This is actually another problem called subsidy and it is not specific to Sudan. Fuel subsidies were put in place as means to help the poor by keeping commodity prices low, but the ever increasing use of subsidized fuel for personal use creates a situation where subsidies actually end up benefiting the middle and upper class.

This is a economical time bomb waiting to explode and something governments fear to address for losing on popularity. The more time subsidies are in place, the more warped the public perception of fair price will be. The protests tell us it got horribly warped for Sudan.

My comments were not specific to Sudan alone. There are so many countries with deep problems on account of fuel subsidies (India, Indonesia etc.). The sudden rise of oil cost in the past few years have literally blown the governments out their reluctance to stop the subsidies for fear of public outrage.

Energy problems are real and they will be there regardless of whether fuel is subsidized or not. The protests that you mentioned stems from public expectation of subsidized fuel even when it may be detrimental to the economy at large.

Subsidies solve 'some' problems, not all. Subsidies create problems on their own too. If subsidies are so helpful, all that we need to do is to subsidize everything and all our problems will vanish. In reality there is no such thing as a free lunch. Oil imports put considerable pressure on trade balance of many countries and fuel subsidies will be most badly felt in such countries.

Even if the country has sufficient fuel reserves, it could still be a wise decision to allow market dictate the prices.

I do not know what ultra liberals stand for. But if fuel prices keep rising, more and more countries will abolish fuel subsidies. That is for sure.

OK show me one country where everything subsidized and is still going well and you would have managed to get rid of one person with an unintended ultra liberal pretensions. :-)

Saying 'Subsidies solve the problems, they are not problem' is a sweeping comment and suggest countries are being stupid to be ignorant to such a simple measures. Fact is politicians and rulers simply won't be interested to abolish any subsidy unless they are forced to.

I never took an extreme position on subsidies. They help, especially when it encourages production (farmers who get less than fair price for their effort are often get subsidies for a reason) where as fuel price subsidies have been found to be counter productive in many instances.

When subsidies divert funds that could be put to better use elsewhere, rethinking becomes necessary. Problem with subsidies are that they 'create' dependencies that prevents 'healing' of the problem the subsidy was intended to help. Political repercussions often prevents a rational evaluation of subsidies on a timely manner..When a rethinking of subsidies become necessary due to changed ground realities, things are already in drastic state and there is not enough political will because beneficiaries of the subsidies see it from narrow personal levels. It is often the case that real beneficiaries of the subsidies are the ruling class.

So it is pointless to glorify subsidies as an end in itself. Like anything in life, if used wisely they could benefit and that implies that reality checks need to be conducted every time to see if they achieve the goals.

When a rethinking of subsidies become necessary due to changed ground realities, things are already in drastic state and there is not enough political will because beneficiaries of the subsidies see it from narrow personal levels.

Sometimes I pray that some force will transfer such guys as you directly into Sudan or Yemen and let you live a year or two of their life. After this we'll talk about same thing and how you view all this. Unfortunately I almost certain that you won't survive or could find you in nearby embassy.

Thing you wrote here seems smart, initially. If you do not think on them. But if you think, it looks horrible.

Why certain EU countries have right to make huge subsidies, but another ones are fully broke and are imposed to only rules of "free market"? Why US, EU first made clashes in Sudan, sponsoring and providing weapons. And after this we see ideas that "it was improper".

It is not improper. It is fight for resources, were one side it completely evil, but somehow managed to have all military force and media resources. And tell us about how effective some things are and how some are not.

If you are small farmer and fuel is 60% of your expenses, huge price rise on fuel does not mean that it is more effective now. It just means that you have big problems and can have problems even with survival of your family.

As for IMF studies and IMF in general. I rpovided good illustration not long ago, all of this people must be sent to Sudan and people must hang them on trees across main roads to teach future "smart professors" that can happen to them.

I do not consider Yemen or Sudan to be in Mars and am very well familiar with these countries and its people. My concern for people around me is no less genuine than yours. We seem to have views that are different and that is what makes me come here.

:-) Thing is that your familiarity is abstract. On thought and words level. This is why you need to live with same life to understand it. As you constantly turn to the smooth and "right" words like "If they can be put to better use to create employment and infrastructure or used in a better way for the whole of the society". Thing is that it is shitty words, as I do not know were this thing actually happened.

Libya had "bad subsidies" and high life level :-( Now they have only "democratic free market" with big guys getting all resources :-)

Now whether governments actually do put the money to good use is something each country has to decide. Some countries do and some may not. If they cannot, may be you are right. Rather than subsidizing, give completely free food, house and fuel to the people so government cannot get enough funds to misuse.

Thing is, you are going in circles. While point of post was just talking about reality. Bigger amount of people, less energy available and evil guys who get big part of remaining energy. Believe me, it has nothing to do with subsidies and money at all in this part. But in their reality you need subsidies and low energy prices as it is best approach to let economy run (with low production and low energy consumption compared to any developed countries).

As for "force". Generally it never happened in history were crimes against countries were comitted openly but with full cover of mass media (not local, but worldwide) as another division of military.

@ppccroft The problem is much of the covert is hiding in the overt. An interesting read is "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"