중앙일보 [단독] 기재부 "기본소득 주려면 부가세 10→39%로 올려야" mp5s**** 돌대가리 운동권의 공산주의 실험을 도대체 언제까지 보고 있어야 합니까? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선일보 2+2=4 강요는 인종차별적? 수학 꼴찌권 미국은 지금 이런 논쟁 중 캘리포니아 주 “2+2=4라는 정확한 답 적시는 인종차별적일 수 있어” --->우리는 지금 무서운 사회로, 또는 매우 코미디적인 사회로 나아가고 있다. 좌파들의 미친 짓 덕분에 코미디언들이 필요없는 세상이 되었다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [단독] 정부, 삼성 이재용에게 요소수 협력 요청 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ ---> 백신도 이재용, 요소수도 이재용? 정부는 뭐하고 있는거야? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 바람피는 마누라 증거사진찍었다면 성폭력범죄!! 여자가입던빤쓰삽니다 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11377077812 눈앞에서 마누라가 다른남자랑 섹스하고있으면 그냥 가만히 있어야됨. 증거사진같은거찍으면 범죄인 나라. --->법이 하나둘 무너지고 있다. 법이 무너지면 사회는 존립할 수가 없다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이제 암걸리면 죽어야됨. feat문재인케어 일뽕과국뽕 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11377054098 https://n.news.naver.com/article/081/0003228177?cds=news_my 문재인 20년 모아둔 건강보험료 싹다탕진하고 몇년치 빚까지 만들어둔 상태인데 이번에 항암치료 약들 슬쩍 비급여(보험x)로 빼버림 3주치에 30만원 하던 약 이제 570만원 주고사야함 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Elysee / 일베 댓글 영상은 말할 것도 없고 코로나, 백신 관련 (뉴스) 영상 댓글창에 코로나와 백신 관련 팩트만 썼는데도 실시간으로 계속 급삭제시키도록 AI를 설정해놓음 소름 그 자체! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 내년에 일어날 미스테리 천기누설하고간다 한깨는블라한다 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11377120019 1. 스테그 플레이션 2. 부동산 폭락 2. 비트코인 1억7천까지오름 3. 백신패스도입 4.이재명 당선 5. 생체이식 칩 형태 주민등록증 백신접종증 발급 5. 휘발류값 3천5백원 까지오름 6. 식료품 값 60퍼센트 상승 7. 북한이 개발한 신약으로 이슈가 있을예정 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [에피SO-D] 윤석열이 사면을 한다고요? 지나가는 개가 웃습니day / 문다혜 적와대 무상거주? 경제공동체이자 국고손실죄 세담TV [세상을 담다] https://youtu.be/7TAIdQ-MSSU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 도 넘은 친중(親中), 대한민국은 역차별로 신음 누가 친중을 하는가? "지나친 정부의 친중 정책에 역차별로 신음하는 대한민국 국민" http://www.fntoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=265278 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 《湘女萧萧》/ Married to A Child 富家童养媳爱上下人长工 2岁男童被“绿”了 https://youtu.be/rwZ0wnsK_r4 --->션종원沈从文의 단편소설《萧萧》를 원작으로 만든 영화. 1986년 만들었다고 하는데, 너무 놀랐다. 작가가 소설을 쓸때 구체적인 상황을 잘 묘사해야 현실감이 들고 감정이입을 하게 된다. 영화나 드라마는 화면을 하나하나 쌓아가서 소설의 묘사와 같이 상황을 만들어간다. 그러니까 화면 하나하나를 얼마나 정교히 배치하느냐가 우선은 가장 중요하다. 그런데 이 감독은 정성들여 소설보다(?) 더 정교하게 시골의 풍경을 묘사한 듯하다. 100점 만점에 97점 정도의 수작이다. 배경은 20세기 초이고, 내용은 우리의 꼬마 신랑과 비슷한데, 좀 비극적인 꼬마 신랑이다. 2살짜리 신랑과 결혼한 여자 아이가 집안의 하인과 눈이 맞아 임신을 하게 된고 파탄에 이르는 영화이다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 풀러 교수가 쓴 <공짜 점심은 없다> 서평 풀러 교수가 쓴 <공짜 점심은 없다>는 경제학상의 6가지 거짓말을 해부해 그 진상을 널리 알리는 책이다. 그는 맨 처음 바스티아의 <깨진 유리창 이야기>로 기회 비용을 설명한다. 그는 다음으로 기회 비용을 이용해 근본적인 질문에 답한다. 즉 경제의 자원은 언제나 결핍 상태이고, 그것을 배분하는 가장 좋은 방법은 가격 시스템이라는 것이다. 즉 상품에 대한 수요가 늘어나면 가격이 오르고, 시장에서는 그 높은 가격에도 불구하고 그 가치를 가장 높게 여기는 사람에게 상품이 돌아가게 된다. 쌍방이 교환으로 해서 이익을 얻는다고 생각할 때 교환이 일어나므로, 모든 교역은 세상을 더 부유하게 한다. 자본가가 노동자를 착취한다고 하는데, 바보가 아닌 이상 노동자들은 노동을 통해 자신이 이익을 얻는다고 생각하므로 계약에 동의하는 것이다. Why There Is No Free Lunch David Gordon No Free Lunch: Six Economic Lies You’ve Been Taught and Probably Believe by Caleb S. Fuller Freiling Publishing, 2021. 110 pp. Caleb Fuller, an economist who teaches at Grove City College, thinks that many people have a mistaken conception of economics. It is, they think, a dull and dry subject, the “dismal science,” of primary interest to specialists. Fuller disagrees. He says that “economics changed my life” (p. 11; all page references are to the Amazon Kindle edition), and in this wonderful short book, which can be read in an hour or so, he conveys his infectious enthusiasm for it. What is the reason for his enthusiasm? Fuller says that he can provide readers with “a pair of eyeglasses that can extend our vision beyond where we’re accustomed to looking” (p. 12), and this is the “opportunity cost lens.” (One wonders how a pair of eyeglasses can be at the same time a lens, but this is a quibble.) By using this lens properly, readers will be able to unmask six common fallacies that exercise a malign influence on current thought. In carrying out his project, he follows Frédéric Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt, and he is a worthy successor of them, whom he calls “economics’ greatest communicators” (p. 12). Before turning to opportunity cost and its use in exposing fallacies, I will note one point of usage. Fuller often calls the fallacies “lies,” meaning by this that they are untrue; but although some people use the word in this way, I think it better to reserve “lies” for deliberate misstatements, so that someone who wrongly believes one of the fallacies is true would not count as a liar if he stated his belief. But this is by the way. Opportunity cost, he tells us, “is the value of the alternative you sacrifice when you choose to pursue a goal—any goal. Put another way, opportunity cost is the flip side of any choice you make” (p. 22). Fuller first uses opportunity cost to explain Bastiat’s famous “parable of the broken window.” In the story, a “teenage vandal” (could one say that today?) has thrown a brick through a shopkeeper’s window. A passerby suggests that he is really a public benefactor in that the shopkeeper will now have to pay a glazier to replace his window and the glazier will spend the money he receives, increasing the community’s prosperity. What the passerby overlooks is that had the window not been broken, the shopkeeper would have spent his money on other things. The passerby has ignored the shopkeeper’s opportunity cost. The community has not gained, but lost, because a resource, namely the window, has been destroyed. Few people would call the teenager a public benefactor, but many have been ensnared by the fallacy. It’s often claimed, for example, that government spending on weapons during World War II ended the Great Depression, but in the absence of war, the money would have been spent on other things, and the war in fact lowered the standard of living of civilians. Fuller next applies opportunity cost to answer a fundamental question. Resources in an economy are scarce, “in limited supply and also desirable” (p. 32). How are they to be allocated? The price system is by far the best way to do this; it is “humankind’s greatest invention” (p. 33). If the quantity demanded of a good exceeds the available supply, its price will rise, and the good will go to those who value it the most, i.e., offer a higher price than competing buyers. Many people resent this system—why should scarce goods go to the rich rather than the poor?—and seek a “free lunch” by forcing prices down. Fuller says there is no such thing as a free lunch and, to illustrate his point, offers an excellent and detailed account of the failures of rent control. Often, for example, landlords will respond to laws that compel them to offer apartments at below the market price by refusing or delaying repairs. By reducing the quality of the apartment, they “simply let the housing quality adjust until it matches the new, lower price they are forced to charge” (p. 42). He says that the “fact that lunch isn’t free is an economic law that was true in 2021 B.C., around the time Hammurabi declared price controls” (p. 44). The date is a few hundred years off, but one gets what he means. The behavior of the landlords in response to rent control is an instance of a more general principle. Good intentions by lawmakers often fail to achieve the desired outcomes, because “virtually all public policies alter the relationship between costs and benefits. When the benefits of an action change relative to an action’s opportunity cost, people’s actions also change. And when people change their actions, they may do so in a way that works at cross-purposes with a public policy’s noble intentions” (p. 48). As an example, after the 9/11 attacks, the Transportation Security Administration security measures raised the opportunity costs of flying, since people after that had to wait much longer in line. As a result, some shifted to automobile travel. But fatal accidents are much more likely to occur in cars than airplanes, and one estimate is that because of the TSA’s policies, “327 additional automobile deaths occurred monthly for the last quarter of 2001” (p. 52). The price system, so much stressed by Fuller, depends on a fundamental principle, that exchange takes place only when both parties to it expect to benefit. “Thus every trade makes the world wealthier because both parties gain, even as exchange only switches who owns what property titles” (p. 60). Though the point seems when stated to be obvious—why else would you make an exchange if you did not expect to gain from it?—it has often been overlooked, and Aristotle among many others thought an exchange takes place when the good is equally valued by both parties. If you understand that exchange benefits both parties, you will see what is wrong with criticisms of agreements between owners of “sweatshops” and those workers who voluntarily work in them, under what seems to us harsh conditions and poor pay. The employers are not exploiting the workers; the conditions are to them an improvement. You do not exploit people by offering them jobs, even if you could have made them an offer they would have found even more desirable. It is worth noting, and in doing so I do not mean to suggest that Fuller has not seen this, that the view that in an exchange one party gains at the expense of another is inconsistent not only with the “both parties benefit” view but also with the “exchange as equality” position. The elaborate efforts of Karl Marx to reconcile labor exploitation and equality in exchange manifest the intellectual bankruptcy of his thought. The mutual benefits of exchange apply to all exchanges, not just ones by the residents of one country, though many people find this extraordinarily hard to see. Foreign trade extends the advantages of specialization and the division of labor, and attempts to limit it reduce consumer welfare. If it is objected that workers displaced by foreign competition are worse off, Fuller’s reply is that to use this point in support of tariffs is an instance of the broken window fallacy. Tariffs raise production costs, leading employers to reduce offers of employment, and these unseen lost jobs need to be set against the losses to domestic workers that are so much emphasized in anti–free trade propaganda. Free trade also promotes peace because trading partners benefit from each other’s continued well-being. “If goods don’t cross borders, armies will,” an adage that comes not from Bastiat but from a “somewhat obscure nineteenth-century economist, Otto T. Mallery” (p. 86), but is true nonetheless. Fuller concludes with a convincing rejoinder to the claim that the government needs to regulate markets. Otherwise, it is claimed, businesses would be tempted to take advantage of their customers through inferior service and fraud. If, for example, a restaurant serves you monkfish, the “poor man’s lobster” (p. 91), instead of the genuine article you had ordered, won’t it make a profit? Not if it wants you back as a customer. “The ‘shadow of the future’ looms over every exchange like a specter threatening to take away future profits. But you need to be wearing your economic eyeglasses to see that far ahead” (p. 93). No Free Lunch is an ideal book for introductory economics classes and for anyone who wants to understand how the free market works. It would be a good test to see if you understand the book to explain why the lesson summarized in the book’s title is consistent with the fact that the book is, at least as of this writing, available on Amazon Kindle for free. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------