Close to crying 'Yankee go Home'

I am a Venezuelan of European background and was born a few years after the end of World War II. I grew up under the influence of Audie Murphy movies and comic strips that extolled the valor and sacrifice of American soldiers in their efforts to save Europe from the clutches of fascism. As an adolescent, although against the Vietnam War, my little piece of American heart prevented me from participating in public protests outside the US Embassy, and even more so from flag burning.

However as I am nearing my fiftieth birthday, I suddenly have an incredible urge to yell “Yankee Go Home”. This occurred most recently when I read another of Rowan's articles, in this case blasting away at the latest changes implemented at PDVSA.

Theoretically, had we successfully arrived at the end of the opening of the oil industry, the recent cuts in production, which have had such positive effects over the last few months, would have been impossible to execute since the private sector would have to be compensated. The oil opening per se implied a departure, albeit clandestine, from OPEC. Since I have never been convinced that OPEC was losing relevance, I publicly opposed this oil opening policy, asking that its implications be democratically discussed.

I also considered that the Venezuelan oil industry benefited from being divided into several different entities. Even though this evidently represented additional costs, it was a good way of achieving mutual and cross supervision by experts in the industry. 

Therefore, when we were sold a restructuring based on supposed and overestimated savings (an annual figure of US$ 2 billion was brazenly bandied about) and which simply implied a total centralization of power, I loudly cried foul.

We were told that due to the lack of internal resources it was necessary to invite foreign capital to participate in the development of basic activities such as exploration and production.

Soon after, as if by magic, resources suddenly appeared tand were quickly invested in the “strategic” but very poorly explained building of gasoline stations that could also sell fast food. I felt misled and publicly informed PDVSA that the risk of Kuwait building a gas station in Las Mercedes in Caracas in order to compete directly and sell its ultra-light gasoline to the local market was really very slight.

I also protested, and continue to do so, when PDVSA, in the face of an upward trend in outsourcing of services, created the CIED in order to sell seminars and courses to captive clients. I protested and continue to protest when PDVSA, without much explanation, used an inmense amount of resources to finance studies of commercial ports in rivers in the eastern part of the country, for example.

The President of PDVSA should occupy his post as if he were a soldier on a battlefield on a sacred national mission. It wrenched my soul to see how he thinks he is a General Patton instead, and finds his way onto an entire page of the Wall Street Journal as Executive of the Year. Perhaps it should have been Entrepreneur of the Year.

Three years ago, as I traveled in the interior of the country, I observed how high interest rates, new taxes and a foreign exchange policy that in real terms strongly revalued the national currency were taking the country on a wild ride towards recession. 

At that point, while expressing my anguish at the possibility of a permanent loss of jobs, the then President of PDVSA, as if he were any common politician on TV, happily informed whoever would listen, that Venezuela was "condemned to success”. I almost cried with rage.

Last week, Rowan wrote that PDVSA’s ex-President, Luis Giusti, had produced a bonus of US$ 2.3 billion for the state with the oil opening - as if this were not simply the fruit of oil income perceived in advance, unfortunately already frittered away.

Rowan wrote: “Giusti’s strategy was brilliant. From a national perspective, Giusti was a patriot”. With respect to the recent changes at PDVSA, he wrote: “The development of this country has just been set back twenty years. The only institution in active transition to modernization, professionalism and meritocracy in Venezuela has been sacked. It’s been vandalized, ruined by ideologues from a Dark Age”.

I recently registered a NGO called Petropolitan, and through it I am fighting against the taxes on oil products imposed by a majority of the oil consuming countries of the world. These charges prevent oil-producing countries from receiving what they should rightly be receiving from the sale of their non-renewable resources.

The real value of an item of goods is normally measured at the consumer level, and in this sense the average value of a barrel of oil in the world might have already surpassed US$ 100. Of that value, up to a few months ago, the producer only received US$ 10, and today still has to settle for a meager US$ 20. I hope that someday when the absurd confiscation by taxmen in the developed world is eliminated, they will receive, say US$ 40 or more. If this defense of what is rightly ours classifies me in Rowan’s world as being one of the ideologues of the Dark Ages, then that is exactly what I am, and am proud of being so.

Daily Journal, Caracas, September 24, 1999

Petropolitan: http://petropolitan.blogspot.com/1999/09/close-to-crying-yankee-go-home.html

The mouse that roared

This is dedicated to all of those who consider that the only way to combat the actual lack of self esteem present today in the country is to reduce it even further.

Last week, columnist Michael Rowan issued several recommendations for Venezuela, among these that you should “Ask not how you can be protected from the world. Ask only how best you can live in it”. 

I have frequently asked myself this question, but since the response that begins to develop in my mind is vastly different from the text book type answer hinted at by Mr. Rowan, I wish to make note of some of these differences.

To begin with, and even though I agree that a lot of the country’s internal problems as mentioned by Mr. Rowan really do exist, I consider it to be wrong to label Venezuela as a protectionist country. 

It could be that he did not know the Venezuela of old, but as of 1989 the country has, not always in a straight line and more often than not out of necessity rather than conviction, been submerged in a process of commercial and cultural aperture of such import that it is today one of the least protectionist countries in the world.

Upon rereading some of the articles I have written over the years, I find clear evidence of the fact that I have always been a constant defender of the markets as prime regulators and motors of the economy and as a consequence of this, I have also always been totally against what is today know as protectionism. 

In this sense, I am worried that Venezuela’s opening has not produced the desired results.

The commercial recipes common in today’s world are comprised primarily of the following two commandments: 

1) Open your borders and allow the products, services and capital offered by the rest of the world to come in so that all of your citizens may have access to the best the world can offer, produced in the most efficient manner possible; 

2) Respect the rights to intellectual property and to brands and patents in order to insure the adequate return of costs and to allow those who today fuel development to continue their mission.

In exchange for compliance with these commandments, the interested party is offered a first class ticket on the Train of Sustained Development on the way to a better economic future. 

Certainly, some of the passengers will be weaker than others. However, if all follow the same basic diet and exercise plan, based on the exploitation of inherent strengths with the adoption of an effort towards specialization, sooner or later, so goes the theory, all will be more or less equal.

Chile, for example, is a good example of what excellent results a ride on this Train can produce. Unfortunately, Venezuela, while having complied with the commandments almost religiously has absolutely nothing to show in the way of favorable results. Why? 

Rowan would answer, ‘It is Venezuela’s own fault’. I would say that while he is partially right, it is also important to say that the world is not playing a fair ball game.

The indisputable fact is that the world is applying duties on products derived from oil, as is the case of taxes on gasoline that in some parts of the world top 800% and that bar the producers from receiving his fair share of the sale of their resources. 

If these taxes were eliminated or were simply limited, for example, to something like the 26% duty imposed by Venezuela on the importation, Venezuela’s income would be much greater. Easily US$ 10 billion greater!

In this sense, if I am to respond to Mr. Rowan’s questions as to “How best you can live in it (the world)”, I would not be lying if I told you that I am feeling dangerously close to suggesting that we quit being stupid and that until the world comes around and gives us a fair shake by eliminating the damaging taxes on oil, we begin to behave as rogues.

As a first measure, it would be most tempting to raise all import duties to the same levels each country applies to oil. To follow up I could suggest we violate all brands and intellectual property rights, copy all medicines and facilitate their generic sale world wide. Finally, I would ask PDV to quit building fancy gasoline stations in Venezuela which, being sure that Kuwait is not waiting in the wings to compete on our turf, do not generate the sale of even one extra liter of gasoline. 

Instead I would construct large floating gasoline stations, anchor them off the coast of Europe and offer each European entrepreneur with a neoliberal bend the right to freely commercialize our gasoline tax free.

Am I exaggerating? One of the principal elements of discussion in the universe of ecological taxes, the ecotax, is how to insure that oil producing nations are also convinced to adopt fiscal policies involving high oil or energy taxes. 

The reason for this, in layman’s terms, is that if we don’t, industries that consume large amounts of energy could conceivably move to those countries with cheap energy, causing the loss of jobs in non-oil producing countries. So much for the specialization credo.

We should declare total and absolute war on the injustices of today’s system of commercial interchange. Just like the small country that declared war on Europe in the movie The Mouse That Roared, we have absolutely nothing to lose and much to gain. With so many enemies without why do we need to have enemies within?

Some –isms are still alive and kicking

I recently read an article published in The Daily Journal by a frequent contributor to these pages, Michael Rowan. I do not know Mr. Rowan, but I often envy his capacity for analysis and of expression. The article in question was titled “An End to the Age of Isms”, and it contained a few phrases which compel me to reply.

Specifically, Mr. Rowan wrote: “Yet there are still pockets of resistance to market democracy in the world. There are the nationalists who believe in protectionism and are afraid of globalization, ..... . In those places, one finds the old media, propaganda, hierarchies and also, deeply entrenched poverty. That is their tragedy. The world has passed them by ... . What work is freedom. Freedom in the market .... . For those with the responsibility of writing a new Constitution for Venezuela, this is the truth which can set them, and their country, free at last.”

I cannot agree more with the concept of freedom as expounded by Mr. Rowan in his article. However, when he attempts to segment or divide the world into right and wrong, into those that behave and those that sin, I have no other option as a Venezuelan but to cry “Foul”.

I do not believe there is any reason to, either directly or indirectly, label Venezuela as a country of protectionists afraid of globalization. On the contrary, Venezuela’s borders, both commercial as well as cultural, are among the most permeable and open in the world.

There are no limits as to what goods and services can be imported into the country. On top of this, the limited duties imposed are more than often not even paid at the ports of entry. In addition, few could question the eagerness and openness with which Venezuelans accept any type of external influence.

Champagne is charged a duty of 26%, quasi-monopolistic services such as those of international auditors and law firms are marketed with ease, patent and intellectual property right agreements are applied quickly, as in the case of laboratories, and finally, our early morning radio broadcasts allow us to hear all types of debate about matters typical of the globalized world such as oral sex.

What does Venezuela obtain in return for this extraordinarily good behavior as a citizen of the globalized world?

We know very well that the worth of something is what the consumer is willing to ultimately pay for it. Today, for each 100 units a European consumer pays for a tank of gasoline, the producer of the latter receives 10 units, the distributor 5 units and the taxman of the country it is pumped in receives 85 units. The fact that the taxman receives 85 units and the producer only 10 units means they are applying an effective commercial duty or tax of 850%. The experts, very able at managing the percentages in order to defend their interests, frequently refer to taxes on oil as being “only 85%” and never as a duty on the product. 

If, for example, we were talking about a Mercedes Benz which goes for US$ 100,000, I am sure Daimler Benz would not be talking about “only 85%” if this sale would be broken down into a sales commission of US$ 5,000, a payment to the manufacturer of US$ 10,000 and a transfer to the taxman of US$ 85,000.

It is not true that prices of oil are low, since for the consumer the prices have never been as high. Our only problem as a producing nation is that on the income side, we have never received less. The taxmen in the consumer nations receive more, a lot more, income from each barrel of oil commercialized than the producer of the same.

This is what Venezuela got. A system of free trade that only pays it a meager 10% of the value of the non-renewable asset that it liquidates. Just like any Little Red Riding Hood, we readily swallow the stories about the freedom of markets when in reality they hide the evil, bad wolf of protectionism, environmentalism and fiscalism, three “isms” that are very much alive and kicking, thank you!

I agree in no uncertain terms with Mr. Rowan that the Constituent Assembly has much work to do, but in my wish list I have not included his recommendations with regards to increased global aperture. My rather long wish list includes, for example, ensuring that the citizens of the country can access adequate information pertaining to the government’s management of its affairs, more effective limitations on new public indebtedness and finally (something inspired by Mr. Rowan) the banning of ingenuousness as a basis for our commercial policies.

https://petropolitan.blogspot.com/1999/04/some-isms-are-still-alive-and-kicking.html