대전 삼성의원 오순영박사.(펌) ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ 코로나 범유행은 바이러스가 사라져야 끝나는 것이 아니고, 방역이 사라져야 끝납니다. 감시와 통제를 중지하고 마스크를 벗어야 끝납니다. 백신 접종 중단해야 끝납니다. 이런 말 하면 ‘무슨 개소리를 하느냐’ ‘미친 거 아니냐. ‘의사 맞냐.’고 하는 분이 있을 겁니다. 개소리라고 해도 좋고 의사가 아니라고 해도 좋습니다. 더한 욕을 해도 좋습니다. 여러분, 우리는 지금 현재 벌어지고 있는 사실을 있는 그대로 해석해야 합니다. 진실이라는 것은 있는 것을 있다고 하는 것입니다. 마스크를 아무리 쓰고 다니고, 백신을 70% 이상이 맞았는데도 확진자는 계속 나오고 있습니다. 이것은 백신과 마스크가 효과가 없다는 뜻입니다. 의학적 지식이 없어도 누구나 명백하게 알 수 있는 진실입니다. 또 백신 접종 후 사망자가 하루 4명꼴로 나오고 있다는 것도 있는 사실이기에 진실입니다. 그런데 이성, 합리적 사고가 제대로 작동하지 않아 있는 사실조차 믿지 않습니다. 미디어의 영향이 크고, 대중의 공통된 견해가 진실이라는 잘못된 생각이 만연해 있기 때문입니다. 그리고 진실은 시간적으로 언제나 과거에 존재합니다. 미래는 진실이 될 수가 없습니다. 이점을 분명히 알고 있어야 합니다. 백신을 맞으면 면역된다는 말은 가정일 뿐 진실이 아닙니다. 백신을 맞아도 코로나에 걸렸다가 진실입니다. 전염병의 역사를 고찰해보면 모든 전염병이 어느 날 갑자기 나타나서 종모양의 그래프를 그리고 소멸 했다는 것을 알 수 있습니다. 모든 생명체의 생활사가 그런 것과 똑같습니다. 이런 종모양의 그래프를 그리지 않는 전염병은 있을 수 없으며, 있다면 자연의 법칙을 어긴 것, 즉 인간의 조작입니다. 코로나가 그렇습니다. 성장을 했다가 정점을 찍은 후 소멸해야 하는 것이 자연법칙인데, 코로나는 이런 자연법칙을 따르지 않고 있습니다. 인간의 조작이 개입되지 않았으면 결코 없을 일입니다. 코로나가 자연법칙에 따라 소멸하도록 내버려 두어야 합니다. 사람들에게 자연면역이 생기도록 내버려 두어야 합니다. 집단적으로 방역하려고 하지 말고 개인적으로 치료해야 합니다. 조작을 중지해야 합니다. 관료, 정부, 공무원들은 비상사태를 통해 권력을 행사하고픈 유혹을 버려야 합니다. 감시하고 통제하고 명령하고 판정을 내리는 위치에 있는 것이 주는 우월감을 버려야 합니다. 정치적인 약점이 있는 권력자는 전염병을 이용해 약점을 타개하고픈 유혹을 이겨내야합니다. 우리 국민은 코로나보다 방역으로 더 큰 피해를 입었습니다. 수많은 사람들이 백신으로 죽고 병들었으며 고통을 받았습니다. 수많은 사람들이 경제적 타격을 입었습니다. 정치는 사라졌고 명령과 통제가 사회를 지배하고 있으며, 모든 사람들이 마스크를 착용하는 획일화 사회가 되어 버렸습니다. 경제적, 육체적, 심리적 피해가 막대합니다. 이것이 다 누구의 책임입니까? 3차 접종을 해야 하냐고 어느 환자분이 묻기에 화가 나서 글을 쓰게 되었습니다. 여러분 대체 얼마나 당해야 정신을 차리실 겁니까? 3차, 4차, 5차 까지 맞으라고 하면 다 맞을 겁니까? 마스크 계속 쓰고 다니라고 하면 계속 쓰고 다닐 겁니까? 여러분은 감옥에 갇힌 죄수가 아닙니다. 여러분은 자유인입니다. 왜 당국이 무엇이든 할 수 있는 막대한 권력을 휘두르게 내버려두면서 억울하게 죽음을 당하고 막대한 피해를 당하고 있습니까? --->시원하게 잘 썼다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (재업) 전두환 전 대통령이 광주살인마로 누명쓴 과정을 알아보자.jpg 양면괘지 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11379613813 김대중(평민당)은 국회교섭단체 대표연설에서 5.18 광주사태의 진압과 관련해 전두환에게 책임이 있다고 말했고, 청문회에서 이철용 의원(평민당)은 "살인마"라고 소리를 지르며 증언을 하고 있던 전두환에게 달려들었다. 그러한 과정이 생중계되면서 상당수 국민은 5.18 광주사태의 책임이 전두환 전 대통령에게 있는것으로 오해하게 되었다. 그 결과 일부 국민은 여전히 전두환 전 대통령을 살인마라고 생각하고 그런 표현을 서슴지 않는다. 그러자 이제까지 밝혀진 바로는 5.18 광주사태 당시 발포와 전두환 전 대통령은 직접적인 관계가 없다. 이미 5공 특위와 청문회에서 발포와 관련된 내용이 대부분 밝혀졌다. 출처 박정희 독재와 민주화 운동 그 실체와 허구성(저자 이진호) 제443페이지 3줄 요약 1. 전두환은 광주 5.18 진압에 책임이 없다(당시 이희성 계엄사령관이1996년 대신 감옥에 갔다) 2. 김대중, 이철용 의원의 책임이 있다고 이진호는 분석함 3. 그러니 속지말자 ---->전두환이 김대중의 정권 탈취를 저지한 것은 잘했다. 하지만 그는 준비없이, 아무 미래 전망도 없이 대통령이 되었기 때문에, 한국의 발전에 크게 기여한 게 별로 없다. 그의 치세 기간에 경제가 크게 성장했는데, 사실 그건 박정희 대통령 때 다져놓은 기계 및 중화학 부문 투자가 큰 몫을 했다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why Times 정세분석 1149] 남중국해 난장판 만든 중국, 美-필리핀 분노폭발(2021.11.22) 정세분석] 남중국해 난장판 만든 중국, 美-필리핀 분노폭발 -필리핀 "中 함정, 우리 수역서 보급선에 물대포 쏴" -중국의 불법적 행동에 미국, 강력 경고 -미국-일본, 남중국해서 잠수함 훈련하며 중국 압박 https://youtu.be/FLdnKJY06iU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "생활비도 부족한데 빚내서 종부세 내라는 거냐?"..국민들 단단히 뿔났다 디지털타임스 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 조선일보 101세 철학자 “우리가 옳으니 따르라, 이런 나라선 국민은 노예” --->백번 옳은 말 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 분석) 종부세는 세금의 문제가 아니다. 노예국가로 가는 계단, 세금폭탄, 2%와 98% 계층갈등을 조장하는 이유 시대정신 연구소 https://youtu.be/FVdCNAhS7S8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 좋은 인플레란 없다 대부분의 ‘전문가’들은 인플레가 해롭다는데 동의한다. 하지만 일부 좌파들은 부자들의 부를 서민들에게 이전하기 때문에, 인플레가 좋은 거라고 믿는다. 좌파 매체인 <인터셉트>에 글을 기고한 존 슈아즈Jon Schwarz에 따르면, 채권자의 부를 채무자에게 이전시키기 때문에 인플레가 좋은 거라고 한다. 물론 여기서 채무자들은 인구의 99%를 차지하는 다수이다. 하지만 최근 초인플레 사태를 겪었던 베네수엘라나 짐바브웨를 보면, 좌파들의 주장대로 인플레가 서민들에게 그런 혜택을 주었는지 매우 의심스럽다. 독일 초인플레 사태를 보면 인플레가 빚의 가치를 낮추는 건 맞다. 그래서 초인플레 사태 이후에 독일 채무자들은 쓸모없는 지폐 덩어리를 채권자의 코 앞에 던져놓았다. 그런데 이런 논리는 헬리콥터에서 돈을 뿌렸는데, 모든 사람들이 똑같은 액수의 돈을 주어서, 소득이 늘고, 서민들의 소득은 부자들보다 더 큰 비율로 오른다는 것과 같다. 하지만 실제로 인플레는 그런 식으로 작용하지 않는다. 하지만 오스트리아 경제학에 따르면, 인플레가 일어났을 때, 맨처음 신권을 만진 사람이 이득을 보고, 차차 뒤로 가면서 나중에 돈을 받은 사람들은 손해를 본다. 먼저 돈을 받은 사람들이 시장에 나가 돈을 쓰면 인플레가 되고, 후발 주자들은 인플레 된 가격으로 상품을 구입해야 하기 때문이다. 따라서 좌파들의 생각과는 달리, 서민들이 높은 물가로 인해 인플레의 고통을 받게 된다. 그리고 빌 게이프나 베조스가 주가 상승으로 오히려 부가 늘어나는 것처럼, 부자들은 인플레로 이익을 본다. No, Inflation Is Not Good for You William L. Anderson With the recent rise in inflation—with subsequent increases in both consumer and producer price levels—one suspects that sooner or later people on the left either would downplay it or find a way to spin the bad news into something positive like an alchemist would want to spin straw into gold. Both accounts have arrived, thanks to the New York Times and the hard-left publication, The Intercept. The various accounts in the Times hardly are surprising, given the link the paper has to the nation’s political, economic, and academic elites, and given that these are the people that have created the inflation problem in the first place. Not surprisingly, the NYT “experts” (because progressives believe that the “experts” always have the right answers) are playing down the latest spikes as temporary and related to current issues of supply and demand, not any unprecedented increases in the nation’s money supply. We should not be surprised that the NYT’s resident economic “expert,” Paul Krugman, has debunked any worries of inflation and especially inflation over the long term, instead likening the current price spikes to what happened after World War II ended and the economy moved from one dedicated to total war to one producing capital and consumption goods. Likewise, President Joe Biden is touting an endorsement of his “Build Back Better” initiatives by a number of Nobel economics winners who have claimed the proposed programs included in the legislation would reduce inflation. (One should not forget that while Krugman is a Nobel recipient, his NYT columns go well beyond any economic analysis, establishing him as little more than a partisan political shill.) There is an important point to be made here: all of these “experts” are willing to say they believe inflation is a problem for most people and the disagreement isn’t so much about the real and potential harm inflation brings, but rather the duration of the current spikes. However, there also exists among radical progressives a belief that inflation actually is a good thing because, in their minds, it transfers wealth from the rich to the poor. The first time I saw this theme was in an article by the Marxist journalist Alexander Cockburn, who at one time had a regular column in the Wall Street Journal. Writing about the alleged “Hitler Diaries” supposedly unearthed in the early 1980s (and later exposed as forgeries), Cockburn said if one actually could mine Hitler’s thoughts, they would find that he didn’t see the hyperinflation that ravaged Germany in the 1920s as any kind of a threat, and that it actually was good for the economy. (I’m writing from memories, as I have not been able find this column in the WSJ archives.) Cockburn has been dead for nearly a decade, but the radical publication The Intercept is taking his place when it comes to inflation. In the article “Inflation is Good for You,” we find that inflation is not a nuisance, nor does it do real economic harm. Instead, according to the author, Jon Schwarz, inflation is a good thing because it transfers wealth from creditors to debtors, and debtors fall into the so-called 99 percent. He writes: And what’s happening is this: The inflation freakout is all about class conflict. In fact, it may be the fundamental class conflict: that between creditors and debtors, a fight that’s been going on since the foundation of the United States. That’s because inflation is often good for most of us, but it’s terrible for the kinds of people who own corporate news outlets—or, say, founded coal firms. Schwarz continues: First, inflation lessens the real value of debt. In 2020, American households had around $14.5 trillion in debt from their mortgages, credit cards, student loans, and other sources. Inflation of 6.2 percent means that the real value of that $14.5 trillion is now just $13.65 trillion in last year’s dollars. In other words, the inflation over the past year has effectively transferred $850 billion in wealth from creditors to debtors. That’s a lot of money. Most people are a mixture of creditors (e.g., you have a bank account) and debtors (you have a mortgage and student loans). But overall, this $850 billion has generated a big check written by the tippy-top of the income scale to everyone else. And as you’d expect, the people at the tippy-top don’t like this. Second, inflation generally accompanies economic booms, when the unemployment rate is low and workers have the market power to demand higher pay. That’s what’s happening now: As prices increased 6.2 percent over the past year, wages for regular people went up 5.8 percent. In other words, inflation barely touched their purchasing power. And with almost 300 labor strikes in the U.S. so far this year, workers are leveraging their power to demand better compensation at historic rates. So while inflation can be a significant problem for workers if they don’t get it back in higher paychecks, that seems unlikely today. Moreover, the median American recently had about $65,000 in debt. And while inflation has reduced the real value of each dollar of wages—in other words, its worth relative to tangible things—it’s done the same to the real value of each dollar of debt. Workers who get raises will have more dollars to pay off the same dollar amount of debt. Put these two things together—lowered values for their assets and higher wages for workers—and you can understand why the rich people who run the U.S. absolutely detest inflation. This is what one might call a “Yes, you really did mean that” moment much like readers experienced nearly forty years ago when Cockburn praised Germany’s hyperinflation. For that matter, we can point to the recent examples of hyperinflation in Venezuela and Zimbabwe, neither of which can be reinterpreted as having provided the lower-income masses with anything but lower real incomes. (Surprisingly—or perhaps not surprisingly—Schwarz does not mention either country.) On the surface, one might think The Intercept has a valid point. After all, inflation really does deleverage debt that is based upon fixed interest rates, and during the Germany hyperinflation, many debtors were able to dump piles of worthless money upon creditors’ desks, paying off their loans. Furthermore, if the legitimate explanation for what happens with inflation were limited to the quantity theory of money, then inflation would be a good thing for anyone owing money, since under this theory, incomes rise immediately with prices, so at worst, most people are temporarily inconvenienced by rising prices. Picture this theory as being based upon the imaginary event of someone throwing new money from a helicopter, with each person grabbing an amount of money that increases all incomes simultaneously by the same percent. Someone who earns $20,000 a year grabs $2,000 while someone earning $200,000 grabs $20,000. Such a scenario would result in growing absolute income inequality with each new round of inflation and immediately undermines the leftist claims that inflation “helps” lower-income people, not that leftists ever would admit it. The only other scenario is that everyone catches the same amount of money, so that while everyone sees an increase in their money income, low-income people see their incomes go up by a greater percentage—if that is how inflation really works. But it is clear inflation does not work like that, but only the Austrians have presented an accurate picture of how incomes rise during bouts of inflation, and there is no helicopter in sight. In Man, Economy, and State Murray N. Rothbard points out that inflation begins with expansion of bank credit through the fractional reserve system and the transmission mechanism determines how incomes will be gained from there. He writes: Credit expansion has, of course, the same effect as any sort of inflation: prices tend to rise as the money supply increases. Like any inflation, it is a process of redistribution, whereby the inflators, and the part of the economy selling to them, gain at the expense of those who come last in line in the spending process. This is the charm of inflation—for the beneficiaries—and the reason why it has been so popular, particularly since modern banking processes have camouflaged its significance for those losers who are far removed from banking operations. The gains to the inflators are visible and dramatic; the losses to others hidden and unseen, but just as effective for all that. Just as half the economy are taxpayers and half tax-consumers, so half the economy are inflation-payers and the rest inflation-consumers. He continues: For the new monetary equilibrium will not simply be the old one multiplied in all relations and quantities by the addition to the money supply. This was an assumption that the old “quantity theory” economists made. The valuations of the individuals making temporary gains and losses will differ. Therefore, each individual will react differently to his gains and losses and alter his relative spending patterns accordingly. Moreover, the new money will form a high ratio to the existing cash balance of some and a low ratio to that of others, and the result will be a variety of changes in spending patterns. Therefore, all prices will not have increased uniformly in the new equilibrium; the purchasing power of the monetary unit has fallen, but not equi-proportionally over the entire array of exchange-values. Since some prices have risen more than others, therefore, some people will be permanent gainers, and some permanent losers, from the inflation. Particularly hard hit by an inflation, of course, are the relatively “fixed” income groups, who end their losses only after a long period or not at all. Pensioners and annuitants who have contracted for a fixed money income are examples of permanent as well as short-run losers. Life insurance benefits are permanently slashed. Conservative anti-inflationists’ complaints about “the widows and orphans” have often been ridiculed, but they are no laughing matter nevertheless. For it is precisely the widows and orphans who bear a main part of the brunt of inflation. Also suffering losses are creditors who have already extended their loans and find it too late to charge a purchasing-power premium on their interest rates. As Rothbard notes, the wealth transfers occur when people first in line to receive the new injections of money are able to spend at the old prices, while those who are further back on the receiving chain will be the ones continually falling behind, as they purchase goods at their new prices. Contra Schwarz, one can be assured that lower-income people will be at the bottom of the inflation food chain. Furthermore, as Henry Hazlitt writes in Economics in One Lesson, the wealthy-as-the-creditors-and-everyone-else-as-debtors story does not stand up to scrutiny. First, and most important, the incessant money pumping from the Federal Reserve System coupled with its suppression of interest rates has benefitted the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else. Take billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, for example. The vast amount of the official wealth owned by these men is in Amazon and Microsoft stock, respectively, and we have seen a large increase in stock prices due to Fed policies. Middle-class people, on the other hand, historically have increased their wealth through saving, whether it be done through bank time deposits, money market certificates, or corporate and municipal bonds, making them creditors. Fed policies have severely limited these options, driving investments into equities, and many middle-class people who are not sophisticated investors find it difficult to navigate the wild swings in stock prices that have come with inflation-driven asset bubbles. These bubbles have wildly inflated stock prices, enriching those whose income is driven by stock price increases and widening the wealth gaps in the economy. Whatever temporary gains many workers are experiencing with higher wages, the euphoria is not likely to last long. Furthermore, one doubts that this current bout of inflation is as temporary as Paul Krugman recently claimed. The US economy more and more seems to be running on empty and this means that monetary authorities are going to pump even more new money into the system. Don’t count on this being a windfall for anyone but the wealthiest among us. William L. Anderson is a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------