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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------