Faced with a grim economic crisis, US Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, are engaging in intense debate. McCain, with close ties to big business, has increasingly made remarks that run counter to public sentiment, proposing continued deregulation of the financial system and reliance on free markets.
At a time of chaos on global financial markets, shrinking domestic demand and aggravated poverty and social conflict, McCain’s statements deviate from the social and economic realities facing the average citizen. No wonder Obama jumped on McCain’s economic proposals, asking him: “Senator, what economy are you talking about?”
One point of contention in the US financial bailout is the question of which social group profits and which group loses.
In the same way, it is important to consider who will be the beneficiaries of Taiwan’s attempts to contain economic and financial damage. The Cabinet and the Presidential Office’s economic advisory task force have proposed a series of measures to revive the economy, such as halving the securities transaction tax, reducing the inheritance tax and providing a blanket guarantee for private deposits.
The global economic crisis and soaring energy and food prices have led to a deterioration in living standards.
Between January and August this year, the average unemployment rate, the number of weeks of unemployment and the number of people laid off because of closures have hit three-year highs. In the same period, the unemployment rate for college graduates jumped to 4.16 percent, the highest level since 1978. In August, each job seeker had an average of 0.79 job opportunities, the lowest level since July 2001. In addition, local wage earners saw their income decline by 2.72 percent in real terms in the first seven months of the year, the worst decline in 28 years.
We do not mean to attribute the declining economy and public suffering to the government on this basis alone. However, a government that boasts of the ability to feel the pain of the people must take a serious look at its policy priorities: Whose pain are they feeling, and whose distress are they relieving?
It is true that the government’s policies are aimed at protecting the disadvantaged and promoting employment growth, but judging from policy strength, focus and effectiveness, these measures are still at the discussion stages or implemented perfunctorily.
Even the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) own think tank admits that the results of measures for caring for the disadvantaged and for stimulating consumption have been limited.
More importantly, in its eagerness to save the stock market, the government has intervened in a free market by activating the National Stabilization Fund and prohibiting short selling for two weeks. When it comes to price hikes in electricity for household use, however, the government stresses “a return to the market mechanism.”
This double standard is transparent to a public whose distress the government is trying to relieve.
Meanwhile, it is questionable that halving the securities transaction tax and reducing the inheritance tax — measures worth tens of billions of dollars that mostly benefit wealthy people — will achieve the goals of accelerating capital flow. Without supplementary measures, these actions will increase social injustice and eat up money needed for educational and social policies.
So, we also must ask the government and their economic experts: “What economy are you talking about?”
The government has time and again emphasized the mid and long-term economic measures cannot yield instant results.
Even so, we ask if the government is ready to establish a transparent political and financial system and if it is willing to allocate resources to education, the job market and social security. Only then can the government establish a truly healthy and complete economic environment.
While the KMT has long subscribed to neo-liberal ideas and stressed the omnipotence of the market, the fact is that only the strong make a profit and the weak lose out.
When structural problems in the capitalist system are revealed, it is time for the government to adjust its policy direction and stress the balance between nation, market and civic society.
Yang Wei-chung is a social activist. Lee Wen-chung is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS