Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonso was a Venezuelan politician and diplomat who went down in history as the father of OPEC.
The organization was created to confront the power of the “seven sisters”, the mega oil companies that ran the oil business.
It sought to favor producing countries to the detriment of consuming countries, mainly by increasing the price of oil.
The turning point was in 1973 when OPEC tripled that price.
Towards the middle of the 60's, Pérez Alfonso, disenchanted, moved away from oil to dedicate himself to education, children's health and the corruption in Venezuela generated by the excess of petrodollars.
In the 70's he published
"Sinking into the devil's excrement", where he said things like these: "[...] In a nation with a backward economy, with a very limited capacity of trained human resources, the large oil revenues from the The simple liquidation of that gift of nature had already been creating a fatal distortion in all the activities of national life.
Now all these dangers have multiplied infinitely [...] they are money not earned by work, nor by business management and, consequently, they are money that have not been used to prepare to give them appropriate and useful destination to society [...] to the extent that the hegemony of oil continued to accentuate, the growing amounts of foreign currency forced its waste.
[…] “.
Our
politicians believe they will discover a saving solution to the country's problems: Vaca Muerta, lithium and, with less insistence, although it will have a greater impact, copper and, possibly, hydrogen that will be produced with the generation of electricity with the Patagonian winds : a significant improvement in our trade balance and tax revenue.
This injection of resources – some 30 billion dollars – does not have the relative magnitude of oil from Venezuela, which was the main exporter in the postwar period before the exploitation of resources in the Near East.
But if politicians sow optimism with a hope of income within five years, it is good to remember Pérez Alfonso with that anticipation and the dangers of the -possible- surpluses of foreign currency and waste.
After all, the waste was the sign of the "commodity megacycle" in which President Kirchner and the governors multiplied public employment by 40%, among other wastes that became permanent expenses, which are still paid for with debt, emission and inflation.
Less obvious than the inclusion of snow removal machines in hospital equipment for Venezuela -which Pérez Alfonso denounced-, but it did not go that far.
Norway, another oil power, set up the most important country fund in the world, thus avoiding distortions in its economy and saving for when oil ends its cycle.
Similar ethics are in Canada and Australia.
Every time a candidate talks about gas, oil and mining, someone should ask them: How much of the increase in tax collection is going to go to education?
How much to Science and Technology?
How much business and job training to take advantage of that science?
How much investment in infrastructure that unlocks private investment?
How much to an anticyclical fund that allows you to save for when the lean times come?
How are they going to ensure that the inflow of dollars does not generate an overvaluation of the peso and, with withholdings, not even agricultural production can be exported?
Are the withholdings on these agricultural exports going to be eliminated?
The questions continue, among other things because after the initial investment period, the impact on employment in Vaca Muerta and mining is not significant, and waste, such as that experienced during the aforementioned megacycle, anticipates fewer companies and more poverty.
In short: if Argentina increases its exports by 30%, who does it aspire to be like: Venezuela or Norway, Canada and Australia?
Luis Rappoport is an economist. Member of the Argentine Political Club and of ContiTuya
