On 1 hand, we are paying the full cost of 1 barrel of crude oil with
RM2.70 per liter but on the other hand the crude oil only produces 46% of
fuel.
Msia sells crude oil per barrel at USD130 buys back Fuel per barrel at
USD134. And not forgetting, every barrel of fuel is produced with 2
barrels of crude oil.
1 barrel crude oil = produce 46% fuel (or half of crude oil), therefore
2 barrel crude oil = approximately 1 barrel fuel
In other words, each time we sell 2 barrels of crude oil, equivalently we
will buy back 1 barrel of fuel.
Financially,
Malaysia sell 2 barrel crude oil @ USD 130/barrel = USD 260 = RM 858
then, Malaysia will buy back fuel @ USD 134/barrel = RM 442/barrel
Thus, Malaysia earn net extra USD 126 = RM 416 for each 2 barrel of crude
sold/exported vs imported 1 barrel of fuel !!!
(USD 260-134 = USD 126 = RM416)
So where this extra USD 126/barrel income is channeled to by Malaysian
Govt?????????
Another analysis:
1 barrel crude oil = 159 liters.
46-47% of a barrel of crude oil = fuel that we use in our vehicles.
46% of 159 = 73.14 liters.
@ RM 2.70/liter x 73.14 liter = RM197.48 of fuel per barrel of crude oil.
This is only 46% of the barrel, mind you. Using RM 3.30 = USD 1, we get
that a barrel of crude oil produces USD 59.84 worth of petrol fuel (46% of
1barrel).
USD 59.84 of USD 130/barrel turns out to be 46% of a barrel as well.
Another 54% = bitumen, kerosene, and natural gases and so many more.
And this makes a balance of USD 70.16 that has not been accounted for.
So this is where I got curious. Where is the subsidy if we are paying 46%
of the price of a barrel of crude oil when the production of petrol/barrel
of crude oil is still only 46%?
In actual fact, we still pay for this as they are charged in the forms of
fuel surcharge by airlines and road taxes for the building of road
(because they use the tar/bitumen) and many more excuse charging us but
let us just leave all that out of our calculations.
As far as I know, only the politicians who live in Putrajaya and come for
their Parliament meetings in Kuala Lumpur (approximately 60+ km) are the
ones to gain as they claim their fuel and toll charges from the money of
the RAKYAT's TAX.
It is so disappointing to see this happen time and time again to the
Malaysian public, where they are deceived by the propaganda held by the
politicians and the controls they have over the press.
Which stupid idiot economist equates rebates for rich or poor with the cc
of the vehicles? An average office clerk may own a second hand 1300cc
proton Iswara costing $7,000 (rebate = $625) while the Datuk's children
can own a fleet of 10 new cars of BMW, Audi and Volvo all less than 2000cc
costing $2 millions and get a total rebate of $625 x 10 = $6,250! Wow what
kind of economists we are keeping in Malaysia...wonder which phD
certificate that they bought from...
Misleading concept of Subsidy:
The word 'subsidy' has been brandished by the BN government as if it has
so generously helped the rakyat and in doing so incurred losses. This
simple example will help to explain the fallacy:
Example:
Ahmad is a fisherman. He sells a fish to you at $10 which is below the
market value of $15. Let's assume that he caught the fish from the
abundance of the sea at little or no cost. Ahmad claims that since the
market value of the fish is $15 and he sold you the fish for $10, he had
subsidised you $5 and therefore made a loss of $5.
Question : Did Ahmad actually make a profit of $10 or loss of $5 which he
claimed is the subsidy?
Answer:
Ahmad makes a profit of $10 which is the difference of the selling price
($10) minus the cost price ($0 since the fish was caught from the
abundance of the sea). There is no subsidy as claimed by Ahmad.
The BN government claims that it is a subsidy because the oil is kept and
treated as somebody else's property (you know who). By right, the oil
belongs to all citizens of the country and the government is a trustee for
the citizens. So as in the above simple example, the BN government cannot
claim that it has subsidised the citizen!
