Tigers turn into Hermes bags
When your grandchildren ask one day: “What happened to all the tigers and orangutans?” you can answer them: “They were turned into Hermes bags and Lamborghinis.” According to an illuminating article on the super-rich of Indonesia, acquisition of such vacuous status symbols by greedy people running mining and oil palm businesses is financed through the destruction of Indonesia’s few remaining rainforests (“Indonesia’s unbalanced commodities boom fuels discontent,” March 17, page 9). Bummer. That’s where the tigers and orangutans live, but when Hermes brings out that new US$50,000 sky-blue handbag, it instantly becomes a “must-have” item because so-and-so on the social ladder of status already has one.
While I do not want to delve into the emotionally stunted lives of people who acquire Hermes bag after Hermes bag, I want to make the point that if we want to save any of the commons (global atmosphere or biodiversity, or even our own local forests or city parks in Taiwan), we must realize that an economic model based solely on individual choices runs counter to society’s need for sustainable activity. One example is climate change, which is “the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen,” according to the World Bank’s Nicholas Stern (www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/marketfailures.html). Well, actually, our entire economic system is a market failure because it does not include the external costs of resource extraction and pollution.
In his article “Nature’s role in sustaining economic development,” the economist Partha Dasgupta demonstrates how much of so-called economic growth is not based on improving quality of life, but on resource extraction and pollution, which harms other people somewhere further down the line. The total wealth of many of the world’s poorest nations is actually declining because of the destruction of their natural capital (eg, rainforests).
So shall we go on rewarding the rainforest destroyers? Paul Hawken in The Ecology of Commerce proposes an entirely different economic model. Instead of rewarding those who destroy the atmosphere or the rainforest (and, in effect, steal from the less powerful and future generations), our economic reward system should be rebuilt to reward preservation, sustainability and long-term investment. Taxes would be levied not against “goods,” such as earnings or investments, but against “bads,” such as resource extraction and pollution. In a free-market system regulated by “green” taxes, businesses would quickly adopt sustainable practices and the most sustainable products would win out. Naturally, economic inequality is toxic to long-term sustainability, because poor people cannot afford such “green” taxes, while rich people keep buying too many Hermes bags.
All this has been known for decades, as philosophers, economists and ecologists have laid out the framework for a truly sustainable society.
However, in a last gasp of economic insanity, we seem to be hell-bent to convert whatever natural beauty is left in this world into pointless status symbols for the super-rich, thanks to all those economists who are still stuck in the world of two centuries ago, when the free market was surrounded by unlimited resources.
Flora Faun
Taipei
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