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
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS