we tried the result once and for us this has become evident to some extent. we decided to remove the width of 422 from the basic goods and pay this to the people . we used to increase it, that is , we wanted to increase the general welfare of the society . there has not been an inflation in the price of goods. now our consumers and people can make the same purchase with the same amount of subsidy. dealing with this issue may take an hour of our time, but the results and implications of it may take us years to deal with it, that is, from your point of view.

i agree with mr. mohammadi's orders that the subsidy for basic goods should be paid to the end of the chain or to the final consumer . let's say that the most important discussion in the topic of subsidies is

the redistribution of wealth. basically, the explanation of wealth in different countries is the means of its own mechanisms has our studies of different countries show that different methods have been common , in any case, the payment of subsidies now includes a cash system and a commodity system. the universal price system and our commodity system in the fifth development plan , well, the issue of subsidy targeting was brought up , various debates between parliamentarians and experts in this field were recounted anyway, and some believed that this targeting could be useful, while others suggested other methods. having an opinion is basically what

caused people to not have a good feeling anyway about whether it is the beginning of the chain or the end. the reason for the chain is to not touch a real feeling that this subsidy, which is supposed to reach them anyway, has really reached them or not. one of the reasons could be that we are stable in the country. we didn't have the price of the product, the price of the product was always different from the subsidy that is paid anyway , either in cash or in any case, the aid that is sometimes applied in kind, that real feeling of using the efficiency that it has. they say that he got a subsidy, that means he got help, this feeling was not in the society. one of the reasons is that every

now the issue is that the management of the person who receives the subsidy seems to be the end of the chain, which can be more accurate. sometimes we allocate a subsidy to a product, but that product is really a subsidy that can be touched and received by all members of the society. it could not be used. basically, those who actually receive the subsidy can manage it themselves, but the fact that it does not have any implications means that this subsidy does not go to a specific direction, so it needs planning , which should be done by the trustees anyway. so , naturally, you disagree with mr. mohammadi's statement i did not know that this was the right thing to do, i accept this matter conditionally.

it means that if we are going to give even a cash subsidy to the so-called target society, everyone who needs a subsidy should receive it, or now it can be useful in any segment of the society in a conditional way. i emphasize again that our discussion is not between cash or non-cash subsidies. we are discussing whether to give the subsidy in general, for example, to the producer or to the importer in the first links of the chain, now production and services, or to give it to the final consumer who is using it. if we give subsidies even to the end of the chain, it should be conditional , and i believe that the end of the chain can manage better. anyway , dear mr. mohammadi, what do you think about the subsidy that you are entitled to , mr. rostgar, and if you ask , what problems will it have in your opinion if the subsidy is paid to the end of the chain or the final consumer? we must first see what our logic is.

we have a goal . if our resources are limited, we have to choose whether a part of the country's production will remain or let the people decide for themselves, or we want to distribute wealth, or we want to distribute rent or distribute poverty. all of these have consequences. for example , if we want 100 units let's give a subsidy and allocate our resources. this is the first of the chain of basic goods. if we allocate this subsidy at the beginning of the chain, let's assume that the production of this product has four or five stages, and at each stage of production , we imagine a profit for the producer. these 100 units that the first chain is given to the end of the chain the finished price for the consumer is about 80

units, but if we want to give the same 100 units to the end of the chain, that means the first step is to pay the production cost of the same 100 units. at each stage, the producer's profit is added to this. the end of the price chain is finished. it will be 250 units. you will subsidize it by 100 units. how much should the people pay? 150 units. in the first case, 80 units. 85 units should be paid by the people. this is the difference because the transfer of yaran is from the beginning of the chain to the end of the chain if the product in the production chain has more than four production stages, which is this distance it will be much more, but there is a disadvantage in the system of giving subsidies to the first part of the chain, which leads to discussions of corruption

, out-of-network discussions, and non-targeting of subsidies. it opens by itself, which means that it is much easier for you to come to the end of the chain to give , come to the beginning of the chain to the end of the chain , no matter what happens, your monitoring responsibility will not be more prominent, but if you want to give subsidies at the beginning of the chain and the subsidy from the beginning of the chain, you have to monitor each step because monitoring becomes more difficult, we choose the more difficult work we don't do it, we go for an easier job, which is apparently easier, then we give the subsidy to the people at the end of the chain, because the inflation is more than the amount. the subsidy that we pay becomes a so-called subsidy , a self-destructive subsidy, that is, the amount of the subsidy that is given increases the inflation, the inflation is more than the amount of the subsidy, and the subsidy that you have is practically burned. you had the experience of 2009. you used to give cash subsidies to the people, well, the

purchasing power of this subsidy was 4500 tomans in 2089, equivalent to 11 to, for example, 16 kilograms of chicken. your first goal was to create prosperity by paying subsidy did not materialize at the end of the chain, mr. rostehgan, you see, one of our problems in the discussion of the current name is that we have experienced the beginning of the chain or the end of the chain. there are statistics

, but we don't see the effects. we realized that, in any case, the trial and error that has been done in this field has shown that if you really give a subsidy to the goods at the beginning of the chain, but the end of the chain, which is the target society anyway, cannot. adjust yourself with the costs with that subsidy, well, this shows there is something wrong with the work, if the basic goods that are now in question are subsidized at the beginning , then you look at the end of the work. we came to the course and did trial and error in order to know whether it is the first of the chain or the end of the chain, but the point is that when 1/3 of the country's income

is spent on subsidies, but the end of the chain cannot support itself, it does not have its main capability or at all. it cannot manage its use the so-called subsidy, well, this is a fundamental problem that if we can, as i said now, we will not go for direct subsidy. its conditionality is that it should be used in which product. you can give your opinion before you see your tattoo. for example, let's give an example of nano. anyway, considering that now bread is one of the basic goods, the government gives real subsidies, but you look at it. open it the final consumer is the quality that he should have from the bread

, that is really the quality that the subsidy goes to , well, you see, that basic quality is not obtained, so this shows that you have come to the beginning of the chain. we gave a subsidy to the price of bread, but is it really high-quality bread with the weight that should reach the consumer category ? or if we have it in a scattered manner, that means it is not continuous , that's why it seems that if we can do so-called targeted work with the so-called conditionality of this subsidy payment to the end of the chain, it can definitely have positive effects. thank you, mr. mohammadi. i said, mr. westgar, referring to the allocation of subsidies to the beginning of the chain or to the end of the chain in any way means without supervision

the follow-up will definitely fail, whether you allocate the subsidy at the beginning or the end of the chain, if you do not have enough supervision , you will not get the desired output. give a chain and have nothing to do with monitoring. and don't do those difficult steps and hard work, but if you did, did you pay at the beginning of the chain , were the supervisions sufficient and within the standard range? we had experience, but without supervision , we allocated, but without supervision, without effective supervision if there is effective supervision, the beginning of the chain will be more efficient. you should also look at the issue from the point of view of production.

over time, they will leave the cycle of competition. you give a part to the end of the chain . they involve a certain group of consumers. this is the same group that receives subsidies or benefits from indirect subsidies. when you go to the beginning of the chain, the people who are involved in this they are producing and they benefit again because if you destroy the chain , you will destroy the chain from the beginning to the end and there will be no support . and this subsidy will lose its effect , and regarding the sources of subsidy, we must also pay attention to where the sources of subsidy have come from , from private incomes, for example, from the sale of oil, which

is impala, or from the increase in the price of goods. it is assigned to basic goods, for example, if the name is transferred from the beginning of the chain to the end of the chain, more resources are needed and the production price will rise. it will be destroyed again, but it will not reach the target anymore if there is a wealth from the point of view, if we want this wealth to be explained again, this is the place of discussion as to what kind of explanation should be given. for example, the issue of goods such as health, if we want to allocate to the end of the chain , how can people provide for their own treatment and health ? do they want

to do and not do, could they do ? in the united states, we announced a plan during the previous period, that is, the obama presidency it was implemented in the name of obamacare, whose main basis is to help people's health or allocate subsidies to ensure the health of the next president, because the number of candidates was too high and it was a rival party's plan , the next president who came from mr. obama's party , could not meet the candidate. it means that the united states also wants to provide, the politician wanted to give subsidies, but he could not give subsidies. thank you if you agree , let's see a report together, let's go back and continue our debate . mr. arslan ghasemi, advisor to the head of the iran cooperative chamber, when subsidies are paid to the people , that amount does not reach the target and when it is in its target

if the purchase of basic goods is not used, it creates an inflationary burden for the country. mr. atallah if our monitoring systems are accurate and controlled , when subsidies are given to producers , the final price of goods will decrease and people's purchasing power will increase. mr. qasim pishhour, head of the chamber of agricultural guilds of iran, when subsidies are given directly to the people, liquidity increases and causes inflation , and the extra money that reaches the people is not spent on basic goods. but if subsidies are given to production, inflation and liquidity growth will decrease . mr. majid qadiri, president of the food industry association livestock and poultry experience in recent years has shown that wherever producers have been subsidized, people have not been able to get the products at the approved price. therefore, subsidies should be given to the people. mr. habib esdlenejad, an

economic expert, in the current situation, the subsidy to the production sector, especially imports. institutions are given but it does not reach the lower deciles and the upper deciles use subsidies. this is in a situation where the government's goal is to help the lower deciles of the society with subsidies. mr. morteza zamanian, an economic expert. subsidies paid by the government, they have welfare goals for the weaker sections of the society. but if we give the subsidy to the producer or to the goods, rich people will benefit from it. yes , we saw the report of my colleague mohammad elhari together , mr. rostgar. one point, mr. mohammadi, to mention about the drug industry, for example, its agents should not be paid to the end consumer , but should be paid to the consumer at the beginning of the chain. we also discussed another point regarding that if the subsidy for basic goods is paid to the end of the chain, the industry and producers will suffer

, see how much you agree with these two propositions. the product that is considered must reach the end of the chain, i.e. the final consumer. well, we have seen that most of the goods that were imported or subsidized, if you go to the end of the chain, there is dissatisfaction. it exists in them, that is, the same discussion, for example, powdered milk, now what is an example, or some medicines, well, this donkey gets fat, why does it leave the country, well, subsidies are also applied, but they do not reach the final consumer, that's why you can subsidize wherever you go. now , i gave an example of the flour itself, why smuggled flour is a good subsidy the government is giving a method, it is supposed to reach

the final consumer, but it will be smuggled, so our problem is the point that mr. mohammadi has supervision. it's not accurate or we don't have special monitoring tools , that is, you, even the producer, when you come , for example, you talk and say, "sir, we are also producing this product, even your friends are arrested, and the consumer's hand is also dissatisfied." it means that the amount given for subsidy is not enough , or if a subsidy is given , it is possible for a product to be smuggled and abused. non-existent in in the end, you can see that the final consumer is at the end of that spring where the water does not reach , that is, it reaches him weakly, if we can. now, according to the trainings that are necessary, that is, the culture building that is necessary at the end of the chain, we can provide conditional , that is, direct and conditional subsidies, if

we give them to the end of the chain, it seems to me that we were able to achieve the main goal of this subsidy society, mr. resto, mr. mohammadi, i agree. returning to our previous petitions , i say that the government's resources for paying subsidies are limited and these resources must be provided from somewhere , or must be provided from the place of increasing the price of goods, or from sources and incomes, new wealth. when you have limited resources, you will not reach your goal if you do not give the chain first, because it has a beneficial effect and production costs will be added . you will not reach your goal with the same 100 units. more prosperity for. equally , you can provide more. in this hypothetical example , we are a laboratory. you can create 3 times more utility. you have limited resources. if you can provide us with the difference, and at the end

of the chain, be sure that the people will get the same amount of welfare. give the end of the chain. badge experience given that we cannot do this, a very interesting point came to my mind when i entered the instrument. radio and television, one of the friends of gardhani said something very interesting that some of the economic experts and professors of our university, whose opinions you broadcasted, either do not pay attention to this point , or now we can be optimistic that they pay less attention. they said that wherever that the world bank or fund. the international monetary fund (imf ) defined the policy of one country, it should be doubted because any proposal or policy package

given to countries usually leads to an increase in poverty and an increase in pressure. it has reached the bottom deciles of that country, so wherever they praise us, one should be suspicious. in 2009 , when the targeting of the allies in the country started , that is, it started in 2006 , he praised this iranian system. that's enough, people. they feel that this is enough. when you have such a policy, you change from helping low-income people to supporting them in the name of supporting them. you should doubt this when we say that it is a subsidy for bread. the rich use it, so if we want to fine the rich, we will fine the whole society with this work and these definitions of iam , it is not without reason that one should doubt it, that is, not one case, not two cases, all the cases that

were recommended to the nations, this should be doubted when we say that the subsidy explanation is for the benefit of the rich, isn't it? this is not true . what kind of goods did we subsidize in basic commodities ? did we subsidize frozen meat? did our income earners consume frozen meat? should we remove the subsidy from this mantle? the rich should not benefit because it was not only meat. for example, everything that we used to subsidize in basic goods the consumption of most of the incomes of the majority of incomes is lower, not higher, when we remove the subsidy and pay at the end of the payment chain or free the prices in any other way. it is the low-income and lower sections of the society who are fined , not higher. when you give rice , you

are subsidizing the imported rice, which is of average and lower quality, and not the first-class iranian rice, which has a higher income. 10. he is using higher quality material, the increase of that material will have an effect, mr. rasadehgar , do you agree or see? from my point of view i look at the issue that really this discussion of targeting the subsidy definitely needs that we first consider the target society that we really want the subsidy to reach. no, mr. mohammadi's point was that we were giving subsidies to the weaker sections, all of them were mostly for this . i don't agree with this

because the end of the chain is the society our goal is that according to the events that have happened in our country, that is, the existing situation , you should look at the end of the chain, they could not reach the subsidy that was considered, for this reason, it seems that there must be a thought. newer and a newer program for mr. ras , now, astronomer's meat, for example, it is known that frozen meat is consumed by one, two, three, or 10 subsidies from the beginning of the chain . 10, 10, or 1, of course, the decade they are complaining about, our goal was to help , but it didn't work. see why it didn't happen. were we

able to get this subsidy now? this means that they can really use it. you assume that what is being done is correct at the moment . can the end of the chain be able to use this subsidy? how can they, when you get the chicken, pay the price of the chicken from the subsidy, which means that it is 42. you have removed the production and made the price free or real. the phrase that says 2850 2850 did you make this price after the price, what happened to it, the price of chicken in the year 401 after the letter 422 was announced as 59 thousand tomans per kilogram of meat. 59800 chicken means 60 thousand tomans, then what happened now, the subsidy to the first chain, in other words, he saw less, what happened to the price

of 85. this is where the issue of supervision comes up, that is, it is not the question of how to pay the subsidy, the issue we are talking about now is that anyway, we are the beginning of the chain , that is, the producer, if he received a subsidy, that means we could lower the product to the tenth. i mean, the end of the chain could not. they are making good use of these facilities. i would like to say that the chicken is still receiving subsidies, which means that 28 to 500 are actually the so-called livestock institutions. from the beginning to the end , there is a gap between the so-called institution, which means that it was not exactly the correct path, why was it not, because you are looking at the end of the chain, usually weak people

are always the victims, how do you know this? in any case, since we are a union society and we are faced with different strata of society, including the less fortunate, we see that those people who were weak became weaker in these years, if the purpose of paying subsidies is the same again, the explanation is rich. for the sometimes weaker sections that can do better we at the beginning of the chain should use whatever we spent, the end of the chain will not see the benefit. i am not saying absolutely that all should be allocated to the end of the chain and the final consumer should use all the facilities. in any case, you know that if the capital department wants to go to the end of the chain and

these without a plan. ok, well, this itself is creating economic problems for us , it is causing inflation. my point is that the beginning of the chain and that producer sometimes received a subsidy, but the end of the chain did not see the benefit, which means that the people could not touch it properly and be able to benefit it properly. now, one of the reasons for this is the issue of inflation, which means we have never seen it in these few years.

width