중앙일보 불리하면 "가짜뉴스" 들통나면 '침묵'…이게 文정부 5년 패턴 ‘가짜뉴스’ 프레임을 통한 강한 부인과 강성 지지층의 집단 반발, 그리고 상황이 종료된 뒤의 침묵. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 태릉선수촌 이제는 없애야함. 돈잡아먹는 하마임. 달리는A7 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11393781139 여자 스피드스케이팅 3000M 세계기록 보유자임. 나이50에도 출전. 이번 베이징때 최하위기록. 말그대로 그냥 즐기기위해 출전. 마지막까지 환하게 웃으면서 퇴장. 참고로 본업은 뭘까?? 현지 경찰임. 국민을 지키는 경찰이라는 말. 과연 엘리트체육이 이제는 무슨의미인가 싶다. 금따는거도 누가 국위선양때메 따냐?? 지들 몸값 올릴려고 따는거지. 이제 군면제도 없애고 포상금도 필요없다고 봄. 뭐 기업후원까지는 못막지만 개인의 영광을 위해서 메달떤걸 왜 나라에서 돈을 줘야하는지 이해를 못하겠음 ---> 찬성! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 머니투데이 암세포, 정상세포로 되돌렸다…의사들 통념 깨뜨린 과학자 그 결과, 연구팀은 암 발생 과정에서 임계전이 현상이 일어나는 사실을 최초 규명했다. 임계전이 현상이란 물이 100도라는 임계점에서 액체가 기체로 전이되듯, 암도 유전자 돌연변이를 거듭해 임계점에 도달할 때 암으로 전이된다는 사실이다. 임계점 전까진 유전자 돌연변이가 있어도 암에 걸리지 않는다는 것이다. 연구팀은 대장암·유방암 세포를 정상 세포로 변환시킬 수 있는 핵심 인자들을 대거 발견했다. 대규모 컴퓨터 시뮬레이션을 통해 약 2만여개 유전자의 상호작용으로 세포 기능을 모두 분석한 결과다. 연구팀은 10년 가까이 연구를 진행해오면서 슈퍼컴퓨터 등 연구 인프라를 확보하고 있다. 연구팀은 향후 다양한 암에서 현재 항암치료가 지닌 부작용과 한계를 극복해갈 수 있을 것으로 기대하고 있다. 이를 위해 기술을 검증하는 임상시험을 추진 중이다./ 발췌 ---->임상실험을 아직 하지도 않았고, 어떤 부작용이 있는지도 모르는데, 암 환자들에게 아무 소용없는 환상을 심어주고 있다. 약을 개발하고, 인체에 시험해 보아야만 하지만, 아마 내 생각에는 역시 너무 많은 부작용이 있는 실패작이 될 가능성이 99%이다. 인체는 복잡계이고, 그걸 가장 정교하게 분석한 사람들이 고대 중국의 의학자들, 즉 한의학자들이다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이재명, 노무현 49재때 김부선에게 한 말 dfkfkglgl http://www.ilbe.com/view/11393767742 김부선이 이재명보고, 노무현 49재때 안가냐고 물어보니, 이재명 왈, 비오는데 내가 거길 왜가, 옥수동집에서 놀자고 함, 나중에 이재명은 김부선 주장이 거짓말이라면서, 그 근거로 그 날짜에 비가 안왔다고 주장함, 그러나 당시 49재 현장 사진을 보면 비가왔음이 입증됨. 그래놓고 어제 노무현 묘소에가서 쑈. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 중앙일보 폐암 발병 여성 94%가 비흡연자였다…충격의 범인 실체 병원리포트 보라매병원 호흡기내과 이현우 교수팀 미세먼지에 장기간 노출될 경우 흡연 여부와 관계없이 폐암 위험이 상승할 수 있다는 연구결과가 나왔다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선일보 넉달째 3% 넘는 물가상승률, 이런 일은 10년만에 처음 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 매경 EU "원전은 친환경" 확정, 우리는 과학 대신 미신 좇을건가 유럽연합(EU)이 원자력 발전을 친환경에너지로 확정 분류했다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 금이 빵보다 비싼 이유 우선 순위를 부여하는 기준은 개인의 생활이다. 개인의 생활 유지에 가장 중요한 목표가 1순위이고, 그보다 덜 중요한 목표들은 그 아래 순위가 된다. 한계 단위The marginal unit는 중요도가 가장 낮은 목표를 달성하기 위한 것이다. 주어진 목표는 그 목교를 달성하기 위해 개인이 선택하는 특정한 수단을 결정한다. 즉 존이 셔츠를 구입한다고 할 때, 일을 하기에 적당한 셔츠를 찾는다면, 존은 다양한 셔츠 중에 일하기에 가장 적합한 셔츠를 고르게 된다. 효용은 측정할 수 있는 수량이 아니다. 그것은 개인의 생활과 관련해 다양한 목표에 우선 순위를 매기는 것이다. 전체 효용이 계량화 할 수 없기 때문에, 수학적 방법을 이용하는 각종 경제 모델들은 엉터리일 수 밖에 없다. Why Gold Is More Expensive than Bread Frank Shostak Why do individuals assign a greater value to gold than to bread, when bread seems to be more “useful” than gold? To provide an answer to this question economists refer to the law of diminishing marginal utility. The concept of diminishing marginal utility is the essential building block of economics. There is, however, a difference in the way this law is discussed by mainstream economics and the Austrian school of economics. The Mainstream Approach The popular economics explains this law in terms of the satisfaction that one derives from consuming a particular good. For instance, an individual may derive vast satisfaction from consuming one cone of ice cream. The satisfaction he will derive from consuming a second cone might also be large but not as large as the satisfaction derived from the first cone. The satisfaction from the consumption of a third cone is likely to diminish further, and so on.1 From this economists have concluded that the more of any good we consume in a given period, the less satisfaction, or utility, we derive from each additional unit. From this it is established that if the satisfaction from the additional unit of a good declines as we consume more and more of it, the price that we are willing to pay per unit of the good is also going to decline. Now, according to this framework of thinking, since gold is relatively less abundant than bread it follows that the price of gold should be ranked higher than the price of bread because the benefit derived from the additional unit of bread is going to be much lower than the benefit derived from the additional unit of gold. On the same basis, it can also be deduced that although air is essential to human life, because of its almost unlimited supply individuals are likely to assign it a much lower price than bread. Utility in this way of thinking is presented as a certain quantity that increases at a diminishing pace as one consumes or uses more of a particular good. Given that utility is presented as some total quantity, also called the total utility, it becomes possible to introduce mathematics here to ascertain the addition to this total, which is called the additional utility or marginal utility. In this way of thinking, human action is not navigated by reason but by biological needs. Menger’s Explanation According to Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian school, individuals assign priorities to various goals that they want to achieve. The standard for setting priorities is the individual’s life. Those ends that are of utmost importance for the individual’s life maintenance are going to be assigned the highest ranking, while ends that are of lesser importance to life maintenance are going to be assigned a lower ranking. According to Menger, As concerns the differences in the importance that different satisfactions have for us, it is above all a fact of the most common experience that the satisfactions of greatest importance to men are usually those on which the maintenance of life depends, and that other satisfactions are graduated in magnitude of importance according to the degree (duration and intensity) of pleasure dependent upon them. Thus if economizing men must choose between the satisfaction of a need on which the maintenance of their lives depends and another on which merely a greater or less degree of well-being is dependent, they will usually prefer the former. Consider John the baker, who has produced four loaves of bread. The four loaves are the means that John employs to attain various goals or ends. Let us say that his highest priority, or his highest end as far as life maintenance is concerned, is to have a loaf of bread for his personal consumption. The loaf of bread is of utmost importance to John in order to support his life. The second loaf of bread enables John to secure five tomatoes for his personal consumption. By means of five tomatoes, John attains his second most important end as far as his life maintenance is concerned. In order to secure the five tomatoes John must exchange a loaf of bread for them. Let us say that John was successful and finds a tomato farmer that agrees to exchange his five tomatoes for the loaf of bread. John uses the third loaf of bread to exchange it for the third most important end, which is to have a shirt. Finally, John decides that he will allocate his fourth loaf of bread to feed wild birds. Note that feeding wild birds is John’s fourth end—the least important end. The fourth loaf of bread is the last unit in John's total supply of bread. It is also called the marginal unit, or the unit at the margin. The marginal unit secures the least important end. Alternatively, we can also say that as far as life is concerned, the marginal unit provides the least benefit. Observe that to attain the second and the third ends John had to exchange his resources—loaves of bread—for goods that would serve to achieve his ends. To secure the end of having a shirt, John had to exchange his loaf of bread for the shirt. The loaf of bread is not suitable by itself to fulfill the services that the shirt provides. Similarly, to secure the end of having five tomatoes, John had to exchange a loaf of bread for five tomatoes. Note that the first loaf of bread is employed to secure the most important end, the second loaf of bread the second most important end, etc. Ends Determine the Value of Means A given end determines the specific means that an individual is likely to select for the attainment of that end. For instance, to secure the end of having a shirt John would have to select among various shirts the most suitable for his specific end—to have a work shirt, let us say. Being a baker, John may conclude that the shirt must be of a white color and made out of a thin rather than thick material to keep him comfortable while working next to a hot oven. Furthermore, we can also infer that the end assigns an importance to the resource employed. This implies that the first loaf of bread carries much higher importance than the second loaf of bread because of the more important end that the first loaf of bread secures. Since the individual’ s ends determine his valuation of means and thus his choices, it follows that the same good is going to be valued differently by an individual as a result of changes in his ends. While as a rule individuals assign a greater value to gold versus water, this need not be always the case. To quell his thirst in the desert, the individual requires water. Any gold in his possession is going to be of no help in this regard. The individual is going to assign the highest ranking to having water to maintain his life in the desert. Gold is going to have very low importance here. Why Does the Least Important End Determine the Value of Each Unit? Now, John regards each of the four loaves of bread in his possession as interchangeable. How, then, is he going to value each of the four loaves? He is going to value each one in accordance with the least important end, which is feeding wild birds. Why does the least important end serve as the standard for valuing the loaves of bread? Consider that John is using the first end as the standard for assigning value to each loaf of bread. This would imply that he values the second, third, and fourth loaves much more than he values the second, third, and fourth ends. However, if this is the case, what, then, is the point of exchanging something that is valued more for something that is valued less? Observe that to satisfy his second end, which is to have five tomatoes; John would have to exchange one loaf of bread for five tomatoes. (Note that five tomatoes, which is the second end, is assigned a lower value than the first end). If John assigns a higher value to a loaf of bread than to five tomatoes, most likely no exchange will take place. Observe, that the fourth loaf of bread is the last unit in John's total supply; it is also called the marginal unit (i.e., the unit at the margin). This marginal unit secures the least important end as far as life maintenance is concerned. If John had only three loaves of bread, each loaf would be valued according to the third end—having a shirt. This end is ranked higher than the end of feeding wild birds. From this, we can infer that as the supply of bread declines, every loaf of bread is going to be valued much more than before the decline. Conversely, as the supply of bread rises, each loaf will be valued less than before the supply increased. Also, observe that ends are not set arbitrarily but graded in accordance with their importance in maintaining life. If John had ranked his ends randomly and without any thought then he would have run the risk of endangering his life. For instance, if he had allocated most of his resources to clothing and to feeding wild birds and very little to feeding himself, he would then have run the risk of weakening his body. Utility Is Not Some Measurable Quantity In Menger’s framework, utility is not about quantities but about priorities, or the ranking of various ends with respect to an individual’s life.2 One cannot, however, add up priorities as such. Consequently, marginal utility is not, as the mainstream perspective maintains, an addition to the total utility but rather the utility of the marginal end. Since total utility cannot be quantified, various economic models that employ mathematical methods based on the view that such a total exists are questionable. According to Rothbard, Many errors in discussions of utility stem from an assumption that it is some sort of quantity, measurable at least in principle. When we refer to a consumer’s “maximization” of utility, for example, we are not referring to a definite stock or quantity of something to be maximized. We refer to the highest-ranking position on the individual’s value scale. Similarly, it is the assumption of the infinitely small, added to the belief in utility as a quantity, that leads to the error of treating marginal utility as the mathematical derivative of the integral “total utility” of several units of a good. Actually, there is no such relation, and there is no such thing as “total utility,” only the marginal utility of a larger-sized unit. The size of the unit depends on its relevance to the particular action.3 Note that both the mainstream approach and Menger’s way of thinking emphasize the importance of the relative quantity of a good in determining its price. The difference, however, is that the mainstream relies on psychology while Menger emphasizes the importance of the purpose that a good helps to achieve. The mainstream approach highlights the satisfaction an individual derives from an additional unit of a thing (i.e. biological needs). Menger’s framework emphasizes the facts of reality that must be figured out and considered for life maintenance. Thus, in order to maintain his life, John requires a loaf of bread—this is of utmost importance to keep him healthy. To have a loaf of bread is the fact of reality that John must consider if he wants to stay healthy. To have a working shirt is also important to John. He has to decide what kind of shirt he should have that is going to make him comfortable. John would have to figure all this out. His decision is going to be based on a thought process. Note, again, in the mainstream approach, utility is regarded as some kind of quantity which can be subjected to the rules of mathematics. This is, however, not so in Menger’s framework, where utility refers to the ranking of goods with respect to life, which is assigned as the most important end. In addition, in the mainstream approach there is a strong emphasis on indifference curves, which supposedly could be helpful in understanding individuals’ choices. Indifference, however, has nothing to do with individuals’ purposeful conduct. When confronted with various goods, an individual makes his choice based on the suitability of goods to be employed as means to various ends, which are ranked with respect to an individual's life. In conclusion, it does not make sense to discuss the marginal utility of a good without referring to the purpose that this good serves. The marginal utility theory as presented by popular economics describes an individual without any goals and who is driven by psychological factors. This individual is not aiming consciously to reach his goals. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------