Some posters have decried the current fuel subsidy arrangement and suggested a more intelligent or efficient arrangement. I would like to know whether the problem is with the very concept of subsidies (be they on fuel, agricultural products or whatever).

Interesting thread.

A poster made the very valid point that diesel and kerosene prices have been fully deregulated (i hope i'm correct in stating this) and yet we are still beset by supply line shortages and stratospheric prices (particularly for kerosene which is the fuel used by low income earners). What could explain this? We were told ages ago by the RFMAC (or whatever the hell that government department is called) and several other anti-subsidy parties that removal of subsidies on fuel would eliminate supply line distortions, allocate resources efficiently, allow price signals to work properly, etc.

In plain english, we were being told that with the removal of those evil subsidies - the frequent scarcity of diesel and kerosene would become a thing of the past.

Has that been the case for diesel and kerosene? If not, why? I would like to be educated.

YES, there are no subsidies on Diesel and Kerosene yet, they are very scarce and expensive. How about building refineries or making old ones work  and then gradually phase out their so called subsidy?

Kobojunkie:

I don't think you understand his analysis. I believe the long and short of it is that CORRUPTION is the ONLY problem here. Not the existence of subsidies. He also goes on to posit that removing subsidies WILL NOT solve the problem which remains the high levels of corruption currently ALLOWED by the existing system.

I think I do! I'm making it clear that at the advent of addressing corruption doesn't prevent any one from not talking about the subsidy issue because there is nothing wrong in addressing both -the subsidy and finding solutions to the endemic corruption of the state.

I am explaining to him not pointing what he said.Two different things, Kobojunkie.