감. 정함철이 직접 당일 인천 연수구선관위를 방문해서 확인한 사실이라며 아래와 같이 주장함. 오늘 오전에 정함철이 만났다는 연수구선관위 선거계장과 톨화하여 사실관계를 확인함. 1. 정함철 : 일장기투표지 문제는 투표당일 개표장에서 투표관리관을 불러서 확인하고, 잔여투표지 수를 확인한 결과 문제가 없는 것으로 확인되었던 사항인데 재검표장에서 문제를 삼아서 일부 무효표가 발생하였다는 취지로 주장함. 심지어 정규재가 확인했냐고 물으니 확인했다고 함. 팩트 : 개표장에서 투표관리관을 부른 사실 전혀 없음. 잔여투표지 가방에서 잔여투표지 숫자를 확인한 사실도 없음. 개표장에서는 일장기 투표지에 대한 어떠한 문제제기와 유효표로 간주하는 행위 자체가 없었고, 따라서 당연히 개표록에는 어떠한 기록도 남아있지 않음. 2. 정함철 ; 일장기투표지가 발생한 것은 투표장에서 아르바이트가 만년도장이 불량이 난 것을 계속 사용하다보니 서서히 인영이 뭉개진 것으로 관리상의 부실로 발생한 것일 뿐이다. 팩트 : 연수구선관위 선거계장에 따르면 당일 투표관리관은 일장기투표지를 본 기억이 없었다고 확인함. 그리고 일장기투표지 관련 아무런 문제제기나 개표록 특이사항 기록도 존재하지 않음. (연수구 송도2동 제6투표소 투표수가 1,974명인데, 투표장과 개표장에서 아무도 일장기 투표지를 본 기억이 없다면 그 일장기투표지 천여장은 어디에서 나타났나??) 만년도장이 고장이 나서 서서히 도장이 뭉개져 보이게 되었다면, 만년도장 외곽의 스프링으로 된 둥근테두리가 찍힐 수 없음. 인주나 스탬프를 외부에서 뭍혀야 내부 일장기처럼 뭉게진 부분과 함께 둥근 테두리가 같이 찍히게 됨. 3. 정함철 : 배춧잎투표지를 연수구선관위 선거계장이 보았는데 녹색부분이 1Cm 정도로 작고 반듯하게(수평으로) 출력된 것을 보았고(미디어워치TV), 어떠한 글자나 도장도 없었다. 팩트 : 1Cm라는 이야기한 한 적이 없다. 기억이 안난다. 수평이란 얘기도 하지 않았다. 문제가 된다면 그 분이 책임을 져야한다. 수평인지 기울어졌는지 기억이 안나다. 도장이나 글자 부분이 있었는 지는 말할 수 없다. 녹색부분만 기억난다. 결론 : 일장기투표지 천여장을 투표장에서도 개표장에서도 아무도 봤다는 사람이나 기록이 없다는 사실을 재검표장에 참관했었던 연수구선관위 선거계장에게서 들음. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 상속할 때 미실현된 자본 소득에 대해 세금을 부과하자는 민주당의 새로운 법안은, 만일 입법화 된다면 74만5천 개의 직업을 사라지게 할 수 있다. Democrat Proposal to Change Death Taxes Could Destroy 745,000 Jobs: Study A Democrat proposal to tax unrealized capital gains when heirs inherit assets—the Sensible Taxation and Equity Promotion (STEP) Act—would have a “significantly negative impact” on the economy, including average annual job losses of 745,000 over 10 years, a new study projects. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 몇 장이나 만들어서 쑤셔넣었을까? / 그렇게 하고도 아무 일도 없는 것처럼 넘어갔으니, 참으로 대단한 일 / 신뢰할 만한 한 지식인은 360만장으로 추정 [공병호TV] https://youtu.be/ONkmLOtJJi4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 부정선거 입 연 고든 창 "文, 중국 기업 텐센트와 협력하려 양정철 파견했다" 조회수 94,516회 2020. 8. 25. 뉴데일리티비 https://youtu.be/59Bt7tBXEl0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 일목요연한 PPT 나왔다 [김성진 부산대 교수] 이봉규 티비 https://youtu.be/SSYdTd7mk04 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 쿠바의 독재에 면죄부를 주는 것은 2가지 거짓말이다. 하나는 존재하지 않는 무역 봉쇄이고, 다른 하나는 소위 세계 일류라는 공공 의료이다. Cuba: The Dictatorship and the "Blockade" Lie Cuba is a dictatorship that uses terror and propaganda to repress its people. It locks citizens up, strips them of the most basic human rights, silences them, and confronts families using extortion and threats. The regime’s constant practices of illegal detention, the personal ruin of political dissidents, and limitation of fundamental rights have nothing to do with any blockade or embargo but everything to do with the totalitarian Communist dictatorship. All the propaganda that whitewashes the Cuban dictatorship is based on two lies: the nonexistent “blockade” and the allegedly excellent “public health.” Cuba only suffers from one blockade: that of the dictatorship against its people, which limits imports of food, medicine, use of the internet, and freedom to travel. We have seen the evidence this week, when the regime “temporarily lifted” the limitation on imports of food and medicine. Dismantling the lie of the so-called excellent Cuban public services is easy. You just have to go to Cuba to see it. The healthcare system that the regime advertises so much is a failed and dilapidated system that only provides quality service to wealthy foreigners and to the regime’s leaders. Cuba suffers the “most expensive free healthcare in the world,” as they told me in Havana. The myth of the quality of healthcare has been debunked on several occasions. María Werlau, from the NGO Archivo Cuba (Cuba Archive), explained that “healthcare in Cuba is terrible for the ordinary citizen. There is an apartheid that favors the ruling elite and foreigners who pay in US dollars,” and it has been shown that “the Cuban health system lacks transparency and capacity.” Its health policies not only have not yielded good results but also limit the basic rights of patients; “it is hardly a model to follow.” Anyone who travels to Cuba can see that the often-repeated “nonexistence of child malnutrition” that some say UNICEF shows is a lie and only masks a regime that still uses ration cards and misery as tools to keep the population under its boot. However, UNICEF never stated that Cuba had ended child malnutrition, but that the “incidence of underweight children has dropped to 4%,” a record that was broken by Costa Rica and Chile, for example, which reached 1 percent. Tracking Progress on Child and Maternal Nutrition: A Survival and Development Priority (UNICEF, November 2009, p. 102 et seq.) shows clearly how other countries have done significantly better than Cuba. The actual data on infant mortality is twice the official figure and much worse than in countries such as Chile or Costa Rica, according to studies (for example, “Infant Mortality in Cuba: Myth and Reality,” by Roberto M. Gonzalez). The myth of the blockade is even more hilarious. The nonexistent blockade is a lie that serves as an excuse to whitewash the dictatorship. Cuba’s international trade over GDP was 27 percent of GDP in 2020, compared, for example, with Brazil’s, which is 32 percent. Its exports are 14.5 percent of GDP compared to 16 percent in Brazil (World Bank data). The United States is Cuba’s ninth-largest trading partner, with 3 percent of imports. Cuba has more than twenty-seven bilateral treaties with more than ninety countries, and exports to Canada (22 percent), China (21 percent), Venezuela (13 percent), Spain (11 percent), Holland (7 percent), Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Cyprus (2 percent each), and France (1 percent) among others (Cuban Statistical Office, 2020 ed.). The exports of food and agricultural products from the United States to Cuba increased by 74.7 percent in March 2021, an increase of 54.3 percent annualized (Cuba Trade). Cuba, in turn, imported in 2020 from Venezuela (crude at cost or free), China, Spain, Russia, Mexico, Italy, Argentina, Brazil, the United States, and Germany, among others. Some “lockdown.” The only thing Cuba has is an embargo on those items that the dictatorial regime uses for military purposes. What the Left hides about the embargo: the embargo was implemented in 1958 with the Batista regime to limit the sale of weapons. The 1960 embargo on US exports to Cuba did not include food or medicine. Since 2000, there has not been any type of embargo on US exports either in food or in medicine. More than ninety North American multinationals have exported to Cuba since 2001. Since 2014, sixty North American companies have been operating directly in Cuba (Cuba Trade Economic Council) Cuba exported $14.9 million worth of goods to the United States and imported $176.8 million in 2020 according to the Department of State. Imports and exports to China are also particularly important. The United States is the largest supplier of food and agricultural products to Cuba, according to the Department of State, with exports of those goods valued at $220.5 million in 2018. The United States is also a major supplier of humanitarian goods to Cuba, including medicines and medical products, with a total value of $275.9 million in 2018. Remittances from the United States, estimated at $3.5 billion in 2017, are the dictatorship’s largest source of foreign exchange. What has destroyed Cuba is communism. A destructive and wasteful dictatorial regime. The Castro regime is a machine for squandering subsidies. It consumed aid from the Soviet Union between 1960 and 1990 equivalent to six Marshall Plans and failed to improve its growth pattern or take advantage of huge subsidies to improve productivity. Between 1960 and 1990, Cuba received more than $65 billion from the Soviet Union, not counting what it received from other socialist countries. The Cuban dictatorship has also squandered subsidies and aid from China, Russia, and Venezuela. For the Cuban medical program, Misión Barrio Adentro, alone the Havana dictatorship received $120 billion dollars in sixteen years, an official figure revealed by Nicolás Maduro in 2019 and confirmed by Julio García, head of the Cuban missions in Venezuela. Cuba obtained more money from Venezuela for other concepts, other missions, for sales of power plants, for triangulation in food imports, and even for the sale of millions of light bulbs. In the past eighteen years, China has forgiven nearly $5 billion in debt to Cuba, nearly half of the total debt it has forgiven its trading partners. Of course, trade with China has declined due to the constant defaults of the Cuban dictatorial regime. Russia has donated billions of dollars to Cuba, with donations through, for example, the representation of the World Food Program (WFP) and the write-off of 90 percent of the debt contracted with Russia (2014), about $25.8 billion. Between 2011 and 2014 alone, Mexico, Japan, China, and Russia together exempted the Cuban dictatorship from $40 billion dollars of debt, which is equivalent to 50 percent of Cuba’s current GDP, according to Forbes. The Paris Club creditors in 2015 also canceled $8.5 billion in outstanding debt. The Cuban dictatorship always does the same: borrow, squander money, impoverish the population, and default on its commitments. And then it complains about a nonexistent “blockade.” If we add donations, debt cancellation, and financial support, Russia, China, Venezuela, and Cuba’s main trading partners have given financial aid and donations to the Cuban dictatorship that exceed $200 billion in the last sixteen years. Despite all this, and with a monetary policy as destructive as that of Venezuela, printing Cuba pesos without value or demand while squandering the reserves it receives, inflation in 2021 will reach 500 percent according to Reuters. What has the Cuban dictatorship done with all this money? Fritter it away while condemning the Cuban people to misery. Cuba has a poverty level that, calculated independently, reaches 50 percent. According to figures from the ONEI (Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas e Información), 35.6 percent of the working-age population is unemployed or unemployed. The monetary and economic disaster would lower the Human Development Index position for Cuba from seventy-three to the last places among the countries of the world. What is it that destroyed Cuba? Communism, not the nonexistent blockade. Author: Daniel Lacalle Daniel Lacalle, PhD, economist and fund manager, is the author of the bestselling books Freedom or Equality (2020), Escape from the Central Bank Trap (2017), The Energy World Is Flat (2015), and Life in the Financial Markets (2014). He is a professor of global economy at IE Business School in Madrid. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 유럽의 통합은 집합주의의 새로운 전선이다. 유럽 통합의 주창자들은 과거의 나폴레옹이나 히틀러처럼 강압적으로 소수의 정치 엘리트에 의해 통치되는 사회를 선호한다. 그들이 내거는 미명은 "항구적인 평화"이다. European Unification as the New Frontier of Collectivism Present-day prophets of a united Europe share with past conquerors like Napoleon and Hitler a strong preference for a society directed, more or less violently, by a small political elite. All in the name of "eternal peace." https://mises.org/library/european-unification-new-frontier-collectivism --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Roots of "Anticapitalism" Anticapitalism's origins are not found with the workers. Rather, it came from the aristocrats and middle-class intellectuals who harbored resentment and fear of the rising entrepreneurial and industrial classes. 반자본주의의 기원은 노동자들에 있지 않다. 귀족들과 중산층 지식인들은 당시 부상하던 기업가들과 산업 계층에 분노하고 또 그들을 두려워했다. 반자본주의는 바로 그들에게서 나왔다. https://mises.org/wire/roots-anticapitalism ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

한국 파산위기까지 왔다. 2분기 수출 급감, 경제성장률 완벽 해석 시대정신 연구소 https://youtu.be/e7bnxiuAeqA --->한국 경제는 이미 파산했다. 단지 파산의 시점이 미래로 연기되어 있을 뿐이다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20년 동안 진행된 흉계. 2006년 노무현은 선관위에 ‘전자 선거’ 전권을 주고 국회를 배제 스콧 인간과 자유 이야기 https://youtu.be/Fai7fxCWBMs --->좌파의 흉계는 저렇게 오래 전부터 있어왔는데, 이를 지적하고 경종을 울리는 정치인, 지식인들이 거의 없었다는 데 놀라울 뿐이다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 송영길, "부정선거라도 무조건 승복해라" 식 발언으로 빈축 인세영 / 파이낸스투데이 --->문죄인이 부정선거로 당선됐다는 고백? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 문화일보 학계 “與가 밀어붙인 언론중재법… 내용·절차 모두 헌법 무시” 사전협의 없이 기습 상정하고 여권 의원 4명 찬성으로 통과 매출기준·구상권도 위헌 여지 여당 “野 바리케이드 넘겠다” 8월 국회처리 방침 재차 강조 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 다른 범죄도 있다 [황교안] 이봉규 티비 https://youtu.be/0TqmyXTfH0Y --->단점도 있지만 황교안이 이렇게 부정선거 문제를 제기하고 있고, 정치적 역량도 그만하면 족하다. 우파의 대권 후보 중에는 그래도 황교안이 가장 믿음직한 후보이다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 중앙일보의 집요한 국민 주입식교육: 유승민을 찍어라, 탄핵을 인정해라, 보수와 결별해라 ! 프리덤뉴스 이상로 https://youtu.be/S_jYj9ZB2Kk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 자본재는 왜 경제 발전의 핵심인가 경제는 재화와 서비스에 관한 게 아니다. 경제는 인간의 선택과 행동에 관한 것이다. 자본재와 소비재는 관련된 상품의 물리적, 생리학적인 성질에 따른 분류가 아니다. 동일한 상품이 자본재가 될 수도, 소비재가 될 수도 있다. 그것은 인간의 입장과 그들이 결정한 선택에 따라 달라진다. 단위당 투입된 투입량에 비해 산출량이 많은 생산 방법을 이용하고자 하면, 그들은 생산의 기간을 길게 잡아야 한다. 기존의 경제학자들은 생산에 사용된 기술은 기존의 기술적 지식에 의해 결정된다고 주장했다. 하지만 오스트리아 경제학자들은 매 순간마다 가용할 수 있는 자본재의 공급에 따라 다양한 생산기술 방법 중 하나가 결정된다고 믿는다. 자본이 부족하게 되면 사람들은 목표의 성취를 계획보다 늦게 하게 된다. 자본재를 소유하고 있는 것은 목표에 가깝다는 뜻이기도 하다. 자본가는 소비를 감소하지 않고, 또 노동이나 자연적 생산 요소의 투입을 증가시키지 않고도, 목표를 빠르게 도달할 수 있다. 좌파들은 서구 자본주의에 의한 후진국의 착취를 주장하지만, 사실은 외국의 자본이 도입됨으로써, 동유럽, 아시아, 아프리카의 국가들은 현대 문명의 결실을 일찍 따게 되었다는 것이다. (일본의 조선 식민지화로 인해, 한국의 자본주의가 시작되었음은 이미 일부 경제학자들의 연구로 밝혀져 있다) Why Capital Goods Are the Key to Economic Progress Ludwig von Mises [This article is excerpted from chapter 18 of Human Action] If one were to measure the length of the period of production spent in the fabrication of the various goods available now, one would have to trace back their history to the point at which the first expenditure of original factors of production took place. One would have to establish when natural resources and labor were first employed for processes that — besides contributing to the production of other goods — also contributed ultimately to the production of the good in question. The solution of this problem would require the solubility of the problem of physical imputation. It would be necessary to establish in quantitative terms to what extent tools, raw materials, and labor that directly or indirectly were used in the production of the good concerned contributed to the result. One would have to go back in these inquiries to the very origins of capital accumulation by saving on the part of people who previously lived from hand to mouth. It is not only practical difficulties that prevent such historical studies. The very insolubility of the problem of physical imputation stops us at the first step of such ventures. Neither acting man himself nor economic theory needs a measurement of the time expended in the past for the production of goods available today. They would have no use for such data even if they knew them. Acting man is faced with the problem of how to take best advantage of the available supply of goods. He makes his choices in employing each part of this supply in such a way as to satisfy the most urgent of the not-yet-satisfied wants. For the achievement of this task, he must know the length of the waiting time that separates him from the attainment of the various goals among which he has to choose. As has been pointed out and must be emphasized again, there is no need for him to look backward to the history of the various capital goods available. Acting man counts waiting time and the period of production always from today on. In the same way in which there is no need to know whether more or less labor and material factors of production have been expended in the production of the products available now, there is no need to know whether their production has absorbed more or less time. Things are valued exclusively from the point of view of the services they can render for the satisfaction of future wants. The actual sacrifices made and the time absorbed in their production are beside the point. These things belong to the dead past. It is necessary to realize that all economic categories are related to human action and have nothing at all to do directly with the physical properties of things. Economics is not about goods and services; it is about human choice and action. The praxeological concept of time is not the concept of physics or biology. It refers to the sooner or the later as operative in the actors' judgments of value. The distinction between capital goods and consumers' goods is not a rigid distinction based on the physical and physiological properties of the goods concerned. It depends on the position of the actors and the choices they have to make. The same goods can be looked upon as capital goods and as consumers' goods. A supply of goods ready for immediate enjoyment is capital goods from the point of view of a man who looks upon it as a means for his own sustenance and that of hired workers during a waiting time. An increase in the quantity of capital goods available is a necessary condition for the adoption of processes in which the period of production and therefore waiting time are longer. If one wants to attain ends that are temporally further away, one must resort to a longer period of production because it is impossible to attain the end sought in a shorter period of production. If one wants to resort to methods of production with which the quantity of output is higher per unit of input expended, one must lengthen the period of production. For the processes with which output is smaller per unit of input have been chosen only on account of the shorter period of production they require. But on the other hand, not every employment chosen for the utilization of capital goods accumulated by means of additional saving requires a process of production in which the period of production from today on to the maturing of the product is longer than with all processes already adopted previously. It may be that people, having satisfied their more urgent needs, now want goods that can be produced within a comparatively short period. The reason why these goods have not been produced previously was not that the period of production required for them alone was deemed too long, but that there was a more urgent employment open for the factors required. If one chooses to assert that every increase in the supply of capital goods available results in a lengthening of the period of production and of waiting time, one reasons in the following way: If a are the goods already previously produced and b the goods produced in the new processes started with the aid of the increase in capital goods, it is obvious that people had to wait longer for a and b than they had to wait for a alone. In order to produce a and b, it was not only necessary to acquire the capital goods required for the production of a but also those required for the production of b. If one had expended for an increase of immediate consumption the means of sustenance saved to make workers available for the production of b, one would have attained the satisfaction of some wants sooner. The treatment of the capital problem customary with those economists who are opposed to the so-called "Austrian" view assumes that the technique employed in production is unalterably determined by the given state of technological knowledge. The "Austrian" economists, on the other hand, show that it is the supply of capital goods available at each moment that determines which of the many known technological methods of production will be employed.1 The correctness of the "Austrian" point of view can easily be demonstrated by a scrutiny of the problem of scarcity of capital. Let us look at the condition of a country suffering from scarcity of capital. Take, for instance, the state of affairs in Rumania about 1860. What was lacking was certainly not technological knowledge. There was no secrecy concerning the technological methods practiced by the advanced nations of the West. They were described in innumerable books and taught at many schools. The elite of Rumanian youth had received full information about them at the technological universities of Austria, Switzerland, and France. Hundreds of foreign experts were ready to apply their knowledge and skill in Rumania. What was wanting was the capital goods needed for a transformation of the backward Rumanian apparatus of production, transportation, and communication according to Western patterns. If the aid granted to the Rumanians on the part of the advanced foreign nations had consisted merely in providing them with technological knowledge, they would have had to realize that it would take a very long time until they caught up with the West. The first thing for them to have done would have been to save in order to make workers and material factors of production available for the performance of more time-consuming processes. Only then could they successively produce the tools required for the construction of those plants that in the further course were to produce the equipment needed for the construction and operation of modern plants, farms, mines, railroads, telegraph lines, and buildings. Scores of decades would have passed until they had made up for the time lost. There would not have been any means of accelerating this process than by restricting current consumption as far as physiologically possible for the intermediary period. However, things developed in a different way. The capitalist West lent to the backward countries the capital goods needed for an instantaneous transformation of a great part of their methods of production. It saved them time and made it possible for them to multiply very soon the productivity of their labor. The effect for the Rumanians was that they could immediately enjoy the advantages derived from the modern technological procedures. It was as if they had started at a much earlier date to save and to accumulate capital goods. Shortage of capital means that one is further away from the attainment of a goal sought than if one had started to aim at it at an earlier date. Because one neglected to do this in the past, the intermediary products are wanting, although the nature-given factors from which they are to be produced are available. Capital shortage is dearth of time. It is the effect of the fact that one was late in beginning the march toward the aim concerned. It is impossible to describe the advantages derived from capital goods available and the disadvantages resulting from the paucity of capital goods without resorting to the time element of sooner and later.2 To have capital goods at one's disposal is tantamount to being nearer to a goal aimed at. An increment in capital goods available makes it possible to attain temporally remoter ends without being forced to restrict consumption. A loss in capital goods, on the other hand, makes it necessary either to abstain from striving after certain goals that one could aim at before or to restrict consumption. To have capital goods means, other things being equal, a temporal gain.3 As against those who lack capital goods, the capitalist, under the given state of technological knowledge, is in a position to reach a definite goal sooner without restricting consumption and without increasing the input of labor and nature-given material factors of production. His head start is in time. A rival endowed with a smaller supply of capital goods can catch up only by restricting his consumption. The start that the peoples of the West have gained over the other peoples consists in the fact that they have long since created the political and institutional conditions required for a smooth and by and large uninterrupted progress of the process of larger-scale saving, capital accumulation, and investment. Thus, by the middle of the 19th century, they had already attained a state of well-being that far surpassed that of poorer races and nations less successful in substituting the ideas of acquisitive capitalism for those of predatory militarism. Left alone and unaided by foreign capital, these backward peoples would have needed much more time to improve their methods of production, transportation, and communication. It is impossible to understand the course of world affairs and the development of the relations between West and East in the last centuries if one does not comprehend the importance of this large-scale transfer of capital. The West has given to the East not only technological and therapeutical knowledge, but also the capital goods needed for an immediate practical application of this knowledge. These nations of Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa have been able, thanks to the foreign capital imported, to reap the fruits of modern industry at an earlier date. They were to some extent relieved from the necessity of restricting their consumption in order to accumulate a sufficient stock of capital goods. This was the true nature of the alleged exploitation of the backward nations on the part of Western capitalism about which their nationalists and the Marxians lament. It was a fecundation of the economically backward nations by the wealth of the more advanced nations. The benefits derived were mutual. What impelled the capitalists of the West to embark upon foreign investment was the demand of the consumers. Consumers asked for goods that could not be produced at all at home and for a cheapening of goods that could be produced at home only with rising costs. If the consumers of the capitalist West had behaved in a different way, or if the institutional obstacles to capital export had proved insurmountable, no capital export would have occurred. There would have been more longitudinal expansion of domestic production instead of lateral expansion abroad. [This article is excerpted from chapter 18 of Human Action: The Scholar's Edition and is read by Jeff Riggenbach.] 1.Cf. F.A. Hayek, The Pure Theory of Capital (London, 1941), p. 48. It is awkward indeed to attach to certain lines of thought national labels. As Hayek remarks pertinently (p. 47, n. 1), the classical English economists since Ricardo, and particularly J.S. Mill (the latter probably partly under the influence of J. Rae) were in some regards more "Austrian" than their recent Anglo-Saxon successors. 2.Cf. W.S. Jevons, The Theory of Political Economy (4th ed. London, 1924), pp. 224–229. 3.This implies also equality in the quantity of nature-given factors available. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"3차 세계대전은 바이러스와의 전쟁"/아이티 대통령 암살에 중공의 그림자/중공, 토쿄올림픽에 선수단 파견/중공을 뒤흔든 개 목줄 시비 박상후의 문명개화 영국의 젊은 점성술사 Nicolas Aujula의 예언이 화제가 되고 있습니다. 트럼프 대통령의 낙선을 예언했다고 주장하는 그는 2022년까지는 전염병을 구실로 한 행동제한이 계속될 것이며 3차 세계대전은 국가간의 전쟁일 가능성 보다는 전염병과의 전쟁이 될 것이라고 말했습니다. 그는 또 남성국가 지도자가 암살돼 충격을 줄것이라고 예언했는데 마침 아이티의 조브넬 모이스 대통령이 암살됐습니다. 이 암살사건은 전체가 미궁투성이입니다. 배후와 동기가 무엇인지 아직 밝혀지지 않고 있습니다. 공교롭게도 아이티의 모이스는 타이완의 맹우였습니다. 중공의 편에 서면 무이자 차관등 여러 혜택을 제공한다는 유혹을 뿌리치고 타이완을 지지한 대통령이 모이스였습니다. 모이스의 암살배후는 미스테리지만 그의 암살로 인해 가장 많은 득을 보는 나라는 중공입니다. 이번 방송에서는 아이티 대통령 암살에 드리워진 중공의 그림자란 주제와 함께 현재 중공을 뒤흔들고 있는 안후이성 뻥뿌의 개목줄 시비로 불거진 시위사태를 조명했습니다. 또 중공이 토쿄올림픽에 조정선수단을 파견했다는 소식도 전합니다. https://youtu.be/nfoheKa1_qk 중공의 대격변 조짐/창문가린 지하철 객차에는?/타이완 해협의 카미카제/"2만6천명 사망, 의연금 내라" 박상후의 문명개화 허난성에서 정저우를 제외한 다른지역에 홍수재해가 본격적으로 시작되고 있는 가운데 저쟝성과 상하이일대를 태풍 인파가 강타했습니다. 태풍 인파는 원래 타이완 방향으로 향하다 신기하게도 방향을 90도 꺾어 중공으로 상륙했습니다. 덕분에 타이완에는 거의 피해가 없었고 중공을 초토화시키고 있습니다. 저쟝성 일대에 상륙해 내륙으로 이동한 태풍 인파의 위력은 대단했습니다. 태풍인파는 타이완과 오키나와 사이 바다를 건너 중공으로 향했습니다. 타이완의 국운이 상승하고 있는 조짐으로도 해석되고 있습니다. 타이완 TSMC는 덕분에 아무런 피해가 없었습니다. 그런데 이번 허난성 정저우을 강타한 홍수로 친중공성향의 타이완 업체 폭스콘은 상당한 피해를 봤습니다. 한편 정저우에서는 수많은 승객들이 익사한 지하철 5호선 객차들이 트레일러에 실려 운반되는 모습이 포착됐습니다. 지하철 창문은 모두 검은 천으로 둘러첬습니다. 정저우 징광터널 참사 희생자는 현재 중공의 국가기밀입니다. 외국기자의 취재도 현지의 샤오펀홍들은 방해하고 있습니다. 이런 가운데 미 텍사스 화교협회가 2만 5천명이 사망했다고 주장하면서 수재의연금를 걷고 있습니다. 그러나 중공당국이 스촨대지진때 재해의연금을 뺴돌렸다는 의혹이 일고 있는데가 홍콩에 대한 탄압으로 홍콩과 타이완이 이번에는 돕지 않을 전망입니다. 6월 30일 허난성 신샹에서 눈이 내린데 이어 이번에는 스촨성 이빈에서 장강의 원류인 진사강이 역류하는 현상이 목격돼 충격을 주고 있습니다. 현지인들은 이를 대격변의 조짐으로 보고 있습니다. https://youtu.be/pmWKhyQX3sU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선비즈 신안에 풍력발전기 1000개 세우는데…文대통령 “갯벌 세계유산 매우 기뻐” choi**** 신안 앞바다의 갯벌, 유네스코 세계 유산이 된 것을 진심 축하합니다. 그런데 문재인 정권이 신안 앞바다에 남산타워 높이의 풍력발전기 1000기를 세우는 대규모 해상풍력단지를 조성하고 있단다. 이것은 갯벌 생태계와 철새 이동지 등 자연을 파괴하는 미친짓이다. 그런데 전남지사 등 지역주민은 향후 천사의 섬이 아니라 악마의 섬으로 변할것이 뻔한데 너무 좋다고 아무 반응이 없는게 비정상적이고 이상하다. 여기 신안의 갯벌과 생태계를 살리기 위해서 신안 앞바다 대규모 해상풍력 단지의 조성은 재검토해야 한다. skaw**** 풍력발전기 1000개 세우는데 48조5천억을 쓴답니다 ㅋㅋ 얼마나 많이 빼먹을려고. 그리고 신안군 전체 모든 인구에 해마다 800만원씩 평생 준답고 합니다. 환장하겠네요 ppko**** 환경단체들 요즘 태양광 나무벌목에 전기 모자라 석탄발전소까지 돌리는데 찍소리 안하고 뭣들하고 있는거냐?? 하여간 여성단체가 민주당 성추행에 아닥하는 꼬라지나 환경단체가 정부에서 추진하는 무차별 벌목과 대규모 공공사업으로 환경파괴 하는데 아닥하는 꼬라지가 앞으로 정권바뀌고 너네 시민단체들이 씨부리는 소리는 다 개소리로 치부당하게 될것이다. ㅉㅉ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 정규제..지금 부정선거 주장하는 자들이 보여주는 각종 증거자료들은 조작된것이다. 탙탈탈홍홍홍 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11356975309 펜앤드마이크 정규재주필 어록...절대로 부정선거 아니라고 함..이런자가 주필이라니 한심하다!!! <다모두다 일베 댓글> 보여준 증거들이 조작된거라면 선관위가 보관 제출한 조작된 투표지 이므로 부정선거 맞네 그게 재검표 현장에서 나왔고 증거물로 대법원이 가지고 있다. ㅋㅋ 정규재 망가져도 정도껏 해야지~~~ 병신다 되었네 --->정규재는 비박파 김무성의 꼬봉 쯤 되는 것으로 추측된다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [속보]"30일부터 3단계 이상 시 백화점·대형마트 QR코드 의무화" ---> 중공의 시민 감시, 통제 기술을 도입하는 건가! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 연합뉴스 남북정상 "하루속히 관계진전"..통신연락선 전격 복원(종합) --->무슨 꿍꿍이를 꾸미고 있는거야? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (VOW, 특별 인터뷰)"Michelle Steel미 연방 하원의원/ Janne Pak백악관 수석출입기자"_#종전선언, 인권문제, 박근혜 대통령 석방,언론자유등 https://youtu.be/9gMGgB83yD0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 델타변이? 7월 26일 영국 코로나19 치명률 0.06% 감기수준보다 낮아 면역학자 배용석 델타변이에도 불구하고 최근 1주간 사망자 줄고 치명률 크게 낮아져 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

헬-조선이 사라지고 천국이 되었나? 장하성의 새빨간 거짓말 시대정신 연구소 https://youtu.be/vtp6zIqGLVg -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 세계일보 정은경 “공급 총량 변동 없다” 장담했는데, 당국 “모더나서 생산 관련 이슈 있다 통보·협의 중” --->코로나의 실체가 밝혀진 이상 이제 백신에 목 맬 일은 없지만, 어쨌는 국민 모두가 백신을 접종하려면 내년이나 가능할 것 같다, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SBS 화이자 접종 20대 남 심근염으로 사망…'인과성' 인정 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 여러분! 대박을 터뜨리는 사람들을 아십니까? 김필재 티비 https://youtu.be/tlVBob--Rg0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Hawley는 학교에서 '기본 진리'를 가르칠 수 있도록 'Love America Act'를 제안합니다 Sen. Josh Hawley is proposing the "Love America Act" in the GOP's latest bid to fight the teachings of critical race theory. Hawley, a staunch opponent of the philosophy, said his legislation would combat the "misinformation the Left is spreading" that the United States is "a racist country" that's "systemically evil." (워싱턴 이그재미너) 조시 홀리가 비판적 인종 이론과 싸우기 위해 <애국 법안>을 제안하다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 외유내강형 허익범 특검 "킹크랩으로 대통령 지지율 2~3% 올랐고 아류들도 지금 활동하고 있을 것!" ---문갑식 티비 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100% '부정선거 맞다'에 목숨 건 인쇄전문가 모험자본가 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11356705945 이번 4.15총선 사전선거에 사용된 프린터는 롤용지로 출력하는 앱손 라벨프린터기이다. 그런데, 6.28 민경욱 연수구을 재검표에서 라벨프린터기에서 출력된 것이 아닌 배춧잎 투표지, 옆구리 실밥묻은 투표지, 좌우여백 불일치 투표지, 본드묻은 투표지 등이 쏟아져 나왔는데 현장에 참관하였던 40년 인쇄업자가 100% 인쇄된 부정선거이고 아니면 자기 목숨을 걸겠다고 하였음. 19분 50초 부터 이봉규 : 부정선거에 99,9%도 아니고 100% 확신한다면, 거기에 대해 사업장 다 거시겠습니까? 인쇄전문가 : 저는 확신하기 때문에 제 목을 쳐도 됩니다. 저는 거짓말할 이유도 없고 본 대로만 이야기 합니다. 이봉규 : 아... 목숨까지... 100%에 목숨건다. 인쇄전문가 : 재단 이바리가 다 보이고, 루페로 다 확인했고, 그 정도로 확실한 거니까... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 코로나팬데믹조사위원회 https://corona.or.kr/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.28 재검은 인천지법, 8.10 재검은 청주지법이 아니라 대법원? (청주지법에 보존된 증거물을 서울로 이송) 스콧 인간과 자유 이야기 https://youtu.be/TCxvFIz_EPk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 정저우 참사, 태풍 인파 상륙 와중에 시진핑은 화장실 혁명강조/"징광터널안에 최소 6300구" /중공을 경악케 한 NHK아나운서의 한마디 박상후의 문명개화 중공 저쟝성, 상하이 일대를 태풍 인파煙花가 강타하고 있습니다. 태풍의 위력은 아주 강력해 장강하구 부분에까지 큰 영향을 미치고 있습니다. 허난성 일대를 몰아친 홍수도 계속되고 있습니다. 허난성 신샹에서는 128만명의 이재민이 발생하고 5천명이상이 실종됐습니다. 허난성 곳곳이 초토화되고 있습니다. 정저우의 비극도 계속되고 있습니다. 일단 홍수는 멈췄지만 징광터널안의 시신이 최소 6300구이상이라는 목격자의 증언도 나왔습니다. 이 밖에 지하철에서 숨진 사람들이 얼마나 되는지는 아직 모릅니다. 또 한 아파트단지에서는 급히 차량을 지하주차장으로 옮기라는 통보에 따라 차주들이 차량을 옮기다 물이 들이치는 바람에 수장되다시피하는 참사도 발생했습니다. 국가적 재해가 계속되고 있는 가운데 시진핑은 농촌의 화장실혁명을 제대로 관철하라는 지시를 내렸습니다. 또 신화통신과 CCTV가 이를 보도했습니다. 마치 만우절가짜뉴스 같은 정책을 진지하게 여기고 있습니다. 이는 시진핑 옆에 붙어 있는 왕후닝의 소행으로 비처지고 있습니다. 재난의 와중에 우스꽝스런 풍경도 연출되고 있습니다. 정저우에서는 한밤중에 따마, 중장년 여성들이 음악을 크게 틀어놓고 광장무를 추는 광경이 펼쳐졌습니다. 그런가 하면 모처의 합동 결혼식에서는 공군의 장비가 동원되는 다른 나라에서는 상상도 할수 없는 장면이 연출됐습니다. 이번 방송에서는 이 같은 중공홍수후속뉴스들과 함께 토쿄 올림픽 소식도 전해드립니다. 미국 NBC가 중공을 소개하면서 지도에서 타이완을 없애 중공이 발끈하고 있습니다. 또 일본NHK는 아나운서 와쿠다마유코和久田麻由子가 차이니스 타이페이라는 국명대신 타이완이란 명칭으로 중화민국을 소개했습니다. 알파벳이 아닌 고쥬온쥬순서에 따라 중공보다 먼저 소개됐습니다. 중공이 이에 발끈해 텐센트가 영상송출을 중단하는 사태가 발생했는데 그 바람에 중공팀의 입장장면 중계를 놓치는 일이 발생했습니다. 타이완은 이 같은 일본NHK와 주최측의 배려에 크게 감동하고 있습니다. https://youtu.be/UGykgoK0KYw ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 임기말 文 대도박說 내란 획책? 친위쿠데타? 어디까지 사실인가 - 조우석 칼럼 2021.07.26 [뉴스타운TV] https://youtu.be/lvvVTuXhR2o ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 중앙통제 계획의 선구자, 얀 틴버겐 로테르담 에라스무스 대학의 어윈 데커는 이번에 출판한 <얀 틴버겐과 경제 전문가의 등장>에서 현대 경제 정책을 형성한 틴버겐의 전기를 쓰고 또 그의 지적인 성취를 요약했다. 물리학자였던 틴버겐은 자신의 이념적 목적을 성취하기 위해 경제학으로 전환했다. 1936년 노벨상을 공동 수상하면서 그는 “계량경제학의 목적은 인간의 복지가 어떻게 증진될 수 있는지 계산하는 것”이라는 말을 했는데, 그는 목표를 정하고, 수학적 계산을 한 뒤에, 사회 질서를 바꾸어서 목표가 성취되도록 하는 것을 정책 결정의 방법이라고 주장했다. 데커에 따르면 틴버겐은 경제 이론이 아니라 경제 정책 결정 이론을 발전시켰다. 틴버겐은 주관적 가치라든지, 화폐 등을 이해하지 못했지만, 다른 사람들의 삶을 통제하려 했는데, 이는 걷지도 못하는 아이가 우주선과 자동차 경주를 지휘하려는 것과 같은 일이었다. 틴버겐은 박식한 테크노크랫이자 강박적인 권위주의자였다. Jan Tinbergen, Pioneer of Central Planning Joakim Book Once in a blue moon, the Austrian school attracts the attention of serious scholars outside of its tradition. In the months after Janek Wasserman at University of Alabama published The Marginal Revolutionaries in 2019, lots of Austrians revisited the old masters and the fin-de-siécle Vienna from which they stemmed: they found lots to like and even more to dislike, but it was still a contribution from which we could learn a thing or two. An even wider attempt was made by Erwin Dekker of Rotterdam’s Erasmus University when he published his PhD thesis with Cambridge University Press: the result was The Viennese Students of Civilization: The Meaning and Context of Austrian Economics Reconsidered, which occupied me in greatly when it came out a few years ago. In it, Dekker makes a rather convincing case that the scholars of Vienna—of which the Austrian economists were but a few—were students not narrowly of economics but of civilization. Markets, prices, and property were as essential to civilizations flourishing as culture or language or law. They wanted to depict and uncover its secrets, repeatedly “marvelling at the workings of the market” and the cultural civilization that surrounded them. From having investigated the origin of economists who perhaps more than any others admired that market system and wanted to discover how it operated, Dekker made a full turn to the opposite. In his comprehensive four hundred–page work published this month, Jan Tinbergen (1903–1994) and the Rise of Economic Expertise, he details the life of an original central planner—the corecipient of the first ever Riksbank Prize in economics. It’s part biography of a man who shaped modern economic policymaking more than most people would be comfortable with, part intellectual summary of this prolific man’s writing. In contrast to the Viennese subjects of a few years ago, Dekker’s new subject had grand ideological goals in mind and was unafraid to wrap them in scientific clout. Trained as a physicist in the 1920s Netherlands, he went into economics for two major reasons: first, he had the mathematical skills that could be of service to what he saw as such an underdeveloped discipline; and second, economics would be a better avenue for him to pursue his ideological goals. Jan Tinbergen was indeed a dangerous man, and one wonders how much harm in the world has been done through his work, words, and beliefs. Reading about his life and ideas is nothing short of scary—from the socialist youth camps of the 1920s to his planning visits to Turkey, India, and Indonesia after he in the 1950s had converted to the economics discipline’s planning stronghold (“development economics”). What’s worse is that plenty of his MO is reflected in policymaking today: establish a goal, run some numbers, and order society such that the goal is achieved. In 1936 he wrote to his Nobel corecipient, Ragnar Frisch, that “the purpose of the econometrician is to calculate how human well-being could be increased.” He was crucial for the move within economics to not only describe the economic system or analyze outcomes in it, but to formulate the ways in which policymakers could best achieve their goals. From a profession that studied and marveled at the economic world, the generation that Tinbergen epitomized (roughly from the 1930s to the 1970s) set out to control it. Tinbergen believed that it was essential that governments move into people’s lives and change society in what his scientific inquiries had revealed was a better direction. Dekker writes that Tinbergen “developed a theory of economic policymaking, not a theory of the economy.” In contrast to modern central planners, Tinbergen at least recognized some limits. He accepted that an activist policymaker could not achieve anything, and his task was to find ways around such obstacles, or optimal compromises. He occasionally praised market prices, vehemently opposed tariffs, and rarely wanted to interfere with the price-finding mechanism of the market, but instead wanted to control quantity, entrance, and, most of all, the decision-making structure of an economy. In the book’s preface, Dekker describes the economic expert as “a government functionary, who works in the service of the economic and social goals of government.” Most eerie of all, the ultimate position of that expert “is not on the throne, but right next to it.” The research that awarded him the first economics Nobel began in the 1930s and revolved around business cycle research and quantitative assessment of entire economies. These were the times of aggregating data series and early quantitative constructions of the economy that we often associate with Simon Kuznets and national income. Only gradually did Tinbergen move into other policymaking domains, controlling wages for the Dutch economy, matching inputs and outputs for whole Turkish industries, or advocating for world peace and world resource use for various international bodies like the United Nations. To an Austrian, much of his business cycle research is pretty laughable: barring a coauthored article in the 1960s (about an international reserve currency), Tinbergen never wrote on money. Dekker says: “Tinbergen was never much of a monetary economist, and the monetary side had not been part of his model of the Dutch economy.” Honest and thoughtful scholars can have disagreements over exactly how money impacts the economy and wider society, or to what extent changes in monetary institutions and provision of money contribute to business cycles, but to neglect it altogether seems anything but rigorous. Every time something good seemed to emerge from Tinbergen’s work, he seems to have managed to twist it in an awful direction. His critique of mainstream quantitative methods—in the creation of which he was foundational—was based on an unwavering questioning of the static: in a world that can and does change, predictions and econometric point estimates are excruciatingly pointless. When the institutional background setting shifts, the result will be worthless. Unfathomably, from this Tinbergen drew an absolutely contrary conclusion: we must target, organize, order, and mold society’s scaffolding such that we can get what we want—really, what I want—a tradition that most government officials and modern monetary theory proponents to this day have wholeheartedly embraced. At the bottom of Tinbergen’s restless, productive, and prolific soul lies an all-encompassing social planner. In short, here’s a brilliant guy who metaphorically wanted to orchestrate space shuttles and car races before he had learned how to walk: he doesn’t grasp subjective value; he doesn’t understand money; and he wants to run others’ lives for them. And it didn’t much bother him that the means for achieving those high-flying socialist and cultural goals were underspecified, unspecified, or wholly unbelievable. “For the expert, an economy is not a natural system he studies as a physicist would, but a system that he can steer—and improve.” Jan Tinbergen was both one of the first highly erudite technocrats, and a compulsively obsessed authoritarian. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

코로나19 예방주사의 주요 부작용] 김우경 변호사 안동데일리 조충열 기자의 ANDONGDAILY TV https://youtu.be/_Jqop-OhlYw ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 다가오는 2022년, 시스템이 모든 것을 결정한다?//未来はシステムによって決まる。 김필재 티비 https://youtu.be/s0b9YRjL_rE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 온나라가 전라도에 물들어서 맛이간거같다 ㅋㅋ 안녕개돼지들아 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11356534264 올림픽도 개죽쓰는게 원인이 전라도다 사회각계각층 모든분야에 지금 전라도가 요직마다 또아리틀고 짖뭉개고 있으니 뭐든 제대로 돌아갈수가없다 더러운 전라도 스타일 겪어봤으면 다들 잘 알잔아 실력보다는 보여주기식 진실보다는 날조와 우격다짐 잘난놈은 제끼고 자기생각 안따라오면 음해와 험담으로 끌어내리고 이짓거리가 모든분야에 물들어서 모두가 병들어감 밑바닥에서 시키는거나 해야할 저급한것들이 성과를보여주고 책임져야할 자리에 있으니 망할수밖에 앞으로 얼마나 더 나라가 병들어갈지 그 끝이 아직도 안보여서 큰일이다 ㅋㅋㅋ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 영국의 톰 갤러거가 쓴 < The Dictator Who Refused to Die>의 서평 스페인의 프랑코와 비슷한 시기에 포르투갈을 통치한 살라자르에 관한 평가. 가부장적인 권위주의 통치자였던 살라자르의 장단점 경제학 교수였던 살라자르는 비교적 보수적으로 경제를 운영해 나라를 안정시켰고 경제를 발전시켰지만, 후계자를 정하지 않아서, 나중에 그가 물러난 후에 포르투갈은 정치적 혼란을 겪었다. 프랑코는 전후에 미국의 도움으로 경제를 비약적으로 발전시킬 수 있었고, 통치 기간에 이미 후계자 문제를 정해서, 후에 정치를 안정시킬 수 있었다. Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die Jesús Huerta de Soto I was a small child when I first heard Salazar, the Portuguese dictator, spoken of. This was in the early 1960s, when I began to accompany my father on road trips he took with our family once or twice a year to Lisbon to visit and monitor the operation of the Portuguese branch office of our family’s life insurance business. I will never forget the fascination these trips held for my young mind: the sense of adventure that came over me as I traveled halfway across Spain with my parents and siblings on poor roads; our stays at the Parador in Mérida, one of the first in Spain (1933); the cumbersome and bureaucracy-laden crossing of the border with Portugal between Badajoz and Elvas; and finally, the arrival in a different country with freeways and infrastructure that clearly surpassed those of Spain at the time, when (contrary to the way things are now), from the border to Lisbon, Cascais, and Estoril (where we usually stayed), Portugal seemed a wealthier, cleaner, and more prosperous country than our own. Looking back now, perhaps I could attribute these reminiscences to an idealized image in the mind of the child I was then, but my father took pains to explain to us that a little over twenty years earlier, Spain had suffered a bloody and destructive civil war, followed by years of militaristic autarky and economic interventionism which could hardly be compared with anything that had happened in Portugal. In short, to help us understand, he told us that in Portugal, a professor named Salazar was in charge and was “better and not as bad” as General Franco, who had won the war and was in charge in Spain. And even if, at the time, I was unable to fully grasp what my father wanted to communicate to us, it became almost inevitable for my siblings and me, as the naïve children that we were, to associate the ideas of Salazar, prosperity, and Portugal. The fascination we felt for the country is even easier to understand in light of two considerations: first, my father’s explanation to us that during the civil war, my family had been able to survive in France thanks to the loyalty those in the Portuguese branch office of our company had shown toward its founder, my grandfather, Jesús Huerta Peña; and second, the fact that Don Juan de Borbón lived in exile in Estoril, and my father, who supported him, had, from the time of his youth, been a great “Don Juan monarchist” liberal (and, at the age of only eighteen, had been jailed for several days and fined by Franco for that very reason). The fascination my siblings and I shared combined with the delight with which we each received, as a gift from our father and grandfather, a small gold coin. At the time, unlike in Spain, where it was utterly prohibited, such coins could be freely purchased in the precious metal shops that abounded on many Portuguese streets, particularly in the “Rua d’Ouro” and the “Rua da Prata” (gold and silver streets) in the “Baixa” (downtown area) of Lisbon. The years passed, and later, as a young adult, I was able to closely follow the evolution of our neighboring country, particularly beginning in the 1970s, with the “Carnation Revolution” of April 25, 1974, which established democracy in Portugal and brought about the definitive collapse of four decades of Salazarism. Over the years, and even decades, that followed the revolution—frenetic years of economic and social instability in which Portugal flirted with socialism/communism, harassed its entrepreneurial class, and consumed the capital accumulated during the former stage—the situation was radically reversed, and Portugal became a bleaker, more impoverished country that contrasted more and more with neighboring Spain, which was becoming increasingly strong and prosperous. During those years, a blurry and ambivalent picture was forming in my libertarian mind concerning the Portuguese dictator Salazar: on the one hand, I rejected the corporative, paternalistic “Estado Novo” he had created; but on the other hand, I never forgot the words my father, a true lover of liberty, had spoken of the dictator Salazar. This image remained in my mind until very recently, when, upon reading an intriguing review in the American magazine Reason, I ordered and received from Amazon a copy of Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die (London: Hurst, 2020)—a biography and assessment of the life of António de Oliveira Salazar—written by the Scottish professor Tom Gallagher, who specializes in the political history of the Iberian Peninsula. I found this book such a thrilling read that, most likely spurred on by my childhood memories, subsequent experience, and the genuine affection I have increasingly felt over the years for Portugal and its people, I read the book straight through in ten days in an almost-feverish state of intellectual excitement. Tom Gallagher has managed to fill an intellectual void I had felt deep inside for quite some time. Almost without realizing it, I longed to undertake the arduous task of researching in depth the history of Portugal and its major figures, who, starting with Salazar, explain what this great brother country has become over the course of the last near century. In this sense, I will always be grateful to Tom Gallagher for saving me this effort with his thorough historical research, analysis, and thoughtful assessment of the events he covers in his excellent book. In fact, everyone—including those without a particular interest in Portugal—will find the book captivating and greatly benefit from reading it. Naturally, the purpose of a review is not to summarize the content of a book, but essentially to identify its virtues and potential weaknesses and, above all, where appropriate, to encourage people to read it. Nevertheless, I am going to touch on a couple of points I find important. First, I will note that Tom Gallagher fully confirms that my father was absolutely right (and in what ways) whenever he compares Salazar favorably to the other Iberian dictator, Francisco Franco. Second, I will mention the connections or points of contact that can be found between Salazar and the Austrian school of economics. Though Tom Gallagher does not mention this topic, it will undoubtedly be of interest to the readers of this review. I will begin by comparing Salazar to Franco, and the dissimilarity could not be more striking. Franco was a career serviceman with the rank of general, and he was toughened in both the Rif War and the Spanish Civil War. In contrast, Salazar was never a soldier, but a prestigious professor of economics and public finance at the University of Coimbra. In 1928, at the age of thirty-nine, he first entered the Portuguese government as finance minister (and, in fact, was the one who, in 1929, authorized our life insurance company to operate in Portugal). The military junta had desperately turned to Salazar with the challenge of putting the public accounts in order, which he fully achieved. This success gave him immense political prestige, to the point that he became prime minister (and acquired absolute power) in 1933. Thus, in contrast to Franco, Salazar came to power by peaceful means, at a younger age (though he was three years older than Franco), and with a well-earned reputation as an academic and a manager. Thanks to my friend Pedro Almeida Jorge, I have been able to peruse Salazar’s economic works published by the Bank of Portugal and verify his (for the time) high level of academic training and theoretical convictions. Though eclectic in many respects, these led him to be, throughout his life, a staunch defender (again, in sharp contrast to Franco) of a balanced budget, a strong escudo (the Portuguese currency, which was always much stronger than the Spanish peseta prior to the Revolution of 1974), and the gold standard. (In fact, Salazar accumulated 385 tons of gold in the reserves of the Bank of Portugal, placing his country among the leading countries in the world in terms of gold per capita. Despite all of the political vicissitudes, Portugal has managed to maintain this position up to the present. In this respect, it surpasses neighboring Spain, which, though it has a population and economy four times the size of Portugal’s, has much smaller gold reserves.) Unlike Franco, Salazar was very critical of Hitler and Mussolini, never sought to create a totalitarian state, and was very reluctant to be the object of a cult of personality. He always led a very simple and austere life and resisted honors, monuments, distinctions, and special treatment, even in his own home parish (Vimieiro), where he had a small vineyard and liked to withdraw to tend it on holidays. Salazar possessed great personal charm, he knew how to listen, and his capacity for work and attention to detail were admirable. It is true that he always criticized and distrusted democracy and that he encouraged the creation of a corporatist guild state, the “Estado Novo,” which was heavily influenced by the social doctrine the Catholic Church was defending at the time. However, the key points of Salazar’s economic management were quite orthodox—even if only (as he liked to joke) so that his students in Coimbra could not say he failed to practice what he preached. Thus, it is easy to understand the great friendliness and support Salazar always received from the German leaders Adenauer and Erhard, as well as from General Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle. In the case of de Gaulle, this cordiality was increased even further by Salazar’s systematic opposition to the inflationary foreign policy of the English-speaking world in general, and of the United States in particular. Therefore, we can conclude (as Tom Gallagher points out on page 271, paraphrasing former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright) that Salazar was not a fascist dictator, but a paternalistic, authoritarian leader who always viewed Nazism as intrinsically immoral. If we consider the degree of repression inflicted on political opponents, Salazar again stands in marked contrast to Franco. In Salazar’s Portugal, the death penalty had been abolished. In fact, those who attempted to assassinate him in 1937 returned to normal life after serving their sentences. And though a dreadful concentration camp for dissidents was maintained in Cape Verde, the leader of the illegal Portuguese Communist Party, Álvaro Cunhal, was permitted, following his arrest and sentencing to prison, to defend his thesis and receive his doctorate from the University of Coimbra before being imprisoned. Moreover, the PIDE—a political police force Salazar created—has been called “terrible,” but perhaps this description has been influenced by the very Portuguese tendency toward exaggeration (“A boca do inferno,” “O terror dos mares,” etc.). This appears particularly likely when the intention is to compare the PIDE to other, far more terrible agencies from the past, such as the Stasi, the Gestapo, or the KGB. The PIDE was very different from these, in terms not only of victims, tortures, and atrocities, but also of efficiency. Evidence of this lies in the sloppy murder of General Humberto Delgado and his secretary and lover in Spanish territory by agents of the PIDE in 1965. This crime gave rise to a mere eight-year jail sentence for the main perpetrator. The sentence was handed down after the Carnation Revolution and the establishment of democracy, and the Portuguese supreme court itself later set the sentence aside. As a result, the assassin was able to return from exile and die peacefully in Portugal. And the only involvement of Salazar which could ever be proven in the entire affair was the attempt to cover up for the perpetrators by hindering in all sorts of ways the judges and prosecutors of Franco—with whom, incidentally, and despite appearances, Salazar never maintained truly smooth and cordial relations. Nevertheless, in two areas, Franco was perhaps a more astute politician than Salazar. First, I could mention the policy of alliances and the opening up of Franco’s Spain to the United States during the Cold War. These changes gave Spain international support and a major economic boost which, beginning with the Stabilization Plan of 1959, put Spain on the path of intense economic development. As a result, in just two decades, Spain far surpassed Portugal in its level of economic development. At the time, Salazar’s Portugal, determined to hold on to its African colonies at any cost, began to deplete its resources in colonial wars in Angola and Mozambique (wars which—incredible as it may seem today—were, in fact, largely stoked by the United States). Second, Franco surpassed Salazar in the key area of preparing his successor as head of state. In doing so, Franco made possible a transition to democracy under a monarch he himself had appointed—a transition which has been praised throughout the world for its peaceful, exemplary nature. In contrast, Salazar did not bother to draw a road map for a successor or for the peaceful arrival of democracy in Portugal. This explains the turbulent, revolutionary atmosphere which for many years, and unlike in Spain, pervaded the reestablishment of democracy in neighboring Portugal. It would not have been difficult for Salazar to plan a transition to democracy along the lines described, for instance, by F.A. Hayek in volume 3 of Law, Legislation, and Liberty, and doing so would have permitted Salazar to crown his historical and political contribution to Portugal. To conclude, I cannot fail to mention the exhilarating account of the weeks Ludwig von Mises spent in Lisbon in the summer of 1940 following his journey in flight from Hitler and on his way to exile in the United States. We can read all the details in the book My Years with Ludwig von Mises, published by his wife, Margit von Mises, in 1976. Margit tells us that during those days, Mises met several times with finance minister Moisés Bensabat Amzalak and even gave a seminar at his ministry and had a personal interview with Salazar himself. What might they have spoken about? We will never know. But Mises quite likely seized the opportunity to remind the always patient and courteous Salazar of his criticism of economic interventionism in general and, in particular, of the price controls which, starting in those years, were established by Salazar (on the pretext of the hardships caused by World War II) and produced the negative effects such measures invariably do. This would explain the appearance just a few years later, in 1944, of a Portuguese translation (from the German) by the then young and later chameleon-like Professor José Joaquim Teixeira Ribeiro of the only article of Mises’s published in Portugal (by the University of Coimbra, Salazar’s alma mater): the classic critical essay on interventionism he wrote in 1926 and published that same year in the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik. Hayek’s dealings with Salazar are even more interesting. To begin with, Hayek sent Salazar a letter in 1962 along with a copy of his recently published book The Constitution of Liberty and the hope that Salazar find the book useful in designing a democratic constitution for Portugal, one which avoided the worst abuses of democracy: “This preliminary sketch of new constitutional principles may assist [Salazar] in his endeavour to design a constitution which is proof against the abuses of democracy” (letter contained in box 47, folder 29 of Hayek’s papers archived at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University). There is also the letter Hayek published in The Times of London on August 3, 1978, titled “Freedom of Choice,” in which he expressly states that there have been “many instances of authoritarian governments under which personal liberty was safer than under many democracies. I have never heard anything to the contrary of the early years of Dr. Salazar’s early government in Portugal, and I doubt whether there is today in any democracy in Eastern Europe or on the continents of Africa, South America, or Asia (with the exception of Israel, Singapore, and Hong Kong), personal liberty as well secured as it was then in Portugal” (p. 15). This may explain why Portugal, under the leadership of Salazar, became an island of peace and liberty in Europe during the dark years of World War II and its aftermath and why, for instance, Calouste Gulbenkian decided to leave his fortune to the Portuguese people and state, in gratitude for his years spent in exile and asylum in Lisbon. It may also explain why, as Tom Gallagher indicates (p. 270), as recently as 2007, with democracy long well established in Portugal, Salazar was chosen (with 41 percent of hundreds of thousands of votes) as the greatest Portuguese figure in history by the multitudinous followers of a hugely popular national television series devoted to major Portuguese historical figures … -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[단독] 정부는 출산율 반등 전망… 美연구소선 ‘불가’ 판단 기재부 의뢰 美 싱크탱크 보고서 정부 “합계출산율 2040년 1.27” 韓 10년간 감소폭 32국 중 ‘일등’ “중·고소득 국가선 급반등 어렵다”/ 세계일보 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 415 공동정범, 이준석과 하태경을 반드시 축출해야 한다 (이들은 준선거사범) 스콧 인간과 자유 이야기 https://youtu.be/yKn9We1aaiI ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 아시아경제 최재형, 이재명 기본소득 공약에 "로빈 후드처럼 의적 흉내" 자산 가격 상승으로 인한 이익은 불로소득이 아니라 평가이익이다. 평가이익에는 과세할 수 없다. 언제부터 우리나라에 부동산 보유를 처벌하는 법이 생겼는가. 이는 사실상 정부가 국민의 재산을 빼앗겠다는 발상이다. 로빈 후드처럼 국민의 재산을 훔쳐다가 의적 흉내를 내려는 것은 아닌지 의심스럽다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 헌법도 과학도 무시한 ‘방역 독재’ 김태규 변호사 前 부산지법 부장판사 강력한 감염 방지책 당연해도 의학적·절차적 정당성 갖춰야 계엄보다 더 쉽게 기본권 제한 주먹구구 대책에 ‘文데믹’ 분노 백신 보릿고개, 민노총엔 쩔쩔 독일선 ‘방역 위반 과태료’ 違憲 / 문화일보 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [심층분석] 위기의 국방부, 한국군은 ‘당나라군’ 고성혁 미래한국 군사전문 기자 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 말로는 회고록, 실제론 北 선전물… 김일성 우상책 ‘세기와 더불어’ 버젓이 판매 제주 4.3, 여순 사건을 '의거'라 표현하며… "김일성 투쟁 공적 인정돼야" 주장 책 내용 사실과 전혀 달라 역사적 가치 없어… 대법원 2011년 ‘이적표현물’ 판결 출판사 ‘민족사랑방’처벌 대상… 포털, 쇼핑몰, 온라인 서점 모두 처벌될 수 있어 전경웅 기자 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 황교안이 "4.15총선 특검"을 주장했다. 그러나 조중동은 역시 침묵했다. 프리덤뉴스 이상로 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 사전투표일~재검표 실시 이후, 선거에서 일어난 모든 것 / 목표 달성을 위해 누가가, 무엇을, 어떻게 했는가 / 단계 단계마다 이루어진 개입들 / 증거과 분석 [공병호TV] https://youtu.be/rMoGAQKTf58 바실리아를 비롯한 여러분의 노력으로 문 정권이 어떤 방식으로 부정선거를 저질렀는지, 거의 완벽하게 진상을 밝혀 놓았다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 재검표 현장에 있었던 40년 인쇄업자의 검증 깜놀 [인쇄업자] 이봉규 티비 https://youtu.be/oc5qUn3-330 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 민주제가 독재로 가는 방법 평등과 다수의 통치가 민주제의 두가지 근본 원칙이다. 그리고 민주제는 자유주의적일 수도, 비자유주의적일 수도 있다. “정부의 권력은 어떻게 행사되어야 하나?”라는 질문을 하게 되면, 진정한 자유주의가 도출될 수 있다. 그 대답은 이렇다: 누가 통치하던 정부는 시민 각자가 공동의 선(善)에 부합하는 한, 최대의 자유를 누리도록 해야 한다. 독재로 가는 첫 번째 방법은 혁명으로 자유주의 정부를 엎어버리는 것인데, 러시아 혁명이 그 예이다. 전체주의적 독재로 가는 두 번째 방법은 자유 선거를 통한 방법인데, 이는 1932년 독일에서 일어났다. 이는 플라톤이 대중적인 지도자가 일부 부자들을 적으로 만들고 집권한다는 과정과 거의 동일하다. 민주제가 독재로 가는 세 번째 방법을 말한 사람은 프랑스의 사상가 토크빌이다. 그는 민주 정부하에서 모든 일을 동정적인 정부 기관이 맡아하고, 시민들은 자유와 주도권을 잃고 온순한 가축처럼 자신들의 행복을 추구하는 상황을 예견했다. (한국의 경우는 1, 2의 방법이 동시에 사용되었다고 보아야 한다. 좌파들이 일으킨 촛불 혁명에 겁을 먹은 비박파가 동조해 박 대통령을 탄핵했는데, 이는 좌파 혁명에 의한 민주제 파괴이다. 그 다음으로 그들은 선거를 통해 정권을 잡았다. 물론 이 선거도 드루킹을 비롯한 조작과 우리가 아직 모르는 개입이 있었을 것이다.) Democracy's Road to Tyranny Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Plato, in his Republic, tells us that tyranny arises, as a rule, from democracy. Historically, this process has occurred in three quite different ways. Before describing these several patterns of social change, let us state precisely what we mean by “democracy.” Pondering the question of “Who should rule,” the democrat gives his answer: “the majority of politically equal citizens, either in person or through their representatives.” In other words, equality and majority rule are the two fundamental principles of democracy. A democracy may be either liberal or illiberal. Genuine liberalism is the answer to an entirely different question: How should government be exercised? The answer it provides is: regardless of who rules, government must be carried out in such a way that each person enjoys the greatest amount of freedom, compatible with the common good. This means that an absolute monarchy could be liberal (but hardly democratic) and a democracy could be totalitarian, illiberal, and tyrannical, with a majority brutally persecuting minorities. (We are, of course, using the term “liberal” in the globally accepted version and not in the American sense, which since the New Deal has been totally perverted.) How could a democracy, even an initially liberal one, develop into a totalitarian tyranny? As we said in the beginning, there are three avenues of approach, and in each case the evolution would be of an “organic” nature. The tyranny would evolve from the very character of even a liberal democracy because there is, from the beginning on, a worm in the apple: freedom and equality do not mix, they practically exclude each other. Equality doesn’t exist in nature and therefore can be established only by force. He who wants geographic equality has to dynamite mountains and fill up the valleys. To get a hedge of even height one has to apply pruning shears. To achieve equal scholastic levels in a school one would have to pressure certain students into extra hard work while holding back others. The first road to totalitarian tyranny (though by no means the most frequently used) is the overthrow by force of a liberal democracy through a revolutionary movement, as a rule a party advocating tyranny but unable to win the necessary support in free elections. The stage for such violence is set if the parties represent philosophies so different as to make dialogue and compromise impossible. Clausewitz said that wars are the continuation of diplomacy by other means, and in ideologically divided nations revolutions are truly the continuation of parliamentarism with other means. The result is the absolute rule of one “party” which, having finally achieved complete control, might still call itself a party, referring to its parliamentary past, when it still was merely a part of the diet. A typical case is the Red October of 1917. The Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party could not win the elections in Alexander Kerenski’s democratic Russian Republic and therefore staged a coup with the help of a defeated, marauding army and navy, and in this way established a firm socialistic tyranny. Many liberal democracies are enfeebled by party strife to such an extent that revolutionary organizations can easily seize power, and sometimes the citizenry, for a time, seems happy that chaos has come to an end. In Italy the Marcia su Roma of the Fascists made them the rulers of the country. Mussolini, a socialist of old, had learned the technique of political conquest from his International Socialist friends and, not surprisingly, Fascist Italy was the second European power, after Laborite Britain (and long before the United States) to recognize the Soviet regime. The second avenue toward totalitarian tyranny is “free elections.” It can happen that a totalitarian party with great popularity gains such momentum and so many votes that it becomes legally and democratically a country’s master. This happened in Germany in 1932 when no less than 60 per cent of the electorate voted for totalitarian despotism: for every two National Socialists there was one international socialist in the form of a Marxist Communist, and another one in the form of a somewhat less Marxist Social Democrat. Under these circumstances liberal democracy was doomed, since it had no longer a majority in the Reichstag. This development could have been halted only by a military dictatorship (as envisaged by General von Schleicher who was later murdered by the Nazis) or by a restoration of the Hohenzollerns (as planned by Bruning). Yet, within the democratic and constitutional framework, the National Socialists were bound to win. How did the “Nazis” manage to win in this way? The answer is simple: being a mass movement striving for a parliamentary majority, they singled out unpopular minorities (the smaller, the better) and then rallied popular support against them. The National Socialist Workers’ Party was “a popular movement based on exact science” (Hitler’s words), militating against the hated few: the Jews, the nobility, the rich, the clergy, the modern artists, the “intellectuals,” categories frequently overlapping, and finally against the mentally handicapped and the Gypsies. National Socialism was the “legal revolt” of the common man against the uncommon, of the “people” (Volk) against privileged and therefore envied and hated groups. Remember that Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler called their rule “democratic”—demokratiya po novomu, democrazia organizzata, deutsche Demokratie—but they never dared to call it “liberal” in the worldwide (non-American) sense. Carl Schmitt, in his 93rd year, analyzed this evolution in a famous essay entitled “The Legal World Revolution”: this sort of revolution—the German Revolution of 1933—simply comes about through the ballot and can happen in any country where a party pledged to totalitarian rule gains a relative or absolute majority and thus takes over the government “democratically.” Plato gave an account of such a procedure which fits, with the fidelity of a Xerox copy, the constitutional transition in Germany: there is the “popular leader” who takes to heart the interest of the “simple people,” of the “ordinary, decent fellow” against the crafty rich. He is widely acclaimed by the many and builds up a body guard only to protect himself and, of course, the interests of the “people.” In the Name of the People Think of Hitler’s SA and SS and also of the tendency to apply wherever possible the prefix Volk (people): Volkswagen (people’s car), Volksempfänger (people’s radio set), des gesunde Volksempfinden (the healthy sentiments of the people), Volksgericht (people’s law court). Needless to say that this verbal policy continues in the “German Democratic Republic” where we see a “People’s Police,” a “People’s Army,” while Moscow’s satellite states are called “People’s Democracies.” All this implies that in earlier times only the elites had a chance to govern and that now, at long last, the common man is the master of his destiny able to enjoy the good things in life! It matters little that the realities are quite different. A very high-ranking Soviet official recently said to a European prince: “Your ancestors exploited the people, claiming that they ruled by the Grace of God, but we are doing much better, we exploit the people in the name of the people.” Then there is the third way in which a democracy changes into a totalitarian tyranny. The first political analyst who foresaw this hitherto-never-experienced kind of evolution was Alexis de Tocqueville. He drew an exact and frightening picture of our Provider State (wrongly called Welfare State) in the second volume of his Democracy in America, published in 1835; he spoke at length about a form of tyranny which he could only describe, but not name, because it had no historic precedent. Admittedly, it took several generations until Tocqueville’s vision became a reality. He envisaged a democratic government in which nearly all human affairs would be regulated by a mild, “compassionate” but determined government under which the citizens would practice their pursuit of happiness as “timid animals,” losing all initiative and freedom. The Roman Emperors, he said, could direct their wrath against individuals, but control of all forms of life was out of the question under their rule. We have to add that in Tocqueville’s time the technology for such a surveillance and regulation was insufficiently developed. The computer had not been invented and thus his warnings found little echo in the past century. Tocqueville, a genuine liberal and legitimist, had gone to America not only because he was concerned with trends in the United States, but also on account of the electoral victory of Andrew Jackson, the first Democrat in the White House and the man who introduced the highly democratic Spoils System, a genuine invitation to corruption. The Founding Fathers, as Charles Beard has pointed out, hated democracy more than Original Sin. But now a French ideology, only too familiar to Tocqueville, had started to conquer America. This portentous development lured the French aristocrat to the New World where he wanted to observe the global advance of “democratism,” in his opinion and to his dismay bound to penetrate everywhere and to end in either anarchy or the New Tyranny—which he referred to as “democratic despotism.” The road to anarchy is more apt to be taken by South Europeans and South Americans (and it usually terminates in military dictatorships in order to prevent total dissolution), whereas the northern nations, while keeping all democratic appearances, tend to founder in totalitarian welfare bureaucracy. The lack of a common political philosophy is more conducive to the development of outright revolutions in the South where civil wars tend to be “the continuation of parliamentarism with other (and more violent) means,” while the North is rather given to evolutionary processes, to a creeping increase of slavery and a decrease of personal freedom and initiative. This process can be much more paralyzing than a mere personal dictatorship, military or otherwise, without an ideological and totalitarian character. The Franco and Salazar regimes and certain Latin American authoritarian governments, all mellowing with the years, are good examples. Slouching toward Servitude Tocqueville did not tell us just how the gradual change toward totalitarian servitude can come about. But 150 years ago he could not exactly foresee that the parliamentary scene would produce two main types of parties: the Santa Claus parties, predominantly on the Left, and the Tighten-Your-Belt parties, more or less on the Right. The Santa Claus parties, with presents for the many, normally take from some people to give to others: they operate with largesses, to use the term of John Adams. Socialism, whether national or international, will act in the name of “distributive justice,” as well as “social justice” and “progress,” and thus gain popularity. You don’t, after all, shoot Santa Claus. As a result, these parties normally win elections, and politicians who use their slogans are effective vote-getters. The Tighten-Your-Belt parties, if they unexpectedly gain power, generally act more wisely, but they rarely have the courage to undo the policies of the Santa parties. The voting masses, who frequently favor the Santa parties, would retract their support if the Tighten-Your-Belt parties were to act radically and consistently. Profligates are usually more popular than misers. In fact, the Santa Claus parties are rarely utterly defeated, but they sometimes defeat themselves by featuring hopeless candidates or causing political turmoil or economic disaster. A politicized Saint Nicholas is a grim taskmaster. Gifts cannot be distributed without bureaucratic regulation, registration, and regimentation of the entire country. Countless strings are attached to the gifts received from “above.” The State interferes in all domains of human existence—education, health, transportation, communication, entertainment, food, commerce, industry, farming, building, employment, inheritance, social life, birth, and death. There are two aspects to this large-scale interference: statism and egalitarianism, yet they are intrinsically connected since to regiment society perfectly, you must reduce people to an identical level. Thus, a “classless society” becomes the real aim, and every kind of discrimination must come to an end. But, discrimination is intrinsic to a free life, because freedom of will and choice is a characteristic of man and his personality. If I marry Bess instead of Jean, I obviously discriminate against Jean; if I employ Dr. Nishiyama as a teacher of Japanese instead of Dr. O’Hanrahan, I discriminate against the latter, and so forth. (One should not be surprised if an opera house that rejects a 4-foot tall Bambuti singer for the role of Siegfried in Wagner’s “Ring” is accused of racism!) There is, in fact, only either just or unjust discrimination. Yet, egalitarian democracy remains adamant in its totalitarian policy. The popular pastime of modern democracies of punishing the diligent and thrifty, while rewarding the lazy, improvident, and unthrifty, is cultivated via the State, fulfilling a demo-egalitarian program based on a demo-totalitarian ideology. Democratic tyranny, evolving on the sly as a slow and subtle corruption leading to total State control, is thus the third and by no means rarest road to the most modern form of slavery. Author: Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1909-1999) was an Austrian nobleman and socio-political theorist who described himself as an enemy of all forms of totalitarianism and as an "extreme conservative arch-liberal" or "liberal of the extreme right." Described as "A Walking Book of Knowledge," Kuehnelt-Leddihn had an encyclopedic knowledge of the humanities and was a polyglot, able to speak eight languages and read seventeen others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------