Asia Sentinel - Malaysia cuts fuel subsidy

One of the recurring themes of this blog is the conflict between good politics and good economics. Most of the time in government, smart economic policy is sacrificed in order to achieve political favor with voters. Whether it’s price ceilings on petrol in China, Zimbabwe’s slashing of food prices, harmful import restrictions to benefit domestic producers, or the proposed suspension of gas taxes in a time when fuel conservation is really what’s needed, politicians often act in economically stupid ways to bolster or hang on to their popularity.

So when a government makes a bold move that is economically sound, it sometimes comes as a surprise, as in the case of the Malaysian government this week. The government in Kuala Lumpur has for years subsidized domestic fuel prices, which at under 2 Malaysian Ringit per liter have been the equivelant of roughly $2.40 US per gallon, far below the average price in the west. Drivers benefited from this subsidy, but were not forced to bear any of the burden of rising oil prices, nor had they any incentive to conserve or switch to more fuel efficient automobiles or alternative forms of transportation. The Malaysian government, on the other hand, has had to allocate more and more of its limited budget towards subsidizing petrol prices.

Well, as of yesterday, all price supports for petrol are cancelled, and the effect will be sweeping in the Malaysian economy:

The government announced Wednesday evening that petrol prices would rise by 78 sen (US24¢) at midnight — a 41 percent jump from RM1.92 per liter to RM2.70. That means those spending RM2,000 per month to fill the tanks of their BMWs will now be paying RM2,820. Regardless of income levels, it is likely most Malaysians will feel the pinch.

The subsidy would have cost the Malaysian government 56 billion ringit (around $17 billion) this year. With the money it will now save by ending the subsidy, the government will begin making public transport cheaper and more convenient for commuters who wish to avoid paying for the more expensive petrol to fuel their personal automobiles:

The government hopes to channel the savings into improving public transportation, as it promised many years and elections ago but with little to show. In Kuala Lumpur, despite having a light rail train service and monorail, public transportation is expensive and inconvenient. Worse, intercity travel is still being serviced by old and slow trains, and accident-prone buses.

Malaysia is not the only country taking measures to end government fuel-price supports:

Indonesia has hiked fuel prices by an average of 29 percent, saving about 34.5 trillion rupiah and kicking off a series of street demonstrations… Similarly, after slashing subsidies, Taiwan will distribute US$659 million to middle and low-income families. The latest to raise oil prices is India, whose government announced Wednesday that gasoline and diesel prices will increase by 10 percent.

Competitively Priced Electricity Costs More, Studies Show - New York Times

The problem with monopolies, as our AP students have learned, is that a monopolistic firm, left to its own accord, will most likely choose to produce at an output level that is much lower and provide their product at a price that is much higher than would result from a purely competitive industry. A monopolist will produce where its price is greater than its marginal cost, indicating an under-allocation of resources towards the product. By restricting output and raising its price, the monopolist is assured maximum profits, but at the cost to society of less overall consumer surplus or welfare.

Unfortunately, in some industries, because of the wide range of output over which economies of scale are experienced, it sometimes makes the most sense for only one firm to participate. Such markets are called “natural monopolies” and some examples are cable television, utilities, natural gas, and other industries that have large economies of scale. (click graph to see full-sized) Continue Reading »

Well, not exactly, but that’s kind of a dramatic headline, isn’t it? The other day I blogged about the shortages experienced in the petrol market in eastern provinces, evidenced by the long queues at gas stations around Shanghai last weekend.

Petrol stations resorted to rationing their product in small doses (between 20 and 40 litres) as the price of oil hit $92 and Chinese refiners scaled back production due to rising costs that they were unable to pass on to their customers. Beijing had previously imposed a price ceiling on fuel in an attempt to keep inflation low and Chinese consumers content; the actual impact of this price control was predictable: not enough fuel to go around as the quantity demanded exceeded the quantity supplied, leading to shortages and rationing at the pump.

Continue Reading »

China rations diesel as record oil hits supplies | Markets | Reuters

As I headed into the city for dinner with friends on Saturday night, I witnessed an unusual site: as our taxi passed a petrol station, I saw about 25 or 30 blue trucks (the ubiquitous medium of transporting good from Shanghai’s factories to her ports) spilling out of the parking lot into the road, apparently queued, waiting for a spot at the pump. I’d never seen such a line at any of the petrol stations around Shanghai, and briefly wondered whether it was just a busy night or whether something else was amiss.

Well, reading the headlines in today’s news, I stumbled upon a clear economic answer to the petrol pump mystery. It appears that China has begun rationing diesel fuel at petrol stations in the East Coat provinces.

Truck drivers reported long queues at petrol stations along a national highway linking Fujian and Zhejiang provinces, with each truck getting 100 yuan ($13) worth of diesel, or around 20 litres, per visit at a state-run station and 40 litres at a private kiosk…

“What’s wrong with the oil market? Our drivers had to queue the whole night for only a small amount of fill, slowing the traffic by almost one day,” said Gao Meili, who manages a logistics company.

Continue Reading »

Kremlin Secures Price Controls on Food Items Before Elections - New York Times

Okay, students. This article needs to introduction, no summary, no analysis, no passages quoted, I barely even glanced at the article myself! Read the headline… if you’re interested, read the article; but it should be nothing new to you at this point. It’s the same flawed economic thinking that led Zimbabweans to attempt to eat a poor giraffe, and the Chinese decision to freeze certain prices in the run up to the 17th meeting of the Chinese Communist Party Congress earlier this month.

What’s wrong with this sort of economic policy? Why do governments still attempt such policies, and why do people still fall for such tricks played by paranoid leaders obsessed with placating the masses through “generous” price controls? What do you expect will result from Russia’s price controls?

Hat tip to Greg Mankiw for the link.

Speaking of our old friend Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe has just announced he’s launching The Robert Mugabe Intelligence Academy. His stated purpose for opening this institute, which will train government officials from the greater Southern African region?

“The important role of defending our country cannot be left to mediocre officers incapable of comprehending and analytically evaluating the operational environment to ensure that the sovereignty of our state is not only preserved, but enhanced,” Mugabe said.

Before settling on the institutes’s official name, several options were tossed around, including the close runner up: “The Robert Mugabe Institute for People Who Can’t Do Economics Good and Want to Learn to Do Other Things Good Too.”

Powered by ScribeFire.

Hungry Zimbabweans Try to Eat Giraffe

A while back we blogged about Robert Mugabe’s order to freeze all prices in Zimbabwe in order to halt the country’s hyperinflation. At the time we were studying equilibrium price and how it results in allocative and productive efficiency, meaning that neither too much or too little of a particular product is produced given the availability of resources and manufacturing technology.

A few months after the price controls took affect, the question remains, how are the people of Zimbabwe fairing? I think the headline above answers this question rather clearly. From the article:

Police stopped villagers from slaughtering and eating a giraffe that strayed into the outskirts of the capital amid chronic food shortages caused by an economic crisis, the official media reported Saturday.

Continue Reading »

Thanks to Jeewon Oh, Shanghai American School AP Econ student, for posting the link to this excellent article about supply and demand for teachers in Mississippi. Jeewon posted this article and her below summary of it to our class’s “AP Econ in the News” page on the wiki. CLICK HERE to see the other articles and summaries posted by students relating to our current unit on Supply and Demand. Here’s Jeewon’s article:

Teachers: Shortages require pay hikes -The Clarion-Ledger- Real Mississippi

And here’s Jeewon’s summary from the wiki:

In Mississippi, there are not enough teachers in the classrooms. This teacher shortage is becoming a greater problem, as 50 percent of the teachers nationwide are estimated to leave the profession within five years. In August there were 1,270  requests for one-year education licenses, which would result in temporary and unqualified teachers in schools. Despite the fact that 1,400 education majors graduate from Mississippi colleges, only 900 become teachers. The State Superintendent of Education Hank Bounds realized that if wages increased, there would be more teachers willing to work. Bounds currently wants a 3 percent pay raise andaddition of 5 years to the pay schedule for teachers. This is asupply-and-demand issue, as the Legislative Budget Committee is planning to supply, or offer, higher wages, predicting that more teachers will be demanding and willing to take the job, due to the change in their income.

The reason this article jumped out at me is because it relates to so many of the topics we’ve studied in unit 2 of Microeconomics, particularly our last class where we learned about how free, competitive markets lead to an allocatively efficient outcome. In public schools in America, wages paid to teachers are essentially set by the state and local governments; in essence there is a price ceiling in the market for teachers. According to the article:

Mississippi has been on a plan to get pay competitive, but it still lags. Base pay for a starting teacher is about $30,000. The average salary is $40,594, short of the Southeastern average of $42,333. The national average is $47,674.

Given the severe shortage of teachers in Mississippi and the nation as a whole, what does this say about the average salaries being paid to teachers? What can we conclude about the allocation of resources towards education? Is the market for public education in the United States allocatively efficient? How does Jeewon’s article present a solid argument for the privatization of education in the US? How might taking some of the responsibility of providing education out of government hands result in a more efficient allocation of resources towards schools?

Great article, Jeewon, thanks for the link and the nice summary. From now on, when I see an excellent article like Jeewon’s accompanied by a fine summary such as the one above, I will plan to post it to this blog so others can benefit from the research and reading that our AP students are sharing through our class wiki. The AP Econ in the News page is a great place economics teachers and students to come find useful articles for their classes, as well, so I encourage you to bookmark it. A new page is added for each unit, and it can be found under each unit’s main page.

Powered by ScribeFire.

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / China - Beijing rejects North American pork

Here’s a follow up to the previous post about China’s attempt to keep inflation low by clamping down on rising prices through price controls. The main cause of the record inflation figures is the shortage of pork in the country. This headline’s irony was obvious, only a few articles below the one linked in the last post!

Here’s the thing; pig shortages have driven up the price of pork by around 60-70% in China. What’s one obvious solution to this problem? Import more pork from overseas to meet the excess demand. So, what’s the government doing about it? Playing politics with the US and blocking imports of American pork! Ha! Looks like their concern for the common Chinese may take a backseat to the retaliatory message sent to the US, which has recently threatened new tariffs on Chinese goods in the wake of concerns over product safety and frustration over the persistent trade imbalance between the two countries.

Beijing has rejected consignments of pork from the US and Canada because they contain a banned additive – in spite of a domestic shortage of China’s staple meat, which pushed inflation to a
10-year high in August.

Again, China’s meddling in the market economy seems to only make things worse for the Chinese people.

Chinese officials have said they expect the pork shortage to remain a problem into next year, but prices have already started to come down from their August high, Xinhua, the official news agency, reported at the weekend. Prices decreased by 11.3 per cent in early September from the levels in August because of an increase in supplies of pigs, Xinhua said.

The number of pigs ready for sale was up 9.9 per cent early this month compared with a year ago, said Sun Zhengcai, the agriculture minister.

Powered by ScribeFire.

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / China - China freezes government-set prices

Here’s a great article for both AP and IB students to pay attention to. The Chinese government is responding to rising prices at home by resorting to some good old fashioned “iron fist” measures, namely price controls on a wide range of products. For the rest of this year, prices on certain goods and services will not be permitted to rise, OR ELSE! (what? we don’t want to know!)

China has begun to enforce a freeze on all government-controlled prices in a sign of the central government’s alarm about rising popular anger over inflation, now at the highest rate in over a decade.The order freezes a vast array of prices still under the control of governments in China, ranging from oil, electricity and water, to the cost of parking and park entrance fees.

I find the following statement interesting:

“Any unauthorised price rises are strictly forbidden…and in principle, there will be no new price-raising measures this year,” the ministries’ announcement said. (italics added)

How strange is it that the government’s announcement pointed out that the freeze on prices is only in principle? Could this be the government’s attempt to placate a public that’s grown angry at their weakening purchasing power? Does this mean that if prices actually do go up, the government can just say, “Hey, at least we tried!” Looks like the old communist mentality has softened a bit in the era of market reforms!

So what’s the source of all these rising prices? Well, food plays a big role, thanks to a couple of factors:

The sharp spike in inflation is largely due to higher food prices, because of a shortage of pigs after a disease killed millions late last year and earlier in 2007, and the rising cost of feed, a global
phenomenon.

The China of today is very different from that of 20 or 30 years ago, when the government played a much larger role in the economy. Unleashing the beast of the free market in the early 80’s may have meant the government would have to loosen its grip in situations such as today’s inflation, and let the free market adjust on its own.

Economists said the price freeze is the kind of administrative measure redolent of China’s former planned economy, but it may be less effective in China today.

“They will not be able to control the price of everything,” said Chen Xingdong, of BNP Parisbas in Beijing.

Perhaps that’s for the better. Why might the government’s price controls actually make the matter worse for the average Chinese? If the government were to take a “laissez faire” approach to the problems faced by China, how might the free market resolve them on its own? Any ideas? Don’t worry, AP student, you don’t need to explain this yet, but I promise you by the end of the year you’ll be able to!

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Podcast: China's Inflation and Consumer Spending: Download

Command vs. Market economics in Zimbabwe:
Mugabe’s decree on prices puts Zimbabwe economy in a tailspin - International Herald Tribune

And a blog post commenting on the news:
Managing Globalization » Economics 101 in Zimbabwe

Our first unit in AP Economics (and Friday’s lecture) examined the differences between command economies and market economies. One of the main points of yesterday’s lecture was that markets work because they result in an efficient allocation of resources towards the right products, using least-cost production methods, and putting those products in the hands of the people whose resources command the highest value in the resource market. If too much of one good is being produced and not enough of another, the “invisible hand” of the market will reallocate resources from the over-produced product to the under-produced product.

One of the reasons command economies fail is that central planners who attempt to control output and price, even when their intentions are to help consumers by assuring enough stuff is produced and available at an affordable price, are in essence acting against a basic economic law: that of supply and demand. In Zimbabwe, where inflation has reached nearly 10,000 percent (that means a candy bar that costs $1 today will cost $100 in a year!!) the president recently attempted to place price controls on all products by forcing merchants to slash their prices in half. The result? Food has vanished from the shelves of markets in Zimbabwe:

Essentials like bread, sugar and cornmeal, staples of every Zimbabwean’s diet, have vanished, seized by mobs of bargain-hunters who denuded stores like locusts in wheat fields. Meat is nonexistent. Gasoline is nearly unobtainable. Hospital patients are dying for lack of basic medical supplies. Power blackouts and water cutoffs are endemic.

Manufacturing has slowed to a crawl, because few businesses can produce goods for less than their government-imposed sale prices. Raw materials are drying up because suppliers are being forced to sell to factories at a loss. Businesses are laying off workers or reducing their hours.

As our first AP unit “Basic Economic Concepts” winds down, this article and blog post seem timely to remind us of one of the core principles of Economics: the importance of prices and markets in allocating resources (land, labor, capital and entrepreneurship) towards producing the goods and services society most wants. Later in the year we’ll examine what happens when markets fail, which they often do; but at this point in the course it is important to understand that despite their failures and shortcomings, free markets rarely experience the chaos associated with command economies of the past, and even the present as the Zimbabwe example shows. In the words of Daniel Altman, the blogger linked above:

The Soviets, Chinese and some of their allies kept their tightly controlled economies going for quite a few decades, though not perhaps with unalloyed success (former backyard smelters in China will get the pun). Mugabe’s version hasn’t even lasted through a change of seasons. Now, there are still a few lingering arguments in academia and policy circles about the merits of command economies. But a poorly planned command economy - no one seems to want that. Can anything short of total collapse follow?

Any thoughts? Why did Mugabe’s attempt to help consumers by keeping prices low only make the problem worse? What does this say about markets versus planned economies? Discuss!

Powered by ScribeFire.