Wrong-headed measure
Responding to rising global oil prices, the Ministry of Economic Affairs on Monday started to initiate controls to mitigate rising international oil prices. Under the mechanism, CPC Corp, Taiwan will absorb part of the cost increases if oil prices reach a certain level: If the price of unleaded gasoline reaches between NT$30 and NT$32.4 per liter, CPC would shoulder 25 percent of the price increase and consumers must cover the remaining 75 percent.
If the price reaches between NT$32.5 and NT$34.9 per liter, CPC must absorb half of the increase in the fuel price, with consumers paying the other half.
If the price goes above NT$35 per liter, CPC and the government together will absorb 75 percent of the increase and the consumer will shoulder the remaining 25 percent.
However, the paradox is that although the government said it was introducing these measures to protect people’s livelihoods, by fixing gasoline prices or implementing price mitigation measures, the ministry is essentially providing subsidies for the rich.
Those who were using less gasoline are now encouraged by the subsidies to use more, while those who were not using gasoline before are incentivized to start using it.
The bigger the vehicle, the more gasoline is used by the individual or company and the cheaper the price becomes, due to economies of scale.
However, the average member of the public uses relatively little gasoline and so has no option but to shoulder the price increase. It is nothing more than exploitation by stealth: A policy that is neither just nor fair.
Conventional economic modeling shows that when gasoline prices increase, consumers will use less gasoline. However, when price mitigation measures are introduced and the government intervenes in the market, this goes against the fundamental principal of capitalism that the most economically efficient allocation of resources occurs when consumers pay the full cost of the goods that they consume.
This means that the ministry’s price mitigation measures will actually de-incentivize the use of public transport, which goes against the government’s stated objective of reducing carbon emissions and protecting the environment.
Wei Shi-chang
Yilan
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS