아는 형님이 곧 베네수엘라처럼 된답니다.jpg 보배드림러브조이선 좌표 https://www.bobaedream.co.kr/view?code=best&No=479233&m=1 씹 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 조금전까지 베스트 1위 글인데 대깨문 새끼 존나 웃기넼ㅋㅋㅋㅋ G7 회담이랑 나라 씹창 낸거랑 도대체 무"슨" 상관? 이익실현이 되지도 않고 그냥 집값이 오른 이유로 세금이 3배 됐는데 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 집값 본인이 올린것도 아니고 오르길 바랬는지 안바랬는지도 모르는데 장난치냐고 세금 내기 싫냐 정색 시전 ㄷㄷㄷ 아니 씨발 뭘 이익을 얻어야 세금을 내던 말던하지 가만히 있는데 집값은 오르고 세금 3배를 냈는데 ㅋㅋ 그 와중에 집도 없어서 배아프고 차까지 얻어탄 대깨문새끼 존나 역겹네 여윽시 우덜 이재명이 잘 할꺼랑께 가만 보면 저 성님 완전 배우신분같은데 .... 아따 우덜 더불당은 털어서 먼지 하나 안나오는 깨끗한 당이고 국힘당이 제일 부패한 정당이랑께 ㄷㄷㄷㄷ JTBC, 김어준 뉴스공장이나 쳐 보는새끼가 조선일보같은 뉴스 보냐고 그딴거 믿냐고 성님한테 일침 날리심 식사자리에서 정치얘기하면 집 간다고 협박까지 하고 밥 잘 쳐먹고 감 저 성님은 병신 대깨문새끼랑 더이상 분위기 좆창날까봐 얘기 안한걸 본인이 팩폭 날려서 성님이 아가리 싸문줄 착각함 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ "정치이야기하면 대화 안통하는 사람 은근 많네요" 지 얘기 하고 앉았노 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 이딴 글이 추천수 1400개가 넘는다 진짜 내 주변에 잘먹고 잘사는사람들중에 대깨문 없는데 진짜 이런새끼들 주변에 있으면 개 좆같을꺼 같다 ㄷㄷ.... 이새끼들은 본인이 세뇌당한거 절대 모름 그거 본인들 종특아님? ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 위에서 이명박근혜 최순실 또 나왔는데.. 국짐이 되느니 차라리 베네수엘라, 북한이 되자 ㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 이왕재 교수님 말씀중 이거 다른 일베가이들은 안무서운가? 웃어넘길일이아닙니다2020년 2월 ~ 10월 사이엔 인구가 6600명 줄었는데 2021년 2월 ~ 10월 사이엔 인구가 16만 1000명 줄었다 하버드 대학 논문이랑 이왕재 교수님이 추출한 데이터 통계가 일치하는걸 신기해 할게 아니고 그게 중요한게 아니고 백신때문에 15만명이 8개월 사이에 우리나라에서 사망했다는게.... 너무 무섭고 슬프지 않은가..... 그리고 대한민국 정부는 제약회사로부터 받은 뇌물이 도대체 얼마나 가치가 높았길래 8개월동안 인구가 15만명 줄었는데도 "얼쑤 얼렁 얼렁 백신 맞으쇼 부스터샷 맞으쇼" 하고있는건가... 우리나라 면역계 최고로 불리시는분이 백신 근처에도 안 가셨다.... 다른사람들 왜 백신 못 맞아서 부스터샷 못 맞아서 안달인가....현재까지 확인된 백신팩트 6가지 총정리시나몬파이백신 맞아도 감염됨 백신 맞아도 중증으로 감 백신 맞아도 마스크 계속 써야됨 백신 맞아도 코로나 검사 계속 받음 백신 맞아도 집단면역 불가능 백신 맞아도 계속 백신 맞아야함 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선일보 집에서 체온·산소포화 직접 재야… 의료계 “치료를 국민에 떠넘겨” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 잊혀진 사람 좌파들의 정의와 경제 민주화 속에 잊혀진, 정직하게 성실하게 살아가는 사람들 The Forgotten Man William Graham Sumner The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man. For once let us look him up and consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all the parts of society hold together, and that forces which are set in action act and react throughout the whole organism, until an equilibrium is produced by a readjustment of all interests and rights. They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion—that the state cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man. The friends of humanity start out with certain benevolent feelings toward "the poor," "the weak," "the laborers," and others of whom they make pets. They generalize these classes, and render them impersonal, and so constitute the classes into social pets. They turn to other classes and appeal to sympathy and generosity, and to all the other noble sentiments of the human heart. Action in the line proposed consists in a transfer of capital from the better off to the worse off. Capital, however, as we have seen, is the force by which civilization is maintained and carried on. The same piece of capital cannot be used in two ways. Every bit of capital, therefore, which is given to a shiftless and inefficient member of society, who makes no return for it, is diverted from a reproductive use; but if it was put into reproductive use, it would have to be granted in wages to an efficient and productive laborer. Hence the real sufferer by that kind of benevolence which consists in an expenditure of capital to protect the good-for-nothing is the industrious laborer. The latter, however, is never thought of in this connection. It is assumed that he is provided for and out of the account. Such a notion only shows how little true notions of political economy have as yet become popularized. There is an almost invincible prejudice that a man who gives a dollar to a beggar is generous and kind-hearted, but that a man who refuses the beggar and puts the dollar in a savings bank is stingy and mean. The former is putting capital where it is very sure to be wasted, and where it will be a kind of seed for a long succession of future dollars, which must be wasted to ward off a greater strain on the sympathies than would have been occasioned by a refusal in the first place. Inasmuch as the dollar might have been turned into capital and given to a laborer who, while earning it, would have reproduced it, it must be regarded as taken from the latter. When a millionaire gives a dollar to a beggar the gain of utility to the beggar is enormous, and the loss of utility to the millionaire is insignificant. Generally the discussion is allowed to rest there. But if the millionaire makes capital of the dollar, it must go upon the labor market, as a demand for productive services. Hence there is another party in interest—the person who supplies productive services. There always are two parties. The second one is always the Forgotten Man, and any one who wants to truly understand the matter in question must go and search for the Forgotten Man. He will be found to be worthy, industrious, independent, and self-supporting. He is not, technically, "poor" or "weak"; he minds his own business, and makes no complaint. Consequently the philanthropists never think of him, and trample on him. We hear a great deal of schemes for "improving the condition of the working-man." In the United States the farther down we go in the grade of labor, the greater is the advantage which the laborer has over the higher classes. A hod-carrier or digger here can, by one day's labor, command many times more days' labor of a carpenter, surveyor, book-keeper, or doctor than an unskilled laborer in Europe could command by one day's labor. The same is true, in a less degree, of the carpenter, as compared with the bookkeeper, surveyor, and doctor. This is why the United States is the great country for the unskilled laborer. The economic conditions all favor that class. There is a great continent to be subdued, and there is a fertile soil available to labor, with scarcely any need of capital. Hence the people who have the strong arms have what is most needed, and, if it were not for social consideration, higher education would not pay. Such being the case, the working-man needs no improvement in his condition except to be freed from the parasites who are living on him. All schemes for patronizing "the working classes" savor of condescension. They are impertinent and out of place in this free democracy. There is not, in fact, any such state of things or any such relation as would make projects of this kind appropriate. Such projects demoralize both parties, flattering the vanity of one and undermining the self-respect of the other. For our present purpose it is most important to notice that if we lift any man up we must have a fulcrum, or point of reaction. In society that means that to lift one man up we push another down. The schemes for improving the condition of the working classes interfere in the competition of workmen with each other. The beneficiaries are selected by favoritism, and are apt to be those who have recommended themselves to the friends of humanity by language or conduct which does not betoken independence and energy. Those who suffer a corresponding depression by the interference are the independent and self-reliant, who once more are forgotten or passed over; and the friends of humanity once more appear, in their zeal to help somebody, to be trampling on those who are trying to help themselves. Trade unions adopt various devices for raising wages, and those who give their time to philanthropy are interested in these devices, and wish them success. They fix their minds entirely on the workmen for the time being in the trade, and do not take note of any other workmen as interested in the matter. It is supposed that the fight is between the workmen and their employers, and it is believed that one can give sympathy in that contest to the workmen without feeling responsibility for anything farther. It is soon seen, however, that the employer adds the trade union and strike risk to the other risks of his business, and settles down to it philosophically. If, now, we go farther, we see that he takes it philosophically because he has passed the loss along on the public. It then appears that the public wealth has been diminished, and that the danger of a trade war, like the danger of a revolution, is a constant reduction of the well-being of all. So far, however, we have seen only things which could lower wages—nothing which could raise them. The employer is worried, but that does not raise wages. The public loses, but the loss goes to cover extra risk, and that does not raise wages. A trade union raises wages by restricting the number of apprentices who may be taken into the trade. This device acts directly on the supply of laborers, and that produces effects on wages. If, however, the number of apprentices is limited, some are kept out who want to get in. Those who are in have, therefore, made a monopoly, and constituted themselves a privileged class on a basis exactly analogous to that of the old privileged aristocracies. But whatever is gained by this arrangement for those who are in is won at a greater loss to those who are kept out. Hence it is not upon the masters nor upon the public that trade unions exert the pressure by which they raise wages; it is upon other persons of the labor class who want to get into the trades, but, not being able to do so, are pushed down into the unskilled labor class. These persons, however, are passed by entirely without notice in all the discussions about trade unions. They are the Forgotten Men. But, since they want to get into the trade and win their living in it, it is fair to suppose that they are fit for it, would succeed at it, would do well for themselves and society in it; that is to say, that, of all persons interested or concerned, they most deserve our sympathy and attention. The cases already mentioned involve no legislation. Society, however, maintains police, sheriffs, and various institutions, the object of which is to protect people against themselves—that is, against their own vices. Almost all legislative effort to prevent vice is really protective of vice, because all such legislation saves the vicious man from the penalty of his vice. Nature's remedies against vice are terrible. She removes the victims without pity. A drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be, according to the fitness and tendency of things. Nature has set up on him the process of decline and dissolution by which she removes things which have survived their usefulness. Gambling and other less mentionable vices carry their own penalties with them. Now, we never can annihilate a penalty. We can only divert it from the head of the man who has incurred it to the heads of others who have not incurred it. A vast amount of "social reform" consists in just this operation. The consequence is that those who have gone astray, being relieved from Nature's fierce discipline, go on to worse, and that there is a constantly heavier burden for the others to bear. Who are the others? When we see a drunkard in the gutter we pity him. If a policeman picks him up, we say that society has interfered to save him from perishing. "Society" is a fine word, and it saves us the trouble of thinking. The industrious and sober workman, who is mulcted of a percentage of his day's wages to pay the policeman, is the one who bears the penalty. But he is the Forgotten Man. He passes by and is never noticed, because he has behaved himself, fulfilled his contracts, and asked for nothing. The fallacy of all prohibitory, sumptuary, and moral legislation is the same. A and B determine to be teetotalers, which is often a wise determination, and sometimes a necessary one. If A and B are moved by considerations which seem to them good, that is enough. But A and B put their heads together to get a law passed which shall force C to be a teetotaler for the sake of D, who is in danger of drinking too much. There is no pressure on A and B. They are having their own way, and they like it. There is rarely any pressure on D. He does not like it, and evades it. The pressure all comes on C. The question then arises, Who is C? He is the man who wants alcoholic liquors for any honest purpose whatsoever, who would use his liberty without abusing it, who would occasion no public question, and trouble nobody at all. He is the Forgotten Man again, and as soon as he is drawn from his obscurity we see that he is just what each one of us ought to be. Originally entitled "On the Case of a Certain Man Who Is Never Thought Of," this essay was originally published in 1883, as part of the book What the Social Classes Owe to Each Other. Author: William Graham Sumner William Graham Sumner was one of the founding fathers of American sociology. Although he trained as an Episcopalian clergyman, Sumner went on to teach at Yale University, where he wrote his most influential works. His interests included money and tariff policy, and critiques of socialism, social classes, and imperialism. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 라슨 교수의 오스트리아 경제학 비판, 하지만 그는 정작 오스트리아 경제학을 모르고 있다 This Professor Hates the Austrian School. But He Clearly Doesn't Know Much about It. David Gordon Capitalism vs. Freedom: The Toll Road to Serfdom by Rob Larson Zero Books, 2018, 233 pp. Rob Larson, who is a professor of economics at Tacoma Community College in Washington, does not agree with Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and Friedman that the free market promotes freedom and prosperity and that socialism is the “road to serfdom.” That is an understatement, and you won’t find any understatements in this book. To the contrary, the book abounds in wild accusations. For Larson, the eminent economists just mentioned are more than mistaken: they are criminal deceivers. His principal targets are Friedman and Hayek, but Mises and Rothbard are not spared. He says, This consistent pattern reveals that a number of quite respected Nobel Prize–winning conservative economists, including Friedman and Hayek, are intellectual opportunists. By coincidence, their analysis has bottomless contempt for organized labor … but the giant crimes of the enormous greater power of organized capital are studiously ignored. This puts Friedman and Hayek closer to other figures who have used their formidable intellects to defend other cruel power systems. (p. 48. All references are to the Amazon Kindle edition.) Faced with terrible people like this, there is no need to read them carefully. Why waste your time doing so on intellectual criminals? And Larson does not waste his time. He says, “But more than Friedman and even more than Rand, the bar for capitalist worship was set by Ludwig von Mises, who is conceived to be the founder [sic] of the highly conservative Austrian school of economics, to which Hayek and Rothbard belong. Mises wrote about the ‘creative genius’ of wealthy entrepreneurs” (pp. 13–14). Larson then quotes a passage from Human Action about the “creative genius,” but Mises is not talking there about entrepreneurs but of people like Beethoven who are so driven by the urge to create that they never stop working. More generally, I don’t think that Larson knows much about the Austrian school, and I suspect Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, and Wieser would agree with me. Even if he doesn’t, though, his main thesis is worth considering. He says, in effect, “Defenders of the market like Friedman claim that it frees people from arbitrary power. Competing firms block exploitation; if a firm paid a worker below what he was worth, other firms would offer more. Friedman contrasts the market with central planning, where everyone must conform or else. What this ignores is that capitalism isn’t run by small, competing firms but dominated by gigantic corporations that rule us.” To his credit, Larson recognizes an answer to his complaint: “Each case is unique in its details and in many cases the right-wing view of this issue, based on ‘crony capitalism,’ is relevant. Crony capitalism describes a nominal market economy, but one with monopoly, oligopoly or other concentrated structures, because industries were put in the hands of allies or ‘cronies’ of the state regime” (p. 125). But if defenders of the free market say that they don’t favor crony capitalism and are thus immune to Larson’s accusation that they “ignore the giant crimes of organized capital,” they are intellectual opportunists. “[A]ll historical evidence shows that capital concentrates with economic growth and monopolies arise in free-market settings, quite consistently” (p. 126). I hope that you noticed the key word in the last quotation: “historical.” Larson offers no theoretical account that the free market leads inevitably to monopoly. He mentions economies of scale, network effects, and other factors that tend to increase the size of firms, but he presents no argument that these factors tend always or even for the most part to result in control of an industry by large firms. To the contrary, he simply describes large companies like Amazon and Walmart and wrings his hands in horror. Another problem escapes Larson’s attention, owing to his ignorance of the Austrian school. His challenge to Friedman is that much of the economy doesn’t consist of a large number of very small firms. In the Austrian view, though, an abundance of small firms, each without significant influence on the market price, isn’t required for competition. All firms, large and small, compete for the consumers’ “dollar votes,” and the market prices that result from this process aren’t judged by the artificial standards of the perfect competition model. Larson doesn’t like the “dollar votes” idea either. He objects that the wealthy have more votes than the poor. Larson quotes “radical Left economist Robin Hahnel”: “‘It is not one person one vote but one dollar one vote in the market place…. Few would hold up as a paragon of freedom a political election in which some were permitted to vote thousands of times and others were permitted to vote only once, or not at all.’ But this is exactly the kind of freedom the market provides” (p. 24). What this complaint overlooks is that, unlike in political elections, there aren’t just one or a few winners, and even if the rich have more votes than the poor, this does not entail that only the commodities that they want will be produced. Everyone can be satisfied, so long as there is sufficient demand for a product to make it profitable to make it available. Furthermore, one of the points Larson most stresses tells against his criticism of consumer sovereignty. He again and again emphasizes that the rich are a small minority; but if that is true, the poor are in the majority and their dollars votes “add up.” As Mises often says, “capitalism is mass production for the masses.” Suppose, though, that all my criticisms so far of Larson are wrong and that the free market is a terrible system that exploits the poor. We still need to ask him what he wants to put in its place. His answer once more suffers from his unwillingness or inability to deal with Austrian economics. In response to Hayek, who argued that central planning is a “road to serfdom,” he says that his brand of socialism isn’t based on central planning. Instead, it features democratic control by workers. “But of course a decent standard of living requires a great deal of coordination with other workplaces, to keep necessary goods and services flowing through their often long production chains in a reasonably efficient fashion. This communication across industries is enormously helped by today’s sophisticated telecommunications technology, which could also allow different workforces to collaborate together to satisfy an agreed-upon plan” (p. 194). How are the workers supposed to do this? Larson offers no discussion at all of Mises’s fundamental point that economic calculation in a complex modern economy can take place only though market prices, and that without such prices the economy would collapse into chaos. Conferences among workers, even those equipped with the latest “telecommunications technology,” won’t solve the calculation problem. Larson thinks that the critics of socialism have wrongly concentrated on central planning, but if he reads Mises’s account of syndicalism in Socialism, he will discover that Mises is well aware of proposals of the type he favors. I’m reluctant to recommend that Larson do this, though, because he seems unable to read Mises without distortion, and I’ll conclude with one more instance of this. Quoting a passage from The Anti-capitalistic Mentality, Larson says that “Mises attributed socialist movements to emotions of envy and resentment” (p. 195). If you look up the passage, it turns out that Mises is talking about the worker who feel dissatisfied because of people “who have succeeded where he failed,” not the socialist movement. Evidently, accurate quotation isn’t needed when dealing with an “intellectual opportunist” like Mises. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------