De la pobre imagen de la Opep y de ventajas comparativas

De la pobre imagen de la Opep y de ventajas comparativas

Mensaje para la OCI. Hace unos 25 años, durante la explosión de los precios petroleros, en las gasolineras europeas, colocaban letreros que indicaban que de dicho precio sólo una pequeña porción correspondía a impuestos, imputando los altos precios a los "bandidos" de la OPEP. Desde entonces, los miembros de la OPEP hemos tenido una mala imagen, que se ha consolidado así en el tiempo gracias a los innumerables “reportajes” negativos sobre los “Jeques de la OPEP” publicados reiteradamente por la prensa europea, en donde proliferaban calificativos tales como antidemocráticos, usureros, irrespetuosos de los derechos de la mujer, jugadores y pretenciosos compradores de las mejores propiedades europeas.

En Junio de este año, de acuerdo a cifras suministradas por la Asociación de Expendedores de Gasolina de Inglaterra, de los Bs. 661 cobrados por cada litro de gasolina, el Fisco inglés retiene Bs. 552, al distribuidor le tocan Bs. 42 y el productor de la gasolina, aquél que tuvo que vender un activo no renovable, debe conformarse con unos míseros Bs. 68, que apenas representan un 11% del precio.

Hoy cuando le reclamamos a un europeo la injusticia anterior, puede que nos oiga, pero no nos escucha, probablemente debido a la ya mencionada imagen de "bandidos de la OPEP" que tenemos, aunque no seamos “los malos” de la partida. De allí que para lograr combatir los impuestos petroleros, sea indispensable combatir antes que nada esa distorsionada imagen.

No soy publicista, pero les confieso que dentro del marco de esta campaña de cambio de imagen, me provocaría publicar en Londres, Berlín, París, Madrid, Tokio y tantos sitios más, una tabla actualizada que, comparando los Bs. 552 que cobra el Fisco con los Bs. 68 del productor, evidencie la existencia de un simulado arancel comercial discriminatorio de más del 800%. Al lado publicaría fotos alusivas a la pobreza que sufre nuestro país y terminaría por acusarlos de ser unos grandes hipócritas por cuanto, mientras se dan golpes de pecho por el libre comercio y los derechos humanos, sólo son unos vulgares petro-piratas. 

Igualmente publicaría mensajes dirigidos a los ambientalistas, quienes no son más que los tontos útiles de los petro-piratas, a quienes les dedicaría fotos de los tendidos eléctricos que construimos hasta Brasil, amenazando la reserva de oxígeno del mundo, todo cortesía de una política de impuestos al petróleo que nos tiene empobrecidos y que de seguir, quien sabe, un día puede que nos obligue a usar la selva amazónica para producir carbón.

Obligaría a los medios de comunicación a suministrar diariamente, no sólo el precio del barril a nivel del productor, sino también el cobrado a nivel de consumidor, para que el mundo pueda percatarse de que el precio promedio mundial de un barril, a nivel del consumidor, probablemente ya haya traspasado la barrera de los US$ 100. 

Para quienes pongan en duda esto, consideren que de cada barril de petróleo se puede simultáneamente obtener 84 litros de gasolina, 12 de jet fuel, 36 de gasoil, 16 de lubricantes y 12 de residuales pesados. Si apenas calculamos el valor de los 84 litros de gasolina, cuyo precio mínimo en el mundo, exceptuando los Estados Unidos, es de US$ 1 por litro, ya tendríamos $ 84 por barril. De allí que aquéllos que hace años predijeron un valor superior a US$ 100 por barril de petróleo, no estaban equivocados, sólo erraron en quiénes se quedarían con el dinero.

Mensaje para Cordiplan. La teoría del Libre Comercio se fundamenta en explotar las ventajas comparativas de cada país. A partir de 1989, Venezuela inició, con gran entusiasmo, una apertura comercial que nos ha llevado a ser uno de los países más abiertos del mundo. En el camino firmamos todos los convenios requeridos, aún aquéllos que, como los de patentes y propiedad intelectual, nos parecían más destinados a conservar las supremacías existentes, que a fomentar nuestro crecimiento económico. 

Creo que tenemos el derecho de sentirnos confundidos y decepcionados. Al accesar el mercado internacional para nuestro principal producto, el petróleo, nos hemos topado con unos aranceles disimulados del 800% y además, en muchas de las áreas donde tradicionalmente se veían ventajas comparativas, éstas parecen haberse esfumado.

Gracias a asesores, como el F.M.I., hemos renunciado a fertilizantes baratos. Para el gas, ya hemos aceptado el concepto, bastante extraño por cuanto colide con el de las ventajas comparativas, de que es preferible que éste se pierda, antes de introducir en nuestra economía la “distorsión” de cobrar un precio menor al del mercado internacional. 

A causa de las privatizaciones, destinadas más a incrementar los ingresos del Fisco, que a garantizarle servicios confiables y accesibles al usuario, hoy estamos renunciando tanto a la tradicional energía barata, como a las posibilidades de desarrollo que ofrece Internet, al limitársenos acceder al mismo por las altas tarifas telefónicas. Parece que el país, en lugar de usar sus ventajas comparativas, las estuviera vendiendo.

Para los petro-piratas, es un dolor de cabeza que algunos países mantengan los impuestos al petróleo bajos. Así, algunas de sus industrias que requieran de este insumo, pueden estar tentadas a mudarse, perdiéndose entonces fuentes de trabajo. Esta debe ser la razón por la cual se presiona sobre Venezuela para que aumente los precios de la gasolina, aún cuando, los Bs. 68 que por un litro de gasolina puesto en Londres recibe el productor, no son muy distintos al neto que recibe el país, después de gastos de distribución, de los Bs. 80 por litro de gasolina alta, puesto en El Tigre.

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 dish, it would be most tempting to raise all import duties to the same levels each country applies to oil. As a main dish I could suggest we violate all brands and intellectual property rights, copy all medicines and facilitate their generic sale world wide. Finally, as a dessert, I could 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?

In the Daily Journal, Caracas, July 23, 1999

An e-mail to our accusers

We were recently surprised by a lawsuit brought against Venezuela by an organization of independent oil producers in the State of Oklahoma in the United States. The suit was based on the charge of dumping oil.

In simple terms, “dumping” occurs when one country exports products at a price lower than their real cost of production or at a price lower than the sales price in its domestic market. In order to calculate the real cost, one must consider the effects of all state subsidies. Dumping is considered to be unfair competition and is therefore prohibited. If proven in this case, it will also give rise to serious retaliatory commercial measures.

As an outside observer, I feel that this suit is a real threat to Venezuela, but I also think that if may be an opportunity as well. To understand this, it is important to analyze who is really behind this lawsuit.

There is an incredible amount of oil wells in the United States, hundreds of thousands. In Texas alone, it is said that there are at least sixty thousand wells that produce less than one barrel per day. Due to low oil prices, the number of wells that have reportedly been shut down is equally as incredible. An organization known as IPAA estimates that more than 136,000 wells were shut down between November 1997 and February 1999.

Behind these wells are not only large oil companies, but also hundreds of thousand people, small businessmen, workers, widows who receive royalties, suppliers of goods and services, all of them voters at one time or another. It should, therefore, not surprise us that this sector possesses great political clout.

To Venezuela, this means that, even though the lawsuit may not be based on solid ground, it may be more successful than we at first thought. We just have to remember that a small interest group in the State of Florida managed to block the usage of Venezuela Orimulsion. Can you imagine what a large group can do? Since I have always thought that Venezuela was lax in protecting its interests in the case of Orimulsion. I honestly hope that in this more recent case, authorities will be more careful, and will take the necessary measures.

However, as I mentioned above, this lawsuit may not just be a threat, but may present an opportunity for Venezuela as well. For months now, I have been promoting a movement I have named Petropolitan. The purpose of this group is to protest and make known the fact that oil producing countries are subjected to commercial discrimination when the consuming nations apply taxes or duties so that producers receive only a fraction of the real value of their oil.

For example, according to the Retail Motor Industry Federation of the United Kingdom, the price of premium unleaded gasoline on June 4th, 1999 (one month ago) at the pump was US$ 4.17 per gallon. Out of this elevated value, evidently real since the English motorist is willing to pay it, only US$ 0.43, that is 10%, ends up in the producer’s pocket. The distributor receives US$ 0.26 and the English tax authority, the only real rentist in this chain, stays with US$ 3.48, representing 83.5% of the retail sales price.

When we compare the US$ 3.48 levied by the taxman to the US$ 0.43 received by the oil producers in lieu of a non-renewable asset, it is evident that the duty is more than 800%. This duty is unquestionably a main reason for the low oil income, not only ours, but of those in Oklahoma as well.

The situation gets worse with every day that passes. Based on laws already passed,we can foresee that the price per gallon of gasoline in Europe will be US$ 10 by the year 2006, of which the producer will receive only US$ 0.50, that is, 5%. Germany, for example, has recently approved a “shift from personal income tax to an energy users tax”. These taxes will be used by the German government to “finance the lowering of old age security premiums”.

By the way, it is not only Europe to which I refer since most of the world is currently levying taxes and duties on oil. One of the few exceptions is the United States where there has been more moderation.

Because of the above, and were the decision to be mine, I would be on the next plane to Oklahoma in an attempt to educate our accusers as to who our real enemies are. I would tell them that the latter are laughing while we fight over the crumbs, and I would try to convert them into powerful allies.

Executives at PDVSA are either not seeing the forest for the trees or have been lulled to sleep by their own internal realities. In any case, they do not seem prepared to take radical steps. Likewise, the common citizen is too far away from the industry to react with strength in the short term.

Who knows? Maybe the small Oklahoma producer, the one that suffers and personally feels the current injustices of this situation, the one that most likely has the will to go out and avidly defend his interests, the one that belongs to a country that can defend bananas it does not produce, the one that today is our accuser, may ultimately be the ally that Venezuela really needs. Just in case, I have already sent them an e-Mail.