(속보) 유럽이 부정선거 이슈가 없는 이유.jpg 지헌 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11399504747 투표를 마치면 종이 투표를 따로 운송하지 않고 수개표 하는 모습을 생중계 함 사전투표의 문제점에 대해 지적한 서울대학교 연구 논문임 사전투표를 한다면, 투표용지들을 분류, 우송하는 작업이 필요하고 막대한 인력과 비용 소모가 확실. 또한 공식투표일을 휴일로 즐기려 하기에, 많은 유권자들이 사전투표로 몰리는 경우 사전투표용지의 우송 및 분류과정에서 많은 오류 및 문제점이 발생할 가능성이 있다고 함. 결론적으로, 우리나라도 유럽의 수개표 형식대로 따라가야 함 현재 사전투표를 시행하는 한국과 미국에서 부정선거 이슈가 생기는 이유도 사전투표의 문제점이 있기 때문임 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이 모든게 우연일까? 주팔2 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11399491807 그렇게 풀라고해도 안풀던 방역패스를 선거직전에 풀고 qr안찍음 코로나 확진자수 급증 경북-강원를 잇는 대형산불 '뉴스헤드라인 독식' 이모든게 우연일까?? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 국민의힘은 부정선거가 아닌 부실선거 늑음띠 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11399463292 정확하게 부정선거가 아니고 부실선거라고 했다 이에 앵커 또한 리마인드 하면서 국민의힘 입장은 부정선거가 아닌 부실선거란 말씀이시죠? 하니까 네 라고 답했다 약 21분경에 나오는 워딩이다 ㅋㅋㅋ 절대 부정선거는 아니랑께요 국힘에서는 부정선거를 2년간 부정했응게요 --->국힘당은 이미 좌파정당이 되었고, 문죄인의 2중대가 되었다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 속보> 사전투표 1632만명 함. ㄷㄷㄷ 시베리아에두고온사랑 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11399491418 와, 이건 진짜 부정선거 맞는거 같음. 너무 과하게 수치를 올렸는데. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 전국 14곳서 동시다발적 산불 애완견 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11399439824 어제는 서울에도 불나고 사전투표날부터 동시다발적으로 전국에서 이렇게 많은 산불이 난적이 있냐? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 낙농업자들 싹다망할듯 ㄷㄷㄷ lamgrout http://www.ilbe.com/view/11399496963 세줄 요약 1. 현재 원유가격연동제로 낙농업자들은 노력 조금도 안하고 세계에서 제일 비싸게 우유를 팔면서 개꿀빨고 있음. 대한민국 국민들이 세계에서 제일 비싼 우유 강매당하고 있는셈 2. 2026년 부터 한 EU FTA로 인해 우유, 치즈 관세 철폐로 인해 개꿀빨던 낙농업자들 좆떼게 생김 3. 낙농업자들 가격 경쟁력 올릴 생각은 없고 벌써부터 자살쇼+국회시위+광화문 시위 준비중 PS. 낙농업자들이 약자냐? 아님. 젖소 몇백마리 목장 가지고 있는 거부들이고 기득권층임 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 펌) 부정선거 시나리오 415부정선거특검 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11399474411 내가 투표조작 시나리오 한번 써 볼께 나라면 이렇게 하겠네 ㅋㅋ 수십만명 매수할 필요도 없이 중국인 용역쓰면 몇 백명만 써도 충분하다 밀입국 중국인들 쓰면 증거도 안남고 좋겠네 1. 이 모든 투표조작 기술의 핵심은 QR코드에 있다. QR코드를 이용해 그 동안 선거에서 쌓아온 개인의 정보 (선거여부, 선거성향 사전선거를 주로하는지 본선거를 주로하는지 등을 파악한다) 2. 사전선거 투표장 근처에 임시 투표소를 수백개 만들어 밀실안에서 미리 투표용지를 신나게 만들어 놓는다. (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVnsM7nWjRjWIQyBHPFRGDw/community?lb=UgkxjrWI2t7xODPIbN1dnzbF52yNYZ4k3c_d) 3. 사전선거 투표전에 방역을 핑계로 아무도없는 투표소에 자루든 방역복 쓴 중국인들을 투입해 빈 투표함에 가지고간 기표된 투표지를 쏟아 넣는다. (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVnsM7nWjRjWIQyBHPFRGDw/community?lb=UgkxfYE7G5sxaCXWwVZoEMDwPDLtafMtexwC) 4. 사전선거가 진행되는 동안 전자선거인명부를 통해 실시간으로 서버에 개인의 선거 여부가 저장된다 5. 코로나 확진자 200만명의 투표지는 투표함에 직접 못 넣게 별도로 걷어 미리준비한 표와 바꿔치기 한다. 또는 관외투표봉투에 미리 1장씩 더 넣어 최소한 투표자 1명당 1표씩은 확보한다. 최소 200만표 확보 (https://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=baseball_new10&no=12783918&exception_mode=recommend&page=2) 6. QR코드로 쌓은 데이터를 이용해 그동안 투표안하는 성향의 사람들을 투표자로 둔갑시킨다. 특히 상대적으로 감시가 소홀한 전라도지역에 사전투표율을 폭증시켜 유령투표지를 때려 넣는다. (https://search.naver.com/search.naver?where=nexearch&sm=tab_etc&mra=bjFY&x_csa=%7B%7D&qvt=0&query=%EC%A0%9C20%EB%8C%80%20%EB%8C%80%ED%86%B5%EB%A0%B9%EC%84%A0%EA%B1%B0%20%EC%82%AC%EC%A0%84%ED%88%AC%ED%91%9C%EC%9C%A8) 7. 그간 쌓아온 실제 여론조사 결과에 맞춰 실시간으로 계산 해 당선확률에 모자라는 투표용지는 한밤중에 투표함이 보관되어있는 5일동안 한곳 한곳 가서 몰래 넣는다. 어차피 투표함 봉인지는 포스트잇같이 떼었다 붙였다가 용의해서 아무 문제없이 넣을 수 있다. 사전선거 작업 끝 본선거 개시 후 각종 방송사 출구조사로 또 한번 자세하게 득표율을 계산한다. 그래도 만약 모자라는 득표수는 전자개표기를 통해 늘 해오던대로 상대표에서 100장에서 2~3장씩만 가져오면 5~6퍼 정도 조정은 충분히 가능하다. 선거 후 부정선거 후폭풍 대비 상대당에 심어놓은 간첩들을 이용해 선거불복으로 몰아간다. 포털과 커뮤니티에서 부정선거 주장하는 사람들은 음모론자로 몰며 사회적으로 고립시킨다. 매수된 언론과 미디어는 살아있는 권력의 힘에 굴복해 침묵한다. 사법부도 마찬가지로 뭉개며 소송을 몇년째 질질 끈다. 코로나 방역을 핑계로 공권력을 이용해 계속 시위 진압하며 국민들이 부정선거에 대해 반항 못하도록한다 결국 소송진행되는 몇년의 과정에서 국민들은 피폐해지고 권력을 쥔자들은 벌써 시스템을 자신들이 유리한 쪽으로 바꿔놨다. 베네수엘라 멕시코에서 벌어진 실제 부정선거도 이런식이였더라 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 야갤펌) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 사전투표 첫날 선거사무원도, 참관인도 없는 투표소에 또 방역맨 등장 좌빨선관위의실체 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11399461810 사전투표소에 또 방역맨이 등장했다. 자루를 들도 들어가 한쪽에 쌓아두고 무슨 짓을 하고 있나? 2020년 4.15 총선때 사전투표소 첫날에 등장한 방역맨이 또 활약을 하고 있다. 선거 사무원도, 참관인도 없는 투표소에 투표함만 남겨두고 방역맨을 투입한다는데 말이 안된다. 투표는 한국인이, 결과는 방역맨이 결정하나? 이렇게 선거를 만들어놓고 선관위 직원 전부를 매수해야한다고? 매수할 필요가 없지 바보들아. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 한국경제 장성민 "호남서도 윤석열이 된다더라~" "이재명, 도덕성·민주화 투쟁·지역 연고 없는 3無 후보" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 연금이 끼치는 경제적 영향 연금은 결국은 임금 노동자에게 혜택 가게 되고, 그것은 임금 인상과 같은 효과를 발휘하게 된다. 자유로운 노동시장에서는 고용주와 피고용자 사이에 합의된 임금이 나오면 대체로 완전 고용이 이루어지는데, 노조에 의해 인위적으로 임금이 올라가면, 노동시장에 항구적인 실업이 나타나게 된다. 케인스도 임금이 인위적으로 높다는 것을 알고 있었다. 그가 인플레로 실업을 줄일 수 있다고 믿은 이유는, 인플레로 인한 가격 인상이 완만하게 일어나면 노동자들이 눈치 채지 못하고(?), 그래서 그들의 임금을 삭감하는 효과를 거둘 수 있다고 믿었기 때문이다. 장기간에 걸쳐 재정 균형을 이룬다는 말은 실질적으로 이렇다: 우리 당이 정권을 잡으면 예산을 물 쓰듯이 써서 대통령의 인가를 올리겠다. 만일 나중에 야당이 정권을 잡으면 통화 팽창 정책의 결과로 불황이 나타날 텐데, 그러면 우리는 그들에게 불황의 책임을 묻고 적자 재정을 질타할 것이다. 인플레와 연금을 합쳐서 생각해보면 연금이 얼마나 황당한 짓인지 알게 된다. 즉 현재(1950년)) 뉴욕에서 52 센트면 하루에 개인이 필요한 영양을 공급하기에 충분한 식료품을 살 수 있다. 그런데 연금을 받는 80년대나 90년대에, 인플레를 고려할 때, 52센트로 얼마를 살 수 있을까? 신 경제학new economics이라는 것은 자본 축적의 역할을 무시하고 있다. 노동자들의 임금을 높이고 생활 수준을 높이는 유일한 방법이 있는데, 그것은 인구에 비교해 자본의 증가를 촉진하는 것이다. 기술적 진보를 말하는데, 기술적 진보는 필요한 자본이 없을 경우 일어날 수 없다. (여기서 자본이란 상품을 생산하는 기계를 비롯 생산에 수반되는 여러 가지를 가리키는데, 일단 기계라고 알아두면 편하다.) 과거의 진보는 자본의 축적이 빠르게 이루어졌기에 가능했다. 미국의 임금이 다른 국가들보다 높은 유일한 이유는, 개인당 투자된 자본이 타국가에 비해 높기 때문이다. 연금은 노동자들에게 근거 없는 안도감을 준다. 국민들의 삶을 향상시키는 유일한 방법은 더 나은 생산 밖에 없다. 그리고 그것은 저축과 자본 축적이 증가되어야만 일어날 수 있다. Economic Aspects of the Pension Problem Ludwig von Mises On Whom Does the Incidence Fall? Whenever a law or labor union pressure burdens the employers with an additional expenditure for the benefit of the employees, people talk of “social gains.” The idea implied is that such benefits confer on the employees a boon beyond the salaries or wages paid to them and that they are receiving a grant which they would have missed in the absence of such a law or such a clause in the contract. It is assumed that the workers are getting something for nothing. This view is entirely fallacious. What the employer takes into account in considering the employment of additional hands or in discharging a number of those already in his service, is always the value of the services rendered or to be rendered by them. He asks himself: How much does the employment of the man concerned add to the output? Is it reasonable to expect that the expenditure caused by his employment will at least be recovered by the sale of the additional product produced by his employment? If the answer to the second question is in the negative, the employment of the man will cause a loss. As no enterprise can in the long run operate on a loss basis, the man concerned will be discharged or, respectively, will not be hired. In resorting to this calculation, the employer takes into account not only the individual’s take‑home wages, but all the costs of employing him. If, for example, the government—as is the case in some European countries—collects a percentage of each firm’s total payroll as a tax which the firm is strictly forbidden to deduct from wages paid to the workers, the amount that enters into the calculation is: wages paid out to the worker plus the quota of the tax. If the employer is bound to provide for pensions, the sum entered into the calculation is: wages paid out plus an allowance for the pension, computed according to actuarial methods. The consequence of this state of affairs is that the incidence of all alleged “social gains” falls upon the wage‑earner. Their effect does not differ from the effect of any kind of raise in wage rates. In a free labor market, wage rates tend toward a height at which all employers ready to pay these rates can find all the men they need and all the workers ready to work for this rate can find jobs. There prevails a tendency toward full employment. But as soon as the laws or the labor unions fix rates at a higher level, this tendency disappears. Then workers are discharged and there are job‑seekers who cannot find employment. The reason is that at the artificially raised wage rates only the employment of a smaller number of hands pays. While in an unhampered labor market unemployment is only transitory, it becomes a permanent phenomenon when the governments or the unions succeed in raising wage rates above the potential market level. Even Lord Beveridge, about twenty years ago, admitted that the continuance of a substantial volume of unemployment is in itself the proof that the price asked for labor as wages is too high for the conditions of the market. And Lord Keynes, the inaugurator of the so‑called “full employment policy,” implicitly acknowledged the correctness of this thesis. His main reason for advocating inflation as a means to do away with unemployment was that he believed that gradual and automatic lowering of real wages as a result of rising prices would not be so strongly resisted by labor as any attempt to lower money wage rates. What prevents the government and the unions from raising wage rates to a steeper height than they actually do is their reluctance to price out of the labor market too great a number of people. What the workers are getting in the shape of pensions payable by the employing corporation reduces the amount of wages that the unions can ask for without increasing unemployment. The unions in asking pensions for which the company has to pay without any contribution on the part of the beneficiaries has made a choice. It has preferred pensions to an increase in take‑home wages. Economically it does not make any difference whether the workers do contribute or do not to the fund out of which the pensions will be paid. It is immaterial for the employer whether the cost of employing workers is raised by an increase in take‑home wages or by the obligation to provide for pensions. For the worker, on the other hand, the pensions are not a free gift on the part of the employer. The pension claims they acquire restrict the amount of wages they could get without calling up the spectre of unemployment. Correctly computed, the income of a wage earner entitled to a pension consists of his wages plus the amount of the premium he would have to pay to an insurance company for the acquisition of an equivalent claim. Ultimately the granting of pensions amounts to a restriction of the wage earner’s freedom to use his total income according to his own designs. He is forced to cut down his current consumption in order to provide for his old age. We may neglect dealing with the question whether such a restriction of the individual worker’s freedom is expedient or not. What is important to emphasize is merely that the pensions are not a gift on the part of the employer. They are a disguised wage raise of a peculiar character. The employee is forced to use the increment for acquiring a pension. Pensions and the Purchasing Power of the Dollar It is obvious that the amount of the pension each man will be entitled to claim one day can only be fixed in terms of money. Hence the value of these claims is inextricably linked with the vicissitudes of the American monetary unit, the dollar. The present Administration is eager to devise various schemes for old‑age and disability pensions. It is intent upon extending the number of people included in the government’s social security system and to increase the benefits under this system. It openly supports the demands of the unions for pensions to be granted by the companies without contribution on the part of the beneficiaries. But at the same time the same administration is firmly committed to a policy which is bound to lower more and more the purchasing power of the dollar. It has proclaimed unbalanced budgets and deficit spending as the first principle of public finance, as a new way of life. While hypocritically pretending to fight inflation, it has elevated boundless credit expansion and recklessly increasing the amount of money in circulation to the dignity of an essential postulate of popular government and economic democracy. Let nobody be fooled by the lame excuse that what is intended is not permanent deficits, but only the substitution of balancing the budget over a period of several years for balancing it every year. According to this doctrine, in years of prosperity budgetary surpluses are to be accumulated which have to be balanced against the deficits incurred in years of depression. But what is to be considered as good business and what as bad business is left to the decision of the party in power. The Administration itself declared that the fiscal year 1949 was, in spite of a moderate recession near its end, a year of prosperity. But it did not accumulate a surplus in this year of prosperity; it produced a considerable deficit. Remember how the Democrats in the 1932 electoral campaign criticized the Hoover Administration for its financial shortcomings. But as soon as they came into office, they inaugurated their notorious schemes of pump‑priming, deficit spending and so on. What the doctrine of balancing budgets over a period of many years really means is this: as long as our own party is in office, we will enhance our popularity through reckless spending. We do not want to annoy our friends by cutting down expenditure. We want the voters to feel happy under the artificial short‑lived prosperity which the easy money policy and a rich supply of additional money generate. Later, when our adversaries will be in office, the inevitable consequence of our expansionist policy, viz., depression, will appear. Then we shall blame them for the disaster and assail them for their failure to balance the budget properly. It is very unlikely that the practice of deficit spending will be abandoned in the not too distant future. As a fiscal policy it is very convenient to inept governments. It is passionately advocated by hosts of pseudo‑economists. It is praised at the universities as the most beneficial expedient of “unorthodox,” really “progressive” and “anti‑fascist” methods of public finance. A radical change of ideologies would be required to restore the prestige of sound fiscal procedures, today decried as “orthodox” and “reactionary.” Such an overthrow of an almost universally accepted doctrine is unlikely to occur as long as the living generation of professors and politicians has not passed away. The present writer, having for more than forty years uncompromisingly fought against all varieties of credit expansion and inflation, is forced sadly to admit that the prospects for a speedy return to sound management of monetary affairs are rather thin. A realistic evaluation of the state of public opinion, the doctrines taught at the universities and the mentality of politicians and pressure groups must show us that the inflationist tendencies will prevail for many years. The inevitable result of inflationary policies is a drop in the monetary unit’s purchasing power. Compare the dollar of 1950 with the dollar of 1940! Compare the money of any European or American country with its nominal equivalent a dozen or two dozen years ago! As an inflationary policy works only as long as the yearly increments in the amount of money in circulation are increased more and more, the rise in prices and wages and the corresponding drop in purchasing power will go on at an accelerated pace. The experience of the French franc may give us a rough image of the dollar thirty or forty years from today. Now it is such periods of time that count for pension plans. The present workers of the United States Steel Corporation will receive their pensions in twenty, thirty or forty years. Today a pension of one hundred dollars a month means a rather substantial allowance. What will it mean in 1980 or 1990? Today, as the Welfare Commissioner of the City of New York has shown, 52 cents can buy all the food a person needs to meet the daily caloric and protein requirements. How much will 52 cents buy in 1980? [Editor: seventeen cents.] Such is the issue. What the workers are aiming at in striving after social security and pensions is, of course, security. But their “social gain” withers away with the drop in the dollar’s purchasing power. In enthusiastically supporting the Fair Deal’s fiscal policy, the union members are themselves frustrating all their social security and pension schemes. The pensions they will be entitled one day to claim will be a mere sham. No solution can be found for this dilemma. In an industrial society all deferred payments must be stipulated in terms of money. They shrink with the shrinking of the money’s purchasing power. A policy of deficit spending saps the very foundation of all interpersonal relations and contracts. It frustrates all kinds of savings, social security benefits and pensions. Pensions and the “New Economics” How can it happen that the American workers fail to see that their policies are at cross purposes? The answer is: they are deluded by the fallacies of what is called “new economics.” This allegedly new philosophy ignores the role of capital accumulation. It does not realize that there is but one means to increase wage rates for all those eager to get jobs and thereby to improve the standard of living, namely to accelerate the increase of capital as compared with population. It talks about technological progress and productivity without being aware that no techno‑ logical improvement can be achieved if the capital required is lacking. Just at the instant in which it became obvious that the most serious obstacle to any farther economic betterment is not only in the backward countries but also in England, the shortage of capital. Lord Keynes, enthusiastically supported by many American authors, advanced his doctrine of the evils of saving and capital accumulation. As these men see it, all that is unsatisfactory is caused by the inability of private enterprise to cope with the conditions of the “mature” economy. The remedy they recommend is simple indeed. The state should fill the gap. They blithely assume that the state has unlimited means at its disposal. The state can undertake all projects which are too big for private capital. There is simply nothing that would surpass the financial power of the government of the United States. The Tennessee Valley project and the Marshall plan were just modest beginnings. There are still many valleys in America left for further action. And then there are many rivers in other parts of the globe. Only a short time ago Senator McMahon outlined a gigantic project that dwarfs the Marshall plan. Why not? If it is unnecessary to adjust the amount of expenditure to the means available, there is no limit to the spending of the great god State. It is no wonder that the common man falls prey to the illusions which dim the vision of dignified statesmen and learned professors. Like the expert advisers of the President, he entirely neglects to recognize the main problem of American business, viz., the insufficiency of the accumulation of new capital. He dreams of abundance while a shortage is threatening. He misinterprets the high profits which the companies report. He does not perceive that a considerable part of these profits are illusory, a mere arithmetical consequence of the fact that the sums laid aside as depreciation quotas are insufficient. These illusory profits, a phony result of the drop in the dollar’s purchasing power, will be absorbed by the already risen costs of replacing the factories’ worn‑out equipment. Their ploughing back is not additional investment, it is merely capital maintenance. There is much less available for a substantial expansion of investment and for the improvement of technological methods than the misinformed public thinks. Looking backward fifty or a hundred years we observe a steady progress of America’s ability to produce and thereby to consume. But it is a serious blunder to assume that this trend is bound to continue. This past progress has been effected by a speedy increase of capital accumulation. If the accumulation of new capital is slowed down or entirely ceases, there cannot be any question of further improvements. Such is the real problem American labor has to face today. The problems of capital maintenance and the accumulation of new capital do not concern merely “management.” They are vital for the wage earner. Exclusively preoccupied with wage rates and pensions, the unions boast of their Pyrrhic victories. The union members are not conscious of the fact that their fate is tied up with the flowering of their employers’ enterprises. As voters they approve of a taxation system which taxes away and dissipates for current expenditure those funds which would have been saved and invested as new capital. What the workers must learn is that the only reason why wage rates are higher in the United States than in other countries is that the per head quota of capital invested is higher. The psychological danger of all kinds of pension plans is to be seen in the fact that they obscure this point. They give to the workers an unfounded feeling of security. Now, they think, our future is safe. No need to worry any longer. The unions will win for us more and more social gains. An age of plenty is in sight. Yet, the workers should be worried about the state of the supply of capital. They should be worried because the preservation and the further improvement of what is called “the American way of life” and “an American standard of living” depends on the maintenance and the further increase of the capital invested in American business. A man who is forced to provide of his own account for his old age must save a part of his income or take out an insurance policy. This leads him to examine the financial status of the savings bank or the insurance company or the soundness of the bonds he buys. Such a man is more likely to get an idea of the economic problems of his country than a man whom a pension scheme seemingly relieves of all worries. He will get the incentive to read the financial page of his newspaper and will become interested in articles which thoughtless people skip. If he is keen enough he will discover the flaw in the teachings of the “new economics.” But the man who confides in the pension stipulated believes that all such issues are “mere theory” and do not affect him. He does not bother about those things on which his wellbeing depends because he ignores this dependence. As citizens such people are a liability. A nation cannot prosper if its members are not fully aware of the fact that what alone can improve their conditions is more and better production. And this can only be brought about by increased saving and capital accumulation. From the Commercial and Financial Chronicle, February 23, 1950. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------