결단의 공,과는 역사가 평가한다"/중공학자가 본 월가와 트럼프/오바마의 충격적 본심/미 동부, 캐나다에 유성출현 에이브러햄 링컨은 노예 해방자라고만 알려져 있지만 남북전쟁시기 계엄령을 선포하고 반대 언론매체를 폐쇄하고 재판없이 많은 정치인들을 잡아들여 군 형무소에 수감했습니다. 당시 독재자란 평가가 많았지만 그 만큼 연방해체를 막기 위해 불가피한 결단이었다는 게 역사의 평가입니다. 오바마 조차도 에이브러햄 링컨을 미 역사상 가장 위대한 대통령으로 평가하고 있습니다. 현재의 미국은 외부세력의 선거개입은 물론이고 대내적으로는 대규모의 사기선거를 통한 정권찬탈과 무장폭동의 위험에 처해 있어 에이브러햄 링컨의 시기보다 훨씬 더한 위기에 처해 있습니다. 이대로 가다가는 미국이 사라질 수도 있다는 위기감을 느낀 자발적 조직 We the People Convention은 워싱턴 타임즈에 광고를 내고 트럼프 대통령에게 주어진 권한을 최대한 발휘해 계엄령을 발동하고 재선거를 치러야 한다고 촉구했습니다. 에이브러햄 링컨 대통령도 당시 뉴욕타임즈에 비슷한 취지의 광고를 게재한 바 있습니다. 이번 방송에서는 계엄령 촉구 광고에서 나타난 에이브러햄 링컨 당시의 시대상황과 현 상황을 비교했습니다. 다른 뉴스로는 중공의 저명한 관변 국제관계 학자 자이동성이 본 미중관계의 본질, 그리고 월가와 트럼프의 관계를 설명했습니다. 또 전임대통령치고는 왕성한 대외활동을 하고 있는 오바마의 충격적인 본심은 무엇인지를 전합니다. 또 워린 버핏의 기업이 중공에 협조하고 있는 미국기업으로 예비 조사리스트에 올랐다는 소식과 트럼프 대통령이 인생에서 가장 중요한 연설을 한 날 미동북부와 캐나다 상공에 유성이 폭발했다는 뉴스를 전해드립니다. 박상후의 문명개화 https://youtu.be/74v-uVKRZBg ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 시스템의 파괴와 승자 카카오콱/ 일베 과정만 다를뿐 문정권 4년동안 일어난 일들은 중국의 문화혁명과 동일함. 적폐청산은 문화혁명의 반동척결 또는 반혁명분자 척결과 용어만 다를뿐 같은 것. 일당독재로 가기 위해서는 기존 시스템을 운영하는 상부체계를 해체할 필요가 있고 그 자리에 혁명 의식이 투철한 자들로 대체하는 것이 필수적임. 젊은 피 수혈이라는 미명하에 정계는 현실을 모르고 선동에 능한 말 잘 듣는 좌익세력으로 대체되었음. 경제활동 인구의 절반이 종사하는 1천만명의 소상공인이 사지로 내몰리는대도 불구하고 이를 제지할 목소리가 안나온다는 것은 이미 국가 시스템은 파괴되었다는 의미임. 한번 무너진 시스템은 다시 세우는데 몇배의 비용과 시간을 요구할 것임. 이 혼돈의 최종 승리자는 중국과 여기에 연계된 소수 매국노가 될 것이고 패배자는 대한민국 국민이다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 온병 치료제 대청룡탕 按照一般的书上传统的讲法，大青龙汤要有几大症状才能用，又有很多讲法它过于发汗，比较危险什么的。 但是最近我看到费维光先生的文章，他根据日本汉方的经验，极大的拓展了大青龙汤的适用范围 基本上完全颠覆了传统对“大青龙汤”的认识。 我转载费老文章如下：（收录于他的《中医经方临阵入门》） 由于仲景《伤寒论》和《金匮要略》书中对于大青龙汤的临床应用只有三条，又加后世医家对桂枝汤、麻黄汤、大青龙汤皆视为竣剂，畏之而不敢用。因而大青龙汤的应用上的广泛性和临床上的卓效性，鲜为人们所了解。 近几年来（1985年以后），我国出版的高等医药院校教材中，不管是《中医方剂学》，还是《中医内科学》，都没有把大青龙汤当作一大主方，在书中作必要的论述和临床应用的推广。最多不过是像《方剂学》那样，作为麻黄汤的加味方，附於麻黄汤条后。 关於仲景书中对於大青龙汤的临床应用，现在仅有的三条是： 《伤寒论》第38条为“太阳中风，脉浮紧，发热恶寒，身疼痛不汗出而烦躁者，大青龙汤主之。若脉微弱，汗出恶风者，不可服之，服之厥逆。筋惕肉瞤，此为逆也。” 又此书第39条为“伤寒，脉浮缓，身不疼，但重，乍有轻时，无少阴证者，大青龙汤发之。” 《金匮要略•痰饮咳嗽病脉证并治第十二》中有“病溢饮者，当发其汗，大青龙汤主之，小青龙汤亦主之。” 在这里我们略去传统性诸家对《伤寒论》中两条开端所云：“太阳中风，脉浮紧”和“伤寒，脉浮缓”谓之中风见寒脉，伤寒见风脉，随称大青龙汤为治风寒两伤、营卫俱病的无谓之词，而着重研究投与大青龙汤的主证。显然，脉之浮紧、浮缓，身疼痛与身不疼但重，都不是大青龙汤的主证。对于外感病来说，从第38条中有发热、恶寒、不汗出、烦躁四项作为主证，则第39条中投用大青龙汤所据脉证，而上述四项，一项未备。对此不少医家作了许多揣测。其中有代表性的是日本的山田正珍氏和我国的陆渊雷先生，都认为在第39条中投用大青龙汤一定都具备发热、恶寒、不汗出、烦躁四证，文中不载是意在简化文字叙述，或举出药方名则主证可知而略去的。因此，认为外感病投用大青龙汤的必备主证，山田氏以为：发热、恶寒、不汗出、烦躁四证；而陆渊雷先生独以为：发热、恶寒、不汗出、口渴、烦躁五证，而多口渴一证。 读了大村光明氏的《大青龙汤管见》，此文发表于日本《汉方临床》第24卷第9期叙述了应用大青龙汤（提纯剂）治愈者六例，以驳斥成都中医学院所编的试用教材《伤寒论讲义》中投用大青龙汤时必须具备主要症状的说法。从其所举六例中，可以看出：不管是有热还是无热、有汗还是无汗、恶寒还是不恶寒或反恶热等等，没有一种症状是每一例中都有的。第39条“伤寒，脉浮缓，身不疼，但重乍有轻时，无少阴证者，大青龙汤发之。”今日看来，条中所云，正是投用大青龙汤的的证，文中不载第38条的所谓主证，并非出於省文。只有一项须辨别清楚，即“无少阴证者”，也就是说只要不是少阴病，像第39条那种情况是可以投用大青龙的。医家认为病轻药重，不得应用大青汤险竣之剂，此为不懂大青龙汤临床应用而发的议论，是不足取的。通观《医宗金鉴》、《伤寒来苏集》、《伤寒贯珠集》诸书，各家学说，无不望文生训，而缺乏临床经验，令人难以卒读。 按桂枝汤、麻黄汤、大青龙汤、葛根汤等方所治病症甚广，但终不能为医家所接受，而通行於世。 唐代药王孙思邈氏在暮年所编《千金翼方•卷九•伤寒上》叹云：“伤寒热病，自古有之，名贤睿哲，多所防御。至於仲景，特有神功，寻思旨趣，莫测其致，所以医人未能鑽仰。尝见太医疗伤寒，惟大青、知母等诸冷物投之，极与仲景本意相反，汤药虽行，百无一效。……夫寻方大意不过三种：一则桂枝，二则麻黄，三则青龙，凡疗伤寒不出之也。其柴胡等诸方，皆是吐下、发汗后不解之事，非是正对之法。术数未深，而天下名贤止而不学，诚可悲夫！”且以桂枝汤、麻黄汤、大青龙汤等，在临床有多少伤寒和温病，皆能应手而愈，在世上却难以通行，所以孙氏有不学不用之叹！ 自明、清时代以来，温病学家几乎将时病皆视为温病，又大倡仲景方不能治温病之说。 明代王肯堂氏《证治准绳》中早就有“故圣人悯之而医药兴，医药兴而天下之人不死於病，而死於医药矣！”王氏这种愤世嫉俗之言，虽则过之，但温病学家时用贵重药品，耗民资财，则不少见。 清代吴鞠通氏所著《温病条辨》，吴氏自诩与仲景《伤寒论》有“一纵一横之妙”，在其辛凉轻剂桑菊饮方下注云：“水二杯，煮取一杯，日二服。二、三日不解，气粗似喘，燥在气分者，加石膏、知母。舌绛暮热，甚燥，邪初入营，加元参二钱、犀角一线。”我们大家知道，服仲景方药在症状中如带有喘息，服药后未有不能祛者。但如上述服吴氏药，“二、三日不解，气粗似喘”，意即反而增加喘息，而转为必须用贵重药物犀角3g之证。仲景书中万万没有如此教人者，怎么含有一纵一横之妙，令人失望。在《温病条辨》中除此一方用犀角，不计其他贵重药物，尚有化斑汤、清宫汤、清营汤、牛黄丸、紫雪丹、局方至宝丹之类，皆含有犀角。 在大村光明氏发表《大青龙汤管见》之前，我恪守投用大青龙汤的五大主证：发热、恶寒、不汗出、口渴、烦躁，以致在临床上应用不多。遇到不恶寒或反恶热的患者具此一项，则不敢迳用大青龙汤，按《伤寒论》中的第6条为“太阳病，发热而渴，不恶寒者为温病。”按吴鞠通氏的《温病条辨》中所论温病治法，则用桑菊饮和银翘散之类，多是两方的合方，而且多加药味，有时亦能一剂而愈，但不把握。另外厌其药味庞杂，和仲景方不能相伍，我深以为憾。 由于大村光明氏治验的启发，引起了我对大青龙汤在临床上进行研究应用的兴趣，所以首先以笔者自身的感冒进行实验。 笔者以往每年患一两次温病，西医称为上呼吸道感染。虽用大剂辛凉解表药，如桑菊饮合银翘散再加味等，服几剂后，自感已愈。可是别人感觉说话仍未愈，得再迁延十几日前后共二十几日方能痊愈。笔者每次发病，先自咽干开始，大多由饮水不足引起。咽干历害，则以后发病亦历害；咽干轻，则以后发病亦轻。咽干的时间很短一日多即愈。接着而来的便是鼻流清涕，四肢倦怠，日渐严重，以至於鼻涕、眼泪大量流出，令人难以忍受。只有用绵纸塞住，稍觉好些，但不久即湿透，须再更换。不发热、不恶寒、不自汗、不口渴、亦不烦躁，食欲正常，二便正常。一次又发此病，咽干甚为剧烈，自服大青龙汤以观其效。谁能料到竟一剂而愈，未见再发。此事发生在1988年冬，当时所用大青龙汤的剂量为： 麻黄8g 桂枝10g 杏仁10g 石膏20g 甘草6g 大枣3枚 切生姜6片。 以后每年发病，皆服此方，无不效如浮鼓。近二年来，不知为何，亦不再发此病。 笔者认识到《伤寒论》是能治温病的，那种认为《伤寒论》中的治温病部分已经丢失的见解，是何等的荒谬。自此以后，遇上不恶寒、或反恶热、自汗与不自汗的外感病，皆与大青龙以治之，效速者一剂而愈，迟者需要六、七剂而愈，但人数甚少。 大青龙汤自1989年至1993年医案记录於下： 1、患者丛×萍，女，三十岁，在自来水站工作，与笔者曾住过同楼隔壁。1989年阴历除夕，忽敲笔者之门，自言发热39℃，而且明日初一加班（工作人员愿意在国家规定的节假日加班，可得到优厚补助）。诊之，舌红苔白，脉大而数，不恶寒，不自汗，无食欲，四肢无力，与大青龙汤，以后听说一剂而愈。次日正月初一，病未再发。 2、患者张×田之妻王××，50岁，患感冒，1989年11月25日经吕姓友人介绍求治。患者发热38 .5℃，平素身体健康，舌红苔微黄，脉浮数，不恶寒，不自汗，恶心，无食欲。与大青龙汤三剂。后知一剂热退，二剂食欲出，三剂痊愈。 3、单硕，男，四岁，患感冒。1993年12月21日由其母亲带来为其诊治，其父母皆为我校教师。其母亲言：今日下午发热38.2℃。诊之，舌红苔薄白，脉浮数，不恶寒，反恶热，口不渴，身上无汗。与大青龙汤三剂，令其一日一剂。晚八时，开始服药，服后睡下，出汗，热稍退。无汗后，热又上升。晚十时，又命其服药，服后如前，汗出热稍退，无汗热又上升。夜十二时，发热时达39.4℃。又命其服药，次日晨八时，体温为38.7℃，第一剂服完。第二日晚间开始服第二剂（按应在次日早晨服第二剂，这是误会中药必在晚间服用。其实应从早服到晚）。夜间体温在38.5℃之间，一直无食欲，喜冷，恶热。第三日晨为38.5℃，饮米汤少许，食半个鸡蛋，直至下午体温降至37.5℃。精神恢复，食欲出，晚间转至平热而愈。 4、笔者之女儿，24岁，患感冒，1992年初诊。不恶寒，不自汗，食欲稍差，舌红苔薄白，脉数。发热38.3℃，笔者令其服大青龙汤，家中已备有此药，令其两剂合煎，一日可分三次，服之而愈。 5、张×敏，男，33岁，我校教师。1993年3月31日初诊。自诉从昨日半夜发热39.6℃，吃了家中现有的退热药和SMZ，体温稍有下降。今日上午9时，又发热到39.4℃，到学校医院曾肌肉注射安痛定、静脉点滴青霉素及庆大霉素之后，亦不退热。晚9点方来求治。诊之，舌薄淡红苔少，脉数，不恶寒，不自汗，亦不口渴。与大青龙汤，每日早晚各服一剂。后知，服一剂后，体温降至37.3℃，两日后痊愈。 6、任×亭，女，46岁，在本校总务处工作，1993年4月6日求治。自言患感冒，发热37.5℃，咽喉痛。诊之，脉微数，舌红苔少，不恶寒，不自汗。与大青龙汤三剂，令其一日一剂。后知一剂后热退，咽喉痛减轻，二剂痊愈。 7、秦×旺，男，49岁，学校汽车司机。1993年4月6日求治。自诉鼻塞不通，流清涕，咽干，时感头痛，不发热，不恶寒，不自汗，好像是感冒，不舒服，但也不耽误工作，照常上班。如此情况，已有好长时间，医生给打针、吃药均不见效。诊之，脉和缓，舌红苔白。与大青龙汤三剂，令其一日一剂。 1993年4月9日复诊，自言服药三剂后，鼻塞已通，清涕已无，咽干减轻，但仍未痊愈。笔者令其再服大青龙汤五剂以观其效。以后自言取药6剂（公费），服完4剂，已恢复正常。 8、朱×江，男，19岁，高中学生，1993年4月14日求治。自言，患感冒，发热38.5℃，不恶寒，不自汗。诊之，脉微数，舌淡红苔少。与大青龙汤三剂，令其一日一剂。后知服一剂后，体温下降到37℃，服二剂痊愈，未耽误上学。 9、朱×云，女，61岁，为学校某工作人员之亲戚，1993年4月15日求治，自诉患感冒后，咽喉疼得历害。疼时好像要咳嗽，但又不咳。诊之，脉和缓，舌红而大，苔白而少，不发热，不恶寒，不自汗。与大青龙汤三剂。当时我校人员告知，患者要回南京。后知服一剂后咽喉作疼已愈大半，服二剂而愈，极言中药之妙。 以上所述九例中，有六例是1993年又大多在三、四月感染，由引可见，此为流行性、病毒性感冒无疑。 又，关于大青龙汤，同意大村光明氏的意见，内热重者可加大石膏用量，汗难出者可加大麻黄用量。日本书中，麻黄为桂枝的二倍，《伤寒论》中，麻黄为桂枝的三倍，笔者前述剂量，为麻黄略少于桂枝。 大青龙汤 此方由麻黄、桂枝、甘草、杏仁、生姜、大枣、石膏七味药组成。如此简洁的复方却包涵了其它五个复方：1.甘草麻黄汤；2.麻杏甘石汤；3.麻黄汤；4.桂枝去芍汤；5.越婢汤。针对类似病势强弱、症状、脉象变化，或拆或合，分量的变化异同更显主辅，分析起来极有层次。 1.甘草麻黄汤证： “一身面目浮肿” 《金匮要略》 定义：“治喘急息迫，或自汗或无汗者。” 《方极》 2.麻杏甘石汤证： “汗出而喘无大热。” 《伤寒论》 定义：“治甘草麻黄汤证之咳而烦渴者。” 《方极》 3.麻黄汤证： “头痛，发热，身痛，腰痛，骨节疼痛，恶风无汗而喘者。” “喘而胸满者。” “发热身疼无汗者。” “不汗出因致衄者。” 《伤寒论》 定义：“治喘而无汗，头痛发热恶风。身体痛者。” 《方极》 “头痛，发热，身痛，腰痛，骨节疼痛，恶风无汗而喘者，正证也。”“喘而胸满者，服发汗而不汗，欲衄者。” 《方极》 4.桂枝去芍汤证： “脉促胸满者” 《伤寒论》 定义：“治桂枝汤证不拘挛者。” 《方极》 “胸满无拘急之证者。” 《方极》 5.越婢汤证： “恶风，一身悉肿，脉浮而渴，续自汗出或无汗” 《金匮要略》 定义：“大青龙汤证，而无咳嗽，冲逆之证者。” 《方极》 通过对大青龙方组五个复方的了解不仅对大青龙证有了一个基本轮廓，对其药能也有一定认识。例如越婢汤治大青龙证而无咳嗽，冲逆，反过来看大青龙汤去杏仁、桂枝即越婢汤。由此可知杏仁治喘咳，桂枝主治冲逆（当然还需其它方剂药能知识）。在掌握大青龙方结构后再看大青龙证就明晰多了。 大青龙汤证： “脉浮紧，发热恶寒，不汗出而烦躁者。” “脉浮缓，（发热恶寒）身不痛，但重，乍有轻时，（不汗出而烦躁者）。” 《伤寒论》 “病溢饮者，当发汗，大青龙汤主之。” 《金匮要略》 定义：“治喘及咳嗽，渴欲饮水，上冲或身痛恶寒者。” 《方极》 “头痛到四肢惰痛，发热不汗出者。” 《方机》 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

美 의회 "화웨이 쓰면 미군 파견 재고"…한국 어쩌나 / 한국경제 ---->문죄인의 선택에 따라 한국의 정치에 격동이 일어난다. 국방부 cctv에 이미 중국의 백도어가 내장되어 군사 기밀을 빼가고 있는 중이다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 뉴욕타임즈의 K방역 칭찬, 알고보니 한국인이 쓴 기사 "대국민 사기극 지겹다" / fn today 미국과 한국의 좌파들이 서로 공생하는 방법! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It’s Game Over(게임오버)!!! – 트럼프, 다 뒤집는다! – 빅테크, 너희도 끝났음! – 2020.12.04 https://youtu.be/KXzVFCb2RMA 진자유티비 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 디플레는 과거의 인플레로 초래된 문제를 복구할 수 없다. 불황기의 긴축 정책 역시 중앙은행의 간섭 행위이고, 그런 의미에서 소비자의 선호에 따른 자원의 배분을 이뤄내지 못한다. 그래서 긴축 정책은 인플레 정책의 피해를 복원할 수가 없는 것이다. 단지 금리와 통화 공급에서 중앙은행의 간섭을 단절해야만 부(富)의 파괴 행위를 막을 수 있다. 주류 경제학의 평형은 상상 속의 개념이다. 평형은 개인의 목적이 성취되었을 때 이루어진다. 그래서 공급업자가 이익을 내고 그의 상품을 팔았다면, 그는 평형을 이룬 것이다. Deflation Doesn't Undo the Problems Caused by Past Inflation Frank Shostak By a popular way of thinking, it is the role of the central bank to make sure that economy follows a path of stable economic growth and prices. The economy is perceived to be like a spaceship that occasionally slips from this trajectory. Following this way of thinking when economic activity slows down and strays from the path of stable economic growth and stable prices, it is the duty of the central bank to give it a push, which will put it back on track. The push is given by means of a loose monetary policy, i.e., lowering interest rates and raising the growth rate of money supply. Conversely, when economic activity is perceived to be “too strong,” then in order to prevent an “overheating” it is the duty of the central bank to “cool off” the economy by introducing a tighter monetary stance. This amounts to raising interest rates and slowing down on monetary injections. It is believed that a tighter stance is going to place the economy on a trajectory of stable economic growth and stable prices. Hence, following this way of thinking it makes a lot of sense for the central bank to watch the economy all the time and to make the necessary adjustments in order to keep it on a stable growth path. It also appears as if a tighter monetary stance could offset the effects of the previous loose monetary stance. Why Tight Monetary Stance Cannot Erase the Effects of an Easy Stance A tight monetary stance cannot undo the negatives of the previous loose stance. A tighter stance cannot reverse the misallocation of resources that occurs during a loose one. According to Percy L. Greaves Jr. in The Causes of the Economic Crisis, and Other Essays before the Great Depression, Mises also refers to the fact that deflation can never repair the damage of a priori inflation. In his seminar, he often likened such a process to an auto driver who had run over a person and then tried to remedy the situation by backing over the victim in reverse. Inflation so scrambles the changes in wealth and income that it becomes impossible to undo the effects. Then too, deflationary manipulations of the quantity of money are just as destructive of market processes, guided by unhampered market prices, wage rates and interest rates, as are such inflationary manipulations of the quantity of money. A tighter monetary stance while likely to undermine various bubble activities is also likely to generate various distortions, thereby inflicting damage to wealth generators. A tighter stance is still intervention by the central bank, and in this sense it does not result in the allocation of resources in line with consumers’ top priorities. Hence, it does not follow that a tighter stance can reverse the damage caused by inflationary policy. Freeing the economy from central bank interference with interest rates and money supply will arrest the process of wealth destruction. This is going to strengthen the process of real wealth generation. With a greater pool of real wealth, it is going to be much easier to absorb various misallocated resources. (Note that some resources, however, due to their nature will be probably much harder to absorb. For instance, a demand for some capital goods and certain human skills could disappear or weaken significantly in the new free market environment.) Can Central Bank Policies Keep the Economy on Stable Growth Path? Most experts are of the view that a major obstacle to getting on the path of stable growth and stable prices is the fluctuation of the federal funds rate around the neutral interest rate. The neutral interest rate, it is held, is one that is consistent with stable prices and a balanced economy. What is required, then, is for Fed policymakers to successfully target the federal funds rate toward the neutral interest rate. According to this view, the main source of economic instability is the variability in the gap between the money market interest rate and the neutral interest rate. In this framework of thinking the neutral interest rate is established at the intersection of the aggregate supply and aggregate demand curves. If the market interest rate falls below the neutral interest rate, investment will exceed savings, implying that aggregate demand will be greater than the aggregate supply. Assuming that the excess demand is financed by the expansion in bank loans, this leads to the creation of new money, which in turn pushes the general level of prices up. Conversely, if the market interest rate rises above the neutral interest rate, savings will exceed investment, aggregate supply will exceed aggregate demand, bank loans and the stock of money will contract, and prices will fall. Hence whenever the market interest rate is in line with the neutral interest rate, the economy is in a state of equilibrium and there are neither upward nor downward pressures on the price level. The main problem here is that the neutral interest rate cannot be observed. How can one tell whether the market interest rate is above or below the neutral interest rate? Despite the fact that the neutral interest rate cannot be observed, economists are of the view that it could be estimated by various indirect means. In order to extract the unobservable neutral interest rate, economists now employ sophisticated mathematical methods such as the Kalman filter. In the process of attempting to ascertain the stable growth path, economists assume the existence of aggregate supply and demand curves. The intersection of these curves generates the so-called equilibrium that supposedly corresponds to the growth path of economic stability. But the law of supply and demand as presented by popular economics does not originate from the facts of reality but rather from the imaginary construction of economists. None of the figures that underpin the supply and demand curves originate in the real world; they are purely imaginary. According to Mises, It is important to realize that we do not have any knowledge or experience concerning the shape of such curves. (Human Action, p. 333) Yet economists heatedly debate the various properties of these unseen curves and their implications regarding government and central bank policies. Why General Equilibrium Is a Fiction The existence of a general equilibrium as depicted by the intersection between the overall economy supply curve with the overall economy demand curve is questionable. The economy as such does not exist apart from individuals. Hence, something that does not exist cannot strive to some kind general equilibrium. The concept of equilibrium is only relevant to individuals. Equilibrium in the context of an individual’s conscious and purposeful behavior has nothing to do with the imaginary equilibrium as depicted by popular economics. Equilibrium is established when individuals’ ends are met. When a supplier is successful in selling his supply at a price that yields profit, he is said to have reached an equilibrium. Similarly, consumers who bought this supply have done so in order to meet their goals. Again, every individual in his own context achieves his equilibrium whenever he reaches his goal. Observe that in the absence of central bank interference the interest rate that will be established is going to be in line with individuals’ various goals. This interest rate will reflect individuals’ goals and not the wishes of central bank planners. Thus, some individuals might discover that the interest rate that they would have to pay is much lower than what they are ready to pay. For some other individuals the free market interest rate may turn out to be far too high. Consequently, they are going to be out of the market. It is the marginal lender and the marginal borrower that set the market interest rate, not the intersection of the supply and the demand curves. Now, once policies are implemented to achieve the neutral interest rate, which supposedly reflects the so-called general equilibrium as established by the mathematical models, this is likely to be in contradiction of what the free market would have established. As a result, this is going to generate the misallocation of resources and the weakening of the process of real wealth generation, i.e., economic impoverishment. By setting the federal funds target rate, Federal Reserve policymakers are pretending that they have the numerical information about the interest rate that corresponds to the growth path of stable economic growth and stable prices. The failure of various centrally planned economies such as the former Soviet Union is testimony that central authorities’ attempt to push the economy toward the growth trajectory as dictated by the government bureaucrats results in an economic disaster. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Niall Ferguson "The regime has degenerated further into a political oligarchy bent on holding on to power through brutality and ruthlessness." The disillusionment of a Chinese Communist: 정권은 야만과 무자비한 방법을 통해서라도 권력을 놓지 않으려는 정치적 과두제로 타락해갔다. --- 중국 공산당원의 환멸 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-12-04/chinese-communist-party-failed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 중국의 경제 기적은 없었다. 경제는 회복하는데 철광, 자동차, 최종 상품 등의 재고가 7개월간 최고에 달한 것은 우연이 아니다. 경제가 살아나고 있다면 물건이 팔리면서 재고는 줄어들어야 한다. 다시 말해 많이 생산되었지만 팔리지 않고 창고에 있다는 뜻이다. 그 결과로 공산품과 수출의 가격은 하락한 반면, 기적적인 경제 회복 중에도 국가 채무가 13.5% 상승했다. 몇몇 학자들은 2008년 ~ 2916년 사이에 중국의 GDP가 2%씩 과장되었고, 그래서 중국의 실제 GDP는 공식 발표보다 18% 낮을 거라고 주장한다. There Is No Chinese Economic Miracle Daniel Lacalle The year 2020 will be an extremely tough year for the European economy. Added to an unprecedented drop is a strong impact in the fourth quarter due to the new lockdowns. Morgan Stanley estimates that the eurozone’s GDP will fall by 2.2 percent in the fourth quarter, a 7 percent drop in the full year 2020. In addition, the investment bank has lowered the outlook for 2021, with a rebound of only 5 percent in the average of the euro area, delaying the recovery of 2019 GDP to 2023. The “jobless recovery” is even more worrying. The apparently spectacular rebound data for the third quarter resulted in zero job creation. Unemployment in the eurozone in September stood at 8.3 percent and in Spain at 16.5 percent, not counting the millions of furloughed jobs in Europe. In this environment, the United States’s recovery seems much stronger. GDP recovered in the third quarter to just 3.5 percent below 2019 levels. Unemployment has fallen to 6.9 percent in October but remains well above the record employment levels of 2019. However, the data from China is apparently spectacular. The manufacturing and services index already shows an enviable expansion. GDP for the first three quarters is already growing at 0.7 percent after an expansion of 4.9 percent in the third quarter. Urban unemployment in China is 5.4 percent after shooting to a paltry 6 percent. What is behind the Chinese miracle compared to the poor eurozone? A planned GDP. The GDP of China is dictated by production, not demand. It is not an observed GDP, but rather planned by the federal government together with the provinces. For this reason, many analysts scrutinize the data and deduct various factors, including the increase and valuation of inventories. It is not by chance that inventories of iron ore, automobiles, and finished goods have risen to the highest level in seven months as the economy recovers. If the economic situation were in the announced expansion, inventories would be falling rapidly when sold. Much is produced that is then not sold and remains in warehouses. Thus, it is not surprising that industrial prices fell 2.1 percent in September, export prices 0.9 percent, and the country’s debt soared 13.5 percent amid an apparently miraculous recovery. Industrial business profits have fallen 2.4 percent between January and September and, furthermore, factory door prices fell faster than expected in September and were at risk of deflation. These are signs of a slowly recovering economy, like all others, but not of a growth miracle. In most economies, inventories are valued at market prices, while in China they are valued by the authorities and adjusted later. Constant methodological and base changes also lead to doubts regarding annual growth, despite the evident increase in transparency in recent years. Another difficult factor to analyze is the growth of construction activity in a country where overcapacity is evident and ghost cities and white elephant uneconomical projects are multiplying. The reduction in urban unemployment also hides a more complex reality. Unemployment in China is close to 11 percent on average, according to the "Long Run Trends in Unemployment and Labor Force Participation in China" study (NBER Working Paper No. 21460) and probably well above 13 percent in the midst of the covid-19 crisis. According to Capital Economics, Nomura, or HSBC University of Beijing, another important challenge is calculating GDP with a realistic deflator. By using a deflator—the impact of prices on GDP—that is much lower than the observed one, GDP appears artificially higher than it really is. In an economy where inflation is underestimated, nominal wages, which grow at an official 3.6 percent, lose purchasing power almost every year due to the real cost of living, especially in food and daily expenditures, which are much higher than the official ones. In a recent study ("A Forensic Examination of China’s National Accounts" [2019]) the authors concluded that China’s GDP may have been exaggerated by around 2 percent per year between 2008 and 2016, showing that China’s real GDP is probably 18 percent lower than the official figure. China’s GDP is never revised, and the December figure simply stands and is consolidated without question. This is an important factor that the Chinese authorities have tried to correct with greater transparency and adjustments by the NBS (National Bureau of Statistics). The problem is that provinces have accelerated their race in the effort to provide spectacular figures and the magnitude of the corrections of the national office does not compensate for these “exaggerations.” Another problem is that annual revisions compute for growth but are not revised in the GDP figure for the year. The calculation base is reduced. For example, according to independent consultancy China Beige Book, gross capital formation for the third quarter of 2019 has been revised down by ¥2.3 trillion. As the 2019 figure falls, the growth on the same data for 2020 seems spectacular. That same review was made with the retail sales figure: those for August 2019 were revised down by ¥50 billion and the growth figure for 2020 seems miraculous. However, a revision of such depth in the base calculation of figures for 2019 did not generate a downward revision of the GDP for that year. These methodological problems are added to the survey used for the calculation. The government uses a list of companies that generate a minimum amount of revenue. That list grows and shrinks, creating homogeneity problems that the NBS tries to adjust for. In the United States, each daily, weekly, and monthly data is analyzed by different independent entities and each data point is impossible to manipulate by a government authority. That is why the GDP is constantly revised. China’s GDP is the only one that is not revised. It is published and consolidated. It is a shame because the reality observed by companies and citizens in China is that the economy is recovering slowly and unevenly, but it is recovering, probably with a year-on-year drop of 2.5 percent, which would be, in any case, a very positive figure. Falling into planned overcapacity and excessive triumphalism on the part of some provinces competing to provide better data than others ends in questioning the reality of the improvement in the economy. Beijing has pledged to bring the data up to IMF standards, but lack of independent scrutiny and the competition between provinces when it comes to providing positive and spectacular figures continue to generate inconsistencies between sales, inventories, consumption, and profits. The recovery of the real economy in China is happening, but it is not dissimilar to that of many of the leading Asian countries. Author: Daniel Lacalle, PhD, economist and fund manager, is the author of the bestselling books Freedom or Equality (2020), Escape from the Central Bank Trap (2017), The Energy World Is Flat (2015), and Life in the Financial Markets (2014). He is a professor of global economy at IE Business School in Madrid. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

일베/ 자유통일코리아 Senator Blake Tillery Georgia Vote Fraud Hearing! "We All Had That Alice in Wonderland Moment Today" 틸러리 GA상원의원 "여기가 미국 맞냐? 오늘 우리 모두는 이상한 나라의 엘리스가 된 기막힌 순간이었다" - 조지아주 부정선거 청문회 클로징 멘트.. https://youtu.be/9cN49OwhwYw ------------------------------------------------------------------- 문 정부 출범 당시 660조원이던 국가채무가 올해 847조원으로 늘었다. 놀랍고도 두려운 폭증이다. 내년에는 956조원으로, 1년 새 110조원 가까이 불어나게 된다. 하루 평균 3000억원꼴로 빚을 내 쓰는 것이다. 기업이라면 당장 망했을 것이다. 제 돈이고, 자기 집, 자기 회사라면 이렇게 쓰고 운영하겠나? 하루 3000억원씩 빚이 불어나는 이 사태를 어느 누가 책임질 수 있나? / 조선일보 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 윤석열의 정체 양청철이 뒷배후임 윤석열은 테블릿 피시에서 벗어날 수 없다 윤석열은 보수표 다 빨아서 민주 제3당 으로 들어 갈거다/ 일베 --->윤석열은 보수표를 흡수하는 역할을 맡은 듯하다. 비록 윤석열이 대권을 잡는다 해도, 그가 박 대통령을 잡아넣은 사람이므로, 박 대통령의 복권은 힘들어진다. 다시 말해 진정한 우파는 권력에서 퇴출된다는 뜻이다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 윤석열 킹 메이커는 민주연구원장 양정철. 가짜인생/ 일베 양정철이라고 다들 들어봤을 거다. 민주연구원장이라는 직함에서 알 수 있듯이 문재인 더불어민주당의 최고 실세이자 책사임. 4.15 총선을 기획 및 진두지휘한 새끼지. 이새끼가 4.15 총선을 앞두고 국내 친중세력을 대표해서 중국 베이징을 방문한다. 중국 간첩 중에서 서열이 가장 높은 최고 실세라는 거지. 중국 간첩들에게 있어 천자가 계신 베이징을 방문해서 중국 최고 실세조직과 협약을 맺는다는 건 친중 서열이 가장 높은 최고 실세만이 할 수 있는 일이거든. 중국의 지시를 받고 부정선거를 총괄하는 새끼라면 명실상부 최고 실세임. 정치인에게 있어 자기를 국회의원에 꽂아줄 수 있는 새끼야 말로 신과 같은 존재니까 근데 이씨발 중국 간첩 최고 서열 양정철과 윤석열이 존나 가까운 사이라는 건 정가에서 유명한 사실임 윤석열 관련주가 올해 초부터 10배가 오름. 대선 관련주는 대선 자금용이라는 건 공공연한 비밀임. 이명박 때 이화공영 문재인 우리들병원 안철수 안랩 등이 대선을 앞두고 폭등을 했었지. 우리나라는 미국과 달리 공식적으로 대선자금을 양껏 모으기가 쉽지가 않기 때문에 주식 등 편법을 동원하는 거. 이 말은 윤석열은 이미 추미애와 갈등 훨씬 이전부터 대선을 준비했다는 거다. 왜냐면 주가가 상승을 하는 건 당장 호재가 뜬다고 상승을 할 수 있는 게 아님. 차트를 만들고 나서 다시 말해 매집을 한 이후에 주가를 올려서 고점에서 팔아 먹는 거. 차트를 만드는 데는 상당한 시간이 필요함. 저가에 매집을 해야하니까. 안랩의 경우를 보면 원종호라는 안철수 최측근으로 보이는 인물이 2008년 2월부터 매집을 한 걸 볼 때 2011년 7월부터 주가가 대시세를 내기 시작했으니까 매집하는데 짧게 잡아도 3년 이상 걸렸다는 거임. 그렇다면 윤석열을 대통령 후보로 만들려는 계획은 이미 한참 전부터 준비가 되었다는 거지. 윤석열 혼자서 이런 계획을 짤 수는 없을 거고 당연하게 윤석열 배후가 양정철이라는 의심을 지울 수가 없다. 공교롭게도 추미애는 스스로 악역을 자처하며 윤석열을 대선 후보로 띄워주고 있고 친중 민노총 산하 중국 공산당 기관지 대한민국 언론과 방송은 앞다투어 윤석열이 차기 보수(?) 대선 후보 선호도 1위라며 홍보를 해주고 있음. 조중동은 대놓고 윤석열을 빨고 있고 좌빨 언론과 방송도 추미애를 불의 윤석열을 정의라는 식으로 윤석열에 대해 상당히 우호적인 보도를 하고 있음. 커뮤니티 중 가장 자유롭다는 일베만 해도 사기탄핵이나 부정선거에 대한 글은 바로바로 정게로 운지하거나 삭제되는 등 철저하게 여론이 통제 조작되고 있는데 대놓고 편파적인 친중 언론과 방송에서 윤석열을 대선 후보로 띄운다는 건 당연히 중국 공산당의 지령으로 보는 게 합당하다. 특나 요새 윤석열 처빠는 글이 일베 인기글에 줄줄이 올라가고 일베 내 조선족새끼들도 윤석열을 처빨고 쉴드치는 걸 볼 때 윤석열 띄우기가 더더욱 중국 공산당과 친중세력의 기획이라는 확신이 든다. 그렇다면 왜 윤석열을 보수로 위장시켜 대선 후보로 만들려 하는가? 현재 문재인과 민주당에 대한 민심이 너무 않좋다. 언론에 보도되는 내용 말고 민주연구원 자체 문재인 지지율 조사에서는 10% 이하임. 그러니까 문재인이 광화문 집회를 기를 쓰고 철저하게 막는 거다. 광화문 집회가 불씨가 돼서 전국민들이 들고 일어날까봐. 특히나 부정선거에 대한 논란이 있기 때문에 이런 상황에서 문재인 민주당이 다음 대선에서 정권을 잡는다면 국민들이 들고 일어날 게 뻔하지. 그러나 만약 문재인 민주당과 각을 세우는 윤석열이 국민의힘 혹은 제3당을 창당해서 대통령에 당선된다면 부정선거가 아니라는 명분을 얻는 것이고 그와 함께 국민들의 불만도 잠재울 수가 있는 거다. 자유민주주의라는 게 정권이 바뀌면 국민들이 또 금방 잊어버리거든. 그걸 노리는 거지. 하지만 친중세력에게 있어 윤석열이여야 하는 진짜 이유는 따로 있다. 바로 윤석열이 태블릿pc를 조작해서 박근혜를 끌어내리는 데 결정적인 역할을 한 중국 간첩 매국노새끼란 거지. 또한 박근혜 정부의 애국 인사들 150여명을 구속시키고 수사 도중 4명이 자살했다. 이 말은 윤석열은 절대 말을 갈아탈 수가 없는 입장이라는 거다. 딴생각을 할 수가 없다는 거다. 딴생각 했다가는 본인부터 뒤지니까 철저하게 친중 사기탄핵 부정선거세력을 비호할 수밖에 없는 입장인 거고 그런 윤석열이 대통령이 돼야 친중세력들이 두발 뻗고 편히 잠을 잘 수가 있는 거다. 윤석열이 대통령이 되면 자신의 태블릿pc 조작에 의한 기획 사기 위헌 탄핵을 철저하게 묻어서 완전범죄를 꿈꿀게 뻔하다. 친중사기탄핵세력에게 이보다 더 좋은 소식은 없지. 일베에서 조선족새끼들이 박근혜를 그토록 까는 것도 다 같은 이유지. 근데 이런 새끼들한테 그래서 박근혜 매장시키고 나서 그다음은 뭐냐고 물으면 아무도 대답을 못하고 빤스런 한다. 박근혜 매장시키고 그다음은 김무성 유승민 이준석 하태경 같은 친중매국노새끼들밖에 없는데 중국에 의해 기획탄핵된 박근혜를 지우고 나면 결국 한국은 완전히 중국에 먹히는 건데 여기에 대해서는 조선족 씨발새끼들이 뭐라고 설명을 할 수가 없거든. 결론은 추미애 윤석열은 짜고치는 고스톱임. 다 한패임. 그동안 윤석열이 문재인 정권 수사한다고 하면서 제대로 결과를 낸 게 하나라도 있냐? 윤석열이 문재인을 물어죽일려면 이미 소재는 널리고 널렸다. 당장 부정선거만 물어보 문재인 추미애는 사형이다. 하지만 윤석열을 절대 그러지 않는다는 거다. 왜냐? 한패니까. 짜고치는 고스톱이니까. 6줄 요약 1.민주연구원장 양정철은 더불어민주당 최고 실세이자 4.15총선을 총괄한 인물로 2.국내 친중세력을 대표하여 중국 공산당 중앙당교와 정책 협약을 맺은 것을 볼 때 친중 서열이 상당히 높은 인물 3.이런 최고 실세 중국 간첩 양정철과 윤석열은 아주 가까운 사이로 알려져 있음 4.윤석열을 보수(?) 대선 후보로 데뷔시키려는 계획은 이미 한참 전부터 기획된 것으로 보임 5.중국과 민주연구원장 양정철이 윤석열을 대선 후보로 띄우는 이유 6.추미애와 윤석열의 갈등은 양정철이 기획한 짜고치는 고스톱 쇼일 뿐 모두 중국 간첩 한패임. / 사진 생략 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 제습산만 除湿散满하는 평위산 平胃散 平胃散是苍术朴，陈皮甘草四般药。 除湿散满驱瘴疴，调胃诸方从此扩。 或合二陈或五苓，硝黄麦曲均堪着。 若合小柴名柴平，煎加姜枣能除疟。 又不换金正气散，即是此方加夏藿。 来源：《局方》。 药物： 苍术五斤(9克) 厚朴(姜制)(6克) 陈皮(去白) (9克)各三斤二两 甘草(炙)(3克)三十两 用法： 加生姜二片，大枣二枚，煎分两次服。 功效： 燥湿健脾，消胀散满。 适应症：脾土不运，湿浊困中，胸腹胀满，口淡不渴，不思饮食，或有恶心呕吐，大便溏泻，困倦嗜睡，舌不红，苔厚腻。 禁忌：脾虚无湿或阴虚之人，症见舌红少苔，口苦而渴，或脉数者，都禁用。 方义：本方是燥湿祛痰，行气健脾剂。苍术燥湿健脾为君药，厚朴除湿散满为臣药，陈皮理气化痰为佐药，甘草、姜、枣调和脾胃为使药。大凡脾胃病变，只要属于所谓脾胃湿滞，呈现胸腹胀满、口淡食少、舌苔白厚而腻主症的，都可用它来治疗，所以古人说它是“治脾圣药”。后世有许多健胃方剂，都是从它扩展演变而来。 “平陈散”(《症因脉治》)，是本方加入祛痰化湿的二陈汤(夏、陈、苓、草)而成。适用于脾胃运化不食，湿痰内阻，胸膈痞闷，或有呕吐泄泻，症情较平胃散症为重。 “胃苓汤”(《丹溪心法》)，是本方加入渗湿利尿的五苓散(茯苓、猪苓、泽泻、白术、桂枝)而成。适用于停饮夹食，脾胃不和，腹痛泄泻，小便不利，或有浮肿等症。 “柴平汤”(《增补内经拾遗方论》引《宦邸便方》)，是本方合小柴胡汤而成。适用于疟疾，脾胃湿盛而脘膈闷胀。 “不换金正气散”，又名“藿香平胃散”(《局方》)，是本方加入芳香化浊、燥湿祛痰的藿香(9克)、半夏(6克)而成。适用于感受不正之气，脾胃食滞，腹痛呕吐，舌苔白腻等症。 此外，本方加麦芽(12克)、神曲(9克)叫做“加味平胃散”(《医方集解》)，功能治疗脾胃湿滞，宿食不消，吞酸嗳腐，不思饮食，如积滞较甚，大便不通者，可加大黄(6克)、芒硝(9克)。方歌“硝黄麦曲均堪着”，即指此而言。 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 属性：治湿淫于内。脾胃不能克制有积饮痞隔中满者。 平胃散用朴陈皮。苍术合甘四味宜。（苍术泔浸二钱。浓朴姜汁炒陈皮甘草炙各一钱。 姜枣煎。）除湿宽胸驱瘴疠。调和胃气此方施。 柯韵伯曰。内经以土运太过曰敦阜。其病腹满。不及曰卑监。其病留满痞塞。张仲景制 三承气汤。 调胃土之敦阜。李东垣制平胃散。平胃土之卑监也。培其卑而使之乎。非削卑之谓 也。苍术苦温运脾。长于发汗。迅于除湿。故以为君。浓朴色赤苦温。能助少火以生气。故 以为臣。湿因于气滞。故以行气之陈皮为佐。脾得补而健运。故以补脾之甘草为使。名曰平 胃。实所以调脾欤 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"거대하고 끔찍한 뿌리 뽑지 않으면 이 나라는 없다" "https://youtu.be/r8SuWhumdU8"> 트럼프 연설 https://youtu.be/OjiITw6iB3U ---->트럼프 대통령이 거의 1시간에 걸친 연설에서 이번 부정선거에 대해 자세히 설명하고 있다. 그는 부정선거의 세세한 부분까지 다 알고 있고, 이를 획책한 좌파들과의 싸움에서 지지 않을 결의도 되어 있다. 자유세계의 시민들은 그가 승리하기를 기원하고 성원한다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT DOES CNN MEAN? CHEAP NEWS NETWORK? CHINA NEWS NETWORK? COMMUNIST NEWS NETWORK? ALL OF THESE ARE THE ANSWERS. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 사회주의자 로봇 하일브로너의 1990년 고백: 미제스가 옳았다. 미제스가 지적한 중앙통제 경제의 문제점은 당국자들이 희소한 자원의 경제적 가치를 알지 못한다는 것이다. 그리고 그들이 알지 못하는 이유는 생산의 사유화에 기반 한 가격 체계가 없기 때문이다. Socialist Robert Heilbroner's Confession in 1990: "Mises Was Right." Gary North I have discussed the origin of Mises's 1920 article "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" here. That article provided the theoretical framework to understand why socialist economic planning is inherently irrational. Today, a century later, it remains unknown in academic economics. It is not taught in graduate school programs that train economists. It never has been. From the day it was published, it was widely ignored, although not by Mises's friend Max Weber. It was not just ignored. In the late 1930s, it was attacked by a young Polish Communist economist, Oskar Lange. His attack served as a tombstone for Mises's article in the thinking of the few economists who had ever heard of it. It was not translated into English until 1935, when it appeared in a collection of essays edited by F.A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning. This academic skepticism included Robert Heilbroner. It mattered greatly that he ignored it. He wrote the bestselling history of economic thought The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers (1953). This book has been used not only in upper-division economics courses, but also in upper-division history courses. For those academics in the social sciences who read a book on economic thought, this is the book they read. The book has sold almost 4 million copies. As a book on economic theory, this is second only to the textbook written by Paul Samuelson in 1948, Economics. Not once did Heilbroner mention Mises. But he devoted a chapter to Karl Marx. As Mark Skousen wrote in The Freeman in the December issue of 1999, the year of the final edition of The Worldly Philosophers, it was not just Mises that Heilbroner ignored. It was also Milton Friedman and Hayek. "Heilbroner’s resolve is a tragic reminder of the one-sided way economics was taught a generation ago: Give Adam Smith his due, and then spend the rest of the time patronizing Keynes, Marx, Veblen, and the socialists. Meanwhile, the Chicago school, the Austrians, the supply-siders, the public-choice school, and other free-market proponents are poured down an Orwellian memory hole." Yet in a bizarre turn of events, Heilbroner did have a kind of religious experience. In 1990, he recanted concerning the central issue of his life: his faith in the efficiency of socialism. In doing so, he singled out Mises as the critic who recognized the inherent weakness of socialism. Such public recantations are always rare. When one happens, it is usually triggered by an external event that calls into question a true believer's faith. The event in Heilbroner's life was the visible collapse of the economy of the Soviet Union after 1985. He failed to mention the other major event: the decade of economic growth of China's economy that began in 1979, the first full year of Deng's lifting of Communist controls over Chinese agriculture. AFTER COMMUNISM On September 10, 1990, Heilbroner's article was published in the New Yorker: "After Communism." It was published in the Reflections department. This article was not published by an academic economics journal. The New Yorker has always been a slick magazine aimed at the literati. Its title indicates its audience: culturally aware people living in New York City or who would like to if they could afford it. It has always been politically liberal, but not radical. Its positioning has always been this: clever, sophisticated, and lots of cartoons amusing to sophisticated readers. "Ignore us, and you'll be left out of the crowd that counts." It is intellectual in the way that Hayek defined intellectual in his classic essay "The Intellectuals and Socialism." He called an intellectual a professional dealer in secondhand ideas. He began with a statement that was representative only of narrowly focused socialists who spent their careers dealing with other socialists. When I went to college, half a century ago, socialism seemed within easy grasp. Mainly, it would require the nationalization of the Fortune list of the 500 leading industrial corporations, which would thereafter be administered by a Central Planning Board. In so far as we students (and many of our professors) were quite certain that the interlocking directorates of these companies already constituted such a board, the transition did not seem daunting. Communism was a more distant prospect, but not unimaginably distant. The statement was absurd. In 1940, there were hardly any socialists teaching in economics departments in the United States. There were virtually no communists. That was also true in the half century that separated him from his career as a college student. He graduated from Harvard University, never a hotbed of socialism. Beginning in 1950, he taught at the New School of Social Research in New York City. This was (and is) one of the oddest universities in America. It has long been leftist. He was appointed Norman Thomas Professor of history in 1971. Norman Thomas was repeatedly the Socialist Party's candidate for president in the first half of the century. He understood in 1990 that socialism was in its final stages institutionally. He called socialism a great tragedy of the twentieth century. The collapse of the Soviet economy and the economies of Eastern Europe he referred to as a "calamitous finale." What was far more calamitous about the Soviet Union were the approximately 20 million people who died under Stalin's purges and government-created famines. He might also have mentioned the 45 million Chinese who died under Mao. He went on: "Moreover, I suspect that its economic failure may haunt socialism longer than the pathologies of Communism" (p. 91). That was how he dismissed 100 million needless deaths in the historically incomparable tyrannies created by communism, as estimated in The Black Book of Communism (1997). Then he got to the heart of the matter from an analytical standpoint. In the 1930's, when I was studying economics, a few economists had already expressed doubts about the feasibility of centrally planned socialism. One of them was Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian of extremely conservative views, who had written of the impossibility of socialism, arguing that no Central Planning Board could ever gather the enormous amount of information needed to create a workable economic system. That did not seem a particularly cogent reason to reflect socialism, given the irrationalism and incoherence of capitalism during the Great Depression. Our skepticism was fortified when Oscar [sic] Lange, a brilliant young Polish economist (who would become the first postwar Polish Ambassador to the United States), wrote two dazzling articles showing that a Board would not need all the information that Mises said it couldn't collect. All that such a Board would have to do, Lange wrote, was watch the levels of inventories in its warehouses: if inventories rose, the obvious thing to do was to lower prices, so that the goods would move out more rapidly; and if inventories were too rapidly depleted, to raise prices in order to discourage sales. Fifty years ago, it was felt that Lange had decisively won the argument for socialist planning. Lange himself recognized the problem of running a centralized system is not really that of fulfilling the right price levels to coordinate the economy. "The real danger of socialism," he wrote in italics, "is that of a bureaucratization of economic life." But he took away the sting by adding, without italics, "Unfortunately, we do not see how the same, or even greater, danger can be averted under monopolistic capitalism." Lange has never been known for his brief comments on socialist bureaucracy. He is known, if at all, only for his supposed refutation of Mises, whose article and his 1922 book, Socialism, have remained unread by most economists. Lange was a Communist—not a mere Marxist, but a committed Communist. He proved this in 1945. As soon as Stalin locked down Poland, Lange surrendered his American citizenship and returned to Poland. He became a member of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party. He remained a faithful apparatchik for the rest of his life. He was hired by the University of Chicago as an economics professor in 1938. The timing was revealing. His attacks on Mises were published in a pair of articles in 1936 and 1937. Then, in 1938, they were reprinted in a book: On the Economic Theory of Socialism. Perfect timing! He got the job. (Eight years later, the department of economics refused to hire Hayek, who was the most famous anti-Keynesian economist in the world and who was the author of The Road to Serfdom, published by the University of Chicago Press in 1944.) Lange became an American citizen in 1943. The next year, Stalin asked President Roosevelt to allow him to come to the USSR to consult with Stalin. Roosevelt approved. Wikipedia provides this information. Lange returned to the United States at the end of May and met, at Roosevelt's request, with Prime Minister Stanisław Mikołajczyk of the government-in-exile, who was on a visit in Washington. Lange stressed how reasonable Stalin was prepared to be (Stalin told him of the Soviet desire to preserve independent Poland under a coalition government), and asked the State Department to put pressure on the exiled Polish leadership to reach an understanding with the Soviet leader. Towards the end of World War II, Lange broke with the Polish government-in-exile and transferred his support to the Lublin Committee (PKWN) sponsored by the Soviet Union. Lange served as a go-between for Roosevelt and Stalin during the Yalta Conference discussions on post-war Poland. After the war ended in 1945, Lange returned to Poland. He then renounced his American citizenship and went back to the US in the same year as the Polish People's Republic's first ambassador to the United States. In 1946, Lange also served as Poland's delegate to the United Nations Security Council. From 1947 he lived in Poland. This was the economist whose attack on Mises has been accepted as definitive by the entire economics profession. This opinion has not changed. Then Heilbroner added this: "It turns out, of course, that Mises was right. The Soviet system has long been dogged by a method of pricing that produced grotesque misallocations of effort" (p. 92). It was nice that he wrote these words. But Heilbronner failed to present the central argument that Mises had offered. Mises was not talking about the technical difficulty of setting prices. He was making a far more fundamental point. He argued that no central planning bureau could know the economic value of any scarce resource. Why not? Because there is no price system under socialism that is based on the private ownership of the means of production. There is therefore no way for central planners to know which goods and services are most important for the state to produce. There is no hierarchical scale of value that is based on supply and demand—a world in which property-owning individuals place their monetary bids to buy and sell. The problem of socialism is not the technical problem of allocation facing a planning board. It is also not that planners lack sufficient technical data. Rather, the central problem is this: assessing economic value through prices. The planners do not know what anything is worth. Mises pointed out that the more comprehensive the central planning, the more that the planners must resort to copying prices registered in free market economies. But this is impossible under universal socialism. The greater the extent of socialist planning, the more irrational the economy must become. Heilbroner went on to discuss some classic examples of misallocated capital in Soviet production. These were always easy to discover. Economic literature in the United States was always filled with these amusing horror stories. I wrote about a few of them in my appendix on Soviet economic planning in my book Marx's Religion of Revolution (1968). He then discussed the problem of top-down central planning. It is like a military campaign, he said. The central planners know the products and services that ought to be produced. Then they must design plans to get everything produced in a rational way. But there are just too many individual pieces. The pieces are like a jigsaw puzzle. How can the central planners make the pieces of the puzzle fit? "That would be an extraordinarily difficult task even if the map of desired output were unchanged from year to year, but, of course, it is not: the chief planners change their objectives, and new technologies or labor shortages or bad weather were simply mistakes get in the way" (p. 93). His description of the planning process is ethically perverse. When he speaks of pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, he is talking about human beings. The world is not a jigsaw puzzle. Pieces of the puzzle do not fit in advance. When we're talking about the production of food, we are also talking about the consumption of food. We are talking about human liberty. But that was not how Heilbroner discussed the problem of central planning. That was not how socialists discussed it. In any case, this economy-as-a-puzzle imagery was not how Mises discussed socialism in 1920. He argued that the central planners do not know what to produce. There is no jigsaw puzzle to put together. Information is constantly changing, and this information involves both supply and demand. Central planners cannot possibly have access to the information they need to do the planning. They don't know what anything is worth. It is not just that they cannot fit millions of pieces together. It is that they don't know what to produce or why. Then he went on to tell more stories of disrupted plans and shortages. From what we know now about how anarchic the planning process was, the wonder is not that the Soviet economy has given out but that it went on for as long as it did. It seemed to have done so by resort of inspired, or simply bizarre, improvisations that compensated for the underlying disorganization. (p. 95) Why did it take him half a century to figure this out? This economic chaos had always prevailed in the USSR. Reports on Soviet planning from the 1920s until the 1980s revealed this chaos. This was nothing new in 1990. It had long been in the academic literature. He had never acknowledged any of this. There was no trace of this constant economic failure in his earlier writings. It did not affect his commitment to socialism in the slightest. Naum Jasny understood the Soviet economy better than most scholars in the mid-twentieth century. He wrote the following in his book Soviet Industrialization, 1928–1952 (1961). The Soviet leaders used economic output to suppress the population. They used the money to build up the military. The Bolsheviks came on the scene as fighters for socialism and against exploitation, for a great improvement in the well-being of everybody. What they achieved was a great increase in the rate of exploitation, reducing the people's share of the national income to an extent nobody had believed possible. This strangulation of consumption put such large funds in the hands of the state as to permit extensive industrialization and even greater militarization, despite loss and waste of every kind caused by wars, internal strife, mismanagement, and so on. If one looks for figures as evidence of this revolution, there are probably no better ones than these: While the total personal income (calculated at constant prices) of the expanded population increased by about one-third from 1928 to 1952, the real value of the funds in the hands of the state for investment, military and other expenses, grew almost eight-fold. This transformation must be considered a financial, economic, and social revolution. (pp. 1–2) I quoted this passage in 1968. But a majority of economists who claimed to have expertise in the Soviet economy did not paint a picture like this. They covered it up. Heilbroner wrote as if the Soviet economy had begun to come apart only in the second half of the 1980s. He was not alone in this assessment. Paul Samuelson, the most influential of all academic economists in the second half of the twentieth century, was far more blind. He wrote in the 1989 edition of his textbook Economics that the Soviet Union was proof of the efficiency of central planning. Mark Skousen has traced Samuelson's comments on the USSR in the various editions. In very early editions, Samuelson expressed skepticism of socialist central planning: "Our mixed free enterprise system…with all its faults, has given the world a century of progress such as an actual socialized order—might find it impossible to equal" (1:604; 4:782). But with the fifth edition (1961), although expressing some skepticism statistics, he stated that economists "seem to agree that her recent growth rates have been considerably greater than ours as a percentage per year," though less than West Germany, Japan, Italy and France. (5:829). The fifth through eleventh editions showed a graph indicating the gap between the United States and the USSR narrowing and possibly even disappearing (for example, 5:830). The twelfth edition replaced the graph with a table declaring that between 1928 and 1983, the Soviet Union had grown at a remarkable 4.9 percent annual growth rate, higher than did the United States, the United Kingdom, or even Germany and Japan (12:776). By the thirteenth edition (1989), Samuelson and Nordhaus declared, "the Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive" (13:837). Two years later, the USSR went out of business. THE END OF THE GRAND EXPERIMENT Heilbroner wrote that he did not think that Gorbachev's perestroika economic reform program was likely to succeed (p. 96). He was correct. Gorbachev publicly announced the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991. At the time that Heilbroner wrote this, the USSR had fifteen months to go. He also said that Eastern Europe was also unlikely to avoid some kind of development of a market economy. This thought depressed him. He did not think it was possible to combine socialism with the free market. The same Ludwig von Mises who doubted whether a Central Planning Board could bring into being a coherent economy wrote that socialists want people "to play market as children play war, railroad, or school." His words raise the question of whether a market system can in fact operate vigorously unless it played for keeps, which is to say for rewards and punishments that far outweigh medals for good behavior. (pp. 96–97) Then he admitted defeat. "In all likelihood, then, the direction in which things are headed is some version of capitalism, whatever its title may be" (p. 97). He offered this hope: "the public realm is the guardian of the whole." Capitalism cannot escape some government planning (p. 98). But this was not much hope. For all these reasons, I am not very sanguine about the prospect that socialism will continue as an important form of economic organization now that Communism is finished. This statement will come as wry momentary to those who remember that Marx defined socialism as the stage that precedes Communism. But the collapse of the planned economies has forced us to rethink the meaning of socialism. As a similar religious vision of a transformed humanity, it has been dealt devastating blows in the 20th century. As a blueprint for a rationally planned society, it is in tatters. What, then, is left? (p. 98) What, indeed? He offered two suggestions. First, he invoked a version of the welfare state along the lines of Sweden. He also mentioned the Netherlands, France, Japan, and Italy. But these countries were not socialist. They were Keynesian. They still are. He did not expect what he called "a thoroughgoing decommercialization of life." He did not expect "a far-reaching democratization of the workplace or an equitable reorganization of the world economic system." Then what did he expect? This: central planning for the sake of ecology. "The ecological crisis toward which we are moving in a quickening pace has occasioned much scientific comment but surprisingly little economic attention. If there is any single problem that will have to be faced by any socioeconomic order over the coming decades [it] is the problem of making our economic peace with the demands of the environment" (p. 99). In the final column of his article, he hailed the ecological movement. "Such awesomely large and frightening problems make unavoidable a realization that socialism as a social order designed to ward off ecological disaster will of necessity be a less agreeable undertaking than socialism as a design for the benefit of our grandchildren in the absence of such an overriding challenge" (p. 100). He assured his readers that most scientists say that we are facing ecological crises on an escalating level. He ended his article with this. It began with the word "if." That word should always trigger this mental response: "maybe not." But it rarely does. If that is the case, as most scientists now believe, the paramount concern of all nations and all economic systems of a calm, with increasing urgency, a mode of life that assures survival—perhaps eventually a rich level of survival, but survival nonetheless. From this perspective, the long Vista after communism leads through capitalism into a still unexplored world that must be safely obtained and settled before it can be named. (p. 100) Heilbroner made Mises's position far clearer a year later in his book An Inquiry into the Human Prospect Looked at Again from the 1990s. He wrote of Mises and Hayek: Their diagnosis was based on the inability of a planned system to generate the information needed to bring into being, or to maintain in being, a properly interlocking economic system. This information is automatically generated by a market mechanism that every day "informs" its individual participants whether their activities are wanted by other participants or not, but no substitute for this information network, or for the motivation to put the information to work, exists in a system in which a cumbersome bureaucracy tries to play the role of a competitive marketplace. (p. 114) This got Mises's position exactly right. It took him half a century to figure this out. He mentioned none of this in 1999 in the final edition of his history of economic thought. He dropped his late-career discovery down the academic memory hole. He could not bring himself to acknowledge the existence of Mises and Hayek to the readers of his mass-market textbook. In this, he never changed for almost half a century. CONCLUSION We should take him seriously. He did not know what this future society will be called. He did not want to call it capitalism, but he could not bring himself to call it socialism. He knew that socialism had failed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He did not mention Communist China. He did not mention a decade of unprecedented economic growth that Deng's abandoning of communism and socialist planning enabled China to attain. He also did not answer Mises's argument that socialism is inherently irrational. He did not describe the argument in the terms that Mises had presented: private property, competitive bidding in capital markets, and the inability of central planners to know what should be produced in the first place, let alone how to design a plan and then implement it rationally. The 1920 article by Mises is as unknown today by graduate students in economics as it was in 1990, 1950, or 1930. But at least one man in the socialist camp admitted to the New York literati that Mises was right. It is a shame that he failed to mention this to the readers of the final edition of The Worldly Philosophers. "Mises? Never heard of him. Be sure to read my chapter on Marx." You can buy a copy used on Amazon for about $2, plus shipping. That is the free market at work. Author: Gary North is the author of Mises on Money; Honest Money: The Biblical Blueprint for Money and Banking; and Gertrude Coogan's Bluff: Greenback Populism as Conservative Economics. He is also the author of a free 31-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

기재부의 ‘2020~2024년 국가재정운용계획’에 따르면 이대로 가면 국가채무는 올해 846조9000억원(GDP 대비 43.9%), 내년 945조원(46.7%), 문재인정부 마지막 해인 2022년 국가채무는 1070조3000억원(50.9%)으로 증가한다. / 이데일리 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8000만표의 실제 주인공, 그리고 dustman/ 일베 TRUMP로 보인다 1. 8000만표 현재 그는 7400만표를 획득하고 있다 표 버리고, 표 갈고 했는데도 이렇게 나온 것이다 미 행동연구기술연구소 앱스타인 박사에 의하면 트럼프는 빅테크에 의해 약 600만표 잃었다고 한다 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZT_hYyCgqs) 그렇기에 8000만표의 주인공은 TRUMP라 본다 아직 확인되지는 않지만 독일 사이틀에서 압수된 서버에 있던 로테이터 기반 선거결과는 이렇다고 한다 2. 개표상황 리플레이 선거 당일 경합주 대부분에서 60%이상 개표가 된 상황에서 트럼프는 다 이기고 있었다 대개 그런 상황이라면 주류 언론들이 당선유력이나 확정 멘트를 발표했어야 했다 하지만 그들은 이후 벌어질 일을 알고 있는 듯 발표하지 않고 계속 미뤘다 경합주 4곳 정도에서 동시에 개표 중단이 되었고 새벽 1시쯤 바이든이 나와서 우리는 이길 것이라고 기자회견을 했다 당시 상황은 지는 상황이었는데도 불구하고. 무슨 근거로? 개표중단, 바이든 기자회견 이후부터 경합주 대부분에서 갑자기 일방적 수십만의 바이든표가 폭발했고 우편투표지가 무한정으로 쏟어져 나왔다 아침이 되었을 때 승부가 다 뒤집어졌다 그 차이는 플러스 마이너스 1%차이로. 기적이 일어난 것이다 그것도 경합주 전체에서. 3. 쿠데타 진압 행정명령 이것은 단순한 부정선거가 아니라 반트럼프 동맹 세력에 의한 국가전복 쿠데타라 본다 전 국가안보보좌관 플린이 반역이라고 하는 트윗을 트럼프가 리트윗한 것을 보면 그도 그렇게 여기고 있는 듯하다 그렇다면 그는 왜 반역진압을 위해 행정명령 발동을 하지 않는 것일까? 결정적 증거가 미확보된 상황인가? 아니면 이미 은밀하게 진행하고 있는 것인가?(군 투입 서버 압수 건을 보면 가능성도 있어 보인다) 만약 반역진압을 위한 행정명령(긴급조치)를 한다면 트럼프의 가장 큰 고민은 하나는 이것이 아닐까 한다 행정명령 발동을 통해 무력적 진압할 경우 반역세력의 강한 저항으로 적지 않은 피를 흘릴 수도 있다는 것 4. 남은 시간 트럼프에게 남은 시간은 선거상황과 상관없이 1달 남짓이다(1월20일까지) 1달이라는 시간은 무슨 일이든 일어날 수 있는 적지 않은 시간이라 본다 5. 바램 바라기는 진실이 그리고 의의 세력이 이겼으면 한다 그들에게 하늘의 가호가 있기를 빈다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cnn녹취록 시리즈로 매일 조금씩 푼덴다...악마 거짓방송의 민낯이 땀구멍까지 훤히 들어날 전망/ 탙탈탈홍홍홍 / 일베 베리타스 프로젝트라는 유투버 방송에서 지난 2달간의 cnn 아침 간부회의 녹취록을 받았음 - 내부의 누군가가 제공함 그걸 오늘 풀었는데 앞으로 한달 동안 매일매일 조금씩 푼단다 ㅎㅎㅎ cnn이 이 유투버 방송을 범죄로 고소할 생각을 한다는데 베리타스는 그래봤자 방송 막을 수 있는 방법이 없다는데? cnn 우리나라 재인티비씨처럼 겉으로는 잘난척 정의로운척 하다가 민낯 다 까발리게 생김 오늘 폭로된 녹취에서 그 사장이 트럼프가 선거에 불복하고 저항하는 것은 되도록 보도를 하지 말고 정권이양이 부드럽게 되가는 것처럼 보도하라고 지시함 (부정선거에 대한 저항도 보도 안하는 것 포함된 듯) 또 다른 여자 임원은 트럼프가 계속 저항할 경우 9.11 테러와 같은 국가 비상사태가 일어날 거라는 여론을 형성하라고도 함 어쨋든 cnn 새끼들 앞으로 무서워서 임원회의도 하지 못할 듯 ㅎ 누가 녹취해서 줬을까? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 윤석열을 믿으면 안 되는 이유!한강의기적2 통일한국 원로원(오혁재) 20.10.27 사람들이 윤석열이 문재인과 적대세력이라 착각을 하는데 윤석열은 문재인과 적이 아님. 윤석열은 김무성과 같은 포지션임. 적처럼 쇼를 하지만 실은 한 패임. 윤석열은 공수처에 대한 검찰의 반발을 막기 위해 문재인을 공격하는 척 연기를 하는 거지 진짜 문재인을 공격하는 게 아님. 프로레슬링처럼 다 짜고 치는 고스톱임. 문재인이 요직 중에 핵심 요직 검찰총장에 윤석열을 임명했다는 자체로 윤석열이 어떤 인물인지 말해 주는 거임. 윤석열은 노무현 때 바다이야기라는 대통령까지 개입된 엄청난 권력형 비리 사건 등 수많은 노무현 정권의 비리를 덮은 채동욱 검사 라인으로 박근혜 대통령에 항명하다 좌천된 경력으로 최순실 특검 팀장과 서울중앙지검장 검찰총장에 임명되어 태블릿PC를 조작하는 등 박근혜와 박근혜 정부 인사 150여명에게 누명을 뒤집어 씌워 구속시킨 사기탄핵세력의 정점에 선 행동대장이었고 그런 경력을 인정받아 문재인이 검찰총장에 임명한 거다. 쉽게 설명해서 과거 행적처럼 검찰총장 윤석열이 문재인과 짝짝꿍 사이 좋게 지내면서 문재인이 공수처를 추진하면 검사들이 저씨발 공수처 막아야 한다, 윤석열 검찰총장 개새끼하면서 문재인에 윤석열에 들고 일어날 거다. 근데 윤석열이 총대매고 문재인과 싸우는 척하면 윤석열을 믿고 가만히 있을 수밖에 없다. 마치 박주신 병역비리 사건에서 강용석이 맡았던 임무와 비슷하다고 할 수 있지. 참고로 채동욱은 남상국 대우건설 사장, 정몽헌 현대 아산 회장, 안상영 부산시장, 박태영 전남지사, 이수일 국정원 차장, 이준원 파주 시장 등 요놈들한테 수사만 받았다 하면 다 자살해 버렸음. 이유는 안상영 부산시장 유서 검색해서 확인해 보기 바람. 노무현이 얼마나 사악한 자인지 잘 알 수 있는데 그런 노무현의 호위무사 채동욱 꼬붕이 윤석열임. 윤석열이 문재인과 사이가 좋든 나쁘든 윤석열은 사기탄핵의 핵심적인 역할을 했다는 건 너무나 명백한 팩트기 때문에 이런 상황에서 윤석열이 문재인 정권을 수사해서 문재인 정권을 무너뜨린다면? 결국 윤석열도 죽는 거임. 마치 지금 김무성이 문재인이 뒤를 봐 주기 때문에 엘시티부터 해서 수많은 비리 사건에 대해 수사를 받지 않고 안전한 것처럼 윤석열도 사기탄핵 세력 권력이 유지되어야 안전을 보장받을 수 있다는 말씀. 윤석열이 문재인과 싸우는 척 하면서 수사한 것들 중에 뭔가 결과가 나온 게 하나라도 있음? 처음에는 요란하게 문재인을 터는 척 했으나 지나고 나니 그냥 다 흐지부지임. 박근혜 정권 수사할 때는 변창훈 검사 이재수 기무사령관을 자살로 내몰 정도로 여포가 따로 없더니 문재인에 대해서는 인권이니 뭐니 다 따지면서 온순한 윤석열을 보면서 아직도 윤석열에 기대하는 건 얼간이거나 문갑식 같은 프락치라고 봐야지. 현재 대한민국은 친중세력이 완전히 장악하고 있어서 대한민국 내에서는 그 어떤 권력 교체나 혁명은 불가능함. 조선왕조가 500여년간 유지가 되다가 결국 외세에 의해 무너졌듯 내부적으로 권력이 교체되는 건 그만큼 어려운 거임. 지금처럼 친중세력이 언론 방송 입법 사법 행정 등 모든 권력을 장악한 상태에서 박근혜 사기탄핵이나 부정선거의 진실이 밝혀지는 건 거의 불가능함. 박근혜 사기탄핵 때처럼 그냥 힘으로 눌러버리면 어쩔 건데? 어쩔 거냐고? 따라서 미국의 개입은 필수다. 다행스럽게도 미국은 중공과 실질적으로 전쟁 중이나 다름 없음. 한반도는 그런 이유로 상당히 중요한 지정학적인 지위를 가지고 그런 한반도를 친중세력이 장악하는 건 미국 입장에서도 바람직하지 않기 때문에 명분만 있다면 미국은 언제든지 한국의 친중세력을 제거하는 데 동참할 것으로 보임. 1. 윤석열은 좌빨 중에 좌빨임. 그래서 박근혜를 사기탄핵시킨 최순실 특검 팀장, 문재인 정권 서울중앙지검장 검찰총장에 임명된 거임. 2. 현재 윤석열이 문재인과 대립하는 척하는 이유는 공수처에 대한 검찰 내부의 반발을 막기 위한 쇼임. 실질적으로 제대로 수사된 게 있나? ※결론 추미애 vs 윤석열 싸움은 문재인이 연출하는 두 년놈의 쑈 연기![퍼온 글] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 사회주의는 과학을 이데올로기적 도그마로 만든다. 소련에서는 뤼센코에 의해 유전학이 부르주아 유사과학으로 탄압 받았고, 나치 치하의 독일에서는 과학을 아리안족의 과학과 비아리안 족의 과학으로 나누었고, 현대 미국에서는 정치적으로 올바름의 기준에 따라 온난화를 부정하는 사람들은 과학적으로 무지하다고 매도하고 있다. How Socialist Dogma Replaces Real Science with "Settled Science" Allen Gindler Over the past hundred years, evolutionary socialism has slowly but steadily taken root in the fabric of American society. This is especially noticeable in the economic sphere, because evolutionary socialism uses the mandatory redistribution of wealth as one of the methods to achieve its ultimate goal. The bloated state machine interferes with the economy, distorts market signals and economic relations between market agents, and chooses winners and losers in order to achieve an illusory and propagandistic goal of equality and justice. However, one should not forget that evolutionary socialism simultaneously uses the collectivization of consciousness and the redistribution of wealth. Moreover, an analysis of the existing flavors of socialist movements, especially those that have been able to materialize in practice, shows that the subjugation of individualism by collective thinking is an even more effective path to building a socialist society than the redistribution of wealth. Totalitarianism is the end result of the collectivization of consciousness, characterized by the complete suppression of free will and thoughts, the subordination of everything and everyone to the volition of the state apparatus, and the rule of one ideology under the leadership of one party. Politics, culture, art, morality, ethics, and aesthetics have to be unquestioningly obeyed across the ideological line, and dissent is severely punished. One of the consequences of the collectivization of consciousness is that science is restructured from an institution of free thought and the generation of ideas into a servant to the ideological dogmas of the ruling regime. Socialism is very concerned with ideological purity and like-mindedness; therefore, science is used as a means of collectivizing consciousness, and is itself subjected to oppression by the coercive state apparatus. The exceptional features of science under socialism are the emergence of openly pseudoscientific trends and the accusation of dissenting thoughts as unscientific and harmful to society. The most striking examples of the transformation of science into an ideologically dependent and suppressed institution were provided by the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany. From the very beginning, science in the Soviet Union was subjected to ideological control that continued until the collapse of the country. The first victims of the communist regime were representatives of the science of sciences—philosophy. After the Bolshevik coup, Marxism-Leninism was proclaimed the only correct and permissible philosophy in the Soviet Union; representatives of other schools of thought were outlawed. The Bolshevik regime expelled philosophers from the country on the notorious “Philosophy Steamer” (there were several voyages), including famous Russian philosophers such as Nikolai Berdyaev, Ivan Ilyin, and Semyon Frank, together with other figures of science and culture. Trotsky explained that “We expelled these people because there was no reason to shoot them, but it was impossible to tolerate them.” Suppression continued until the 1930s, and, as a result, Soviet philosophy never became a science; it was nothing more than dogma. While the logic of repression against non-Marxist philosophy in the Soviet Union can be understood, the persecution of biology and genetics seems rather unusual at first glance. However, we should not forget that the collectivization of consciousness does not imply the coexistence of alternative views and the struggle of ideas. The winner in a scientific debate is the ideologically “correct” or regime advantageous theory. So, a very mediocre agronomist with a “correct” worker-peasant pedigree, Trofim Lysenko, was able to destroy biology and genetics in the Soviet Union. With Stalin’s blessing, Lysenko designated genetics as a bourgeois pseudoscience based on idealism instead of Marxist materialism. Lysenko’s followers received political and administrative power; as a result, the supporters of classical genetics were severely repressed. Geneticist Nikolai Vavilov was arrested on suspicion of anti-Soviet activities and died in prison in 1943. Other scientists also ended up in labor camps, and some were shot. In the face of persecution, many changed their field of activity or joined the campaign against science. Biologists were forced publicly and in written form to renounce their scientific views while acknowledging the correctness of Lysenko’s pseudoscientific ideas. Classical genetics was banned in the Soviet Union until the 1960s and was rehabilitated entirely after Khrushchev’s displacement. To this day, the term Lysenkoism denotes any administrative persecution of scientists for their “politically incorrect” scientific views. In the Soviet Union, attempts also began to divide physics into ideologically correct and bourgeois views. Einstein’s theory of general and special relativity, as well as Copenhagen’s interpretation of quantum mechanics, were found to be inconsistent with the principles of dialectical materialism. This was a strong accusation that could close these branches of science. Nevertheless, when Beria, who oversaw the creation of the atomic bomb, found out that the bomb could be forgotten in the event of persecution in these areas of physics, he, possessing enormous political power, did not allow the persecution campaign to develop and thereby saved physics in the Soviet Union. Along with philosophy, genetics, and physics, many other science branches underwent revisions for compliance with the teachings of Marxism-Leninism. It was normal for unscrupulous careerist scientists with connections in the Communist Party to accuse contended ideas as idealistic and bourgeois, as competitors were subjected to various kinds of repressions and persecutions. Such tendencies were observed in cybernetics (which was declared bourgeois pseudoscience), chemistry, literary criticism, and pedagogy. German National Socialism followed a similar trend but had a subtle difference: science was split not into materialistic and idealistic science, but rather between Aryan and non-Aryan science. The adherents of Aryan science sought to purge German science of Semitic influence long before the Nazis came to power. In particular, some German physicists did not accept Einstein’s theory, not because they had a valid alternative description of physical reality, but because the bearer of the thesis was a Jew and, therefore, a “Jewish science” representative. Philip Lenard, the 1905 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believed that science is determined by race and blood. He and other proponents of Aryan physics argued that Einstein’s theory of relativity steers physics away from the genuine German approach. Aryan physics is supposed to retrieve objective laws from nature by observation and intuition, not mental experiments and mathematical formalism, which in essence constitute “Jewish science.” Nazi academics, including world-renowned scientists, accused Jewish scientists of changing the philosophy of science. Therefore, Einstein’s theory was not only erroneous in itself but was based on the wrong research methodology and presupposed a game with mathematical symbols, not a description of reality. It is not difficult to see parallels in Soviet and Nazi scientists' criticisms of Einstein's theory; both condemned it on the pretext that Einstein's view did not correspond to the materialist understanding of the world. What about science in the United States, mainly promoted by left-leaning academia? If one looks closely, it's evident that evolutionary socialism has penetrated deeply into the educational and scientific fields. Only the lazy would not write about the American academy’s predominantly leftist orientation and the fact that the education system has turned into a machine of compulsory indoctrination in leftist ideas. However, I want to draw attention to another aspect of American science that clearly points to its socialization. As with the previously described totalitarian socialist regimes, American science has begun to be divided into what is ideologically correct and what requires public censure. For example, modern leftist political doctrine holds global warming to be one of the main threats to the existence of human civilization. Climatology and ecology have turned from objective sciences into undersigners of party science. Instead of scientific debate, doomsday advocates hysterically accuse political opponents of denying scientific facts and general ignorance. These dogmatic beliefs were refuted not only from a theoretical point of view but also after the gloomy predictions did not come true: the ocean did not flood the cities, and polar bears did not die out. But the emerging facts of manipulation in temperature measurements, data processing, and data interpretation have only led to a change in the Left's terminology. Instead of global warming, now we are dealing with climate change due to human activity. Scholars who question harmful carbon dioxide’s effect on the climate get ridiculed and silenced. Luckily, the Left still falls short of prosecuting dissident scientists. Nevertheless, leftists clearly understand that peddling climate change and recruiting more believers will bring them long-lasting political success. The Green New Deal, which is presented as a means to save humanity from the consequences of climate change and is based on the false premises of socialist climatology, is as stupid as the fight against sparrows in China during the Cultural Revolution. It is a political declaration of the pseudoscience and an attempt to implement its provisions on par with Lysenko’s Michurin method. One of the corollaries of the collectivization of consciousness in relation to science is the persecution of its separate branches and of scientists who do not fit into the dominant ideological paradigm. The arbitrary division of science and industries into politically correct ones and undesirable ones is the unmistakable trademark of society’s socialist transformation. As in all leftist regimes, including evolutionary socialism, the trend is apparent: the subordination of the individual to the collective is accompanied by the depletion of the intellectual potential of society and leads to decadence in science, education, culture, and morality. Author: Allen Gindler is a scholar from the former U.S.S.R., specializing in Political Economy, Econometrics, and Industrial Engineering. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

마이클 플린 장군 "미국 역사상 가장 큰 반역 쿠데타가 진행중이다" - The biggest treason in American history ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Niall Ferguson 님이 리트윗했습니다 Holger Zschaepitz Bitcoin is winning Covid-19 monetary revolution, renowned economic historian @nfergus writes. The virtual currency is scarce, sovereign and a great place for the rich to store their wealth 사학자 퍼거슨은 빗코인이 우한 폐렴에 의한 통화 혁명에서 승리하고 있다고 주장하고 있다. 이 가상화폐는 수량이 한정되어 있고 극히 안정적이고 부자들이 돈을 투자하기에도 안성맞춤이다. Niall Ferguson I also enjoyed drawing attention to my old friend @Nouriel's recent change of heart on Bitcoin, "the biggest conversion since St. Paul's." Niall Ferguson The crux of the argument is that Bitcoin is not only scarce but (as Wences Casares argues) sovereign. “No one can change a transaction in the Bitcoin blockchain and no one can keep the Bitcoin blockchain from accepting new transactions.” Niall Ferguson This article also contains, to my knowledge, the first reference in financial journalism to @Doug_D_Stuart's brilliant, Booker-winning novel "Shuggie Bain," which everyone should read. Niall Ferguson We are living through a monetary revolution so multifaceted that few of us comprehend its full extent. And Bitcoin is winning it: --------------------------------------------------------------- 중앙은행이 도입하려는 전자 화폐가 해로운 3가지 이유 전자화폐로 인해 중앙은행은 시장에 돈을 뿌리기가 더 쉬워진다. 전자화폐는 마이너스 금리로 사람들이 돈을 저축하지 못하게 할 수 있다. 전자화폐는 금융의 감시를 용이하게 한다. Three Reasons Why Central Bank Digital Currencies Are a Bad Idea Tomas Forgac The central bank digital currencies (CBDC) are being sold with the narrative of protecting consumers who are increasingly moving to cashless payments. These cashless payments, we are told, rob us of privacy advantages of cash and while exposing us to bank runs, payment network blackouts, and to foreign financial adversaries. Yet, while these risks are real, they would be negligible had it not been for the central banking and financial regulators’ interventions into the market (more on that in the last couple of paragraphs), and CBDCs if anything make them worse and introduce some new, much bigger ones. Design Implications While the stated intention behind their design is to keep the commercial banks in the picture, CBDCs will bring the end users of the future tokens closer to the central banks. This is because blockchains and blockchain-inspired distributed ledger technologies are built on a single, common, ledger, which is distributed either in a permissionless or permissioned manner. The permissionless distribution exposes a lot of information about the network participants, but in combination with proof-of-work verification makes it very difficult for an adversary to attack and overtake the network and e.g. change the inflation rate. A permissioned network with no proof-of-work or similar consensus algorithm not only doesn’t provide the immutability feature but by having a single permissioned ledger gives potential control to those who grant the network privileges. As a result, the central bank as the ultimate permission issuer would have much stronger control over the monetary system and payment network than they have right now. This gives the central banks three very dangerous capabilities. Helicopter Money The reason why we’ve seen such an elevated business cycle over the past century is the central banking fiat money system. Unnatural expansion of the money supply causes booms, which are unsustainable and markets try to clear them when they are exposed as such. Economists of the Austrian school understand, that the boom is the real problem and the economic crisis is the necessary and positive cleansing mechanism. Unfortunately, the (neo)Keynesian response to such an event is to prop the markets up by further monetary interventions. However, the current design of the banking system requires the intermediary role of commercial banks in issuing credit to businesses. Central banks get frustrated when the commercial banks exercise caution in an economy, which hasn’t fully cleared the previous misallocations and hasn’t brought prices of capital goods to more sustainable levels. Furthermore, since the predominant Keynesian narrative is that spending drives the economy (hint: it doesn’t—capital investments do), the central banks would like to spur more consumer spending by issuing money supply directly to consumers. Needless to say, commercial banks’ cautious approach to consumer credit in a period of growing unemployment doesn’t align well with the central bank’s goals either. During the covid crisis, the governments managed to an extent to get around these hurdles by issuing benefits en masse, but those are complicated by logistics, bureaucracy, or legislation. By closer integration of the monetary spigot to the end consumers and businesses, the central bank can much more easily issue credit, or just outright cashouts to the private individuals and commercial entities by simply “airdropping” new tokens to the existing token identities. They would not even compromise their stated intention of keeping the commercial banks in the picture—those would still serve as custodians of the token keys, and even have the ability to issue credit along the traditional lines. This would lead to disastrous consequences. Economies get easily addicted to central banks’ money dope. With every new crisis, the chief monetarists had to increase intervention doses the same way as junkies have to do with their drug of choice. As with every addiction, the longer it lasts and the stronger it grows, the more difficult it is to cure it. And while monetary overdose such as we’ve seen in Zimbabwe or Venezuela might not come for a long time, if ever, junkies don’t perform well, as Japan’s three lost decades of BOJ’s interventions have demonstrated. Negative Interest Rates Hoarding is evil—or so the modern monetarists’ narrative goes. In the Keynesian framework, there is no space for the function of cash as a hedge in times of uncertainty. Savings accounts, in their minds, are just money that doesn’t work in spurring the miracles of spending- and money supply–driven economic growth. Negative interest rates are then potentially the most effective method of preventing hoarding by incentivizing account holders to spend their depreciating balances. Currently, the central banks have to rely on commercial banks to pass the negative interest rates on their customers. Commercial banks instead are trying to convince the account holders to move their deposits from negative yielding accounts to interest yielding products and are consuming the negative rates on most of the outstanding cash balances. With the central bank tokens being tied more tightly with their issuance authority, it would be much easier for the monetary interventionists to impose negative interest rates on all tokens in circulation. This would on a margin certainly increase the consumers’ and businesses’ propensity to spend and would also drive asset prices up as people would try to offload their cash savings. But to think of it as something beneficial is foolish. It was massive spending, record-low savings, and unsustainable asset valuations that led to the credit bubbles and crises of the past decades. To think that more of the same recipe would lead to a different, let alone better outcome is ludicrous. Financial Surveillance Third and final major implication of cash tokenization is the potential it creates for financial surveillance. The central banks are ostensibly introducing digital tokens to protect people’s privacy in the face of those reducing their anonymous cash usage. But the idea that any branch of government, let alone the one that imposes KYC/AML rules on the existing crypto token platforms, limits physical cash use to prevent tax avoidance, and uses financial surveillance to catch nonviolent “criminals” cares about our privacy is laughable. They’re not even hiding the fact, that tokenization of money would allow them to run what they call “data analytics,” but to think that they would not make the leap from aggregate analytics to individual data processing would be naive. Of course, it’s not a coincidence, that China is the global leader in CBDCs. The surveillance potential of centralized tokenization is extremely attractive to the government that tries to keep tabs on every aspect of the lives of their underlings. Pro-CBDC Arguments Are Misleading The proponents of the central banking tokens argue that consumers need to be protected against targeted attacks on a country’s payment network. While such a risk exists—for example, if a country like Switzerland tried to provide anonymity for foreign depositors as it used to and as a result Visa and Mastercard would be pressured to shut down their payment networks for the country—if it materializes, the economy can always temporarily revert back to cash, supported by a vast network of local ATMs and bank branches. If anything, the biggest attacks on the monetary exchange in the western world came from the governments themselves suspending or limiting cash withdrawals in times of liquidity crises as was the case in Cyprus or Greece, not to mention that those crises themselves were caused by central banking credit bubbles of the preceding periods. Finally as was already mentioned, the argument about the protection of consumer privacy doesn’t pass the laugh test considering the history of continuous erosion of financial privacy by central banks and financial regulators. CBDCs Will Come and Will Make Things Worse In conclusion, the same characteristics for which people should oppose the transition to CDBCs give central banks the strongest reason to champion and implement them. And while the pretense of an investigation into the fiat money tokenization gives an impression of a debate on the topic, the reality is, there will be no debate and the digital currencies will go through and give central banks more control than they had before with all the disastrous consequences such control brings. Author: Tomas Forgac writes from Switzerland -------------------------------------------------------------------------