in the name of god, greetings, courtesy, respect, service to you , dear and respected viewers of the above program , we are at your service with another debate on the topic of whether to allocate gasoline subsidies to national codes or to cars, that is, the same current situation in previous programs. this issue was mentioned and a statistic was presented from the majlis research center that , in your presence, half of the entire country's households do not own a car and do not use the gasoline share subsidy . on the other side, statistics were presented that we have become an importer of gasoline and every year , different numbers were proposed, we are introducing a number on gasoline and naturally, part of this subsidy that we are paying goes to those who do not have themselves , according to the guests of the program in the previous episodes where we talked about the issue , it does not reach the consumers and people. stay with us

until the end of the program. thank you. yes, here in our studio mr. fartukzadeh, an energy expert , is present as an opponent of the allocation of gasoline subsidies to the national code. also , mr. zamaniyan, another energy expert , is present as a supporter of the allocation of gasoline subsidies to the national code. greetings. and god almighty , i would like to allow both guests to start with mr. fertogizadeh and this question, basically , where does the reason for your opposition to the allocation of gasoline subsidy to the national code of individuals come from? in the name of allah, rahman and raheem, you see, we must understand gasoline historically

. gasoline has been conceptualized in different periods in the iranian mentality with the same developments, that is, naturally, gasoline is a commodity. it is like other goods, that is, how do you go, for example , you buy food, you buy clothes, it is expected that gasoline is also something that we call a private commodity, that is, a private commodity is a commodity that you have to pay for and buy, but gasoline gradually due to policies which was laid conversion from a private good to a public good , what is a public good like? for example, i don't know the security of defense . vaccination is a work that no one should necessarily pay for that good. it is the responsibility of the government . this means that we have to see how gasoline turned from a private good into a public good. it has become a public commodity

, but note that this meaning does not remain only in the mind, this meaning comes into the scene of real life and creates a series of so-called path dependence. it creates the possibility that now that you have made a different decision, it means that a politician once thought this way for any reason. that he should stabilize the price of gasoline, and this is for the benefit of the people, naturally, this stabilization has had consequences over time, now he wants to come to the conclusion that that stabilization was wrong or that the time for that stabilization has passed, now he wants more gasoline.

let's go back to the normal state here, the policy maker can't imagine the consequences of two decades of price stabilization , which you have created a series of price changes with some periods, for example , my turn. . maybe we made it expensive this time, just take a look and pay attention to us two the three times when we made gasoline more expensive, it was instilled in the people that you should only go along with us , for example, we will make gasoline more expensive once, then we will not give you the equivalent, then you can relax, go after your life, we did not say that we decided to turn gasoline into a commodity. we said

no, gasoline is what you think, we did not write or write an agreement with each other that gasoline is fake, now you have a little bit of your right. come on short, you've come short, we made gasoline a bit more expensive, we gave you a subsidy from that, well, this speech was a politician's speech, not an agreement with the people. hello people, very well , let's keep this introduction up to this point, mr. zamaniyan , why do you believe that the gasoline subsidy should be allocated to the national code of all people ? now, for example , they don't have a car, they are somehow using the same gasoline subsidy, something that we see a lot of talk about in the virtual world, what do you think ? in fact, i want

to give an introduction, definitely some kind of ideas please allow me to interpret it as, for example, let's give gasoline to the people. or let people exchange gasoline with each other. things like this are not something that the residents actually have a preference for, which means that if we had planned better in the long term, maybe there would be no need to do these things. we are in a situation where this situation has closed the path of decision-making and correction. we all know that we are in a serious deficit in the field of gasoline . my government, when i say government, i mean the decision-making institutions like the parliamentary government, for whatever reason, do not decide to discuss this issue with the people, that is

, most of their efforts are to make the people trust, so don't worry for now, we don't want to touch the price for now. like a family father who decides for any reason to have the confidence to sit down with his children and talk about family issues , there is no other place, he is creating problems, he is paying money, in many energy carriers we know that we have a question for people, why is the price going up? there are various reasons, if we don't want to enter into that discussion with those strange looks like, for example, a few people, a few people, a series of people, for example, want to do this, it is characteristic that we have an energy deficit for several months of the year in our industry. why is it interrupted? because i don't want to die, let's talk. let's see, mr. people. anyway, if there is a deficit, both the householder and the industry must be healthy. and by the way, the industry is the first to use energy. we can easily shut down the industry. no one should feel that no

house, god forbid, should be forced to run its air conditioner for an hour turn it off, well, the industry is sleeping, the export, in fact , the various industrial products are decreasing, the import is wide. the country will shrink, we will suffer a transverse shock. anyway, that father is bringing the cost to the family . the government departments have put so much security on the people and so much in fact that it is impossible to have a conversation. for now, we shouldn't talk about how i wish it wasn't like this . my colleagues, my friends and most of those who are researchers and there are experts and academics , we should add that we usually do not enter into executive solutions in these issues that we need to help the government , we simply say that, for example, we should solve this problem from

a macro level. they say that we should go and resolve the embargo, some things that, for example, may actually have more of a political color , some say no, we should go at all, in fact , fix the structure of the energy sector from scratch. practically speaking, it means that we don't have a solution, but we don't want to say that we don't have an idea , we don't have an implementation idea, we are relying on generalizations, see, we are talking in this platform and we are talking in this platform, now i want to say how much is our justified space for proposing solutions in this platform now let's sit down and see how many solutions are on the table. well, there is a traditional work solution that has always been and will be that we resist as long as we can. the explanation of gasoline is unfair and this is nothing at all i don't have it. our problem now is that we can't provide it. now, there is a discussion that can be done by

expert centers and the parliament, etc. there is a discussion of 3-4 billion dollars that will be discussed at least this year . what does a discussion that is really unsatisfactory mean? these actually show that our problem is really getting serious. well, i don't want to cause concern with this statement. but really as. our society should talk, we should not deny the problem, the problem of this problem exists , what is my concern about continuing the discussions at the level what is the basis behind the scene of not raising the issue with the people ? undoubtedly, what will happen is another november 98, which means you will go, go , go, this father of the family will go to the point where it is absolutely impossible to continue . a few solutions that allow every reform to be reformed will be closed, and

then we will actually have to go into the same wrong solutions once again. of course , we have no choice but to come and shock the economy overnight. let's actually involve all the people and there is no more opportunity for understanding no chance, actually, i 'm interested in a conversation now, god willing, in the next period, an analysis of the social reality. let me tell you about the issue of gasoline , i think mr. doctor raised a good point that in fact the issue has somehow gone out of its standard state. well, thank you, mr. zamaniyan, mr. fartukzadeh. let's hear your reasons for your opposition to subsidizing prices in one economy with another system. they have a system that means these prices are the same. they create a relative relationship over time, that is, for example, why assume that gold

is more expensive than silver, this is a relative relationship. for example, if you say from tomorrow, i will give gold more expensive than silver , there is a chain of consequences behind it. we have to bring oranges from somewhere else because bananas belong to cold climates and warm climates. you have to bring them to iran and they find this relative relationship, which means that the dollar will go up. again, this relative relationship will go up in favor of bananas when you stabilize the price of gasoline. and this stabilization, for example, suppose it takes two decades, this manipulation is in the relative relationship of prices, that is it has a chain of intended and unintended consequences . look, when you

confuse this relative relationship, what was the cause? we said, "i will give you gasoline, people should be comfortable. finally, they have taken a burden off people's shoulders with a good intention. the first time you came because we were in the third program ." we used to make gasoline more expensive every year. in 2083, a group of people finally came to the conclusion that the price of gasoline should be fixed , including other energy carriers and even government services, gas and electricity, and i do n't know. now i will tell you a few, the first unintended consequence is this it has been that the distance between people's homes and workplaces has increased , that is, if we go back to the 1970s , for example, people used to rent houses within three to four kilometers of their workplaces, or set their jobs within three

to four kilometers of their homes. relatively speaking, in sabed khan, we may not have made our prices too expensive, but when you assume that the price of gasoline will increase over the course of a decade, the price of chicken will increase by 10 times. the price of potatoes increases 10 times, that is, in the distance when gasoline became more expensive, potatoes became 10 thousand tomans a thousand tomans, so the relative price relationship has been aggressively messed up. what was the result of this? in order to be able to explain the problem well , i have to give a typology of the afghan saddle of gasoline. i don't want to say how many types of zineft have gasoline, but

i will open one type now. it is a type that is affected by gasoline . there are people who live in villages and their jobs are in big cities. he wonders where his blood is in his gut. if you go back to the 70s , he won't go home in the morning. you will not be taken away you came freely, you created the road, you widened the road, you messed up the relative relationship with gasoline, you brought it down. they came to the conclusion that instead of living in a 40-meter apartment in pirouzi street, they can move to a 120-meter apartment in rodhand, for example, and buy a pride. if four passengers come to tehran in the morning, then the lifestyle has changed, the income pattern has changed , the spending pattern has changed, this

is a decisive type. we have the use of internet taxis. you think , for example, in a country with our per capita income like this the explosion of using internet taxis is really an iranian phenomenon. where in the world do you see so many passengers and drivers? it means there is both supply and demand . is it like this in tokyo or london ? you should consider these two types, that in these two decades, the stabilization of the price of gasoline and the reduction and reduction

of the relative price of gasoline compared to other goods. mr. zamaniyan, let's go to your reasons for saying that the gasoline subsidy should be assigned to the melia code. the findings of the presidential strategic in one of the periods are very interesting because we all know that the gasoline issue is now more than an economic issue, that is, it has become a social issue. concerns about the reform are also social concerns . a series of questions were asked . it has a very interesting summary. this survey, i want to present my view on the gasoline issue and say why this solution can solve the problem because the government in the different periods in which this policy is actually the stabilization of shock therapy means

, as far as we know, stabilize it, then give a shock if it doesn't work. stabilization of the shock has continued this cycle and well. he also had this, as far as possible , his dialogue with the people was that our people have no problem, we can continue , and he hid the issues from the people. in this poll, when people are asked whether they think the government can continue to supply gasoline for a long time, both in terms of supply volume and price, and continue in this way, about 70 % of the people agree. they believe that yes, gasoline is something that belongs to the guardians. the desire is equal to the value of the government , it can do this as much as it wants by its repeated emphasis, the government has confirmed this thinking that there is no problem at all, we don't need to touch anything, when people are asked, now if a change is going to happen , for example, a price change or something like this

, what do you think? this is the answer to the people with the previous two introductions. well, they definitely want to either secure their budget or they want to put people's hand on it again or they want to actually do something , that is, people's view of the government. in general, i want to say that it is a bit of a problem in this regard, i want to take a step forward . you can also look at the internet . it is not provided by the government, but it is a public right . let it happen, he saw how much it was protested, the government with its policy of mandatory pricing , which means that i determine the price of this product and guarantee that this fixed price will continue , has somehow taken the society in a situation where they think that any change that happens in line with the interests of

zinfan, especially within the government or a series of lobby elements and the like, that no one cares if something is really going to happen , i say that no one is looking at a majority in the society and i am talking about a general view, the idea is that they want to provide their budget again , they want to solve such and such problem again, they want the hands of the people. let them imagine the people who are living in a 40% inflation, and these people consider this inflation to be caused by changes in the price of gasoline and the like, and a government that believes that this can continue for years. if he is making this change for his own interests, then they will say what kind of government we are facing we are facing a government, what kind of parliament are we facing, which comes and changes the price of gasoline for its own interests. with this kind of thinking, we practically blocked the way to create. now, what should we do ? i am sorry. i said that there should be a discussion anyway, but

is this enough? no, in my opinion, the problem should be solved from the same place where we fixed it . if the government be that as it may, if i were actually a decision maker, i would enter into a conversation with people . you don't trust, you say that you want , it was actually for your own interests and for any reason also, make changes in this gasoline . well, i will put this at your disposal. it is interesting, if you pay attention in this survey , people are asked how interesting these two questions are. give you the same experience that we successfully did in 2009. nearly 70 people are still against this, according to the same group that had previous objections . don't do it, not only gasoline, other

energy carriers, i don't want my money, this is the first point second, the question here is whether you are ready to provide your share of gasoline, and if you want to use it, you can exchange it however you want, and the government has nothing else to do. no , again, more than 60% of the people here agree with this , and in this discussion and this question , the government has nothing to do. there is no input. well, the question is, if people really see this as a right, then they should actually say, "no, i'm from you." gasoline is almost at the price now, very low or free forever. you must guarantee that i need to go buy it from someone else and pay for it . these things should not be understood too much. my point is that instead of entering into a challenge in this area, let us allow it. somewhere, the government

should pull back, pull back, not stand aside, instead of considering its role as price stabilization , consider its role as a redistributive role, consider its role to be the creation of an exchange market between people, and regulate it. take it and let the market actually form between people. i think we can we can take a step away from this situation. it is definitely not ideal in the long term. it must change in the long term, but at least it will get us out of this current lock. mr. fartukzadeh , do you agree that the gasoline subsidy should be allocated to the national codes? the reasons that mr. zamanian mentioned or not, when the suburbanites and drivers and users of internet taxis are now threatened. we are faced with an existence , because of the confusion of the relative relationship of prices , this person whose lifestyle

is completely dependent on this gasoline, when you write such a text. if you implement it, it will naturally cause chaos, right? now you expect some people from remote cities , deprived provinces, now millions of people , but in those places that don't come, for example , assume that the suburbs of tehran and the suburbs of isfahan, etc., will say that it was our right, the government. you have given us your right to pay attention. i want to say that when we reach the real social scene , we should not assume that rationality is a very important issue . i went to buy gas in nowruz 2084. i expected gas to be expensive, for example, i don't know. it was 80 tomans, it could be 100 tomans, the number was like this. then, contrary to my expectation, gasoline did not become more expensive. i mean, we had been used to it for 4-5 years that gasoline became 20% more expensive during the eid holidays . it was very normal. see, i want to say that except for the fact that

you said that it might be around the number you mentioned, for example , 30. according to your order, millions of people may be affected by the price changes, because according to mr. zamanian's order, we will allocate the subsidy to everyone. do you have another reason to oppose this happening? pay attention. the one who gains a profit will be happy by one unit, the one who loses will be saddened by 10 units. your loss, if you assume that you lose a billion tomans or lose a gold coin, the effect is ten times greater than if someone gave you a coin. look, mr. doctor, your statement is understandable and correct, but i will come back to the same point that i said first, what is

the result of this. it is that nothing happened , you say that i wish we had come that day, for example , suppose we had increased the price of gasoline year after year. be taken in any case , there is populism in them, so they don't do this, that is , whatever we say should not happen, this should not happen. when we give a solution, we should meet the requirements of that solution. first of all, let's know that it won't happen. now, let's say that from an economic point of view , i don't believe that the price of fuel should be determined in the form of an order and in the parliament and the government , etc. whether it happened or not, today you are actually caught in a situation where you can't talk about that solution now, you are in a situation. 40% of the fuel price, which has reached one-fifteenth of the actual import price, what

we are importing now, and with inflation of 40 % , we are talking about 10% and 20% reforms. and i have no doubt that if he wanted to increase the price, i would have been like the stabilizationists. i would have said stabilize as much as you can. leaving this to the people, the people themselves will actually solve this problem together in a gradual process do of course, let me tell you that i will leave public transportation and all this aside . we don't talk about taxis and vans. this is another issue . let's go and burn them . i don't want to touch on the issue of people's transportation , or i'm saying that at least that part of the energy we have, the gasoline , we use for personal use. first of all, let's

divide it more fairly. either we give it to everyone, or we give it to 90% of the people, or we give it to a select few and let it let's say that this is actually a problem of the people , it should be within the people. when it becomes a people's problem, look , now we have the problem of housing. i am asking whether the problem of housing is more important in the livelihood basket of the people or gasoline . housing is definitely more important. gasoline can be compared to housing by any index. there is no comparison. well, year by year, if there is, the price will be gradually revised due to inflation. no matter how bad it is, no matter how much pressure is put on the people, no matter how disturbing the problem within the society is being solved , the society is eliminating this within itself anyway. we are not worried that there will be a huge riot in the country tomorrow and the society will collapse it is so interesting that the government tried to stabilize it many times and failed. i mean, why don't we leave the issue of gasoline to the people , let the people decide about it, if we

don't say that we are the people's government. well, let's give this to the people , surely the government has so many tools at its disposal that if it doesn't allow it, it should not be allowed. now, tomorrow , they will give me a quota of gasoline and i will sell it to them, for example , 40,000 tomans. in general, i am not talking about certain groups, generally those who benefit from this plan it is the poor who are worried that other statistical data show that a significant part of the cost is actually benefits. cheap fuel is reaching the rich classes in a general way, so with this redistribution, we are first bringing the benefits to the poorer classes. after all, these are statistical data, it cannot be denied, it cannot be denied, the government is present, the government is not that tomorrow if he gave a quota for gasoline to the people, now this is the market for speculation and smuggling, and i don't know about the overnight price shock. after all, the government has its own regulatory role. the government can still operate in the markets.

the government should have a parallel supply. he can control the amount of exchange, prevent speculation , prevent hoarding of fuel, these words and criticisms that he makes are that he has removed them, but in a gradual process, if the price is actually going to be corrected, it will happen by the people themselves, if the price is not going to be corrected at all. i always say to the government, in fact, sometimes when we offer, this is what i'm saying , aren't you saying that we can keep the price constant for years, well, keep it constant , exchange the quota among the people. under the price ceiling is in your hands , you can spend so much in the free supply position have it at the price of 3 tomans, so that people will never exchange the price above 3 tomans , so the worry of price increase is gone, but if one day you have to decide to fix the price , at least do n't put 90 million people in front of you. if the event is going to happen , it should happen gradually, let the reason, it is going to happen, the poor of this society will benefit.