I read in today’s Taipei Times (Sun, 7/27) that public opinion would be considered when setting the price for gas.
[quote]The government would factor in the public’s opinions when considering increases in the price of oil and the floating oil price mechanism that has been used to set the price on the first day of each month, a senior official with the Cabinet said yesterday.
“How people feel about rising oil prices is definitely a concern the agency in charge of [deciding the price] will take into account, as ‘listening to the voice of the public before finalizing policies’ is one of the administration’s guidelines,” said the official, who wished to remain anonymous.[/quote] taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003418639
It’s ironic that the public makes a stink about gas prices, getting the government to keep them artificially low and sold at a loss, which then requires the public to subsidize other people’s gas with their tax dollars. People who don’t even drive are helping me to buy gas for my car.
It’s bullshit. Gas prices should be allowed to rise in order to discourage people from driving vehicles larger than what they really need, and to encourage car pooling, walking, biking, and use of mass transit.
Then you wouldn’t have a proper distribution of oil to its most economical uses. You also wouldn’t have riots when the inevitable rise happens making the subsidies unsustainable. You also would have a very unhappy middle class.You would also take away something from the political class to redistribute wealth to people who vote. Even the DPP wasn’t dumb enough to lower the fuel subsidies before the election. Considering taxi and bus fares are set by the gov’t. what would you suggest? Free market reforms?
I suggest full disclosure so that the public can make informed decisions. If they are OK with policies that subsidize gas for others, than so be it. I wonder if many have considered that is one of the results of their government selling gas at below cost.
I suggest full disclosure so that the public can make informed decisions. If they are OK with policies that subsidize gas for others, than so be it. I wonder if many have considered that is one of the results of their government selling gas at below cost.[/quote]
Full disclosure does not lead to informed decisions, because most of the time it takes an expert to sift through the resulting heap of information and highlight what is truly important. You can’t expect the public to understand something as complicated as this - so how could we ask them to make informed decisions?
Now if you are a employee or boss of a company who uses a lot of petrol/gas, wouldn’t you vote for the party who offered to subsidize it more for you?
Foresight in Taiwan? I suggest you re-edit your post.
Target rich environment here, what should I rip apart first? This is like being at a really excellent buffet. If they can’t understand this, then what are they doing electing people who may also not understand it? What makes someone an expert? What is the cost/benefit ratio? Who collects the data? What are the parameters of the debate? What business does the gov’t. have in subsidizing fuel in the first place? Now I know this is Taiwan, but the last I checked, state owned oil companies are poor allocators of scarce resources and capital. Believe it or not, normal people are pretty good allocators of their scarce resources and can make informed decisions when they are given the opportunity.
The public’s opinion is a key factor in determining capital spending potential. If people spend money on products instead of fuel inflation, then the economy can potentially still function at a required rate of growth (not my belief). The rising cost of oil is already putting heavy pressure on domestic production and sales as well as the job market and so on. Public opinion is key in understanding the knock on effects of rising oil and fuel costs. If oil can be subsidized indirectly, it may be possible to maintain a yearly economic growth pattern. I’m no economist I admit, but I do know enough to know that oil pricing has a web effect on standards of living and so understanding opinion as well as supply, price and economics are all key in building a future strategy. It is however a precarious juggling act, manageable only by a very clever government that must maintain control over supply and not hand over the reigns to private supply companies such as is being suggested by some, i.e. those that profit most. This is most certainly a time to be putting rival politics aside and be concentrating on only the most important issues of sustainability, growth and alternative fuel sourcing. Will Taiwan have the ability to manage its present situation properly though? From what I’ve seen so far, I don’t honestly think so. Parties and business leaders seem a little fragmented and don’t seem to be able to agree on a set plan for the future.
It seems as though business is typical and those that see rising oil prices as a great investment want to privatize the whole thing and so gain absolute control over pricing and supply, whereas some of the government want to concentrate on capping rabid inflation and controlling the powers of private companies as well as worry about sustainability.
I’m not sure who will win this heated battle at present.
The way I see it is in the red corner we have the big business, big money private fuel suppliers and investors, and in the blue corner we have the labor unions, small businesses and patriots.
Target rich environment here, what should I rip apart first? This is like being at a really excellent buffet. If they can’t understand this, then what are they doing electing people who may also not understand it? What makes someone an expert? What is the cost/benefit ratio? Who collects the data? What are the parameters of the debate? What business does the gov’t. have in subsidizing fuel in the first place? Now I know this is Taiwan, but the last I checked, state owned oil companies are poor allocators of scarce resources and capital. Believe it or not, normal people are pretty good allocators of their scarce resources and can make informed decisions when they are given the opportunity.
Regards,
Okami[/quote]
This is called the “Democratic Process.” Any time you have a system which allows the general public to elect their leaders, indeed you do run a considerable risk that the general public will elect someone who is no more intelligent or wise than themselves. Like chooses like. In fact, sometimes, the general public is not that difficult to manipulate, or to fool, so they, and their elections, are often invaluable tools of the ambitious (See: America today).
Then you wouldn’t have a proper distribution of oil to its most economical uses. You also wouldn’t have riots when the inevitable rise happens making the subsidies unsustainable. You also would have a very unhappy middle class.You would also take away something from the political class to redistribute wealth to people who vote. Even the DPP wasn’t dumb enough to lower the fuel subsidies before the election. Considering taxi and bus fares are set by the gov’t. what would you suggest? Free market reforms?
Regards,
Okami[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand your point. Gas prices are rising and must continue to rise to reflect market realities. Subsidies can only go so far.
In addition, the prices have already begun to make their effects on driving patterns. Car sales are down, scooter sales are up, bus and MRT ridership is up, while highway toils are down.
It’s inevitable that the average voter is going to have to get used to driving less. The government has to address this head on or it risks being ridden by the issue into the ditch.
Frankly, I see nothing but opportunity for the Ma government here. Their economic plans has been sidelined by the global economy. But people here need to feel hopeful. Subsidies are not hope. Solid green thinking is and there has never been a better time to ask Taiwanese people to think about how to make the country truly better.
I completely understand. I would love to have one of those huge old Caddies in a country with really cheap gas.
Housecat:
I believe in the democratic process except when it’s used to deny any further democratic process. Please study L. America and Africe for rich examples of such. I also do not care for legislating from the executive and judicial branches, much preferring the legislating to come from the legislative branch. As for American people being easily fooled and manipulated, couldn’t you lay that at the MSM’s feet? We didn’t elect Kerry or Gore we can’t be all that bad.
Mucha Man:
Why did you quote me replying to a post I didn’t reply to? At least housecat got it right. I actually don’t believe in subsidies. I believe in ordinary people making decisions that best reflect their priorities and personal economics. I was mocking Ah Q’s post that people can’t make informed decisions if given proper information. Now I will mock yours for some utopian view that Taiwan can be made better by the gov’t by forcing people to make decisions derived by executive means. Countries improve environmentally as the socio-economic status of their citizens improves. Hence why the US has more trees now than at anytime after the US Civil War. Gov’t diktat never solves a problem but merely displaces it through 2nd, 3rd, etc orders of consequence. One of the real benefits , I feel, of the current price of oil is the impact on fishing fleets.
As for as the public being consulted on gas prices, I think they should be made aware of what subsidies cost, the cost per person and the costs they would incur without subsidies and price controls.
As far as my mocking of Algore, what does it say about his environmentalist credentials that GWB has a more environmentally friendly house?
Firstly car sales are down only due to people not wanting or needing to replace their cars with newer ones at this time. Car sales from sales to public are down, but so are car sales from public to sales and in fact used car sales are screaming for more vehicles to put on their forecourts at this time, pushing the value of used cars up to a high. People are not getting rid of their cars as the high fuel pricing is making new cars less desirable and less affordable. This means that people will continue to drive their expensive heavy cars for quite a while longer, unless the government wants to help ease them into a more economical vehicle by some method i.e. giving tax incentives for cleaner running cars which it is not at present. Car sales are down in the used market because there aren’t sufficient numbers of vehicles available to sell. If anything though the used car market and new small car market are going to do well in the future. If anything keeping older cars on the road is good for the environment as they are much cleaner than producing new vehicles.
Secondly solid green thinking is not what Taiwan does. Has anyone so far heard of how they are going to introduce clean electric vehicles into the system that lacks about 30% worth of parking spaces and has no system for recharging? And what about electricity production? They’ll probably whip up another couple of nuclear generators I suppose, but I haven’t heard anything about a green solution in Taiwan.
I have heard a lot about how Taiwan can’t use wind generators and I know how it doesn’t have both enough land to grow fuel and food at the same time. Taiwan’s poor planning may have sealed its fate.
People have been moaning about how to make the island better for quite some time, but very poor early city planning has put a strangle hold on future developments and any great developments are going to demand a lot of extra revenue at a time when few people have any spare change. ‘Planning’? How do you say that in Chinese?
If I were them I would revert to the once tried and failed system where people planning to purchase new vehicles have to prove they have a space in which to park them. This time though, they must do it island wide, and not simply in Taipei (people previously simply registered their address in another city to avoid the system). This not only ensures that some time in the future there are sufficient hook up points for electric vehicles, but it also reduces vast amounts of emissions in city centres as people will be far less likely to be forced into traveling around in circles because of lack of spaces. They have already taken to enforcing scooter parking restrictions, but spaces have to be created if the economy is expected to carry on growing. Not all business can be done by MRT, taxi and bus, and people simply don’t want to be forced onto public transport.
I guess I will personally just continue to enjoy the subsidy each time I fill my gas guzzling, impractically large, 22 year old automobile.
Thank you taxpayers. It is much appreciated.[/quote]
They are also the people that provide you with roads, a public health system, police force, firefighters, schools and more. If you really think that everyone should only pay for what they use, then you may prefer purchasing your own island.
Responsibility for using and maintaining these fragile public services however falls to every individual and so choices should be made with the respect to other users. With no offense intended, lack of respect or understanding leads to statements such as yours. Take me for example. I drive a Prius. Most green going people would love to have something along the lines of a Prius, but the truth of the matter is that overall its more polluting than a big four wheel drive car, because of the development costs, material costs and build process it goes through. This is the key understanding that people aren’t privy to when making choices, and instead are reliant upon old fashioned manufacturers’ claims instead of solid independent investigation and understanding of long term or larger impact.
People really need to go back to school so to speak to understand energy and conservation issues for themselves as neither the government or private companies are providing an accurate education at this time. The whole green issue is complicated at this time with companies, manufacturers and fuel producers frantically trying to repackage old technology and goods in new green guises for profit. Nothing else can be expected however as the world didn’t simply just stand on its head once Al Gore made a climate video. Things still go on as usual.
The truth is out there however and those that spend time digging and reading can find many ways in which to minimize pollution output and at the same time reduce reliance or consumption of fuel such as:
Encourage locally produced [clean] products and consume those instead of imports.
Learn how to make the most of what you drive/ride instead of purchasing new vehicles.
Learn how effective or pollution producing public transport vehicles are. (You’ll be very surprised)
Learn about alternative fuel generation, and see what you can do to implement alternatives into your lifestyle.
Learn about the balance between recycling and fuel consumption/pollutant production. (That’s why I’ve ALWAYS flushed my toilet paper;)
Learn how to stay healthy and be an efficient worker instead of a burnt out slave.
Most importantly though and this doesn’t even seem to be an important issue these days; Learn how to appreciate life and nature and learn the irrelevance affluence has on personal levels of happiness.
Also learn how a fractional banking system requires an economy to exponentially expand putting pressures on ever dwindling material and fuel reserves as well as individual lifestyles and equality.
We are our own worst enemies until people get smart on these subjects.
Hmm…oil is going down on the world market. Will this be reflected in the prices at Taiwans gas pumps?
No. Because the gas now being used was purchased at a higher price than what might be purchased now. Taiwan government has played the ‘Nanny State’ role for far too long and shielded the populace, and business, from having to exist on a ‘real-world’ basis. Time for Taiwan to learn the game. I do think they will, however painfully, learn, adapt and prosper in this new position.
Conservation is the key and it darned sure isn’t a well-known or observed trait here on the island. How many cars still set with their motors idling…
MM wrote:
Excellent point. An opportunity to really provide leadership with education and conservation here. Lets see how he responds to this opportunity.
[quote=“sulavaca”]They are also the people that provide you with roads, a public health system, police force, firefighters, schools and more. If you really think that everyone should only pay for what they use, then you may prefer purchasing your own island.
Responsibility for using and maintaining these fragile public services however falls to every individual and so choices should be made with the respect to other users. With no offense intended, lack of respect or understanding leads to statements such as yours.[/quote]
You’re comparing subsidizing essential public services to subsidizing gas for a private citizen’s car? Now who’s showing lack of respect or understanding?
My original post was an attempt at irony. I guess I failed.
Arguably exactly the same thing. Ever heard of governments subsidizing factories? Same thing again! Subsidizing may not be every man’s cup of tea, but it has been keeping people in work for years. Subsidizing fuel is just the same, but a different means to the same end. Subsidizing is done all the time to maintain a certain comfortable level of living. Recently when Taiwan suffered an 80% die off of fish stocks and farmers suffered typhoon damage to farms the government subsidized them too. Do you have a problem with that?
I understand that your last post was in irony, but now you’re saying that subsidizing is wrong. I, in my last post was saying how many people without meaning to be ironic actually think they way you suggested, that “if my fuel is being subsidized I will carry on as normal”. Which was also why I listed a number of things that people need to understand so as not to take up this kind of mentality. As I agree that people argue one way or another over subsidization, and it may not always work, for example the backing of mortgage companies that fail to lend responsibly and should therefore loose their own money, not public money. There is however major implications in potentially allowing the very quick and acceleration of major fuel pricing. As almost everything relies on oil, the price of it has potentially catastrophic results, so I can forgive any government for getting a little edgy and wanting to slow adjustments made to pricing.
I suggest if you think that allowing oil to sell for whatever it costs, you should try arguing your point to those that it matters most.
While I have sympathy for local companies, job markets and government in this case, I do agree however that the demand for oil must be reduced in some way as a fixed low price only encourages business as usual and the continuing and accelerating diminishing oil supply. There is a balance however between allowing oil to be priced upwards, discouraging or ‘capping’ its use and allowing the economy as well as people’s lifestyles to adjust, as well as offer a time frame for alternative fuels to reach market.
Taiwan in this manner is failing as I mentioned earlier though as without a solid future plan on alternative energy and transport, the subsidization of fuel is simply delaying the inevitable, which is an all out crashed economy and living standards.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
Conservation is the key and it darned sure isn’t a well-known or observed trait here on the island. How many cars still set with their motors idling…
Do you mean sit with their motors running? If so, then I suspect its probably to maintain the air conditioning within during the summer.
Here’s some more on that, but not totally accurate. Depending on how many times the vehicle needs to be restarted in a day will determine the rate of wear to the vehicle’s starter unit. Also warming up at low revs does reduce component wear on engines with turbo chargers as they require hotter/thinner oil for lubrication, driving at low temperatures and high speed causes very early wear to turbo units and fine bearings. The article does work as a basic rule of thumb however.
I actually don’t believe in subsidies. I believe in ordinary people making decisions that best reflect their priorities and personal economics. I was mocking Ah Q’s post that people can’t make informed decisions if given proper information. Now I will mock yours for some utopian view that Taiwan can be made better by the gov’t by forcing people to make decisions derived by executive means. Countries improve environmentally as the socio-economic status of their citizens improves. Hence why the US has more trees now than at anytime after the US Civil War. Gov’t diktat never solves a problem but merely displaces it through 2nd, 3rd, etc orders of consequence. One of the real benefits , I feel, of the current price of oil is the impact on fishing fleets.
[/quote]
