At the start of April, CPC Corp, Taiwan (CPC) increased its fuel prices by NT$3.1 per liter.
The increase raised inflationary pressure and set off price increases across the country, including hikes in the cost of daily necessities and dining out.
International oil prices collapsed just after this was implemented, and while CPC has lowered fuel prices 10 weeks in a row, the prices of other commodities will not return to what they were before the fuel price hikes.
The Consumers’ Foundation recently stated that CPC’s policy could be the main culprit behind rising prices and that senior members of CPC management should resign as a result of the mistake.
The company defended its action by saying that “CPC is not an expert when it comes to predicting fuel prices” and that “predicting fuel prices is both a science and an art,” in an attempt to absolve itself of all responsibility.
There is no doubt that the government’s decision to freeze fuel prices before the January presidential election and then raise prices in one fell swoop after losses had been incurred went against the market mechanism, but it seems to think two wrongs make a right.
At the time, CPC cited forecasts from HSBC, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan for this year’s first quarter and said fuel prices could skyrocket because of tensions in the Middle East.
That is what it based its reports to the government on about the possible trend of fuel prices and it was also the reason why the government decided that a substantial price hike was necessary, rather than incremental increases.
Many people are unaware that the price predictions made by international financial institutions are often wildly inaccurate.
Manipulation by financial speculators contributed to the fuel price bubble, which burst around the time of the 2008 financial crisis and led to many lawsuits.
One possible reason why their financial research reports were so inaccurate was the highly complex and interwoven conflicting interests involved in the crisis.
In his essay The Hedgehog and the Fox, English philosopher Isaiah Berlin quotes the ancient Greek poet Archilochus, who said: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.”
If the fox represents street smarts, the hedgehog represents book smarts, and what is interesting about this is that the fox, which knows a little bit about everything, is more capable of accurately predicting the future than the hedgehog, which specializes in just one area.
In his 2005 publication titled Expert Political Judgment, University of Pennsylvania psychology professor Philip Tetlock talks about predictions about the future made by various experts.
In the study, he tested more than 80,000 predictions made by 284 experts on politics, economics, history and the media. He came to the conclusion that experts did not perform any better than dart-throwing chimps.
Why is it that experts are so bad at making predictions? Why is the fox smarter than the hedgehog? Why are street smarts better than book smarts?
Is it because the fox is attuned to the wisdom of the crowd, and two heads are better than one?
It is obvious that the world is a chaotic, random and ever-changing place.
There are innumerable interfering and confusing variables and the complexity of human behavior is far greater than the atoms and molecules that exist in the physical world.
Even the most outstanding expert lacks the brain capacity to evaluate the complexity of such variables, not to mention the various latent conflicts of interest that can change the outcome of any given event.
What is worse is that many of these experts indiscriminately apply their one specialized skill to everything.
Such people have no patience with the opinions of the average person, but they are full of confidence in their own abilities to predict outcomes. As soon as their ideas are proven wrong, they will try and pass the buck and act as if they never made any such prediction in the first place.
To be honest, the most accurate measure of the economy comes from the general public. When the economy is slow and demand is weak, all speculative activity must come to an end. Fuel prices can be propped up by hot money for a while, but they cannot be maintained indefinitely.
When it comes to price predictions on important products that influence the prices of daily commodities — for example, fuel — it would be better to trust the behavior of the general public than to listen to what the experts say.
The question is how we should go creating an index to measure the opinions of the general public.
Over the past two decades, the Internet has progressed rapidly and this has given birth to mechanisms for market predictions and provided channels through which the scattered wisdom of the crowd can come together in a systematic way.
Economists such as Kenneth Arrow, who is a Nobel laureate in economics, have written articles that call for greater attention to be paid to the potential value of market predictions.
The wisdom of the crowd in predicting future outcomes is an important research tool that greatly merits further development.
The birth of platforms for predicting market outcomes has blown a hole in the myth that experts always are right.
The results of the futures contract trading on the Exchange of Future Events run by National Chengchi University’s Center for Prediction Markets has demonstrated the subtle power of prediction markets.
This year, National Chengchi University will be holding a summer course entitled “Development and Utilization of Collective Intelligence,” and this could mark the start of a new way of looking at prediction making.
Now that fuel prices have been cut 10 times in a row after first skyrocketing, economic policymakers should bite the bullet, give up their reliance on traditional prediction methods and start thinking about establishing platforms and mechanisms for prediction.
The wisdom of the crowd represents a treasure chest that contains our collective wisdom for predicting outcomes and political leaders cannot ignore such an invaluable source of wisdom.
Jason Yeh is an associate professor in the Department of Finance at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with