Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Are subsidies always bad?

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby venky » Sat 30 Aug 2008, 21:04:01

In some cases it is a no brainer that it causes serious damage. Like of instance in India fuel subsidies are given to the entire population, distorting demand and prevents market prices from reducing consumption. In the end this causes huge debt for the public oil companies who are unable to pass their costs onto their consumers.

But on the other hand there are those who are really poor and I mean really poor who are desperately dependent on low cost kerosene for cooking. In this case eliminating the subsidies might cause starvation or atleast malnutrition. It will also almost definately lead to riots and a breakdown of law and order in poorer neighbourhoods.

So should subsidies be used in order to protect the most vulnerable members of society? It can also be used to allocate resources for areas of economic development which are deemed necessary by society, like for instance renewable energy.

Ofcourse subsidies can always be misused by goverment in order to buy votes; so the question remains is it worthwhile to have a government or legislative that is enpowered to allocate subsidies when it wants.
I play the cards I'm dealt, though I sometimes bluff.

Only Man is vile.
venky
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun 13 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby BlueGhostNo2 » Sat 30 Aug 2008, 21:53:50

well given your goal is 'stop people starving to death' I think it makes more sense to pay them an amount of money sufficient to stop them starving to death and no more. Why use a subsidy?
User avatar
BlueGhostNo2
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue 24 Jun 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby Snowrunner » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 00:35:40

I think it what a society decides is worth spending money on. Free Education? Massive amounts of Food? Cheap Energy for individual transportation?

If you put subsidies in then the end result will always be that more people make more use of the subsidized product, there are clearly areas where this is damaging, but others where I would say an "enlightened" society should invest.

Some of the things that come to mind:
- Food production, and by that I don't mean to make it cheaper for Food Processors to get raw materials, but by a two pronged approach:
1. Subsidize the production of "complete" food, e.g. a carrott instead of "precursors" e.g. corn.
2. Provide "Foodstamps" or similar subsidies to the low income households that are directly affected by this. Tie these to those complete foods though and thus help the farmer to find a market which in the long run should reduce the dependencies on their subsidies.

- Education
An educated society is more adaptable and flexible in crisis situations. Plus an informed population will also participate in a vote. Of course no politician wants their citizen to really understand what they are doing.

- Public Services
To these I would count essentials. This would include public transit, power, water or even telecommunications. The latter one doesn't need to be devoided of Governmenet subsidies / sponsorship, I rather could envision a basic service level provided by the Government with the private sector filling in the bells and whistles.

That's of the top of my head. Subsidies aren't evil, but they become evil when certain special interest groups take them over.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby Gerben » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 05:44:15

Subsidies can have a very positive effect. There are however always negative side-effects.

The cooking fuel subsidy is used in many countries in the world. Many countries that have no welfare system use subsidies for food and fuels to make basic necessities more affordable. Controlling prices at the border is more cost-effective for them than setting up a welfare system.
Another reason for cooking fuel subsidies is deforestation. Give poor people money and some will make a living chopping down trees for firewood. Giving them cheap cooking fuel reduces deforestation. Now that the prices of fuels in many countries are rising, deforestation will accellerate.
User avatar
Gerben
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed 07 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Holland, Belgica Foederata (Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby Quinny » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 06:38:16

No of course not. Subsidies, like taxes can be used as an effective lever to direct spending towards longer term strategic goals.

Look where a 'free' market's got us!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby cube » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 08:43:45

venky wrote:...But on the other hand there are those who are really poor and I mean really poor who are desperately dependent on low cost kerosene for cooking. In this case eliminating the subsidies might cause starvation or atleast malnutrition. It will also almost definately lead to riots and a breakdown of law and order in poorer neighbourhoods. ...
Subsidies by definition do NOT sustain themselves. Like a parasite it must find a host to live on.
In theory a subsidy can exist for an indefinite amount of time so long as it meets two conditions:
1) it does NOT grow
2) it's "host" continues to produce an economic surplus equal to or greater then what is necessary to feed the subsidy.

Getting back to the cooking oil example unfortunately it fails on both points. As the cost of oil goes up:
1) the cost of providing this cooking oil subsidy will too
2) the middle class will contract and some of the people who once paid taxes to "give to" the system will now be on the "receiving end".

What can be done? Not much. If the government cuts these people off then there will be a French Revolution.
If instead the gov. continues with business as usual then there will be an easter island scenario. Take your pick. :twisted:
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby TommyJefferson » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 09:01:58

Subsidies ALWAYS distort markets in ways that result in a higher level of suffering, corruption, and malinvestment.

Look at FreddieMac and FannieMay. Look at our American transportation system. Look at our agricultural system.

Go study economics... link

Subsidies create slaves and political violence. Use reason to learn why non-violence is better.
Conform . Consume . Obey .
User avatar
TommyJefferson
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu 19 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Texas and Los Angeles

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby MarkJ » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 09:26:58

The rental, home improvement, heating equipment service/upgrade/replacement and heating fuels subsidies have been good for our businesses. Insulating, weatherizing and replacing windows, furnaces, boilers and water heaters can save millions of gallons of fuel. Many of my apartment buildings and investment properties were partially paid for by subsidized rents, subsidized home improvements, block grants etc. If the subsidies, tax breaks, grants and incentives didn't exist, many properties would have fallen apart and been abandoned like many other city properties.

One the other hand, subsidizing heating fuels for homeowners with uninsulated homes and 50 percent efficiency heating equipment effectively promotes waste indefinitely. The waste is good for our fuel sales business, but bad for the taxpayers and private organizations that fund these programs.

The rub with freebies and subsidies is that safety nets have created multi generation dependency. When someone runs out of food, fuel, or has their gas, water and electric service terminated, taxpayers and/or private organizations will often bail them out.
User avatar
MarkJ
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 09:40:45

Subsidies distort the supply and demand curve. They cause people to use whatever thing you're subsidizing in excess of what they would normally do. If there is some other benefit to society, subsidies might make sense. For example, a community might subsidize a recycling program to reduce it's landfill costs.

Subsidizing an expensive, scarce, natural resource like petroleum that people really should be conserving is maddness. For the poor of India that you were mentioning, what subsidies will do is allow them to become (or stay) dependent on a resource they can't afford. It will allow them to reproduce and have children based on the expectation of continued access to that resource. It will allow them to delay dealing with their economic reality and in so doing, will set them up for an even greater calamity in the future. Reality is difficult, but denial is ultimately a lot worse.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby TommyJefferson » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:09:36

Government central planners simply cannot know the millions of variables that determine how to most efficiently and fairly utilize any resource.

ALWAYS they malinvest. Always they create a situation where whomever controls the political power can use the legal force of the state to unfairly take advantage of others.

Look at New Orleans. If not for subsidies, it wouldn't be there, hundreds of thousands of people would not be suffering evacuation and crime. Billions of dollars could have been spent improving the lives of the people who earned that money instead of wasted on a sinkhole.

Go study economics.
Conform . Consume . Obey .
User avatar
TommyJefferson
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu 19 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Texas and Los Angeles

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby dsula » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:09:44

TommyJefferson wrote:Subsidies ALWAYS distort markets in ways that result in a higher level of suffering, corruption, and malinvestment. Look at FreddieMac and FannieMay. Look at our American transportation system. Look at our agricultural system.
Go study economics... link Subsidies create slaves and political violence. Use reason to learn why non-violence is better.

Not true. Subsidies should not be confused with welfare or public spending on public infrastructure.
Subsidies should be used to jump-start and establish business that are not currently present in an area.
User avatar
dsula
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby TommyJefferson » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:12:45

dsula wrote:Subsidies should not be confused with welfare or public spending on public infrastructure.

Wrong. Subsidies are subsidies, regardless of what they are spent on. Go learn economics.
Conform . Consume . Obey .
User avatar
TommyJefferson
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu 19 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Texas and Los Angeles

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby dsula » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:23:39

TommyJefferson wrote:
dsula wrote:Subsidies should not be confused with welfare or public spending on public infrastructure.
Wrong. Subsidies are subsidies, regardless of what they are spent on. Go learn economics.

True and not. I looked up the definitions. It can be anything and the broadest is simply "financial aid". So you're right. However subsidies is not public spending on public projects. Or is it? Because if the town builds a new road, that is not subsidy, right? What about paying operating a public school? That is not either, is it?
User avatar
dsula
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby Quinny » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:41:24

Where from?
TommyJefferson wrote:
dsula wrote:Subsidies should not be confused with welfare or public spending on public infrastructure.
Wrong. Subsidies are subsidies, regardless of what they are spent on. Go learn economics.
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby TommyJefferson » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:52:05

dsula wrote:However subsidies is not public spending on public projects. Or is it?

Yes. They are.

sub·si·dy –noun, plural -dies.
1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3. a grant or contribution of money.
Conform . Consume . Obey .
User avatar
TommyJefferson
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu 19 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Texas and Los Angeles

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby cube » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:20:28

dsula wrote:...
Not true. Subsidies should not be confused with welfare or public spending on public infrastructure.
Subsidies should be used to jump-start and establish business that are not currently present in an area.
It does not matter if something is amazingly popular and 90% of the general public thinks it's the best thing since the invention of sliced bread.
a subsidy is still a subsidy:

For example public transportation seems to fit the above description pretty well. It might cost $1.50 to take the bus however that only covers maybe 1/3rd the operating costs. Taxes cover the rest. In order for the system to be "unsubsidized" meaning those who use the service pay for it's full costs --> a bus ticket would have to cost $4.50 ouch >_<

Not every government service is subsidized.
In Europe gasoline taxes more then cover the costs of maintaining all freeways and roads. A gas tax can be thought of as a "user fee" for roads because realistically speaking the only people who buy gasoline are those who drive cars.
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 13:21:38

TommyJefferson wrote:Government central planners simply cannot know the millions of variables that determine how to most efficiently and fairly utilize any resource.

ALWAYS they malinvest. Always they create a situation where whomever controls the political power can use the legal force of the state to unfairly take advantage of others.


I hear you. For example subsidizing a recycling program probably wouldn't be necessary if the government didn't subsidize the landfill. It doesn't allways work out that neatly though. For example, in many of the counties in Montana (but not all) they have publicly funded greenbox sites. It's basically a pull off from the road with a bunch of dumpsters that the county comes and empties a couple of times a week. The idea is that its much easier and simpler to run the greenbox site than it is to try and disuade people from dumping their trash down gullies and clean it up when they do. That makes a lot of sense to me. To pass the actual costs onto consumers would be really complex and difficult to fairly implement fairly. You would have to figure out a disposal tax on every retail item that's sold, collect it, give people a partial refund if the recycle it. Ultimately administering all that would be far more expensive than just putting out some dumpsters and emptying them periodically.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby dsula » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 13:23:13

cube wrote:For example public transportation seems to fit the above description pretty well. It might cost $1.50 to take the bus however that only covers maybe 1/3rd the operating costs. Taxes cover the rest. In order for the system to be "unsubsidized" meaning those who use the service pay for it's full costs --> a bus ticket would have to cost $4.50 ouch >_<

If the definitionl TommyJeff gave is correct, then every penny spent by a govenrment is subsidy. And if it's only buying a pen. That's it.

However your exmple above is very good. If gov pays a PRIVATE company money to keep fares low, this is subsidy. If the bus system is a public operation, owned by the public, run by the gov, this I would categorize not as subsidy, but public spending on infrastructure. My way of defining it.
User avatar
dsula
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby Quinny » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 13:46:25

There seems to be a general acceptance that the market rules on this thread. IMHO this is absolute b******* . It's a good servnt but a terrible master, look where it's got us!!!
dsula wrote:
cube wrote:For example public transportation seems to fit the above description pretty well. It might cost $1.50 to take the bus however that only covers maybe 1/3rd the operating costs. Taxes cover the rest. In order for the system to be "unsubsidized" meaning those who use the service pay for it's full costs --> a bus ticket would have to cost $4.50 ouch >_<

If the definitionl TommyJeff gave is correct, then every penny spent by a govenrment is subsidy. And if it's only buying a pen. That's it.

However your exmple above is very good. If gov pays a PRIVATE company money to keep fares low, this is subsidy. If the bus system is a public operation, owned by the public, run by the gov, this I would categorize not as subsidy, but public spending on infrastructure. My way of defining it.
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Are subsidies always bad?

Unread postby Dreamtwister » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 13:58:00

I like the milk example.

Let's pretend that the actual retail price of milk is $4.00. Pretty discouraging, isn't it?

Well since the government heavily subsidizes milk, grocery stores are able to put up a much more comfortable sticker price of $2.00. The price to the consumer appears cheaper, doesn't it? Well it's not, because the government had to cough up the extra $2 from it's own revenues, either directly from taxes, or indirectly through inflation.

But even worse, is that everybody chips in for that extra $2, even if they never drink any milk. Where's the "Didn't drink any milk this year" deduction on my tax form?

And finally, subsidies are anti-small business. Huge agribusinesses like ADM, Cargill and Monsanto are capable of operating on less profit-per-unit because they have scale. Joe the farmer can not. So Joe the farmer gets pushed out of business, which he then has to sell to...you guessed it...ADM, Cargill and Monsanto.

But the situation is even uglier than all that!

What if the government of Guadalawhothehellcares decides to subsidize it's farmers to the tune of $3? You know someone is eventually going to find a way to profit from loading that surplus milk onto a plane and flying it to markets half-way around the world. Don't laugh. At my neighborhood supermarket, I can buy tomatos from Spain for less than those grown locally.

Even education is a risky investment. When the population is well-educated, not only are they a threat to the government, they think of themselves as too good to swing a mop for minimum wage. Somebody has to shovel the shit, or society doesn't work.
The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
Dreamtwister
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2529
Joined: Mon 06 Feb 2006, 04:00:00

Next

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests