ΑΠΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΩΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΤΙΜΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΒΕΝΖΙΝΗΣ
 

ΑΠΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΩΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΤΙΜΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΒΕΝΖΙΝΗΣ Σε κύριο άρθρο τους οι Financial Times, και με αφορμή τα επεισόδια σε βενζινάδικα της Κίνας μετά την μερική μόνο απελευθέρωση της τιμής της βενζίνης, επισημαίνουν πόσο λαθεμένη είναι η πολιτική των επιδοτήσεων της τιμής των καυσίμων και πόσο απαραίτητη είναι η απελευθέρωση όσο το δυνατόν νωρίτερα. Κάθε καθυστέρηση ουσιαστικά αυξάνει τα προβλήματα που θα προκληθούν όταν, αναπόφευκτα, όλες οι χώρες θα αναγκασθούν, από το βάρος του κόστους στους εθνικούς προυπολογισμούς, να απελευθερώσουν την τιμή των καυσίμων. Παρά τις γκρίνιες λοιπόν σήμερα αποδεικνύεται πόσο σωστή ήταν το 1993 η έγκαιρη απόφαση της απελευθέρωσης της αγοράς των καυσίμων. Ασχετο αν η αψυχολόγητη τότε επιβολή, αμέσως μετά, φόρου 50 δρχ. στην τιμή της βενζίνης (κρατική παρέμβαση δηλ.) προκάλεσε εύλογα την αντίδραση του κόσμου.

(Ομιλίες του Α. Ανδριανόπουλου στην Ουάσιγκτον μέσω της ιστοσελίδας των Washington Times:

http://www.washtimes.com/search/Andrianopoulos/?=3D & )

CUT OIL SUBSIDIES

Financial Times - Published: June 20 2008 19:02 | Last updated: June 20 2008 19:02

The queues of angry motorists outside Chinese petrol stations on Friday are a reminder of why cutting gasoline subsidies is difficult. They are also a reminder of why such cuts are a good idea. Other countries that subsidise energy especially poor countries should follow suit. For very similar reasons, countries that tax fuel, such as the US and the UK, should resist any temptation to cut their levies. China has announced an 18 per cent rise in the controlled price of diesel alongside a 5 per cent rise in the price of electricity. It joins India, Taiwan, Malaysia and Indonesia, all of which have cut their subsidies in recent months, as the cost of maintaining them rose in line with the soaring price of oil.

Exporters of oil, such as Iran, can maintain their subsidies as prices rise simply by forgoing some extra tax revenue. But for the oil-hungry importers of east Asia there is no escape: high petrol prices mean somebody has to lose out, and the only question is who. Use subsidies to keep prices down and the loser is the government; allow prices to rise and it is motorists who suffer.

In developing countries, where only the rich own cars, it is especially unfair for the government to pay. Tax revenues, on a huge scale in nations such as India, have to be diverted from health and education spending to fill the fuel tanks of a small elite. Even in rich countries, fuel tax cuts are regressive. The effect is amplified in the poorest countries because their tax-raising power is so limited anyway. Often dependent on mineral royalties or duties on goods, with only a weak income or corporate tax base, subsidies on fuel can amount to a large slice of public spending.

That applies less to China, but another objection does: when the government uses price controls, rather than paying cash subsidies, it can wreck important companies. By controlling the price at which Chinese oil companies can sell gasoline, China s government has caused heavy losses for refiners. Left unchecked, the result would have been underinvestment in energy infrastructure, and ultimately shortages of fuel.

The simplest argument against fuel subsidies, however, is that they promote wasteful use of a resource that markets are urgently signalling is in short supply. Unless petrol pump prices follow those of crude oils, motorists will drive on oblivious. China s move will encourage conservation of fuel; it will also make it easy for Chinese producers to invest in new supply. It is only a small step China still controls fuel prices but it is one of the first steps in the right direction.