강원일보 이재명 "전국민 재난지원금 추가 지급 적극추진…국가부채비율 장애안돼" 김 총리 "당장 재정은 여력이 없다"…당정 갈등 표면화 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 북한 통일전선부 이재명 당선의 긴급 비밀지령 하달! 정성산 티비 https://youtu.be/LwZTT6q056I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 부스터샷 결정 앞두고…FDA 최고 백신 전문가 2명 사임, 왜 중앙일보 백신 관련 CDC나FDA가 존나 병신인 이유 Wtfuckk http://www.ilbe.com/view/11375936995 백신 초기 부스터샷 결정을 앞두고 FDA 백신담당 최고 실력자 실장,부실장 두명이 돌연 사임해버림 이유는? CDC및ACIP 위원회에서 FDA의 영역을 침범하고 있기때문 특히 백신에 대해서 백악관이 목표를 설정하면 과학을 앞서 나가고 있다라고 주장 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선일보 靑 대변인 “교황 따뜻한 나라 출신” 발언에, 美방송 “아르헨 스키장 있는 거 아나” --->박경미라는 수학자가 대변인이 되더니, 저 따위 말로 국민을 우롱하고 있다. 수학 좀 한다고 자신이 제법 똑똑하다고, 머리가 좋다고 저 따위 말로 국민을 속이려 하다니! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 뉴시스 지금처럼 돈 풀면 8년 뒤 나랏빚 2000조 넘어…두 배 '폭증' 예정처 '2021~2030 중기재정전망' 보고서 2029년 2029.5조…2030년엔 2200조 전망 2030년에는 이자로만 36조 넘게 지출해야 "지출통제·세입기반 마련…재정준칙 논의" 원문 https://www.assembly.go.kr/flexer/view.jsp?fid=bodo1&a.bbs_num=52224&file_num=52305&fpath=Bodo --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [사설] 공무원·군인연금 언제까지 이대로 놔둘 텐가 국민일보 보고서에 따르면 공무원연금 적자는 올해 4조3000억원에서 2030년 9조6000억원, 군인연금은 같은 기간 2조8000억원에서 4조1000억원으로 증가한다. 2021~2030년 10년간 공무원연금은 61조원, 군인연금은 33조원의 적자 발생이 예상된다고 한다. 모두 국민이 짊어져야 하는 빚이다. 두 연금은 적립금이 이미 고갈돼 공무원연금은 2001년, 군인연금은 1973년부터 관련 법에 따라 국가가 세금으로 보전해 주고 있다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 떨쟁이 /일베 댓글 인플레이션,세금,밥버러지 캐백수 인간쓰레기 벌레 ㅅㄲ 들을 양산하기 때문에 기본소득 절대 반대! 이미 여러 나라에서 시범도입했다가 시기상조 또는 실패했고 가장 최근의 예로 단풍국에서 코로나-19지원금으로 수백만명 국민들한테 매월 2천달러 주고 UBI(기본소득)법안까지 상정했지만 고작 1년반 동안 지원금으로 심각한 재정 적자와 일명 '돈복사' 인플레이션,부동산 상승 등 엄청난 후폭풍에 적은 인구+풍부한자원+좌빨 정부인 단풍국 에서도 기본소득 소리는 쑥 들어갔는데 머한민국같은 지방 3류개잡대 쳐나와 눈만 쳐높은 개버러지 캐백수 잉여인간들이 넘쳐나고 무려 직장인의 40%가 소득세 한푼 안내는 머한민국에서 기본소득? 누가 돈 낼건데? 이젠 부모님 등골빼먹는것도 부족한지 정상인 사회인 등골까지 빼먹으려고 기본소득같은 개소리나 지껄이는 재활용도 안되는 인간쓰레기 역겨운 캐백수 기생충 ㅅㄲ들 동주민 증세없는 복지 실현한다는 그 놈이 지금 세금 ㅈㄴ 뜯 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 인터넷 탐정들의 모임인 드래스틱이 우한 연구소의 바이러스 누출설을 재고하도록 했다. INDIA COVID-19 origin: How DRASTIC, a group of internet sleuths, compelled world to relook Wuhan lab leak theory It is due to the work by DRASTIC that there is more insight into research that the secretive Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China was doing FP Staff June 08, 2021 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 니콜라스 왑샷의 책 <새뮤엘슨과 프리드먼> 서평 영국의 언론인 니콜라스 왑샷은 경제 전문 기자로, 그가 즐겨 다루는 주제는 자유시장주의와 혼합경제주의 사이의 갈등이다. 이전에 그는 케인스와 하이에크를 다루었는데, 이번 책에서는 새뮤엘슨과 프리드먼을 다루었다. 왑샷은 새뮤엘슨을 더 좋아하는데, 그에 따르면 그는 2차대전 이후 가장 위대한 경제 이론가이다. 그에 반해 프리드먼은 불신 받던 통화주의를 주창한 엉터리이다. 저자는 또 “인권이 확장하면서 사유재산권은 축소되었다”라고 쓰고 있다. 정확히 얼마의 머라카락이 빠져야 대머리인지는 말할 수 없지만, 사회에는 분명 대머리와 정상 머리가 있다. 그렇듯이 정부가 “계획”을 과도하게 하면, 시민들의 자유는 위축되고 제한되게 된다. 정부가 코로나 봉쇄, 마스크 강제, 백신 강요 등을 하는 현재, 우리는 계획이 시민들의 자유를 빼앗아간다고 경고했던 하이에크의 말이 옳았음을 안다. 하지만 프리드먼의 통화주의는 사실 케인즈주의의 한 형태일 뿐이다. 단지 그것이 1930년대가 아닌, 1920년대의 케인스 이론이라는 것이다. 하이에크는 케인스의 <일반이론>을 비판한 책을 쓰지 못한 것을 후회했는데, 그에 못지 않게 밀턴 프리드먼의 <실증경제학 논문, [Essays in] Positive Economics>도 위험한 책이라고 판단했다. The Battle over the Free Market David Gordon Samuelson Friedman: The Battle over the Free Market By Nicholas Wapshott Norton, 2021 367 pages Nicholas Wapshott is a British journalist and biographer with a strong interest in economic theory. He says that the Nobel laureate Edmund Phelps is his mentor. One theme in twentieth-century economics dominates his work: the clash between economists who favor the free market and those who support a “mixed economy,” in which the government plays a large role. Wapshott’s earlier book Keynes Hayek shows the way he works. He uses the personal relations between Keynes and Hayek to arouse the reader’s interest in the theoretical controversies at issue, and he follows the same approach in Samuelson Friedman. Keynes and Hayek make frequent appearances in this book as well. Here, though, Wapshott has an advantage over his earlier book. Although Keynes and Hayek knew each other, they were not especially close, but Samuelson and Friedman were friends and rivals for over seventy years. Wapshott thus had available much more source material for his new book. He is a diligent researcher, as his forty-three pages of notes attest. We learn, for example, that the remark “you cannot push on a string,” comes not from Keynes but from Congressman T. Alan Goldsborough in 1933. The remark is a criticism of the government’s increasing the quantity of money in order to get out of a depression; the point of the phrase is that giving people more money may not be enough to get them to spend it. Wapshott clearly prefers Samuelson to Friedman. For him, Samuelson was the great theorist of post–World War II economics. Friedman, by contrast, though he had a powerful intelligence and formidable skill as a debater, was in essence a crank who preached the discredited doctrine of monetarism. Wapshott says of Samuelson, “His myriad technical papers, which flowed from him with such facility, would have been a towering achievement for any academic economist. His application of mathematics to economics transformed the discipline from something akin to a branch of philosophy to a true social science.” He rates Friedman much lower. “His many achievements are more evident in politics than in economics. . . . Some of Friedman’s theoretical economics, such as his work on the consumption function, continues to be admired. But few have continued to hanker after Friedman’s flagship idea, doctrinaire monetarism, which is remembered, if remembered at all, as an arcane, otiose footnote in the history of economic thought.” The text of the book fails to support Wapshott’s portrayal of Samuelson as a towering genius. The author devotes considerable attention to the columns that Samuelson and Friedman wrote for Newsweek, and in them, the towering genius often comes across as a purveyor of banalities. He holds the bizarre belief that if you don’t want to associate with someone, you are coercing him. Also, people who can’t afford things they want to buy are being coerced by the sellers of these products. Thus, it’s wrong to claim, as Friedman does, that government regulation of property is coercive. It’s always a question of balancing one freedom against another, and shouldn’t we prefer the freedom of the poor person able to buy food to the freedom of the seller to refuse to sell? Besides, human rights are more important than property rights. “‘The rights of property shrink as the rights of man expand,’ he wrote. While some suffered because the government intervened in the market, an unfettered market had winners and losers, too, he argued. While the free market suggested that everyone was free to buy what they wanted, there was such a thing as rationing by price, which put many items well beyond the reach of those without the means. The children of those who could not afford good education, for instance, were deprived by the market setting too high a price. The ‘freedom’ of individuals provided by the market was therefore only notional.” Samuelson in this area thinks in clichés of the Left. Samuelson was throughout his long life a Keynesian, and he took over from Keynes a bad argument against Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. According to this argument, Hayek claims in the book that comprehensive economic planning destroys freedom. But Hayek himself does not favor a complete free market but allows some scope for government intervention. Given this admission, there is no principled division between Hayek and his opponents. All are supporters of a mixed economy, though people differ on the components of the mixture. It does not follow from Hayek’s failure to draw a principled line between permissible and impermissible intervention that “we are all in the same boat.” It remains the case that planning on a vast scale destroys freedom. You cannot tell exactly how many hairs a person can have on his head and still count as bald, but there are bald people and people who aren’t bald. In like fashion, if we have “too much” planning, freedom will end. The objection of Keynes and Samuelson thus leaves Hayek’s argument unscathed. We can see today without difficulty what Hayek is talking about, as the government is destroying our freedom through covid-19 lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination mandates. Wapshott mentions the covid-19 situation, but rather than take it as evidence that government interference with the market is dangerous, he instead takes it to show that in emergencies, government must supplant the market. It is true, though, that Hayek made unnecessary compromises about government intervention, and this leads to the funniest passage in the book: “To [Ayn] Rand, even Hayek was a treacherous compromiser and—Rand’s behavior was as extreme as her politics—she once spat at Hayek at a party to show her disdain for his treachery.” In his duels in Newsweek with Samuelson, Friedman often defends freedom with able arguments, but his economic theory is lacking. His “monetarism” is really a form of Keynesianism, but it is the Keynes of the 1920s rather than the 1930s whom he follows. “The summer of 1923 saw Keynes give talks that when collected became A Tract on Monetary Reform. . . . A Tract became an inspiration for counter-Keynesian revolutionaries like Friedman: ‘I am one of a small minority of professional economists who regard [A Tract] not the General Theory, as [Keynes’s] best book on economics,’ wrote Friedman in 1989. ‘Even after sixty-five years, it is not only well worth reading but continues to have a major influence on economic policy.’ Friedman’s often-quoted one-liner that ‘Inflation is taxation without legislation’ derives from the Tract chapter heading, ‘Inflation as a Method of Taxation.’” In brief, Friedman supports government control of the money supply to prevent inflation and deflation. Hayek expertly identifies the fundamental problem with Friedman’s approach. “Austrian economists like Hayek believed such an approach would fail, as no one could know enough about the workings of the economy to manage it with any accuracy. . . . He always complained that Friedman was closer to Keynes than Hayek was to either of them. ‘In one respect, Milton Friedman is still a Keynesian, not on monetary theory but on methodology,’ Hayek explained. By accepting the premises of macroeconomics—a branch of economics that Keynes had invented, ‘very much against his own intentions,’ according to Hayek—Friedman had made a serious intellectual error. . . . It was not just that Friedman had signed up to Keynes’s macroeconomics rather than join the Austrian School, which relied solely on microeconomic activity, that caused Hayek offense. Friedman’s belief that the money supply should be controlled by the central bank to keep prices in check put him firmly on the Keynesian side of the argument over whether government should manage the economy.” Hayek also said in the 1990s, “‘One of the things I most regret is not having returned to a criticism of Keynes’s [General Theory]’ . . . ‘but it is as much true of not having criticized Milton’s [Essays in] Positive Economics, which in a way is quite as dangerous a book.’” In turn, Friedman had no use for Austrian economics. Though he admired Hayek for his defense of freedom, he thought that Hayek’s Prices and Production was a confused book and opposed giving him a position in the University of Chicago’s department of economics. “The Chicago School ‘didn’t want him,’ recalled Friedman. ‘They didn’t agree with his economics. . . . If they had been looking around the world for an economist to add to their staff, their prescription would not have been . . . the author of Prices and Production.’” He thought that Mises was dogmatic and intolerant, and “[a]sked which was the greater economist, Keynes or von Mises, Friedman did not hesitate to answer, ‘Keynes.’” By the way, Samuelson, though of course a strong critic of Hayek, was pleased that he won the Nobel Prize. ‘In my judgment his was a worthy choice,’ said Samuelson.” Readers who are aware of the way in which Arthur Burns tried to prevent Murray Rothbard from getting his doctorate at Columbia will find this anecdote of interest, and it is a suitable note on which to close. Samuelson in commenting on Alan Greenspan, says, “At bottom Greenspan was an okay character. That’s different from Rand and Burns—both despicable human beings.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------