Cheap gasoline, which is unlikely to be the problem of the Iranian economy on many issues, including gasoline, is not the wrong answer to the right questions, but is generally rooted in the correct answer to false questions. For example, the answer to the question that cheap gasoline is good or expensive is quite obvious: none, free gasoline is both better! This obvious answer to a false question has been the source of years of inspiration for gasoline and all energy carriers. Is it good or expensive?…
Ali Mirzakhani
But what is the correct gasoline problem? A more precise design of the petrol problem of a country requires referring to a very important principle in economics, namely that there is no free lunch in the economy. This important principle is translated into the general public: Do not hesitate to get any goods or services for free or cheap, which will cost you somewhere else and maybe more expensive! Therefore, the correct question about gasoline should be put forward: Where is the cost of petrol cheap (the difference between the price of sales and the actual price) with the people? The answer to this question opens up a different horizons for gas consumers and the general public, and it puts in the final question: is cheap gasoline worth paying for this bills?
Let’s look at the bill, which is imposed on cheap people by gasoline. The fact is that in an inflationary economy like Iran’s economy, it is impossible to prevent the transfer of inflationary pressure to a commodity or commodity basket, with the exception of huge expense. For nearly half a century, Iranian governments have tried to overturn this irreversible theory by converting Iran’s economy into a large lab and repeating itself repeatedly, with the notion that under conditions of inflationary pressure, the price of gasoline or the price of a basket of imported goods Currency), without imposing another bill on the people, and even with this leverage, control inflation!
But this misguided policy not only caused several years of leap years of exchange rate and gasoline shock therapy at specific levels, but also at intervals of these mutations and shocks, the prevention of the transfer of inflationary pressure to energy carriers and the import basket with a higher inflation bill in other commodity groups. The pockets of the people are settled. The Dutch disease and the Friedman balloon are a simpler explanation of this transmission of hypertension. Friedman likens the economy to a balloon in which the rise in liquidity in the economy resembles the death of that balloon, and, as a matter of fact, all the surface of the balloon should be swirled to the same extent; however, it can be prevented by the push of a finger from the inflation of a balloon at a certain point, which is possible, , But it transfers inflation to other levels; the same as with the stabilization of gasoline rates and other specific rates in the economy, and the inflationary pressure is passed on to other groups. For example, the ratio of the cost of purchasing or renting housing to per capita income in Iran is much higher than elsewhere in the world, or whether the government can implement a low-cost car policy (low-quality) is only part of the gasoline bill Cheap people are being imposed. At the same time, if you look at cheap petrol billing, there are other items that can be seen most notably by providing a budget deficit due to cheap gasoline sales from the place of printing money (read the valuation of money in the pocket of people), which boosts the inflation cycle and the above-mentioned effects. he does.
Now that the heavy petrol bill is transparent, the question is, why is there no will to get out of this swamp? Politicians say people do not accept! This claim, if right, is not an acceptable justification for the government’s use, because a government that can not bring people into a proper policy is not blamed on people, not people. But if people are not supposed to accept, then the question arises: why did people in 1993 get a 50% increase in gasoline prices, despite the massive crowding of critics of the government? Even the “gentle slope” used for this increase was faced with a huge amount of mockery by government opponents, but it did not work for the people. Inflation not only did not increase, but also declined in that year (it is also natural, since the rise in gasoline prices is similar to the increase in taxation on gasoline, which is a contraction policy, and not counter-intuition). The resistance of groups of people may be due to the fact that they have paid off the petrol bill this time, unlike in the previous year, here too, the politician is guilty of blaming the politician, who has imposed charges on groups of people who have to apologize with the wrong people. And the reform of policies seeks to offset the huge losses and bring them real reforms with the confidence of the people.
In short, the lack of use of economic policies in 94 years has led to the formation of a loser-loss game between the people and the government, and the only beneficiaries of this situation are inflationary and speculative profits that year on year on a wave of valorisation of the national currency on their riches. It is these who, instead of trying to remove the wall of distrust between the people and the government, stand on the wave of anti-democratic waves and, on the one hand, encourage the government to adopt policies that are popular in their own words, and, on the other hand, the excitement of groups of people against the surgeries It is essential for the people to survive the loss of money for the people and the government that has been concealed by the stakeholder. The key to getting out of this situation is in the hands of the government, and it is nothing but gaining people’s trust in the honest and transparent way of the country’s affairs and efforts to bring people together. Governors must know that they are the culprits, not the people, even if they are not able to carry out economic reforms on the pretext of public discontent. Because economic policymakers either do not know what economic reforms are ethically failing, because they sit somewhere bigger than theirs, or they know, and refuse to advance under the pretext of obstacles, which in this case are not professionally defective, because by definition, The successful manager is the person who knows the obstacles and has the skill to pass it.