El Manifiesto Petropolitano.

El Manifiesto Petropolitano.

Somos un país petrolero, pero algún día dejaremos de serlo. Interpretar que el “sembrar el petróleo” signifique el tener que transitar de manera anticipada de una economía a otra, aplicando un modelo económico y desarrollando actividades económicas ajenas a una realidad petrolera, es equivocado y constituye la perfecta escusa para la desidia del hoy. 

Este mes, en Inglaterra, con el petróleo a más de US$ 20 por barril, el consumidor debe pagar Bs. 820 por litro de gasolina normal, del cual el distribuidor recibe Bs. 31, el productor, quien sacrifica un activo no renovable obtiene unos míseros Bs. 117, mientras que el Fisco inglés cobra unos impuestos confiscatorios de Bs. 672. De hecho, lo cobrado por el Fisco, al ser comparado con lo recibido por el productor, indica la existencia de algo similar a un arancel comercial que ronda los 600%.

Igual ocurre en Alemania, Japón, España, etc. Los impuestos, que los países consumidores aplican a los derivados del petróleo, implican para ellos sólo una redistribución de su ingreso nacional, mientras que, por sus efectos negativos en la demanda y en los precios del petróleo, originan una verdadera reducción del ingreso nacional de los países productores.

Los obscenos niveles en que dichos impuestos se sitúan hoy en la mayor parte del mundo, con la amenaza de ser cada día mayores, constituyen una guerra comercial declarada a los intereses económicos de Venezuela. El que nuestro país no proteste por ello, como tampoco protestó por la prohibición del uso de la Orimulsión en la Florida, es indicativo de una falta de voluntad y conciencia nacional, sin la cual, con o sin petróleo, no somos nada.

La histórica indiferencia de las autoridades (Gobierno y PDVSA) ante el problema señalado, originó la formación del movimiento PETROPOLITANO. Sus actividades se nutren de una serie de creencias, no inscritas en piedras, sino basadas en la continua interpretación que hacen sus miembros sobre los mejores intereses del país, que resumimos a continuación:

1. Los Petropolitanos creemos que la verdadera “siembra del petróleo” debe significar la siembra, en el corazón de los venezolanos, de la voluntad de defender, con orgullo y responsabilidad, sus intereses reales, que en esencia son y seguirán siéndolo por varias décadas, sus intereses petroleros. 

2. El valor de un bien se calcula en función del precio, que el consumidor final está dispuesto a pagar. De allí que la diferencia entre lo que hoy paga el consumidor mundial de gasolina y lo poco que el productor recibe, evidencian, dentro del marco de los principios del libre comercio, la presencia de una estafa. 

3. Seguros de que en la unión está la fuerza y más aún en un mundo globalizado, apoyamos la permanencia de Venezuela en la OPEP. No obstante, exigimos que esa organización desarrolle nuevas y mejores defensas de sus intereses. El no combatir los impuestos y limitarse a reducir la producción, sólo garantizan su extinción. 

4. Objetamos cualquier inferencia a una relación absoluta y necesaria entre los ingresos petroleros y un modelo económico dispendioso. Los resultados obtenidos hasta la fecha no guardan relación alguna con un modelo rentista. Si hubiéramos aplicado un verdadero y responsable rentismo, viviendo de una porción de las rentas y no de los capitales, la historia sería otra y Venezuela estaría en una muy envidiosa situación económica. 

5. Rechazamos cualquier expresión despectiva, tal como “excremento del diablo”, que dificulta el surgimiento de un necesario sentimiento de respeto y agradecimiento por el petróleo, sin el cual resulta imposible administrar nuestras riquezas para el bien de las futuras generaciones.

6. Por cuanto sabemos que el petróleo es un activo no renovable del país, creemos que la defensa de su precio y valor debe ser el principal objetivo de nuestra industria y rechazamos el concepto de una maximización de los ingresos corrientes, que se fundamente en el maximizar los volúmenes de venta. 

7. Aún siendo evidente su propósito fiscalista, los impuestos petroleros se ocultan tras el manto de un "proteccionismo verde". Al mismo tiempo que afirmamos un compromiso para con la defensa del ambiente, rechazamos, por injusto, que los países productores deban cancelar el 100% de su costo.

8. El petróleo ciertamente no genera mucho empleo. No obstante, debemos evitar caer en modelos esquizofrénicos donde el pais, siendo petrolero, trata con angustias de no serlo, cometiendo errores cuya incidencia sobre la generación de empleo estable es aún más negativa.

9. Los resultados de los acuerdos internacionales firmados por el país durante las últimas décadas, no compensan el costo de tener que respetar las fuentes de rentas del mundo desarrollado, tales como marcas y patentes, sin que ellos respeten nuestro derecho a obtener la mayor parte de lo que corresponde a la valorización de nuestro activo petrolero.

10. En la defensa del petróleo, no es posible sustituir la importancia de una voluntad sólida del país, con la contratación de asesoría y cabildeo internacional. 

11. Hay Patriotas dispuestos a dar la vida para el caso de que un ente extranjero se adentre en nuestro país, con el fin de extraer barriles de petróleo. Los impuestos al petróleo aplicados por el mundo consumidor son, en esencia, una invasión similar. Es responsabilidad del Petropolitano informar de esto.

I privatize you, I privatize you not

The sad truth is that for a very long time now - decades really - the country simply has not had anything even remotely close to a coherent economic policy. Without one, it will be very difficult to drag the country out of its current emergency, the bottom line of which is serious unemployment and poverty. I still have fresh in my mind that infamous cocktail of eighty “urgent” measures presented to the previous administration by Fedecámaras.

 

It is even more difficult to find a good direction due to the fact that our dilemma as a country is situated within the context of globalization process that seems to threaten national identities even further.

 

In these circumstances, it is no wonder that magic, instant solutions, and quick fixes seem to be coming from everywhere. Among these, none is more beautiful and tempting than the privatization of PDVSA. It seems to be to the economy what the Constituent Assembly is to politics.

 

Before I continue on this track, I wish to make the point that by referring to a state- run oil industry I refer only to activities in exploration, extraction, refining and distribution to basic markets. All other downstream business such as the petrochemical field, among others, is subject to such intense competition that the cruel efficiencies of the private sector are required for it to be successful. Any intervention by the State in this secondary business, can only result in the loss of part of the riches initially created by the basic activities mentioned above. There is not doubt that downstream business must be privatized.

 

We return, then, to the beautiful siren song (the sirens themselves are not so beautiful): The sale of PDVSA and oil reserves, Nirvana, Shangri-La and immediate gratification.

 

Evidently, it is not logical for a country as potentially rich as Venezuela to be in the state it is in. The sale of PDVSA could mean, among other things, that we could cancel all of our public debt. If we were able to resist taking on new debt, there is no doubt that the country would have a rather promising future, at least in the short and medium term.

 

Evidently, any industry that is not subjected to the critical and continuous surveillance by a greedy owner, can easily be led astray and would produce unsatisfactory results.

 

Evidently, it would not seem to make any difference who really owns PDVSA’s assets. The source of business would remain in Venezuela and the country would continue to benefit from royalties and income tax.

 

Why is it then, that like Ulysses, I would want to be strapped to the main mast in order to resist the siren song? My reasons are partly intellectual and partly from the heart.

 

On the intellectual side, the most important reason is that I am not convinced that the country can maximize the value of its oil without OPEC. The privatization of PDVSA would in essence mean our disincorporation from OPEC. This does not mean I am expressing satisfaction with the management of OPEC, which leaves much room for criticism.

 

The interests of the current players, management and the government, may be in conflict with those of the Nation. Additionally, there is no effective way to evaluate management of the industry. The sirens affirm that the privatization of PDVSA would solve this problem since its valuation in the open market would be a measure of management’s success, and would indicate the way forward. Personally, I believe one way to solve the problem is to require the transparency of information and to create the Office of the Oil Ombudsman. This would allow for the introduction of some national and long-term variables, which are frequently ignored in an increasingly globalized, and short term oriented marketplace.

 

Notwithstanding, I do admit that in these times, irrational reasons driven by the heart may be weightier by far. To begin with, I am not among those that disqualify the government as a manager.

 

Defense of oil requires decisive protest against those that prohibit the use of Orimulsion without reason, and against those that impose confiscatory taxes on oil derivatives, meaning that we receive only a fraction of its value. I still have not lost hope that this need for defensive action could rally us to unite as a nation and not simply as greedy individual shareholders.

 

I do not believe that as a generation that has failed in its management of oil resources we have the moral right to continue to anticipate even more cash flow. 

 

Should PDVSA actually be privatized and should there be a surplus that can be distributed, I hope it will be distributed among Venezuelans under 21. This opinion will most likely be contrary to that of those people that preach privatization of PDVSA in the same way children try to get to the end-of-party gifts in order to get away early from a boring piñata.

On the other hand, I recognize the value of all the arguments against centralization of fiscal income. Quickly, please... tie me to the mast! 

Fighting for one's country

Today, debates of the “cross-fire” or “opposite poles” type in which participants each defend opposite or extreme positions are very popular. I recently had the opportunity to be present during one of these debates, live, between to prestigious personalities from a European country. In simplified form, one represented “one trend” (the right), the other represented “the other trend” (the left) and the debate was about “exactly the opposite” (the third way).

The debate, needless to say, was excellent. I enjoyed the intellectual capacities of the debaters, as well as the abilities in the art of debate both of them displayed. Taking advantage of the presence of such distinguished personalities, of the serious academic environment in which the debate took place and the invitation to ask questions, I took it upon myself to ask the following:

Gentlemen: It is well known that in the country you come from, a tax that is often above 800% is levied on the value of gasoline. This type of tax is without a doubt the main reason why our country does not perceive more income from its oil exports. As a citizen of an oil producing country, I ask how, in your opinion, and from the perspective of “exactly the opposite”, the existence of these taxes can be explained in the context of the commercial aperture that is being developed worldwide?

That was the end of “cross-fire” and “opposite poles”. My question immediately fused the opinions of the debaters into one, as if by chemical reaction, and both seemed liberated from any type of academic requirements. Almost in unison both responded something like: Boy! (I am almost 50 years old now, but the response was basically as if I was being treated as “Boy”). You should know that these taxes are imposed in order to reduce gasoline consumption and save the world’s environments from contamination. Additionally, you should be aware of the fact that your country’s main problem is that it is wholly dependant on oil and in this sense it should thank us for any help we can give you in order to reduce this dependence.

This response, the result of a solid defense of national interest over and above any ideological consideration, was for me a true lesson in the policy of economic development. It clearly indicated that any country that cannot rally its people to fight the commercial war, body to body, that globalization has initiated, is utterly and completely lost.

The taxes on oil based products that I have mentioned above are no small matter. According to information obtained for June, courtesy of the Petrol Retailer’s Association of the United Kingdom, a liter of gasoline was sold at the pump for the equivalent of Bs. 661. The distribution of this amount is basically as follows: Bs. 47 (7%) for the distributor, Bs. 68 (11%) for the producer and Bs. 552 (83%) for the British tax authorities.

The taxes apparently have no limit. Governments such as the United Kingdom and Germany have recently formally approved future increases. The Sunday Telegraph of the 29th of August estimates that the gallon of gasoline in England in the year 2010 will be sold at £ 6.90, which is equivalent to Bs. 1,800 per liter. Out of this amount, the producer and the distributor must divide 10% since the taxman intends to keep about 90%.

There is no doubt that should these taxes not exist, Venezuela would today be selling more oil at better prices. There is also no doubt that these taxes represent a major threat to the future of our oil industry. In this sense, the problem should be one of national interest.

Not withstanding the above, there has been an absolute absence of formal protest in Venezuela. What is worse, only a tiny fraction of its citizens are aware of the problem. Worse still, the majority of those that work in the oil industry or that are experts therein, express surprise when confronted with the magnitude of these taxes.

Prices of oil have recently risen. These increases are historically very modest. The European press, however, is full of attacks on the “bad boys” of the OPEC. In The Observer of the 5th of September in England I read that the fault was attributed to “a number of far-flung dictatorships (and the odd democracy)….”, and the fact that OPEC had reduced its production somewhat “alarmed when the price of oil fell to its lowest level in 25 years and their petrol-addicted economies were suffering”.

In Venezuela, we see nothing in the way of response in the sense that the real “petrol-addicted” entities are the fiscal authorities of consumer nations. Our dailies basically limit themselves to reproducing articles that reflect preoccupation with possible inflationary pressures, making the uninformed Venezuelan feel like he is at fault for potential world crises.

It is high time that Venezuela begins to defend itself in a globalized world. For me, the negative effect to the country of having part of the value of our non-renewable assets commandeered by the taxmen in consumer nations is exactly as the same as if guerillas from a neighboring country come across the border and carry away a few barrels. Why do all our patriots have blinders on?

In the Daily Journal, Caracas, October 1, 1999