steemit.com/@eaglekeeneye, Crytoasset Investor: EOS & EOS dApp holder

101 Subscribers . 518.0896PUB

96.08%  of Thanks & Inks to others.
  • [book펍 #3 Are all the welfare good?


    Why is poverty my share of decisions made by the state? Bernie Sanders put the word "democratic socialism" on the political lexicon and stimulated many young Americans. They argue that "democratic socialism" is a well-off Northern European social and economic system that the U.S. should accept. The Danish prime minister said as the allegations grew: "I know some Americans call the Northern European economic system a form of socialism. So I want to clarify one thing. Denmark is never a socialist planned economy. It's a market economy." In fact, northern European countries are well-off and have a high standard of living, with a universal medical system and a vast social safety net. In fact, it is a "social democracy" system in which the government aims to promote public welfare through heavy taxation and increased spending within the capitalist economic framework. Also, the prosperity of the Nordic country was already enjoying economic prosperity in the mid-20th century, when it implemented low tax rates and small welfare, not by the introduction of welfare systems. They, too, have seen their welfare dependencies grow noticeably due to excessive tax rates and welfare, with large governments blocking economic growth. Over the past decades, Nordic countries have slowly been reforming their markets by reducing the size of welfare and lowering taxes. The author also introduces the five faces of socialism and analyzes the core ideas of socialism. Activism: The nation as a whole regards the passage of the bill as entertainment. Usually, bills are recklessly proposed, such as tax increases to cover the nation's finances, hiring more government officials to regulate the scope of regulations and punishing them for violations of the law. This is caused by bureaucrats intervening in the free market economy and suffocating it. "Snowless Naradon" Fantasy: The government's finances come from taxes, forgetting about it and spending a lot of money on things that are not productive. Liability transfer bottle: It is often the case that welfare benefits are recognized as a natural right and pass on problems that have come to individuals to social problems. Socialism flourishes when people don't feel responsible. Pretend to know you're sick: The government knows everything and ignores people's diversity and deprives them of the opportunity to display individual creativity. 'Jealot OCD': A case in point is the separation of the rich and the working class, and socialists use timing and hostility toward the wealthy as fuel to build a redistribution system of wealth. The author cites the lack of incentives, the control of market prices and the non-recognition of private property rights as reasons for the failure of the socialist system. They will do creative and productive work through individual capital accumulation, their products in the market will be assessed as units of price, and their private property rights will be maintained and managed with responsibility. The improvement in people's quality of life does not come from the government's inefficient welfare system, but from the productivity of free markets.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.04.19 20:25

    19 thanks . 3,407.8363 PUB

  • Why are you attracted to socialism?


    Why is poverty my part in making decisions? As mentioned earlier, in order for the socialist system to be maintained, the voluntary and altruistic will of its members must compel it to sacrifice for the collective without incentives for individuals. Since the formation of such a coercive society is essential, many lives are planned and managed by a small number of powerful people. But there are still those who support socialism and communism and refuse to freedom because there is a just, moral-looking idea of "equal distribution of unequal income." The author says left-wing oratorics argue that most poor people are because the rich have made a lot of money and have a moral responsibility to worry out the rich and share it with the "poor." In order to realize the egalitarianism they want to achieve, they need a dedicated fuel of timing and greed, which creates conflicts between classes. But as most people know, capitalists probably know they did not steal produce from exploiting the poor and earned it through the voluntary exchange of free markets. In addition, incentives through property accumulation encourage entrepreneurs to engage in valuable production activities through innovation. The left's attention, on the other hand, is focused on taxing producers and subsidizing consumers. Assuming production will happen on its own, Robin Hood's policy of taking it from the rich and distributing it to the poor is certainly a very attractive factor for some. Who will be the moral person in the role of taking away the wealth of the rich and distributing it to the poor? What optimal central plan will the person distribute to create a "world of everybody's well"? Armed with complete knowledge to do all this, can we conduct wealth redistribution and see the various and unimaginable number of inventions and products we now enjoy? The key is whether or not to replace the plans of individuals without power in human society with those of those with power. The more the state plans, the more difficult it becomes for individuals. Rich countries use the expertise and creativity that social members each have to produce countless products. Socialists, on the other hand, drive capitalists into the enemy of the class, provoking people's anger and inducing conflicts between classes. The author quoted economist Hayek as saying. "The challenge that economics should solve with curiosity is to prove how ignorant humans really are about what we imagine we can create."

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.04.14 16:49

    14 thanks . 2,304.8720 PUB

  • <Why is poverty my share of decisions made by the state?


    Anyone with common sense will know that many socialist-based countries have turned to the path of failure. A case in point is the closest North Korea to the Soviet Union, Venezuela and even to go far. China, too, has driven countless people into starvation, although there are suspicions that statistics officially compiled in China have been reduced due to the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward movement before the opening of the free market. Socialism defines "as a political and economic theory of social organization, the means of production, distribution and exchange must be owned or regulated by the whole community." What should be remembered here is that "production means, distribution and exchange are owned or regulated by the whole community." a means of production What does it mean that exchange is regulated? To whom and how is it regulated as a community-wide possession? Socialism emphasizes altruistic ethics. One is selfish and greedy and argues that this stems from private property and market-based systems. Therefore, instead of leading one's own comfortable life, individuals should live for society as a whole and for the group at the expense of society, and to this end must receive "re-education" from the so-called political elite. In other words, maintaining a socialist system requires some "proletarian dictatorship" that can stifle human nature. Individual abilities, characteristics, propensity and preferences all differ and each individuality exists, but in socialism, the state is the only employee who educates and gives jobs to individuals, and the consumer goods to be produced, places to be distributed, places to work and jobs are all determined by socialist central planners under the proletarian dictatorship order. Socialists argue that if "true socialism" is realized, human nature will change, and people will have altruistic desires to seek public interest, not private interests. In free markets, demand is expressed through prices that are willing to pay for land, capital, resources and labor. Price is value determined not by state control, but by the supply of goods and services by an entrepreneur-defined production component and by the demand of consumers willing to pay for goods and services. But in the socialist planned economy system, there is no mechanism for knowing these values and opportunity costs. That was because, contrary to the compensation of the market economy, the central government will share "fair share" regardless of workers' efforts. "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.04.06 16:11

    15 thanks . 637.3364 PUB

  • Why is poverty my share of decisions made by the state?


    I haven't finished reading the book yet, but I'm almost finished reading it. I'm going to take time to review the book Why Poverty Is My Own in Decision Making by the State. The reason why I chose this book was because I bought one by the introduction of YouTube's "Lee Byung-tae TV – FEN" program, which I usually enjoy as an economic channel. [FEN's study] 7. Why is poverty my share of decisions made by the state? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l32c6Fi4AVo Once I have finished reading the book, I will briefly introduce the contents of the book, which explains what socialism is and why this system has failed. Despite the collapse of many socialist states at present, many Socialists argue that 'real socialism' has not been realized in such countries. According to the author, some Americans who support socialism call Northern Europe a success story of socialism, and insist on introducing "democratic socialism." It is said that Bernie Sanders of the Democratic Party created this concept and was registered in advance. However, the Danish prime minister, who saw it, refuted it in 2015, as follows: "I know some Americans call the Northern European economic system a form of socialism. So I want to clarify one thing. Denmark is never a socialist planned economy. It's a market economy." There was something similar to why the country failed and there was another side to the book I was previously organizing. Similarity was that when private property rights and freedoms are preserved, people have an incentive to creative economic activities. However, the book focuses more on the inefficiency of the socialist system than on whether the political and economic systems are exploitative or inclusive. In fact, the volume is not that large, so I don't deal with the deep, but I recommend you read it lightly to anyone who wants to have a new perspective on socialism.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.04.02 22:06

    18 thanks . 681.8306 PUB

  • [book펍] <국가는 왜 실패하는가> -#15 번영과 빈곤의 이해


    이번 장은 이 책의 마지막 장으로 저자가 주장하던 전반적인 이론을 정리하고, 기존의 이론의 한계점과 저자가 주장하는 이론이 어떻게 부족한 부분을 설명했는지 예시를 들면서 설명한다. 저자는 국가의 번영과 빈곤을 설명하려는 이론은 크게 두 가지 초점을 맞추어 목적을 달성하고자 했다. 첫째는 착취적 정치, 경제 제도와 포용적 제도의 차이를 밝혔다. 그리고 둘째는 포용적 제도가 일부 지역에서만 태동하고 다른 지역에서 그렇지 못한 이유를 설명했다. 착취적 경제, 정치제도가 자리 잡은 상태에서 성장이 불가능한 것은 아니라고 설명했다. 다만 자원을 생산성이 높은 곳에 투자하면 일정 기간 성장이 가능하지만, 창조적 파괴를 수반하는 혁신에 의한 성장이 아니기 때문에 지속해서 성장이 어렵다고 설명한다. 착취적 정치제도 위에 포용적 경제 제도가 안착해도 정치제도가 특별히 변하지 않는 한, 악순환의 함정에 의해 결국은 성장이 멈추고 착취적 경제 제도로 회귀하며, 이를 로마와 베네치아를 예시로 들며 설명했다. 그렇다면 어느 국가에 포용적 경제, 정치 제도가 뿌리 내려서 번영하는가? 이것은 역사적 우발성이 작용하는 요소기 때문에 예측하기 힘들다. 저자는 이러한 제도의 안착이 지리, 문화의 요인이 아닌 작은 역사적 우발성에 의해 나뉜다고 설명한다. 만약 역사적 차이만이 핵심적인 역할을 한다면 이 책에서 설명하는 이론의 예측력이 떨어질 수밖에 없다. 그런데도 이 책에서 얘기하는 이론의 결함이 존재하는 것은 아닌 것이, 제도의 차이에서 국가의 번영과 빈곤의 엄청난 차이를 가져온다는 것은 꽤 잘 설명하고 있기 때문이다. 이전 장에는 덩샤오핑의 경제 제도 변화에 따라 중국이 비약적으로 성장했지만, 근본적으로 정치제도의 변화가 일어나지 않아서 성장 엔진이 언젠가는 제동이 걸릴 것이라고 주장했다. 이것은 현재 중국에서 경제적 자유도와 사유재산권이 완전히 보장되지 않기 때문이다. 한 예시로 중국 국영기업에 도전장을 내밀었다가 사업을 접게 된 이야기이다. 다이궈팡은 1990년부터 중국에 여러 인프라 시설이 급속도로 증가하는 것을 예상하고 진정한 철강 대기업으로 성장하기 위한 계획을 세웠다. 그는 국영공장과 비교하여 저비용 생산업체를 운영함으로써 시장 점유율을 확보할 것이라고 판단하여 2003년 창저우 현지 당 지도부의 지원을 받아 사업을 확장해 나가려 했다. 2004년 3월 그는 베이징 공산당의 명령으로 체포되어 프로젝트가 중단되었지만, 그 사유는 제대로 밝혀진 적이 없다. 이는 중국 공산당이 경제에 대한 시각을 ‘새장 안에 새’에 비유하는 것을 보면 알 수 있다. 중국 경제는 한 마리의 새이기 때문에 새가 건강하고 활달하게 자랄 수 있도록 당의 통제력에 비유되는 새장을 확대해야 하지만, 새가 날아갈지도 몰라 이를 방지하기 위해 없애서는 안 된다는 것이다. 중국 기업은 공산당의 후원 없이는 사업을 자유롭게 벌일 수 없고, 이들의 유착은 신규 진입장벽을 세움으로써 다른 일반인의 사업 참여 기회를 박탈한다. 저자는 ‘근대화이론’을 소개하며 그 한계점을 얘기한다. ‘근대화이론’은 모든 사회가 성장할수록 한층 더 근대적으로 발전한 문명화된 체계를 지향하게 된다고 주장한다. 그래서 민주주의와 포용적 제도가 성장 과정의 부산물로 생겨난다고 주장한다. 하지만 지난 60년간 대부분의 나라가 착취적 제도를 운용하든 포용적 제도를 운용하든 그런대로 성장해왔다. 그럼에도 중국을 보듯이 경제성장이 꼭 민주주의에 미치는 영향은 미미했고 향후에도 미치기 힘들 것이다. 이 책은 또한 무지 가설을 비판하고 있다. 빈곤에 허덕이는 국가의 지도자가 경제성장을 이끄는 정책을 내놓지 않는 것은 지도자가 경제성장을 일으키는 방법을 몰라서가 아니라 알고 있음에도 그렇게 하지 않음으로써 더 많은 이득을 본다는 것이다. 따라서 번영은 엔지니어링 대상이 아니다. 번영을 엔지니어링 하는 두 가지 시도가 존재하며, 첫 번째는 가난한 나라가 국제기구가 제시하는 개선안을 선택하도록 하여 국제지원을 받을 수 있도록 하는 국제기구가 제일 선호하는 방안이며, 두 번째 방안은 경제학자와 전문가의 도움과 비전을 곁들인 올바른 조언을 정책 입안자들이 받아들여 ‘미시적 시장실패’를 바로잡도록 하는 방법이다. 하지만 이와 같은 해결방안은 근본적인 원인 (착취적 제도와 이를 뿌리 내리는 정치)을 직시하지 않고 번영을 엔지니어링 하려는 시도여서 결실을 보기 어렵다는 뜻이다. 2001년 미국은 테러리스트 알카에다 핵심 일원을 숨겨주고 인도를 거부하던 아프가니스탄의 억압적인 탈레반 정권을 무너뜨리고 미국에 협력한 무장 게릴라 조직 무자헤단 출신 지도자와 하미드 카르자이 등의 해외 거주 주요 아프간 망명 지도자 사이에 민주정권 수립계획을 골자로 하는 합의가 이루어졌다. 이에 유엔의 대규모 해외원조가 유입되고 비정부기구의 대포가 수도 카불에 모여들었다. 하지만 정작 절실하게 필요했던 사회간접자본인 학교와 공공서비스 구축에 사용되는 해외원조가 거의 없었으며, 오히려 기간시설을 세우기보다 국제기구를 실어 나르는 항공기를 전세 내는데 지원금이 사용되었다. 그리고 영어가 가능했던 몇 안 되는 숙련된 관료들이 국제기구의 운전과 통역을 현지 몇 배에 해당하는 월급을 지급하게 되어 그나마 유지하던 정부가 관료 부족으로 흔들리기 시작했다. 대부분 ‘개발’이라는 명목하게 지원되던 해외원조 자금은 국제기구 본부를 짓기 위한 건설비, 유엔 및 지역관리의 횡령 및 배임행위, 부정부패로 얼룩진 정부의 몫, 그 이외에 부대비용을 명목으로 지불 받은 일부 카르텔 단체들에게 돌아갔다. 원조금의 10%에서 기껏해야 20%정도가 의도했던 수혜자에게 돌아갔던 것이다. 결론적으로 구제기구가 선호하는 번영을 엔지니어링 하는 방식인 해외원조를 통해 가난한 나라의 생활에 별반 나아진 것이 없었다. 저자는 해외원조를 하는 것만이 국가 실패에 대처하는 그다지 효과적인 수단이 아니며, 포용적 정치, 경제제도를 발전시키는 것이 핵심이기 때문에 그런 발전을 촉진시키는 방향으로 자원이 사용되어야 한다고 주장한다. 마지막으로 정권이 바뀌어 권력이 이동되면서 사회가 더욱 착취적 제도로 발전할 수도 있고, 포용적 제도가 뿌리내려 사회가 발전하는 방향으로 갈 수도 있다. 대표적으로 1688년 잉글랜드, 1789년 프랑스, 1868년 일본의 메이지 유신이 정치혁명을 통해 포용적 제도가 뿌리내리기 시작한 사례이다. 반면에 러시아인에게 자유와 번영을 가져다줄 수 있다는 비전을 내걸었지만, 이전 정권보다 더욱 착취적이고 억압적인 제도를 갖추게 된 러시아의 볼셰비키 혁명도 있다. 중국, 쿠바, 베트남도 이와 비슷한 과정을 겪었다. 저자는 혁명 이후 포용적 제도가 들어서는 국가의 공통점은 굉장히 광범위한 사회계층이 권한 강화에 성공한 것을 들었다. 잉글랜드의 명예혁명 역시 제임스 2세가 쫓겨나는 데에 소수의 엘리트층인 귀족들만 참여한 것이 아닌 그들을 포함한 상인, 사업가 등이 참여한 광범위한 연합세력이 정치혁명을 주도했다는 것이다. 이 책을 모두 읽으며 포용적 정치, 경제 제도가 국가 번영에 중요한 요소임을 지나칠 정도로 강조했음을 느꼈다. 이 중요한 점을 강조하니 사회에 일어나고 있는 정치인들의 부정부패, 다른 독재국가의 행동에 대한 새로운 통찰력을 제시해주었다. “왜 국회의원들은 산업발전에 도움 안 되는 규제들만 양산할까” “왜 대기업의 중소기업 기술탈취에 대해 국가에서 규제하지 않을까” “북한은 왜 비핵화 의지가 없을까” 국가의 정책과 철학은 결국 권력을 차지한 정치인들에 의해 결정되는데, 이들의 이해관계를 먼저 이해하면 왜 그런 정책을 내고 시행하는지 보인다. 꽤 두꺼운 책이고 글도 써가며 정독을 하는 것은 처음이라 모두 읽는 데 오랜 시간 걸렸지만, 덕분에 가볍게 읽고 넘길지 못할 책을 세세하게 생각하면서 읽을 수 있는 계기가 되었다.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.03.30 11:56

    15 thanks . 970.9834 PUB

  • [Why a Country Fails? 나라들14 Countries Breaking the Conventional Framework


    이번 장에서는 기존의 착취적 정치, 경제 제도의의 틀을 깨고 포용적 제도 혹은 일부를 도입한 나라들에 대한 이야기를 다룬다. 영국의 식민지 지배 아래에서도 자체적으로 정치 제도를 자키고자 했던 보츠와나, 흑인-백인 인종차별이 존재했던 미국 남부, 대약진운동과 문화대혁명으로 수백만 명을 기아 상태로 몰고 갔지만, 물질적 인센티브를 도입한 중국에 대한 이야기를 다룬다. 아프리카의 베추아날란드는 1885년 영국의 보호령으로 선언되며, 이 지역은 1966년 독립 이후 보츠와나가 되었다. 1835년 영국의 식민지 정책을 피해 수천 명의 보어인이 내륙으로 피해 베추아날란드에 살고 있었던 츠와나 부족과 잦은 충돌이 일어났다. 이 당시에는 영국 정부는 북쪽의 내륙 지방에 크게 관심을 두지 않았기 때문이다. 그러나 1889년 세실 로즈의 영국 남아프리카회사가 북쪽으로 팽창하기 시작하면서 츠와나의 사정이 달라졌다. 이들은 로즈의 통제를 받느니 차라리 영국의 통치를 강화해 로즈로부터 보호하는 것이 낫다고 판단해 1895년 세 명의 추장들이 영국으로 건너가 영국의 통치를 확대하도록 설득하였다. 이들의 설득은 성사되고 영국의 당시 식민 장관인 조지프 체임벌린은 베추아날란드에 철도를 건설하고, 영국 여왕의 보호 아래에 영국에서 임명되어 파견된 관리와 함께 살게 된다. 추장 역시 기존과 별반 다르지 않게 백성을 다스릴 수 있게 되었다. 다른 아프리카 국가들과 비교해서 츠와나는 추장들이 협상하러 영국에 건너가 그들의 운명을 결정지을 수 있었던 것은 부족만의 핵심 정치제도를 마련해두고 있었기 때문이다. 이들은 이례적일 정도로 중앙집권화는 물론 원시적인 형태의 다원주의적 집단 의사결정 절차도 갖추고 있었다. 그리고 추장 자리는 엄격한 세습제가 아니라 상당한 재능과 능력을 증명하는 누구라도 차지할 수 있었다. 이들이 런던을 다녀온 이후 영국으로부터 이러한 토착 제도만은 유지하려고 애썼다. 보츠와나의 포용적 제도의 안착은 우발적인 요인을 피할 수 없었다고 저자는 말한다. 잉글랜드의 포용적 제도의 구성원들을 비교하자면, 엄격하게 집행되는 사유재산권을 선호하는 상인계층으로 이루어진 광범위한 신흥 연합세력으로 이루어져 있으며, 보츠와나는 확고한 절차적 권리를 선호하는 추장과 가축을 소유하며 엄격한 사유재산권 집행을 선호한 엘리트층으로 구성된 연합세력이 존재했다. 다른 아프리카 국가들 역시 이러한 제도가 없는 것은 아니었지만, 상대적으로 영국의 식민 지배력이 약했던 츠와나만이 제도를 보전할 수 있었다. 보츠와나는 1966년 독립했을 당시만 해도 교육받은 시민들도 많지 않았고, 도로도 그렇게 많이 건설되어있지 않는 가난한 나라 중 하나였다. 이후 45년 동안 보츠나와가 지속해서 성장할 수 있었던 것은 독립 이후 신속히 포용적 정치, 경제 제도를 발전시킨 덕분이었다. 다이아몬드 광맥이 발견되기 전까지는 육류 수출에 의존했지만 발견된 이후에는 다른 아프리카 국가들과 다른 모습을 보였다. 다이아몬드 광물에 대한 권리를 부족이 아닌 국가에 귀속하도록 하여 내전으로 이어지지 않게 하고, 관련 수입은 사회간접자본 및 교육 투자 재원으로 활용하였다. 원래 보츠나와 추장들은 식민지 통치시절부터 유럽인들의 광물 탐사를 막기 위해 안간힘을 썼는데, 자신들이 이룩한 자치제도를 파괴할 것을 우려했기 때문이다. 흑인들의 착취로 성장한 미국 남부 농장주들은 남북전쟁 이후에도 착취적 제도를 유지했다. 흑인들은 노예 신세에서 벗어났지만, 정치세력도 빈약하고 자본력도 없어서 농장주들 밑에 값싼 노동력을 제공해줄 수밖에 없었다. 20세기 중반까지 인종차별이 존재해 흑인들의 자유로운 경제활동 진입을 막았는데, 1940년대부터 흑인들 역시 이러한 차별정책에 대해 저항을 하기 시작했다. 이와 동시에 미국 대법원과 연방정부 역시 남부의 착취적 제도 개혁에 대한 간섭을 하기 시작했다. 1955년 12월 1일을 시작으로 앨라배마주 몽고메리시가 발부한 체포영장이 발부되었는데, 로자 파크스의 죄목은 버스 백인 전용 구역에 앉은 것이었다. 이를 시작으로 몽고메리 버스 승차 거부 운동을 촉발하였으며, 흑인들의 권리 운동이 거세지기 시작했다. 1962년 대법원은 특정 백인 지역이 인구의 관계없이 과도하게 대표성을 인정받게 되었는데 ‘베이커 대 카 (Baker vs Carr)’ 판결을 통해 ‘1인 1표’를 표준으로 도입함으로써 이를 바로잡았다. 초반에는 대법원의 판결에도 불구하고 남부 엘리트층들과 민주당의 방해로 이행되지 않았다. 그러나 흑인들의 저항이 거세지면서 남부의 흑인차별정책의 확고한 지지 기반이 무너져 내리면서 민주당 역시 인종차별에 등을 돌리게 되었다. 미국 남부의 제도는 미국 연방의 포용적 제도 안에 시행되었으며, 농장의 면화 생산에는 기계가 도입되면서 흑인들의 대량 이탈에 남부 엘리트층들의 저항 의지가 약했던 환경이었기 때문에 포용적 제도로 발전해나갈 수 있었던 것이었다. 마오쩌둥이 주도하는 중국의 공산당은 1949년 장제스가 이끄는 국민당을 몰아내고 중화인민공화국을 선포했다. 마오쩌둥은 즉각 토지를 국유화하고 사유재산권을 폐지해버렸으며, 그에게 대드는 지주들을 모두 숙청해버렸다. 시장경제가 철폐되고, 농촌 지역 인민들은 집단농장에 일하게 되었다. 돈과 임금은 없어지고 물품으로 교환 가능한 ‘노동 점수’로 대체되었다. 중국공산당은 쌀과 곡물을 독점해 농민들을 중 과세하는 수단으로 사용하면서 광활한 영토의 자원을 착취하였다. 중국은 1인당 국민소득을 4분의 1로 줄어들고 수백만 명을 아사 상태로 내몬 악명 높은 대약진운동과 문화대혁명을 시행했다. 마오쩌둥은 형편없는 용광로뿐인데도 산업화 계획을 내놓으면서 철강생산이 1년 이내에 두 배로 증가하고 15년이 지나면 영국의 철강생산을 따라잡을 것이라고 주장했다. 그러나 이 계획을 달성하기 위해 전국의 고철을 끌어모았고 심지어는 농사를 지어야 하는 농민들의 농기구들을 망가뜨려 쇠를 만들고 있었던 것이었다. 대약진운동의 결과 중국 농촌 지역은 기아에 시달리게 되었다. 중국은 문화대혁명 때 정권 반대세력을 숙청하는데 공산당원으로 구성된 홍위병을 전국적으로 조직했으며 수많은 정권 반대파들을 살해, 체포, 구금했다. 1976년 마오쩌둥이 숨을 거둘 때까지 모든 공산당의 권력을 틀어쥐었다. 혁명 당시 공산당 고위 간부로 ‘반혁명 세력’을 무수히 처형했던 덩샤오핑은 실용주의 노선으로 바꾸기로 마음먹었는데, 그는 1961년 광저우 회담에서 유명한 말을 남겼다. “검은 고양이든 흰 고양이든 쥐만 잘 잡으면 그만이다” 그는 1967년 자본주의의 길을 걷는 주자 파(capitalist roader)로 낙인찍혀 철창신세를 졌고, 1969년 지방으로 유배되어 농촌 트랙터 공장에서 강제노역을 당했다. 그는 1974년 복권되어 부총리 자리로 오르고 1975년 고등 교육 활성화, 농/공업 부문에서의 물질적 인센티브 회복, 당내 ‘좌파’ 축출에 대한 문건을 작성하고 총괄했다. 하지만 마오쩌둥의 건강이 급격히 악화하면서 그의 부인 장칭과 세 측근(공산당 중앙위원회 부주석 왕훙원, 정치국 상임위원 겸 국무원 부총리 장춘차오, 정치국 위원이었던 야오원위안)에 의해 권력이 집중되었다. 1976년 있었던 톈안먼 광장의 저우언라이 추모 집회가 반정부 시위로 확산하였었는데, 4인방은 덩샤오핑은 이 시위의 주모자로 지목하고 당직을 박탈당하고 쫓겨났다. 마오쩌둥은 덩샤오핑 대신 화궈펑을 총리서리로 임명함으로써 상당한 권력을 누릴 수 있었다. 화궈펑 역시 덩샤오핑과 마찬가지로 문화대혁명을 폐기하고 싶었지만, 그들 역시 공산혁명을 통해 집권한 권력 집단의 일원이었기 때문에 거리를 둘 수 있는 처지가 아니었다. 그는 마오쩌둥의 균형 잡힌 철학으로 돌아가자고 호소하면서 자리를 지켜나갔다. 하지만 덩샤오핑은 그 추종자들과 정치적 기반을 흔들리지 않으면서 상당한 경제성장을 달성할 수 있다고 생각했다. 중국의 결정적 분기점은 1976년에 마오쩌둥이 숨을 거두면서 시작된다. 마오쩌둥이 숨진 지 화궈펑은 한 달 만에 쿠데타를 일으켜 4인방을 모두 체포하고 덩샤오핑을 복권했다. 화궈펑은 문화대혁명을 부인할 수 없었던 반면에 덩샤오핑은 문화대혁명에 대한 비판 여론은 자극했고 공산당 주요 요직을 자신처럼 혁명에 된서리 맞은 사람들로 채워 넣었다. 덩샤오핑은 화궈펑에 대한 여론몰이 중 하나로, 베이징 시단에 설치된 민주의 벽에 인민들이 나라에 대한 불만 사항을 적는 ‘민주의 벽 사건’을 계기로 원론적인 경제개혁을 제안했다. 기업은 자체적으로 인센티브를 추구할 수 있었고 정부의 규제는 전반적으로 줄이는 급진적인 제안이었다. 덩샤오핑의 당내 영향력은 날로 커졌으며, 화궈펑의 반대에도 공산당은 계급투쟁이 아닌 경제근대화를 위해 주력하기 결정했다. 덩샤오핑은 당내와 군부, 정부 요직에 자신들의 측근으로 채워 넣고 화궈펑을 몰아냈다. 정치혁명을 완성하고 정권을 완전히 수중에 넣은 덩샤오핑은 경제 제도를 크게 개혁했다. 농민들에게 경제적 인센티브를 주는 농가 책임제를 시행하고, 농산물 통일 매입제가 철폐되고 자율적인 계약제도로 대체했다. 도시에서 경제활동을 하는 국영기업의 자율성이 확대되고 14개의 ‘개방도시’가 선정되어 해외 투자를 유치할 수 있게 되었다. 이러한 경제적 인센티브는 공업 부문에서도 적용이 되어 한층 성장을 꾀할 수 있었다. 하지만 문화대혁명 때보다 자유로워졌지만 경제제도가 완전한 포용적 제도로 간 것이 아닌 여전한 착취적 정치 제도하에 성장한 것이다. 국가, 조직, 기업 모두 구성원들이 자유롭게 경제적 활동을 하며, 재산을 불릴 수 있는 자유가 있다면 포용적 제도라고 할 수 있다. 이러한 제도가 안착하기까지 잉글랜드의 명예혁명을 비롯하여 결코 거저 주어진 것이 아니다. 츠와나는 기본적인 정치제도가 존재하고 공정한 방식으로 역량 있는 사람이면 누구나 추장 자리에 도전하고 맡을 수 있었으며, 영국 식민지 시절 협상을 통해 자신들의 통치제도를 지켜낼 수 있었던 것이었다. 남부 흑인들이 인종차별정책을 철폐한 것은 흑인들의 조직적 움직임이 일어났기 때문이었고, 중국의 경제개방이 가능했던 것은 여러 번 좌천되고 유배를 보내졌던 덩샤오핑과 그의 추종자들이 정치를 장악했기 때문이다. 누가 뭐래도 우리 대한민국은 산업화와 민주주의의 혜택을 보고 있다. 박정희 대통령 시절의 북한 안보위협 속에서 이룬 국가의 공업화와 경제성장, 그리고 군사정권의 탄압에 저항해 피로 얻어낸 민주화까지 이를 이룬 역군들이 아직도 살아계실 수도 있고 이를 겪어보지 못하고 운 좋게 그 후에 태어난 경우도 많을 것이다. 우리 EOS 홀더들은 거버넌스에 얼마나 많은 관심을 갖고 투표에 임할까? 피로 얻어낸 투쟁의 결과의 혜택을 누릴 자격이 있을까? 아니, 우리는 우리의 권리를 찾을 용기와 역량이 있을까?

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.03.23 21:29

    11 thanks . 882.8571 PUB

  • [book펍] <국가는 왜 실패하는가> -#13 오늘날 국가가 실패하는 이유


    이번 장은 실패한 국가의 정책이 어땠는지 설명하는데, 암호자산과 연관 지을 사항이 의외로 많다. 국가가 마음대로 통화를 찍어내고, 국가 권력의 삼권분립이 지켜지지 않을 때 어떤 결과가 초래되는지 보여주고 있다. 그리고 공통으로 국가가 실패하는 이유로는 착취적 경제 제도가 안착하는 것을 강조하고 있다. 아프리카의 짐바브웨를 이끄는 무가베 정권은 짐바브웨의 공식 통계를 믿지 못하지만 2008년 국민 소득 수준은 독립 당시인 1980년의 약 절반 수준이라고 한다. 2008년에는 보건 체계가 돌아가지 않아 전국에 콜레라가 창궐해도 최다의 사상자를 내었으며 2009년 초 유엔인도주의업무조정국은 짐바브웨의 실업률이 무려 94%에 달한다고 주장했다. 현 짐바브웨에 존재하는 착취적 경제, 정치제도 때문인데 이 제도는 아프리카 식민 통치 시절에부터 유래했다고 한다. 1901년 영국 남아프리카회사는 지금 짐바브웨가 있는 아프리카 지역을 정복하여 남로디지아라는 식민지를 세웠다. 이들은 채굴을 통해 돈을 벌기를 기대했는데 채산성이 떨어져서 원하는 만큼 채굴이익을 얻지 못했다. 이들은 대신 비옥한 농토에 모여들어 농업 이익을 얻기 시작했고, 급기야 백인들끼리 모여 자치권을 달라고 영국 정부에 요구하였다. 1923년 백인만의 아파르트헤이트 국가가 건설되었으며, 1960년대에 영국으로부터 독립을 선언했지만 세계 어느 나라로부터 인정받지 못했고 정치적, 경제적 제재를 당했다. 초반에는 남아프리카와 같이 백인과 흑인이 나뉘는 이중경제 구조와 같은 착취적 구조로 유지했지만, 이내 무가베가 이끄는 자누(ZANU, Zimbabwe African National Union)와 조슈아 은코모가 이끌던 자푸(ZAPU, Zimbabwe African People Union)가 일으킨 흑인들의 반란으로 백인통치는 1980년에 막을 내리게 된다. 독립 후 무가베는 순식간에 정적을 쳐냈고 헌법을 고쳐 스스로 대통령이 되었으며, 독립 합의 사항이었던 백인 유권자 명부를 없애버렸다. 그리고 급기야 1990년에는 아예 상원을 철폐해 자신의 입맛에 맞는 의회를 구성했다. 당은 자푸와 자누 당이 하나로 합쳐서 자누-PF 당이 되었으며, 이 당 지지자들에게 일자리를 나누어주어 공무원 수가 급증했다. 이들은 시장에 무수한 규제와 개입을 했으며 농업 생산성이 급격히 하락하여 재정위기를 초래했다. 자누-PF에 반발하여 생긴 정치세력인 민주 변화 운동(MDC, Movement for Democratic Change) 이 생겼지만, 선거에서 의석수를 확보하지 못했다. 무가베는 경쟁 후보의 폭력, 협박하여 부정 선거를 이끌어 계속 자리를 유지해왔기 때문이다. 그런데도 자신의 정치적 장악력이 약해지자 선심성 정책을 강화하는 방안을 택했다. 백인 지주들의 토지와 자산을 몰수하는 등 전면 공격에 나섰으며, 몰수된 토지의 극히 일부는 몰수에 앞장선 단체에 돌아갔지만, 대부분은 자누-PF 엘리트층들에 돌아갔다. 사유재산권이 불안정해지면서 농업 생산량 및 생산성은 곤두박질쳤다. 대부분의 정치학자와 각국 정부는 콜롬비아를 민주 정부로 여겼으며, 미국도 기꺼이 콜롬비아에 자유무역협정 가능성을 타진하고 군사원조를 아끼지 않았다. 짧은 기간 군사정권이 들어선 적이 있지만 1958년 막을 내렸으며 이후 민주적인 선거를 통해 지도자가 선출되었다. 1974년까지 소수세력인 보수당과 자유당 양대 정당이 대통령직을 주고받고 공유하다시피 했으며, 국민들이 소수세력인 국민 전선에 대해 국민투표를 통해 지지를 표명해서 민주적으로 비치는 데 무리 없어 보인다. 하지만 콜롬비아는 포용적 제도가 뿌리내리고 있지 않았는데, 시민의 자유 유린, 사법 절차를 무시한 처형, 민간인에 대한 폭력 및 내전으로 점철되어 있었다. 많은 시민은 콜롬비아에 활동하는 공산주의 게릴라 단체인 콜롬비아 혁명군(FARC, Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) 과 이들을 대항하기 위해 창설된 민병대와 같은 무장단체들에 목숨을 위협받고 있었다. 이들 민병대는 전국적 조직인 콜롬비아 연합자위군 (AUC, Autodefensas Unidas de Comlombia)로 불렸으며, 3만명 이상의 병력을 거느릴 정도로 성장했다. 이들은 민병대와 정치인들은 서로를 필요했기 때문에 정계 진출 계획을 세웠다. 2002년 AUC는 상, 하원 선거에 자신들의 입맛에 맞는 후보를 당선시켰으며, 민병대장은 선거를 관장할 정도로 깊은 영향력을 행사했다. 콜롬비아 정부가 이처럼 민병대에 장악당한 한 것은 중앙 집권 정부가 탄생하지 못했기 때문이다. 민병대와 그들과 싸우는 혁명군을 통제할만한 강력한 중앙 집권 정부가 탄생하지 못하여, 법질서와 사유재산권이 불안한 지역이 많았다. 콜롬비아의 정치제도에서는 정치인들이 공공서비스를 제공하고 법질서를 유지할만한 인센티브를 갖지 못하고 무력단체들과 결탁할 수밖에 없으며 이를 막아낼 힘이 없었다. 아르헨티나는 1914년 이전까지 50년 정도 계속 경제성장을 했지만, 전형적인 착취적 제도하에 성장하였다. 이들 수출 농업경제 의존도는 소수 엘리트층의 지배를 받고 있었으며, 성장이 창조적 파괴나 혁신을 수반하지 않았기 때문에 당연히 지속해서 성장할 수가 없었다. 이들의 경제성장을 할 수 있었던 것은 이들의 주 수출 품목인 소고기, 가죽, 곡물 등 농산물이 세계시장에서 호황을 누렸기 때문이다. 1940년대 페론의 등장으로 페론당이라 불리는 정의사회당에 의해 아르헨티나 민주주의가 장악당했다. 유권자들을 매수하여 후원세력을 동원했으며, 정치적 지지를 대가로 공무원이나 정부 계약에 특혜를 주었다. 그는 노동운동을 기반으로 정치 기반을 세웠지만 1970년대와 1980년대 군사 탄압으로 노동계가 위축되자 페론당은 미련 없이 다른 세력을 매수하려 눈길을 돌렸다. 정부는 사유재산권을 무시하고 아무런 제약 없이 시민의 재산을 몰수하였다. 북한 정부는 사유재산과 시장경제를 반대하는 공산 독재정권이다. 2009년 11월 이들은 극심해진 인플레이션을 잡기 위해 끝자리 수 두 자리를 떼어내는 화폐 개혁을 단행했다. 다시 말해 100원이 하루아침에 1원 가치로 전락한 것이었다. 북한 주민들은 구권을 신권으로 바꿀 수 있었으나 바꾸는 데에 여러 가지 제약이 있었다. 프랑스가 화폐 개혁을 단행했을 때는 구권에서 신권으로 바꿀 42년 동안의 시간을 보장했지만, 북한 정부는 고작 1주일만 주어졌다. 그리고 여기서 10만원 이상은 환전할 수 없다고 못 박았으며 그나마 상한 금액 50만원으로 완화했다. 이는 정부의 화폐 개혁을 통해 주민의 저축을 몰수한 것이나 다름없었다. 1991년 소련 붕괴 이후 국영 농장은 모두 와해하였고 농지도 분배되었다. 우즈베키스탄의 농지를 모두 돌려받았지만 농민이 독립적으로 면화를 재배할 수 있었던 것은 아니었다. 면화는 우즈베키스탄의 수출비중이 45퍼센트가 넘는 중요한 작물이었기 때문에 농민들은 세계시장에 쳐주는 가격의 일부만 가질 수 있었고 나머지는 정부가 대부분 챙겼다. 농민들은 농기계를 도입하여 재배 량을 늘려야 할 인센티브가 없어 수확량이 떨어졌으며, 정부에서 정부에서 강제로 등을 떠밀 수 밖에 없었다. 우즈베키스탄의 카리모프 정권은 날이 갈수록 떨어지는 생산량을 올리기 위해 한가지 해결책을 고안했다. 농기계 도입보다 값싼 해결책인 어린 학생을 동원하는 것이었다. 지방관리에 학교마다 면화 수확량을 배정하도록 하고, 학교 교사는 선생이 아닌 일꾼 감독으로서 어린아이들을 노역장에 동원하였다. 이렇게 착취적인 구조로 면화를 생산해 수혜를 보는 사람들은 다름 아닌 카리모프 대통령의 정치 엘리트층들이었다. 카리모프 일가의 경제권은 그의 딸인 굴노라가 담당한다. 우즈베키스탄에 차를 재배하기 적합한 지역이 많아, 미국 기업인 인터스팬은 투자를 결심했다. 이 회사는 2005년까지 현지 시장의 30%까지 점유할 수 있었지만, 그다음 해인 2006년에 철수를 결정한다. 굴노라 역시 차 산업이 돈이 되는 것을 알고 인터스팬 현지 직원을 체포하고 구타, 고문하여 사업을 더 진행하기 어려웠기 때문이다. 그리고 인터스팬의 남은 자산은 카리모프 일가에서 운영하는 차 사업 기업에 인수되었다. 우즈베키스탄 이외에도 구소련 사회주의 공화국들 대부분이 착취적 제도하에서 실패한 국가가 되었다. 1954년 왕정을 폐지한 군사 쿠데타 이후 이집트는 준 사회주의국가로 다스려졌으나, 시간이 흐르면서 국영기업이 장악한 경제에서 시장이 개방되기 시작했다. 하지만 1978년 안와르 사다트 대통령이 창당한 국민민주당 (NDP, National Democratic Party)와 결탁한 기업들이 많았다. 주요 기업인들인 자신들이 관련되어있던 사업 분야의 관직으로 임명되었다. 그리고 소수의 기업인은 정부 규제를 통해 진입 장벽을 세워 달라 정부를 설득했다. 정부 입찰에 신규진입 기업은 탈락하기 일쑤였고, 소위 ‘고래’라고 불리던 32명의 소수 기업인에 의해 이집트 경제가 좌지우지되었다. 저자는 실패한 국가의 공통점으로 착취적 제도를 지목했다. 자신들의 이익을 위해 사회의 나머지 대다수를 희생시켜 권력을 영구히 유지하려는 엘리트층들이 장악하고 있기 때문이다. 국가의 선거 시스템의 작동 여부는 착취적 정치제도의 안착과 큰 연관성은 없는 것으로 나타났다. 짐바브웨와 같이 역시 상대 후보를 체포, 구금하여 선거에 참여하지 못하게 하는 경우도 있었으며, 콜롬비아와 같이 소수 집단의 영향력에 의해 양 당이 번 갈아서 선거를 통해 정권을 잡는 경우도 있었다. 저자는 정치, 경제적 실패를 극복할 수 있는 해법으로 착취적 제도를 포용적 제도로 변화시켜야 한다고 말한다. 악순환에 벗어나는 것은 굉장히 어려운 일이지만 불가능한 일은 아니며, 과두제의 철칙이 불가피한 것은 아니라고 한다.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.03.16 21:39

    27 thanks . 2,113.3850 PUB

  • [Why does a nation fail?순환12 vicious circle


    저번과 달리 이번 장에서는 착취적 정치제도는 어떻게 착취적 경제 제도를 낳고 이것이 어떻게 악순환이 되는지 설명하고 있다. 1896년 영국은 서아프리카 지역 시에라리온을 식민지 지배하기 위해 지역에 지배자를 파악해 대추장 직위를 주었다. 1898년 영국이 가옥세를 거두려 하자 추장들은 ‘가옥세 반란’을 일으켰으며, 반란은 이내 진압되었지만, 반란이 치열하고 꽤 오래 지속하였었다. 영국은 식민지 지배를 위해 프리타운에서 내륙으로 이어지는 철로를 건설 중이었는데, 반란 때문에 북동쪽에서 경로를 바꾸어 멘델란드로 진입하는 남쪽으로 가는 경로로 변경했다. 이는 반란의 중심지에 있는 멘델란드로 빨리 도달하기 위함이었다. 이 철로는 1961년 시에라리온 독립 이후 커피, 코코아, 다이아몬드 등 대부분의 수출품을 나르며 1967년 경제의 중추적인 역할을 했다. 1967년까지 멘델란드의 지지기반을 두던 시에라리온인민당이 정권을 잡다 북부 종족의 지지기반을 두던 스티븐스가 이끄는 전인민의회당에게 패배하고 만다. 스티븐스는 이내 경제의 중추적인 역할을 하던 철로를 들어내 버리고, 복구할 수 없게 선로와 차량을 팔아 치워버렸다. 수출을 장려하면 할수록 멘데 족과 인민당에 좋지만, 자신이 권력을 유지하는 데 도움이 되지 않았기 때문이다. 식민지 시절 영국은 시장기구를 이용하여 시에라리온을 간접 통치했다. 대추장이 세금 집행과 법 집행을 맡겨 질서 유지를 했으며, 코코아와 커피 농부를 돕는다는 명분 아래에 생산품을 시장기구에 팔아넘기도록 하였다. 농산물 시장기구는 세계시가에 팔고 남은 수익 일부를 기구 운영 자금으로 사용하였다. 하지만 이 운영자금의 비중이 날이 갈수록 늘어남으로써, 간접적으로 농민들에게 엄청난 세금을 거두어들이는 효과를 보았다. 식민지 독립 이후 여러 아프리카 국가의 이러한 시장기구는 철폐되지 않고 오히려 엘리트층들의 통치 도구로 사용되어 국민들의 삶을 더욱 피폐하게 만들었다. 영국이 아프리카의 다이아몬드 광산 토착 채굴자들을 쫓아내고 독점하기 위해 창설한 다이아몬드 독점은 독립 이후에도 스티븐스의 착취적 수익사업으로 이용되었다. 그는 철도를 폐기하면서 국가의 군대를 약화하고 자신에게 충성하는 사병조직을 따로 만들어, 자신이 만든 착취적 제도를 더욱 공고히 했다. 식민 열강의 지배를 받아온 아프리카에 대부분의 국가도 자신들을 통치하기 위해 만든 통치기구를 그대로 물려받아 착취적 제도로 자리 잡았다. 착취적 제도가 독립 이후 지속한 것은 남아메리카도 마찬가지였다. 에스파냐 정복자가 이들 식민지를 통치하기 위해 착취적 경제, 정치 제도를 수립했다. 에스파냐제국이 마련해놓은 제도는 독립 이후 그대로 남거나 더욱 심화하여 엘리트층들의 착취적 제도를 위한 도구가 되었다. 과테말라에서 식민지 시절 왕실 기구였던 콘술라도는 독립 이후에도 1839년부터 1871년 독재자 카테라 정권 밑에서 그대로 존속해 항구와 도로 같은 사회 간접자본 개발의 책임을 맡게 되었다. 태평양에 접해있는 수치테페케스 해안에 항구를 개발하는 프로젝트는 마사테낭고와 케살테낭고등 고지대 도시에 물품을 운반하기 수월하였지만 콘술라도는 이를 막았다. 카리브 해안에 모여있는 항구를 콘술라도가 모두 장악하고 있었는데, 새로운 항구에 의해 자신이 타격을 입을 것을 염려했기 때문이다. 고지대와 서과테말라를 잇는 도로 건설 역시 콘술라도에서 막았는데, 이는 도로가 개선됨에 따라 콘술라도 상인과 경쟁하는 새로운 상인 계층의 탄생을 저지하기 위해서였다. 카테라 정권은 1871년 자유주의자들에 의해 전복되었으며, 과테말라의 후스토 루피노 바리오스가 이끈 자유당에 의해 통치가 되었다. 하지만 이들도 급격히 오르는 커피 수요에 맞춘 커피를 착취할 목적으로 경제구조를 조정했다. 이들이 콘술라도를 철폐했지만 이미 과테말라의 경제 상황은 커피 사업에 초점이 맞춰져 있었다. 자유당은 커피 생산을 위해 토지 민영화를 실시했는데, 대부분이 정부의 땅이거나 공유지를 빼앗는 과정이나 다름없었다. 소수의 엘리트층들이 정치 권력을 가졌기 때문에 결국 엘리트층들의 뜻대로 되었다. 부역에 해당되는 레파르티미엔토는 독립 이후에 단 한 번도 철폐된 적이 없으며 오히려 더욱 확대 되었다. 부동산을 가진 고용주는 정부에 노동자를 요청해 일정 기간 노동을 시킬 수 있었으며, 기간은 언제든지 연장할 수 있었다. 이후에도 여러 번 정권이 바뀌었지만, 착취적 제도가 전혀 개선되지 않고, 착취적 정치제도와 경제 제도가 맞물리는 악순환의 고리가 지속하였다. 미국의 남북전쟁이 터지기 전까지는 미국 남부 제도도 착취적 색채가 강했다. 남부 엘리트층들이 흑인 노예와 농장 토지를 보유했으며 정치와 경제를 모두 장악하고 있었다. 착취적 제도에 경제를 의존하다 보니 북부와 비교해서 남부는 산업발전도 없었고 사회간접자본에 거의 투자하지 않았다. 1880년대에 북동부 대부분 지역은 제조업에 종사하는 인구는 노동인구의 10% 정도를 차지했는데, 남부는 비율이 낮았으며 노예 비중이 높은 지역은 0%에 가까웠다. 노예제도가 폐지되고 흑인에게 투표권이 주어졌지만, 흑인의 정치적 힘과 경제적 독립성이 보잘것없는 수준이라 남부의 정치는 크게 바뀌지 않았다. 전쟁을 치르는 동안 해방 노예는 노예제도가 폐지되면 40에이커의 땅과 노새 한 마리를 받기로 되었지만 이행되지 않았다. 또한 전쟁 이후에도 남부 농장주들의 대토지는 그대로 남아 부를 유지했으며, 언제든지 흑인들은 값싼 노동력을 받을 수 있었다. 1865년 앨러배마 주에 통과된 ‘흑인 단속법’은 흑인들의 노동력 이동을 방해함으로써 노동시장의 경쟁을 줄이고, 남부 농장주에 저비용의 노동력을 제공할 수밖에 없는 기반을 만들어줬다. 이처럼 20세기가 지나도 남부는 낮은 교육수준과 낙후된 농촌경제에서 벗어나지 못하고 있다. 에티오피아를 오랫동안 다스리던 황제 셀라시에는 착취적인 제도를 관장하여 온 나라를 자신의 사유재산인 양 다스렸다. 그런 에티오피아의 솔로몬 왕조는 ‘더그’라 불리는 마르크스주의 군 장교 집단에 의해 1974년 군사 쿠데타로 전복되었다. 이들 장교집단은 원래 황제에게 충성을 맹세했지만, 세라시에 정권이 약화한 것을 확인하고 군사쿠데타를 일으켜 황제를 체포했으며 구정치인들을 처형했다. 하지만 정권이 바뀌어도 착취적 제도의 제거는 없었고 오히려 심해졌다. 1975년 더그는 도시와 농촌의 대부분 사유재산까지 국유화하였으며, 이러한 권위주의적 형태에 대한 반발이 전국적으로 거셌다. 그리고 더그 내부에서도 여러 파벌이 갈라졌는데 이중 멩기스투 소령이 사실상 정권을 장악했다. 정권이 바뀌고 부자나 부르주아로 보일만 한 것들처럼 과거와 관련되어 보이는 것들 것 모두 배격했다. 그러나 1978년경 물질주의가 서서히 받아들여지기 시작하면서 모든 고위 공직자들은 명품 의류, 최고의 집, 술, 차와 같이 혁명의 이념과 반대되는 길을 걸었다. 급진적인 변화의 미명하에 정권을 잡은 이들이 착취적인 제도에 더욱 충실해지는 악순환이 되풀이된다. 하지만 급진적 변화가 모두 착취적인 제도로 이어지지는 않고 영국과 프랑스처럼 포용적 제도로 이어지는 경우도 있는데, 저자는 이에 대한 3가지 요인을 설명했다. 첫째, 신흥 상인 및 사업가 계층은 자신들에게도 이로운 창조적 파괴의 효과가 파급되길 원했으며 이들이 혁명의 주요 일원이었다. 둘째, 명예혁명과 프랑스 혁명 모두 소수 집단의 이해관계에 따른 쿠데타가 아니라, 상인, 사업가 계층을 포함한 광범위한 연합이 손을 잡았다. 셋째, 잉글랜드 및 프랑스는 역사적으로 의회와 권력 분점의 전통이 존재해서 정권을 잡아도 착취적 제도로 회귀가 가능하지 않았다. 포용적 경제 제도하에서는 정치 권력을 획득해서 얻을 수 있는 소득에 한계가 있으므로 정권을 노릴만한 인센티브가 약하다. 그리고 포용적 제도가 유지되기 위해 선순환 관정을 통해 포용적 제도가 계속 유지되고 한층 더 강한 포용적 성향을 향해 사회를 이끌어 갈 수 있는 환경이 조성된다. 이처럼 포용적 제도가 선순환을 통해 생명력을 불어넣듯이 착취적 제도는 악순환이라는 강한 조력자가 존재한다. 물론 착취적 제도의 악순환은 불명의 고리가 아니라고 언급한다. 잉글랜드와 프랑스 같은 우발적 사건에 의해 절대주의 체제와 맞서 싸우고 광범위한 연합이 혁명을 일으켜 다원주의적인 정치제도가 태동하기도 했다. 투표라는 것은 민주주의 체제하에 가장 강력한 무기라고 생각한다. 자신의 이익을 대변할 권력이자 많은 정치인이 이 표를 받기 위해 움직인다. 왕정체제와 봉건주의 체제에서 이 투표권을 얻기 위해 전쟁도 불사했으며, 여러 민주화 운동 역시 제대로 되고 신뢰할 수 있는 투표과정과 지도자 선출 과정을 위해 싸웠다. 권력 쟁탈을 위한 과정은 결국 참여자들의 이해관계가 맞아떨어져야 하지만 자신의 이해관계에 따라 이러한 권리 투쟁을 위한 움직임은 꼭 나쁘다고 보지 않는다. 하지만 지금 EOS 생태계를 관찰하자면 대부분의 홀더가 투표의 존재를 모를뿐더러, 알고 있다 하더라도 투표 행위에 대한 기회비용이 매우 커서 실제 많이들 하고 있지 않다. 실제로 단기 투자 관점에서 보면 투표 행위는 그렇게 이득이 될만한 행동이 아닌 게, 거래소에 둠으로써 매매 수익을 낼 수도 있고 거래소 funding을 이용해 이자수익을 추구할 수 있다. 물론 자원 임대와 앞으로 도입하게 될 REX는 투표행위에 대한 기회비용을 어느 정도 상쇄시킬 수 있으나 이자수익이 적어서 효과는 미미할 것이라고 개인적으로 생각하고 있다. EOS 플랫폼은 상용화된 블록체인으로 쓰이기에는 기술적으로는 문제없지만, 현재 BP 투표에 대한 정치 문제를 해결해야만 한층 더 업그레이드될 것이라고 생각한다. 물론 이때 EOS 토큰의 가격상승은 덤이다. 광범위한 다양한 배경의 홀더들의 목소리를 대변하고 메인넷의 상황을 상시에 감시할 수 있는 proxy(투표위임)의 양성화가 절실하다. 물론 proxy 역시 커뮤니티 아래에 관리되어야 하며 그러지 못할 경우 proxy 역시 견제할 수 없는 괴물이 되고 만다. 다행히도 EOS 플랫폼 내에 거물급 인물들의 proxy 참여와 홍보가 늘어나는 움직임이 있다. 체인의 권력의 분산화를 원하고 EOS 플랫폼의 성장 과실을 함께하고 싶은 EOS 장기 홀더라면 당연히 투표에 참여해야 한다고 생각한다. 투표에 참여하지 않거나 목소리를 내지 않는 장기 홀더들의 권리는 누구도 챙겨주지 않고, 장기 보유하면서 가격상승만 외친다고 토큰 가격이 오르지 않기 때문이다.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.03.10 15:12

    14 thanks . 402.5371 PUB

  • [Infinnibus] Watch the dog at COEX!


    One-letter: [Infinance(인Finish] Infinibus update spent time: 190303] (https://steemit.com/dclick/@eaglekeeneye/infiniverse-190303-1551614899337) I went to the Starfield Mall at COEX for a test with the update of the Infinite bus application. At first, it was very inconvenient to use, but after the update, it was completely free from inconvenience. As the weather got warmer, I installed a puppy and a tree while looking for the scenery and 3D image that matches the spring. Rabbit is a bonus. - Official site: https://www.infiniverse.net/ - Official Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbJlfobwiZL3Y6iEU7BVTng - Official Twitter account: https://twitter.com/infiniverseAR - Official Facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/infiniverseAR - Official media blog: http://www.medium.com/infiniverse - Formal (English) Telegram: https://t.me/infinity - Korean User Telegram Room: https://t.me/Infinance_KoreaCommunity

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.03.03 21:11

    25 thanks . 2,678.0427 PUB

  • [Why the Country Fails?순환11 A virtuous circle


    18세기에 잉글랜드에는 밤에 얼굴이 보이지 않도록 얼굴을 검게 칠하고 다니던 ‘블랙’이 있었다. 이들이 나오게 된 배경은 1670년 신흥 상인 계층을 대변하기 위해 창설된 휘그당 때문이었다. 휘그당은 1688년 명예혁명의 구심점이었으며, 1714년부터 1760년대까지 의회를 지배하였다. 이들이 의회를 지배하는 당이었지만 절대권력을 쥐지 못했던 것은, 의회 내에 경쟁세력으로부터 끊임없이 견제를 받았기 때문이었다. 이들이 스튜어트왕조의 복귀를 막기 위해 의회의 권한을 강화하기 위해 제 손으로 도입 제도가 자신들의 폭주를 막은 것이었다. 이들 정부는 화려한 대저택과 넓은 사슴 사냥터를 조성했는데, 이로 인해 주민들은 터전을 잃어 블랙이 일어나게 된 계기가 되었다. 전통적으로 가축들의 풀을 뜯어 먹게 하고, 땔감을 모으던 권리마저 빼앗겨서, 이에 대한 반발로 블랙은 무기를 들고 사슴 사냥터를 습격하였다. 1차 공격에는 사슴 16마리를 죽였으며, 블랙에 사유지를 공격당한 지주와 정치인들이 많았다. 이에 휘그 정부도 블랙 법을 통과시켜 무기를 소지하거나, 얼굴을 검게 칠하는 행위 모두 범죄로 규정하였다. 하지만 위세를 떨치던 블랙 법도 1824년이 되어서 마침내 폐지되었다. 의회를 지배하던 휘그당조차도 스튜어트 왕조 시절처럼 반대세력을 억압하고, 사법부가 구미에 맞는 판결을 해줄 수 없었다. 휘그당이 법 위에 군림하지 못하고 법치주의를 따라야 했던 것은 바로 명예혁명의 본질에 있었다. 명예혁명은 한 엘리트 집단이 다른 엘리트 집단을 전복시킨 것이 아니라 젠트리의 상인, 수공업자와 휘그파와 그들의 경쟁 세력인 토리당의 파벌까지 합세하여 절대왕정에 반기를 든 혁명이었기 때문이었다. 한 집단이 일방적으로 대항한 것이 아니었기 때문에 여럿이 권력을 분점하고 있던 상황에 법과 견제를 모두에게 적용함으로써 한 집단이 권력을 독점하지 않는 다원주의를 흔들지 않기 위해서였다. 이러한 선순환 구조가 만들어지기까지는 포용적 정치제도가 뒷받침되었다. 포용적 정치제도에 의해 소득이 공평하게 분배되는 포용적 경제 제도가 싹트게 되며, 정치 권력을 찬탈하여 얻을 수 있는 이득이 낮아서 착취적 제도를 재창출할 동기를 약화한다. 또한 다원주의는 독립 언론이 번성할 수 있게 해주며, 포용적 제도를 유지하는 것이 이로운 단체들이 착취적 제도의 출현을 조직적으로 막을 수 있도록 인식할 수 있게 한다. 잉글랜드 정부도 명예혁명이 일어났던 1688년 언론 검열을 중단했으며, 제도 발전의 선순환 고리 역할을 했다. 블랙 법 이후 일반 영국민들은 자신들이 생각보다 많은 권리를 갖고 있다는 것을 깨닫고, 청원과 로비를 통해 자신들의 권리와 경제적 이해를 더 많이 주장하게 되었다. 19세기 들어 경제적 불평등의 심화와 선거권 없는 대중의 참정권을 요구하면서 사회불안이 고조되었다. 19세기의 블랙 법 이후의 휘그당은 평민의 바람을 더욱 귀담아들었고, 보통선거권을 확대하기 위해 애썼다. 선거에서 휘그당이 승리하고, 이 당을 이끌던 얼 그레이가 총리가 되어 투표권 확대에 힘을 쓰는 개혁을 추진하였다. 이들이 투표권 확대에 적극적이었던 것은, 영국의 민주주의가 소수의 엘리트층의 산물이 아닌 대중의 힘을 키워 쟁취했던 것 때문이었다. 19세기 내내 유권자의 수가 증가하게 되면서 많은 정치변화와 개혁이 일어나게 되었는데, 일반인도 시험을 통해 공무원이 될 수 있는 능력 본위의 공직자 제도를 도입했다. 영국의 합리적 과세정책을 정부 권한을 이용해 공공서비스의 확대로 이어졌고, 교육제도 역시 대중에게 더 다가가기 쉽게 개혁되었다. 이전에는 교육은 엘리트층들을 위한 학교가 주를 이루었고 가난한 사람들이 학비를 내는 방식이었다. 이내 교육법이 통과되어 보편 교육 시행부터 의무교육의 도입까지 영국 중등 교육의 길을 닦게 되었다. 저자는 영국에 포용적 제도가 정착하면서 점진적 순환이 이루어졌다고 주장한다. 대중의 목소리가 커지면서 포용적 정치 제도가 수립되어가는 방향으로 정치 변화가 일어나게 되었다. 이 변화는 점진적으로 이루어지게 되었는데, 공고히 된 법치주의 때문에 엘리트층들이 스튜어트 왕조에게 요구했던 것을 똑같이 요구하는 대중들을 탄압하기 한층 어려워졌다. 엘리트층들 역시 체제를 완전히 뒤집는 것 보다, 큰 마찰 없이 작은 요구들을 들어주는 것이 낫다고 판단하였다. 미국도 식민지 시절 벌어진 투쟁에 의해 영국의 포용적 제도로 시작하여 미국 헌법을 만들고 선순환을 시키며 발전시켜나갔다. 남북전쟁 이후에는 북부에 철도, 공업, 상업이 확대되면서 고속성장이 계속되고 소수가 막대한 부를 쌓았다. 스텐더드오일 컴퍼니를 세운 존 D. 록펠러, 금융재벌기업인 JP Morgan을 창업한 존 피어폰트 모건 그리고 U.S 스틸을 설립한 앤드루 카네기 역시 이 당시에 독점을 통한 막대한 부를 쌓았다. 이러한 독점 관행에 반기를 든 사람들이 조직적으로 맞서기 위해 태동한 것이 포퓰리스트 운동이었다. 이러한 정치 운동은 독점기업들의 트러스트를 깨기 위한 법률제정에 영향을 주었다. 1887년에는 주간통상법이 통과되어 주간통상위원회를 설치해 연방 차원에서 산업을 규제하는 기틀을 마련했으며, 1890년 미국 반독점규제의 중추적 역할을 하는 셔면 반트러스트법이 통과되었다. 시어도어 루스벨트는 대기업 문제를 조사할 권한을 갖는 연방 기구를 설립하고, 필요하면 헌법을 개정해서라도 그런 기구를 만들 수 있도록 의회에 제안했다. 이처럼 시장이 존재한다고 해서 포용적 제도가 보장되지 않는 것을 보여준다. 일부 소수의 대기업이 시장을 장악하면 질 낮고 비싼 비효율적인 서비스를 제공하고, 신규 경쟁자의 진입을 막아버릴 수 있다. 포용적 경제 제도는 시장 참여자에 대한 공평한 환경과 대다수 참여자에게 경제적 기회를 조성해주는 포용적 시장이 필요하다. 이러한 시장을 조성해주기 위해서 포용적 정치 제도가 함께 선순환을 이루어야 하는데, 미국은 독점 트러스트에 대한 대응으로 포용적 정치제도는 포용적 시장을 이탈하려는 움직임을 저지하려고 노력하는 것을 잘 보여준다. 시어도어 루스벨트의 먼 사촌인 프랭클린 D 루스벨트는 1932년 대통령에 당선되었으며, 1933년 초 미국 노동인구들의 1/4이 실업자였던 대공황 문제를 해결해야 했다. 그가 추진한 뉴딜 정책은 많은 국민들의 지지를 받았으며, 민주당 상하 양원에 다수당으로 굳히고 있어 뉴딜법안을 통과가 순조로워 보였다. 그러나 공화당으로 보수 성향이 강했던 대법원은 법안의 일부 위헌 소지가 있다 하여 제동을 걸었다. 그가 추진하던 뉴딜 법안에는 산업계의 경쟁을 제한하고, 노동자들에게 더 큰 노조 결성 권한을 부여하는 내용이 포함되어있었다. 하지만 결국 1933년 6월 16일 루스벨트 대통령의 서명으로 뉴딜정책의 큰 줄기 중 하나였던 전국산업부흥법이 통과되었다. 루스벨트는 1936년 재선에도 국민들의 압도적인 지지에 재선에 성공하였는데, 대법원이 자신의 현안에 차질을 빚도록 내버려 두고 싶지 않았다. 그래서 루스벨트는 미국 헌법이 대법원에 법안이 위헌 여부를 문제 삼을 권리를 부여한 적이 없다고 주장하며, 법관의 업무량이 과다하다는 이유로 70세 이상의 대법관은 의무적으로 퇴직시키고 대통령에게 여섯 명의 대법관을 임명할 수 있는 권한을 달라고 요구했다. 루스벨트의 법안에 사사건건 제동을 거는 대법관들이 모두 이에 해당되었으며, 법안이 통과되면 이러한 법관들을 제거하기에 충분하였다. 그러나 이 조치에 대한 국민적 지지는 높지 않았으며, 여당이 다수당을 차지하고 있었음에도 하원에서 법관 관련 법안을 통과하기를 꺼려했다. 결국 법안은 폐기되고 미국은 사법부의 독립성을 훼손하지 않을 수 있게 되었다. 저자는 만약 사법부를 루스벨트 대통령 입맛에 맞게 개혁이 되었다면 자신이 추진하고 있는 정책을 의회가 가로막고 있다며 경찰력을 동원해서 의사당을 봉쇄했을지도 모를 일이었다고 주장한다. 그 근거로 1990년대 페루와 베네수엘라가 국민적 지지를 바탕으로 자신을 견제하는 의회를 폐쇄하고 헌법을 뜯어고쳐 대통령 1인에게 막대한 권한을 몰아준 것을 들었다. 아르헨티나의 예시에서는 이러한 선순환이 통하지 않는 것을 알 수 있다. 아르헨티나는 정치, 경제 제도의 착취적 성향을 띠고 있었다. 1853년 아르헨티나는 대법원을 창설하였으며, 1887년 특정 법률의 합헌 여부를 결정하는 기능을 담당하게 되었다. 하지만 아르헨티나에서는 다원주의가 자리 잡지 못하고 있었다. 1946년 민주적 절차에 따라 대통령 선출된 후안 도밍고 페론은 1943년 군사 쿠데타를 일으켜 노동부 장관이 되면서 전국적으로 명성을 떨치던 인물이었다. 그는 노동운동 세력들과 정치적으로 결탁해 대통령에 당선되었으며, 그를 따르던 하원의원들이 대법관 서너 명의 탄핵안을 발의했다. 결국 탄핵 절차가 시작된 지 아홉 달 만에 대법관을 탄핵했고 페론을 견제하는 세력이 없어졌다. 그 이후에 1955년 쿠데타가 발생해 군사정권이 들어서면서 페론은 권좌에서 쫓겨나게 되고, 권력 이양이 되었음에도 법관을 자기 입맛대로 임명하였다. 이렇게 민주 정부와 군사정권이 번갈아 들어섰지만, 어느 정부든 대법관을 자기들 유리한 사람들로 채워 넣는 것이 반복되었다. 결국 아르헨티나는 포용적 정치제도가 뿌리내리지 못했기 때문에 악순환의 함정에 빠진 것이다. 선순환은 여러 메커니즘을 통해 작동하며 돌아간다. 첫째, 다원주의 정치제도의 논리는 엘리트집단이 권력 찬탈을 한층 어렵게 만든다. 소수의 무리가 다원주의적 정치 제도를 무너뜨릴 위험이 따르는데, 다원주의 정치제도는 이러한 시도를 억제한다. 그리고 다원주의 정치제도에서는 만인이 법 앞에 평등하게 적용되어야 하는 법치주의가 적용되어 절대왕정이 있을 수 없고, 반대로 한 무리가 다른 무리에게 권리를 침해할 목적으로 법을 악용할 수 없다. 두 번째는 포용적 정치제도와 포용적 경제 제도는 서로 맞물리면서 발전하는 양상을 띤다. 두 제도가 정착된 국가에는 엘리트층들이 자신의 이익을 위해 민주주의 확대를 요구하는 국민들을 무차별로 탄압하면 오히려 잃는 것이 많은 형편이 된다. 마지막으로 포용적 정치제도 하에서는 자유 언론이 번성할 수 있고, 포용적 제도를 위협을 대중들에게 널리 알려 저항 세력들을 규합하는 역할을 한다. 민주 정부든 독재정권이든 엘리트층들은 권력을 잡으면 자신의 이익을 위해 사용하는 경우가 흔히 있으며 어느 국가도 예외라고 생각하지 않는다. 정치인 중 자신의 측근에 대한 판결이 마음에 들지 않는다며 사법부 탄핵을 외치는 정부도 기존의 포용적 제도를 훼손하며 착취적 제도로 이동하려는 움직임이 있다. 특히 언론 역시 정부와 결탁하여 국민들의 눈과 귀를 가려 정부의 포용적 정치 제도를 훼손하는 것에 대해 지적을 하고 있지 않다. 투표 역시 특정 시민단체의 목소리가 커서 이들의 이익을 대변하느라 대부분 국민들이 피해 보는 것은 조직적으로 행동하지 못했기 때문이다. 잉글랜드도 포용적 정치제도를 완성하기까지 다양한 계층들이 서로 규합하여 권력을 쟁취하여도, 소수의 집단에 의해 좌지우지 못 하는 법치주의를 지켜 선순환 구조를 유지해나갔다. 만약 EOS 생태계 역시 main BP 위치를 과점하고 인플레이션 이익만 착취하고 있는 팀들을 견제하기 위해서는 다양한 의견을 가진 홀더들이 하나의 목소리를 조직적으로 내야 커뮤니티의 통제에 넣을 수 있지 않을까……

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.03.02 23:42

    7 thanks . 1,509.8907 PUB

  • <Why a Country Fails> -#10 Spreads of Prosperity


    How did the prosperity of the nation spread? This chapter explains how the inclusive politics and economic system achieved in one country affected other countries. The events of the revolution in Australia, which once housed English prisoners, and in France, which was rival to England, deal with how Asia's Japan, unlike China, came to have an inclusive economic system. In the 18th century, England had criminals managed outside of their country. Before the War of Independence, they were sent to the American colonies, but because of some American states that had gained independence, they had to find other areas when there was no more place to send British prisoners. West Africa was then sent to Australia, where the British were not immune. In the 18th century, Britain sought an inclusive political and economic system, but failed to help prisoners. So unlike ordinary English nationals, they were not allowed to own property, nor had the right to sue anyone in court. In New South Wales, the site of the prisoner's type, only prisoners and guards, soldiers monitoring them. The prisoner was forced to work, and the only price for his work was food, and if he did not follow orders, he was deported to the island of Norfolk, where he was beaten or far away. But as we applied to the American colonies, these systems were structures that could not be returned because there were no incentives. Australia, a vast continent, had no people to work for and was not large enough to create an economy through exploitation of the aborigines. Soldiers had no choice but to offer incentives to prisoners, but in the beginning, it was said that the prisoner's labor force was naturally exploited and that it was hard to understand that he could have property. However, as prisoners gained economic freedom based on incentives, the prison and the jailer were able to benefit from the increased productivity of their prisoners. The prisoners' profits were earned by the guards, who were able to sell goods such as rum to the prisoners exclusively. Prisoners were allowed to do business, hire other prisoners, and after they were released, they were given land and their rights were reinstated. Soon in New South Wales, classes, including prisoners and jailers, were at odds with other elites, demanding the suspension of prisoner types and the right to own free land. In 1819, the British government sent an investigative committee to investigate the colonial situation, and it was very surprised that the rights enjoyed by prisoners were economically inclusive, and by depriving them of their rights, they tried to restore them back to their original state, but failed. Originally, the governor-general dispatched from Britain ruled by himself, but restrictions were imposed on the governor-general's authority by the Council of Review established by the British government in 1823. This does not end, and the prisoners were later allowed to serve as jurors, suspended prison sentences in 1840, and it was not until the 1850s that all adult white men in Australia had normal voting rights. Australia, like the United States, has been implanted in England. It was easy for England to settle down because the difficult process of going through civil war and the Honorary Revolution was not necessary in the United States and Australia. In 1789, France was also under the absolute monarchy. France had different laws that applied to each class, with priests being first, nobility second, and everyone else divided into third. Thus, the upper classes always took the lives of citizens by taxing third-party identities on various pretexts. The guild of the manual industry was also heavily restricted from entering the country due to strong regulations. To make matters worse, since losing the seven-year political battle that lasted from 1756 to 1763 against Britain, Canada has lost and its finances have been squeezed. Louis XVI, who came to power in 1774 to collect taxes on nobles for funding, convened a prestigious society of aristocrats. Contrary to the king's expectations that he would easily pass the fiscal reform bill, the society has declared that only the representative body, the Sambu Society, can approve such reforms. The Tripartite Society was formed by the dispatch of its representatives from three different positions in France, which was convened at Versailles Palace in 1789, but it was not easy to reach an agreement on each. The third status wanted to have more authority over the Three Kingdoms at this opportunity, but it was thwarted by the resistance of the priest and the nobility and ended on May 5, 1789, with no agreement being reached. As a result, the third person realized that their influence was strong as they watched the situation, and a move to speak louder and strengthen their authority by holding the People's Congress began. Accordingly, the streets of the country were filled with third-placed people on July 9, 1789 and led to the attack on Bastille on July 14, 1789. On August 4, the Constitutional Council passed a new constitution to abolish the privileges of the first and second status, eventually leading to the collapse of the French absoluteist system in the aftermath of the revolution. France, of course, has since stepped into the industrialization process that was in full swing in the 19th century. With the French Revolution of 1789, the neighboring countries of Europe began to agitate. Many of the European powers centered around Austria were also absoluteistic, and they felt threatened by the system. In 1792, they invaded France in the name of saving Louis XVI of France, but in fact they were meant to stop the French Revolution. Although France thought it would be easy to defeat the revolutionary army, it had a military friendship with the presence of a 'massive conscription system' ahead of other countries. France, which won the war, tried to expand the French border altogether, and introduced radical reforms in every region that French troops conquered. Napoleon of France also promulgated the Napoleon Act, which legislated the idea of equality for all, and wanted it to be enforced in all the areas he conquered. In Europe, Jews were not free before the French Revolution, but the French National Congress liberated the French Jews, and Jews in the West also spread widely as Jews lost their homes in the wake of the war with Germany. The Jews were able to seize previously unacceptable business opportunities, such as signing grain supply contracts with the Australian army even during the war. In conclusion, starting the French Revolution, the guild of most parts of Europe collapsed and the feudal order disappeared. In the mid-1800s, China and Japan were very poor countries. As much as China, Japan was an absoluteist, but unlike China, power did not dominate the country. With the power of Japan's Sho Army falling short of every corner, the Japanese family enjoyed its own autonomy. Among them, Toshimachi Okubo had the belief that Japan should revolutionize its feudal system, and moved to overhaul the entire political and economic system of Japan in the name of the emperor's restoration. They offered eight protest proposals to Shogun to avoid civil war, while creating an army. Shogun Tokugawa Yoshinobu was declared the Meiji Restoration by agreeing to restore the sovereignty in 1868, and the emperor was given power back. They were worried about the restoration of Tokugawa's power, so they persuaded the emperor to remove them. The above eight protest proposals included the establishment of two legislative bodies of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the principle of equalizing human resources based on civil equality, negotiations with foreign countries based on public opinion and the enactment of a new constitution, along with the abolition of existing laws and regulations. After Meiji Restoration, Japan was abolished from feudalism, the central government was forced to manage all taxes, and restrictions on domestic migration and occupation were lifted. Private property rights on land were guaranteed, all citizens were given the freedom to choose jobs and the government focused on building social overhead capital. Railways have begun to emerge in Japan and have actively fostered manufacturing to join the ranks of industrialization. And by 1890 Japan had established itself as the first Asian country to adopt the Holy Writ Constitution, and had grown into a modern state with an elective parliament and an independent judiciary. Having an inclusive economic system of Japan and China was possible through political and institutional reform. Japan was trying to reform the Shogun, which relies on the power of the existing system, because it realized that economic growth is possible only through institutional reform. China, on the other hand, was very difficult to overthrow the imperial family and thus very difficult to reform its political system. Countries have done very differently to build up military power, with China importing modern weapons and trying to counter Britain's military might, but Japan has built its own military and fisheries businesses. I agree very much that there must be innovation in the political system in order for a country, a community, to grow. There would naturally be no incentive to grow if enough exploitation could be made in the existing system. Looking at the current EOS ecosystem, I think BP, which does nothing amid the indifference of many EOS holders to the vote, is taking the top spot, and many hard-working BPs are going to an exploitative structure that doesn't make it to the top of the rankings. The establishment of a legal system through disadvantages of non-performing BPs, the existence of a reassuring asset freeze and return process from hacking will eventually complete the complete private property rights of EOS holders. Looking at the latest hacking cases, we diagnose it as a political issue, not a security issue.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.02.26 23:43

    11 thanks . 1,274.1131 PUB

  • [book국 Why a Country Fails] -#9 Decline of Development


    Originally, Europeans had to go through a West Asian trade route controlled by the Ottoman Empire to import spices. So the Europeans set out to find a trade route that would allow them to bypass Africa or trade spices directly across the Atlantic Ocean. Starting with Portugal's move to monopolize the spice trade, Europeans, including the Netherlands, have begun to jump into the trade. In 1600, the Netherlands reached an exclusive agreement to persuade the Ambon king of Southeast Asia to grant exclusive rights to the forward-looking deal. Then, in 1605, it took down Portugal's fortresses and kicked out all traders from other countries. This allowed the Dutch East India Company to reap huge profits from defeating other competitors, but the people of the Ambon Kingdom were exploited by labor to grow cloves for more positive production. The Dutch East India Company tried to get its hands on the Banda Islands to monopolize Mace and Yukdu based on its strong military strength. However, the Banda Islands, unlike the Ambon Kingdom, were divided into several city-states, and there was no central authority to enforce the exclusive treaty in the Netherlands due to the lack of political and social order. When the plan all went down the drain, it brought a fleet to the Banda Islands, killing all 15,000 people except a handful who knew how to produce spices. And the Dutchman, a former and incumbent employee of the East India Company, taught a small number of residents how to produce spices, imported slaves and sold them to the East India Company at a fixed price. Since the incident, the Netherlands has been able to reap huge profits, but countries in Southeast Asia have either given up growing spices or cut down all the spice fruit trees for fear of being attacked. When the whole nation was reduced to serfs or exploited by the elite, who became feudalistic societies following the collapse of Rome in 1400, slaves were no longer needed. On the other hand, most African countries still had their own slavery in operation. But as slave trade became more active due to the demand for African slaves in Europe, countries in Africa began to become more and more exploitative. The African elite traded guns and gunpowder from Europeans for slaves in Africa, kidnapped their own people or fought other African countries to sell their people to slaves. When this was not enough, the law was mobilized to punish criminals by enslaving them for any crimes. From 1700 to 1850, about 8 million slaves were sold. And by William Wilburforth's campaign to abolish slavery in the late 18th century, a bill was passed in the British Parliament in 1807 that made slave trade illegal. Many African regimes that made money from slave trade have lost demand for slaves to be sold to Europeans. However, the inclusive system for the abolition of slavery was rooted only in Britain, and already in many African countries the exploitative system based on slavery had taken root deeply. It was goods traded in legal commerce such as palm oil, seeds, peanuts, ivory and rubber that replaced slaves in trade. The spread of the Industrial Revolution has caused a surge in demand for the goods, with African elite exploiting the slaves who could not sell them to produce them. Many sociologists apply the 'dual economy' paradigm first raised by Arthur Lewis in 1955 in light of the economic problems of underdeveloped countries. It is claimed that most underdeveloped countries are divided into modern sectors that introduce urban, modern industries and advanced technologies, and traditional sectors that introduce rural areas, agriculture and "outdated" technologies. However, the author points out that this view does not explain why dual economies existed and how they relate to modern economies, and that they are intentionally underdevelopment cases, not naturally occurring. South Africa and Botswana are relatively immune from the negative effects of agricultural trade and related wars, as they are far from the slave market and far off the coast, paying little attention. South Africa, however, began its regional development after a diamond vein was found in Kimberly in 1867, and the amount of money was found in Johannesburg in 1886. Along with regional development, South African farmers were also active in acquiring agricultural technology as they were given private ownership of land, and there were substantial changes taking place, such as spare no investment in carriages or irrigation facilities. Private ownership of land weakened the position of the African tribal chief and allowed anyone to own land, allowing them to accumulate their own wealth. Since the 1890s, South Africa's economic growth has been put on hold in 1913, due to the actions of European farmers in competition with African natives. First, the Native Land Act passed in 1913 resulted in 87 percent of the land being occupied by Europeans, who had only 20 percent of the population, and stipulated that black farmers and residents should not farm on white-owned land. Farming on only white land should be a service contract, with Africans who were deprived of their land and could not make ends meet as the law intended, forced to provide cheap labor on white land. And restricted the movement of educational opportunities and jobs for black residents. The mining industry for gold and diamonds was a highly skilled job, but it did not allow black South Africans to participate and only white South Africans could participate. In other words, in the dual economy presented by Lewis, it was essentially impossible for workers in the traditional sector to receive education and acquire skills and move to the modern sector. The very end of this dual economy came after the 1994 collapse of a regime where only white people shared the fruits of economic growth in the face of resistance from blacks in South Africa against racial barriers. Overall, this chapter showed how the exploitative system eliminated the nation's development elements on its own and hampered the country's economic growth. Many of Africa's countries, where inclusive politics and economic systems failed to take root, and where exploitative slavery was maintained, exploited their people even more to produce goods traded in trade, even though slave trade was banned in Europe. The conflict between whites and blacks in South Africa, where there was potential for development, has intensified because they have been deprived of unfair land distribution, restrictions on job transfers and educational opportunities for blacks.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.02.18 19:11

    14 thanks . 1,204.3578 PUB

  • <Why a Country Fails> -#8 Barriers to Development


    Johannes Gutenberg of Germany invented a printing press in 1445 using molds. The invention of printing made printing books easier, drastically reducing illiteracy and expanding public education. Such inventions were also widespread in Europe, where in 1485, Sultan Bayesid II of the Ottoman Empire strictly prohibited the printing of Arabic. It wasn't until 1727, when printing presses could be used on a limited basis, and the books printed in print shops were always censored by three religious law scholars called "caddies." There were only 17 books printed until 1743 after the establishment of the printing press was allowed. Even after the Industrial Revolution, many countries have lost their opportunities for industrial development at this time. In the case of absoluteist governments such as the Ottoman Empire, the spread of books was the spread of thought and the danger of making the people difficult to control, so they focused on preventing the spread of industry. However, it was not only the centralist absoluteist regime that was afraid of creative destruction that prevented the development of the industry. The author stressed that the absence of a government capable of enforcing private property rights while maintaining discipline and order, such as Afghanistan, Haiti and Nepal today, is as much a system that hinders the development of industries as an absoluteist system. First of all, let me introduce some examples of industrial development alienated from the absoluteist system under the central government. Espanyah was born in 1492 when the marriage of Queen Isabella and King Fernand combined with the kingdom of Castilla and Aragon. After the merger, Espana emerged as a superpower in Europe, and there was a constant stream of gold and silver by colonizing the Amheraka continent. Espanyah's private property rights were unstable, and only certain merchants were allowed to participate in the trade. The royal family gave a four-month period to confiscate Jewish land and prevented them from carrying precious metals, while failing to repay the debts of the financial giant family. Trade in the Americas controlled trade through the Seville Merchandise Guild, allowing the royal family to take up some of the profits from trade. Even Espanyah controlled trade within the colonies, with these internal trade restrictions forcing growth to be limited. At the beginning of the 17th century, a fifth lived in urban areas, but as people's lives became impoverished, the number decreased to one-tenth by the end of the 17th century, and eventually the empire fell to the point where the royal family and the elite did not have to stop industrialization. In 1700, Habsburg or Austria-Hungary Empire had the third largest territory in Europe, and its population was one of seven minutes in Europe. Franz I, who served as emperor until 1835, was an absoluteist ruler. He opposed any changes to make governance efficient, a speech to teachers at a school well represented his ideas. "What Jim wants is not a knowledgeable scholar, but a good and honest citizen. Your task is to cultivate such a young man. If you're a man serving his luggage, you have to teach them according to orders." In the case of Espanyah, though feeble, there was an English Parliament-like presence called Cortes, which would check the conduct of the monarch at all, but the Kingdom of Habsburg did not even have it. Franz blocked the construction of factories and the import of new machines as industrial development would increase factories and make it easier for poor workers to flock to cities to organize forces against his regime. They also opposed the construction of railways, one of the key new technologies of the industrial revolution, which they knew so well would be their own political threat as it would bring rural labor to the cities. Besides, Russia and China of the absoluteist regime have also been very far from industrial development due to their refusal to maintain the exploitative system and creative destruction. It was only until 1851 that a railroad linking Moscow and St. Petersburg was built that Chaer, who was leading Russia's state, felt wary of industrial changes, and that change would corrupt the people and strictly control the number of factories built in Moscow. As recently as the 1500s, China had the national power comparable to that of Europe at that time with numerous technological innovations such as watches, compasses, gunpowder, paper and banknotes. However, these inventions were not created by individual economic incentives, but by direct orders from the central government, and there were no commercial inventions. And China strictly regulated the foreign trade of private merchants, and foreign trade was exclusively monopolized by the government. Foreign trade was regulated in the belief that it would cause political and social instability, and trade in the private sector was strictly prohibited from doing business that was not related to When the Ming and Qing dynasties came into existence, they banned all foreign trade because they believed that if merchants were to be called up through foreign trade, they would bring about political risks by having a different idea. As mentioned earlier, the absence of a centralized government as well as an absolute centralized system of economic growth has hampered the emergence of an inclusive economic growth system. In the 19th century, there were many areas in Africa where there was no government to maintain law and order. Somalia, which sits in a region called the Horn of Africa in the northeast, is a case in point where a lack of central government has not benefited from the Industrial Revolution. There are six tribes that dominate Somalia, and each tribe's family is also divided into several ethnic groups. At each clan level, there is a 'diya-paying-group'. Diya means blood-wealth, and if a member of a group is killed, the Diya Payment Group will pay compensation. In Somalia, there have been endless disputes between the clan to take on scarce resources, even in the relatively resource-rich pasturelands. Nevertheless, the vicious circle of conflict continued because of the absence of a central government to coordinate such disputes. No feed has been reported in Somalia to establish such a centralized government, as each clan does not want to be controlled by anyone or has overwhelming power to control others. The central government's absoluteist system was not benefited even during the Industrial Revolution because it was afraid of creative destruction by innovation that threatened its system. This is because they fear that allowing change will deprive political power of new people or groups. In the case of countries that failed to establish a central government, technological innovation could not afford to percolate, and the role of holding the country's power is played by several clan and regional leaders, not by the government.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.02.15 00:23

    14 thanks . 1,283.6066 PUB

  • [Why the Country Fails?점7 Transition Point


    England was also taken for granted until the 17th century. have failed to achieve creative destruction During the reign of Elizabeth I, the people issued an edict that said they should always wear a knitting hat, and someone had come up with a machine that would make textile production easier to make a knitting hat. In 1589 William Lee was about to show the machine in front of the Queen and ask for a patent, but the Queen's reaction was negative. On the surface, it worried that the machine would take away the work of its people, but in substance it was more afraid of being reduced to a political loser by the creative destruction it would bring. In 1215 in England, the old people who confronted King John had to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymed. The message is that the king must be consulted by an aristocrat in order to be taxed. The king had the right to appoint and uphold the peace and privileges granted by the nobility by the court, or seize the fortress, land and other property until the breach was rectified. In 1265, the first parliament was formed by the elite feudal aristocracy, but since then it has ranged from knights and other wealthy ordinary aristocrats to the emerging lower aristocracy of Gentry, which has amassed wealth in commerce and agriculture. As such, the British Parliament represented a wide range of social classes, not just the elite, close to the king, and became central in its fight against the royal family for strength. The royal family, which was able to grant exclusive rights within England, was their main source of income and a tool to consolidate their status. Through numerous monopolies, individuals or groups monopolized the right to control the production of goods, thus hampering the even distribution of talent for economic growth. Thus, in 1623, Congress passed the Exclusive Act to prevent the royal family from exercising new exclusive rights, but in foreign trade it was still able to exercise its exclusive rights and existing monopolies remained intact. Charles I, who ascended to the throne in 1625, refused to convene parliament to spur the establishment of a more solid absolute monarchy, sold exclusive rights to foreign trade, and even unilaterally increased maturity or refused to repay it by obliging the people to lend money to the king. However, Charles I, who was underfunded by the war with Scotland in 1640, was forced to call the parliament to collect more taxes, but the lawmakers dissolved it three weeks after convening it, not to mention the tax story but complaining about Charles I's tyranny. Knowing this weakness well in Scotland, he attacked England and took over the city, and called for congressional intervention in the suggestion of Charles' negotiations. There was a constant conflict between Congress and the royal family, and within Congress, there was a war with the royal family, led by Oliver Cromwell, who was supported by a relatively weak new market participant and the royal family. Charles I, who lost the war in 1649, was tried and executed. James II, who rose to the throne in 1685, faced resistance from Congress as he tried to regain absolute power from the former royal family, and William, who was leading the army on the back of Congress, stands to govern the country under a constitutional monarchy arranged by Congress. Congress and William, who won the honorary revolution in 1688, discussed a new constitution. The Declaration of Rights, prepared by Congress in 1689, prohibits the king from recklessly suspending or scrapping the law, and states that taxation without parliamentary consent is illegal. Since then, when Congress came to control spending directly from a structure that controlled government spending in the royal family and opposed tax increases in Congress, it increased taxes and actively invested in what was needed investment. In particular, there were many lawmakers who had invested heavily in foreign trade in Congress, which made efforts to strengthen their naval capabilities to protect their interests. Since the Honorary Revolution, pluralism has spread, with Congress taking some place and a petition system in which it can exercise its influence. The Royal African Company, which was granted exclusive rights to slave trade by Charles II in 1660, made huge profits by buying and selling slaves on the back of exclusive rights that the royal family had offered. However, it has often been challenged by monopoly rights with the fall of James II, the firm's strong supporter. When Congress took control of the exclusive rights of business, new market entrants' petition for the abolition of the Royal African Company was flooded, and despite the company's counteraction, the number and size of the petition were so large that the monopoly was eventually abolished. After the honorary revolution of 1688, England was abolished from the monopoly, making the industrial revolution a good place to take place. With the invention of transportation, steelmaking and steam power, the development of factories capable of mass producing mechanized and textile finished goods in textile production was carried out. Before the Revolution of Honor, those involved in the wool industry were restricted from wearing light fabrics (which were used for cotton fabrics) to prevent the entry of cotton fabrics, a new industry, which gradually failed to meet the position of the cotton textile industry, and became an environment where regulations could be lifted and fair competition could be eliminated. In the 1760s, the number of patent inventions in England increased rapidly, as they created or improved private property rights in England, expanded social overhead capital, expanded financial markets, and actively protected the rights of trade and handicraftsmen. The invention of James Watt's steam engine accelerated the automation of transportation, factory machines, and Henry Cotte's new iron method allowed the mass production of iron using only coal, which was much less expensive, and created many factories with the growth of the textile industry. The middle class and workers who work heavily in factories move systematically and find it difficult to rule out their political positions. Technological innovation takes place in an environment where people can earn profits on their own talents, and the right to private property on patent rights was actively protected on breakthrough ideas. In England, it has naturally moved to an inclusive economic system, transforming itself into an inclusive political system. Traditionally granted only by the royal family, the monopoly was gradually removed by the interests of lawmakers and gradually changed from an environment where it was difficult to raise entry barriers for new operators and innovate to a fair, competitive environment.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.02.12 19:29

    11 thanks . 785.6824 PUB

  • <Why the Country Fails> -#6 Institutional Flovers


    This chapter tells the story of Venice and Rome, which have grown greatly into an inclusive economic system, but have been transformed into an exploitative economic system and have fallen. The two civilizations grew under an inclusive economic system, but failed to replace the political forces that held onto their existing powers, and ended up walking down the path of decline after failing to achieve "creative destruction" that threatened their place. Since Venice's independence in 810, it has grown rapidly through trade, and from 1050 to 1330, the population has grown rapidly, from 45,000 to 110,000. While Venetian was able to grow this way partly due to the expansion of trade in line with Europe's economic recovery period, innovation in the contract that led the economic system to an inclusive direction in this environment was behind it. It was an initial form of joint venture called Comenda, which was a consignment contract established for a single trade deal. The contract said one person who makes capital stays in Venice, while the other partner went on a long trip to sell goods. And 75 percent of the return revenue went to capitalists, and those who were on a long journey made 25 percent of the The very deal allows people to dream of a rise in status, and the names of the elite in the official documents of Venice have always been listed with new names. It was an open political system that led to Venice's inclusive economic innovation. The head of Venetian rule was an apprentice elected through the General Assembly, who wielded enormous power at first, but gradually weakened with the establishment of an apprentices' committee to prevent the apprenticeship. These political changes allowed Venice to expand its economy through sea and trade, adding to pressure on changes in its political system. The first innovation was the creation of a council of judges, officials in Venice. Among them, through lottery, 100 new members were appointed through the nomination committee, and members of the Senate and the Council of Forties were chosen for their judicial and administrative duties. It was the second innovation to form an apprentices' committee to nominate the apprenticeship, which could be done through drawing lots in the Great Council. And the third innovation is about the limitation of Doje's power, which, too, had to be approved by the Doje Committee whenever it followed the judge's order and made a decision. In Venice, an independent magistrate, law, appeal law, as well as laws related to prior contracts and bankruptcy were established, and through financial innovation, the act became the filial effect of modern banking work. However, the established elite in Venice were not happy with the challenge of political power of young businessmen who became newly rich through commentaries. In 1286, in the elite family that controlled the 40-member council, those whose father or grandfather served as members of the Supreme Council were automatically qualified for the council, and furthermore, those who had been members of the Supreme Council for four years in 1297, were to automatically nominate and approve candidates. Since then, the established elite have prevented new inflows by kicking up the ladder of rising merchants' status by banning commentaries. And the government had to pay huge taxes to dominate and nationalize trade and for individuals to trade. This has led to the fall of Venice's economy and is now a museum of exuberant civilizations, not to mention leading trade routes. Around 510 B.C., the Romans drove out Lucius Tarquinius and established a republic. It elected administrators who held one-year terms every year and forced several people to rule the Roman Republic at once, preventing the concentration of power. Rome also had the power to submit bills in a civil society formed by commoners and could elect a tribune who could veto the executive's decision. Under the very developed inclusive political system at the time, which is limited by current standards, Roman citizens could enjoy legally protected economic opportunities and sought economic growth through trade. They took other countries and expanded their territory and enslaved the people of the conquered country. It was when the gap between the rich and the poor between the common and the aristocracy began to widen. During the war, the Senate and nobles managed huge slaves to reap profits from farm produce on a vast expanse of fertile land. However, ordinary Roman citizens who served in the army during the war were forced to make fun of the land because they were unable to farm during the war, and after returning home, all the land that had been there was absorbed into the Senate class. Tiberius Gracus, a nobleman who traveled through Etruria to find out the horrors of Roman citizen soldiers, ventured to become a tribunals to tackle the land distribution problem. The senators, however, blocked the establishment of the land reform committee and blocked the funding line to disrupt their activities. And members of the Senate instigated Tiberius to become king and were killed when he failed to re-election as the Tribune. The reason for the change from the Roman Republic to the establishment in earnest was when a civil war broke out between Caesar's followers and political opponents centered on Antonius and Octavianus. Octavianus, who won the war, wanted to be called "princeps," the first Roman citizen, and called his regime "principate." This effectively initiated a one-man political system in Rome by Augustus, or Augustus Caesar, 28 years after the foundation. Afterwards, the Emperor Tiberius removed the people's community from Rome and handed over all power to the Senate. Instead of taking away political voices, they gave away wheat, wine, olive oil and pork for free, and provided entertainment such as a gladiator contest to quell complaints from Roman citizens. The concentration of power at the center has destabilized private property rights and increased property confiscation has led to nearly half of the state-owned land. The Roman Empire has turned into an exploitative political system and many conflicts have arisen to gain power. More than five emperors existed in a year, and even as looting by the surrounding savages intensified and national power declined, Rome's inner circle focused only on power struggles. Rome did not even achieve creative destruction through technological innovation. Rome's economic growth has been developed using existing technology, led by the government, and individuals have not profited from technological development. A man goes to the emperor by developing a device that can carry columns, but the government refuses to use the invention because it takes away jobs to feed the people. The reality was not that the people were worried about their lives, but that they wanted to divert their eyes from politics by keeping the Roman people busy living from day to day. This chapter shows an example of how a nation that has grown greatly into an inclusive system has also transformed itself into an exploitative system due to the transformation of its political landscape, and the nation has collapsed. In fact, historical evidence showed how the nation was ruined by a regime that was not checked even after it achieved economic growth on an inclusive system. The most impressive thing was that, as Rome changed from republic to empire, the center of power was all concentrated on one emperor, whose citizens paid more attention to food and entertainment, which the state rationed rather than the importance of voting rights. In fact, I wonder if the true value of EOS token is not enough CPU/NET resources to be allocated, but the right to vote to decide which BPs in charge of producing blocks and the EOS ecosystem can determine.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.02.08 13:30

    16 thanks . 1,161.3901 PUB

  • <Why a Country Fails> -#5 Growth under an Exploited System


    The author once explained that it is not impossible to grow under an exploitative system. However, they argue that such a system is based on existing technologies, not on growth through innovation of technology, and that putting resources into high-productivity areas can lead to growth, if not sustained, on a temporary basis. Through the economic history of the former Soviet Union, the author presented growth as an example under an exploitative system. In fact, from 1928 to 1960, the Soviet Union saw its national income grow by 6% annually, which may have been the fastest economic growth at the time. Even in the Western world of economics at the time, this rapid economic growth was often said to be superior to Soviet-style economic growth, or to argue that the Soviet Union would have an economic advantage. The Soviet Union took away the right of private property to the land of farmers through collectivization in the agricultural sector and pushed all the peasants into the collective farms run by the Communist Party. In doing so, the Soviets were able to collect taxes more efficiently with the proceeds from farming. However, this greatly undermined farmers' desire to produce agriculture and caused agricultural productivity to plummet, leading to the death of many people, who have been known to have been leading to economic growth. The reason for this is that with taxes collected from agriculture, the industry was supported by industry to feed workers who carried factories and worked in factories, and the industrial level in Europe and the U.S. was so backward that Soviet industries could develop relatively significantly. But the limitation of the exploitative system is that continuous economic development is not possible. The Soviet Union can see the consequences by looking at what is now already considered history. The two reasons for not achieving sustained economic growth under the exploitative system are said to be the lack of economic incentives and the resistance of the elite. The bonus system was introduced in the training because the leadership knew that there were no 'socialist men and women' willing to work without incentives. However, this incentive system was irrelevant to technological innovation, and because technological innovation deprived the means of production, there was a risk that it would be difficult to achieve the target output and would not receive the bonuses in that month. It was then more beneficial to produce 'appropriate' than to innovate to increase future output at the expense of current production. The leadership, too, recognized the problem and changed the bonus system several times, but it was not a fundamental measure. The prices for products were all controlled by the government, not by the market, so it was not an incentive to ignite the need for innovation, but only a perverse incentive. Under this centralized planned economy, innovative economic incentives could not be fundamentally changed because all economic growth and policies were possible only when the government ordered them. However, to induce sustainable economic growth, they must abandon the exploitative economic system of the Soviet Union's ruling class, which will only provoke resistance from the elite as it will inevitably endanger their political power. Indeed, in 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev left the exploitative economic system, shaking the Communist Party's power and leaving the Soviet Union in limbo. In addition to the Soviet Union, the author has grown under an exploitative system. Here are a number of examples where growth has stopped. Nathuf Yin, who was quickly establishing an agrarian society and establishing a central government, has developed into an agrarian society from a hunter-gatherer life. Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs and Iron, argues that the development of the hunter-gatherer community into agricultural and livestock communities is a geographical factor with abundant animals and plants, and in fact, there are many areas where abundant plants and animals have not been achieved as agricultural societies. Rather, it is highly likely that the country has already achieved a Neolithic revolution that develops into a settled life by institutional changes before the transfer to agriculture. However, it is highly likely that the natouf people, too, developed into an unequal political system with the creation of a central government to manage and control agricultural products they have stockpiled, and their failure to sustain early growth was likely to have caused serious conflicts to dominate the exploitative system. In some cases, the power transfer process was simply over and large enough to seriously undermine society as a whole. The Mayan Empire also grew temporarily under an exploitative system. Maya had never had a proper central government, but there was a ruling class. The ruling class, Kuhul Aghaw, exploited labor to receive tribute from farmers and build huge monuments. He was so good at building that he developed cement on his own, that he achieved grand architecture and civilization, but there was no further innovation. Each Mayan city-state continued to wage wars aimed at exploitative institutions that would create their wealth, and the conflict intensified as the Mayan royal family weakened to the point where it could not function. With the collapse of the political and social system that has been expanding trade, agriculture and population, the economy is said to have shrunk and the population has plunged. Even under such an exploitative system, the central government could grow by injecting resources into highly productive areas. In the case of the Soviet Union, the Nathouf people focused on agriculture by injecting resources from agriculture into the industry, and the Mayan Empire was able to build irrigation facilities based on outstanding building technology and apply them to agriculture for a limited period of growth. However, in all of the above examples, there were no incentives for technological innovation, and continuous growth was impossible due to conflicts and conflicts among the elite to create wealth in the exploitative system. I've read an article before about why the idleness spent by a person who made a lot of money from an investment in cryptocurrency assets that I used to follow on Facebook is bound to be ruined. Tokens based on Iderium are rarely meant to further develop the Etherium ecosystem while remaining in the ecosystem, with each announcing that the chain they will create will be an "Ederium Killer." Of course, EOS is one of them. There are many other reasons why Idolism is not chosen much, but there was some empathy in his writings. Now, various fork chains based on EOSIO are taking different policies from Mainnet as they begin to launch. However, they also compete with each other as communication between the chains is possible through the mainnet and the IBC, but there is no move in the ecosystem to monopolize each other. While reading the book, I suddenly wondered what the EOSIO ecosystem would look like in the future. The next chapter is about the story of Venice and Rome, which grew into an inclusive system and then turned into an exploitative one.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.02.06 10:56

    14 thanks . 2,461.8955 PUB

  • Taste Chinese Local Food


    dumpling set and instant fried food that Koreans have never seen before 脆皮煎堆 (Cuì pí jiān duī) - Piryeongdan It was about the size of a fist. I thought there would be red beans inside, but they were unexpectedly empty. Be careful, it's hot. 上海小笼包(Shàngǎi xiǎo lóng bāo) - Xiaolongbao Be careful, for it is very hot inside. That's what you eat when you go to Hong Kong! 稻香虾饺皇 (Dà xiāng xiā jiǎo huáng) - Shrimp dumpling Well, I don't really like seafood. But it tasted good. 干炒牛河 (Gàn chǎ niú hé) - Frying the noodles a dish stir-fried with beef and sugar noodles mixed with soy sauce Personally, I like these chubby fried foods very much. Food that can't be eaten in Korea... 银萝千层酥 (Yín Luó qián céng s s) - Fried (?) a dish with radish in it and made of thin frying My parents like it very much, but I didn't like it, so I passed it. 稻香 (Dào xiāng) Restaurant, DongGuan City #Eat # #Eatstagram #Shenzhen #Food on the front #Dongguan #Saewoomandu🍤 #Freeze #Shaolongbao

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.02.06 00:33

    16 thanks . 1,396.3492 PUB

  • Chinese original 훠kuo


    a pub that has become a regular customer. It's the best thing I can make the sauce my own way. 锅虹(Guōng) Hotpot Restaurant, DongGuan City #Eat # # Foodstagram #Foundrel #shunzen #Dongguan #Food House #Huoguo #Shab Shabu #guohong # Beef

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.02.05 20:50

    8 thanks . 369.1714 PUB

  • New Year's Day to China


    Happy New Year~ I want to spend time with my family in China in the new year. It was my first time to use the martinaraunji at Incheon Airport. Hold off until you get home. #Matinaraunji #flight #shhenzen # Happy New Year

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.02.02 09:27

    18 thanks . 2,632.4905 PUB



    I can say what's special about climbing, but I think it's quite meaningful to me. Bitcoin investment started early, but it was quite late to enter EOS. While collecting information here and there, there was no place to collect information as accurate and as good as Corios. Usually, the company collects investment information based on snowing, and although the Corios rating is low, it has only recently begun to level up by writing and organizing ideas. At first, I was afraid and hated to write and share, but I changed my mind by doing community activities while investing in EOS. Writing step by step makes it fun to keep a record, and now there's no big objection to organizing your thoughts. This grade-up is a measure of my writing, so I'll have to go further.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.01.30 20:10

    19 thanks . 2,633.0262 PUB

  • [EOS Issue] Now it's time to hear the community's answer! - CDF Proposal


    Hello, I'm Eaglekeye. You can see the original article at the link below. (https://steemit.com/dclick/@eaglekeeneye/eos-eos-referendum-eos-cdf--1548605672199) Because of the characteristics of Publicto, it's still inconvenient to write blog posts, so I'll just write briefly. 1) EOS Proposal – EOS Common Development Fund (CDF) The EOS CDF referendum proposal is as follows: "Should the EOS mainnet establish the EOS Commons Development Program as excluded in this referenceum?" "Should EOS Commons Development Program be established as outlined in the referendum proposal on EOS Mainnet?" Suggestion Link: https://bloks.io/vote/referendums/wps EOS Commons Development Fund (CDF) is "EOS Public Development Fund" directly translated into Korean. Originally called the Worker Proposal System (WPS) of the EOS Constitution, it came from the "Worker Proposal System." Given that the CDF issue is currently about the remaining 4% return to the eosio.saving account, excluding 1% BP compensation from 5% of EOS inflation, it is a very important issue for the community to be particularly interested in particular. Fund used for 'public purposes' that are essential to the development of the EOS ecosystem, but cannot be profitable, and should not be profitable, is largely used in the following five categories: (Of course it can be changed by the community's suggestion) -Oversight - Infrastructure - Community -Developing -Miscelleneous First of all, the contents of the proposal are as follows. -Configuration of CDF's six-month ad hoc emergency committee and incineration of eosio.saving token - CDF governance structures designed by the community and voted by the community. - Completion of CDF Governance Structure and dissolution of CDF Interim Emergency Committee 2) Expected effects and personal opinions of CDF passing What images do you think of first in the word "governance, bureaucrat"? Perhaps the image is similar to the trust of the government and public officials in their country. If you don't like the work of the government, you can first come up with images of "lackiness" and "corruptness." I don't know what your hard work tax is and why it's being used, and I'm revealing it by mixing it with jargon that I can't understand, so I can't figure it out unless I'm interested. Most importantly, I can't afford to pay attention to politics because I'm busy living. So here's one fundamental question. So is it not necessary for the government? I think "No" to this question. It's not exactly "government," it's "governance." It is also the system that controls the fate of the nation, and it is the job of the people elected to create it. Don't you really need institutions and governance to decide the fate of your country? In fact, in Somalia, Africa, it's left unchecked, and there's a lot of local Toho exploiting its people. I'm going to go back to the EOS ecosystem. - How many BPs and users are in compliance with the EOS Constitution? - Although I am responsible for failing to manage my personal information for EOS, can I tell you that I can't use my hands when my EOS token is hacked, and that the user's private property rights are protected? - Is our community ready for "creative destruction through innovation" by small but bloated dApp developers to prevent intentional entry by more innovative new dApp developers? - There are many things that you cannot pursue revenue for the development of the EOS ecosystem, or you should not pursue revenue on behalf of a specific group. Assessment of BP, disclosure of security stability and transparency assessment information of the developer, dispute arbitration between users or developers, and training for the development of the EOS ecosystem. Don't you really need this job? Will the value of the EOS ecosystem rise unconditionally in the future if the CDF is passed and used as a public fund for the EOS ecosystem? Of course not. This is well illustrated by the concerns of those who oppose the CDF proposal. Due to the poor design of the aforementioned governance structures, there is a good chance that they will create an irreversible 'monster' that will tighten the breath of the EOS ecosystem. There are many countries where governments are better off exploiting their people's wealth and efforts. On the other hand, as long as the community's continued interest and surveillance are designed to flexibly change governance structures and minimize impact in the event of a problem, the system will evolve the EOS ecosystem further and transform it into a platform that will do what other blockchain platforms have not done. It's not about designing a complete EOS governance structure, it's about designing an evolvable EOS governance. Whether you want to add governance to the EOS platform and evolve into a better platform at the risk of not knowing it, or remain "free and fast" is entirely up to the choice of our EOS community. I suggest that our community pursue the evolution of the EOS community through "creative destruction" and build a better ecosystem.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.01.28 01:30

    13 thanks . 1,360.2543 PUB

  • [book펍 Why a Country Fails] -#4 Small differences and decisive bifurcations


    Originally, Europe in the 14th century had maintained a feudal system since the fall of Rome. Very few lordes made a profit by exploiting a large number of peasants. However, the spread of the Black Death disease in Europe has killed many people and caused a sharp drop in the labor force. The peasants who would make their own profits began to be naturalized, and the peasants were forced to meet the demand to a certain extent as they demanded a drastic reduction in fines and employment. To stop the move, the government took measures to freeze wages for tenant farmers without the permission of their lord and sentenced them to prison if they scrapped employment without permission from their employers. In 1381, a peasant revolt broke out, and all the leaders were put to death, and attempts to enforce the feudal worker law became inconspicuous. The impact of the plague was greater in Western Europe than in Eastern Europe, with less crop production in Western Europe due to a drop in labor, which led to the importation of food from Eastern European countries and led to a boom in Eastern European countries. But all this, the author argues, became an occasion for the lord of the Eastern European country to exploit the peasants' labor more and more, and from this point on whether an inclusive system was formed or an exploitative system was formed in Western and Eastern Europe, a "decisive watershed." As everyone knows, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution began in England. What is different in England and has become the foundation for such a revolution? England had two big events: the Civil War in England and the Honorary Revolution in 1699. In particular, through the honorary revolution, the king and his family members were able to stop interpreting the law system freely and collecting taxes at will, and Congress took the power to decide on the economic system, so they firmly kept their private property rights. On top of that, the government provided incentives to innovate by granting property rights to ideas. James Watt, who did business with the patent rights of a steam engine in 1775, appealed to Congress to recognize exclusive patents to meet the needs of agriculture and industry throughout the UK. Just because there was demand for such steamers at the time and an individual and innovator listened to them in an appeal to Congress, England was rooted in an economically and politically inclusive system. Comparing the royal families of England, France and Spain, the same European countries clearly show that the royal powers are different. In the case of Espanyah, there was no entity against the absolute power of the royal family because it consistently made profits from abundant gold and silver through the South American colonies. England, on the other hand, said that since the royal family had no profit to do so, Queen Elizabeth I at the time was ready to bow to parliament to collect more of the necessary. In return, Congress tightened restrictions to prevent the king from overwriting his monopoly. It was accidental, the author argues, that Espanyah and England came to take a different path. As trade grew through the Atlantic Ocean, merchants who opposed the royal family in England were somewhat free from royal interference with the money they earned through trade, which led to the political revolution," he explained. As recently as the 16th century, Espana had maritime monopoly by operating an invincible fleet in the country, while England did not have strong naval power in the royal family and relied on the Sanapo ships (private ships that were given the right to capture enemy ships in wartime) and individual merchant ships. They steadily earned money and gained huge influence, and in 1588 Espana finally started a war to stop them from challenging their monopoly. However, bad weather and the absence of a competent commander also caused the English fleet to be crushed and led to England having a vast colony. The author explained the accidental momentum that blocked the path of industrialization in the governance of the African, Asian and Ottoman empires. First of all, there was no emergence of a centralized government to govern the nation in what industrialization failed to take root in Africa, but it was extremely absolute even if a centralized government existed like Congo. In the new long-distance trade, England has become an opportunity to further develop an inclusive economic system, but Congo has become an opportunity to further strengthen the position of the minority elite by enslaving and selling its people. China began long-distance trade centuries earlier than Europeans, but this opportunity failed to drive economic growth. This was no longer concentrated in the 14th and 15th centuries because the Ming Dynasty feared that its regime would be threatened by creative destruction. India, too, has been restricted in the freedom of movement of the population to work under the powerful caste system. China's defeat in the 19th century Britain and Opium War led to a humiliating treaty with Britain, leaving India further alienated from industrialization by British exploitation. Japan, on the other hand, was on a different path. Japan, too, had an absolute reign of Tokugawa Makguksu, but its influence on local governments was minimal and often challenged. The author said that the threat of the U.S. battleship served as an occasion to unite opposition forces against the monarchy and led to the political revolution of Meiji Yushin. Japan has been said to have led from an inclusive political system to an economic system, laying the foundation for economic growth, but China is said to have stuck to its absoluteist system even after the Opium War, leaving it far behind in growth. It was the colonial rule of the Ottoman Empire that decided on the Western Asian system. The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was an absoluteist regime that was not challenged by anyone, and no one shared power. All of the land was owned by the central government without private property, and commerce was controlled by the government and the monopoly of the unions on jobs was severe. Even now, West Asia maintains poor living standards, if not oil-producing countries.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.01.26 11:26

    18 thanks . 1,220.0138 PUB

  • <Why the State Fails> -3 The Origin of Prosperity and Poverty


    So what system has divided the nation's prosperity and poverty? The author cited the same people, South and North Korea, which started in the same country and have been divided since World War II. Colony of Japanese imperialism was liberated from Japanese colonial rule, an economic level of the two countries doesn't differ much or standard of living, North Korea is high. However, as we all know, the standard of living in South Korea is far higher than that of North Korea. It was the central-controlled economic system that made the North's economy what it is now, and what has made the current South Korea is a policy that encourages investment, trade and education. Right after the Korean War, both countries were far from democracy. President Park Chung-hee, who achieved phenomenal economic growth, was also a dictator, not to mention North Korea's Kim Il-sung. However, it was the recognition of private property that made a big difference in the nation's prosperity. In South Korea, the state can recognize people's private property and lend money from the financial market if anyone wants to do business by supporting economic activities. In other words, more general public participation in the economy has been implemented "inclusive economic institutions." Public services were provided to ensure free economic activities of all the people, to ensure a fair legal system, and to ensure a fair competitive environment for all. On the other hand, North Korea controlled the economic activities of its people and did not recognize private property. Naturally, residents had no incentive to increase productivity by exercising their capacity or creativity. There was no reason to increase productivity as residents often worked hard and were robbed by the state or soldiers. Also, a small number of elite people did not know that these policies were policies that ruined economic growth, but they were not willing to change the system because they benefited themselves by operating these "extractive economic institutions." The author does not say that an inclusive economic system means only free markets soon. Among many poor countries, free markets exist, but the private property of a small number of elite people is mostly recognized, exploited the people's ability, lacking education and lack of freedom of movement. Thomas Edison, the inventor and businessman we commonly know, has also made scientific progress by applying science to "business that makes money," but could Thomas Edison be born if this "business that makes money" is a structure that only has certain elite? Since the economic system is created by society, the relationship between economics and politics is inseparable. At the time of its founding, North and South Korea started with a completely different economic system because their interests in determining social structure differed. North Korea has been able to consolidate its position at the expense of the economy of society as a structure in which a small number of elite people whose power is not checked wielded absolute power. On the other hand, unlike this "absolute political system," a political system in which power is distributed evenly and checked can be called "multilateral." So is a "multilateral" political system a prerequisite to having an inclusive economic system? The author explains that it is not. The U.S. and South Korea also had a "centralized regime" as well as a "multilateral political system" to take root in the inclusive economic system. For example, Somalia's power was evenly distributed and there was no authority to restrain or control anyone's malicious behavior. Therefore, it has become a society that cannot guarantee free economic activities and basic safety of the people by failing to enforce law and order. Without a certain level of centralization, an inclusive economic system can be established under a system that can provide public services and establish law and order by regulating malicious economic activities. Even an exploitative political system does not make growth impossible at all. First, in an exploitative system, the elite can grow if they distribute resources to controlled and highly productive activities in order to benefit themselves Secondly, it may occur when, if not complete, an inclusive economic growth policy is allowed. It can grow if the elite think their power base is solid and admit some inclusive growth. However, these systems rarely lead to sustained economic growth. It also explains that full-scale growth involving creative destruction is impossible. Just as the Soviet Union achieved economic growth in the early 1970s and then stopped growing, there is inherently a limit to the system of allocating and controlling resources from the central government. An inclusive economic policy that is allowed to some extent under the exploitative political system is an example of the time when South Korean President Park Chung-hee took office. Although it has achieved great economic growth, the reason why it is difficult to expect sustained growth is that these political systems always tend to result in power deviations, internal disputes. There is a risk of driving out the existing elite and turning the new elite from a wealth, power and inclusive economic growth policy to an exploitative economic policy that benefits them at any time. In reading the book, the state that prepared an inclusive economy and a stagnant system explained that it has in common a firm private property right, freedom of contract and exchange, law and order, and public service. For users using the EOS platform, what is available on the current platform? The possession of tokens is of course the holder's and is free to trade and contract with them. Alternatively, anyone can enjoy a service using a dApp, and developers can implement the service whenever they have an idea. There is also a constitution that every user of the EOS platform must uphold. Public services also have to pass the referendum, but EOS public development fund ECDF (EOS Commons Development Fund) is also proposed. However, there are still many things to do before the proper management is completed. While the public is still anxious about the hacking damage to the token, can we say that private property is properly recognized now? Is there a mechanism to check violations of laws that damage the ecosystem at a corresponding cost? I have a lot of thoughts when I read this book. I will keep reading and organize my thoughts in the next episode.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.01.19 15:21

    19 thanks . 667.0967 PUB

  • [book] <Why a nation fails> -#2 incorrect theories


    If you look around the map of the world, you will see what countries are well-off and poor. If you think about the list of rich countries right away, there are the United States, Japan, Britain and Germany, and Korea is also among the countries that are relatively well-off. And poor countries can think of Haiti, Afghanistan, North Korea, and so on. Some of these rich countries started out as poor countries shortly after World War II, while others, originally rich, now face negative economic growth every year. The gap between the rich and poor in the world is widening, and what divided the income levels of these countries? The author of the book argues that all three theories explaining the development of world civilization do not fully explain the current world inequality. The first is the "geo-location hypothesis" that claims differences in geographical location; the second is the "cultural factor hypothesis" that states that national prosperity is related to culture; and the last is the "unfounded hypothesis" in which the nation's rulers say there exists global inequality because they do not know how to overcome poverty and become wealthy. First, the 'geographical positional hypothesis' is based on the distribution of well-off and poor countries that are mostly located in the tropics, such as Africa, South America and Southeast Asia, while well-off countries such as the United States and Western Europe are often in warm areas. People who live in tropical climates tend to be lazy and less curious, so they have no incentive to live richer. But this theory contradicts the phenomenon of countries with fast-growing economies such as Singapore and Malaysia. Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs and Steel, is also a figure who argues that the development of civilization in mankind is largely due to its geographical position. His book also claims that animal and plant resources granted to each country for more than 500 years have become the origin of the current inequality in the world. It explains that Espanyah was able to dominate the Americas because of its highly advanced technology, its already resistant bacteria and its excellent farming techniques. However, the claim does not explain why Mexico and South America, which are affected by Espanyah, are impoverished. The second is the 'cultural factor hypothesis,' which explains why Africans are poor because they lack labor ethics and believe in superstitions. This superstition is attributed to the refusal of the West's superior technology. However, the author explains that if you look at the cities of Nogales, which borders the United States and Mexico, South and North Korea that share the same culture, and West Germany before reunification and East Germany, national inequality is not necessarily determined by cultural factors. In the end, it claims that what makes the difference is not cultural factors but other institutions and incentives of countries that are dividing the borders. For example, Africa's Congo is not adopting excellent technology and lives in poverty because it is not superstition but because it has no incentive to accept it. Congo has historically been under European colonial rule, but increasing productivity often means that those in power who ruled them all benefit and even be captured and sold as slaves. Such institutions that trampled on human rights and property rights continue to live in poverty. The last "unfounded hypothesis" is an argument that global inequality exists because the country's rulers do not know how or how to make the country rich, and is accepted as the common ground of the most economists. So is the difference between well-off U.S. and Western European leaders and poor African and South American leaders' policies dependent on their intelligence? Rather, the author says that if the nation's leaders had run the country in good faith, they should have come up with policies as a way for the nation to prosper after economic policy failures. The policies of the poor countries are now maintained despite their apparent economic policy failure, because their power is not kept in check and they can take power by exploiting their own people. As I read the book, I felt once again that it was a fundamental 'system' to determine the fate of the nation. The successful state is ultimately checked when policy-making leaders implement policies to exploit their own people, and because they have implemented a system in which their interests are soon in the national interest by giving incentives to highly productive people. I will fill out the details of this system in the following article.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.01.17 21:00

    16 thanks . 781.1493 PUB

  • [EOS Issue] Now it's time to hear the community's answer! - REX Proposal


    Hello, I'm Eaglekeye. You can see the original article at the link below. (https://steemit.com/dclick/@eaglekeeneye/eos-eos-referendum-rex--1547558784154) Because of the characteristics of Publicto, it's still inconvenient to write blog posts, so I'll just write briefly. 1) EOS Referenceum background and information Any account with an EOS token would be able to post and vote on a vote. Originally, there is a governance part of the EOSIO white paper. EOSIO states that governance exists, and that a community of token holders can revise and view constitutional issues that are deemed necessary. When you raise or vote on a proposal, be aware of the following: - A certain amount of RAM is consumed when voting. - whether the proposal for a referendum is consistent with its content; For more information, see the links below. Ms. $done's article: (https://steemit.com/coinkorea/@donekim/-referendum--1547390421364) Mr. $creamer's article: (https://medium.com/creamer-eos/eos-%EB%A0%88%ED%8D%BC%EB%9F%B0%EB%8D%A4-%EC%B4%9D-%ED%88%AC%ED%91%9C-%EC%9C%BC%EB%A1%9C-eos-%EC%83%9D%ED%83%9C%EA%B3%84%EB%A5%BC-%EB%B0%94%EA%BF%94%EB%B3%B4%EC%9E%90-2e502bef921c) Video from $kiliman: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX--H3Btffo&t=) 2) EOS Proposal - RESOURCE EXchange (REX) The REX referendum proposal is as follows: "Should EOS touchens content to eosio.ramfee and eosio.names accounts in the Future be allocated to REX?" (https://bloks.io/vote/referendums/rex4all) First of all, you can read a previously compiled (https://steemit.com/dclick/@eaglekeeneye/eos-eos-rex--1544948654795) article for ideas about REX. In summary, REX is a tokenization of EOS resources so that an account that wants to borrow EOS' CPU/NET resources can be leased at a relatively low price. Accounts that wish to lease resources can borrow resources at a certain amount of EOS interest. Interest paid at this time will be accumulated in conjunction with the RAM fee and the cost of name bridging in the "EOS Pool". The questions of the proposal are as follows in Korean. "Should future eosio.ramfee and eosio.names system account revenues be distributed to REX participants?” The EOS Pool in the REX market previously described the EOS build up in the following items. An account that borrows EOS resources must pay interest because, of course, it must be paid for the use. However, the proceeds from the **EOS system - RAM fee and the auction amount of account name - cannot be included in the EOS pool arbitrarily. The revenue generated here originally began with the concept of incineration of EOS tokens So instead of incinerating EOS tokens tied to eosio.ramfee and eosio.names, community consensus is essential. It should be noted that from the beginning of the mainnet to the introduction of the REX, the EOS stacked on the eosio.ramfee and the eosio.names is not applicable; only the EOS token accumulated since the introduction of the REX is applicable. Even a significant number of people who are familiar with EOS accounts and know how to vote do not use all EOS to vote for risk management. The adoption of REX is very positive in terms of providing incentives for the accounts that elect the right BP for the EOS ecosystem. Adding EOS tokens built on eosio.ramfee and eosio.names will provide more incentives for the EOS token to the steaming account in addition to interest revenue. However, incentives for REX adoption may result in accounts with little understanding and interest in the EOS ecosystem voting for the top 1st and 21st BPs without much concern to fill the conditions for receiving REX tokens.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.01.15 23:30

    16 thanks . 409.5267 PUB

  • Two cities close but too different


    I have a book that I am reading these days, so I want to introduce it to Publicto. I haven't read all the books on why the country fails.. Historically, we explain which countries have succeeded and prospered, and which have become poverty-stricken, and the author argues that it is not geographical or racial factors that determine the nation's revival, but the system. Since he is an EOS token holder, I have to wonder if there are many things to learn from him to create a governance that succeeds while reading. I'd like to summarize what I've read so far. First of all, we're talking about Nogales, a city of the same name that shares borders with the United States and Mexico. It is a city that is attached together, and the living standards of the U.S. and Mexico are said to be very different. Mexico's Nogales city has a higher income level than other cities in Mexico, which is also attributed to its dealings with the U.S. There are also stories of comparing billionaires from the U.S. and Mexico, and the way the same rich made a lot of money is said to be different. Bill Gates of the United States took issue with Microsoft's exclusive status in the U.S. despite creating wealth through software start-ups and innovation. In the end, he was said to have received light punishment through negotiations with the U.S. Department of Justice. On the other hand, what brought wealth to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim was not innovation, but political networking and unchecked exclusive business status. He has acquired Telmex, a government-backed exclusive Mexican telecommunications company, which is creating wealth without any particular innovation. Mexico is said to be in a difficult environment for new innovations to occur because new start-ups often have to face entry barriers by politicians, existing businessmen and financial operators who have colluded with them to do business, and go through complicated administrative procedures. Once there was a petition to investigate this exclusive position of Carlos Slim. Mexico's Fair Trade Commission (FTC) cleared the country of antitrust regulations by filing a rescue petition called "Lecuso de Ampara" shortly after it concluded that his status was exclusive. The system was originally designed to protect the freedom and rights of the people, but has been reduced to a powerful tool to protect its status for businesses that enjoy Mexico's exclusive status. It is said that this is due to differences in the Constitution of the United States and Mexico. It is said that the U.S. constitution is because restrictions exist on political power and Mexico's constitution has failed to function properly. And it is claimed that this system was formed from England's colonial rule of North America during the colonial period and Espanyah's Latin American. Espana basically built colonies in Latin America, where resources were abundant and food production was easy, and England, which lost all of its yolk land, had nowhere else to build colonies except North America. While a small number of elite people in Espanyah are said to be exploiting colonial indigenous people to create vast wealth, England has had numerous difficulties and failures since the colonial settlement process. In the early days, the Virginia company, which was trying to build colonies in North America, also adopted a system of exploiting settlers, but failed once and for all. Admitting the failure of the system and giving 50 acres of land to settlers, and giving incentives to those who bring in new family members to give the person 50 acres of land. This is how they can rule on their own land and launch a 'citizens' assembly, which is said to have become the starting point for democracy in the United States. The system was first implemented in Virginia, and gradually settlers in Maryland, another U.S. owner, began demanding their land. By the 1720s, all 13 colonies in the United States had a similar governance structure, creating a parliament where all the governors and men who would rule the land could participate. The congress is said to be the first Continental Congress in 1774, the predecessor of American independence. The book is so thick that I don't know how long I'm going to write on Publicto, but as soon as I'm done, I think I'll write quite a lot here.

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.01.13 11:02

    32 thanks . 1,546.0997 PUB

  • [Eat PUB] Mountain octopus to stimulate appetite at night


    It's been a long time since I had a chance to have dinner. I finally ate wild octopus that I thought I would eat whenever I had a chance. #Emuk pub #Company #San Nakji🐙 #Coddol #Kim Myungja Nakji Madang

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.01.10 22:51

    20 thanks . 836.5479 PUB

  • In the morning, for coffee and dessert,


    I tried the coffee that I got for the event at home. I changed the coffee beans myself and drank the coffee, so the beginning of the day is completely different. I will try to take a ride from now on. # Breakfast coffee # coffee # coffeeless #blackwaterport

    $eaglekeeneye . 2019.01.02 09:19

    32 thanks . 1,060.7318 PUB

  • BWP scandal


    BWP hosted an event for PUBple~ ∘ Establishment of measures to prevent dizziness of PUBple https://publyto.com/posts/1365 Thank you for your quick response. I hope you drink warm vertigo in the cold winter.😁 #Event Attachment #lalaguna #Blackwaterport #Blackwaterport #Publito #Publyto

    $eaglekeeneye . 2018.12.30 18:23

    19 thanks . 467.8314 PUB

  • Yangpyeong Railbike


    Yangpyeong Railbike... It was winter and it was so cold that I ran at full speed. In the evening, my friend decorated the finale with a hand-made yukhoe and wrapped bossam. #Yangpyeong Travel #Yangpyeong Rail Bike #Selfonghoe #Bossam

    $eaglekeeneye . 2018.12.30 17:58

    8 thanks . 422.5222 PUB

Load More..

AboutGuides . Contact

copyright©2019 PUBLYTO all rights reserved.