5 ms·
That's a heavy question, indeed. I'm no economics buff, keep that in mind, but I'll try to sketch what I think should be done. I'd say that the main problem is
by thnnb 10y ago
That's a heavy question, indeed. I'm no economics buff, keep that in mind, but I'll try to sketch what I think should be done.
I'd say that the main problem is the multi-tiered foreign exchange system we have in place. There's an "official, protected, preferential" rate of 10 Bolívares per dollar, the SIMADI rate (674,34) and the parallel/black market rate (approximately at 2500 Bolívares this december right now). This system is what essentially makes our economy a mess. So called revolutionaries are just new burgueoisie wearing red shirts who import goods we no longer produce (food, medicine, industrial supplies, etc) with the cheap dollar and sell them as if they had used the black market rate (bemoaning "capitalism" as they do). The private sector is barred from the protected-cheap rate and has an extremely obscure access to the middle system (SIMADI), and that's if they're friendly with the government. Individual citizens can only use the black market rate, which is illegal. Solving this problem is conceptually easy: The foreign exchange should be unified, there should be only one rate for everyone to exchange Bolívares for foreign currencies. The public sector, the private sector and individual citizens should pay the same to get foreign currency. This looks evident, but there are many interests and people in power who benefit from the current system's corruption, stunting production, foreign investment and general trust in our currency.
Besides the foreign exchange rate there are a lot of subsidies in place that should be partially removed, progressively. Gasoline here is still dirt cheap (world's cheapest oil and that), sold below production cost. We still send oil to Cuba at a price below market rate out of "national friendship", even when our oil production is decreasing and some people scour thrash cans for food to eat. To say we get no economic benefit from giving away oil out of "national friendship" is putting it mildly. Given that we're primarily an oil exporting country, removing gas subsidies (progressively) and eliminating foreign gifts would alleviate some stress. Cooking gas, electricity and internet access are also subsidized. This is hard for me to say, but the price should also go up there. These public services have sporadic failures out of lack of investment, bad maintenance and lack of supplies to make repairs. It rains, the lights and the internet might go out, for example. If the situation remains as it is the public service infrastructure might go beyond obsolete and underfunded to outright useless due to lack of maintenance, which would be even worse.
Also, the government should stop intervening media and demonizing the private sector to blame it from the policies the revolution has implemented. This demonizing scares foreign investment, decreases production and, frankly, makes our people more stupid, which overall decreases our ability to make informed choices at everything. This is highly unlikely today, though. They want the people to be angry, looting local grocery stores and blaming "capitalists" for the scarcity of goods instead of the government that implements the policies that cause the scarcity itself.
There's more stuff, but that's the main course to begin changing things, I think.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoThank you for your response, those sound like some sensible reforms to me. Are there any local political groups currently pushing for any of these reforms? If not, can you see this type of political movement emerging as things get worse? Also, do you think there's any chance of doing what Ecuador did in similar circumstances by making the US Dollar the national currency? At least until the fundamental problems are sorted out.
- thnnb 10y agoFor groups pushing any of those reforms you need to start by omitting the largest opposition coalition (MUD). They propose no such reforms, just that the government should "do things better" and be "less cynical". Implicitly, the message is that they would do a better job, but nowadays no one believes them. So far, two politicians come to mind. Leopoldo López (who is in prison) and María Corina Machado (who has been removed from mainstream MUD and derided as a "divisionist" by the MUD themselves). Their reach is extremely limited, though. No access to goverment-controlled media and conveniently forgotten or shunned by mainstream opposition. Regarding Ecuador, I'm not sure. I do not have a full picture of the economic circumstances Ecuador considered then and how they relate to ours, right now. If anything, --if-- we were going to try that measure it should be after we try other methods to increase trust on our currency and then find them to be insufficient, I think.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoTo give some idea what happened in Ecuador... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_of_Ecuador https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_of_Ecuador "The sucre maintained a fairly stable exchange rate against the US dollar until 1983, when it was devalued to 42 per dollar and a crawling peg was adopted. Depreciation gained momentum and the free market rate was over 800 per dollar by 1990 and almost 3000 per in 1995. The sucre lost 67% of its foreign exchange value during 1999, then in one week nosedived 17%, ending at 25,000/US$1 on January 7, 2000. On January 9, President Jamil Mahuad announced that the US dollar would be adopted as Ecuador's official currency. Protests led to his removal. Vice President Gustavo Noboa became president, only to confirm the government's commitment to dollarization. On March 9, 2000, Noboa signed a law passed by Congress, replacing the sucre with the United States dollar at an official exchange rate of 25,000 sucres per US$1. Both currencies were to circulate, the dollar being used for all but the smallest transactions. Only coins would continue in the local currency."