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
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