경향신문 간호사들이 서울시에 던진 674장의 사직서···"더 이상 버틸 수 없다" wlff**** ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 보건복지부가 잡고 있는걸 서울시청이 해달라고 요청하고 있는게 왜 시청에서 시위함??? 보건복지부나 청와대 가야하는거 아님??더러운 노조 정치하기는 anwj**** 그런데 왜 저 사직서를 서울시청에 내냐 ㅋ 청와대에 내야지 ㅋ 종로에서 빰 맞고 한강에 화풀이 하냐 ... 하여간 더러운 주사좌빨들과 시민족벌노조야 ㅋㅋㅋ 박원순과 문재인의 똥을 왜 오세훈에게 뒤집어 씌우냐 ㅋ --->왜 지금에 와서, 그리고 서울시청 앞에서 저 짓거리를 할까? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 세계일보 부산 건설현장서 분신 기도 "노조 탓에 못 살겠다" [영상] 분신 시도자 "민노총 측이 공사 중단 강요" 민주노총 측 "사실 무근" 입장만 밝혀 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 주피 일베 댓글 불과 1년여만에 급조된 백신 코로나 백신 맞아도 코로나 걸리고(그럼 왜 맞는지 질문 금지 주의ㅋ), 코로나 백신 1년에 두번 맞아야 하고, 코로나 백신 안맞으면 젊은 사람은 절대 안죽는데 오히려 코로나 백신 맞아서 젊은 사람이 죽는 경우가 있고( 백신 접종후 전연령 사망자 800명ㄷㄷ), 수십년뒤 장기적으로 어떤 부작용( 백혈병, 혈전, 심근염, 대머리....)이 있는지 전혀 모르고, 왜 맞는지 과학적 사실을 전혀 알 수없고... ㅋ 이게 대가리가 달려있는 정상적인 인간이면 의문 스러운게 정상이지 ㅋ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이노스케 일베 댓글 성남시 대장동 개발 특혜 논란 요약 = 성남시장이 성남시 행정권력을 이용하여 대기업과 LH를 신도시 개발에서 배제하고 성남시와 민간이 합작해서 만든 민관합작 회사가 신도시 분양권을 독점하게 해주었음 아무나 투자할 수 있는 상장기업이 아닌 내부자들만 투자할 수 있는 민관합작 회사와 자산관리 회사를 설립해서 투자원금의 수천배 이상의 배당금을 받았고 그 자산관리 회사는 1호부터 7호까지 7개의 자회사를 운영하고 있는데 그 7개의 자회사는 모두 1인 회사들이고 그 7명이 3억5천의 투자원금으로 4570억의 배당금을 받아갔음 형법 제123조 직권남용죄는 5년이하의 징역 또는 10년 이하의 자격정지에 처하는 중대한 범죄임 이런 중대한 범죄를 저지른 성남시장은 2018년에 경기도지사가 되었고 2021년 현재 대선후보임 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 자영업자들은 레알 좇된거 맞네 빨갱이자지썰어한접시 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11366881742 자영업자 대출 1년에 150조씩 증가하노 대출이라는게 장사 잘될때는 투자로 쓰이는데 지금같이 장사 안될때는 집팔고 전세 보증금 빼고 월세로 옮기고 이지랄 하다가 안되서 받는거거든 즉 저렇게 대출 150조 받은 사람들은 폐업을 해도 빚은 그대로 남는다는 소리임 지금 대출이자 상환 유예 되있는 상태에서도 저런다는 얘기는 은행 말고 사채도 존나 많다는 소리임 특히 일수 이런거 100만원 빌리면 선이자 10만원떼고 60일에 130갚아야되는 이런거 레알 좇된거 맞는거 같고 딱보니 대선즈음에 정권 뺏기면 바로 터뜨릴꺼 같다 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (9월 29일, 언필칭, 언론인드라~!) 오합지졸, 죽은 지식인들의 사회, 슬프다. 소백산돌부cuh http://www.ilbe.com/view/11366916288 동물농장의 우리에 갖힌 돼지들의 형상입니다. 마치, 돼지들의 오물로 집단방역이 실패해서 모두가 죽어갈 듯 공포감을 조성하고, 살찐 사육사는 채찍을 들고 후리며 하사품(?)을 뿌려주려 합니다. 돼지들 생의 본능을 자극합니다. 백신 주사는 부족하여 아비규환의 아우성입니다. 과연, 이 본능에 충실한 살찐 돼지들은 언제 도살장으로 끌려 갈 것인가? --------------------------------------------------- 한심하다. 장수도 병졸도 그저 허리우드 액션만 난무할 뿐, 어느 누구도 국가를 위한 넘이 없구나. 미숙하고 어린 마마보이 당대표를 세워놓고 각자 주판알 튀기느라 날새는 줄 모르는 야당ㅅㅋ들~ 배부른 권력에 취해 내일 당장 먹을게 없어 아우성인 궁민들은 눈에 뵈지도 않는 여당 개ㅆㄹㄱ ㅅㅋ들~ 봉숭아 학당 야당, 180석 권력에 도취한 여당 한 넘도 애국자가 보이질 않구나. 참으로 통탄할 5000년 역사이래 암울하고 허탈한 시절이로구나. 분노하지 않는 야당, 분노를 이끌지 못하는 야당을 탓해야 하는가? 이미 체득화 된 무기력의 안주이더냐? 180석 무소불위 권력에 취한 여당의 탐욕스런 광란의 칼춤은 이성을 상실하고, 권력의 열차는 궤도를 또다시 이탈하여 달리기 시작했구나. 이제 이 나라에서 공정과 정의는 허구되고 상식은 사라지고 없구나. 죽은 지식인들의 사회, 시신들만 즐비한 나라 꼬라쥐가 되어가고 있구나. 패기 잃은 젊은이들의 무기력한 나라가 되어가고 있구나. 얍삽한 어른들과 무기력한 젊은이들이 살아가는 미래없는 암울한 나라가 되고 있다고.............ㅎㅎ 언론중재법(일병, 조꾸기 심기 보전법) 그 잘난 시체가 되어버린 언론인ㄴ드라~! 언론인이란 꺼죽을 쓴 화석이 된 군상드라~! 언필칭 "언론인"이란 이름의 작자드라~! 너그 모두 어데서 무얼하고 있는거냐? 민주가 사라지고 공정이, 상식이 죽어가고 있지 않느냐? 이 정껀이 너그 목에 재갈을 물리고 칼을 들이대고 있지 않느냐? 왜 저항하지 않느냐? 그 잘난 언론기자단체며, 기자협회, 여기자 협회, 언론노조........등등 왜 너그 이해에 투쟁하지 않고 있느냐? 너그 목에 개목줄을 걸고 있지 않느냐? 너그 목에 예리한 칼날을 들이대고 있지 않느냐? 지금 이 나라에서 가장 어리석은 지식인이란 작자그룹이 언론인들 너희가 아니더냐? 너그 목에 이 정껀이 지금 칼을 들이대고 있잖느냐고? 허허~참~ 헛 똑똑이들~! 너그 모두 시체덩어리들 이었더냐? 너그 모두 이 정껀의 호위무사라도 된거냐? 진정 그런거냐? 그 잘난 주필, 논설위원, 대기자, 언론노조 위원장, 기자협회장, 여기자 협회장........수많은 언론기관 단체들은 무얼하고 있더냐? 도대체가 이해를 할 수가 없구나. 너그 정말 지난 탄핵과정에서 이 정껀을 탄생시킨 권력찬탈의 공동정범들 이라도 된 거더냐? 이 정껀을 옹위하며 새로운 유토피아를 꿈꾸는 혁명동지, 호위무사들이라도 된거냐? 무뇌,무상,무념의 광물체라도 된 거더냐? 지금, 180석 권력에 취한 이 정껀이 너그들 토사구팽 직전이 아니더냐? 어우~ 무감각한거냐? 알고도 회피하는 거냐? 도대체 이해를 할 수가 없네. 지렁이도 밟으면 꿈틀 한다는데.........무감각의 시체들만 즐비하구나. 목에 칼을 들이대는데도 먼 산 넘 일 구경꺼리인 양 이렇게 조용하다니....... 너희 생명줄 마저도 누가 대신해서 싸워주길 바라는 거냐? 등신, 얼치기 언론인드라~! 탄핵동지들이 당신들 주댕이에 개꿀을 너무 쳐 발라서 그 달콤함에 취해 도끼자루 썩는 줄도 모르는 거냐? 좌삐리 한,경,오, 이 갰ㄺ ㅆ팔자식드라~ 우삐리 조,중,똥, 이 갰ㅍㄴ무 ㅅ키드라~ 모두가 가ㅡ증ㅇ스럽구나. 저 악법이 통과되고 나면 당장 직접 피해자가 될 넘들인데도.......... 사형장의 단두대 형틀을 너그 눈앞에 세웠는데도.......... 스스로 두 눈을 감고 멍때리고 서 있다니............. 아~ 모두가 좀비들인가.............? 제3의 권력 이나라 언론들은 모두 다 죽었구나. 산송장들 이었구나. 임기 반년 남은 저 허접한 정껀이 저런 극악무도한 짓을 하고 있는데도 끌어 내리지도 못한단 말이더냐? 도대체 이 무기력함을 어찌해야 하는거냐? 모두가 넘 일 이로구나. 먼 산 불구경이로구나. 이 나라에 주인이 없구나. 아뿔싸, 이를 어쩌나~! 어디서부터 잘 못 된 거냐? 이 나라가 걱정이로구나. 죽은 지식인들의 사회가 되어가고 있구나. 슬프다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 현대통화이론이라 불리는 정치적 연금술 현대통화이론Modern Monetary Theory의 추종자들은 윤전기로 돈을 찍어내는 연방정부는 절대 돈이 부족할 수 없다고 믿는다. 하지만 그들은 현행 통화(달러나 파운드 등)와 화폐가 지니는 구매력을 구별하지 못한다. 예를 들어, 베네수엘라는 찍어내는 통화 볼리바르가 부족해서가 아니라, 그것이 구매력이 없었기 때문에 경제가 붕괴했다. 현대통화이론에 따르면, 적자 없는 예산은 적자가 주는 혜택을 빼앗아버리게 된다. 정책 입안자는 부정적 결과를 끼치지 않는 이상, 사회에 대한 “기여”를 최대화 할 도덕적 의무가 있다. 통화주의자들 역시 통화 공급을 늘려서 경제에 기름칠을 해야 한다고 주장했는데, 현대통화이론은 한걸음 더 나아가 정부 적자는 해롭지가 않고, 이중으로 혜택을 준다고 주장한다. 즉 가격 인플레를 연간 2%이하로만 유지하면 된다는 것이다. 현대통화이론은 정부의 돈들이 국민 보건, 학교, 기간시설 등에 사용되어야 한다고 주장한다. 그러면 경제가 활성화 되어서 공급을 하게 되고, 이런 투자를 더욱 촉진한다는 것이다. 그런데 이런 주장은 경제학적 바탕이 없이 단순한 신념에 근거한 것이다. 정부가 통화를 풀면 더 많은 직업이 생기고, 정부의 서비스가 더 늘어날수록 국민의 생활 수준은 올라간다는 것이다. 하지만 실제 경제는 가치 있는 목적을 위해 결핍된 자원을 적절히 배분하는 일이다. 놀고 자원은 사실은 놀고 있는 게 아니라, 소유자의 판단에 그것이 가장 가치 있는 사용법이기 때문이다. 방금 증류되어 나온 위스키가 통속에 들어 있다고 놀고 있는 것이 아니다. 그것이 더 가치를 지니려면 앞으로 더 많은 시간을 통속에서 숙성되어야 한다. 생산에서 시간은 중요한 요소이다. 현대통화이론가인 켈톤의 주장을 한마디로 요약하면, 정부가 하는 일은 모두 옳다는 것이다. 정부가 경제를 정상화 하고, 우리의 생활을 향상시킨다는 믿음은 너무나 순진한 발상이 아닐 수 없다.(박정희 대통령이 경제를 단숨에 끌어올린 탓에 한국에는 아직 이런 발상을 하는 멍청이들이 많다. 한국이 지금의 이 상황에 처한 것도 정부에 대한 무조건적인 신뢰 때문이기도 하다.) 현대통화이론은 유사종교적 신념으로 어떤 일도 가능하며, 유일한 해결사는 정부뿐이라는 믿음이다. The Political Alchemy Called Modern Monetary Theory Per Bylund The new kid on the economics block is something called modern monetary theory. The name is new, but the "theory" is not. Proponents adamantly claim that it is both new and a theory of economics. To make it appear this way, they dress the ideas in unusual-sounding jargon and use rhetorical tricks. For example, instead of presenting actual arguments or responding to direct questions, they present a circular flow of deepities. To top it off, they, at least in my humble experience, usually lack fundamental economic literacy. This can make rebutting their nonsensical claims a challenge and, as a result, debates with this crowd typically go nowhere. In order to figure out what exactly they are claiming—beyond the deepities—I decided to acquaint myself with the prominent proponents. I read "founder" Warren Mosler’s so-called white paper on MMT, but it’s not very helpful: there is little by way of theoretical explanation, other than redefining if not obscuring the meaning of common concepts in economics. Mosler also seems overly eager to move from explanation to instead argue for his preferred policies. I hoped for (and got) more from listening to a TED Talk by Dr. Stephanie Kelton, an economist and professor at Stony Brook University who was the senior economic advisor to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and author of The Deficit Myth (reviewed by Bob Murphy here). TED Talks are only fifteen minutes long, but it turned out to be a very painful experience. It’s All about Spending Judging from Kelton’s presentation, MMT boils down to a description of how the fiat currency system works under a central bank. Kelton explains: MMT provides an accurate description of how a fiat currency like the US dollar or the British pound actually works. It reminds us that we are no longer on a gold standard, so finding the money to pay for the things we need is never an issue for countries like the US or the UK. The implication of having a monetary monopoly is that the “[t]he federal government can never run out of money” (all quotes are from Kelton’s talk unless otherwise stated). This is obviously true, but only because Kelton (and MMT) does not distinguish between money in the real sense (the valued medium of exchange, i.e., purchasing power) and the currency issued by government and banks (the dollars or pounds, whether physical or digital). But that’s not always true. For example, the government of Venezuela was not running out of bolívars, but from this it did not follow that the currency would retain its purchasing power (as, obviously, it didn’t) or even retain its status as money (which it also didn’t). Venezuela is one recent example, but the claim is universal. (For more examples, see Zimbabwe/Zimbabwean dollar or the Weimar Republic/papiermark.) So, in a strict sense, it is certainly true that the federal government “can afford to buy whatever is available or for sale in its own currency.” However, while proponents of MMT often emphasize and extrapolate from the word “afford” to make it appear as if there were no end to government spending, it is really “for sale in its own currency” that is key. This means there is indeed a limitation. Kelton realizes this but fails to mention it until the very end. Her point here is to delink government spending and taxation: If you got a $1,400 check from the federal government earlier this year, or if your company received money to help cover payroll and other expenses, then you received some of the newly minted digital dollars that were created to support our economy. No taxpayers were involved in that process. It was all done using nothing more than a computer keyboard. This too is not false; it only tells one side of the story. The point Kelton is making is that government need not worry about deficits, because they are paid in the government’s own currency. Yes, we have heard this before; it is nothing new. The problem is that it is based on a fundamental mistake: confusing the unit for its meaning to users or, if you will, thinking a currency is money. By talking about one, and the creation of more of it, yet referring to the other, thus assuming it remains largely unaffected, Kelton can state the following about deficits: Here's what I see. I see what's happening on the other side of the government's ledger. When the government spends more than it taxes away from us, it makes a financial contribution to some other part of the economy. Their red ink is our black ink. Yes, you read it correctly: when government runs a deficit it is a contribution to society. Government creates new money for which it purchases infrastructure, teacher salaries, electric vehicles, etc. Thus, private businesses get the new money as revenue—they (presumably) earn a profit—while the government provides society with needed services. The result is, if we believe Kelton, more jobs and income for people while they get more services from government. We get something for nothing. What about Price Inflation? With deficits being a nonissue, the political problem is not to balance budgets. After all, according to MMT logic, a balanced budget would deprive society of the benefits that the deficits offer. Instead, policymakers have a moral duty to maximize the “contribution” to society as long as doing so does not have negative consequences for society. As Kelton puts it, Congress should be focused on keeping inflation in check. That's the real limit on spending, and it's the thing to watch out for if you're thinking of spending trillions on things like infrastructure, healthcare, and free college. This is basically the same scheme as monetarists argue for, that the money supply should be increased to lubricate and support the growing economy—but not so much that it affects the price level. MMT takes this idea and greatly inflates it (pun intended) by adding that government deficits are not harmful—they are instead, if used wisely, a double benefit. As long as the price level remains largely unchanged (or, I presume, price inflation is kept at a “low” level, such as “only” 2 percent per annum), more can be squeezed out of the economy. Government can and should do this to the extent possible, but the deficits also offer a means for reform, if not restructuring of whole economy, that should not be wasted. [E]very deficit is good for someone. The question is, for whom? And what are those deficits used to accomplish? It matters how the money is spent and who ends up with the resulting surplus. Indeed, money is not neutral, so it benefits whoever happens to receive it. This is another MMT twist that they use to their advantage. The argument does not rely on increasing the money supply helicopter-money style, so they need not assume it has no effect on the structure of the economy. On the contrary, MMT argues that the money should be used by government on specific investments—typically infrastructure, healthcare, schools. Because the money is spent on those things, businesses will be incentivized to create supply that facilitates those investments. As a result, the economy is force nudged to do the “right” things. (We are at this point deep into normative territory, i.e., ideology; there is no semblance of positive theory left.) What about the Economy? So far, the MMT story does not seem to relate at all to the real economy. It is pure magic: more currency means more jobs, greater government services, a higher standard of living. Does this mean MMT simply ignores the fact that the actual economy is a matter of allocating scarce resources toward valuable ends? Not quite. It only greatly downplays this fact by ignoring much of the implications. Kelton refers to the problem of Congress's directing the “contribution” of deficits as resourcing. Here comes the real economy: Congress should be asking, how will we resource it? To answer that question, think of people, factories, equipment, and raw materials like wood and iron. If we're going to build high-speed rail, fix crumbling infrastructure, and green our economy, then we’ll need concrete, steel, and lumber; we’ll need construction workers, architects, and engineers; we’ll need companies that can fill thousands of orders for solar panels, EV charging stations, and electric school busses. If our economy has the productive capacity to quickly supply all of those things, then we can easily resource it. Or take healthcare or free college. Paying the bills to expand Medicare to include dental, vision, and hearing is easy. The challenge is making sure we have enough dentists, optometrists, and audiologists to treat everyone who needs care. And if you want to resource free college, then you need the faculty, the classrooms, the dormitories to teach and house more students. In a full employment economy, all of the resources you need are, well, fully employed. There is no spare capacity anywhere in the system. So, finally, we get to the real issue and the reason why proponents of MMT believe they can get something for nothing: there are idle resources, assets that are not currently used in production processes. Because those resources are not productive, government’s deficit investments will incentivize those sitting on the resources, whether individuals or businesses (or government agencies?), to surrender them to the productive efforts so that society can make productive use of them. But this poses several problems that those arguing for MMT seem unaware of. First, that idle resources are not actually just sitting there, but are idle for a reason. They are idle because this is what their owners consider to be their highest-valued use. It is a mistake to assume that an asset that is not right at this moment used in some production process is not part of a greater production plan. In fact, most production includes some degree of waiting, maturing, or search for the proper timing. Consider a newly distilled whiskey that sits “idle” in a cask for a decade. This is not waste, but part of the production process of ten-year-old whiskey, which is a different good with much greater expected value to consumers. Production takes time, which means we cannot at any specific moment determine what would be the best use of resources. This includes resources that do not appear to be used at all but are in fact owned and therefore directed toward some end. Timing is an important aspect of production that proponents of MMT, in their urgency to maximize only the present, fail to realize. Much entrepreneurship fails not because there is no value in what they offer but because the timing is not right—they are either too early or too late. It is also true that we want resources to be held in reserve for future uses. If we use everything to 100 percent in the present, there is no possibility of attempting new and more valuable productions. After all, government investments in infrastructure (or anything on the MMT wish list, for that matter) are not an effective way to generate innovations. Valuable innovations are created by entrepreneurs seeking new ways to satisfy consumers and thereby earn profits. MMT’s shifting of resources toward public works means we may not get the solutions to those grand challenges that we have no solutions for today. The quest to maximize the present, whether or not it turns out successful (and it likely will not), sacrifices both the near and distant future. Joseph Schumpeter put this clearly in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (p. 83): [W]e are dealing with a process whose every element takes considerable time in revealing its true features and ultimate effects, [so] there is no point in appraising the performance of that process ex visu of a given point of time; we must judge its performance over time, as it unfolds through decades or centuries. A system—any system, economic or other—that at every given point of time fully utilizes its possibilities to the best advantage may yet in the long run be inferior to a system that does so at no given point of time, because the latter’s failure to do so may be a condition for the level or speed of long run performance. I doubt Schumpeter’s genius will sway any proponent of MMT, however. To them, nobody is alive beyond the immediate present. It Is Not about the Economy, but about Glorious Government Kelton’s argument comes down to believing that whatever government does is right. Yes, she argues that it is important that the deficits end up in the "right" hands, but simply notes that this is the real task for Congress. Okay, but what if politicians do not invest in the “right” things? Or what if those things are right for some but wrong for others? Kelton doesn’t say, but I suppose she would refer to some vague notion of public good or what society “needs.” But this question cannot be avoided, because it strikes at the core of MMT’s failure. The whole argument, as Kelton presents it, asserts that government needs to get idle resources into production. Whatever the reason they currently appear idle to Kelton and others is of no concern: government, they assume, will put those resources to better use. True to form, proponents of MMT tend to focus on only idle resources, which makes a cleaner point. But they overlook that changing the incentives will also shift resources from already productive uses to those productions that are on the MMT wish list. What they are really saying here is that entrepreneurs, investing their own property for the chance of earning profits, but at the risk of losing everything if consumers dislike their offering, overall do a worse job allocating productive resources than politicians investing deficits that need not be paid off. This is a very problematic assumption. Just noting the different incentives for entrepreneurs and politicians is enough to fundamentally question what MMT proposes. Add to this that government’s track record in creating public goods that are of actual value to people and that do not waste resources is nothing short of dismal. Then add the public choice aspect to the whole thing, that politicians have their own interests and therefore may not pursue the public good even if they know it. The assumption that government will fix the economy and increase our standard of living beyond what entrepreneurs can do is unbearably naïve. I do not think these problems matter much to proponents of MMT, however. Because it is not a theory of how the economy works and so does not concern itself with worldly things like production, innovation, entrepreneurship, scarcity (other than as potentially causing inflation), or time. It is a pseudoreligious conviction that anything is possible and that the one and only solution is always Glorious Government. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------