“이재명이 변호사비로 준 주식 20억은 한 회사의 CB” [대장동 게이트] 수임료 의혹 제기 시민단체 대표 “이태형 변호사 지인에게 들었다” 전환사채 발행한 회사의 계열사서 李지사 측근들 사외이사 맡기도 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 코로나백신 위험한 것 같다 코로나백신연구 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11371610239 10월 9일 코로나 백신접종 후 사망자 누적 1천 54명 주요 이상반응 의심 사례는 총 9천500건 이상반응 신고 누적 30만 4302건 출처 : 면역학자 배용석 | 블로그 https://m.blog.naver.com/byspoets/222... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 사사오입 에 대하여 알아보자 ㅡ(민주당 경선방식) 박카스맨 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11371773437 이미 투표한 표들을 무효표로 만드는게 어딨습니까? 이번 민주당경선 사사오입 반대합니다. 사사오입 적용안하면 이재명은 50프로 안넘습니다. (48.4%) 김두관 3526표 정세균 23731표 를 무효표 처리한 것을 사사오입이라고한다. 합산 27257표가 무효표처리 되지 않으면 이재명 득표율은 48.4% 이다. 그래서 이낙연지지자들이 들고 일어나는 것이다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이재명 연설 중에 "공동체를 위해 기꺼이 불편을 감수하는 국민"이란 말이 있는데, 이것이 바로 전체주의이다. 전체주의는 공동체의 공동선, 예를 들면 소득 평등 등의 한 가지를 위해 국민 전체가 명령과 지시에 따르는 체제이다. 이재명이 대권을 쥐면, 앞으로 한국이 갈 길이 바로 전체주의라는 것이다. 물론 문죄인도 전체주의적이었지만, 강도가 그리 높지는 않았다. 하지만 이제 이죄명이 정권을 잡으면, 나치와 비견되는 무서운 세상이 올 수도 있다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 연령에 따른 사망율은 2004년 수준이다. 그런데도 정부는 코로나가 1918년의 독감보다 위험하다고 말한다. Age-Adjusted Mortality Is at 2004 Levels. Yet They Tell Us Covid Is Worse Than the 1918 Flu. Ryan McMaken It is important to get some much-needed context when examining a disease which is being used to justify unprecedented increases in state power and violations of human righ https://mises.org/wire/age-adjusted-mortality-2004-levels-yet-they-tell-us-covid-worse-1918-flu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biden Bizarrely Claims That Government Spending Is Costless / 발췌 Richard M. Ebeling 재정적 무지는 자본의 소모로 귀결된다. Ludwig von Mises on the Illogic of Government Spending and Taxing The mindset behind such policies are, tragically, nothing new. More than ninety years ago, in 1930, the Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973), wrote about a similar mentality in his native Austria in the years between the two World Wars. Mises was at that time employed as a senior economic policy analyst for the Vienna Chamber of Commerce, Crafts, and Industry. In that capacity he had a wide and detailed knowledge of the fiscal and regulatory policies of the Austrian government. Mises delivered a talk before the Industrial Club of Vienna in December 1930 on “Adjusting Public Expenditures to the Economy’s Financial Capacity,” (Chapter 26) in which he discussed the mentality seen in the open in Washington, D.C. today. It is, perhaps, worthwhile, therefore, to quote Mises at some length: The errors in our fiscal policy stem from the theoretical misconceptions that dominate public opinion about financial matters. The worst of these misconceptions is the famous, and unfortunately undefeated, idea that the main difference between the state’s and the private sector’s budget is that in the private sector’s budget expenditures have to be based on revenues, while in the public sector’s budget it is the reverse, i.e., the revenue raised must be based on the level of expenditures desired. The illogic of this sentence is evident as soon as it is thought through. There is always a rigid limit of expenditures, namely the scarcity of means. If the means were unlimited, then it would be difficult to understand why expenses should ever have to be curbed. If in the case of the public budget it is assumed that its revenues are based on its expenditures and not the other way around, i.e., that is expenses have to be based on its revenues, the result is the tremendous squandering that characterizes our fiscal policy. The supporters of this principle are so shortsighted that they do not see that it is necessary, when comparing the level of public expenditures with the budgetary expenditures of the private sector, not to ignore the fact that enterprises cannot undertake investments when the required funds are used up instead for public purposes. They only see the benefits resulting from the public expenditures and not the harm the taxing inflicts on the other parts of the national economy … When the taxation of enterprises goes too far, it results in the consumption of capital. To a large extent, this has been the case here in Austria for the last eighteen years. Capital consumption is detrimental not only for the owners of property but for the worker as well. The more unfavorable becomes the quantitative ratio of capital to labor, the lower is the marginal productivity of the work force, and, consequently, the lower are the wages that can be paid. The view that levying taxes on property in any amount does not affect the interests of the masses is just one of the steps leading to the demagogic and false doctrine that it is safe to burden the state with any amount of costs. Fiscal Follies Can Lead to Capital Consumption The following year Mises coauthored a report for the Austrian government that demonstrated that between 1925 and 1929, tax increases and compulsory union wage demands on the Austrian private sector had actually resulted in capital consumption. Private enterprises were unable to maintain the value and physical capacity of their capital. General corporate business taxes were increased by 32 percent, mandatory social insurance payments rose by 50 percent, industrial wages in general had been pushed up by 24 percent, and wages in agriculture by 13 percent, along with higher transportation costs by 15 percent due to various regulatory interventions. At the same time, an index of the prices of manufactured goods bearing these fiscal and labor union burdens had increased only by 4.74 percent. For many segments of the Austrian economy, revenues were not enough to cover the costs of maintaining capital. Austrian society became economically poorer, as a result. The difficulty of fully appreciating how fiscal and related policies can lead to such an extreme situation was also something that Ludwig von Mises drew attention to. Near the end of his famous treatise on Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, he explained: Capital consumption can be detected statistically and can be conceived intellectually, but it is not obvious to everyone. To see the weakness of a policy which raises the consumption of the masses at the cost of existing capital wealth, and thus sacrifices the future to the present, and to recognize the nature of this policy, requires deeper insight than that vouchsafed to statesmen and politicians or to the masses who have put them into power. As long as the walls of the factory buildings stand, and the trains continue to run, it is supposed that all is well with the world. The increasing difficulties of maintaining the higher standard of living are ascribed to various causes, but never to the fact that a policy of capital consumption is being followed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 미국의 규제 사회주의 미국의 민주당이 미국을 조금씩 사회주의화 하고 있다는 것은 주지의 사실이다. 하지만 미국의 공화당과 우파들 역시 규제 분야에서는 사회주의의 확산에 기여해 왔다. The Unlikely Story of American Regulatory Socialism James Broughel Abstract: The conventional wisdom has it that US Democrats and those on the American left support incremental steps in the direction of socialism, if not an all-out endorsement of the concept. However, in at least one area—regulation—Republicans and the American political right have also, albeit unwittingly, spread the seeds of socialism not just in Washington, DC, but all across the world. This article reviews the history of federal regulation in the United States, and in particular the arcane, technical history of cost-benefit analysis (CBA), a tool that has become increasingly central in battles over regulation between the Left and the Right. Although right-wing political operatives latched on to CBA in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the tool has a long, complicated history, aspects of which could even be called socialist in nature. https://cdn.mises.org/qjae_24_1_broughel.pdf ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 경방은 장부경락을 떠나서 말할 수 없다. 说说《伤寒论》对经病 衡阳唐亚军 《伤寒论》按六经分证，三阳病表现为阳性热症，三阴证表现阴性寒症。 “太阳与少阴”、“少阳与厥阴“、”阳明与太阴”为阴阳对应的三组关系外，也对应着表、半表半里、里三组关系。 即太阳与少阴是表证、少阳与厥阴半表半里证、阳明与太阴是里证。 厥阴病是不是半表半里病，到现在很多人仍有异议。所以成了争议最多的一个经病。《伤寒论》关于厥阴病条文最少。既然是六经分证之一，理述上不可能只是简单几句带过。 再个，厥阴主方只有三个，分别是乌梅丸、当归四逆汤和吴茱萸汤。当归四逆汤是厥阴方好理解。但乌梅丸和吴茱萸汤就不好理解了。这二个方是寒热交错的胃肠用方，往胃肠阳虚上靠，怎么理解也是太阴病，而不是厥阴病的用方。 所以根据用药倒推辩厥阴病也不行。 究其原因，还是因为绕不开“厥”字。这是受到《内经》和《伤寒论》条文错杂的影响。有《伤寒论》条文错录的原因，也有《内经》家用内经来解读条文的原因。 其实，很多人是有质疑的。但因为《伤寒论》字字如珠，“尊古敬贤”，学者自认才识疏浅，不敢轻易妄动圣人言。所以这个问题遗至现今，仍无法准确定论。 怎么办？ 得从仲景著书立法上来思考。得“神交”仲景，围绕仲景写书目的，著书大纲来写。分章、分节，用条文逐一论述。大体总得这样来写。这叫把书读活。 对经病，是不能脱离对经来谈的，比如说表证。 表证，是指肺部呼吸道的喷嚏、鼻塞、声重，流涕，发热、咳嗽、咳痰、咽干、咽痒、咽痛或烧灼感。指肌肤的身体的发热、头痛、发热、有汗或无汗、四肢酸痛、头胀如裹、骨节疼痛等。 “太阳与少阴”都是论述表证。太阳证有这些症状好理解，少阴病是不是也有这些症状呢？ 第301条:少阴病，始得之，反发热，脉沉者，麻黄细辛附子汤主之。言之凿凿，是少阴病。临床上，这是治表证感冒的方之一。 为什么是少阴病？ 对比少阴病“麻黄细辛附子汤”和太阳病的“麻黄汤”，我们能感知仲景这样设方的良苦用心。 所以，仲景的六经分证，是将三阳病阳性热症和三阴证阴性寒症，分类而论。按这个思路，就可以很好地理解“桂枝加附子汤”、“桂枝附子汤”都是治少阴病。 太阳与少阴是论述表证对经组，那么“少阳与厥阴“、”阳明与太阴”呢？ 理当如此？ 理当如此 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------