Categories
Economics

[1514] Of bread subsidy in Egypt

Something that Malaysian politicians as well as advocates of subsidy need to learn. Quoted below are the effects of subsidy at another place on another commodity:

It is hard to make ends meet in Egypt, where about 45 percent of the population survives on just $2 a day. That is one reason trying to buy subsidized bread can be a fierce affair, with fists and elbows flying, men shoving and little children dodging blows to get up to the counter.

Egypt is a state where corruption is widely viewed as systemic, which is also why the crowd gets aggressive trying to buy up the subsidized bread. Cheap state bread can be resold, often for double the original price.

[…]

Egypt started subsidizing staples like bread, sugar and tea around World War II, and has done so ever since. When it tried to stop subsidizing bread in 1977 there were riots. Egyptians are generally not known as explosive people, but tell them you are raising the price of bread — of life — and beware.

[…]

The inspector explained why the system was so open to abuse. The government sells bakeries 25-pound bags of flour for 8 Egyptian pounds, the equivalent of about $1.50. The bakeries are then supposed to sell the flatbread at the subsidized rate, which gives them a profit of about $10 from each sack. Or the baker can simply sell the flour on the black market for $15 a bag.

[…] So they fight for cheap bread. They begin gathering outside the bare one-room bakery at about 11 a.m. every day except Friday, the day of prayer.

Over the course of an hour one recent day, 14-year-old Mahmoud Ahmed managed four trips to the counter. His job, he said, was to ensure a steady stream of bread for a nearby food vendor, who then resold it in sandwiches. It appeared that the baker let him push his way to the front to get bread before others. Was there a deal going? Mahmoud would not say.

Down the road, five blocks away, a 12-year-old, Muhammad Abdul Nabi, was selling bread, the same kind of bread, from a makeshift table for more than double the price at the bakery. But there were no lines. [Egypt’s Problem and Its Challenge: Bread Corrupts. Michael Slackman, Nadim Audi. NYT. January 17 2008]

Subsidy, lines and pressure to sell the commodity at a higher price. Sounds familiar?

Categories
Economics

[1513] Of winners need not compensate losers

Steven Landsburg:

All economists know that when American jobs are outsourced, Americans as a group are net winners. What we lose through lower wages is more than offset by what we gain through lower prices. In other words, the winners can more than afford to compensate the losers. Does that mean they ought to? Does it create a moral mandate for the taxpayer-subsidized retraining programs proposed by Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney?

[…]

One way to think about that is to ask what your moral instincts tell you in analogous situations. Suppose, after years of buying shampoo at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? When you eat at McDonald’s, should you compensate the owners of the diner next door? Public policy should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of our lives.

[…]

Bullying and protectionism have a lot in common. They both use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich someone else at your involuntary expense. If you’re forced to pay $20 an hour to an American for goods you could have bought from a Mexican for $5 an hour, you’re being extorted. When a free trade agreement allows you to buy from the Mexican after all, rejoice in your liberation — even if Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney and the rest of the presidential candidates don’t want you to. [What to Expect When You’re Free Trading. Steven Landsburg. NYT. January 16 2008]

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1509] Of a rational world with perfect information makes fuel prices hike irrelevant

There is strong expectation that fuel prices will increase after the expected upcoming general election and the impetus for such expectation is clear. The Malaysian government’s no-hike guarantee lapsed as 2007 regressed into history while crude oil prices have increased significantly since the last hike took place.[1] Meanwhile, prices hike is a very unpopular move[2] and it can be disastrous for any incumbent facing an election. While the reasoning does make sense, it somehow reminds me of the Ricardian equivalence. Indeed, I am inclined to say that given strong expectation of a hike, it does not matter when the hike will take place. In other words, assuming rational individuals with perfect information, fuel prices hike is irrelevant to the result of the expected Malaysian election.

First of all, while I mentioned Ricardian equivalence, the economic theory has only a hint of relevance to the issue at hand. I will not go into the theory in great detail but somewhere along its rationale, the concept suggests that it does not matter when the state raises funds through one-time taxation or debt.[3] The effect will be the same with only one exception: timing difference. This is because individuals accommodate their expectation and shape their behavior accordingly. In either case, between raising debt or rising tax, individuals changes their saving and spending levels to make their lives less painful especially given the eventuality of taxation in the scenario. This is where the concept influences my thought on how fuel prices hike affects Malaysian election.

Honestly, if people greatly suspect that fuel prices hike will follow the election in the tradition of fatalism, assuming the incumbent stays in power, does it matter when the hike will occur?

There is a speeding train running on an unfinished track leading to a horrifying large canyon with no chance of halting the train. You know that the train will be at the bottom of the canyon within the next few minutes. Assuming you actually care for self-preservation, does it matter when you should jump off the train as long as you do not end up at the bottom of the gorge with your face rearranged?

The nature of fatalism is that it is unavoidable and one might as well accept it. Through interaction with a lot of people, I have the perception that they embrace fatalism as far as the fuel prices hike is concerned. There is a clear resignation that nothing could be done about it among them. I have to admit though that I am one of those fatalists and actually support a hike. In fact, I advocate taxation along with floating prices arrangement but that is another issue altogether.

Alas, not all of us are privy to complete information regarding the hike. On top of that, not all of us are a fatalist, either by ignorance or special knowledge. In an imperfect world unfortunately, fuel prices hike will affect the election to a certain degree.

While the conclusion may look like mere mental masturbation and irrelevant to the real world, it does inform policymakers, or rather, the incumbents on how to manage the general public expectation to the incumbents’ benefit, given belief in fatalism and imperfect information. I will share some thought on the matter later.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 5 (Bernama) — The government has reiterated several times that there would be no increase in the price of oil or gas products for the year 2007.

But the reprieve is expected not to last long as we enter the new year and as global fuel prices continued to surge.

Oil prices added nearly US$12 a barrel since the start of October and reached US$93.80 (about RM313) a barrel last Monday (Oct 30) and US$96.24 (about RM321) on Nov 1. Some reports have also mentioned that oil prices could break the US$100 mark if risk factors influencing the sharp rise are to continue. [Bracing For Another Price Hike For Fuel Products. Bernama. Extracted November 5 2007]

[2] — As expected, Malaysians reacted with shock, frustration and anger to having to pay 30 sen more for every litre of petrol and diesel.

Unexpected was the ferocity of sentiment on the ground a day after the biggest single petrol price hike. The common man, already feeling the pinch of the rising cost of living, spewed a litany of complaints and grouses. Consumer groups and trade unions warned the fuel price hike would set off a chain reaction across the board. [Price hike pain for RM4.4b gain. New Straits Times. March 1 2006]

[3] — See Wikipedia for more on Ricardian equivalence.

Categories
Economics Liberty

[1502] Of welcome to the Soviet Union

Remind me again, did the Communist defeat the combined Commonwealth forces during the Malayan Emergency?

PUTRAJAYA: Five kilograms — that is the maximum amount of cooking oil that each consumer can buy when a move to solve the shortage of the essential item is enforced next week.

Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk Shafie Apdal however did not specify when the move would be implemented to increase stocks of cooking oil, especially in areas like Kelantan, Pahang, Malacca, Kedah and some parts of the Klang Valley where the shelves are getting bare. [5kg buying limit on cooking oil. The Star. January 5 2008]

I ask you comrades, because our economic policies are showing the characteristic inefficiency[1] of a communist economy.

Let prices be free instead. I would rather have inequality in wealth rather than equality in poverty.

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

p/s — This is Malaysia under the Abdullah administration:

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

It is time to take it back. If we do not, these people would have died in vain. They would have fought for nothing.

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

[1] — See remarks in the comment section. Shortage is not uncommon. Similar episodes are observable in the past, for instance, in the sugar market not too long ago. Such shortages constitute inefficiency. After some rethinking, the word inefficiency works better than the word characteristic. Indeed, Malaysia has run a centralized economy for the longest time but I do not remember when was the last time the government has imposed a rationing regime on goods (okay, apart from water…). Perhaps, I am suffering from recency effect bias but the point here, taking the hyperbole aside, there is a mismanagement of the economy that is associated with centralized planning.

Categories
Economics

[1500] Of Tata’s Jag?

Jan. 3 (Bloomberg) — Ford Motor Co. selected Tata Motors Ltd. as the preferred bidder for Jaguar and Land Rover, putting India’s largest truckmaker in a position to take over two iconic British luxury auto brands. [Tata in Talks to Buy Ford’s Jaguar, Land Rover Units. Bloomberg. January 3 2008]

Hmm…