Good de-dollarization?

By Luis Fierro Carrión (*) 

Twitter: @Luis_Fierro_Eco

Econ. Andrés Arauz, today a presidential candidate, published in his blog on April 20 an article entitled “Bad de-dollarization and good de-dollarization”.

In the original version, the second “de-dollarization” was not in quotation marks, and the article mentioned that the new system “could be nicknamed with a name, that of the new ‘currency’ ”. On November 26, realizing that the article had generated criticism, he first blocked access, and then presented a modified version, in which the supposed "good dollarization" now appeared in quotation marks, and the phrase "new currency" no longer appeared, but rather the truncated phrase "could be nicknamed with a name."

At the same time that the debate on the article by Andrés Arauz was taking place, the correista bloc presented in the National Assembly a bill to create a "Universal Basic Income" (UBR), which would be delivered to at least one million heads of families, for 400 units of the new "electronic currency." An almost identical proposal appears on page 18 of Yaku Pérez's government plan: "said basic income could be paid in electronic money."

The RBU proposal presented by Correísmo would start with 400 units of this “electronic currency”, but it is foreseeable that in a few months its value would fall, since it is an inorganic issue without any support or financing. It is worth mentioning that the quasi-currencies issued in Argentina (“patacones” and others), at the end of the convertibility period, lost up to 35% of their value; while the Venezuelan “petro”, a digital currency created by the regime, has lost 85% of its value. Thus, it is not impossible that the 400 units of this "digital currency" could come to represent less than the USD 50 of the current human development bonus (a cash transfer program that already exists in Ecuador).

If the State used this "electronic currency" to pay salaries to public employees, suppliers, etc., a bimonetary system would quickly be imposed, in which the "electronic currency" would rapidly lose value against the US dollar; and there could be a de facto de-dollarization, seizing bank accounts, restricting access to dollars for importers, etc.

Arauz's article continues by proposing to raise the “currency outflow tax” (ISD) to 27%, which would become a “fixed quota” sold by the Central Bank (five times the current ISD of 5%).

It is worth mentioning that, although this tax is supposedly on the "outflow of currency", in practice it becomes a disincentive for the inflow of funds for investment, since investors know that, in order to import machinery, equipment, intermediate goods and inputs, as well as to be able to extract the dividends earned, they will have to pay this rate (either the current 5%, or the 27% proposed by Arauz). To this is add that this "limited quota" would be "granted" by the State, effectively generating a multiple exchange market, the same one that has led to major problems (and great corruption) in the countries that have applied it, such as Venezuela. or Argentina.

One may wonder why would presidential candidates in Ecuador propose a "de-dollarization" by issuing an "electronic currency", considering that dollarization enjoys a popularity of 80-90% of the population, which is understandable, given that the US dollar is a “hard currency” that generates certainty, and allows long-term investments and loans to be made.

The answer may be that dollarization imposes economic and fiscal discipline. If exports fall, imports must be restricted. If tax revenues are reduced, public spending must be restricted. The only alternative, in both cases, is debt, a mechanism to which the governments of Alianza PAIS in the last 14 years have resorted, until a public debt of 60% of GDP has been reached.

Dollarization prevents the financing of the public sector through inorganic monetary issuance, and also prevents increasing income (in a national currency) for public or private exporters through devaluation.

Those who promote de-dollarization do so with the ultimate aim of reducing real wages, causing devaluation and inflation, supposedly to make Ecuador more “competitive”. During the Correa government, the minimum wage was increased at a faster rate than productivity, with which each hour of minimum wage in Ecuador costs twice that of our neighboring countries, Colombia and Peru.

But a de-dollarization, devaluation, and inflation would only create more misery, apart from generating uncertainty, lack of confidence, and a flight of capital.

That is why unions, workers, retirees and others who receive a fixed income throughout the world have always fought for a “hard currency”, which does not bleed in the midst of inflation (this was one of the flags of the struggle of the slain workers on November 15, 1922).

Arauz, Pablo Dávalos and their allies persist in confusing the "outflow of currency" with the "capital flight". More than 90% of the outflow of dollars corresponds to imports of goods and services. All that a tax rate (5% or 27%) does is increase the cost of goods and services for consumers in Ecuador.

Arauz proposes to "reduce the gross outflow of private foreign currency by 10%"; and, furthermore, "a second goal would be to repatriate $ 12 billion from the private sector." In other words, he wants the State to intervene in private decisions, and in some way obligate the “repatriation” of external assets held by the private sector. It is easy to assume that threats of seizure, 27% taxes, and more restrictions on the private sector will NOT create an incentive to attract foreign capital.

Moreover, such monetary and fiscal proposals would lead to no new disbursements from the IMF program, with which the financial and fiscal gaps of the next government would widen.

(*) Translation of an extended version of a column published in the daily newspaper “El Universo” of Ecuador, on December 4^th, 2020.

https://www.eluniverso.com/opinion/2020/12/04/nota/8070676/desdolarizacion-buena