Please - less global clowning

Please - less global clowning 

I have frequently questioned both the way Venezuela has tried to implement so-called “market policies” and the way we have faced the challenges posed by globalization. The innocence with which many of our public and private leaders have accepted a series of dogmas, I can only describe, at best, as childish.

Recently, in the same week, when reading the statements of a humble Venezuelan textile technician and those of Henry Kissinger, I felt accompanied in my concern. The first, in an opinion that seemed to me full of wisdom, accused our country of being a "clown of globalization"; while the renowned Kissinger, in the Washington Post, warned about the risks of indiscriminate globalization.

The recent debate between industrialists and importers allows me to reiterate some observations. The purpose of these is, mainly, to induce an academic debate.

To begin, I maintain that it should be prohibited, on the basis of constituting absolute intellectual dishonesty, to issue any concept regarding the economic development of Venezuela, without first clarifying what oil premise is used.

I explain. Either oil is a valuable non-renewable natural resource or it is just any resource. The first case imposes on us a very high fiduciary responsibility towards future generations, while the second, in principle, only obliges us to conjunctural management, that is, to exploit it quickly, as long as the simple conditions are given that its price exceeds operating costs.

Any analyst can realize that the answer given to the previous question must underpin any proposal to be developed, with the purpose of charting a coherent course for our country. The fact that it is so often ignored is the main cause of the current lack of guidance that we all feel.

I begin then by clarifying that, personally, I belong to that, each day, smaller group, which still declares that oil is a non-renewable natural resource and of real value (in the long term), with complete certainty, much higher than the value currently decreed by a money-hungry and poorly informed market. Notwithstanding the above, I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not belong to those who would paralyze the current expansion of the oil industry's capacity.

On the contrary, I believe that by expanding our production capacity to six million barrels per day or more, we would be in better conditions to obtain, via the fight for markets or strategic negotiations, based on security of supplies, a much more consistent price. with the true value of oil. The ideal would be to have such an immense installed capacity that we would need to produce a very small quantity.

Of course, if the reason for the current expansion is only to generate greater income possibilities, so that wasteful politicians can satisfy the material desires of generations of freeloaders, I simply cannot agree with this.

But, let's return to the purpose of this article, which is to comment on Venezuela in a global world.

Having established my criteria regarding oil, as a valuable non-renewable resource, I have the right to argue that the vast majority of Venezuela's income, which today is recorded in our trade balance, does not come from a productive activity, but from a liquidation of assets.

In other words, the role of oil in our trade balance is much more similar to the role traditionally played by gold bullion. These were delivered by one Central Bank to another, to compensate for a trade deficit, and not as a direct commercial counterpart for the goods that were imported.

The above means today that Venezuela, instead of presenting a positive balance in our trade balance (something our more intelligent and less innocent competitors have led us to believe), presents a gigantic trade deficit. This not only justifies, but also forces us to reconsider our entire trade policy.

Among the initial instructions that should be given to our trade negotiators, responsible for defending our country, in a world where, despite being classified as one of globalization and openness, is still a world where a global trade war prevails, with knives, find the following:

First: Aspire and negotiate the balance of our trade balance, in terms of jobs generated and not, as to date, in simple terms of dollars traded.

Second: No longer accept that Venezuela cooperates with the world economy, lowering tariffs and reinvesting (cheerfully and without discrimination) all its purchasing capacity, while many countries, which proclaim trade openness, impose direct taxes on gasoline consumption that , in one way or another, prevents "oil liquidators" from obtaining the best price for each "liquidated" oil barrel.

Third: Learn the importance of, at the time of negotiation, showing solid support from public opinion. Venezuela has just suffered a very important setback in its trade policy, with the recent ban on the use of Orimulsion, by a supposed friend, Florida. When comparing the total absence of a protest reaction for this with the commotion over blue jeans, we know that Venezuela is not prepared to defend itself.

Finally, I wish to clarify that, even though my comments may, and even rightly, place me in the protectionist camp, this does not imply, in any way, a defense of the commercial aspirations, which are currently being debated in the country, everything contrary. Precisely, because I believe that intelligent protectionism can be a very important weapon for the comprehensive development of a country, I am one of those who most protests when it is used, lightly, for the sole development of individual interests.