Prosperity and birth rates
I write first to commend my fellow University of Minnesota economics classmate Perng Fai-nan (彭淮南) for his governance of the central bank these past years, and especially for the bank’s recent decision to go against the rising tide at the US Federal Reserve Bank (and others, including Hong Kong) of raising interest rates in the face of continuing economic stagnation.
Taiwan fared relatively well during the financial crisis of 2008 and thereafter — much better than the US or Europe — and much of the credit belongs to the management of the central bank. Lowering its interbank rates at this time is the right decision.
Second, I want to respond to the editorial about what the Taipei Times called a “disconcertingly low birth rate” (Editorial, Dec. 18, page 8).
Taiwan’s low-birth rate might harm certain businesses and real-estate interests by putting upward pressure on wages and less pressure on housing costs.
However, for society as a whole, these changes are among the many benefits that derive from a lower birth rate. Yes, it will also cost more to recruit soldiers for the nation’s defense needs, but this is also a matter of justice for Taiwanese, especially for those in the armed forces.
Supporters of increased birth rates argue from covert self-interest. National security is often raised in political arguments when other reasons fail: It should be regarded as suspect when raised regarding birth rates. The national security arguments fail for many reasons, but there is not space here for details.
Consider just two things: First, cases in recent history where coalitions with much larger populations have not been able to prevail against less populous places such as in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Israel; and second, there is no possibility of competing with China on population.
This leaves the foremost argument that is proposed for our concern: That low birth rates mean aging populations. Who, it is asked, is going to support us in old age if there are fewer workers? On the face of it, this argument seems sensible, but it does not fare well under scrutiny.
The world has limited resources. Seven or more billion people cannot all have the material lives we each aspire to. A lower birth rate leaves more resources per person, higher wages and more prosperity.
Technical progress will continue to make some work redundant, and most work less taxing and more productive. The market for labor will change and adapt as conditions change.
Growing populations re the real problem, not aging populations. To maintain prosperity, Taiwan, as with the rest of the world, must limit population growth.
As for national security, prosperity is strength.
Robert Dildine
Yilan County
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and