요새 청년 자살 정말 심각하다 회말역전승 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423282171 geoenoeoe/ 일베 댓글 어느시대에나 청년자살자는 있었지만, 갈수록 청년자살자는 늘어갈수밖에 없는 구조라는 점이 매우 심각한 문제임 과거 아날로그 시대에 어린시절을 보낸 사람보다, 요즘 청년들은 디지털기기를 어린시절부터 접했음. 그만큼 무분별한, 유해정보,물질만능주의에 더일찍,더빠르고 깊게 세뇌되어있음. 독서,명상,철학 이런 아날로그적인 요소는 경험도 거의없고 틀딱들의 전유물로만 생각함. 성장하면서 돈이 1의 가치가 되고, 돈벌기위해 모든걸 영끌해서 올인함. 투자실패함. 젊음이 있으니 시간을 갈아넣으면 재기할수도 있겠지만, 타격도 너무크고 막막하고 견뎌낼 노력하라는건 틀딱들 개소리로 여김 돈이 전부인데 투자에 실패했으니, 인내해서 재기한다는거, 너무지겹고 견딜자신도 없고, 왜 내 부모는 금수저가 아닌가 한탄함 한탕크게 성공해서 금수저로 외제차,명품으로 휘감고 간지나게 살고싶었는데, 남은건 갚아야할 원금+고리의 이자밖에 남지않았으니 더이상 살이유도, 의지도 없음-> 자살 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 한국에서 유일하게 남아있던 원시림 근황 부자가됩시다 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423272005 한국에서 유일하게 손때묻지않고 남아있던 원시림이 가리왕산이었는데 올림픽 한다고 나무들 거의 파헤쳐버림 그런데 올림픽 스키장 짓는다고 나무 파헤쳤는데 아무것도 안 함 국내에 보존된 원시림이 없어서 일본으로 가야할 정도로 한국은 보존이 상당히 열악한 현실이다 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 장문) 조선시대는 정말 말 그대로 "헬"이었을것 같다 방구석2last2 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423261559 지금도 물론 만만치않지만 그때는 진짜 어마어마했을거같다 반도의 위치나 지형 자체가... 중국 대륙 입장에서 봤을때 위로 쭉 올라간다음 오른쪽 아래로 꺾어 내려가는 ㄱ자로 되어있는데다.. 땅이 별로 가치가 있는것도 아니고, 숲과 산이 굉장히 많고, 자잘한 섬들까지도 많아서 중국에 사는 범죄자나 패배자 입장에서는 도망치기에 딱좋은 지형이다 이건 마치 신이 노예와 범죄자들을 위한 땅으로 만들어놓은게 아닐까 생각들 정도이다 그래서 반도에 사는 대부분의 인간들은 추악함을 몇단계 걸쳐 농축시킨 에센스와도 같아지게되었다 예전 1990년대때 TV 프로에서 어떤 시골마을에 살던 불쌍한 모녀 이야기가 나온적 있었는데 그 엄마라는 사람이.. 자신이 밭일하러 나갈때마다 항상 그때를 틈타 옆집 청년이 침입해 자기 딸을 성폭행하는 바람에 중절을 6번이나 하다가 나중에는 그냥 자궁을 떼는 수술까지 받았다며 하소연하는 내용이었다 (90년대에는 아리랑치기라던지 봉고차로 길거리에 있던 사람 납치하는일도 간간이 일어났던 시기임) 딸은 당시 90년대 보편적인 시골 여자들마냥 굉장히 온순하고 고통을 숙명처럼 여기며 감내하는 그런 여자여서 카메라 앞에서는 한마디도 안했었다(마치 중동에서 가족 인터뷰할때 가족 뒤에 서있기만 하는 딸이랑 비슷했었음) 아마 조선시대때는 이보다 훨씬 더 심했을것이다 남편이 밭일하러 집을 나가면 그때를 틈타 마을 청년들이 집으로 들어와서 아내나 딸 강간하고.. 아내나 딸은 협박때문에 보복이 두려워서 말도 못하고 그냥 남편(또는 아빠)한테 말 안하고 감내만 하거나, 아니면 남편이 그걸 알아도 반도 특유의 구질구질 끈적끈적 얽히고 섥힌 인간관계 구조상.. 어찌 방도가 없어서 제한된 틀 안에서 최대한으로 부질없는 노력을 하며 참고 또 참는.. 그런 감옥같은 삶이 꽤 많았을것이다 최지룡씨가 만화에서 말한대로 아주 사소한 원한을 사도 밤에 몰래 집에다 불지르거나 쥐불놀이를 핑계삼아 불질러버리기 때문에 성질 더러운것들 눈에 안띄게 늘 조심했을거고... 지금도 거짓말, 사기, 도둑질, 무고, 위증이 일상인데 그때에는 집에 사람 아무도없으면 물건 그냥 없어졌을것이다 어떤놈이 마음에 안들거나 뭔가 빼앗고 싶은게 있으면 거짓 소문 퍼뜨리거나 허위로 투서해서 사람 인생 종치게 만들었을거고 금이나 비단이나 도자기같은 뭔가 가치있는 귀중품이 남들 눈에 띄었다 싶으면 늘 시시때때로 신경써야되고... 있지도 않는 노비증서 만들어서 멀쩡한 사람 노비 만드는일도 비일비재 했을것이다 청년들이 위세를 가지고 남의 축사 들어가서 닭한마리 잡아먹어도, 주인은 그 부당함에 저항하다가 못이겨냈을때 자신이 초라하게 되는것을 회피하려고 애초에 그 경우를 이미지화시켜 '허허'하면서 웃으며.. 스스로를 세뇌시켜가며 불행에 대처한 경우도 많았을것이다 구한말 선교사들이 조선인들은 음식 생기자마자 모조리 먹어치우고 과식한다고 비판했었는데 아마 그 진짜 이유는 구질구질 얽히고 들어오는 착취관계를 애초부터 만들지 않으려는 이유 때문이었을것이다 한번 구질구질하고 완만한 비탈길이 만들어지면 다음부터는 끊어내기가 힘들기 때문에 처음부터 그 경우가 안만들어지게끔 딱딱하게 처세하는식으로.. 그러니까 그냥 다 소모시켜서 없애는식으로 처세하다보니 그런 풍습이 만들어진것이라 본다 마치 복권 당첨되면 온갖것들에게 연락오고 스토킹 당하는것처럼... 조선시대때에도 남들 게으름 피울때 혼자 열심히 해서 콩도 심고 모도 심고 이것저것 노력해서 풍작을 일구어내도 친척이니 이웃이니 하는것들이 글겅이질 해가기 때문에.. 착취당하지 않으려고 애초에 노력 자체를 안하게되어 하향평준화 되었을것이고... 그게 고착화되고 일상화 되었기 때문에 다같이 가난해지고 다같이 못난 상태가 된것이라 본다 손해보는게 상처받는것(착취당하는것)보다는 낫기 때문이다 이런 사회에서 연극, 가극, 오페라, 음악 따위는 없는게 당연하다 에도시대의 하나미같은 꽃구경 문화도 없는게 당연하다 조선시대때 축제가 하나도 없는 이유를 모르겠다고 하는 사람들은 조선인을 아직 잘 모르는것이다 그냥 주변 모든것들이 언제 침투할지 모르는 사기꾼, 범죄자, 정신병자, 방화범, 스토킹, 강간범, 도둑놈들뿐인데 어떻게 서로 어우러질수 있었겠는가? 선교사들은 조선이 고요하고 조선인들이 매우 정적이라고 묘사했는데 사실 조선이 고요했던것은 모든 사람들이 다 죽었기 때문이라고 생각한다 그중에 풍작을 일구어내거나 아니면 뭔가 좋은걸 가지고있으면 즉시 생지옥을 체험하게 되니까... 모두가 가난하고 비참한 못난 상태에서 로봇처럼 살았던것이다 출처 : https://arca.live/b/history22/51735158?p=4 --->한 30년 후면 한국이 다시 저런 사회로 돌아갈 수 있다. 지금 한국은 소수의 겁많은 기회주의자들과 좌파 특권 세력에 의해 통치되고 있다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 서울신문 [속보] 미 대법원 ‘낙태 합법’ 판결 뒤집었다 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 문명의 시작은 동양도 서양도 아닌 오리엔트 '중양'에서 [BOOK] 중앙일보 <인류본사> 이희수 지음 하지만 문명의 진짜 어머니는 오늘날 투르키예(터키) 중동부의 도시 유적인 차탈회위크로 봐야 한다는 게 지은이의 주장이다. 1950년대 후반 발굴이 시작된 이곳은 기원전 7500~기원전 5700년에 2000년 가까이 존속했던 ‘계획도시’다. 유네스코로부터 인류 최초의 도시로 인정받아 2012년 문화유산에 등재됐다. 약 200채의 집마다 창고‧부엌‧거실을 갖추고 정교한 벽화와 조각으로 장식했다. 벽의 황소 머리 장식과 독수리 형상, 이층으로 오르내리는 사다리는 고대인의 정신세계와 자연 추앙을 보여준다. 눈에 띄는 건 DNA 조사 등 과학적 연구 결과 이 도시는 주민들이 농경과 목축을 병행하며 공동육아제‧공동노동‧ 남녀평등을 누린 원시 공동체 사회로 밝혀졌다는 사실이다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 좌파들이 말하는 것보다 더 많이 시장은 실질적인 평등을 조장한다. Markets Promote Real Equality Much More Than Progressive (and Conservative) Critics Claim coin Vibhu Vikramaditya The economy consists of a huge chain of the division of labor that is interlocked to such a limit where there exists hardly any single individual or firm that produces the whole of the product alone. This is famously illustrated in the essay “I, Pencil,” by Leonard Read. Each element of this complex chain is a firm that consists of many individuals, therefore one of the first questions one might ask is, "Why do individuals engage in these complex economic activities?" The answer to this fundamental question lies in the understanding that individuals undertake any economic activity with the expectation that it would make them better off than their present situation. Individuals, thus, in regard to their own interests engage in voluntary cooperation in the market economy. Although modern discussions in social consciousness on the presence of inequality makes it seem that unequal outcomes are unfair and thus morally unacceptable. Reality, however, is contrary to their beliefs, as the equality of markets always exists until external constraints in the form of barriers to entry are imposed upon it. Whenever a new product is introduced into the market and there are no externally imposed barriers to entry, the equality of the market lies in the equal opportunity it affords to each producer to participate in the market and accumulate resources. The crucial point being the reproducibility of the product demanded or the producibility of its alternative. The firm that introduces the new product for sure gets a leading advantage in the game but such advantages rarely lead to the firm acquiring a monopoly position in the market for a long period of time. This phenomenon is most effectively demonstrated in the history of commercial personal computing, where pioneers such as the J. Lyons Company, Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation, and Gavilan Computer Corp., many of whom introduced personal computing in its nascent form, couldn’t capitalize on it to gain supernormal profits. As these products came on to the market, it started a process of entrepreneurship where due to lack of barriers to entry many other new entrepreneurs and firms could capitalize on the existing product and through innovation and upgrades grab a lot of market shares, this was how Apple and IBM managed to capture a large part of the market despite not being first movers. Today other new companies such as Lenovo (24.7 percent), HP (24.0 percent), and Dell (17.6 percent) are dominating the market. While this affords equal opportunity to all producers who want to sell their products and outcompete other existing firms due to their efficiency and better products, it also rewards success with an accumulation of resources that pass hands from the less effective to the more effective producers. The process in the personal computing market is sure to continue in the future as long as external barriers in form of licensing, quotas, and other competition entry measures are not introduced externally by the government. The critics of the existing distribution of resources argue that due to the fact the distribution is not equal, i.e., some have more and others have less, therefore it is wrong, but this is an understanding only of a superficial nature. Markets consist of numerous sellers engaging in competition with each other to attract and satisfy the consumers in the best manner possible. In any market, the sellers who are able to attract and satisfy the consumers better than their competitors reap higher profits. These profits accrue to firms because they perform better than their competitors and in return get to accumulate money capital. This monetary capital then may allow them to be in a better position than other firms that have either lost monetary capital in terms of losses. This process wherein monetary capital gets transferred from lower-performing firms to higher-performing firms is the reason behind the allocative efficiency of the marketplace, which on one hand minimizes wastage of resources and on the other builds a structure of good decision making. This is an example of unequal outcomes that are borne out of the equal nature of competition. The equality of competition lies in the equal opportunity that is afforded to each firm such that it can enter the marketplace, use its resources in any way it desires to satisfy the consumers. While inequality of this kind is morally acceptable, since it is borne out of equal opportunity afforded to all, there are inequalities in the marketplace that are a result of special privileges that inhibit the equality of markets. A situation in a market in which a producer of a product gets exclusive rights to produce that commodity and subsequently gets an accumulated monetary capital based on the high monopoly profit it earns is an example of unequal outcomes, which creates inequality that isn't morally acceptable. Inequality in the Modern World Entrepreneurs produce with the expectation of future revenue, which they seek to derive from their consumers. They advance wages to workers before the output is produced in order to help the workers finance their consumption. The core competition between entrepreneurs on an economy-level basis happens in terms of the ability of entrepreneurs through their goods to get consumer’s money income. The process by which consumers act in regard to their own desires by buying goods from entrepreneurs they prefer based on the relative abilities of goods to satisfy their desires naturally creates a distribution of money income where the bulk of the total amount of money that consumers received while working goes back to entrepreneurs who were best able to satisfy their desires. At the same time, a significant portion of entrepreneurs who advanced wages to workers and introduced additional money income into the society through investments fail to generate a revenue stream. This is the reason why it was found that every fifth new business in the UK fails within its first five years and that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) had shown in the US that about 20 percent of new businesses fail during their first year of trading. Less than 50 percent of businesses succeed past the first five years of operation, and by the tenth year in business, about 65 percent have failed. The results of maximizing economic efficiency that the market brings about is a result of the competitive process in which different firms engage with the central prize being chased is the consumers’ money. The lack of understanding of the competitive process of the market has led to the formation of a number of misguided notions, the most impactful of them being the notion of big businesses and market share. Accumulation and Market Share Today big and successful companies such as Amazon are described as monopolies where its critics point to its increasing market share as indications of its market power. While amazon’s market share has been increasing over the last decade, its much lower relative prices and better services to consumers appear as a contradiction this worldview. As we have seen earlier, the ability to satisfy the consumer in a better manner than one’s competitors leads to accumulation of money. Companies such as Amazon have been firms that have satisfied consumers in a much better manner than other firms, although this past success of a large market share doesn’t provide Amazon “monopoly power,” as critics believe. Large market share in traditional economic theory states that since the firm has managed to satisfy the consumers in a relatively better manner in the past, it gains a hold upon its buyers whereby it can effectively set its own market rules and gain a significant profit rate. However, this belief is based on a misunderstanding of how the competitive process in markets actually works. Large and successful firms such as Walmart and Amazon have significant portions of their own respective consumer market segments. While Amazon boasts of having the largest retail e-commerce market share of over 38 percent, a study found: In 43 metropolitan areas and 160 smaller markets, Walmart captures 50 percent or more of grocery sales, our analysis of 2018 spending data found. In 38 of these regions, Walmart’s share of the grocery market is 70 percent or more. Despite such levels of market power that these firms seem to enjoy among consumers, their net profit margins, which illustrate how much of each dollar in revenue collected by a company translates into profit, have been consistently low and had been decreasing during the periods where they had gained their respective market shares. Walmart, which had a net profit of margin of about 3.33 percent in 2010, saw it consistently decline over an eight-year period to 1.02 percent in 2017, while its revenue grew from $403.12 billion to $510.16 billion during this period. Amazon had a similar story in which it went from 3.83 percent in 2010 to 1.20 percent in 2017, and even being in net loss for two years, its revenue during the same time going from $28.66 billion to $177.86 billion. The path followed by the net profit margins in both these cases is not a random phenomenon but a result of the competitive process. Firms competing in the market for money look to undercut competitors in order to attract the marginal consumers toward them. This allows them to engage in monetary accumulation, demonstrated by the increase in revenue in both cases, but it is not the case, as the critics claim, that the gaining of market power of a firm allows it to overcome the discipline of the market and become monopolies. Amazon’s net profit margin, despite its massive accumulation of money and a market share of almost 50 percent, has experienced only an addition of 3.28 percent. Walmart during the same period experienced only a nominal increase of 1.24 percent. The fact that the gains in net profit are low is a testament to discipline of the competitive process, in which even the possibility that a competitor can take away a firm’s customers keeps the big firms in line. The growth of the Dollar Tree, which caters to the needs of middle- and lower-income groups by undercutting Amazon and Walmart, has been astonishing. Its revenue has grown from about $4 billion to $26 billion, working within some of the overlapping consumer base of Amazon and Walmart with a consistent average net profit margin of more than 5 percent. These results demonstrate that a firm’s market share is no guarantee against facing competition. Firms that have been successful continuously find ways to reduce their costs and undercut competitors, while firms that accumulate large sums of money succeed by becoming more efficient in serving needs of consumers. Thus, inequality borne out of the competitive process is morally acceptable, as it is the result of the superior ability of an enterprise to satisfy consumers in an environment in which opportunities to satisfy consumer desires is afforded to all. Author: Vibhu Vikramaditya An economics and a libertarian scholar with research interests in capital theory, monetary theory, and business cycles, I write about events in the economy from a legal and economic standpoint with a proliberty outlook and believe that safeguarding the liberty and rights of each individual is the most important act toward peace, prosperity and growth. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------