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
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
The arrest in France of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has brought into sharp focus one of the major conflicts of our age. On one hand, we want privacy in our digital lives, which is why we like the kind of end-to-end encryption Telegram promises. On the other, we want the government to be able to stamp out repugnant online activities — such as child pornography or terrorist plotting. The reality is that we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Durov last month was charged with complicity in crimes taking place on the app, including distributing child pornography,
RSS