Two terms have been denied their due as they passed through the ears of state officials, most of whom have grown accustomed to assuming they understand economic terminology by virtue of experience alone. From that assumption emerge decisions capable of swinging the country’s economy right and left. How troubling it is that “continuity” has become visibly mistaken for the purpose of sustainability, and that actuarial deficit has been defined as though it were merely an “accounting deficit.”

Finding definitions for these two terms is extremely easy. In truth, I am not presenting their meanings or explanations now with the intention of fixing them in the minds of all concerned. Previous attempts with a group of diligent and earnest individuals have exhausted me, and in every one of those attempts, failure proved our closest companion. But I will try once again today, hoping that my words reach their target and settle, even if only in the mind of a single leader, so that I may perhaps be rewarded in this blessed month.

Economic sustainability and actuarial balance are integrally connected. Indeed, there is between them an intimate relationship much like that between harees and cinnamon: each completes the other. If our actuarial balance faces a deficit, this is evidence that we are moving in a direction opposite to sustainability. If, on the other hand, there is an actuarial surplus, then our economy is unquestionably moving in harmony with sustainability. Yet the question remains: what should be taken into account when calculating that balance? Should oil revenues or energy revenues be treated as inputs that may be entered as present values to calculate future values within the actuarial balance? Or do we “mix everything together indiscriminately,” then sit back and speculate about where matters may lead? May we praise the harees served in your home on the assumption that its taste was improved by the cinnamon sprinkled over it, when in fact you served it garnished with boiled eggs?

Treating revenues that flow into the state treasury, when they originate from the sale of resources that may be depleted in the future or whose exploitation may negatively affect coming generations, is wholly inconsistent with the concept of sustainability. Sustainability is created by achieving continuity not merely for a short period, but for life, alongside a rising rate of returns and a lower rate of increase in costs. Through this, we arrive at a continuous and sustainable increase in annual profit, thereby producing an actuarial surplus, gentlemen.

Oil revenues, by contrast, may produce an accounting surplus over the years, through which we may calculate a “temporary” actuarial surplus when future values are considered. But is this truly an actuarial surplus in the real sense explained above? What if there exists an opportunity cost whose future value is higher than what was calculated, but it is not discovered until after oil reserves have been exhausted? What if oil scarcity increases one hundred years from now, pushing the price of a barrel to 800 U.S. dollars, at the same time as the dollar itself appreciates? And what if the future value of the corrective costs needed to repair the consequences of these mistaken assumptions rises as well? Where, then, are true economic sustainability and sound actuarial balance? And what memory will you leave for your future generations?

The value of what we continue to lose, step by step, makes us urgently in need of minds that can truly see in order to understand. Yet the economic rentierism we witness today resembles a cloud that obscures such vision. It races instead toward whatever can be gained in the present, marginalizing the fundamentals that were themselves bureaucratically marginalized in education, and producing a corruption in which officials boast of the terms sustainability and actuarial deficit without the slightest knowledge of the “recipe” — and without understanding that harees is not complete without cinnamon.

How does understanding the factor of the future help explain reform and slogans?

Real reform defines the problem, cost, metric, timeline, and responsibility, while a slogan relies on general language that does not change incentives. It should therefore be read through the future, cost, results, and added capacity, not through intention alone.

How does economic sustainability and actuarial deficit affect the economy?

Its effect appears in how costs, incentives, and resources are managed, and in the economy's ability to turn decisions into sustainable value. The direct context is confusing sustainability with continuity and actuarial deficit with accounting loss, especially in oil-dependent economies.

How does understanding the factor of the future help explain policy design?

Policies fail when they ignore incentives, costs, and expected behavior; good intentions cannot compensate for flawed design. It should therefore be read through the future, cost, results, and added capacity, not through intention alone.