what our country has done is not customary in the world . yes, it is not customary. do they want to do it and not do it? could they do it? in the united states, during the previous period , that is, the obama presidency, a plan was announced and implemented called obamacare. whose main basis is helping people's health or allocating subsidies to ensure health.

the next president abandoned it because his resources were too large and it was a rival party's plan. the next president who came was mr. obama's party mate, he could not provide his resources, that is, the united states also wants its politician, he wanted to give subsidies, and he could not. give a subsidy. well, we have seen that many of the goods that were imported or subsidized, if you go to the end of the chain, you will see dissatisfaction among them. it exists, that is, the same discussion, for example, powdered milk , for example, or some medicines, so why is this being smuggled, why is it being taken out of the country, well, subsidy is also applied, but it does not reach the end consumer , that's why, well, wherever you subsidize, now at all i gave an example of flour itself, why flour is smuggled , the government is giving a good subsidy, i guess. it

reaches the end consumer, but it is smuggled so, our problem is the point that mr. mohammadi does not have strict supervision or we don't have special monitoring tools. i say that the government's resources for paying subsidies are limited and these resources must be provided from somewhere, or from the place where goods are more expensive, or from location of resources and income new wealth when you have limited resources. you won't reach your goal if you don't give the chain first because it has a beneficial effect and the production costs will be added. you won't reach your goal with the same 100 units . hypothetical example of our laboratory, you can create 3 times more utility, you have limited resources, if you can, we will be different.

provide it and at the end of the chain , be sure that the people will get the same level of prosperity. at the end of the chain, give the end of the chain. experience has shown that we cannot do this. a very interesting point got into my mind. guarding , it was very interesting to say something that some economic experts and professors of our university, whose opinions. you broadcasted it , they either don't pay attention to this point, or we can do it now they are the most optimistic and pay less attention to those who say that wherever the world bank or the international monetary fund defines a country's policy , 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 on the poor. that country is at the bottom, so wherever you praise us, you have to doubt it. in 2009, when the targeting of allies started in the country, that is, it started in 2006 , iran praised this action. that's enough, people feel it. this point is enough, when you have such a policy, you change from helping to akhshar low income supports them in the name of supporting them, you are taking away their support. one should doubt this when we say that because the subsidy we give to bread is used by the rich, so we want to penalize the rich, it penalizes the whole society. with this work and these definitions of the iam, it is not without reason that we should doubt, that is, not one case, not two cases, all the cases that i recommended were necessary for the nations. this should be doubted

when we say that the explanation of the subsidy is for the benefit of the rich, no, this is not correct. we gave it to meat we used to give frozen meat. did our 10th income earners consume frozen meat ? should we remove the subsidy from this meat? the rich should not benefit. well, you should come to see why it didn't happen. now , were we able to reduce this subsidy to 100%, that is, they could really use it. assuming that what is being done is correct at the moment, can the end of the chain be able to use this subsidy? we at the beginning of the chain will not see the benefit of everything we spent at the end of the chain. i am not saying absolutely, allocate everything to the end of the chain and the final consumer. use all facilities

that is, anyway, you know that if the capital department wants to go to the end of the chain and so on. in these few years, this subsidy , which is sometimes minimal, that they pay and the recipients receive for the subsidy, they have never

been able to support themselves with mr. mohammadi's condition. no, this is not a one-sentence statement , but the goal that was announced was a good goal , for example, they should offer support for the basic product , so that the consumer will get the product at a lower price. everyone was given a problem, work was paid without supervision, without accounting. look, we talked about chicken . you said that we still give subsidies. it went up and people's purchasing power has gone down again. regarding the width of 428 and 500 or any other preferred width, if we don't monitor it, we will fail, the example is different now, but to change the mind in america, it is free to carry weapons, then shooting in

schools, the lawmaker has gone up. instead of banning the carrying of weapons, the american came and said, well what should we do if the teachers get guns or all the students? instead of correcting it from the source , it means that we don't want to correct the supervision, accept that our supervision was not correct, our processes and procedures were not correct. if it was correct, the result would be good. it had a better output, it doesn't matter if you use 28 and 500 with the same. go to the method, you will fail. any other price, any other rate , you will fail again . if you don't monitor, you will go to the beginning of the chain. they won't do it. don't monitor the end of the chain. again, so let's assume the variable of monitoring

and say, well, this is done assuming that we say that our monitoring is not sufficient and yours is not enough. it means that you say the end of the chain and the beginning of the chain in any case, you say there is a lack. let's take it with the assumption that we have strengthened our supervision. now, it is good to give this subsidy and the limited resources we have to the first of the chain or to the final consumer, assuming that we have proper supervision. let's be the chain of supervision, the result is more accurate it will be better. you will get more results by spending less resources. you just choose the right goods and announce a combination of subsidized packages for the layers. now the current plan of the government , which has been announced from eid to eid , is a little better than your previous plans. if you buy some goods, you can use more subsidy , although you can not use that subsidy

, use the amount that is paid for something else . do not buy these goods at all . if you buy, you will be encouraged to get more subsidies , that is, direct your resources. in this direction if it comes to a conclusion, don't give the resources at the end of the chain. well, since you are giving at the end of the chain, then you don't see the need to share the monitoring, that is, do your duty. you don't allow it, you easily transfer all the pressures to the end of the chain, mr. bestgar, how much do you agree with the assumption of supervision ? the point here is that mr. mohammadi pointed out that we should direct manab to the direction, which means that in any case, i pointed out the same point that we giving a direct conditional subsidy means guiding, but the issue is that sir. or until this year, that is, until 1402 , have we been able to start the chain, that is, in

production now, we have given a subsidy that is supposed to reach the final consumer at an approved rate , were we able to have a strict supervision, could all sections of the society really be able to use this subsidy ? it is a challenging issue and you should look at the subsidy and we have gasoline smuggling , we also have excessive consumption . let them use subsidies. our opinion is that if subsidies are given, by all means we have seen that in these few years

there has been no management on this issue, which means that it has been really poorly done, so we leave this work and task to the people themselves, with conditions and conditions , so that they can use this subsidy where they need it. in your opinion, which one of these subsidy payment methods is closer to justice for the people? look, according to the changing conditions of the country in the economic issue, now we cannot say which method is better. any method that we can have more and better supervision can be more useful for our society, that is, because people are using it, i ask, for example , if we are giving to the first of the chain or if we are giving to the end of the chain, which of the target groups can use this subsidy more fairly, usually

, these are the people who are at the end of the job if they get a direct subsidy, in my opinion, it is closer to justice, mr. mohammad, what do you think is the basis of the debate ? if we agree on one part , you must also accept the second part. why do you give the example of gasoline subsidy? for example, don't say insulin, why do we subsidize insulin so that not everyone uses it, it is not logical, you can't , because a certain group of people is given a subsidy, for example, a medicine for a specific disease, why should some people use it , why should everyone use it, why should the rich people use gasoline subsidy, everyone should use it, the introduction of this the issue of giving subsidies to the beginning of the chain. it doesn't reach the goal, we couldn't monitor it, it has a dangerous side effect if i accept that

it has not been successful so far because it has not been successful , it has been less than the goal of our subsidy policies, but the example of the basic argument is that we say that the subsidy is not good, so i accepted it, but the condition second, the second person doesn't come. he says the whole thing. he says that as we remove the subsidy , we should free the prices. he doesn't say that the subsidies should be given to the end of the chain to do the right thing. first, they say to bring the subsidy to the end of the chain so that the prices of the goods will be freed. now, slowly, that subsidy will also be removed. the global price of supply and demand means that a dangerous word will be said later , that you should free the prices. why do we have a preferential rate, which is smuggling? maybe you will release them so that they will not be trafficked. in the meantime, some people

will be crushed under this cycle in this process. here is the dangerous word at the cost of being crushed, there are some people in the society who want to make some reforms. we cannot make reforms that some people will be crushed under the wheel of development. we must pay attention to these as well. if this package is complete. let's take into account yes, we agree, you should free all these prices, supply and demand , don't give any subsidy, it is justice, but the one who finds it consumes, the one who didn't have it . we are talking about the process, see the point that there is this trial and error and these different methods in the society, we

talked about how to pay the subsidy, and it was implemented. it means that in the past years, the same discussion came up that we give the subsidy to the people to manage by themselves . all sections of our society receive subsidies after a while. the coming of the subsidy, cutting off a part of it, you say, for example, that we are entitled, after a period of time, the coming of a condition, which means changing these methods with the coming and going of different governments, different parliaments , so this shows that there is really a real goal about this. there is no subject or a real behavior that people can be sure about. wherever we are now, my interpretation is that if

we say at the beginning of the chain, who are the beginning of the chain, that means who is this. please explain the subsidy on what goods comes to our mind that there is going to be another governmental event, that is , the government will come in as the custodian of the issue or the administrator of the issue . the government has the main role to do it now, so this didn't work. but from this side, we have seen that, well, the subsidies are given to the people , the prices are freed, and after a while, the same subsidies that giving people and removing them from a number of communities , well, these are issues that we really need to be on a process and a real method so that people can be sure that this did not happen, the point

that mr. mohammadi mentioned about that it is possible that some of you are referring to this process. let's see how many of the low-income groups in your society agree with this statement . in any case, in this test and errors and various methods , some people will definitely be harmed . did you hit the gas? you made the statement that we mentioned, of course, i absolutely cannot confirm this, but anyway, this is relatively true, that is, the words of mr. giving subsidies to the beginning of the chain is absolutely not a permission or approval for the government to do this directly because it does not have good results and it cannot give subsidies to the beginning of the chain, rather than the government going to establish a poultry farm and work on its own. do it

, don't be an administrator, the government allocates the subsidy, supervises , monitoring is the duty of the government. it is the dignity of the government to do the same thing, not to do business competition with the private sector or competition with the producer , this should not happen, but it should be supervised. well, here is the mandated supervision. wherever the government comes, it will ask for a subsidy, which means it will help. my supervision has also come in, and there is also the mandated product, so this is with the second part. our issue is that if the government

gets a subsidy that is more expensive than the allowed limit , then this pricing is one of the government's shenanigans that should be monitored so as not to put more pressure on the people, that is, exactly when the subsidy is given first, let them give a minute. the government should have supervision. i have no objection to this if he spends money, he gives himself the right to interfere . well , we have been wanting to go ahead with the so-called nationalization of production and economic discussions for some time, so it is definitely a discussion for a while. we want to refer to the so-called private sector, that is

, according to article 44 of the constitution, our issue is that the deprived and lower sections of the society can use public resources. mainly with the presence and arrival of devices that are now called supervision of imports from different government departments has a good result we have not seen it in the past few years. now, if this subsidy is given to the producer at the beginning of the chain, the government will definitely say that , sir, i am paying here. has the government succeeded in spending subsidies? has the government been successful in getting the goods to the lower classes of society? it seems

that we have not been successful. basically, how much do you think is possible on this volume of production, for example, to have supervision ? in my opinion, they cannot have much success. have relative but the workload is very high. in any case, this issue is a national issue and an issue that, due to the dispersion of different strata of our society now, if we want all strata of society to be able to benefit, it seems to me that it should be a completely private work, that is, the private sector and the people of mr. mohammadi. we spend a third of the government's income on subsidies to various things that are not monitored and we don't get enough interest. it is different from whether people are in relative prosperity or not. we have to

compare it like this. our country gives the most subsidies in some sectors. but the welfare of the society is also provided you should compare this with the countries that say if you don't have money for electricity and i don't know , we will cut off heating. you should compare this with the level of access of people in different countries. each of these products that are subsidized may seem very normal to us, but keeping the house warm has become a concern in many countries, even industrialized countries, no compliments, no exaggeration . we can verify the validity of these words by announcing them on this forum . i don't expect everyone to agree to study on their own. do is keeping the house warm in industrialized countries of the world a concern or not? why is it not a concern in our country? because of the subsidy that is given.

are we using the subsidy correctly? no we do not use correctly. there is no good supervision. but it is not a reason that we do not have prosperity. the health facilities that we have may be very natural and our inalienable rights. it does not exist in many countries. you have to make an appointment for several months for an mri or ct scan appointment in a country like england. this does not happen in our country. in the most remote villages, access to health and the health network will pay in the best way. if you don't pay this fee, you have to pay other editions. we have this in different departments. for example, they say that our government is very big. it is very broad. yes. if you privatize education, the size of the government will be smaller. instead of three or four million teachers who are government employees, these companies will be direct employees of the government. it will show the size of the government

will be smaller. to implement this model, we don't consider the prosperity we have . it will be better than this. we can implement it better than this. but supervision does not mean that we have one supervisor for each trade unit. effective supervision is not a matter of traditional supervision . we can have more effective supervision through other means and new tools . anyway, see what we are seeing at the same time we say that the country is run at a high cost anyway, and that's the issue anyway. the targeting of subsidies in issues such as treatment or the same gas consumption that you gave as an example, well , that's it. we deny this part of whether or not efficiency should

be done in those sectors that should definitely be done by the government. we have no objection to that, but our discussion mirror as for the issue of basic goods that are going to reach the people , does this subsidy that is given first to the producer at the end of the chain realize this issue, that is , it was really able to have an effect. it has actually reached the final consumer . i mean, until today, most of the goods consumed by people have not been of the quality and quantity that they should be. well, the reason for this is that the government has given subsidies at the beginning of the chain, that is, at the beginning of the work . anyway, it is a cost. it is a big amount for the government . when we say 1/3 of the government's income, it is about 100%. well

, this is a significant figure. let's look at its effects in the end, let's see if it has had any positive effects. if it has, let's continue. it doesn't seem like mr. mohammadi , we should have two minutes to summarize your statement that the government is not a good businessman . that people don't touch, because the famous example is that a fish doesn't feel the water in the door, it doesn't feel the presence of water , it feels it when it goes out. if it comes, for example , on the purchase invoice of people, write the actual cost price and mention that it is at a subsidized price. you are buying at this price, maybe people feel that they are helping which receives to be better and more real, of course , not in the way that it is customary in some stores to give a price increase and then say, for example

, a 70 discount. we also decided to make a subsidy, but we should give more than the total price to the people , not like this, but people can feel that it should be better explained to them in order to cut the subsidy from the beginning of our chain, and give it to the end of the chain, then and then. let's say for a while, well , it hasn't been answered, we can't provide its sources , so let's delete it. this double cruelty to the people is a dangerous introduction. a famous example is when a student is told to say a. he doesn't say. then the teacher beats him. why doesn't he say it is simple. a. i said that i have to tell each other to end it. when you remove the subsidy from the beginning of the chain, give it to the end of the next stage of the chain. this is to create competition, the next step is to realize the prices and to

put it simply. make everything in dollars , raise everything based on inflation, to justify the fact that it is not cost-effective, thank you very much, my opinion about yaran is that anyway, in all countries of the world , there is support for the deprived and weak classes. support depends on the economic condition of that country in our country during these several years. considering that we have elections ahead , the honorable representatives must pay attention that any

law that can improve the issue of the weak part of our society, well, this will make people have more hope in life, the dreams they have, we all know anyway. that our people are serving the country with their heart and soul in all scenes . certainly, this period too, god willing, we hope that the people will vote and help, god willing, the representatives who are experts in i would like to invite the islamic council to attend, thank you very much, mr. rostgar, mr. mohammadi, all the good viewers of the higher program who have accompanied us until this moment . if this happens at the beginning of the chain, naturally , this can be helpful for the representatives you vote for and us.