I would guess that subsidizing fuel means that people don't adjust their behaviors to be more fuel conservative, and the prices go up anyway until demand reduces. Meanwhile, governments have put their countries into more debt.
8
Gaminedes74 days ago
+11
The problem is no politician in power wants to be the guy that doesn't subsidize fuel during an energy crisis.
It would probably be cheaper and more beneficial to everyone (including drivers because of lower demand for fuel) to just make public transport free, but it's political suicide not to subsidize/lower taxes on fuel.
Best case scenario realistically is you get subsidized fuel costs and half assed measures for public transport.
11
Schlonzig4 days ago
+4
It‘s popular, yet stupid. We are saving money at the pump by subsidising it with our own money.
4
Ecstatic_Wasabi_51664 days ago
+5
Broad fuel subsidies just put a bandaid on a bullet wound, doesn't fix the actual problem.
5
Carbonistheft4 days ago
+15
Most efficient would be to invoke the 25th amendment and throw mr useless liar in jail.
Best we can do is criticize fuel subsidies.
15
Zefyris4 days ago
+5
Well that's not something the other countries have as an option, unfortunately
5
midasear4 days ago
+1
You think making J.D. Vance president via a coup would \_improve\_ the situation?
1
theyux2 days ago
+1
Honestly yeah dude is a political opportunist. I dont think he would do objectively stupid shit like Trump is. He would not help america, but I imagine the damage would be less severe and incoherent. Also unlikely he would have the same iron fist over the party, house and senate might object to some stuff.
1
DaveShadow4 days ago
+1
Honestly, I don’t think he’d get away with a fraction of the stuff Trump does. Even ignoring the fact many of the cult would turn on him immediately for going along with the coup, he’s not got the same level of fear inducing “aura” (for lack of a better term) that Trump does. He’d be a lame duck till the next general election.
1
More_Piccolo40054 days ago
+2
Fuel subsidies just get passed on to consumers anyway, it's not like it's gonna make a huge difference.
2
JPenniman4 days ago
+2
Yeah, it’s probably better to just blame Trump and then reduce consumption by investing in alternatives. Use the opportunity to get a little more energy independence because another crazy American president will come eventually. I think the European electorate understands Trump is to blame and might accept higher prices short term if something is being done about it.
2
Logical_Software_7724 days ago
+2
Broad fuel subsidies can worsen energy shocks by distorting markets and amplifying the effects artificially cheapened fuel can encourage overconsumption exactly when supplies may be constrained.
2
try_repeat_succeed4 days ago
+2
Just cap prices? Why should the subsidy come from the public coffers and not the producers? This is my perspective specific to my circumstances in Alberta Canada.
2
FinndBors4 days ago
+2
Capping prices can lead to shortages. Why would producers sell in places with price controls when they can sell elsewhere.
2
try_repeat_succeed4 days ago
+2
You could always prevent them doing so. I don’t think we’d see shortages in Oil Berta.
2
Big_Treat59294 days ago
Oil shortages? No. Fuel shortages? Absolutely. Between the poor quality of Albertan oil and the lack of refineries ready and able to turn it into fuel, you'd be no better off than a province with literally zero oil production.
0
try_repeat_succeed4 days ago
+1
AB only has 5 refineries but they produce \~182 million barrels of refined fuel products per year. AB consumes \~94 million barrels of refined fuel per year.
We refine 2x the amount of fuel as we consume. So stopping exports would work in theory.
On the Canada-wide scale we produced approximately \~2 million barrels per day of refined products, while domestic consumption averaged about \~1.5 million barrels per day.
[These are readily available (2024) numbers…](https://energy-information.canada.ca/en/subjects/refined-petroleum-products)
1
nesquikchocolate4 days ago
+1
If I'm a fuel supplier in Alberta Canada, why would I sell my limited and valuable stock allotment in Alberta Canada where a price cap is in place, if I could divert my incoming stock elsewhere where the money I can get paid reflects my cost to buy that fuel in the first place along with my normal, reasonable markup?
1
try_repeat_succeed4 days ago
+5
Because the government would tell you too. Because you’re ability to profit off extorting higher prices due to geopolitics is less valid than the federal government spending $2.5 billion in public funds (by reducing tax income) to save Canadians $0.14/L.
5
nesquikchocolate4 days ago
Okay, so if I then, as a business, don't buy the fuel because I would have to sell it at a loss, and then just pull my shoulders up and say sorry, I couldn't afford to buy it?
0
try_repeat_succeed4 days ago
+2
Well the reduction in demand (across businesses like yours) would drive the price back down. There is no reduced production in AB. Sure our refining is capped but we have enough. Not sure how anyone in the AB Oil & Gas supply chain could lose money even if we focused on access to Canadians by reducing exports and capping the price at current (already inflated) levels…
2
nesquikchocolate4 days ago
-2
Seems like you got this figured out, so I'll be a responsible company and continue to sell my locally produced product at the same rate.
I did notice, however, there's a bunch of additional customers with extended range fuel tanks pitching up. I think they appear to have Montana number plates but I'm trying to not fall a foul of local privacy protection legislation so I'm not recording their number plates.
So I'm running low on fuel and I can't secure additional fuel from any refinery at the same price I'm selling fuel for....
-2
try_repeat_succeed4 days ago
+2
I dunno, I don’t have all the answers. But there are answers. Limit fuel purchases to 250L. Maybe prevent fuel exports including individual travellers to the tank in their car (not extended range fuel tanks like you mention). Heck, if it gets really bad, maybe ration it! 300L per household per week. These are all hypotheticals btw, not what exactly I want as policy per se…
What you’re saying is a logical fallacy, imo. Straw-manning a situation (as thee situation) to say it wouldn’t work. There are alternatives.
Spending $2.5 billion to save customers $0.14/L, while cutting public services, while O&G companies rake in record profits, sickens me.
2
nesquikchocolate4 days ago
I'm just taking part in a conversation, i don't have all the answers either, just aware that some of my friends have trucks / land cruisers with extended range fuel tanks and no scruples. They would drive to multiple different gas stations to fill up if there ever were a fuel limit. Next town over? Sure... They'll drive far for diesel to fill up their farming equipment if rations get put in place.
Meanwhile I drive a little 1.4l jetta and hypermile the c*** out of it, and I reside in South Africa as an electrician so I have essentially zero possibility to influence the global powers that be to stop this nonsense
0
try_repeat_succeed4 days ago
+1
Totally fair. I think if times got desperate rationing would have to be enforced somehow (which I hate the idea of). But if our exports (as a O&G&fuel rich place) were reduced we’d be okay. I don’t go drink water to the point of illness just because the excellent tap water we have is essentially free. There’s only so much people can use/store/buy and what is the incentive to do so if the government commits to long term price stability? Would never happen though, especially with a liberal majority government like we just got in Canada. Purely hypothetical/for the sake of discussion haha.
1
[deleted]4 days ago
+1
[deleted]
1
Logical_Software_7724 days ago
+1
Interesting din't quite know that is also in the table how close is this exactly with this process or how certain is this to occur?
1
AdHopeful38014 days ago
+1
Because neoliberalism will make everyone so happy!
1
Individual_Length3214 days ago
+2
I'm sure imposing prices won't result in a black market, when ever did we see that???
30 Comments