Categories
Economics Humor

[1661] Of barbarian at the what?

The ever amusing editors at The Economist.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

Categories
Economics

[1657] Of price ceiling does not encourage greater yield, unless production is subsidized

I praised Shahrir Samad earlier but I am having a second thought now. Shortly after that announcement, he suggested for food production to be subsidized, much to my dismay.[1] Pragmatic may be but our current government policies are confusing. If there is a liberalization in our economy, the current trend does not seem to suggest that.

Take for example the recent effort to increase in local rice yield.

KUCHING: Sarawak will develop large-scale padi planting areas and mini-estates to achieve 100% self-sufficiency in rice by 2015.

Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Dr George Chan said the state government had identified eight areas totalling 43,821ha as suitable for large-scale padi production, with Sungai Seblak in Roban the first to be developed under the 9th Malaysia Plan. [Going big on padi yield. The Star. May 8 2008]

And then contrast that with call for price ceiling on rice.

JOHOR BARU: The Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry wants ceiling prices on local varieties of rice to be imposed immediately to curb fluctuating prices.

Ceiling prices for the local 5, 10 and 15 per cent broken rice are supposed to come into effect on June 1, but retailers are taking advantage of the interim period to raise the prices of these varieties. [Shahrir: Impose rice ceiling price right away. New Straits Times. May 19 2008]

Price ceiling removes the incentive to increase production in a free market. Nevertheless, there is at least one way to increase yield despite the presence of price ceiling and that links back to subsidizing rice producers.

The size of the subsidy is inversely related to prices of rice under this scenario. The larger the subsidy, the lower will the prices be. We all better pray that the differential between the ceiling and market prices is small.

And dare not to even think that you will be enjoying lower spending under this scenario. Just think who is actually footing the bill for that subsidy. Yes, you and I. We are giving out our government with money to allow us to buy cheaper good. If that is unclear, we are paying the government to allow us to buy cheaper food.

How stupid is that?

We might as well not pay tax and pay for higher rice prices. A far simpler situation, do you not think so?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysia’s government is planning to subsidize locally-grown rice to prevent consumers from being hit by record high prices of the staple food in the world, a Cabinet minister said Monday. [Malaysia plans local rice subsidy. CNN. April 28 2008]

Categories
Economics

[1656] Of shameless plug for my column

Heya!

Before I go out with my cameras to several temples in the city to witness Vesak Day, I would like to direct your attention to my column at The Malaysian Insider. I will be there every Monday to advance libertarianism in Malaysia!

The crux of that particular article which goes by the title Food? Fuel? Dilemma? is that free prices will help determine production with regard to the concern revolving around food and biofuel. By free, it is freedom, not free, a giveaway.

Categories
Economics

[1653] Of the side effect of state intervention

As I was doing some research, I stumbled upon an amusing article about biofuel, incentives given to it and the unintended consequence. It is old but the lesson is for all of us to learn for all times.

Fast-rising worries over global warming have created a biofuel boondoggle.

Called “splash and dash,” “touch and go,” or an unfair trade practice, it features biofuels traders who exploit a US tax credit, European drivers who get cheaper diesel fuel, and American taxpayers, who are footing the bill.

It also illustrates a cautionary tale of how government incentives, no matter how well-intentioned, can sometimes be subverted into windfalls for the few.

“You have US taxpayers providing a very nice tax incentive, and they’re not receiving any energy-security benefit or added fuel to the marketplace or benefits to US development in return,” says Joe Jobe, chief executive officer of the National Biodiesel Board, which represents US biodiesel producers.

[…]

Created under the 2004 American Jobs Act, the “blenders tax credit” was supposed to boost US production of biodiesel by encouraging US diesel marketers to blend regular petroleum diesel with fuel made from soybeans or other agricultural products. It succeeded, perhaps too well.

Attracted by the $1-per-gallon subsidy, US diesel-fuel marketers mixed away, setting off a nationwide boom in biodiesel refinery building. But no one anticipated splash-and-dash.

The maneuver begins with a shipload of biodiesel from, say, Malaysia, which pulls into a US port like Houston, says John Baize, an industry consultant in Falls Church, Va. Unlike domestic diesel-biodiesel blends, which typically contain from 1 to 10 percent of biodiesel, the Malaysian fuel starts off as 100 percent biodiesel, typically made from palm oil.

[…]

The US importer of the load applies to the Internal Revenue Service for the credit — a dollar for each of the 9 million biodiesel gallons, Mr. Baize calculates. The next day the tanker can set sail — dash — for Europe. There, the US importer resells the biodiesel, taking advantage of European fuel-tax credits that, in effect, keep biodiesel prices above US prices.

[…]

European officials are also unhappy about the practice. Such “touch and go” maneuvers could quickly become a much larger problem, warned Raffaello Garofalo, secretary general of the European Biodiesel Board, in a March 19 letter to the European Trade Commissioner.

European manufacturers are worried about all US biodiesel imports — not just the splash-and-dash variety — because the subsidized fuel is flooding their markets, cutting into their domestic biodiesel business and lowering prices.

[…]

So rich is the US subsidy, however, and awash in biodiesel is the European market at present, that a third form of imported biodiesel is now reportedly hitting European shores — at US taxpayer expense. European biodiesel producers themselves are shipping fuel to US ports to get the US blenders credit and then bringing it back to Europe for sale, according to British press accounts.

But US biodiesel manufacturers and Congress may not be in a hurry to close the loophole, some insiders say. That’s because the blenders credit not only benefits splash-and-dash traders, it gives US producers of soybean-based biodiesel a distinct export advantage, industry insiders say.

[…]

Ultimately, this rise of US exports points to a larger American problem: a serious imbalance between domestic biodiesel production capacity and demand, some experts say. [Biofuel boondoggle: US subsidy aids Europe’s drivers. Mark Clayton. Christian Science Monitor. June 8 2007]

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1649] Of Trudeau said it rightly

During a visit to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on July 17, 1969, Trudeau met with a group of protesting farmers, angry that the federal government was not doing more to market their wheat, to one of whom he responded, “Why should I sell your wheat? It’s your wheat.” [Pierre Trudeau. Wikipedia. Accessed May 14 2008]

How many leaders nowadays have the courage to say such thing?