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
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
Historically, in Taiwan, and in present-day China, many people advocate the idea of a “great Chinese nation.” It is not worth arguing with extremists to say that the so-called “great Chinese nation” is a fabricated political myth rather than an academic term. Rather, they should read the following excerpt from Chinese writer Lin Yutang’s (林語堂) book My Country and My People: “It is also inevitable that I should offend many writers about China, especially my own countrymen and great patriots. These great patriots — I have nothing to do with them, for their god is not my god, and their patriotism is
RSS