Categories
Economics

[1821] Of Minister Shahrir suggested elimination of fuel subsidy

According to Bernama:

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 31 (Bernama) — Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad today suggested the government removed the 30 sen subsidy on fuel prices if the pump price goes below RM1.92 a litre. [Govt Should Remove 30 Sen Subsidy On Fuel Prices, Says Shahrir. Bernama. October 31 2008]

Four days ago, I suggested a similar move with the similar mechanism, i.e. removal of subsidy when the market prices fall below the current subsidized retail prices. I shamelessly quote myself:

With global crude oil prices having more than halved since it peaked at about USD150 per barrel just months ago, this is definitely one of those rare opportunities to make a permanent structural change to our economy by effectively eliminating the fuel subsidy for once and for all.

[…]

With decreasing subsidy quantum, the government could just maintain the current prices until the quantum of subsidy becomes zero. This happens when market prices equalize with the current subsidized prices. In doing so, elimination of subsidy does not require a hike in retail prices. When that happens, the government could immediately float it.

This strategy significantly reduces political opposition to the idea of subsidy removal. I suspect what was protested in the past was prices hike, not subsidy removal per se. [Of the best time to kill off the fuel subsidy. The __earthinc October 27 2008]

I also wrote in the same entry:

Unfortunately, there is little chance for this little maneuvering to see daylight. The government has already hinted for further reduction of RM0.15 by the end of this month. [Of the best time to kill off the fuel subsidy. The __earthinc October 27 2008]

I would like to take that back. There is a chance after all if the dear Minister pursues the matter with tack.

Categories
Economics Humor

[1818] Of tautology of the day

Prediction is hard, especially about the future. [Slippery slope. Free Exchange. October 28 2008]

Shall we predict the past?

But here is something less tautologous by Myron Scholes (via):

Economic theory suggests that financial innovation must lead to failures. And, in particular, since successful innovations are hard to predict, the infrastructure necessary to support innovation needs to lag the innovations themselves, which increases the probability that controls will be insufficient at times to prevent breakdowns in governance mechanisms. Failures, however, do not lead to the conclusion that re-regulation will succeed in stemming future failures. Or that society will be better off with fewer freedoms. Although governments are able to regulate organisational forms, they are unable to regulate the services provided by competing entities, many yet to be born. Organisational forms change with financial innovations. Although functions of finance remain static and are similar in Africa, Asia, Europe and the United States, their provision is dynamic as entities attempt to profit by providing services at lower cost and greater benefit than competing alternatives.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1817] Of the best time to kill off the fuel subsidy

With global crude oil prices having more than halved since it peaked at about USD150 per barrel just months ago, this is definitely one of those rare opportunities to make a permanent structural change to our economy by effectively eliminating the fuel subsidy for once and for all.

The growth rate of subsidy size at the current prices must be relatively small compared to months ago. Back in June, Malaysians saw retail prices for gasoline jumped by approximately 40%. Since then, somewhat in tandem with falling global prices of crude oil, the Malaysian government has decided to significantly reduce the retail prices though we have yet to see the levels seen prior to the hike in June.

Why does the current environment offer the best time to execute this?

With decreasing subsidy quantum, the government could just maintain the current prices until the quantum of subsidy becomes zero. This happens when market prices equalize with the current subsidized prices. In doing so, elimination of subsidy does not require a hike in retail prices. When that happens, the government could immediately float it.

This strategy significantly reduces political opposition to the idea of subsidy removal. I suspect what was protested in the past was prices hike, not subsidy removal per se.

So, this is the political sustainability required for economic sustainability.

Unfortunately, there is little chance for this little maneuvering to see daylight. The government has already hinted for further reduction of RM0.15 by the end of this month.[1]

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

[1] — JOHOR BARU, MALAYSIA: The petrol price may fall by up to 15 sen when it is reviewed at the end of the month. [Petrol cheaper by 15 sen?. Satiman Jamin. New Straits Times. October 26 2008]

Categories
Economics

[1814] Of different treatment for different circumstances

It is true that the world is more integrated than ever. Major developments on the other side of the world may affect the local environment. Being one of the top trading nations in the world with an export-driven economy, it is undeniable that a reduced consumption in the economies of our major trading partners — specifically the United States — will adversely affect our export sector and ultimately the Malaysian economy.

As the economic crisis unravels and insidiously spreads globally, it is crucial to keep in mind that the local economic environment is different from that of the US. A problem faced by the US economy may not be the same as that faced by the Malaysian economy.

The integration of the world economy is within the grasp of many Malaysians. It is amazing how many Malaysians are attuned to the economic turmoil in the US. This is a cause for celebration because this demonstrates the existence of the free flow of information. That in many ways is crucial in creating a liberal society with empowered individuals.

The idea of connectedness is enhanced by the fact that many households have access to CNN, CNBC and Bloomberg, among others, which keep them informed with the latest nightmares-turned-real on Wall Street and its counterparts across the world.

But something is horribly wrong with the picture. The centric-ness of perception bugs me.

It has been joked that the world according to a typical American begins with Hawaii and California in the west and ends with the West Coast with a whole lot of red states in the middle. To the north are people who end their sentences with “eh” for some unclear reason while to the south, always there are huddled masses yearning to breathe free trying to break into the US. Anything else beyond the US borders is irrelevant, except for some obscure countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and that one country where French fries supposedly come from and Europe. The perception is that the average American worldview is US-centric.

This is an unkind gross generalization of Americans but to a large extent, it describes the coverage of CNN, CNBC and Bloomberg. These news channels report — especially CNBC and Bloomberg given the fact that these are financial channels — news from the US perspective. It is more likely to give greater coverage over the US economy instead of the local economy. And it does not help when the coverage is biased towards that of the stock markets rather than the real economy.

While many Malaysians are exposed to events outside of our borders, one has to be cautious in taking the US economy as a complete parallel of the Malaysia economy. Yet, here in Kuala Lumpur under the incessant rain, I find Malaysians unreasonably subscribing to US-centrism.

I therefore wonder whether it is possible that some are merely absorbing US-centric commentaries word for word without critically considering their relevance to the local economy? Being informed is great but what use is it when one merely memorizes the lines without comprehending the implication or non-implication in this age of information overload?

This is not another “decoupling theory” which suggests that a particular economy could be isolated from global events. Whenever the US sneezes, the world catches a cold and that world includes Malaysia since the country is not an autarky by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, this only stresses the different issues which Malaysia and the US are facing. Malaysia needs to run a set of policies different from that seen in the US and other countries in crisis.

Despite the importance of the US to the Malaysian economy, the two economies are different. For example, first of all, the main cause haunting the US economy is the deflating of the housing bubble. For Malaysia, there is no housing bubble; even if there was one, it has not deflated it. Secondly, sub-prime lending along with the associated securities are practically non-existent in Malaysia. Even if there was one, that would be dependent on the housing bubble. The closest shave Malaysia saw was probably the one involving AIG. After considering the level of debt, foreign reserve, laws and regulation as well as other important indicators, the difference between the two economies is as clear as daylight.

There may be more close shaves later and if one does hit us, it is likely that the crisis would be exogenous in nature — meaning originating from outside of our borders — instead of endogenous or caused from within. In all likelihood, if a crisis does hit us — knock on wood — it is likely that Malaysia will defend the local economy from exogenous waves rather than protecting the local economy from itself.

The impacts will be different from that seen in the US and the solutions will be different from those employed in the US. Therefore, any effort to stimulate the Malaysian economy will require policies tailor-made to local circumstances rather than cut-and-paste ones.

That requires the relevant authority to keep close tabs on various indicators of the local real economy. These indicators at the moment suggest that issues plaguing the US economy are different from what Malaysia is facing, though the issues are connected in one way or another.

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

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Economics

[1813] Of what is RM18 billion compared to RM100 billion?

In the Parliament, a Member of Parliament was concerned with the outflow of money due to foreign workers sending part of their wages back home. Finance Minister Najib Razak, in answering the MP, gave a piece of statistics which highlights the benefit of foreign workers.

PARLIAMENT, Oct 22 – Malaysia’s 2.1 million foreign workers repatriated RM9.11 billion for the first half of 2008 and Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak said the government expects it will total RM18.1 billion for the entire year.

“This averages out to RM720 per month sent home by each worker. However, the strong national reserve can withstand this as it amounts to just 4.7 per cent of our current reserve,” the Finance Minister told Parliament today.

He added that for every one per cent increase in foreign labour, Malaysia’s real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by 0.19 per cent.

Datuk Halimah Sadique (BN-Tenggara) had asked if any action would be taken to address the outflow and whether the government intends to impose any levy or tax on it. [Foreign workers repatriate RM9 billion until June 2008. The Malaysian Insider. October 22 2008]

Let us see. It says 1.00% increase of foreign workers leads to 0.19% increase in GDP. With nominal GDP of Malaysia being approximately RM505 billion in 2007, that means an additional 21,000 foreign workers add almost RM1 billion to the GDP. Now, assuming there is a linear correlation, 2.1 million foreign workers add RM100 billion to the economy. That is about 1/5 of the GDP of Malaysia. Granted, a linear relationship is unlikely and I can begin to criticize myself for the careless use of statistics but it does give us an estimated benefit ceiling.

A slightly more accurate estimate which circumvents the validity of linear assumption is this: 21,000 foreign workers lead to an outflow of about RM180 million (RM720 per capita per month; 12 months; 21,000 workers). In comparison, these workers add roughly RM1,000 million (that is RM1 billion) to the GDP at this particular point of time.

So, what is RM180 million to RM1,000 million? What is RM18 billion compared to RM100 billion?

Assuming that outflow is a loss to the local economy, returns from wealth generation is, at most, 400% larger than the outflow.

As we all can see, support for the continuing usage of foreign workers is grounded on empirical data.