Don't ban electric cigarettes
All global smoking bans define cigarettes as items that contain tobacco and about 4,000 chemicals, only one of which is nicotine, and are lit and burned by combustion to produce tobacco smoke. Electronic cigarettes are not tobacco cigarettes by that legal definition (“John Tung Foundation takes aim at e-cigarettes,” March 6, page 4).
With electronic cigarettes, a misnomer product name if ever there was one, there is no tobacco, no lighting, no burning and no 3,999 other chemicals. Categorizing electronic cigarettes to be the same as tobacco cigarettes simply because they both contain nicotine is junk science based solely on emotional association. Banning electronic cigarettes would also mean having to ban nicotine patches and gum too, as well as at least 72 food sources that billions of people depend on.
The source of nicotine for electronic cigarettes could easily be from something other than tobacco. There are 66 other species of plants that contain nicotine, including potatoes and tomatoes. If nicotine is banned, then the whole human race will starve to death. Can anti-smokers really be that emotionally and mentally stupid?
Apparently the answer is yes, they can. Instead of worshiping anti-smokers and giving them money to eradicate nicotine, anti-smokers need a lot of psychological counseling.
STEVE HARTWELL
Toronto, Canada
Rethinking debt approach
Taiwan’s public debt stood at somewhere between 27 percent and 32 percent of GDP last year.
While the size of this public debt is not quite on a European scale (where public debt often reaches 50 percent of GDP or more), nevertheless it can ill be afforded at a time when the economy is in recession. As major companies in Taiwan bend over backwards to find ways to streamline their operations, it is lamentable that the government does not follow their example.
The single greatest action the government could take to “stimulate” the economy would be to eliminate the source of public debt, which will continue to be a drag on the economic growth of Taiwan for many years to come.
Public debt comes from public spending on such things as education and healthcare. It is not merely a fallacy that such services must be publicly funded in the name of providing a “safety net.” It is a pernicious error that helps to entrap people in a spider’s web of dependency on the state.
There are a range of policy options available for paying off public debt. The first is tax increases — which nobody likes except those clients of the state who will be in a position to benefit. The second is to borrow from the public and external creditors via the bond market. Bonds, however, must eventually be paid back either by further debt or from present (or future) tax revenues. A third option is public investment in the stock and currency markets both home and abroad, which begs the question of why individual taxpayers in Taiwan are not competent to do so for themselves without the government taking their money in the first place.
But there is also a very dangerous fourth option — which your publication has not seriously opposed. That option is to inflate the money supply by asking the central bank to “inject liquidity” (ie, print money) into the economy.
At the very least, any proposed increase in the money supply at this point must be made only on an assessment which includes ‘hoarding’ — as Werner Sinn recently slandered it on your editorial pages (“Inflation is not the risk, Japanese-style deflation is,” March 2, page 9) — as part of the demand for money and not separate from the demand for money.
To act otherwise would certainly lead to greater currency depreciation, consequent price rises and damage to savings which would hurt the poorest people in Taiwan most of all.
It is of great importance that, throughout this year, you and your sister publication, the Liberty Times, vigorously agitate against both monetary inflation and increases in public spending in any sector.
Equally I urge you toward consideration of the benefits of alternative monetary systems free from political interference and of the benefits of a true program of privatization in services currently funded by a coercive and wasteful drag on the productive activities of all of the people in Taiwan.
MICHAEL FAGAN
Tainan
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS