Connect with us

Business

Harvard economist Ricardo Hausmann warns against Trump’s profit motive in rebuilding Venezuelan

Published

on



President Donald Trump has assured the people of Venezuela that his undertaking to restore the country’s oil infrastructure will be mutually beneficial to both them and the U.S. 

Ricardo Hausmann, professor of the practice of international political economy at the Harvard Kennedy School, isn’t convinced. 

“There’s a reason why there’s no profit motive in government,” Hausmann told Fortune, referring to the U.S. controlling the Venezuelan oil market. “Profit motive in government is what we call corruption.” 

Trump has unveiled lofty plans to revive Venezuela’s troubled oil industry, just days after U.S. forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro over the weekend. The White House explicitly said Maduro’s arrest—and the U.S.’s subsequent takeover of some of the country’s affairs—was an effort to dominate the Western Hemisphere, invoking the 19th century Monroe Doctrine to justify intervention in Venezuela. Venezuela is home to the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves.

“This is one of the countless good energy deals President Trump has brokered to restore American energy dominance that will benefit the American people, American energy companies, and the Venezuelan people,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told Fortune in a statement.

The president said he will control the country and its oil market for years, reportedly meeting with U.S. oil company executives to discuss Venezuela’ s oil industry. On Tuesday, he announced Venezuela’s interim leadership would provide the U.S. with 30 million to 50 million barrels of oil, the proceeds from which would be sold at market rates, not discounted rates, and distributed to both the U.S. and Venezuela. The proceeds will go into U.S.-controlled bank accounts overseen by Trump, according to the White House.

“We will rebuild it in a very profitable way,” Trump said in an interview with the New York Times on Thursday. “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need.”

Trump’s government capitalism

Trump’s industry interventions and turn to state capitalism have become the hallmark of his second term: In August 2025, the U.S. government secured a 10% stake in Intel, becoming the largest shareholder of the struggling chipmaker. Earlier that month, Nvidia and AMD made a deal with the U.S. government to share 15% of revenue from chip sales to China.

These kinds of large-scale agreements are not only rare, but in the case of Nvidia and AMD, unprecedented and potentially unconstitutional according to some legal experts, as the U.S. Constitution prohibits duties on exports.

Hausmann, who served as the Venezuelan minister of planning from 1992 to 1993, argued Trump’s heavy hand in market affairs is counter to the purpose of government, which is not supposed to make money, but rather provide stability and policy that allow businesses to thrive.

In the case of Venezuela, Hausmann said, Trump’s prioritization of extracting oil for a short-term profit is not just a philosophical misalignment with his vision of government; it’s plain a bad idea.

“Having a policy because you want to make money, you’re going to be dramatically disappointed in any scenario you want to imagine,” Hausmann said. “If you want Venezuela to recover, money is going to go into Venezuela, not out of Venezuela. Venezuela is going to need to attract resources. It’s not [that] resources are going to go away.”

Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity this week that oil companies would need to spend at least $100 billion to revive Venezuela’s oil industry.

The state of Venezuelan oil

Hausmann noted that Trump’s strategy of leveraging oil to return Venezuela to economic prosperity is futile without restoring democratic leadership to the country, which can implement credible policy to stabilize the oil industry. 

When Maduro took power in Venezuela in 2013, Venezuelans were about four times wealthier than today; Venezuela was the richest country in South America in 2001. These periods of wealth aligned with higher oil production, which has since atrophied. When Hugo Chavez became president in 1999, Venezuela was producing around 3.5 million barrels of oil daily. Today, that total is around 1 million barrels per day.

Economists and public policy thinkers attribute this precipitous drop to the breakdown of the country’s oil infrastructure following decades of mismanagement, corruption, and U.S. sanctions. Chavez, for example, fired about 10,000 employees of state-owned oil giant Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) in 2003 for participating in a two-month strike. PDVSA’s revenue would collapse about a decade later.

Analysts said Trump’s proposed solution of giving U.S. oil companies access to Venezuela to repair the infrastructure (and granting the U.S. access to 30% of the world’s oil reserves) is an expensive endeavor costing at least $10 billion annually for several years. Beyond repairing infrastructure, those companies will need to commit to the more-expensive extraction of heavy crude oil that makes up the vast majority of what is found in Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt.

The steep costs of rebuilding the oil industry means U.S. companies are going to need assurance that their investments will be worth it, Miguel Tinker Salas, a professor emeritus of history at Pamona College and author of The Enduring Legacy: Oil, Culture, and Society in Venezuela, told Fortune.

“I don’t think any large U.S. major company is going to want to invest without a series of guarantees, because you’re talking about billions of dollars of investment,” Tinker Salas said. “This is an investment for the long term, not for the short term.”

Hausmann suggested that one way for private oil companies to be lured to Venezuela—particularly when they have easier access to large oil reserves in Guyana and Namibia—is to address why the infrastructure of the industry decayed in the first place.

“These are self-inflicted wounds. If you want to recover oil, you need to go back to rule of law,” he said. “Let’s be very mechanical: You need to change the hydrocarbons law. And to change the hydrocarbons law, you need a congress that people think is legitimate.”

Hausmann’s vision for a Venezuelan future

The hydrocarbon laws to which Hausmann is referring originated in 1943, outlining that foreign oil companies must pay Venezuela 50% of their oil profits, a price companies were willing to pay to have access to the country’s massive reserves.

After PDVSA was established in 1976, foreign oil companies were able to partner with the state-owned giant, but at a steep cost: a 60% equity stake in their joint ventures. Chavez delivered a death knell to the industry decades later, according to Hausmann, seizing and nationalizing the assets of U.S. oil companies like ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil, which then left the country. Today, only Chevron, under a special U.S. license, continues to do business in Venezuela.

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado previously expressed intent to reform these hydrocarbon laws to increase foreign investment by getting rid of ownership restrictions. But Trump seems unlikely to give power to Venezuela’s popular political figures. He said Machado lacked the support necessary to lead the country, despite evidence of widespread backing for her and Edmundo González, who ran against Maduro in the 2024 election. Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, is Venezuela’s interim leader.

Hausmann said U.S. oil companies are aware of the political instabilities within Venezuela, another factor that may inform their decision to not immediately invest in the country. However, the economist also indicated that while Venezuela’s 303 billion barrels of oil in reserves make oil an obvious industry to expand, it’s not all the country has to offer. He suggests that if a democratic leader can come into power, Venezuela can invest more heavily in its other industries, such as tourism and its Caroni River, from which it derives 64% of its hydroelectric capacity.

“Venezuela has become much, much bigger than its oil, and Venezuela has an enormous potential in many other things,” Hausmann said. “You might say that the easiest thing would be oil, but even oil is not that simple.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

If Trump takes Greenland, he must build a welfare state ‘that he doesn’t want for his own citizens’

Published

on



U.S. President Donald Trump wants to own Greenland. He has repeatedly said the United States must take control of the strategically located and mineral-rich island, which is a semiautonomous region that’s part of NATO ally Denmark.

Officials from Denmark, Greenland and the United States met Thursday in Washington and will meet again next week to discuss a renewed push by the White House, which is considering a range of options, including using military force, to acquire the island.

Trump said Friday he is going to do “something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.”

If it’s not done “the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” he said without elaborating what that could entail. In an interview Thursday, he told The New York Times that he wants to own Greenland because “ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that an American takeover of Greenland would mark the end of NATO, and Greenlanders say they don’t want to become part of the U.S.

This is a look at some of the ways the U.S. could take control of Greenland and the potential challenges.

Military action could alter global relations

Trump and his officials have indicated they want to control Greenland to enhance American security and explore business and mining deals. But Imran Bayoumi, an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, said the sudden focus on Greenland is also the result of decades of neglect by several U.S. presidents towards Washington’s position in the Arctic.

The current fixation is partly down to “the realization we need to increase our presence in the Arctic, and we don’t yet have the right strategy or vision to do so,” he said.

If the U.S. took control of Greenland by force, it would plunge NATO into a crisis, possibly an existential one.

While Greenland is the largest island in the world, it has a population of around 57,000 and doesn’t have its own military. Defense is provided by Denmark, whose military is dwarfed by that of the U.S.

It’s unclear how the remaining members of NATO would respond if the U.S. decided to forcibly take control of the island or if they would come to Denmark’s aid.

“If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops,” Frederiksen has said.

Trump said he needs control of the island to guarantee American security, citing the threat from Russian and Chinese ships in the region, but “it’s not true” said Lin Mortensgaard, an expert on the international politics of the Arctic at the Danish Institute for International Studies, or DIIS.

While there are probably Russian submarines — as there are across the Arctic region — there are no surface vessels, Mortensgaard said. China has research vessels in the Central Arctic Ocean, and while the Chinese and Russian militaries have done joint military exercises in the Arctic, they have taken place closer to Alaska, she said.

Bayoumi, of the Atlantic Council, said he doubted Trump would take control of Greenland by force because it’s unpopular with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, and would likely “fundamentally alter” U.S. relationships with allies worldwide.

The U.S. already has access to Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement, and Denmark and Greenland would be “quite happy” to accommodate a beefed up American military presence, Mortensgaard said.

For that reason, “blowing up the NATO alliance” for something Trump has already, doesn’t make sense, said Ulrik Pram Gad, an expert on Greenland at DIIS.

Bilateral agreements may assist effort

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a select group of U.S. lawmakers this week that it was the Republican administration’s intention to eventually purchase Greenland, as opposed to using military force. Danish and Greenlandic officials have previously said the island isn’t for sale.

It’s not clear how much buying the island could cost, or if the U.S. would be buying it from Denmark or Greenland.

Washington also could boost its military presence in Greenland “through cooperation and diplomacy,” without taking it over, Bayoumi said.

One option could be for the U.S. to get a veto over security decisions made by the Greenlandic government, as it has in islands in the Pacific Ocean, Gad said.

Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands have a Compact of Free Association, or COFA, with the U.S.

That would give Washington the right to operate military bases and make decisions about the islands’ security in exchange for U.S. security guarantees and around $7 billion of yearly economic assistance, according to the Congressional Research Service.

It’s not clear how much that would improve upon Washington’s current security strategy. The U.S. already operates the remote Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, and can bring as many troops as it wants under existing agreements.

Influence operations expected to fail

Greenlandic politician Aaja Chemnitz told The Associated Press that Greenlanders want more rights, including independence, but don’t want to become part of the U.S.

Gad suggested influence operations to persuade Greenlanders to join the U.S. would likely fail. He said that is because the community on the island is small and the language is “inaccessible.”

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen summoned the top U.S. official in Denmark in August to complain that “foreign actors” were seeking to influence the country’s future. Danish media reported that at least three people with connections to Trump carried out covert influence operations in Greenland.

Even if the U.S. managed to take control of Greenland, it would likely come with a large bill, Gad said. That’s because Greenlanders currently have Danish citizenship and access to the Danish welfare system, including free health care and schooling.

To match that, “Trump would have to build a welfare state for Greenlanders that he doesn’t want for his own citizens,” Gad said.

Disagreement unlikely to be resolved

Since 1945, the American military presence in Greenland has decreased from thousands of soldiers over 17 bases and installations to 200 at the remote Pituffik Space Base in the northwest of the island, Rasmussen said last year. The base supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance told Fox News on Thursday that Denmark has neglected its missile defense obligations in Greenland, but Mortensgaard said that it makes “little sense to criticize Denmark,” because the main reason why the U.S. operates the Pituffik base in the north of the island is to provide early detection of missiles.

The best outcome for Denmark would be to update the defense agreement, which allows the U.S. to have a military presence on the island and have Trump sign it with a “gold-plated signature,” Gad said.

But he suggested that’s unlikely because Greenland is “handy” to the U.S president.

When Trump wants to change the news agenda — including distracting from domestic political problems — “he can just say the word ‘Greenland’ and this starts all over again,” Gad said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The ‘Holy Grail of comic books’ once owned by Nicolas Cage sells at auction for a record $15 million

Published

on



A rare copy of the comic book that introduced the world to Superman and also was once stolen from the home of actor Nicolas Cage has been sold for a record $15 million.

The private deal for “Action Comics No. 1” was announced Friday. It eclipses the previous record price for a comic book, set last November when a copy of “Superman No. 1″ was at sold at auction for $9.12 million.

The Action Comics sale was negotiated by Manhattan-based Metropolis Collectibles/Comic Connect, which said the comic book’s owner and the buyer wished to remain anonymous.

The comic — which sold for 10 cents when it came out in 1938 — was an anthology of tales about mostly now little-known characters. But over a few panels, it told the origin story of Superman’s birth on a dying planet, his journey to Earth and his decision as an adult to “turn his titanic strength into channels that would benefit mankind.”

Its publication marked the beginning of the superhero genre. About 100 copies of Action Comics No. 1 are known to exist, according to Metropolis Collectibles/Comic Connect President Vincent Zurzolo.

“This is among the Holy Grail of comic books. Without Superman and his popularity, there would be no Batman or other superhero comic book legends,” Zurzolo said. “It’s importance in the comic book community shows with his deal, as it obliterates the previous record,” Zurzolo said.

The comic book was stolen from Cage’s Los Angeles home in 2000 but was recovered in 2011 when it was found by a man who had purchased the contents of an old storage locker in southern California. It eventually was returned to Cage, who had bought it in 1996 for $150,000. Six months after it was returned to him, he sold it at auction for $2.2 million.

Stephen Fishler, CEO of Metropolis Collectibles/Comic Connect, said the theft eventually played a big role in boosting the comic’s value.

“During that 11-year period (it was missing), it skyrocketed in value.,” Fishler said “The thief made Nicolas Cage a lot of money by stealing it.”

Fishler compared it to the theft of Mona Lisa, which was stolen from the Louvre museum in Paris in 1911.

“It was kept under the thief’s bed for two years,” Fishler noted. “The recovery of the painting made the Mona Lisa go from being just a great Da Vinci painting to a world icon — and that’s what Action No. 1 is — an icon of American pop culture.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump order says Venezuelan oil money is being held by US for ‘governmental and diplomatic purposes’

Published

on



President Donald Trump’s new executive order on Venezuelan oil revenue is meant to ensure that the money remains protected from being used in judicial proceedings.

The executive order, made public on Saturday, says that if the funds were to be seized for such use, it could “undermine critical U.S. efforts to ensure economic and political stability in Venezuela.”

The order comes amid caution from top oil company executives that the tumult and instability in Venezuela could make the country less attractive for private investment and rebuilding.

“If we look at the commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela, today it’s uninvestable,” said Darren Woods, CEO of ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, during a meeting convened by Trump with oil executives on Friday.

During the session, Trump tried to assuage the concerns of the oil companies and said the executives would be dealing directly with the U.S., rather than the Venezuelan government.

Venezuela has a history of state asset seizures, ongoing U.S. sanctions and decades of political uncertainty.

Getting U.S. oil companies to invest in Venezuela and help rebuild the country’s infrastructure is a top priority of the Trump administration after the dramatic capture of now-deposed leader Nicolás Maduro.

The White House is framing the effort to “run” Venezuela in economic terms, and Trump has seized tankers carrying Venezuelan oil, has said the U.S. is taking over the sales of 30 million to 50 million barrels of previously sanctioned Venezuelan crude, and plans to control sales worldwide indefinitely.

“I love the Venezuelan people, and am already making Venezuela rich and safe again,” Trump, who is currently in southern Florida, wrote on his social media site on Saturday. “Congratulations and thank you to all of those people who are making this possible!!!”

The order says the oil revenue is property of Venezuela that is being held by the United States for “governmental and diplomatic purposes” and not subject to private claims.

Its legal underpinnings are the National Emergencies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump, in the order, says the possibility that the oil revenues could be caught up in judicial proceedings constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the U.S.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.