Milton Friedman, who died on Thursday in San Francisco of heart failure at age 94, was considered one of the 20th century's most influential economists. Although advocates of his policies seem to have diminished, Friedman's free-market and anti-government philosophies will always retain their appeal.
Friedman, a 1976 Nobel laureate for economics, visited Taiwan three times and was well known here -- as elsewhere -- for his famous quote: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."
During his visits, Friedman had tried to inspire the government to move toward a more liberalized, free market system, despite the era's prevailing economic philosophy -- inspired by John Maynard Keynes -- that called for greater government involvement in addressing the economy.
Friedman advised establishing a floating foreign exchange rate system, improving control of the money supply, privatizing state-owned enterprises and getting rid of government red tape.
Although his advice was not widely accepted by the nation's conservative leaders at the time, his principles have come to be widely accepted now.
Friedman was an approachable man who loved to argue. One legacy Friedman left for Taiwan was the debate he engaged in with Chao Yao-tung (
In that debate, Friedman said that government should take a hands-off approach to private businesses and that regulations were unnecessary or even harmful to market efficiency.
But Chao, who later served as economics minister, argued that the government played a pivotal role in protecting consumers and workers from the excesses of the capitalist marketplace.
Lauded as a great economist who invented modern monetarism, Friedman's idea of maintaining a steady growth in money supply to keep inflation at bay has influenced the formulation of monetary policies in many countries around the world, including Taiwan.
But there is another Friedman tenet that has come under attack these days: he believed that man's essentially humane nature would find its full expression under free-market capitalism.
In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman wrote: "Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible."
The main social responsibility of a company, as Friedman saw it, is to maximize profit. By doing so, a company allows its employees to keep their jobs, benefits its suppliers, gives customers the products they need and reimburses its investors.
But Friedman's beliefs -- that success in business is a virtue and that by serving their own interests, companies also fulfill their social responsibilities -- apparently carry little weight in today's society.
Following a series of greed-driven corporate scandals, societies are demanding a new type of corporation that not only makes profits for investors, but also conducts itself in a morally acceptable way to benefit stakeholders and the communities in which they are embedded.
Some may find Friedman's views too narrow for today's business environment. But the debate about corporate social responsibility also raged in his day, and the late economist remained firm in his beliefs and didn't really care whether others liked them.
To many in Taiwan, Friedman's legacy not only stems from that landmark debate in 1981, but also from the straightforward way he expressed his economic views.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations