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
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