Group items tagged

mills have unilaterally declared the buying price to be Rs10 higher than last year’s price per 40 kilogrammes (kg)

ugar mills purchase and crush sugarcane without considering the rising cost of the primary sector

Farmers, on the other hand, dislike the idea of fixing the price on the basis of price of sugar as sugar mills have other products to earn from whereas the cost for cane growers has almost doubled

mill owners are trying to get the maximum benefit for the lowest price from their (the farmers’) hard work

government buys rice from local farmers for a set price above market rates

“It is inevitable for the government to incur losses as long as the scheme remains unchanged,” the IMF said.

The subsidy program left Ms. Yingluck’s administration with a big bill and millions of tons of unsold rice

egan buying rice at premiums of 35%-50% above market rates

isplacing Thailand from its perch as the world’s biggest rice exporter

eopardize a government commitment to balance the budget by 2017 and keep public debt below 50% of GDP

Thai authorities said the subsidy aims to address economic inequality and help poor farmers improve productivity

suggested that a reduction in the pledging prices or limits on the amount of purchase might be needed to ensure the sustainability of the policy

For the third subsidy year, which began last month, the government made some minor moves to scale back the subsidy

ay around $8.6 billion on the subsidy for 2013-‘14

hat losses from the subsidy could threaten Thailand’s credit rating

5 million tons of rice in its stockpiles

eams charge too low a price to maximize ticket revenues

maximum attendance

omplementary purchases associated with sporting attendance…such as concessions, parking, merchandise.

maximizing ‘revenue per seat’ as opposed to just gate revenues

onsiderable mark-ups for Super Bowl tickets

willingness to spend thousands of dollars above face in some cases merely reflects the uniqueness of the event

Surprisingly, a carbon tax would operate much like a diamond tax, for reasons both of demand and supply.

Demand: The wealthy actually consume a disproportionate amount of carbon. Discussions of a carbon tax usually focus on the price of gasoline. One gallon of gas produces about 17 pounds of CO2. One metric ton is 2,204 pounds. So a $100 tax on a ton of CO2 comes to $0.77 per gallon -- a significant cost to low-income commuters and small truckers.

But the very poor don't drive or travel or occupy much space; the rich fly planes, including private jets; drive to low-density suburbs; occupy and heat multiple houses and hotels; and buy lots of stuff. Clearly the rich consume much more carbon per capita than the poor.

Demand elasticity for oil is low, about 0.5; so a 1 percent increase in oil price would cause a 0.5 percent decrease in consumption. That makes sense, since in the short run, it's hard for people to cut energy consumption, especially if they must drive to work. But, though numbers are hard to come by, elasticity of supply is much, much lower, for two reasons. First, oil production takes decades and billions in capital investment; producers cannot quickly increase or decrease supply. Second, oil producers form an international cartel, an organized mega-monopoly, which holds down production to drive up prices. Since they're already charging what the traffic will bear, they can't much raise prices to cover a tax.

As economists long ago figured out, buyers and sellers share a tax in inverse proportion to elasticity. Therefore, if supply elasticity of carbon is, say, 0.1, while demand elasticity is 0.5, the suppliers will pay five times as much of the tax as consumers. That reduces that $0.77 per gallon gas tax to only $0.13. Moreover, precisely because most of the tax falls on suppliers, it will generate plenty of revenue to help those unfortunate long-distance commuters and small truckers, to build more public transportation, to invest in renewable energy, and even to cut super-regressive taxes like the payroll tax.

According to Edward Wolff, in 2007, the top 1 percent in the U.S. owned 43 percent of non-home wealth, mostly securities, including of course energy company stocks and bonds. The top 10 percent of wealth holders owned 83 percent.

A May 2013 federal study of the Social Cost of Carbon estimated costs of additional CO2 emissions for 2010 to 2050 ranging from $27 to $221 per metric ton in 2050, depending on assumptions.

So we have good news and bad news. Good news: The cost of reducing carbon emissions will fall hardest on the 1 percent, who consume the most energy and own the energy companies. Bad news: Ditto. Expect a fight!