What will happen to Cuba when Castro dies?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin


First Helms-Burton only deals with stolen property. I.E. assests stolen by the communist government where the owners were never compensated.

a) They were paid, IIRC, the tax assessment value of their property

b) A government can expropriate anybody it wants. There's no international set of laws saying how they have to go about doing it.

c) It was 40 years ago. Nobody's getting back their property. Ever. Give it up. Helms Burton is vindictive, and makes the US look ridiculous and petty. Plus it costs you in good relations with everybody around you.

It is fully justified that if a European or Canadian company would like to go to Cuba and buy this stolen property that they should be treated like a criminal who is dealing in stolen property since that is what they are doing.

Next oceans weren't a big problem when America was primarially and export economy which was isolated from major markets. Nor did Japan have much of a problem when it's only major markets were far away over seas. Modern east Asian countries do just fine sending things by ship largely because they attract alot of foreign investment and have the latest manufacturing equipment. The Cuban communist system virtually insures that Cuban industry will not have the lastest equipment and thus will not be as efficient. Also being state run they will not be as atuned to market needs and will instead be atuned to political needs.

a) America in the 18th or 19th centuries isn't exactly relevant

b) Japan and the East Asian countries did have a massive amount of foreign investment. But who's going to invest in Cuba when they could go right next door and invest in Mexico (which does have access to the US). Not to mention the fact that again, half of the foreign investment dollars are unavailable.

c) I've already said it, but **** Helms-Burton. Wal-mart up here used to carry Cuban-made apparel. Now they don't. Guess why. ****s.

d) The Cubans are managing to slog through this ****, and are diversifying and growing as we speak. It would certainly be a lot easier for them if they didn't have to fight the US while doing it. So why don't we wait for that until we can make a fair comparison.

[DanS]

Tourism: check, they're doing that
Foreign Investment: they still need to sell things so that they can pay those foreign investors in foreign currency.

No, those foreign investors can invest in the tourism industry. Investors can throw money at projects with the expectation of a far-off payout.

Cuba's trade deficit is something like $3 billion. Cuba can do $3 billion in tourism/investment/people sending money home no problem, if they open up the system.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious
All you have to do is turn back the reforms.

Cuba had no choice about the reforms. Without massive Soviet subsidies they could keep up the wasteful and inefficient practices. Even the extraordinarially modest reforms Cuba has made makes a big difference on the bottom line, Meaning people are hungry but not starving to death in Cuba because of the reforms but if you roll back the reforms you'll have another North Korea where it is a total basket case.

[DanS]

The Cubans are managing to slog through this ****, and are diversifying and growing as we speak.

No, the Cuban economy isn't growing.

[KrazyHorse]

Well, they were as of 2001. I don't know what happened in 2002-2003, but from 96-01 they were growing.

[DanS]

In '02 they made no progress. Zero growth.

So you have to reevaluate your assumption that they are going back to communist utopia because they have bought themselves breathing room. Rather, it appears they believe what they have been doing has failed.

These are the final death throes.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
a) They were paid, IIRC, the tax assessment value of their property

Complete lie. No money has ever been offered. It was stolen.

b) A government can expropriate anybody it wants. There's no international set of laws saying how they have to go about doing it.

I'll agree that a giovernment can decid the public good requires something but they must compensate the owner fairly. Castro has never compensated anyone for anything and now Canadian companies go over there and want to buy stolen goods.
[quote]
c) It was 40 years ago. Nobody's getting back their property. Ever. Give it up. Helms Burton is vindictive, and makes the US look ridiculous and petty. Plus it costs you in good relations with everybody around you.
[quote]

We'll see what happens when Castro crooks and the Cubans want IMF money to get back on their feet. I think we'll find many companies do get thier property back as long as they agree to invest in modernization.

a) America in the 18th or 19th centuries isn't exactly relevant

b) Japan and the East Asian countries did have a massive amount of foreign investment. But who's going to invest in Cuba when they could go right next door and invest in Mexico (which does have access to the US). Not to mention the fact that again, half of the foreign investment dollars are unavailable.

c) I've already said it, but **** Helms-Burton. Wal-mart up here used to carry Cuban-made apparel. Now they don't. Guess why. ****s.

First you say that the oceans prevent them from exporting then when I show numerous examples of why that is not true you tell me it is not relevant? Come on man. Be consistent.

Even if there was no embargo who the hell would invest money into a country where by law the state owns everything and can take it without compensation at any time? Don't you get it no one would put money into that sort of place. That's a MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR reason why communist industries are cronically short of investment capital and no one wants to invest in modernizing plants and equipment. Speaking of plants and equipment would you care to guess who used to own the factory were those Cuban made shirts where put together? That's right you were aiding and abetting a known criminal enterprise so I don't want to hear about your crocodile tears.

[Kramerman]

Precastro Cuba depended as much (or more) on its sugar exports to the US as we do on our multifaceted trade with the US.

this is how i see it, and maybe this is flawed, but ill use a simplified model to explain it.

Precastro cuba - makes $20 a year, $10 from sugar exports to US. Needs $50 to be a non-****hole.

Castro cuba w/ boycott- makes $20 a year... but due to inflation, $100 now is needed, so now its an even ****tierhole.

Castro cuba w/o boycott- makes $30 a year, $10 from the 'lucrative' organic cane sugar industry (by lucrative i mean that is hardly a multi biullion dollar market that can turn a nations economy around), because suagr is no where near as important a commodity as it once was back in precastro times. now electronics and other modern manufcatered goods as well as services dominated the money market, not agricultural commodities.

as i said before, yes, the boycott is definately hurting Cuba (as boycotts are supposed to do ), but its biggest problem is its system.

a) it has, since 1991, taken steps to do so
b) it didn't have to do so immediately after 1961, due to Russian support (direct aid and trade)
c) Cuba needs trade. It is not large enough to be a selfcontained economy and sustain a Western level of development. Any industry it would choose to go into immediately faces a big fat embargo in the US. It is attempting to get around this and is slowly managing to grow its manufacturing industries etc. based on European, Canadian and Latin American trade. But this is a major, almost crippling competitive disadvantage when compared to other Latin American countries, who can and do trade with the US

a) why did it wait till 1991?

b) nm, i see why. but why did cuba depend so heavily on SU aid? did they think they would get that forever? Did not think to prepare for the future? Did they not try to develope their industries while they had a crutch to stand on, and now that they dont have that, it is inherently more difficult?

c) agreed that this is a big disadvantage. None- the-less they could still develop some small scale industry or services to trade with other latin american countires and canada (which you say they are now doing), but it is their own fault they waited till 1991 to do this, not the US's trade embargo's fault.

Two points:

1) No, exporting sugar is not the only answer Cuba needs to find, but

2) Exporting anything (which it needs to do, so that it can afford to import machinery) is very difficult when they can't trade with that 10 trillion dollar economy just north of them.

Other Latin American countries don't do particularly well themselves, and they're allowed to have that trade. But it must be fair to compare Cuba's standard of living with that of the US, and point to the difference as that made capitalism.

Most latin american countries are in as bad of shape as Cuba for their system as well, tho in this case it isnt capitalism/communism, its just sheer corruption. Whenever you have a dictator or oligarchical aristocricy who cares more about their own ass than the countries welfare (ie Iraq, much of southern Africa and much of latin america), you are gonna have trouble. Even the US has problems when it comes to corruption, and that often parallels bad times (Enron, etc).

And this is probably where communism suffers most in our world, in thatalmost all of them have had terrible leadership. I'll admit Yugoslavia didnt do *that* badly under Joseph Teto, he was a pretty good leader, many balkans to this day see him as a sort of patriarichal figure, and for that reason Yugoslavia, as a SU satelite, was the most successful communism i recall... but it still pales in comparison to the most successful capitalisms...

I myself am for a mixed system and moderate gov't regualtion (i hate laissez faire), kind like what the US has now, tho i thouroughly admire Canada's healthcare and pharmeceuticals... the US gets ****ed by the drug comapanies, which is our own damn legislaters fault. They got lobbied and suckered, thats all. things will change tho, when i rise to power

[Kramerman]

China is on a long-term process of opening up its economy. China is no longer attempting to achieve communist ideals (see fvck communist ideals, above).'

This is very true, tho im sure, tho im sure Dan could probably tell you more about it. They have been slowly moving away from commmunism and as they've done so, their economy has boomed, tho it is still not much to note, i believe it is one of the, if not the fastest gorwing economy in the world.

[Dinner]

The reason Yugoslavia's economy was more seccessful then the rest of eastern Europe is that Tito allowed small business and family owned farms while the state just owned the heavy industry. Even the heavy industry was allowed to make it's own decisions on hiring, firing, investment in new equipment and what not where as in the Soviet model everything was decided by the central government.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'll agree that a giovernment can decid the public good requires something but they must compensate the owner fairly. Castro has never compensated anyone for anything and now Canadian companies go over there and want to buy stolen goods.

Stolen goods? First off, they're not buying the land. They're buying stuff grown on the land or manufactured there. Secondly, the former owners have no right to any more compensation than the government decides to give them. Your Constitution doesn't apply to them, and attempts to enforce your version of property law on them is an example of extraterritorial thinking.

First you say that the oceans prevent them from exporting then when I show numerous examples of why that is not true you tell me it is not relevant? Come on man. Be consistent.

I never said it prevented them from exporting. I said it made comparisons with even the rest of Latin America questionable, never mind the US.

Even if there was no embargo who the hell would invest money into a country where by law the state owns everything and can take it without compensation at any time? Don't you get it no one would put money into that sort of place. That's a MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR reason why communist industries are cronically short of investment capital and no one wants to invest in modernizing plants and equipment. Speaking of plants and equipment would you care to guess who used to own the factory were those Cuban made shirts where put together? That's right you were aiding and abetting a known criminal enterprise so I don't want to hear about your crocodile tears.

Snooze. The Batista government was as crooked as they come. The "owners" of the land the factory was built on, or any machinery therein stole from the people of Cuba as much as they could, and will never get their **** back. Wishful thinking to claim otherwise.

If you think that Cuba, even if it dropped Castro and turned into America jr. is going to accept the reappearance of the slumlords and industrial overlords they kicked out 40 years ago, and their control of most of the country's land and resources then yhis is laughable on its face.

[The Vagabond]

How Cuba compares to the rest of Latin America resembles pretty much how Belarus (with hardly any capitalistic reforms done) compares to Russia. All the essential economic indicators (especially if counted in dollars, not PPP) are appreciably higher in Russia. However, in all human development tables Belarus always stands ahead of Russia. Capitalism tends to produce more overall wealth. However, for a given overall wealth, Communism distributes it in a more human-friendly way.

[Kramerman]

that explains the devilishly innovative Yugo.... 0 to 60 km/h in 5 minutes, baby

[KrazyHorse]

How can it be a criminal enterprise when it obeys all applicable laws?

Snooze...

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
How Cuba compares to the rest of Latin America resembles pretty much how Belarus (with hardly any capitalistic reforms done) compares to Russia. All the essential economic indicators (especially if counted in dollars, not PPP) are appreciably higher in Russia. However, in all human development tables Belarus always stands ahead of Russia. Capitalism tends to produce more overall wealth. However, for a given overall wealth, Communism distributes it in a more human-friendly way.

note the enormously high corruption of Russia... i htink that has more to do with the comparability of the two more so than capitalism/communism