'판문점 선언'은, '자유진영으로부터의 이탈 선언'
펀드빌더(조갑제닷컴 회원)
반면, 김정은 쪽은 많은 것을 얻었다. 선언문은, 김정은의 일방적 승리였다고밖에 볼 수 없는 표현(항목)들로 점철되었다. 대충만 봐도 대표적으로 이런 것들이 눈에 들어온다.
1.-ⓛ 남과 북은 우리 민족의 운명은 우리 스스로 결정한다는 민족 자주의 원칙을 확인하였으며 이미 채택된 선언들과 모든 합의들을 철저히 이행…
1.-⑥ 남과 북은…10.4선언에서 합의된 사업들을 적극 추진해 나가며 1차적으로 동해선 및 경의선 철도와 도로들을 연결하고 현대화하여 활용하기 위한 실천적 대책들을 취해나가기로 하였다.
3.-② 남과 북은…단계적으로 군축을 실현해 나가기로 하였다.
3.-③ 남과 북은…올해에 종전을 선언하고 정전협정을 평화협정으로 전환하며 항구적이고 공고한 평화체제 구축을 위한 남·북·미 3자 또는 남·북·미·중 4자회담 개최를 적극 추진해 나가기로 하였다.
가히, 자유대한민국에게 '독소조항'에 해당하는 수준이다. 1.-ⓛ은 '외세배격! 우리끼리!'라는 표현에 다름 아니고, 1.-⑥은 국제제재 무력화 선언에 다를 바 없다. 3.-②는 사실상 주한미군을 한반도에서 내보는 것을 의도하는 교묘한 표현이다. 3.-③은 미북간 평화조약 체결로 한미동맹을 무력화시키려는 의도를 담았다(多者 회담에 일본이 포함되면, 미북간 평화조약 추진에 방해되므로 일본 배제). (발췌)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4·27 문재인-김정은 판문점 선언 비판 ①
조갑제
문재인 대통령과 김정은 사이의 ‘한반도의 평화와 번영, 통일을 위한 판문점 선언’을 읽고 해설을 해 드리겠습니다. 이 내용은 2007년에 발표됐던 노무현-김정일 회담에서 나온 10·4선언과 60%가 겹칩니다. 다만 차이는 그때는 정권이 이명박 정부로 바뀌는 바람에 실천되지 않았습니다. 이번에는 이게 실천될 가능성이 상당히 있습니다. 이게 실천되면 어떻게 되느냐? 한국의 안보는 위태롭게 되고 국론 분열은 심해질 것이고 한미동맹은 균열될 것이고 더구나 북한의 핵 폐기는 불가능하게 될 것입니다. (발췌)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unbreak My Heart - Toni Braxton LYRICS
https://youtu.be/ZNr2XyEawig
-------------------------------------------------------------------
앙상블 확률과 시간 확률의 차이
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
방송통신 심의위원회가 남북 정상회담 보도와 관련하여
각 방송사에 "정부 발표를 토대로 보도하라"는
이같은 강압적 유의사항을 하달 하는 짓을 하였다
사후 심의기관인 방심위가 언론자유를 무시하고
과거 군부독재 시절에나 있을법한 "보도지침"을 내려 보내면서
방심위가 문재인 정권 하수인으로 전락하여 마구 미쳐 날뛰고 있다
이같은 방심위의 오만하고 강압적인 조치는
3ㅡ5년 마다 실시하는 각 방송사 재허가 승인 여부에 대한
칼자루를 갖고 방송사에 재갈을 물려
문재인 정권 입맛에 맞는 보도를 하도록 압박하여 강요 하는것이다
[출처] 방심위가 "보도 지침" 참으로 미쳐도 단단히 미쳤다
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
이인호 교수는 대한민국이 선동가들 세상이 된 건 역사에 대한 무지(無知)와 반역 탓이라고 했다.(조선일보 인터뷰)
--->나는 역사에 대한 무지도 있지만, 경제에 대한 무지(無知)가 더 큰 역할을 했다고 믿는다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
이인호 교수는 대한민국이 선동가들 세상이 된 건 역사에 대한 무지(無知)와 반역 탓이라고 했다.(조선일보 인터뷰)
--->나는 역사에 대한 무지도 있지만, 경제에 대한 무지(無知)가 더 큰 역할을 했다고 믿는다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
19세기 천부인권 사상가 라이샌더 스푸너는 <악덕은 범죄가 아니다>란 글에서 자신을 해치는 행위는 정부의 통제를 받아서는 안 된다고 주장했다. 스푸너는 악덕이란 자신이나 자신의 재산을 해치는 행위로, 타인이나 타인의 재산을 해치는 행위와는 다르다고 역설했다.
Spooner Explains Why Vices Are Not Crimes
•Brian Balfour
Recent actions and statements indicate that the Trump administration is serious about ramping up the federal government’s war on drugs.
Earlier this year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new directive granting US regional attorneys greater authority to crack down on marijuana growers and dealers — even in states with laws making such practices legal. Session’s memo reversed the Obama-era’s much more hands-off approach.
More recently, Trump himself declared his desire to implement the death penalty for drug traffickers, saying “These are terrible people, and we have to get tough on those people … and that toughness includes the death penalty.”
The ostensible reason drug warriors use to justify the government’s criminalization of certain drugs is the often-harmful impacts these drugs can have on the users. But what justification is there for the state to outlaw certain behaviors that don’t harm others, but only oneself?
As 19th century natural-rights theorist Lysander Spooner spells out in his essay “Vices are Not Crimes,” self-harming activities should not come under purview of any government law.
“Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property,” begins Spooner. Contrast that with his description of crimes as “those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.”
The distinction is clear. “In vices, the very essence of crime — that is, the design to injure the person or property of another — is wanting,” Spooner explained.
If the proper aim of government is restricted to merely “secure these rights” of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, clearly the criminalization of vice is a gross overstep of state action. Indeed, attempts to enforce laws against vice amount to a negation of liberty.
“Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property,” Spooner declared.
In a free society, as long as they are not initiating harm on others, people are allowed to determine for themselves what of their actions are virtuous or vicious. Each individual — using his or her subjective evaluation — evaluates what is in concert with his happiness and emotional well-being (virtuous), or leads to his unhappiness (vice).
This process requires the freedom for each individual to inquire and experiment in order to learn for himself what constitutes vice or virtue to him. And not only will the determination between vice and virtue be unique to each person, any given individual’s evaluation will change according to time and circumstance.
For instance, a young man may decide a certain act brings happiness, but that act turns to emotionally harmful vice for that same man at an older age. Moreover, the difference between vice and virtue for a certain course of action can be determined by matter of degree. A little of something may bring happiness, but too much brings suffering. That matter of degree will be different for everybody, and often only revealed by trial and error.
The discovery process each individual must go through to learn what actions are vice and which are virtuous is described by Spooner as “the profoundest and most complex study to which the greatest human mind ever has been, or ever can be, directed.”
No third party can make these evaluations for others, because, as Spooner points out, “no one else knows or feels, or can know or feel, as he knows and feels, the desires and necessities, the hopes, and fears, and impulses of his own nature, or the pressure of his own circumstances.”
Each of us must learn for ourselves the question or virtue or vice. When a third party like the state, however, steps in to punish peaceful, voluntary actions because they determine it to be a vice, one of our most precious and personal experiences as a human is taken away. When we are not left free to determine vice from virtue, Spooner notes, “each person is deprived of the highest of all his rights as a human being, to wit: his right to inquire, investigate, reason, try, experiment, judge and ascertain for himself, what is, to him, virtue and what is, to him, vice.”
Spooner strongly rejects the right of some men to impose their determination of vice onto others, using coercion to force obedience to the ruling class’ preferences. Those that support such coercion are “shameless imposters and tyrants, who would stop the progress of knowledge” among individuals, and “usurp absolute control over the minds and bodies of their fellow men.”
The drug war is often characterized as an arm of the nanny state — government’s attempt to protect citizens from harming themselves. But the state has no businesses attempting to criminalize vices — actions that involve no aggression or harm towards others. In so doing, the nanny state denies its citizens their natural right to peacefully pursue their own happiness according to their unique evaluation of emotional well-being.
Brian Balfour is Executive Vice President for the Civitas Institute, a free market advocacy organization in Raleigh, North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
케인즈의 승수는 허구이다.
일반적인 생각과 달리, 저축은 실질적으로 소비자 상품의 생산 유동(流動)을 축소하는 게 아니라 확대한다.
생산으로 뒷받침 되지 않은 인위적인 소비의 부양은 진정한 저축의 기반을 감소시키고, 케인즈의 생각과 달리 실질적인 부의 유동을 축소시킨다.
The Keynesian Multiplier Is an Illusion
•Frank Shostak
For most economists and financial commentators the heart of economic growth is the increase in the demand for goods and services. It is held that increases or decreases in demand are behind rises and declines in the economy’s production of goods and services. It is also held that the overall economy’s output increases by a multiple of the change in expenditure by government, consumers or businesses.
An example will illustrate how an initial spending raises the overall output by the multiple of this spending. Let us assume that out of an additional dollar received individuals spend $0.9 and save $0.1. Also, let us assume that consumers have increased their expenditure by $100 million. Because of this, retailers' revenue rises by $100 million. Retailers in response to the increase in their income consume 90% of the $100 million, i.e., they raise expenditure on goods and services by $90 million. The recipients of these $90 million in turn spend 90% of the $90 million, i.e., $81 million. Then the recipients of the $81 million spend 90% of this sum, which is $72.9 million and so on. Note that the key in this way of thinking is that expenditure by one person becomes the income of another person.
At each stage in the spending chain, people spend 90% of the additional income they receive. This process eventually ends, so it is held, with total output higher by $1 billion (10*$100 million) than it was before consumers had increased their initial expenditure by $100 million.
Observe that the more is being spent from additional income the greater the multiplier is and therefore the impact of the initial spending on overall output is larger. For instance, if people change their habits and spend 95% from each dollar the multiplier will become 20. Conversely, if they decide to spend only 80% and save 20% then the multiplier will be 5. All this means that the less is being saved the larger is the impact of an increase in overall demand on overall output.
Following this way of thinking it is not surprising that most economists today are of the view that by means of fiscal and monetary stimulus it is possible to prevent the US economy falling into a recession.
The popularizer of the magical power of the multiplier, John Maynard Keynes, wrote,
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is.
Is the multiplier a real thing?
Is more savings bad for the economy as the multiplier model indicates? Take for instance Bob the farmer who has produced twenty tomatoes and consumes five tomatoes. What’s left at his disposal is fifteen saved tomatoes (real savings). With the help of the saved fifteen tomatoes, Bob can now secure various other goods. For instance, he secures one loaf of bread from John the baker by paying for the loaf of bread with five tomatoes. Bob also buys a pair of shoes from Paul the shoemaker by paying for the shoes with ten tomatoes. Note that real savings at his disposal limit the amount of consumer goods that Bob can secure for himself. Bob’s purchasing power is constrained by the amount of real savings i.e. tomatoes at his disposal, all other things being equal.
When Bob the farmer exercises his demand for one loaf of bread and one pair of shoes he is transferring five tomatoes to John the baker and ten tomatoes to Paul the shoemaker. Bob's saved tomatoes maintain and enhance the life and well-being of the baker and the shoemaker.
Likewise, the saved loaf of bread and the saved pair of shoes maintain the life and wellbeing of Bob the farmer. Note that it is saved final consumer goods, which sustain the baker, the farmer and the shoemaker, that makes it possible to keep the flow of production going.
Now, the owners of final consumer goods, rather than exchanging them for other consumer goods, could decide to use them to secure better tools and machinery. With better tools and machinery, a greater output and a better quality of consumer goods can be produced some time in the future.
Note that by exchanging a portion of their saved consumer goods for tools and machinery the owners of consumer goods are in fact transferring their real savings to individuals that specialise in making these tools and machinery. In short, real savings sustain these individuals whilst they are busy making these tools and machinery.
Once these tools and machinery are built this permits an increase in the production of consumer goods. As the flow of production expands this permits more savings all other things being equal, which in turn permits a further increase in the production of tools and machinery. This in turn makes it possible to lift further the production of consumer goods. So contrary to popular thinking, more savings actually expands and not contracts the production flow of consumer goods.
Can the increase in the demand for consumer goods lead to an increase in the overall output by the multiple of the increase in demand? To be able to accommodate the increase in his demand for goods the baker must have the means of payment, i.e., bread to pay for goods and services that he desires. We have seen that the baker secures five tomatoes by paying for them with a loaf of bread. Likewise, the shoemaker supports his demand for ten tomatoes with a pair of shoes. The tomato farmer supports his demand for bread and shoes with his saved fifteen tomatoes.
Once the supply of final goods increases this permits an increase in demand for goods. The baker’s increase in the production of bread permits him to increase demand for other goods. In this sense, the increase in the production of goods gives rise to demand for goods. People are engaged in production in order to be able to exercise demand for goods to maintain their life and wellbeing.
We have seen that what enables the expansion in the supply of final consumer goods is the increase in capital goods or tools and machinery — what in turn permits the increase in tools and machinery is real savings. We can thus infer that the increase in consumption must be in line with the increase in production. From this, we can also deduce that consumption does not cause the production to increase by the multiple of the increase in consumption. The increase in production is in accordance with what a given infrastructure permits and is not constrained by consumers’ demand as such.
Increase in government demand and economic growth
Let us examine the effect of an increase in the government's demand on an economy's overall output. In an economy, which is comprised of a baker, a shoemaker and a tomato grower, another individual enters the scene. This individual is an enforcer who is exercising his demand for goods by means of force.
Can such demand give rise to more output as the popular thinking has it? On the contrary, it will impoverish the producers. The baker, the shoemaker, and the farmer will be forced to part with their product in an exchange for nothing and this in turn will weaken the flow of production of final consumer goods. As one can see, not only does the increase in government outlays not raise overall output by a positive multiple, but on the contrary this leads to the weakening in the process of wealth generation in general. According to Mises,
…there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens' spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity.
Summary and conclusion
John Maynard Keynes's writings remain as influential today as they were eighty years ago. His ideas remain the driving force of economic policymakers at the Fed and government institutions. These ideas permeate the thinking and writings of the most influential economists on Wall Street and in academia.
The heart of the Keynesian philosophy is that what drives the economy is demand for goods. Economic recessions are predominantly the result of insufficient demand. In the Keynesian framework, an increase in demand not only lifts overall output but that output increases by a multiple of the initial increase in demand.
In the real world, an artificial boost in demand that is not supported by production leads to the dilution of the pool of real savings and, contrary to the Keynesian view, to a shrinking in the flow of real wealth, i.e., results in economic impoverishment.
-----------------------------------------------------
钗头凤 〔宋〕陆游
红酥手，黄縢酒，满城春色宫墙柳。东风恶，欢情薄，一怀愁绪，几年离索。错错错。
春如旧，人空瘦，泪痕红浥鲛绡透。桃花落，闲池阁，山盟虽在，锦书难托。莫莫莫。
白话译文
-------------------------------------------------------------
红酥手，黄縢酒，满城春色宫墙柳。东风恶，欢情薄，一怀愁绪，几年离索。错错错。
春如旧，人空瘦，泪痕红浥鲛绡透。桃花落，闲池阁，山盟虽在，锦书难托。莫莫莫。
红润酥腻的手里，捧着盛上黄縢酒的杯子。满城荡漾着春天的景色，你却早已像宫墙中的绿柳那般遥不可及。春风多么可恶，欢情被吹得那样稀薄。满杯酒像是一杯忧愁的情绪，离别几年来的生活十分萧索。错，错，错！
美丽的春景依然如旧，只是人却白白相思地消瘦。泪水洗尽脸上的胭脂红，又把薄绸的手帕全都湿透。满春的桃花凋落在寂静空旷的池塘楼阁上。永远相爱的誓言还在，可是锦文书信再也难以交付。莫，莫，莫！
