Thursday, November 19, 1998

Burning the bridges in Europe

In just a few weeks, on the 1st of January 1999, eleven European countries will forsake the right to issue their own currency and accept the circulation within their boundaries of a common currency, the Euro. Monetary policy related to the Euro will be set by a European Central Bank. One fact that struck me as curious is that in all the abundant legislation that regulates this process, there is no mention whatsoever of how to manage the withdrawal or future regret of any of the union’s members.

The absence of alternatives in this case evidently represents a burning of the bridges, but this may be necessary to achieve credibility. There is no turning back and there is no doubt that this is a truly historical moment. As participants in a globalized world in which Europe has an important role, we must naturally wish all members luck, no matter what worries we might secretly harbor.

Until 1971, all money used throughout the history of humanity was backed in one way or another by something physical to which a real value was attributed. Sometimes the backing was direct, pearls for example, while in other cases it was indirect such as the right to exchange bills for a certain quantity of gold.

This physical backing in itself did not necessarily mean it consisted of something of fixed value. The value of a pearl, for example, is in itself subjective. The promise to exchange bills for gold did not guarantee anything either, since this promise could easily be voided by fraud. Whatever the backing was, however, it did at least offer the holder of the money the illusion that it was supported by something concrete.

In 1971, the United States formally abandoned the gold standard and the direct backing, however imaginary, disappeared. Since the Dollar is a legal currency, it could always be used to repay Dollar denominated debt. Today, however, in spite of the fact that the Dollars may have lost some of their purchasing power, a holder of excess Dollars can only hope that the Government of the United States will exchange his old bills for new ones of the same tenor.

This apparently precarious situation must be the raison d’etre of the motto printed clearly on the bills which states “In God We Trust”.

Since 1971, the real value of the Dollar as an element of exchange, has lost some of its value due to inflation. Today, we would need many more Dollars to buy the same houses, cars, movie tickets and gold than we would have needed in 1971. In spite of the above, with few exceptions such as the end of the ‘70s during which inflation increased dramatically, few would dare qualify the United States’ elimination of the gold standard as a failure.

The world’s economies have managed to increase international commerce drastically and with it, sustain a healthy growth rate. Many analysts would explain this phenomenon by saying that the discipline exacted by the gold standard represented a brake on international commerce. The growth rate registered in commerce after 1971 was the result of the release of this brake. Other more critical analysts sustain the thesis that, due to the fact that we have abandoned the discipline required by the gold standard, the world has accumulated gigantic accounts payable, which we may be coming due very soon.

I personally swing back and forth between amazement of the fact that the world has accepted such a fragile system and satisfaction that it actually has done so.

The Euro has one characteristic that differentiates it from the Dollar. This characteristic makes me feel less optimistic as to its chances of success. The Dollar is backed by a solidly unified political entity, i.e. the United States of America. The Euro, on the other hand, seems to be aimed at creating unity and cohesion. It is not the result of these.

The possibility that the European countries will subordinate their political desires to the whims of a common Central Bank that may be theirs but really isn’t, is not a certainty. Exchange rates, while not perfect, are escape valves. By eliminating this valve, European [Eurozone] nations must make their economic adjustments in real terms. This makes these adjustments much more explosive. High unemployment will not be confronted with a devaluation of the currency which reduces the real value of salaries in an indirect manner, but rather with a direct and open reduction of salaries or with an increase of emigration to areas offering better possibilities.

What worries me most is the timing. The world is facing the possibility of a global recession. This will require very flexible economic and monetary policies. The fact that the search for initial credibility for the Euro is based on trying to assure markets around the world that the new currency will be guided by a philosophy closer to that of Bonn than that of Rome, probably goes against the best interests of the world.

Published in Daily Journal, Caracas, November 19, 1998

20 years later: Let’s face it. Americans dream they are American. Few if no Europeans, dream they are Europeans.


PS. A new English Language Empire?

PS. What I did not know when I wrote this article was that EU authorities (EC), for the purpose of their (crazy) risk weighted capital requirements for banks decided, in a “good-will” gesture, to assign a sovereign debt privilege of a 0% risk weight to all European sovereigns like Greece. That of course, by removing market credit constraints, would make the Euro challenges so much more explosive especially considering that the Euro is de facto not a domestic (printable) currency of any Eurozone nationShamefully EU authorities responsible for that have not acknowledge their mistake, and made Greece have to walk the plank for it.




Wednesday, November 11, 1998

Bashing the consumer

Once again we are in the midst of a debate about the allocation of a concession for a cellular telephone operation. One part of this debate is relative to whether the law to be applied in this case is the Telecommunications Law of 1941 or the Concessions Law of 1994.

As usual, most of the arguments are a direct function of the commercial interest involved. In this particular case, however, it is even more surprising to find that the General Director of the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) is of the opinion that neither of the two apply, holding the singular view instead that cellular communications are not to be classified a public service.

Again, as is tradition, the debate does not cover the entire communicational spectrum. Once again, the end user of the service is conspicuously absent.

In 1991 Israel bid and allocated a cellular telephone concession to the investor that offered the most amount of lines and agreed to charge the lowest tariff. In Venezuela, however, concessions and privatizations are designed to maximize the income for the State. Results come fast and hard. Recent calculations support the fact that one minute of cellular communications in Venezuela costs ten times what it costs in Israel.

Quality and low tariffs for public services such as electricity, water, communications and transportation are some of the critical elements that must be present in order to maintain the country’s competitiveness. This fact should be taken into consideration by entities such as Fedecamaras and other influential groups that, like any court jester, have in the past applauded a privatization process that must, for all intents and purposes, be classified as fiscally oriented.

The Telecommunications Law, as no other, is evidence of this trend. There is absolutely no mention whatsoever of any obligation or duty of an operator or carrier to provide a good public service at a reasonable tariff. What’s more, when the moment comes to address the regulation of tariffs, apart from the fact that the Law calls for respect for existing agreements, it establishes with utmost clarity that any regulation must consider the “interests of the National fiscal system”.

Don’t think that the Concessions Law is much different. While it logically states that “the concessionaire must be allowed to obtain sufficient income to cover costs and that is fair and equitable”, there is no mention about the need, or even the intent, to structure the concession in such as was so as to minimize the cost to the end user of the service to be offered.

It is high time that we begin to differentiate in a more rational manner between sane economic policies and those that, simply because they are being applied to what has been loosely classified as a “market”, are believed to be the quick road to an economic miracle and are consequently implemented indiscriminately. Much care must be taken when a “market” simply does not exist. This is specially true in the case of public services, which are mostly structured as monopolies, public or private.

Public service companies traditionally offer workers employment stability and therefore also pay salaries that are below the average. Recently, faced with the threat of a national strike, a representative of the national monopoly identified by the initials CANTV, expressed surprise, arguing that the latter was paying salaries over and above the national average. Without wishing to belittle the individual aspirations of its workforce, I remember asking myself who had authorized CANTV to pay its employees salaries above the national average, probably at the expense of a higher tariff for the service offered.

The government, as well as many of the Presidential hopefulls, has announced a new wave of privatizations, specifically in the energy sector. As a result, it is of utmost importance that they remember that a high price obtained for the sale of a publicly owned company like SIDOR is beneficial for everyone, while a high price obtained from the sale or concession of a public service is simply a tax paid in advance to the State, which all of us must then repay via unnecessarily high tariffs for per secula seculorum.

I have read about the supposed “advantage” of tendering and allocating a few megahertz (50 to be exact) at which any investor must then throw an additional US$ 200 million in project development funding. First of all, Conatel hopes to land a US$ 180 million windfall. Then the State wishes to obtain US$ 325 million in income taxes and US$ 470 million in sales taxes between now and the year 2009.

In other words, the tariff structure needed to award the investor a “fair and equitable” income must contemplate not only the US$ 200 million development cost, but also the payment to the State of US$ 975 million. Where the dickens does this leave the end user?

Daily Journal, Caracas, November 11, 1998

Wednesday, November 04, 1998

The index of perceived Corruption

Transparency International (TI) has developed an index by means of which it ranks countries around the world according to their perceived levels of internal corruption. I have a Danish friend who recently came to me for the umpteenth time with this list clutched firmly in his fist, proudly crowing over the fact that Denmark once again tops the list as the least corrupt country while Venezuela once again comes in toward the bottom, beaten out for the basement spot by only seven countries among which we find Colombia and Nigeria.

As a Venezuelan, I immediately went into a defensive mode. I argued that since the index is based on the perception of corruption, it could be that the results merely indicate a serious problem of exactly that, the perception, not the reality. Additionally, should this actually be true (evidently not the case), I told him that although I did lament the fact that Venezuela was not mentioned in the top half of the list, I was at least satisfied that we were definitely not occupying any “not too human” first place.

My good friend, observing my discomfort, realizing that I have some Swedish blood in my veins, and in a sincere effort to console me, blurted out that in reality he also did not understand why Denmark had been ranked first while Sweden was ranked third. My immediate reply was “Chico, Denmark must simply have paid more for it.” 

Jest aside, the index is the result of a serious effort on the part of professionals of diverse backgrounds who, using the few tools available, have managed to develop a system of evaluation which is useful and of great support for every citizen wishing to combat this age-old plague. 

Its importance is of even greater significance when we hear that Transparency International suggests that we don’t attribute more accuracy than necessary to its index. Venezuela’s ranking on this list of 85 countries is such that it is evident, to say the least, that the country’s level of corruption is far greater than average. This is bad enough!

Any debate over whether Venezuela should be ranked higher could be perceived simply as a strategy aimed at discrediting the index. Only the beneficiaries of corruption could possibly have an interest in doing this. A true patriot would not waste one single second of his or her valuable time in debating why people speak poorly of our country. On the contrary, he would dedicate all his time and energy to correct the reality instead of objecting to the perception.

This debate on corruption is truly difficult and complicated. Even though we should be pleased that such an index exists, I am worried that the mere fact that we are trying to reduce corruption to terms of a measurable dimension may lead us to oversimplify the problem dangerously.

The index, in principle, only measures the perception of corruption in general terms. This is defined in ample terms as “the abuse of public office for private gain.” In this sense, and because of the nature of the problem, I am sure that when using the term “gain” we are referring mostly to a monetary benefit. This avoids measuring other aspects of corruption that could be just as important or more.

For instance, I believe that the appointment of someone to public office for reasons other than his or her capacity or professional integrity is a corruption that is even more pernicious and costly to the country than the sum of all monetary corruption put together.

An example of this is our recent banking-sector crisis. The costs caused by the poor administration of this crisis are far and above the costs attributable directly to the bankers involved. It’s not that the bankers are free of guilt. They did undoubtedly start the fire. But whose fault is it that the financial firemen were caught napping and did not hear the alarms, and that once they finally got to the scene of the disaster they tried to douse the flames with gasoline instead of water? 

I make these comments to remind all that the monster of corruption has a thousand heads. I would be sad if all the result of the efforts to slay this monster would simply be the elimination of the traditional offers of discounts for prompt payment, right then and there, and that we frequently receive when fined for a traffic violation.

Let me make one last comment on this quite tortuous subject. In Venezuela, perhaps more than in any other countries, there is more than sufficient evidence of the total administrative ineptitude of the state, and all of our governments have absolutely no results to show, considering all of their income. Nonetheless multilateral agencies, such as the International Monetary Fund, frequently come to the country and recommend an action (sales taxes) that could only mean allowing the state to squander even more resources. For whom then is the IMF working? For the politicians? Could we then be staring at another unknown dimension of this monster called Corruption?

As edited for Voice and Noise, 2006
Originally published The Daily Journal, Caracas, November 4 1998

PS. “Our recent banking sector crisis” I here refer to in 1998, was a Venezuelan one that happened in 1994. Reflect on how much of that comment also applies to the bank crisis suffered by developed nations in 2008. 


Traducción:
El Indice de Percepción de la Corrupción 


Hay un índice, desarrollado por Transparencia Internacional (TI), relativo a la percepción que existe sobre la corrupción en distintos países. Tengo un amigo danés que por enésima vez este año me ha suministrado la copia del ranking, donde Dinamarca aparece como el país menos corrupto y Venezuela, en corrupción, solo es superada por siete países entre los cuales esta Colombia y Nigeria.

Como venezolano, en obligada defensa, le expuse que por cuanto el índice lo que mide es la percepción que se tiene sobre la corrupción, puede que los resultados solo indiquen serias dificultades de apreciación. Además y para el caso (negado) de que fuese cierto, le comente que si bien lamentaba que Venezuela no estuviese en la parte superior de la tabla, por lo menos me satisfacía el que no ocupasen un "inhumano" primer lugar.

Mi amigo, a sabiendas que también soy de procedencia sueca y en un esfuerzo por consolarme, expreso, de forma generosa, de que en verdad no entendía sobre que bases se había determinado que Dinamarca ocupase el primer lugar y Suecia el tercero. Mi replica fue inmediata; "Chico, Dinamarca debe haber pagado mas!"

Apartemos la broma. El índice es el resultado del esfuerzo por parte de un grupo de profesionales diversos que, con base a las muy pocas herramientas disponibles, han logrado desarrollar un sistema de evaluación útil y de mucho apoyo para todo ciudadano deseoso de combatir esta plaga de vieja data.

Su importancia se hace aun más significativa cuando, siguiendo las propias sugerencias de TI, no le atribuimos mas exactitud que la necesaria. La posición de Venezuela en esta lista de 85 países es tal que sin lugar a duda podemos decir que en nuestro país tiene una corrupción mayor que el promedio. Lo anterior resulta suficientemente malo.

El debatir sobre si Venezuela debe estar en un puesto mejor, simplemente seria una estrategia para tratar de desacreditar el índice y en esto solo podrían tener interés los beneficiarios de la corrupción. El patriota no dedicaría ni un segundo al debatir el porqué se habla mal del país sino daría todo su empeño en corregir la situación.

Qué difícil resulta todo el debate relativo a la corrupción. Aun cuando reconozco que, en el papel de motivador, debemos agradecer la existencia del índice, me preocupa de que el solo hecho de tratar de medir la corrupción, al tener que reducirlo a una dimensión que permita su medición, puede conducirnos a una peligrosa simplificación del problema.

El índice, en principio, solo mide la percepción que se tiene como una corrupción general, definida esta de forma amplia como "el abuso de cargo publico en beneficio propio". En tal sentido y por la sola naturaleza del problema, estoy seguro que el termino de "beneficio propio" implica principalmente un beneficio monetario, obviando medir aspectos de corrupción que pudiesen ser tanto o mas importantes.

Creo que la corrupción presente cuando se nombra a quien habrá de ejercer un cargo público, por razones distintas a su capacidad e integridad profesional, es más perniciosa y costosa para el país que la suma de todas las corrupciones monetarias.

Como ejemplo de lo anterior, los costos derivados de la mala administración de la crisis bancaria supera, por largo rato, los costos que de forma directa son atribuibles a los banqueros. No es que los banqueros sean inocentes, sin duda prendieron el fuego, pero; ¿quién es el responsable de que el cuerpo de bomberos financieros, estuviesen dormidos sin oír la alarma y luego utilizaran gasolina para apagar las llamas?

Hago esta observaciones para recordar que el monstruo de la corrupción tiene mil caras. Seria lastimoso que el resultado de los esfuerzos que se haga para combatirla, solo culmine en que cuando se imponga una multa por violación de transito, no se ofrezca la tradicional alternativa, del descuento por pronto pago.

Por ultimo un comentario sobre este escabroso tema. En Venezuela mas que en cualquier otro país ha quedado evidenciado la total ineptitud administrativa del Estado. Todos los ingresos del mundo y nada de resultados. Cuando entonces un organismo, como el Fondo Monetario Internacional viene acá y nos receta, como única vía para salir de nuestros problemas, el que proveamos al Estado con mas ingresos aún, pagando mas impuestos, para el beneficio no individual sino colectivo de la secta política; ¿estaremos enfrentando una faceta desconocida de la corrupción?

Wednesday, October 21, 1998

Pure water and Dostoyevski

I recently had to travel to Washington on business. On the flight from Miami I was handed a small picnic-like bag that contained the modern substitute for the traditional on-board meal. I suppose this is aimed at cost reduction. For obvious reasons, which by the way are widely shared, I was never much of a fanatic of this service, so the modernization of the same is neither here nor there for me. I did find, however, that negotiating an extra bottle of wine out of a picnic bag is far more difficult that doing so out of a stewardess.

What inspired some of the following comments was the bag’s content. The bag included a bottle of pure, natural water and a “globalized” menu made up of a Manhattan deli-sandwich, Dijon mustard and Tortilla Chips.

The water is contained in a clear plastic bottle, good but costly. Its label told me that the water originated, and is bottled, in France, vintage ’98 and can be consumed safely until July 27, year 2000. (What should one do in August of year 2000?) It also included a bar code, which evidently makes logistics easier, considering the fact that the product must be transported long distances from its source to the ultimate consumer.

On the backside of the bottle, another label gave me valuable information as to its “Nutritional Content” broken down into units per serving, which in this case is exactly equal to the content of the bottle, which is 11 fl. oz. or 330 ml. The information is as follows: Calories = 0; Total Fat Content = 0 gm. = 0% of the Daily Value (DV); Sodium = 0 mgs. = 0%; Carbohydrates = 0 gm. = 0% of the Daily Value (DV); and Proteins = 0 gm. = 0% of the Daily Value (DV). All was, as one should expect from water although, curiously, no info at all was provided in respect to its purity.

While I drank the water, I read a special supplement of The Economist magazine which addressed the issue of international commerce and developed the fundamental thesis that the world should continue, come hell or high water, to develop free and open market programs. I am a sincere and avid defender of free and open market principles and if the possible benefits are analyzed in the traditional terms of "bicycles and wheat" I have absolutely no problem.

However, if this means that in Venezuela, in order to reap the benefits derived from free trade, we have to create the conditions that allow for the sale of non nutritional French water, instead of the equally non nutritional Venezuela water, something which borders on fanatism, then, perhaps, The Economist and I must be referring to a free trade or an aperture of a different sort.

As we landed in Washington, I concluded that any business or economic development policy, that leads to substitute the cost of a stewardess for the cost of a particularly expensive bottle of water, is really not adequate for Venezuela. Actually it isn’t adequate for anyone.

My arrival in Washington coincided with the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This year the meeting was particularly high profile as a consequence of the global economic crisis that is already affecting many countries around the world and threatens to continue to expand.

In terms of human suffering and sacrifices, we have already begun to understand the horrible implications of this crisis. From Japan, the press relates the terrible drama of a collective suicide of three businessmen, all husbands and fathers, due to bankruptcy as a result of recession. In Venezuela, our citizens are already paying their dues as a result of the fall in oil prices. 

In Washington, I observed on a daily basis, almost to the point of nausea, the pressures applied on an otherwise apparently successful President, as a result of sins caused by possible excess in libido. Being from another country I would not want to judge their reactions but I do believe that this debate centers on the American society’s need to see to it that responsibilities are assumed (accountability is the appropriate buzz word).

Much of the discussion during the IMF meetings centered on what is called the “moral hazard”. The argument maintains that by helping stricken countries we are actually simply helping speculators to avoid massive losses and keeping them from suffering the punishment they deserve. As a result, they will surely be tempted to incur in the same errors over and over again.

All in all, the economic crisis, Clinton and the moral hazard created in Washington a real Dostojevskian scenario, reinforced by the fact that one of the TV stations, in what I considered an extraordinary sense of timing, was announcing the upcoming airing of "Crime and Punishment".

Against this background I noticed, somewhat surprised, that the faces at this year’s meeting of the IMF, were the same as those present at previous meetings, as if nothing had occurred. Could it be that Venezuela and to complement its export of beauty queens, has managed to come up with a new non-traditional export called “impunity”?


Tuesday, October 06, 1998

The bad habit of external public debt

I am amongst those who believe that one of the most important reforms we can bequeath to future generations of Venezuelans would be that of forcing the country to begin a gradual but real amortization of its external public debt. When the latter reaches zero, we should then constitutionally prohibit new indebtedness.

I consider this perfectly justifiable due to a) the dreadful experience we have had in the past with our public debt; b) the fact that even the slightest improvement in the country’s economic climate incites the international financial sector to press more loans into our hands; and c) the fact that it must be very difficult for our leaders to resist the temptation of reaching out for those new resources.

The arguments are simple and unsophisticated. As such, they are of little help in the battle against the thesis, universally accepted, that foreign debt is absolutely necessary in order to maximize the development of a nation. This thesis is even considered applicable in countries like Venezuela, which receive resources from sources other than debt that amply surpass its capacity to digest them efficiently.

I obviously believe in access by the private sector to the international capital markets. If there were no public external debt, the market conditions in Venezuela would be very different from those we have today. Today’s conditions could be summarized as being 3% over a country risk factor of 20%. It is difficult to take on debt in Bolívares at 70% interest even when there is the “hope” that inflation or devaluation will erode the real cost of the debt. It is virtually impossible to contemplate debt in Dollars at 23% interest when taking into account that inflation in the United States is somewhere around 2% per annum and the world threatens to hit us with recession.

Today, every politician agrees with the thesis that we should shrink the size of the public sector and reduce the number of public employees. The majority of them are in favor of the “bit-by-bit” method, arguing that these layoffs should be implemented only when the private sector creates the offsetting job opportunities. The classic case of the chicken or the egg!

The private sector will only be able to be the motor of development when the mortgage of the external private debt that indirectly taxes its activities is removed. We cannot expect the help of banks and the international financial entities with this task. For decades, we have heard their calls for the reduction of the public sector while, with the same breath, they request the Republic’s guarantees in order to lend resources to the private sector.

One of the main worries the common Venezuelan citizen harbors is that solutions to the mismanagement of our current public debt, such as the partial sale of PDVSA or Citgo, will only contribute to the continuation of the orgy of bad administration of the State. I am sure that if we managed to implement a credible constitutional prohibition that will assure the population that our national debt crisis will not be repeated, it would be possible to reach a consensus.

The key word, of course, is “credible”. If we have learned anything from our past experience with modern democracies, it is that they have an immense capacity of altering their course in order to satisfy short term aims. Today we may applaud the prohibition mentioned above. Tomorrow they would probably look for our applause to lift the same prohibition.

A proposal such as this one, evidently has many natural enemies. On top of our leaders that like to win votes by using easy money, we also find the bankers that wish to place their resources, easily, with high yields and with “safety”.

When we say “safety” we mean that in our unreal world, a banker that lends funds to a private sector company that then goes broke due to the government’s erroneous policies, puts his job at risk while the banker that only lends to the government, thereby abetting those very same policies, normally does so without risking his personal hide.

There are other enemies, not necessarily natural ones. These maintain that is in unpatriotic to limit the State’s attributions. These enemies can be recognized by the ease with which they maintain in the same breath that the actual debt is bad but that future debt is good. We remind these people that to govern while recognizing human failings and thereby avoiding further damage cannot possibly be unpatriotic.

To continue to believe egoistically that the next government, or the one after that, will not repeat the same errors is surely treason. If there is one nation in the world that can attest to this fact, it is Venezuela. The immense resources from the country’s oil production has not contributed much to the country. Certainly, the debt it has contracted has not contributed at all.


Tuesday, September 22, 1998

Orimulsion vs. tower of terror

This week's television reported on a small incident in one of the Florida amusement park attractions (Tower of Terror) whose causes are being investigated. Some users apparently suffered minor injuries, however, we doubt that this will reduce the public attracted to this type of recreation.

Imagine the existence in Venezuela of some amusement park owners who, upset by the competition from Florida and with the aim of forming a support movement, recruit and seduce a group of mothers who all suffer from pathological anxiety. Imagine this aggressive and vociferous Opinion Group demanding that the authorities of the Federal District prohibit children from traveling to Florida parks.

The absurdity and smallness of the accident, the Florida protests, the children's protests, everything would make it impossible to think that the Prohibition Decree would be approved.

However, if we are allowed to assume that: a.- there are other parks as good as those in Florida, "Mommy, we can go to Disney in France!", b.- that the administrators of the Florida parks do not care. It matters a lot, "with fewer visitors we work more comfortably"; and c.- the support of the citizens of Florida is neither requested nor received, then suddenly the possibilities of the Decree do not seem so remote.

"Guys, even though I have family in Florida and it could cause harm to them, since no one cares about this, let's pass Prohibition, at least this way we can get these screaming crazy people off our backs."

In a somewhat similar way, the state of Florida banned the use of Orimulsion. The Orimulsión that has so much meaning for Venezuela. For a Venezuela that today needs any help it can receive. But, for a Venezuela where this, apparently he doesn't give a damn. For a Venezuela where we drink orange juice from Florida and read that simultaneously “currency transfers to Florida grew 400%.

This week a trade mission from Florida visits us in Caracas. Its purpose is to sell us products and investment opportunities. Neither a candidate or member of the government, nor a business or union organization, nor a director, executive or employee of PDVSA, nor a parliamentarian, nor a university student, no one, probably no one will use the occasion to at least indicate that we are harmed and upset. for the decision on Orimulsion.

We should all be ashamed. If in Venezuela we had to choose a popular saying that was known and applied by all our people, it would probably be "he who doesn't cry doesn't suck." Apparently we don't use it outside our borders.

For a long time I have maintained that one of the main problems that Venezuela has in correctly adapting fashionable economic policies, such as trade liberalization, is that the vast majority of our economic leaders, in the public and private sectors, are very recent converts. . Since originally they held other points of view and today they are terrified that someone will recognize them in their new clothes, they maintain and apply their dogmas with the fervor that we can occasionally detect in a nouveau riche, eager for recognition from the "establishment." or in a believer recently subjected to an inspiring call.

The truth is that globalization and trade openness do not diminish in any way the need to group around the concept of nation to meditate and negotiate the economic strategies convenient for the country. Quite the opposite. Before with closed borders, with tariffs and general import bans, this did not matter much. Today, with open borders, we really need intelligence, will and cunning to prevent the “world from eating us alive.”

I am not and have never been a protectionist. However, my pulse or intellectual conscience would not tremble if when negotiating on behalf of Venezuela I had to resort a little more to hypocrisy. To that hypocrisy that all countries apply with mastery but that Venezuela apparently considers in bad taste.

What would be difficult or almost impossible for me would be to negotiate on behalf of our country without being able, in a concrete way and as support, to refer to a will, a clamor and a true national demand. In other words without the support of a good and exportable collective cry. Let's globalize the plantain!

Talking about amusement parks reminded me of a full page I saw in a newspaper less than a week ago. It described a country that, unlike the red deficit suffered by Venezuela, was illuminated by a “blue; color of the surplus.” A country with resources to generate microenterprises (granted through “more expeditious channels than those of Corpoindustria”), a country with resources to take care of the environment, develop hospitals. A beautiful country where “it seeks to promote a new relationship with society” establishing in a splendid way

From Economía Hoy

Translated by Google





Saturday, September 19, 1998

Hit in the head by the SENECA sale

On Tuesday, September 14th, the power system of the State of Nueva Esparta, SENECA, was finally privatized. The Venezuelan Investment Fund (FIV) and Cadafe, both representing the Nation in this case, had established a base price for the sale of US$ 35 million. The price finally paid by the winning bidder was US$ 90 million, awarding the sellers a premium of US$ 55 million.

There is no doubt that this is a great achievement and it would be very selfish not to congratulate those involved in this transaction for a job well done. Evidently, this privatization bodes well for the supply of electricity for the State and in this sense its population can celebrate the happening.

I have, however, time after time maintained the thesis that the privatization of a public service company should be aimed at improving the service while minimizing the cost of the same for its users, and not at maximizing the central government’s income. It is in this sense, then, that I express the following reservations with regards to this particular transaction. I am not criticizing the privatization SENECA per se, but am raising the flag with regards to the ‘morning after’ effects of the same.

Evidently, should the SENECA have been sold for US$1, the tariffs for electricity required in order to amortize the investment would have been much lower. Today’s financial community has awarded Republic of Venezuela long term debt a tax and project risk free return of over 20% per annum. In this sense, it would not be exaggerated to say that SENECA’s buyers will expect a return of at least 20% on their own investment.

This implies that Margarita will have to come up with US$ 18 million (i.e. 20% of US$ 90 million) every year and that this flow must come from the tariffs paid by the end users of the service. In tourism terms, this is like paying for a small brand new five star hotel every year. To this amount, we must also add the outlays represented by salaries, new investment, purchase of electricity and taxes.

It could very well be that this annual toll of US$ 18 million for the right to liberate itself from Cadafe’s management is actually a great deal for Margarita. However, since Cadafe and the FIV obtained US$ 90 million for the privatized entity while projecting tariffs on a base price of US$ 35 million, there is room for the following questions:

First: Who, if anyone, went overboard when promising potential investors what future tariff levels were to be paid by Margarita’s population? Who calculated these tariffs? Did they make a mistake? If so, was it made on purpose or was it simply incompetence? It is obvious that if the tariffs offered in the bid documents had been lower, the investors would not have put a premium of US$ 55 million on the table.

It bothers me to no end to be treated as a moron by public officials. When they maintain that they obtained this premium simply due to the excellence of their management of the transaction, I feel they are sticking their tongues out at all of us. Why then didn’t they establish a base price of US$ 25 million? The premium would then have been US$ 65 million instead of US$ 55 million. Why didn’t they offer an even higher tariff structure and obtain, say, US$ 120 million instead of US$ 90 million?

We obviously understand the laughter and back slapping by State officials. We can almost hear them say “Marvelous. We have gotten rid of the responsibility of the supply of power to the island. On top of this, we have received a front-end tax payment of US$ 90 million on top of all the other taxes we will be able to charge in the future! Nobody was the wiser for it! What a deal! Let’s do the next one!”

Second: If Cadafe and FIV say they would have been happy with the base price of US$ 35 million, why then, will the take the US$ 55 million premium away from the island? We must remember that the entire US$ 90 million, and specially the premium of US$ 55 million, will be ultimately footed by Margarita’s population.

Immediately after the sale, one official celebrated the event by saying he felt like Sammy Sosa of the baseball Chicago Cubs when he hit home run No. 61. As a user of the electrical system in Margarita, I felt more like I had been hit in the head by the very same baseball.

I suggest we analyze the possibility that the US$ 55 million premium by retained by the island. This would at least assuage some of the pain caused to my head by the falling baseball. Some direct benefit for the island could then be gleaned from the affair, for example, another pipeline for potable water. Evidently, if the entire US$ 90 million were left on the island, so much the better.

In summary, there is no doubt that as Venezuelan’s we should all be applauding the success of the privatization of SENE in the face of tough times. However, as an assimilated Margariteño, I find it difficult to celebrate since its cost, a mortgage of US$ 90 million, has been placed directly on the island’s shoulders.



Wednesday, September 09, 1998

What is it we really need in Venezuela?

We are being confronted on a daily basis with an endless litany of proposals, some fanatical and others just irrelevant and misguided compliance with a perceived social obligation. Both types are bad and make it harder for us to focus on how to really solve our problems.

The fanatics, who all share the wish of looking good on CNN's "Crossfire", cover the extreme sides of the advisory rainbow. On one side we find those who want us to foster nationalism and patriotism through isolation in true Robinson Crusoe style while casting old Fidel as young Friday. On the other are those who hype the benefits of economic opening and globalization to such a degree that we begin to feel that the only ones with the real right to be called Venezuelans are our compatriots in Miami.

Some twenty years ago, I used to vehemently oppose excessive use of protectionism, considering then that this was causing us to slowly degenerate into an inefficient and lazy nation. Additionally, having studied in Sweden and therefore carrying the social democratic values of that society on my back, I found the pockets of political patronage and power this protectionism created very disagreeable.

Today, however, I consider that in many ways Venezuela has opened itself up to the world excessively. In our effort to be part of every economic fad the world developed, we have actually become poorer and run the risk of slowly being wiped out as a nation. 

In spite of this switch, I am convinced that I have not changed my way of analyzing economic problems one bit since at all times my only goal has been to search for what is best for the nation, at a given moment and under a specific set of circumstances. 

I honestly think that a majority of my colleagues, all advisors and consultants, some formally assigned to this role, and others, volunteers, self-empowered and nosey, have been, albeit not on purpose, basing their recommendations more on how they fit a specific model of thought than on what the country really needs to get ahead. This is tragic.

The second category of proposals are those generated by all the individuals and organizations who seem to live by the motto “if we don’t have a Web Page on the Internet we don’t exist” or in this case, "if we are not able to develop a ‘do-it-in-20-easy-steps’ proposal on how to save Venezuela we have not fulfilled our social duty". Most of the proposals that fall under this category, some more relevant than others, are basically harmless. Even I recently published a humble proposal about what I would do if I were to become President (obviously in an allegorical sense) which had to be published in two articles in order to satisfy its boundless degree of ambition.

Other entities, given their importance in the development of public opinion due to their ample presence in the national scene and in the media, simply do not have the right to treat the process of the generation of proposals lightly. Among these entities we can mention Fedecámaras.

I know there is a wealth of material on the politics of oil and it could very well be that the last Fedecámaras General Assembly generated some others I do not know of. However, what you can find in the document known as the Assembly’s Central Document, all 36 pages of which can be downloaded off the Internet, and that is certified as Copyright© Fedecámaras, seems to me to be a relatively poor proposal. The document includes a list or mix of 63 vital proposals. Obviously, he who has 63 vital issues on his mind, really has none.

In addition the Fedecamaras document does not grasp the realities. It barely touches the issue of how to reactivate the internal economy and it ignores the need to improve the distribution of wealth while urging increased use of the General Sales Tax rather than the Income Tax. The issue of reducing government spending is treated with kid’s gloves; trivial matters such as privatization of jails and the approval of the Code of Ethics of Public Servants are addressed; the creation of the Macroeconomic Stabilization Fund is belatedly discussed; and even further confusion is created when the reform of the Judicial Sector is mentioned by saying that “Maybe it would be convenient to hand over all responsibility to the Supreme Court of Justice”.

In a moment such as this, when there is hunger and unemployment in Venezuela, when the economic crisis becomes worse every day and when the world is full of uncertainties, an organization such as Fedecámaras must either present a well developed and thought out proposal or simply keep quiet. The duty of those members of the private sector that feel they are or should be represented by Fedecámaras is to express their opinions.



Tuesday, September 08, 1998

Of oil, income and the Constituent Assembly

Absolutely incredible, there is no anthropologist who can understand it. In a country so given to celebrations of holidays, national, religious, pagan and others, there is not one, not even a parish festival, whose purpose is to celebrate what from every point of view is something of the most important for Venezuela, its oil.

A few months ago, the IESA Debates magazine published a brief essay of mine and in which, in order to provoke a debate, I suggested the possibility that the entire national custom of presenting oil as something bad and unpleasant, going so far as to describe it as "excrement of the devil" to something that in any other civilization would be considered a gift from God, is derived from an intelligent compromise to prevent the national country from being more severe when demanding accountability.

As long as oil revenues are "dirty" and have not gone through our pockets (as they say so as not to corrupt us), there will be little importance that we give to the function of supervising the performance produced by those who have graciously offered to manage them on our behalf.

If at Sunday Mass, the oil income was worthy of a few simple thanks. If in primary school children were taught the need to thank God by correctly assuming responsibility for this income. If souvenirs alluding to oil were sold at the airport. If when traveling to Florida we proudly displayed t-shirts selling the benefits of Orimulsion. If from time to time and together with some virtuous maiden we sacrificed some Minister of Energy and Mines to try to ensure a season of good prices for oil. If all of the above were true, then as they say: "another rooster would crow!"

The most important thing to develop a solution to a problem is to clearly identify the resources available. In Venezuela it seems that this does not apply. Here colleagues, social planners, notables and other well-intentioned opinion leaders insist on proclaiming that the optimal development model for Venezuela must try to ignore oil revenues. Something like assuming that we leave the oil buried and then pray a hundred "ceteris paribus" to compensate for continuing to exploit it.

The oil income is still there and the opening efforts are aimed at increasing it. In view of this, I expressed in my article the thesis that perhaps the model that Venezuela should adopt is that of rentierism. Of course, not that of easy-going and lazy rentism but that of responsible rentism, which requires the formation of a solid character that responsibly assumes the management of wealth for the benefit of future generations.

If one were the owner of a company where the manager is useless, fails and continually squanders resources, the simplest rentier model would indicate that before ensuring a true reorganization of the company, the owner should not contribute new capital or allow the manager to continue putting the company into debt.

Consider the lack that we have of the simple previous wisdom in order to better be able to face the current demands of the IMF experts and the politicians eager for resources and who prescribe to the country, based on strange models that I believe are more sadomasochistic than of a cutting nature. macroeconomic, that the disastrous administrative experience of the State should be ignored and continue giving more and more resources to the treasury.

There is much talk today about a Constituent Assembly. I am not an expert but I am sure that somewhere in that Constituent Assembly there is a need to include matters related to how Civil Society can monitor, supervise and influence the management of its oil industry.

When the previous Constitution was drafted, the country, although it enjoyed income derived from oil, was not in charge of managing the industry. Today, when witnessing programs of all kinds by PDVSA and related companies, when contemplating how PDVSA is called to collaborate in government management and when simply measuring its economic significance, it is clear that there is a significant power, whose performance and form of expression can that is not properly regulated.

Nor sufficiently regulated to ensure that the Government of the day does not squeeze PDVSA for the necessary resources it needs to ensure its own development and survival. Nor sufficiently regulated to ensure that a technocracy does not take root in it and implements its own agenda behind the country's back. Nor regulated enough to ensure that the Government and the Petrocracy do not collude against the rest of the country.

When discussing the separation of powers, for example that of the judiciary, let us not forget the need to also separate the monetary powers, PDVSA the generator of resources and the FISCO the spender of these. A truly independent NATIONAL OIL BOARD

Translated by Google



 

Friday, August 21, 1998

A code for our ‘public servants’

I have in my hands a copy of the Official Gazette of the 15th of July 1998. Published in this gazette and entitled “Instructivo No. 1”, we can find the Code of Conduct for Public Servants. I have this document because someone threw it into my lap a few days ago and asked me what I thought of it. I have been at a loss for words since then. Maybe I am at a loss for words because this is one of those circumstances in which keeping quiet is exactly what is called for when having noble sentiments or simply a good code of conduct.

On Father’s Day, when my daughters come up with presents of gigantic multicolored key rings with looks on their faces that say “use it or you don’t love me”, I don’t merely hide my reservations but even am able to produce evidence of infinite enthusiasm. 

When a friend who has recently discovered his hidden talent for painting shows me his first works, I also hide my reservations with words such as “how interesting”, albeit distorted just a wee bit by a mild cough. 

When a person I don’t know commits the type of faux pas that most of us commit at one time or another, I also hide my reservations with total silence. If such a silence simply aggravates the embarrassment of that person I even, educated as I am, tend to create some diversion to ease the pain.

No way am I going to hold my tongue on this one! This “Code of Conduct” was signed, based on a 40-year-old Constitution, by an outgoing President and 23 Ministers, professionals, neighbors and of age. I don’t see why I have to hide my reservations.

I am not saying that it is wrong to require that a Public Servant be “honest, fair, polite, loyal, disciplined, efficient, responsible, punctual, transparent and clean and that he have a calling to serve”. As standards, these are so logical that they should be required even to simply aspire to a post as Public Servant.

I am also not saying it is wrong to try to define each and every one of these traits, even though I think the place and time to do this is during primary school.

What I am saying, however, is that it is a bit disquieting to see the publication of a ‘manual’ like this one in a formal vehicle such as the Official Gazette. Specially when the fact that we are going through a moment of such emotional import as is the transition to a new millenium while facing one of Venezuela’s worst crises, both structural and temporary, should merit a ‘real’ effort to push the country towards a new path or model of development.

It is disquieting because it reflects the traditional attitude of our governments that think that all our ills are a result of human frailties and cultural faults that can simply be rectified by decree.

Disquieting because it reflects the degree of shamelessness that our governments have achieved. They have thrown the first stone and preach of truth, trying thereby to tell us that those in the driver’s seat have been, are, and always will be, over and above the flagrant violations of each and every article in the new code.

It must be due to all of this that it is so difficult to remain silently discreet. For example, should the government simply have offered its excuses for the difficult market conditions in which the Brady Bond swap was executed and the recent dollar issue of 20 year bonds at 14% was floated instead of sandbagging us by selling both as great achievements, the adverse reactions would have been minimized. Luckily, this will not happen again. Paragraph (a) of Article 26 of the Norms states that “Every person is entitled to know the truth. The Public Servant must not omit or falsify .........”.

All publications in the Official Gazette are subject to occasional typographical errors. Unfortunately this must be the case in Article 17:1 in which we read: “Those persons who have occupied public office must not use information obtained during this time against the interests of the Republic for at least one year”. The statute of limitations of the prohibition to use anything at all as a tool to attack the best interests of the Nation should definitely not prescribe!

The Code frequently repeats that its contents must be made public (could this actually acquire the status of Mao’s Little Red Book?); calls for the creation of a National Board of Public Ethics; and allows Public Offices to issue complementary norms as long as these are kept “within the framework of the spirit of the Code”. We evidently have not heard the last word.

As an incentive, the Code specifies in one of its articles that the Public Servants must comply with the former in order to be eligible for “condecorations awarded on the Day of the Public Servant”. Unfortunately, the Code does not include one article, one paragraph, one letter, nor one comma with regards to what would happen should a public official not comply with the letter of the decree. This evidently renders the entire effort less credible and efficient.

However, all is not lost. This Code, published in a leather hardcover and placed in the drawers of the night tables of local hotels, could indeed become a precious souvenir for foreign tourists. Additionally, Paragraph (c) of Article 19 states that the “Public should be treated with the formal “Usted” and familiarities should be avoided ....”. Could we finally be close to getting rid of the familiar “mi amor” and “mi vida”?



 

Wednesday, August 05, 1998

How can we all keep quiet?

Last week Venezuela issued 20-year bonds for a total of U.S.$500 million at an interest rate of close to 14 percent per annum. This implies service outlays of U.S.$70 million. The United States would pay only 6 percent for a similar issue. This means Venezuela must annually pay U.S.$40 million more than the United States. In spite of this, government officials qualify the issue as successful. Who are we kidding?

Although I am sure these Venezuelan officials were formally authorized to contract this debt, I am certain that they were not authorized morally.

I say this based on the certainty that capable, responsible and patriotic administrators would not have rested in their efforts to develop a healthier alternative for the country. An alternative different than simply paying more, so much more, in fact, that people queued up to purchase these instruments.

I also maintain that there should be limits to the cost at which the country is allowed to subscribe new debt. There should be a limit to the cost at which we, as a failed generation, have the right to saddle future generations with. I consider we have reached that limit. What’s is our government’s limit? Is it 25 percent, 100 percent, or is there no limit at all?

What other alternatives do we have? If there were a real political will to fight for the future of our country, the alternatives are infinite. Cut costs, use reserves, achieve the consensus necessary in order to use the vast real guarantees the country possesses in order to contract debt at lower interest rates, or simply contract debt at shorter maturities. Any which way, anything other than what was actually done.

For example, if the interest rate for Venezuela’s debt drops within one year to the levels Mexico’s debt is currently traded at (9.8 percent), then, considering that there would be 19 years left to maturity and that the paper carries a fixed 14 percent interest rate, the country would have to pay U.S.$675 million to retire this particular debt issue. In other words, in one year the country would have incurred losses of U.S.175 million.

Someone could object and say that the situation could become worse and the 14 percent could actually become a bargain. I don’t believe however, that any government has the right to impose its pessimism for future decades. Should the country now actually implement some of the alternatives being discussed today, such as the partial sale of PDVSA in order to cancel existing debt, the rates the country could command would fall to the same levels as those of the United States.

In this case, the losses incurred with our most recent issue would be stratospheric (hypothetically, if this were to occur within one year from now, the losses would reach U.S.$450 million).

Some may argue that the political conditions that would allow the development of an alternative that was not of least resistance do not exist. I can’t accept this since it is the responsibility of leadership to create these political conditions or, if it fails, to resign. The governability of a country must mean more than simply being able to avoid a coup d’état. The damage caused is not limited to the fact that we must now pay higher interest rates for the U.S.$500 million.

The fact that we forced the issue upon a market with low receptivity by simply raising the interest rate, means that this will be used to measure future opportunities in Venezuela.

It is enough to note that this increase in interest rates will be reflected immediately in an increase in financing costs for the private sector and in a reduction in the income we could receive from future privatizations.

The interest rates fixed for Venezuela are approximately 3 percent higher than those applicable to Mexico and Argentina today. This means a difference of U.S.$15 million per annum.

Our official spokesman explained that the international markets unfortunately perceive a higher credit risk in Venezuela since the latter is an oil producing country. I am truly amazed by the sharpness and realism of this analysis.

As if they were rubbing salt into the wound, the announcement of the bond issue was published simultaneously with an ample, and probably costly, campaign launched by Fogade in which they exhort failed Banco La Guaira’s debtors to “comply with the payment of their obligations.”

This exhortation comes a full four years after the day this institution was intervened by the government. The tranquility with which the government went about the collection of these debts doesn’t seem compatible with the urgency reflected by the high interest rate accepted in the latest bond issue.

I have three beautiful, intelligent and talented daughters. Thank God they have had opportunity to visit various parts of the world and enjoy them immensely. Their good knowledge of languages and computers, as well as their open-minded thinking about the new realities make them ideally suited for a globalized world. My eldest daughter recently told me that, in spite of all this experience, the place she likes the most and in which she wants to live is Venezuela. How can I keep quiet?