President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has appointed Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) as convener of a new panel to advise the Presidential Office on financial and economic affairs. But does Siew really have any bold economic vision? Nothing he has said goes beyond the usual free-market mechanisms, relaxation of laws and regulations, a complete free rein for Taiwanese companies to “go west” and forming a common market with China.
Siew’s policies comply with the fashionable pillars of globalization — deregulation, denationalization and minimizing the role of government. That is as far as his vision goes. Can such a vision really get Taiwan through the current economic troubles?
An article in Thursday’s New York Times asks if the US is any longer the global beacon of unfettered free-market capitalism. In bailing out Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and American International Group (AIG), the US has not just broken the cardinal principles of the free market, but also undermined the US’ authority in any future efforts to sell the idea of economic globalization to other countries.
In the Times article, US financial historian Ron Chernow said the Bush administration, which stands for free market economy, is now doing things even countries that advocate state intervention would not dare to do. These actions will provide excellent ammunition for opponents of the free market.
Whenever the IMF offers to help countries, it always demands that the country receiving aid implement what the IMF calls “structural adjustments,” including deregulation, market liberalization, unfettered exploitation of natural resources, privatization of public assets and state enterprises, reduced tariffs, social spending cuts, and so on.
For example, during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, when the IMF pledged South Korea US$20 billion to help it weather the storm, one of the “structural adjustments” it demanded as a condition for the loan was that the Seoul government not prop up troubled banks and companies, but rather allow them to be eliminated according to the workings of the free market. The IMF pushed South Korea to open up its domestic market and thoroughly liberalize its economy.
Now that the US is facing its own financial crisis, however, the US government has transgressed the free-market dogma it has been imposing on other countries by resorting to state intervention on a massive scale. Is the nationalization of giant investment and insurance firms not tantamount to what the French call “economic patriotism?” The Times article was highly critical of the US government’s actions.
If the US government finds itself compelled in the final analysis to act counter to the fundamental principles of its own free-market capitalist creed, what authority is left for the idea of economic globalization, which has been in vogue for the past three decades? Even Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain declared that he and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, if elected, “are going to put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street,” while another Times article pointed out that you can’t trumpet the virtues of the free market on the one hand while attempting to protect investors by using state powers to clean up after the greedy gamblers of Wall Street on the other.
As to Ma and Siew — where is their vision? If interventionist policies are necessary for the US government, it proves that an unbridled free-market system cannot work. The Ma government’s policy of economic integration with China is a free-market strategy. Ma and Siew’s real purpose would seem to be political convergence, even if it comes packaged in the guise of economic integration.
Allen Houng is a professor at National Yang Ming University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS