2019년 4월 2일 화요일

김문수

 엄창환 전국청년정책네트워크 대표가 “박근혜 정부 때 있던 청년위원회도 없어져, 누구와 소통해야 되며, 누구와 이야기를 해야 되는지 알 길이 없다”며, 문재인 대통령 앞에서 울어버렸습니다. 문재인 대통령에게 속아서 소통 창구도 없어져 버리고, 일자리도 잃어버리고, 희망도 뺏겨버린 청년의 눈물이 저를 적십니다.
  자기 딸이 태국으로 나간 지 몇 달이 지났는데도, 한국에서 요가강사하고 있다고 인도 국빈방문 중에 연설할 정도로 불통이니 다른 청년들과는 더 먹통일 수밖에 없지 않겠습니까?
  청년과 불통
  딸과도 먹통
  오직 김정은 수석대변인?
-------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------

문재인이 대한민국을 적(敵)으로 본다면 대한민국도 그를 敵으로 간주해야!

조갑제

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

단두대를 설계하는 청와대 사람들

프리덤뉴스 김기수 변호사

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
역사에는 누구도 불가능하다고 여겼던 전쟁들로 
점철되어 있다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

중국이 미국의 기술 정보 절도를 중지하고, 미국과의 무역 협정 위반을 멈추기 전까지, 트럼프는 중국과의 새로운 협정에 합의하면 안 된다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
미국과의 무역 전쟁으로, 중국은 최악의 경기 후퇴가 올 수 있다. 중국은 더욱 폐쇄적인 국가가 될 것이다.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------


When Deng Xiaoping launched China on the path to economic reform in the late 1970s, he vowed to build “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” More than three decades later, China’s efforts to modernize have yielded something very different from the working people’s paradise Deng envisioned: an incipient kleptocracy, characterized by endemic corruption, soaring income inequality, and growing social tensions. China’s Crony Capitalism traces the origins of China’s present-day troubles to the series of incomplete reforms from the post-Tiananmen era that decentralized the control of public property without clarifying its ownership.
Beginning in the 1990s, changes in the control and ownership rights of state-owned assets allowed well-connected government officials and businessmen to amass huge fortunes through the systematic looting of state-owned property―in particular land, natural resources, and assets in state-run enterprises. Mustering compelling evidence from over two hundred corruption cases involving government and law enforcement officials, private businessmen, and organized crime members, Minxin Pei shows how collusion among elites has spawned an illicit market for power inside the party-state, in which bribes and official appointments are surreptitiously but routinely traded. This system of crony capitalism has created a legacy of criminality and entrenched privilege that will make any movement toward democracy difficult and disorderly.
Rejecting conventional platitudes about the resilience of Chinese Communist Party rule, Pei gathers unambiguous evidence that beneath China’s facade of ever-expanding prosperity and power lies a Leninist state in an advanced stage of decay.  (아마존 책 소개)

중국이 경제 성장을 하는 기간에 당 관료와 이들에 붙어 먹은 가족, 친적, 지인들이 거대한 부패의 사슬을 형성해서, 중국의 부의 대부분을 가져갔다는 주장. 사실 이는 청나라 관료주의 시대와 유사하고, 우리의 관료주의 상황에서도 나타난 현상이다.  단지 중국은 우리보다 더 심하고 규모가 크다는 차이가 있을 뿐이다. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
97번째 도리스 데이 생일!

LES BROWN, DORIS DAY LONG AGO AND FAR AWAY 1944

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

난민 범죄 기사에 달린 댓글들/  출처 티비 조선
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
문재인의  4. 11 미국 방문 은 트럼프 의 초청이 아니고  긴급 소환령 이다

한국 기업에 대한 미국 최대의 투자자 그룹 인 유태인 투자자들 을 보호하려는 워싱톤의 최대 유태인 정치로비스트 그룹  AIPAC 이  트럼프에게 압력을 가해  문재인 이 현재 획책하려는한국 그로벌 재벌기업 에대한 강탈계획 추진을 중지하도록 강력히 요구하여  트럼프가 문재인을 소환하는것이라고 미국 현지언론이 백악관소식통 을 인용하여  보도하였다

트럼프 의 긴급 소환령으로 문재인이 크게 기대하고있던  4. 11 대한민국 상해 임시정부 수립 100 주년 기념식 연설 조차도 취소한체 겁에 질린 생쥐같이 한마디  일정조율이나 이의제기 건의 조차도 못하고 4. 11 일 워싱톤으로 급히 소환 당하게 생겼다.

이곳 미 현지 언론보도에 의하면 말이좋아 트럼프 대통령의 초청이지 이번 만남은 미국에 의해곧 쫒겨날 문제인 을 향해 트럼프가 최종적으로 북한에 취할 최고 수준의 추가제재 조치를 통보하고 문재인 주사파 정권이 현재 극비리에 북한에 퍼주고있는 여러가지 유형의 대북지원 사례를 경고하고 아울러 미국의 세컨더리 보복조치 통보를 하려는 일종의 문재인을 향한 협박성 최후 경고메세지 를 직접 전달하려는 만남이 될것이라고 미언론이 보도하고있다.

트럼프가 두번째로 우려하고 있는것은 문재인공산주의 독재정권이 현재 강력히 추진하고 있는 중국식 공산주의 ,사회주의 식 경제 조치로 말미암아 폭망하게될 한국의 10대 재벌기업에  투자하고있는 미국 투자자들의  엄청난 한국기업 투자손실을 방어 해주기 위해  문재인 에게 사실상 사회주의 경제체재 를 포기할것과 미국투자자들이 엄청난 투자를 하고있는 한국글로벌 10대 재벌기업 강탈획책을 당장 중지해줄것을 강력히 요구하고 경고하는  자리가 될것이라고한다.

결국 문재인은 중국과 북한의 지령을 받아 현재추진하고있는 재벌기업 강탈 음모 획책에 미국이 강력하게 쐐기를 박으려는것이다.

또한 미국은  대한항공이 현재 미국 록히드 마틴과 보잉의 첨단 우주항공기술로 항공기 제작과 정비씨스템까지 운용되고 있는 항공기 제작 업체이고  이러한 미국의 최첨단기술들이 중국과 북한 수중에 넘어가면  미국 안보에 심각한 위해가 되며  KAL 에 투자한 유태인 투자자들 의 상당한 투자손실이 우려됨은 물론 문재인이 강탈하려는  삼성, 엘지,  SK 등 한국 10대 재벌기업이 폭망하개되면  이곳 기업에 투자하고.있는 미국  투자업체들의  천문학적 투자 손실도  트럼프 대통령 으로서는  쉽게 간과해 넘길수 없는 긴급 상황인 것이다.

이제는 트럼프 대통령 뿐만이 아니라 미국 의회까지도  문재인 을 미국의 동맹국 자유대한민국 의 대통령 이 아닌  중국 을 종주국 으로 섬기는 북한이 조정하는 남한 간첩의 수괴로  보고있는 시각으로  점점 변해가고 있는 상황이다

이번에 문제인을 소환하게끔 트럼프에 압력을 행사한 단체가 다름아닌  미국의 의회 와 정치, 경제, 외교를 장악한 미국 유태인 들의 최대 로비스트 그룹 AIPAC 이라는 유대인 단체이다
.
바로  지난번 하노이 미북회담을 결렬시킨  미국 최고의  정치 파워그룹 인것이다

트럼프를 향한 미국내  최대 유태인 로비단체 AIPAC 과 미 의회 유태계 연방의원 (전체 의원 숫자의 15%  육박 ) 들이 이번 미북회담 에서CVID 핵폐기 합의를  반드시 받아내 줄것을 트럼프와  미 의회에 엄청난 로비와 압력 을 가한결과 트럼프가  하노이 미북정상회담을 결렬시켰다고 미국 불름버그 통신과 월스트리트 저널이 지난주 보도한바있다.

초강대국 미국의 기반을 유태인들이 거의 장악하고 있다고 해도 과언이 아니다. 그밖에 미국 최고의 명문대학  아이비리그  교수와 학생의 30%가 유태인 출신이며,미국상원의원의15 % 이상이 유태계이다. 

또한 미국의 부통령과 상하원 의원의 절반 이상이 참가하는  AIPAC  즉 미국내 유태인들로  구성된 풀뿌리 참여단체는 미국 정치권의 최대 로비단체로 조국 이스라엘의  안전과 국익을 위해 미국의회를 상데로 막강한 영향력을 행사하고있다.

트럼프는 자신이 대통령이 되는데 최대의 지원을 해준 미국내 유태인들에게 엄청난 빚을 지고 있으며 감히 배신하지도 못한다.

미국은 현재 문 재인 이 더이상  험한꼴 당하기전에 조속한 하야 성명을 발표해 주기만을 학수고대하고 있는 상황이다.

D. K. R. L.  in the.   U. S. A 




[출처] [펌] 4월11일, 긴급 소환령
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

보 철거로 문재인 망했다!!! (이헌 변호사) / 

신의한수



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

마다가스카르에서 새로 발견된 화려한 색상의 수컷 자이언트 스틱 벌레
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

여분은 모호한 말이다. 말하자면  비상한 상황이 발생하지 않으면 그것은 낭비처럼 보인다. 그런데 세상에는 언제나 예기치 못한 무엇인가가 일어난다.  

----> 사람 몸에도 맹장 같은 것은 퇴화한 기관 정도로 취급하고, 잘라 버려도 아무일 없는 것처럼 말한다. 사실 맹장 수술에서는 늘 맹장을 잘라버린다. 하지만 과연 맹장은 정말 아무일 없이 인간의 몸 속에 남아 있는 기관일까?  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

삶은 구조의 축적에 달려 있다.
모든 것을 뭉뚱그려서 하나의 커다란 덩어리로 만들려는 정치 이념은, 긍정적인 변화는 반드시 구조를 보존해야 한다는 사실을 무시한다. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

기회 비용이란?
당신이 기업가가 된다면 모든 결정은 맞교환이 된다. 그리고 기회 비용을 계산하는 일을 매일 해야 한다.
결정을 할 때는 항상 기회 비용을 생각해야 한다. 또 다른 방법은 어떨까
 
Per Bylund On Opportunity Cost
 
Hunter Hastings
Per Bylund
 
Hunter Hastings talks with Per Bylund about Opportunity Costs. Why is this important? Because, for entrepreneurs, all costs are opportunity costs; and opportunity costs are the only costs. Opportunity cost is the core of economics, and to develop an understanding of how to apply economic principles to real life, it’s the place we must start.
 
 
Opportunity cost is the fundamental trade-off. The value of any action or choice is defined by the value of what I am foregoing — of what I can’t do as a result of choosing. If I decide to make my product out of stainless steel, I can’t also make it out of aluminum. The value I create by choosing stainless steel must be greater than the value I gave up by not choosing aluminum.
 
We calculate opportunity cost as the NPV of different alternatives. The NPV of the second best choice is the opportunity cost of the first.
 
The entrepreneur must understand the mind of the consumer in order to see opportunity costs in the way the consumer sees them. Opportunity cost is a subjective evaluation on the consumer’s part. How do they look at alternatives when they are considering the entrepreneur’s offer? Would they assign greater value to the aluminum product compared to the stainless steel product? An entrepreneur needs to be able to answer that question in order to calculate how to design a good deal in the consumer’s eyes.
 
The way to do this is to solve an equation: consumer value = the value of what I am offering minus the customer’s perceived opportunity cost of acquiring it. We must understand what is the first alternative for the consumer (including doing nothing — not buying). That’s one part of the consumer’s opportunity cost. Second, what are the additional opportunity costs of buying — such as the difficulty of getting to the store to buy the product, or the difficulty of ascending the learning curve to use an app. These are the second component of opportunity cost for the consumer — the alternative is not to have to face these costs and may be preferable.
 
 
It’s possible to segment consumers by understanding their attitudes to opportunity costs. Book buyers on amazon prefer the low cost and fast delivery. Their opportunity cost is going to the book store, where there is a limited selection and prices are higher. Book buyers who go to the brick and mortar store prefer mingling with other book buyers and perhaps getting a cup of coffee — experiences that are unavailable on amazon. For these consumers, the opportunity cost of foregoing such experiences on amazon is high — so high that it makes amazon’s low price unattractive. These attitudes are held by different kinds of book buyers.
 
The entrepreneur’s first opportunity cost is the value of choosing another career, such as a corporate job. Many entrepreneurs could make more money — and do so with more continuity and security — as a corporate employee. That’s the opportunity cost. But it may not compensate for the excitement and fulfillment of doing what you love as an entrepreneur. Be sure to calculate the opportunity costs carefully!
 
Once you’re an entrepreneur, every decision is a trade-off, and calculating opportunity cost is an everyday task it’s important to master. Every resource allocation decision is an opportunity cost decision. How much should I spend on product development, if that means less money for marketing and sales? Whom should I hire versus what tasks should I outsource? Once the decision is made the opportunity cost is locked in. This is especially critical for small and start-up businesses with limited resources and tough cash flow constraints. Always think in terms of opportunity costs when making decisions: what’s the alternative?
 
The allocation of time is often the most important opportunity cost of all. A classic example is engineering time spent perfecting the product versus getting a just-about-good-enough product to the consumer for evaluation and feedback. The engineering trade-off is that the product is not the best it can be. More time would help. The business trade-off is that customer feedback is the most important resource of all, especially negative feedback which tells you how to improve. Delaying it could be fatal. The entrepreneur must weigh these two alternative uses of time. That’s how the concept of the MVP (minimum viable product) and agile programming emerged. They’re both ways to make the best trade-offs of time allocated to the most important tasks.
 
The entrepreneur must always be thinking of trade-offs. What am I losing or foregoing by making this choice? That’s the opportunity cost. Calculate it, estimate it and put a value on it. Focus on what you are not doing in order to choose the right thing to do.
-------------------------------------------------------
세계적인 경기 부진의 원인
세계적 경기 부진의 근본적인 원인은 지난 10여 년간 인위적으로 낮춘 금리이다. 하지만 미제스가 지적했듯이, 인위적인 저금리는 투자 오류를 조성한다.
 
It's not a Recession, It's a "Global Economic Slowdown"
 
George Pickering
 
For much of the past several months it has been almost impossible to open the pages of any business section, or skim through any article on current economic events, without encountering the same ominous phrase: global economic slowdown.
 
The quickness with which this new buzzword has crept its way into the centre of the public conversation offers a striking illustration of the general mood in the financial world at present, especially outside the relatively lively U.S. economy. Whatever might be said about the shallowness of Keynes’ “animal spirits” interpretation of the causes of business cycles, it is difficult to shake the impression that a general, intangible economic pessimism has been a major reason why "global economic slowdown" — a phrase which has often been explained and justified only very vaguely — has so readily been adopted as the default prediction for 2019’s economic outlook.
 
However, the seemingly instinctive eagerness of pundits to adopt the phrase has sometimes left its true meaning and import under-explored, leaving open several key questions: What really is the global economic slowdown? What are its causes? And could it be a precursor to the next crisis?
 
The first thing to note about the new "global economic slowdown" buzzword is that, at least at present, it is for the most part a prediction that the coming months will bring slow or stagnant growth, rather than an assertion that we’re currently back in full blown crisis conditions. This partly accounts for the choice of softer language in its name: “slowdown” certainly has a somewhat less apocalyptic timbre to it than “recession” or “crash.”
 
However, it is no coincidence that predictions of a more pronounced slowdown have been on the rise over the past few months, given the noticeable stuttering of the global economy since the end of 2018. Even in the U.S. economy, consumer spending in December 2018 exhibited its greatest drop since 2009, with personal income falling for the first time in three years in January, and factory activity hitting a two-year low in February. All of this contributed to a predicted annual growth rate of just 0.5% for the first quarter of 2019, and a flatlining dollar since the end of 2018. The outlook is even worse outside the relative oasis of prosperity that is the U.S. economy at present. Both Britain and the Eurozone grew by just 0.2% in the final quarter of 2018, Italy has entered its fifth recession in two decades, and recent news of a major German manufacturing slump suggests more dark clouds on the horizon for the European economy. In light of this dismal backdrop, it is easy to understand how economic analysts have so easily slipped into their current predictions of a significant worldwide slowdown for the remainder of 2019.
 
So what has caused this worldwide weakening of growth, which so many are expecting to develop into a global economic slowdown? Most pundits have painted the situation as something of a perfect storm, with numerous factors from different regions having combined in a manner likely to produce a worldwide impact. The Chinese economic slowdown has been one of the most talked-about of these factors, especially after Beijing’s announcement that it will be cutting its growth forecast for the rest of the year, down to between 6% and 6.5%, compared with last year’s official figure of 6.6%. Chinese exports have also taken a significant hit since the beginning of the year, with February’s export figures suggesting a 20.7% decline compared with the same month last year, doubtless due in part to the ongoing tariff war between China and the US. The weakness of the European economy, mired as it is in the uncertainty surrounding Brexit amongst other factors, has also been cited as a millstone around the neck of the global economy.
 
However, the media focus on these individual symptoms risks drawing attention away from the slowdown’s underlying systemic cause: the past decade of artificially low interest rates. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2007/8, central banks around the world responded by implementing near-zero interest rate policies, which they then maintained for an unprecedented length of time as the slump dragged on. In response to the tentative recovery of the past two or so years, however, numerous key central banks have begun the gradual process of normalizing interest rates once again. As Ludwig von Mises explained with his Austrian Business Cycle Theory, such an extended period of artificially low interest rates will have induced businesses into a myriad of ‘malinvestments’: risky, long-term projects which only appear profitable for as long as the unsustainably low interest rates persist. When the risk of runaway inflation eventually forces central banks to raise interest rates again, the new, higher cost of borrowing reveals that many of these projects cannot be completed profitably, forcing businesses to either significantly scale back their activities or face heavy losses, or both.
 
The timing of this current stutter in the global economy certainly seems to support the view that, in line with Mises’ theory, recent interest rate hikes have begun revealing the unsteady foundations on which the past few years’ recovery has been built. Sensing this, central banks around the world have been following the Fed’s dovish turn since January, reconsidering or outright reversing their previously planned interest rate hikes. However, such attempts to delay the inevitable readjustment can only result in even greater numbers of malinvestments being made in the meantime, with the result being that when the correction finally does arrive, a mere "global economic slowdown" may be the least of our worries.
 
George Pickering is a 2018 Mises Institute Research Fellow and a student of economic history at the London School of Economics.

----------------------------------------

2019년 4월 1일 월요일


공무원 존나게 뽑아대더만 이꼴나노 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

서민들 세금 뜯어서 공무원들 연금 주게 생김 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

앞으로 공무원 아닌 애들은 평생 세금 노예충 될 예정이니 젊은 일게이들은 이민가라




[출처] 공무원 연금 부채 급증으로 국가부채 1700조 임박 ㄷㄷㄷㄷ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
나경원

오늘 두 명의 후보자를 철회하거나 사퇴시켰다. 당연한 수순이라고 생각한다. 이 자리에 계신 박대출 의원께서 ‘非코드 희생’이라고 말씀하셨는데 ‘非코드’ 후보 두 명 철회시킨 것으로 대충 넘어갈 수 없다. 코드 장관 두 명을 사실상 지키기 위한 ‘非코드 희생 플레이’ 아닌가 생각한다. 저희는 ‘위선영선’과 ‘막말연철’의 지명 철회를 요구한다. 또한 이 모든 인사의 책임이 있는 조국 수석의 사퇴를 요구한다. 조국 수석은 김의겸 대변인 투기도 막지 못한 책임도 또한 같이 있다는 말씀을 드린다. 그리고 최종적으로는 대통령의 사과를 요구한다.

----------------------------------
김문수

박영선 4선 국회의원 집이 3채인데, 구로을 지역구에는 한 채도 없네요. 지역구에는 오피스텔을 빌려놨는데, 살기는 연희동 전두환 대통령집 두 집 건너 산답니다. 보통 국회의원들은 지역구에 한 채부터 가지고, 두 채라면 국회 근처에 가지지요. 구로사랑, 서민 행세하더니
  이게 뭡니까?
  
  마치 항일독립투사처럼 열 올리더니, 일본 동경 아카사카에 집까지 가지고 있네요? 하나밖에 없는 아들은 외국인 초등학교, 일본 중학교, 미국 고등학교, 미국 대학교에 다니며, 2중 국적이랍니다. 반일 반미의 최선봉인 양 선동하더니, 이게 뭡니까? 문재인 대통령 입만 열면 75년 지난 옛날 친일파 탓하더니, 당신 곁에 더 가까이 두고 싶어하는 박영선은 바로 지금 골수 친일파 아닙니까?
-----------------------------------------------------------
鄭 국방이 질타한 軍紀解弛는 文 대통령의 '경험하지 않은 나라'로 가는 
過程은 아닌가?
이동복


정경두(鄭景斗) 국방부장관이 1일 전군(全軍)의 주요 지휘관과 화상회의를 하면서 “군의관이 지문을 본떠 출퇴근을 조작하고, 정비 실수에 의해 천궁 미사일이 발사되는가 하면, 카투사들이 허위보고 후 장기간 무단이탈하고, 무분별하게 인터넷 도박에 빠진 군인들까지 있다”면서 “국민의 기대에 어긋나는 상상하지 못할 일들이 발생하고 있다”는 극언(極言)으로 군내(軍內)에 만연(蔓延)하고 있는 군기해이(軍紀解弛)를 질타했다고 한다. 
일견(一見), 정 국방의 질타는 이 나라 국방 책임자의 입장에서 당연한 이야기를 하는 것처럼 들릴 수 있어 보인다. 그러나, 곰씹어 보면, 정 국방의 질타 내용은 이 나라가 문재인(文在寅) 대통령이 다짐한 '누구도 경험하지 않았던 나라'로 진행하고 있음을, 국방부 영역에서, 드러내 주는 것이 아닌가 싶기도 하다. 이 같은 의견에 대한 정 국방의 생각은 어떠한지, 가능하다면, 이 글에 대한 댓글로라도 알려 줄 수 없는지 모르겠다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
석유제품을 북한에 몰래 넘긴 혐의로 한국 유류선 한 척이 부산에 억류된 것이 확인됐습니다. 

북한은 연간 200만 배럴의 석유제품을 수입했었는데, 지금은 50만 배럴 까지만 허용됩니다. 

유엔의 제재 때문입니다. 

김정은은 공언했던 것과 달리 비핵화 의지가 있는지 의심받고 있습니다. 

미국은 남북 경협이 아니라 강력한 제재 이행을 통해 비핵화를 이끌겠다는 구상이지요. 

이런 시점에 한국 기업이 불법을 도운 혐의로 조사받고 있습니다. 


[출처] 불법 환적’ 한국선박 첫 적발…부산항 억류/ 채널 에이
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“文 정부가 '反김정은' 명단 北에 유출… CIA 의심”


日 온라인매체 보도 “미북회담 때 평양서 '간첩색출' 작전… 美, 기밀 유출자로 한국 의심”

---> 미국 정보부가 북한의 가짜 쿠데타 명단을 흘렸는데, 이

게 북한으로 들어가서, 지난 김정은의 하노이 방문 당시 명단

의 북한 군인들이 체포되었다는 것이다. 

미국은 한국 정부가 

이 명단을 북한에 유출했다고 믿고 있다. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

三、越南何时废除汉字
虽然在唐宋时期,有人根据越南语的特点,参照汉字字形,创造了字喃,但是始终没有普及开。虽然字喃是借用整个汉字或是汉字偏旁,然后采取汉字中的会意、形声、假借等造字方法创制而成,本质上是对汉字的补充。甚至可以认为汉字和字喃其实只是一种字,因为字的构造成分完全相同。但是由于越南人深受儒家文化和汉字的影响,非常排斥和拒绝使用字喃。无论是官方还是民间,汉字依旧都是正式的越南书面文字。这种情况直到1858年法军炮轰岘港,打开了越南的国门,将整个越南变为其殖民地。
越南废除汉字最重要的原因是,法国殖民者为割裂中越的历史文化纽带,19世纪下半叶以来,法国殖民者开始了一系列的去中国化运动,禁止当时的阮朝使用官方文书汉文(文言文),并废除了1915年以及1918年至1919年的科举考试。汉字、汉文地位的降低,也导致了与汉字关系紧密的喃字的地位下降。在20世纪上半叶,喃字和汉喃文逐渐没落,而法国殖民者推行的拼音化文字国语字和国语字文开始标准化并在越南通行。早在公元17世纪之时,旅居越南的西方传教士就开始用拉丁字母拼写越南语,今天越南的国语字就是在此基础上发展而来的。
此外,还有一个重要原因是,随着越南近代国内独立运动和民族主义的兴起,虽然越南的国语字本身有很大缺陷,但由于殖民时代的强行推广,加之相对易学易懂,因此成为了越南革命者们传播先进思想、争取民族独立的工具。特别是1945年9月2日,当时的越南领导人胡志明在河内巴亭广场宣读了用国语字撰写的《独立宣言》,越南民主共和国正式成立,国语字正式成为了越南的官方正式文字。


作者:慕容齊
链接:https://www.jianshu.com/p/caa87a36381a
来源:简书
简书著作权归作者所有,任何形式的转载都请联系作者获得授权并注明出处。
---->우연히 읽게 되었는데, 그동안 월남의 한자 폐지가 근대화의 일환이거나 공산주의자들의 소행인줄 알았는데, 사실은 프랑스 식민지 시대에 시작된 일이라고 한다. 그리고 그 근원은 이미 17세기에 선교사들이 라틴어로 월남어를 표기한 데서 비롯한다고 한다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“비핵화 ‘큰 조치’는 모든 핵시설 공개와 해체 시작”

[VOA] 정치·안보 박승혁 2019.4.2

미국의 핵 전문가들은 마이크 폼페오 국무장관이 북한으로부터 기대한다는 ‘큰 조치’를 ‘모든 핵시설 공개와 해체’로 분석했습니다. 실제 비핵화 수순이 아니면 미국이 받아들이지 않을 것으로 전망했습니다.

마이크 폼페오 미 국무장관은 지난달 27일 하원 외교위원회 청문회에 출석해, 하노이 회담이 결렬된 이유는 “북한의 큰 조치”를 보지 못했기 때문이라고 말했습니다.

[녹취: 마이크 폼페오 미국 국무장관] "We have not yet seen them make the big move that we were hoping frankly they would do in Hanoi."

북한이 하노이 회담에서 미국의 솔직한 바람대로 큰 결단을 내리지 않았다는 것입니다.

올리 하이노넨 전 국제원자력기구 사무차장은 폼페오 장관이 얘기한 ‘큰 조치’란 북한 내부에 있는 모든 핵시설을 공개한 뒤 관련 활동을 멈추고 해체 수순을 밟으라는 뜻일 것이라고 관측했습니다.

[녹취: 올리 하이노넨 전 국제원자력기구 사무차장] "They were probably expecting kind of overall plan of procedures in steps. If you shut down all the facilities and you tell where they are, and you start real dismantlement, then they’d know you are serious about it."

하이노넨 전 사무차장은 미국 입장에선 북한이 하노이에서 비핵화 과정의 전반적 절차를 밝히기를 기대했을 것이라고 말했습니다.

그러면서 북한이 모든 시설을 폐쇄하고, 위치를 밝히고, 실제로 폐기 작업을 시작했다면 미국이 만족할 만큼 비핵화 의지가 확실히 드러났을 것이라고 설명했습니다.

이에 더해 숨겨진 모든 시설에 대한 신고와, 생산 중단 등이 뒤따라야 한다고 말했습니다.

[출처] [외신] 미, 비핵화 큰 조치는 모든 핵시설 공개 후 해체 북한 사기경력있기 때문
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

시진핑의 국가 주도 경제를 협정으로 바꿀 수 있을까? 그렇게 믿는다면 매우 어리석은 일이다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
시진핑의 2013년 비밀 연설에 따르면, 자본주의는 필연적으로 붕괴한다고 한다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
괴물 시진핑의 질주를 멈추어야 한다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
장자연 목격자? ㅈㄹ염병을하노ㅋㅋㅋ북한 예술단에서 시다바리나할것같은 주름살 다쳐진년이 ㅋㅋ 

애당초  몇년이 지난후에 이제와서 목격자?

그럼 진작에 법적절차딛고 그당시에 목격자라는사실 입증시켰어야지 

지금 버닝썬 사건 터지고나서 국민들이 장자연팔이해 재조명되니까

아무리봐도 이때다싶어서 듣보잡배우가 가십거리물어 주목좀 받아볼려고 발광하는거밖에 더되보이냐 븅신같은년 ㅋㅋ 

ㅋㅋ아니 청와대 청원이 제일 웃김 

그리고 정치계인사들과 관련있다한들

장자연본인이 뜨고싶어서 지몸뚱아리판게 거의 의심시되고있는데

고인팔이하면서 이렇게까지 노이즈마케팅을 하네 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ




[출처] 윤지오 이런년들 절대 믿으면 안된다 ㅋㅋ (운영자는 비켜라)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
일본 연호 레이와의 의미

EDIT 1: The name "Reiwa" was originally from Manyoshu, which is the oldest anthology (existing collection) of Japanese poetry. "Reiwa" is the first Japanese era name to be used from not Chinese - but Japanese - literature.
EDIT 2: "Reiwa" came specifically from Manyoshu poem 815, fom volume 5:
  • The word 令月 (reigetsu; 令 is the first kanji of the "Reiwa" era name) can be "a fine/felicitous month" or the second month of the old calendar.
  • The 和 (second kanji) comes from "yawaragu," the growing mildness of the early spring winds.
As Prime Minister Abe explains: The poem describes softer winds following the bitter cold of winter, coaxing the ume (plum/apricot) blossoms out. Hopes are that this new era will be "one where the Japanese people can bloom following a period of coldness for them."

레이와는 "초봄의 따사로움" 정도의 의미인 듯하다. 만엽집의 시는 추운 겨울이 지난 뒤에 불어노는 훈풍을 그리고 있다고 한다. 봄바람에 꽃이 피듯이 일본에 화기가 돌기는 바라는 연호이다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1965년과 현재,  에너지원의 순서는 동일하다
1. 석유
2. 석탄 
3, 천연가스
4. 수력발전
5. 원자력
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


That $15-$19 minimum wage is why the croissants are expensive!

미국 의원인 오카시오-코르테스가, 라구아디아 공황에서 크루아상 하나가 7달러 하니까, 시급 15 달러는 받아야 하는 게 아니냐고 트윗을 날렸다. 그러자 이에 대한 찬반 댓글이 무척 많이 달렸다. 위의 댓글은 그중의 하나.

크루아상이 7 달러나 하는 것은, 최저 임금이 15달러에서 19 달러로 높기 때문이다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
호주의 좌파들 등살에 중국으로 옮겨가는 호주 과학자. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

투자 오류는 왜 일어나는가?
 
케인즈 식의 생각에 따르면, 실업자의 기술이나 선호나 장소와 상관 없이, 전체 수요를 증가하기만 하면, 그리고 그 돈을 사람들이 화장품을 사거나 컴퓨터를 사거나 상관 없이, 그 실업자가 취업에 성공한다는 것이다.
정부의 부양 정책으로 자원이 이동하면, 생산적이고 사적인 부문의 자원은 그만큼 줄어들게 된다.
정부의 지출은 자원의 재분배를 왜곡하고 또 인플레를 유발할 가능성이 크다.
 
Malinvestment: Have We Learned Anything Since the Last Recession?
 
Bradley Thomas
 
A growing number of economists are predicting the current economic boom will turn to bust in 2019. When recession does come, will economists simply call for more of the same — namely endless government spending?
 
After all, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, most economists told us the problem was the private sector was not spending and investing enough. So, we were told, government must step in and make up the difference with deficit spending to get “idle resources” — like capital goods and labor — back to work.
 
But what should the government be spending on? Apparently, anything.
 
This is not an exaggeration. For example, noted Cal-Berkeley economist Brad DeLong insisted in 2009 “At this point, anything that boosts the government’s deficit over the next two years passes the benefit-cost test — anything at all.”
 
Such thinking reveals one of fatal flaws of mainstream economics: the idea that all the economy is one big homogeneous blob. As Friedrich Hayek put it, “Mr. Keynes’ aggregates conceal the most fundamental mechanisms of change.”
 
The Problem of Malinvestment
During the 2002-2007 housing boom, significant amounts of capital and labor were organized in very specific locations, combinations and uses at multiple stages of production to produce more houses to satisfy consumer demands. This meant more construction workers employed building homes in growing communities, and more mortgage brokers and investment bankers to finance the boom. It also meant more inputs such as wood, nails, concrete and glass directed toward homebuilding; which in turn required more lumber processing, steel production, and so on.
 
When the housing bubble burst, millions of these workers became unemployed, and significant portions of the structures of production that were expanded to support the bubble became idle as well. The bursting of the bubble then sent a ripple effect permeating through other sectors of the economy, creating yet more unemployed resources.
 
For the economy to recover, a major reallocation of these idle workers and resources needed to occur. Idle workers and capital goods needed to be reshuffled to those entrepreneurs ready and willing to employ them in an attempt to meet changing consumer demands.
 
But this process is not short nor easy. The unemployed workers have specific skills and experience, and many may need training to acquire new skills to meet the changing labor market. Some may be unwilling to move to take new opportunities. How is a laid off bricklayer supposed to find work in a market demanding graphic designers and coders?
 
The capital goods no longer being utilized likewise have specific uses, and often need specific complementary goods to fulfill their role in the production process. Some of them may end up being liquidated because no entrepreneurs have a need for them. There simply may be too many bulldozers and cement mixers needed given the now smaller, post-bubble construction industry.
 
Recession: A Process of Re-allocating Malinvested Resources
This process of reshuffling explains the strength and duration of the recession.
 
Keynesian-inspired economists and politicians, unfortunately, view the idle capital and labor only in the aggregate. Their grand “stimulus” plans involve nothing more nuanced than coaxing consumer spending and business investment into spending more money on anything, anytime, anywhere.
 
As economic historian Robert Higgs described , “If someone, whatever his skills, preferences, or location, is unemployed, then, in this framework of thought, we may expect to put him back to work by increasing aggregate demand, regardless of what we happen to spend the money for, whether it be cosmetics or computers.”
 
Simply force-feeding new money into the economy will be ineffective because it takes no account of the true reason why the resources are idle in the first place.
 
The billions of dollars worth of public works projects, for instance, will mostly draw from labor and capital actively engaged in the private sector and fail to employ idle resources. Say, for instance, Chicago receives millions to build a new road. Can anyone honestly say for certain that the road construction will only employ workers and other inputs sitting idle in the Chicago area due to the housing bust?
 
Unemployed bankers and carpenters won’t be of much help laying pavement. Rather, the road project will undoubtedly divert labor and machinery actively engaged in private sector projects in the region. In the end, fewer resources will be available for productive, private sector use because they are tied up in government stimulus projects.
 
Meanwhile, the majority of idle workers and equipment will continue to sit idle.
 
Moreover, billions of available funds in the capital investment markets will be tied up by government projects; further drying up private investment opportunities.
 
Government stimulus spending may also artificially inflate the prices of resources, pricing them out of reach for entrepreneurs needing low-priced inputs to attract their investment during uncertain recessionary conditions. The very resources needed to generate recovery will be unavailable, having been diverted to government projects.
 
The best policy is for government to get out of the way and allow the reallocation of resources to occur unhampered. Government spending can only distort and prolong this process, most likely producing harmful inflationary pressure on prices along the way.
 
Will next time be any different?
 
Bradley Thomas is creator of the website Erasethestate.com, and is a libertarian activist and writer with nearly 15 years experience researching and writing on political philosophy and economics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

소명으로서의 경제학
 
오스트리아 학파의 학자들, 멩거, 봄바베르크, 비저 등은 경제학을 추구함에 있어 그것을 금전적 이익을 얻는 직업이 아니라, 진실을 발견하기 위한 소명으로 임했다.
이에 반해 직업적인 경제학자들은 생활을 유지하고 명성을 얻고, 정책을 결정하는 등의 목적으로 경제학을 배운다.
미제스는 일찍이 “경제학자라는 직업의 발전은 개입주의 정책의 부산물로 나타났다”라고 갈파한 바 있다.
 
Economics as a Vocation
 
Joseph T. Salerno
The Free Market 26, no. 1 (January 2005)
 
Should economics be pursued as a profession or a vocation? The choice isn’t about the job title of a particular economist or what tasks he or she fulfills in the course of a day’s work. It is about the motivation behind the work and the subjective orientation one brings to the task. The choice tends to dictate whether an economist will serve the cause of truth and freedom, or waste his or her talents on convenience, ephemera, and statism.
 
Think about the word "vocation" as a work or function to which a person is called that requires dedication to an idea. A vocation involves what Ludwig von Mises called "introversive" labor while a profession involves "extroversive" labor. The essence of introversive labor is work undertaken solely for its own sake and not as a means to a more remote end. Extroversive labor, in contrast, is performed because the individual "prefers the proceeds he can earn by working to the disutility of labor and the pleasure of leisure."
 
One of the "two most conspicuous examples" of introversive labor, according to Mises, is "the search for truth and knowledge pursued for its own sake and not as a means of improving one’s own efficiency and skill in the performance of other kinds of labor aiming at other ends." The second is "genuine sport, practiced without any design for reward and social success."
 
It is not that the effort expended by the "truth seeker" or "mountain climber" does not involve the disutility of labor, rather "it is precisely overcoming the disutility of labor that satisfies him." Thus genuine truth seeking in any scientific discipline qualifies economically as "consumption" and its pursuit as a vocation.
 
The founding members of the Austrian School pursued economic research neither for pecuniary gain nor because they sought professional recognition or an influence on public policy. According to Mises, "When Menger, Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser began their scientific careers . . . [t]hey considered it as their vocation to put economic theory on a sound basis and they dedicated themselves entirely to this cause." These three eminent Austrians, therefore, were not economists by profession but by vocation.
 
The "vocational" economist takes a position in academia or works in some other profession such as banking, journalism, industry, or government in order to obtain the concrete means necessary to sustain and complement his efforts to discover new truths or expound and apply established truths in his economic research and writing.
 
Now consider the contrast with the "professional" economist. He or she aims at earning a livelihood, eliciting acclaim from peers, achieving public fame, shaping political policies or, most likely, a combination of these ends.
 
Thus the difference between the vocational economist and the professional economist is not their objective method of earning a living but the subjective ends aimed at, which are unobservable. Nonetheless, despite the subjective element involved, the two kinds of economists can be readily distinguished from each other by scrutinizing the disparate views they express toward economic research, particularly its truth content and perceived rewards.
 
Vocational economists like Murray Rothbard are not allergic to using the unfashionable terms "truth" and "law" when characterizing the science of economics. For Rothbard economics is a substantive body of immutable and universal causal laws that are logically deduced from the incontrovertible fact that people employ means to attain their most desired ends. As such, Rothbard held that "all these elaborated laws [of economics] are absolutely true" and that "economics does furnish . . . existential laws."
 
Furthermore, in the 1950s and 1960s, Rothbard was working on Austrian economics in obscurity and virtual isolation. He did not obtain a full-time academic position until 1966 and, before then, was earning a precarious living on foundation grants while he soldiered on in building up the Austrian theoretical edifice. Yet Rothbard revealed in an interview in 1990 that he had been quite content during this period: "Any chance to write a book or meet new people was terrific."
 
These are the views and the attitudes of the ideal vocational economist.
 
 
The Problem of the Professional
 
Paul Samuelson is the exemplar of the modern professional economist. When Samuelson once grandiosely declared, "I can claim in talking about modern economics I am talking about me," he spoke truer than he knew. In his approach to economic research Samuelson is a self-proclaimed follower of the "views of Ernst Mach and the crude logical positivists."
 
Samuelson’s formulation of the now discredited stable Philip’s Curve tradeoff between inflation and unemployment is an example of such Machian theorizing in action. Without doubt, the Philips Curve for a time was well liked by Samuelson, but its truth content in the face of the stagflation that developed in the 1970s was exactly nil.
 
Ultimately, however, the professional economist need not fret overly much about whether he can harvest a grain of truth from such unrealistic models, because his reward for pursuing economic research lies elsewhere. According to Samuelson, "In the long run the economic scholar works for the only coin worth having—our own applause."
 
Samuelson’s account of the extroversive reward sought after by modern professional economists clearly—though perhaps unwittingly—reveals that their research endeavors are not governed primarily by a search for truth.
 
 
Why We Must Choose
 
The professionalization of a scientific discipline, particularly a social science like economics, almost always proceeds hand in hand with the expansion of government interventionism.
 
As Mises put it "The development of a profession of economists is an offshoot of interventionism." The reason for this inevitable connection rests on two facts. On the one hand, the State requires a class of intellectuals and specialists for designing, implementing, and providing rationalizations for various interventions into the market economy. On the other hand, those intellectuals who seek the regular income and prestige that accompany the professionalization of their discipline are ever ready to oblige, because the ability of an intellectual to earn his living researching and writing in his chosen field on the free market is always precarious at best.
 
As the interventionist State expands, it reinforces the need for trained experts and the university system obtains increasing subsidies from government to initiate and expand graduate programs that will provide such personnel. The lucrative positions in these programs are naturally bestowed on those economists who spearhead the drive to professionalize and are, therefore, most active and outspoken in their support of government interventionism.
 
In the US, the most extreme and thoroughgoing instances of domestic interventionism occurred during the two World Wars of the twentieth century. It was therefore no surprise that the movement to professionalize American economics, which began in the 1880s, experienced quantum leaps during these war crises. For when the State goes to war it needs professional expertise to plan and direct the massive mobilization of the resources it requires. This translates into a cornucopia of lucrative and prestigious jobs for economic experts and specialists in the bureaus and advisory boards of the political planning apparatus that centrally directs the war economy.
 
The remarkable proliferation of hyper-specialized fields that occurred during and after World War II led to a disintegration of economic theory, signified by the disappearance of the general economic treatise. No longer was there an integrated system of general economic principles that was held in common and applied to the analysis of all policies and problems by those who called themselves economists. Now each sub-field of research had its own special theory which was more or less sealed off from general economic theory. Even general theory itself was now compartmentalized into microeconomics and macroeconomics.
 
To sum up: the vocational economist strives to master the system of economic theory as handed down by the great system builders and innovators of the past. Once this mastery is achieved, then, depending on his ability, he is poised either to expound and apply this theoretical system, to contribute a few important innovations, or to present a thoroughgoing reformulation that embodies a number of major advances.
 
There are very few individuals who are capable of successfully embarking on even the first of these paths. Moreover, regardless of which path is taken, the vocational economist is driven forward by a thirst for truth which is never slaked. He seeks to know ever more about what Rothbard termed "the structure of reality as embodied in economic law."
 
As Mises perceptively noted as early as 1949, professional economists "rival the legal profession in the supreme conduct of political affairs. The eminent role they play is one of the most characteristic features of our age of interventionism."
------------------------------------------------