Recently, fuel, electricity and general price rises have been a source of much public discontent. In the face of this public anger, several senior government officials have gone out of their way to defend the government’s economic policy, coming out with a whole range of interpretations of market mechanisms that stretch credulity. At the same time, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been complaining that the public do not understand economics. I have strong feelings about what he says, not least because it reminds me of two episodes that occurred during the years I was studying in the US.
The first was my discussion with an economist who holds a doctorate from the University of Chicago on healthcare policy. During our discussion, this well-educated academic took me quite by surprise by claiming that it was wrong for physicians to obtain licenses in order to practice medicine, because it completely violates the free-market mechanism.
He believed that, through a process of elimination and equilibrium, as patients made the wrong choices, that the market itself would regulate the situation, retaining the good doctors and eliminating the bad ones. He backed up his argument with graphs and illustrations.
A little taken aback, I asked him: “How about human lives? What if someone dies?”
His answer was that a few lives do not matter and that the promotion of market efficiency is far more important.
The second episode took place in a macroeconomics policy class. The professor asked one of the students in the class to imagine for a minute that he were the government finance minister. He handed him some unemployment figures and asked him to interpret them.
The student proceeded to talk at length about the figures, comparing them with those of the previous year. He then went on to discuss changes in structural and non-structural unemployment in terms of the figures. When he was finished, the student was fully expecting the professor to offer praise for his brilliant analysis. His classmates were certainly suitably impressed.
To my surprise, the professor said that, when discussing the unemployment rate, a finance minister should first offer sympathy to the tens of thousands of people who have lost their jobs and dignity, and are struggling to make ends meet, then explain what he was going to do to get the rate down.
Economics is a social science and as such it has to start from the welfare of the general public. If it does not, it is little more than dry theories and formulae and those who implement policy are mere bureaucrats and bean counters.
Ma and senior government officials are supposed to be highly educated and should know what they are talking about. If they ignore what people are going through and even go as far as to complain that they do not understand economics, it is time they go back to school and learn what economics is really about.
Lin Hsuan-chu is an associate professor at National Cheng Kung University’s department of accountancy.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS