The war between Iran and the United States is not a distant conflict or a topic for international analysts. It is, in practical terms, a direct blow to the pocket of any Mexican who loads gas, pays for transportation or buys food. It's that simple.
And yes, oil has already surpassed $100 per barrel. It's not a hypothetical scenario. It has passed recently, with peaks above $110 at times of heightened tension. The Mexican mix has been pushing towards $90, and if the conflict escalates, it wouldn't be uncommon to see much higher levels.
And if the situation escalates, as analysts warn, the barrel could reach $150.This is not a theory: it's already happening.
Diesel in Mexico has risen to 9% in some regions and gasoline is beginning to reflect the impact of rising global prices.And here comes the structural problem: Mexico imports around 70% of the gasoline it consumes. In other words, they are the natural movements of the international market... but with a government that insists on behaving as if it could control prices by decree and even the world
.The populist answer: politically cheap, economically very expensive The
Morena manual is predictable if the price of fuel increases: speeches, controls
and subsidies.First of all, the classic: reducing or suppressing the IEPS. Nowadays, up to 6.70 pesos are included in the price of each liter of gasoline as a tax. Eliminating that tax seems tempting... until you understand that it would mean less income for the State or more debt, a tax that could well be repealed if we had healthy finances, not full of pollution such as corruption and the enormous debt we face. This would be the ideal public policy.
Second, the famous “voluntary agreements” with gas stations. What if they don't rise so much, what if they align, what if “for the good of the country”. In practice, it's political pressure in disguise. It's not serious public policy. It's basically: you lower it or we'll see what we find in the next audit.
Third, generalized subsidies. In other words, everyone — rich and poor — should receive artificially cheap gasoline. A regressive, fiscally irresponsible and economically distorting measure
.The result? Exactly what the evidence shows: when you reduce indirect taxes in imperfect markets, the reduction doesn't fully reach the consumer. That is, the government loses money and you continue to pay dearly
.The real cost: inflation, debt and structural mediocrity
The increase in the price of fuel is not an independent problem. It's fuel for the entire economy.
In Mexico, 80% of cargo transportation is carried out with diesel. The increase in the price of diesel translates into an increase in all other prices: those of food, logistics, transport and services
.This is the typical beginning of inflationary pressures, something very close to inflation as such and just as serious.
And in the meantime, the government is entering into an absurd contradiction: on the one hand, it presumes higher oil revenues when crude oil rises; on the other, it burns them subsidizing gasoline to contain social anger.
It's like filling a leaking tank everywhere. In other words: they celebrate extraordinary incomes, while ruining them through political decisions
.What should be done (but they don't dare)
This is where comfortable politics is separated from responsible politics
.First, stop subsidising in a generalized way. If the price goes up, it must be reflected. What does make sense is to directly support those who resent it the most, not to distort the entire market
