[20.10.07] 환경보호ㆍ산사태 지역 태양광, 충남 171곳 최다｜ TJB 대전·충남·세종뉴스 최근 3년간 환경보호지역과 산사태 위험 1.2등급 지역에 전국적으로 270개가 넘는 태양광시설이 설치됐고, 전체의 60% 이상이 충남에 조성된 것으로 나타났습니다. 국민의 힘 이주환의원이 17개 시도에서 받은 자료에 따르면, 2018년부터 최근 3년간 생태.자연도 1.2등급지역과 산사태 1.2등급지역에 조성된 태양광시설이 272곳에 달하는 것으로 파악됐습니다. 이 가운데 전체의 62.9%인 171곳이 충남에 설치됐는데, 생태.자연도 1등급 지역에 75곳, 2등급 80곳, 산사태 1.2등급 지역도 16곳이 설치됐습니다 https://youtu.be/UQiugiIThSw ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 삼성전자는 추락하고 있다.JPG 영남대정치외교학 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11353350475 이미 기세는 꺾임 라이벌 TSMC는 시총 1000조 찍는건 기정사실이고 밑에서 중국이, 위에선 TSMC가 버티고 있고 인텔, 마이크론도 만만치 않고 거기다 미중 무역 전쟁으로 미국 일본이 투자하는 최대 수혜국이 된 대만 . 그중에서 TSMC . 지금 반도체 없어서 못 파는중 세계에서 유일하게 극자외선(EUV) 노광장비 5나노이하 유광장비를 생산하는 네덜란드의 ASML사 이 장비가 없으면 반도체 못만듬. 그야말로 슈퍼을 기업인데 1년에 장비를 최대 40대밖에 생산 못함 TSMC에 30대, 삼전에 10대 공급하고 있음 이미 격차는 갈수록 더 벌어지는 중 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 김부겸 “코로나 지원, 추경 33조 필요”…‘선별지급’ 두고 당정 입장차 정부, ‘코로나19 피해 지원 3종’ 15조7000억 원 편성 김 총리 “작은 차이로 지원금 못 받는 분들께 죄송하다” 국민의힘 투표 불참… 임시 예결위원장에 박홍근 선출 정부의 제2차 추가경정예산안(이하 ‘추경안’)이 33조 규모로 편성됐다. 코로나19 피해 지원이 추경안의 핵심이며, 지금까지의 코로나19 지원 대책 중 최대 규모다. [출처] 에포크타임스 한글판 - Kr.TheEpochTimes.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1보) 한겨레 보도, 민주당 지자체장들이 누드촬영대회에 지역민들로부터 짜낸 혈세 매년 지원해 2030공감 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11353385416 민주당 지자체장들이 장악한 대전시,창원시, 전남 장흥군이 매년 혈세로 누드촬영대회를 지원해왔다고 한겨레신문이 보도 젊은 여성모델을 대상으로 90%이상 남자들이 참여하고 가족들이 즐기는 휴양림,유원지,해변, 운동장 등 공공장소에서 강행. 코로나와 불황으로 장사 안되는 지역민들로부터 강제로 각종 세금과 벌금 걷어가더니 민주당 지자체장들 낄낄거리며 이런 것에 돈지랄 중. 말로는 여성인권 주장하면서 뒤로는 여성 상품화, 이 민주당 좌빨들 이중성의 끝은 어디인가? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 경악) 억대연봉 받으려 KBS 수신료 52% 대폭인상 2030공감 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11353390191 결국 KBS이사회가 전기료에 포함되어 강제적으로 국민들에게 부과하는 TV수신료를 한꺼번에 52%인상을 의결했고 민주당인 다수인 국회에서 승인 예상 인상을 주도한 양승동 KBS사장은 세월호때에는 노래방에서 법인카드 이용해 놀다가 감사지적 당하고, 취임 후엔 문재인 찬양하는 어용방송 만들어 김제동에게 수억원 출연료 주는 등 방만하게 경영하여 KBS를 적자전환시킨 인물 1인 가구의 증가로 인해 자동적으로 매년 100억씩 더 수신료가 증가하여 매년 수천억씩 전기료에 얹어 강제 징수중인데 이번에 한꺼번에 52%를 인상하면 조단위의 수신료 착취하게 됨. 가뜩이나 1인 가구중의 상당수는 독거노인이나 취업어려운 2030세대인데. 요즘 시청자들은 공중파방송보다 IPTV,종편, 유튜브 등으로 옮겨가는 추세이므로, 이를 반영하여 일본 공영방송NHK는 최근 수신료를 인하. 그런데 KBS는 문재인 찬양에만 열을 올려 국민들이 외면해 시청률도 낮은데 대선을 앞두고 국민혈세로 여당후보 홍보하려 수신료 대폭인상한 것으로 보임. 특히 대다수가 억대연봉자들인데도 이번에도 노조와 명예퇴직같은 구조조정은 합의도 않고서 불황과 코로나로 어려운 서민들의 주머니를 털어 자기들은 억대 연봉 계속 받겠다고 하다니. 정권교체만이 이 좌빨들이 국민들에게 벌이는 약탈을 멈추게 할 수 있습니다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 내가 최저임금에 반대하는 이유 시민들이 자발적으로 그들 사이에 합의, 계약 등을 할 때, 정부를 비롯해 그 누구도 거기에 개입할 권리가 없다. 정부의 책무는 시민들의 권리를 보호하는 것이지, 평화롭게 그들의 삶을 영위하는 시민들을 형벌로서 위협하는 것이 아니다. 공공선택 이론에 따르면, 정치인들은 사회복지에 헌신하는 성직자와 같은 사람들이 아니라, 보통사람들처럼 자신의 복지에 더 관심을 갖는 사람들이다. 그들은 최저임금을 찬성함으로써, 주민들의 표를 얻고 거기에 동의하는 사람들(좌파)로부터 재정적 지원까지 얻을 수 있다. 그것이 바로 그들이 노리는 바이다. 최저임금법은 그 방법과 목표에서 모두 사악하다. My Case against Minimum-Wage Laws George C. Leef Minimum-wage laws are again in the news, as Joe Biden and his political allies in Congress seek to push the national minimum from its current level of $7.25 per hour up to $15 per hour. Some politicians, Sen. Bernie Sanders for one, declare that people can barely survive even on $15 per hour. If the law takes the minimum up to $15, we can expect pressure to raise it still further in the future. After all, why shouldn’t the government be compassionate and improve the lives of millions of low-wage workers? Many Americans think that’s one of the reasons for democracy—so that the government can respond to people’s needs. There is a great deal wrong with minimum-wage laws and I’d like to set forth my case against them. I’m not just against the current move to raise the wage, but against the very concept of laws dictating the terms of contracts between people. Whenever two people agree on a contract for goods or services, they have peacefully consented to the deal because both expect to be better off as a result. Peter might agree to pay Paul $50 to clean the leaves out of his gutters; Jennifer might agree to pay Jane $8 per hour for cleaning up her restaurant. All four are satisfied. They would probably prefer to receive more or pay less, but they are content with their contracts. No other person has any right to interfere with them. If Joe were to threaten violence against Peter unless he pays Paul $60, or if Nancy were to threaten violence against Jennifer unless she pays Jane $9 per hour, they would be guilty of a violation of the criminal law. But if the threat comes not from meddlesome citizens like Joe and Nancy, but from the government, that is supposed to make threats of force all right. When governments enact minimum-wage laws, or increase existing minimum wages, that’s what they are doing—threatening to use force against peaceful individuals for not paying what government officials have decreed to be enough. Unfortunately, few Americans think there is anything wrong in doing that. There is something wrong, though. The responsibility of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to threaten them with punishment for peacefully going about their lives. However passionately you might believe that Paul, Jane, and all other workers need or deserve more, you should agree that it’s morally wrong to accomplish that through coercion. There are noncoercive means of assisting people in need. Peaceful action is better than using force. What else is wrong with minimum-wage laws? The most common objection is that they cause unemployment among workers with low skill levels. If Peter can’t afford more than $50, he won’t hire Paul and instead do the work himself. If Jennifer can’t afford to pay Jane $9 per hour, she might invest in automated cleaning equipment. For some workers, therefore, the mandated minimum will not mean more income, but less, as they find it hard to contract (legally, anyway) with someone who values their work at the government’s new minimum level. When you point out to minimum-wage advocates that some people are certain to lose their current jobs and others who haven’t yet entered the labor market will be unable to find any job at all, they are nonplussed. They will tell you that some studies by economics professors show that unemployment due to the minimum wage isn’t “too severe” and say that the gains to workers who get jobs at the higher wage outweigh the losses. That’s elitism for you. How can anyone claim to know how much harm is done to a person who cannot find legal employment? How can you measure the losses to a young person or an unskilled immigrant who never finds an honest job because of the minimum wage? Even if it’s true that some workers benefit from higher pay, their gains can’t be compared with the long-term suffering of those who are rendered unemployable. Furthermore, that utilitarian “gains versus losses” calculus is bogus because many of the apparent winners would have earned raises to or above the minimum wage anyway. With the experience they acquire from entry-level jobs at the minimum wage, most workers earn raises or find jobs that pay more. Increasing the minimum wage merely hastens the point in time where they would naturally—that is, without government coercion—have increased their incomes. Minimum-wage increases are therefore wholly responsible for the devastating losses of unemployability, but for little if any of the apparent benefits of higher earnings. Opponents of minimum-wage laws have been pointing out the long-run harm they inflict on low-skilled workers for many, many years. They have shown particular instances of workers who were let go and businesses that had to close, as well as economic research on the extent to which minimum-wage laws increase unemployment generally. But I have never heard of a single politician who said that the evidence has caused him to change his mind and vote against minimum-wage increases, much less to advocate repeal of the law. That, I contend, is because minimum-wage laws are not really intended to help the working poor. They’re intended to help politicians get and keep what they crave: power. Are These Laws Well Intentioned? My argument is based on Public Choice theory, which looks at politicians not as high-minded devotees of the social welfare, but as ordinary people who are interested in their own welfare. When they vote for minimum-wage increases, politicians get to bask in the light of their supposed compassion, claiming credit for having “raised people out of poverty.” That gets them votes and financial support from those who believe that it is the government’s job to reduce poverty. But what about all the people who are thrown out of work, or aren’t able to land their first job? A few of them might accurately pin the blame for their plight on their “representatives” who supported the minimum-wage law, but most won’t know that. They don’t follow politics that closely. Losing those few votes is piddling in comparison with the gains for the politicians who favor higher minimum wages. Moreover, unemployed workers are easy marks for the rhetoric we constantly hear from progressives about their plans to create an economy “that works for everyone.” Frustrated workers who can’t find jobs but don’t understand why they can’t, are easily lured into the web of statism with promises from politicians to help them through governmental welfare and training programs. Finally, those same politicians love to foster the illusion that the way for people to better their lives is to demand action by the government. The big “Fight for $15!” rallies are a delight for politicians who want people to believe that good things come from the state rather than from voluntary action by individuals and private organizations. Minimum-wage laws don’t just inflict economic damage, but they also damage the fabric of civil society by encouraging a “the government is your savior” mindset in people. Frequently we hear criticism of minimum-wage laws that goes like this: “The laws are well intentioned, but have bad consequences.” I cannot agree. Minimum-wage laws are not well intentioned. They are evil in their methods (coercion) and evil in their goals (to make people believe they’re dependent on government). If we could ever abolish them, the United States would be a much better nation. This article was originally published in the May 2021 edition of Future of Freedom. George C. Leef is the research director of the Martin Center for Academic Renewal in Raleigh, North Carolina. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------