|
Para informarse sobre el duro compromiso adquirido por el Ecuador, m�s que
con el FMI, consigo mismo, no es necesario que lleguen volando agendas
o informes secretos lanzados desde alguna limosina. Basta con
accesar las dos siguientes p�ginas Web, que contienen la totalidad de los puntos
que el Gobierno del Ecuador (dirigido por su presidente, Gustavo
Noboa) entiende como necesarios para la reactivaci�n econ�mica del
pa�s.
Esos dos documentos, denominados Cartas de Intenci�n ("Letters of Intent"),
contienen la pol�tica econ�mica que el pa�s intenta seguir para salir de la
profunda recesi�n en que se encuentra.
El compromiso es duro, y requiere para su cumplimiento, de una gran
voluntad y disciplina, pues despu�s de casi 40 a�os de un manejo totalmente
irresponsable y negligente de la econom�a del pa�s, esta toc� fondo. Manejo
irresponsable condimentado con grandes dosis de cepalismo, corrupci�n,
populismo, autoritarismo y otros ingredientes nefastos.
Una inspecci�n del contenido en esos documentos muestra que la �nica
alternativa con que cuenta Ecuador (y los dem�s pa�ses en circunstancias
parecidas) es la de una f�rrea disciplina fiscal, que permita un saneamiento de
la econom�a, que a su vez sirva de base a un crecimiento sostenido.
Discursos contra el tan controvertido FMI son in�tiles, pues a pesar de que
su actitud es antip�tica y muy poco bienvenida, culparlo de los
problemas econ�micos de nuestros pa�ses, es como culpar de nuestro mal al
m�dico que nos detecta un c�ncer de pulm�n, que nos
hemos causado por 40 a�os de fumar sin freno; o al que
nos detecta una sirrosis, despu�s de haber consumido grandes cantidades de
alcohol por 20 a�os.
Las Cartas de Intenci�n no requieren mayor explicaci�n. Solo quiero
mencionar algunas imprecisiones que advert� en el documento transcrito por
Andr�s Villaveces y Mauricio Realpe.
- Ecuador NO es miembro de la OPEC (OPEP).
- Ecuador es un pa�s muy pobre y NO tiene recursos extra para gastar
("resources to spare") y mucho menos para derrochar. Ecuador produce alrededor
de 400.000 bpd de petr�leo (Colombia produce 800.000 y Venezuela 2'000.000), de
los cuales exporta alrededor de 200.000. Ecuador tiene un producto
interno anual per capita de US$1200, de los cuales 350 son como
consecuencia del poco petr�leo que produce. Eso es ser pobre (MUY pobre).
- El aumento en el precio del gas previsto en el documento para noviembre
1, no es del 80%, sino del 40%, y lo m�s probable es que no se haga, pues el
gobierno est� considerando otros mecanismos. Ocurre que el precio del gas (al
consumidor en Ecuador) siempre estuvo por debajo del 50% del costo real que el
pa�s paga por su importaci�n (Ecuador importa m�s del 50% del gas dom�stico que
consume), lo cual constitu�a un subsidio de m�s de 200 millones de d�lares al
a�o, del cual en muy buena parte, se benefician las clases medias y altas, entre
otras cosas, para calentar sus piscinas, y cosas de ese estilo. Los mecanismos
que se estudian ahora tienen el prop�sito de que en la eventualidad de que se
mantenga un subsidio, se haga solo para las clases m�s pobres.
- Es muy dudoso que el FMI "ordene" a un gobierno eliminar 26.000 o 50.000
o lo que sea, en n�mero de empleos. Las duras y dolorosas medidas de ajuste
que tienen o tendr�n que tomar nuestros gobiernos, despu�s de 40 a o m�s
a�os de Cepal, corrupci�n, populismo y otras yerbas, producen en su primer
momento desempleo. Pero dudo que exista la consigna de eliminar (como dice
el supuesto memorando de la limosina) XXXX cantidad de
empleos.
- De la misma manera, es dif�cil de imaginar a los funcionarios del FMI
"ordenando" a los funcionarios de un gobierno, como dice el memorando, que
reduzcan los salarios a la mitad. En el caso ecuatoriano, debido a la fuerte
devaluaci�n que se sufri� en los �ltimos dos a�os, causada por la escandalosa
ineptitud del gobierno de Mahuad, los precios equivalentes en d�lares se
redujeron en un muy corto per�odo (del a�o pasado) en algo como un 70%.
Ahora, que la situaci�n monetaria tiende a estabilizarse como consecuencia de la
dolarizaci�n, los precios tienden a nivelarse nuevamente con los de hace uno o
dos a�os. Esa es una consecuencia l�gica de los vaivenes de una econom�a
manejada como bal�n de f�tbol, pero con la dolarizaci�n, esas cosas no
ocurrir�n m�s.
- El oleoducto que se le autoriz� a la empresa Arco a construir NO es
sobre los Andes. Es apenas un oleoducto corto , de no m�s de 150 Km,
que va desde los campos de Arco, en el sur oriente Ecuatoriano (regi�n
amaz�nica) a la parte nororiente (todav�a regi�n amaz�nica, es decir, sin
cruzar los Andes) a encontrarse con el Oleoducto Transecuatoriano,
para llevar hasta ese oleoducto, que recoge toda la producci�n del pa�s en
el oriente, exclusivamente la producci�n de la Arco. La construcci�n
del OTRO nuevo oleoducto, que SI cruzar� por los Andes, est� siendo
contratado por el gobierno, bajo un sistema BOT. La contrataci�n est� siendo
hecha de manera p�blica (licitaci�n p�blica), y los dos consorcios
opcionados son liderados por la empresa William Brothers de Estados Unidos y
Techint de Argentina.
- Que yo sepa, no se est�n privatizando las empresas de acueducto. Est� en
programa la privatizaci�n de las empresas de energ�a y tel�fonos.
Saludos
jmb
=========================
----- Original Message -----
Gracias por la nota
Andr�s. Es verdaderamente increible, aunque seFrom: "Mauricio Realpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> despotrique tan ampliamente del marxismo, la historia se sigue repitiendo. Y en Colombia sigue la adoraci�n al FMI y al BM !!, claro, los que vendieron, venden y seguir�n vendiendo la naci�n, jam�s se quedan, est�n al frente de la OEA y organismos similares, sus familias llevan solo el antifaz de colombianos. En ciencia recuerdo a un iluso amigo mio que prodigaba elogios a USA por apoyar investigaci�n en paises en vias de desarrollo. Ojala �l, ahora, haya logrado entender que todo ese dinero regresa all�, en equipos, reactivos, etc. Por qu� ser� que nos cuesta tanto abrir los ojos ???. On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Andres Villaveces wrote: > > Env�o ac� un comentario editorial del London Observer sobre la "ayuda" que > este organismo supuestamente presta a los pa�ses en desarrollo. (Va en > ingl�s). > > Atte, Andres. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Andr�s Villaveces Izquierdo MD MPH > PhD Candidate, Department of Epidemiology > University of Washington, Seattle, Washington > WK : (206) 521-1570 > FAX : (206) 521-1562 or (508) 526-1066 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://students.washington.edu/avillav > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > The following is from the (London) Observer's Business section (it's a > Sunday-only newspaper). I am sending it mainly as background, but if you > want to write an LTE (letter to the editor), the address is > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (put 'Letter to the Editor' in the subject line) > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Failures of the 20th century: see under IMF > > An internal study reveals the price 'rescued' nations pay: dearer > essentials, worse poverty and shorter lives > > Sunday October 8, 2000 > > So call me a liar. I was standing in front of the New York Hilton Hotel when > the limousine carrying International Monetary Fund director Horst Kohler > zoomed by, hitting a bump. Out flew a confidential report, Ecuador Interim > Country Assistance Strategy. You suspect that's not how I got it, but you > can trust me that it contains the answer to a puzzling question. Inside the > Hilton, Professor Anthony Giddens told an earnest crowd of London School of > Economics alumni that 'globalisation is a fact, and it is driven by the > communications revolution'. > > Wow. That was an eye-opener. The screeching green-haired freaks outside the > hotel demonstrating against the IMF had it all wrong. > > Globalisation, Giddens seems to say, is about giving every villager in the > Andes a Nokia internet-enabled mobile phone. What puzzled me is why anyone > would protest against this happy future. > > So I thumbed through my purloined IMF Strategy for Ecuador seeking a chapter > on connecting the country's schools to the world wide web. Instead, I found > a secret schedule. By 1 November this year, it says, its government is > ordered to raise the price of cooking gas by 80 per cent. It must eliminate > 26,000 jobs and halve real wages for the remaining workers by 50 per cent in > four steps in months specified by the IMF. It must begin to transfer > ownership of its biggest water system to foreign operators by July and grant > BP's Arco subsidiary the right to build and own an oil pipeline over the > Andes. > > That's for starters. In all, the IMF's 167 loan conditions look less like an > assistance plan and more like a blueprint for a financial coup d'�tat. > > The IMF would say it has no choice. Ecuador is broke, thanks to the > implosion of its commercial banks. But how did Ecuador, an Opec member with > resources to spare, end up in such a pickle? > > For that, we have to turn back to 1983, when the IMF forced its government > to take over the soured private debts owed by Ecuador's elite to foreign > banks. For this bail-out of US and local financiers, Ecuador borrowed $1.5 > billion. > > To repay this loan, the IMF dictated price hikes for electricity and other > necessities. And when that didn't drain off enough cash, yet another > assistance plan required the state to eliminate 120,000 jobs. > > Furthermore, while trying to meet the mountain of IMF obligations, Ecuador > foolishly 'liberalised' its tiny financial market, cutting local banks loose > from government controls and letting private debt and interest rates > explode. > > Who pushed Ecuador into this nutty romp with free-market banking? Hint: the > initials are IMF. It made bank liberalisation a condition of another berserk > assistance plan. The facts of this nasty little history come from the IMF > report marked: 'Please do not cite.' Pretend I didn't. > > The IMF and the World Bank have lent a sticky helping hand to scores of > nations. Take Tanzania. Today, 1.4 million people there are getting ready to > die. They are the 8 per cent of the nation's population who have the Aids > virus. The financial 'rescuers' found a brilliant neo-liberal solution: > require Tanzania to charge for hospital visits, previously free. This cut > the number of patients treated in the three big public hospitals in the > capital, Dar es Salaam, by 53 per cent. The financial cures must be working. > > The bodies told Tanzania to charge school fees. Now the bank expresses > surprise that school enrolment is down from 80 per cent to 66 per cent. > > Altogether the Bank and IMF have 157 other helpful suggestions for Tanzania, > and the Tanzanian government secretly agreed last April to adopt them all. > It was sign or starve. No developing nation can borrow hard currency without > IMF blessing (except China, whose output grows at 5 per cent a year thanks > to it studiously following the reverse of IMF policies). > > The IMF and World Bank have effectively controlled Tanzania's economy since > 1985. Admittedly, when they took charge they found a socialist nation mired > in poverty, disease and debt. > > Their experts wasted no time in cutting trade barriers, limiting government > subsidies and selling off state industries. This worked wonders. According > to bank-watcher Nancy Alexander of the Washington-based Globalisation > Challenge Initiative,in just 15 years Tanzania's GDP has dropped from $309 > to $210 per capita, the literacy rate is falling and the rate of abject > poverty has jumped to 51 per cent of the population. > > Yet somehow the bank has failed to win over the hearts and minds of > Tanzanians to its free-market gameplan. Last June, the bank reported in > frustration: 'One legacy of socialism is that most people continue to > believe the state has a fundamental role in promoting development and > providing social services.' > > The World Bank and the IMF were born in 1944 with simple, laudable mandates: > between them to fund post-war reconstruction and development projects and > lend hard currency to nations left skint by temporary balance of payments > deficits. > > But in 1980 they seemed to take on an alien form. In the early Eighties, > Third World nations, haemorrhaging after the fivefold increases in oil > prices and a similar jump in dollar interest payments, brought their begging > bowls to the two bodies. But instead of debt relief, they received > structural assistance plans listing an average of 114 'conditionalities' in > return for capital. > > The particulars varied from nation to nation, but in every case, they had to > remove trade barriers, sell national assets to foreign investors, slash > social spending and make labour 'flexible' (that is, crush unions). > > Some say the vicious policy change resulted from the election that year of > Ronald Reagan as US President, the quickening of Margaret Thatcher's powers > and the beginning of the neo-liberal ascendency. (My own information is that > the IMF and World Bank were taken over by a space alien named Larry. It's > obvious that 'Larry' Summers, once World Bank chief economist and now US > Treasury Secretary, is really a platoon of extra- terrestrials sent to turn > much of the human race into a source of cheap protein. But I digress.) > > So what have The Aliens accomplished with their e free-market prescriptions? > An article by Samuel Brittan in last week's Financial Times declared that > the new world capital markets and free trade have 'brought about an > unprecedented increase in world living standards'. Brittan cites the huge > growth in GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy in the less developed > world from 1950 to 1995. > > Now hold on a minute. Until 1980, virtually every nation in his survey was > either socialist or welfare statist. They were developing on the 'Import > Substitution Model', by which locally-owned industry was built through > government investment and high tariffs, anathema to the neoliberals. > > In those dark ages of increasing national government control and ownership > (1960-1980), per capita income grew by 73 per cent in Latin America and by > 34 per cent in Africa. By comparison, since 1980, Latin American growth has > come to a virtual halt, growing by less than 6 per cent over 20 years - and > African incomes have declined by 23 per cent. > > Now let's count the corpses. From 1950 to 1980, socialist and statist > welfare policies added more than a decade of life expectancy to virtually > every nation on the planet. From 1980 to today, life under structural > assistance has become brutish and shorter. Since 1985, the total number of > illiterate people has risen and life expectancy is falling in 15 African > nations. Brittan attributes this to 'bad luck, [not] the international > economic system'. In the former Soviet states, where IMF and World Bank > shock plans hold sway, life expectancy has plunged, adding 1.4 million a > year to the death rate in Russia alone. > > Admittedly, the World Bank and IMF are reforming. The dreaded structural > assistance plans have been renamed 'poverty reduction strategies'. Doesn't > that make you feel better? > > Recently, the IMF admitted that 'in the recent decades, nearly one-fifth of > the world population have regressed' - arguably 'one of the greatest > economic failures of the twentieth century.' And that, Professor Giddens, is > a fact. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
