Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > June > 19 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USOnly embargo’s end can kick off Cuba revolution
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Old Havana may be the most beautiful old city in the world. Or could be with a heavy dose of capitalism.
As it stands now, capitalism’s not coming to the rescue — and may not, even after the deaths of the old Communist revolutionaries who, like Fidel Castro, 80, and his 75-year-old brother, Raul, are now on the cusp of the great beyond.
Old Havana, with its narrow streets and baroque and neoclassic buildings, is one of three distinct districts in Havana, and easily the most enchanting. Dating to the 16th century, Old Havana contains about 3,000 buildings, a thousand of them lining the narrow streets of the historic district. About 350 have been restored, an effort that started in 1978 when the Cuban government declared the district a protected national monument. The United Nations designated it a World Heritage Site in 1982.
The revolution has, in one sense, protected a treasure while in another it has contributed to the deterioration of irreplaceable treasures. On a stroll through a neighborhood leading into Old Havana, one elegant three-story mansion that a century ago may have been the residence of a wealthy trading family is today divided into apartments. Half the roof is gone, walls are crumbled to midway on the third story and yet families live on the second, as revealed through the doors opened onto one of the ubiquitous balconies.
The seizure of all private homes and businesses by the Castro revolutionaries in 1959, and the government’s primary interest in rural development, kept Old Havana intact. Once the U.S. embargo and travel restrictions are lifted in the post-Castro years, Old Havana and the stunning white beaches of Varadero two hours away will swarm with American tourists.
But for now, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, its artificial price support for Cuban sugar and its subsidized oil, Cuba is desperate to build a tourist economy. Its primary market is Canada and Europe, but distance limits tourism from those markets and from Russia.
Cuban officials look to the day that a million or more tourists will flood this nation of 11 million people, about 2.5 million of whom live in Havana, 65,000 of them in the 1.5 square miles of Old Havana.
“At that moment, I move back to Washington,” chuckles a government escort who spent four years in D.C.
The government has not surrendered any ground to capitalism, but it has invited foreign companies to manage hotels and resorts with leases of up to 25 years. One example is the 404-room Sandals Royal Hicacos resort at Varadero, where the Cuban government has sought to develop a resort community. Varadero now has 17,000 hotel rooms, local officials say, and will top out at 26,000.
Cubans, no matter their resources, cannot stay at Sandals or at the national hotel they own in Havana. A Dutch company manages Sandals, which was opened in 2002. Many tourists come via charter flights to a new airport built near the city as part of its tourism development effort.
In Old Havana, tourism revenues from restored hotels are spent on social programs, with about a third plowed back into restoration and preservation of other buildings in the historic district.
Residents don’t own their apartments. During restoration they are moved to temporary quarters near the district until restoration is complete. Afterward, most are allowed back, depending on how long they occupied the restored buildings.
Comes now the post-Castro trick. At the rate now visible, post-Castro Cuba will not restore Old Havana for generations to come. Capitalists could do it in five years. A million tourists would swamp the city and Varadero.
Cuban officials believe they can manage, parceling out liberties and private initiative while avoiding capitalism.
“The ‘c’ word is bad,” said one American official. “They would not allow private initiative if it gets close to the ‘c’ word.”
Cuba is, in many ways, a place stuck in time, isolated by the embargo and by the withdrawal of Soviet support. It’s not desperate and it could survive for years to come with the embargo intact.
But once it’s loosened, once people who have known nothing but Communism taste the fruits of a freer market, government cannot possibly control the parceling of liberties and free enterprise for more than a brief spell.
Now the embargo is the bogeyman blamed for every ill. When the day comes that it is lifted, the next revolution starts.
Permalink | Comments (96) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Services »
Comments
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
June 19, 2007 8:08 AM | Link to this
Cuba?
Who cares. It’ll fall when it falls.
I thought you’d do something on a topic of more substance, like the evidence that Rummy and the Prez knew waaay sooner than we thought of the torture situation at Abu Grahib….and tried to hide it.
Jim, you’re a columnist for the largest daily in the southeast. Try to stay current!
By harold
June 19, 2007 8:11 AM | Link to this
harold expects the cuban cigars once available to be approximately as good as the coors beer was. who gives a flying dang about this. must be some embarrassing news today to have been totally ignored eh
By B Young
June 19, 2007 8:32 AM | Link to this
Decent article.
Part of Cuba’s unique charm is its egalitarian society.
Does EVERY country on earth have to become capitalist?
Everyone seems to view the end of the blockade as an opportunity to make money - likely at Cubans’ expense.
By Curious Observer
June 19, 2007 8:32 AM | Link to this
Cuba needs a good dose of old-fashioned capitalism, so that it can have many more impoverished families, kids without access to health care, SUVs and luxury cars by the thousands, and politicians bought and paid for by corporations—not to mention dozens of McMansions and gated communities.
The country should not waste its money on renovating historic structures. Once Starbucks and other American companies move in, there will be plenty of money for converting those structures to “shoppes” where people driving Mercedes and BMWs can line up for their 5-buck doses of latte.
Even as I write, dozens of would-be Batistas in Florida are jockeying for the position of lead American puppet in the country.
On a brighter note, it looks as though Scooter Libby will be the first of many corrupt members of the current administration to view the interior of a prison as a guest. Perhaps we can import some water-boarding specialists in Guantanamo to help meet his needs.
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I am delighted to see discussion of a significant economic idea rather than whatever the leftists have designated as the mere scandal du jour. The lease terms offered private companies at Varadero strike me as amazingly similar to those terms granted management companies at Jekyll Island; there is an apparent causation for “seedy” properties in paradise.
For reason outlined in Jim’s essay, Cuba needs the US far more than the US needs Cuba. I truly feel sorry for the dispirited Cubans, who obviously suffer under the yoke of socialism. Nevertheless, I think any external initiative to improve their collective lot, during the lifetimes of the Castros, would be futile. After the deaths of the brothers, the US can reasonably consider liberalization. We will discover quickly whether their overlords learned anything, as did the Vietnamese in a generation, or whether they are determined to beat a dead horse.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
June 19, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this
Jbm,
Funny you mentioning discussion of significant ideas vs. scandal du jour’s.
Because like we saw when Clinton was in office, when a Democrat ends up back in the White House, I bet the “scandal du jour” comes back in style, both for yourself and Jim…at the expense of significant ideas.
That’s why Jim’s a Cherry Picker.
Thst’s why he’s a shill for an morally convenient ideology, instead of a thought provoking columnist.
By JK
June 19, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this
I have to agree with Jim’s a Cherry Picker and Harold today. (Hey!) When Mr. Wooten is waving his left hand in the air, “Woo-hooo! Look over here! Cuba! Lookie!” I have to wonder what his right hand is trying to conceal.
By Southern Democrat
June 19, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Wooten’s column today. The embargo has gone on for way, way too long, the product of incredible political efforts by Cuba’s exiled elites.
One point of comparsion for Cuba (though on a much larger scale) might be China’s recent liberalization of its property laws to allow for long term leases that can be exchanged for value, with the state still obviously owning the land.
As Jbmlaw so capably notes, the situation on Cuba’s end is not changing anytime soon. Beyond the economical rationales, I think we have a duty to the Cuban people to resume trading and attempt to alleviate their suffering.
By Willxxssi
June 19, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this
When I look at the labels on so much of what I purchase and see “Made in China” I scratch my head and wonder why we still are trying to “save” Cuba from Fidel Castro. The Cuba policy has made no sense whatsoever for years and should be changed. Americans can travel to China but we can’t travel to an island 90 miles off our shores. It’s all about the votes in Florida and the Cubans who live there more than it is about saving Cuba from Castro.
By Van
June 19, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this
It is interesting that with foreign backers the tourist trade in Cuba is doing so well - except for those that have to live there.
I guess the official “okay” to make a profit is fine for everyone except a local.
Cuba has suffered only because of Castro and his murderous regime. Cuba should have been growing stronger with the free trade with Canada, Mexico and the EU, but it hasn’t. Thanks to the extremely rich Castro and family. I guess Orwell was right when he said in his famous book, something like, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
By GodHatesTrash
June 19, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this
Ah yes, bring back the Batista days - turn Havana into the w-horehouse of the Caribbean again - but wait a minute Jim, that’ll give the Atlanta convention business too much competition! Think of all the Atlanta girls that have to bring home the dollars because their husbands are lazy stupid rednecks…
And all that gambling business siphoned off from Vegas - you’re going to gut the only American city with economic growth…
And the big question - do we really need another county to compete with, when we are already running behind so many others?
By TW
June 19, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this
If only Republican George Bush had been President during the Cuban Missile Crisis…there would have been a full scale nuclear war with the Soviet Union and we wouldn’t have to worry about all this pesky nonsense today.
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this
One additional thought before I have to flee, why would anyone vacation in rundown Havana rather than in Cancun? Cancun always will be cheaper, and always will hold greater creature comforts. Our only hope is that the inherent greed of man will prevail, that the Cuban overlords, seeing the possibility of tourist dollars, will do whatever is necessary to bring in the tourists. Can central planning create a more attractive tourist paradise than the Mexican entrepreneurs?
By Adam
June 19, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this
It’s always interesting to see the reactions of those on the left whenever the subject of Cuba comes up. The needless suffering of the Cuban people imposed by the crushing burden of Communism is an embarrassment to those “Progressives” among us who envision Socialism as utopia and wish to impose it upon us.
Curious Observer@8:32 and GodHatesTrash@8:58 can’t help themselves in their lame attempts to demean thier country and the success that Capitalism has demonstrated. That’s right, everything is milk and honey in the Worker’s Paradise of Communism meanwhile we here in the USA are the real victims of evil Capitalism.
By Dennis
June 19, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this
Humm. Mr. Wooten’s comments today are somewhat closer to center style thinking than his usual far right field views. But still, between the lines, he can’t completely make the jump.
He writes, “But once it’s loosened [the U.S. embargo], once people who have known nothing but Communism taste the fruits of a freer market, government cannot possibly control the parceling of liberties and free enterprise for more than a brief spell.
“Now the embargo is the bogeyman blamed for every ill. When the day comes that it is lifted, the next revolution starts.”
Naturally, Mr. Wooten, and by proxy, those who share his far right views, assumes that only the U.S. can revitalize Cuba. But would Mr. Wooten care to admit that if Castro had wanted to, he could have invited China, India, any number of other nations to come and invest in Cuba.
Instead, Castro has kept Cuba for the Cubans.
And in the process has made the U.S. look like an imperial a*.
Also, since much of this column actually deals with Cuban finances more so than anything else, it’s the U.S. that has lost over the long run, not Castro and Cuba.
If the American government had gotton out of the way and allowed Americans to travel to Cuba, the “capitalism” that Mr. Wooten is promoting and salivating over would have come to Cuba along time ago.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Van
June 19, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this
TW,
My guess is you were not around during that time.
Our military was on alert, leaves and passes were canceled.
We nearly did come to a nuclear war, but the Russians blinked first. JFK would have understood the War on Terror, he was a democrat with a backbone.
By Cuba Journal
June 19, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
Jim:
You are living in an unreal dream world. Dog-eat-dog capitalism will not return to Cuba. The Revolution has been institutionalized and they will continue with their people-helping-people system. The social achievements will be sustained.
By Dusty
June 19, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this
As a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and lover of old buildings, I am sad to hear and see pictures of beautiful structures in Cuba falling to pieces. Jim mentions the lovely old buildings and their decay. He mentioned some preservation efforts by the Cuban government but it seems to be a limited one.
I don’t like communism and its stricture of progress in Cuba. I am not even sure that lifting the USA trade ban will be a cure all. But we are the world’s leading country and our freedom and our dollars are much sought after. To give Cuba the economic lift it needs, might be the impetus to bring about structural renovation. At least for the buildings. The Cubans would have to decide about the government.
By Redneck Convert
June 19, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this
I’m downright ashamed of Wooten for going on vacation in a commie country. Where they control what people make and the cars and pickups are real old. Bet they don’t even have Red Man or Skoal.
I think we need the U.S. economy in Cuba. Big tax cuts for the rich. A fellow that lives in a big house in north Forsyth stopped by Billy Bob’s the other night and explained those tax cuts to the rest of us. It made a lot of sense. He said the idea was to push so much money to the rich people that pretty soon they would have all they could ever want and start letting some of it go to little guys like me. Sort of like a tick that gets filled up with blood and then drops off. Anyway, I’m still waiting for rich folk like jbmlaw and Van and John D and tftt or whatever he calls hisself these days to turn loose of some of the dough and I’ll be right here to catch some of it and maybe get me a new double wide.
Anyway, these Castro guys are about to die off. Pretty soon we can get a Bush-like bunch of guys running Cuba and get rid of the commies. And we already got a prison right there. Maybe we could kick some more butt down there. We could maybe draft 50,000 Cubans and start another war with some of the countrys in the area. And who knows? I might wind up driving a beer truck in Cuba. But then I would be around a lot of Those People and that wouldn’t be good. Cuba is full of them.
Anyway, Wooten ought to turn in his citizenship for spending good American money in a commie country. It won’t be too much longer before he turns into a plain old filthy librul. Me and my buddy Jim Earl both think Wooten is a kind of trader. He don’t explain how it is he couldn’t take his vacation in Panama City or some other good American place.
By RCH
June 19, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this
TW If GW would have been President during the time of Noah, you would have blamed the flood on him too. Get a grip.
By GodHatesTrash
June 19, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this
The Woo-ten Klan cheerleaders are out this morning - why do you kkklowns think the Cuban people will benefit from trade relationships with people who will not and cannot pay their bills?
That’s capitalism at its very basic - don’t trade with people who will give you nothing but scrip in return. The Bush dollar is rapidly approaching the value of the Canadian loonie, and it is only getting worse.
The Cuban people don’t have much, but they don’t have any debt either. And maybe they have the common sense that we lack - we spend billions and billions in the Middle East paying for oil to people that turn around and give it to people that kill Americans. Given the trigger-happy moron you redstate rednecks selected in 2000, and our long history of interference in Cuban affairs, why would Cuba want to trade with his country, thereby strengthening him?
Go ahead - keep cheering - but the American century is over - Dumbya killed it when he entered Iraq. We squandered our moral authority and our economy on his arrogance and stupidity.
By Van
June 19, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this
Dennis,
Are you not reading Wooten’s article?
“Instead, Castro has kept Cuba for the Cubans.”
From Wooten “The government has not surrendered any ground to capitalism, but it has invited foreign companies to manage hotels and resorts with leases of up to 25 years.”
Yes, Castro has kept the Cubans under his thumb. By keeping the proud Cuban people poor and in a third world hell hole, he has enriched himself and foreign capitalists.
By Van
June 19, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this
Yes, the dropping of the embargo would spark another revolution in Cuba, or so it seems.
If Castro really cared for his subjects, then let him be the first to compromise and take responsibility for what his “glorious” revolution has done to the Cuban economy (non-existent) and the Cubans themselves.
The Cuban people have seen the fruits of capitalism with the open trade with Mexico, Canada and the EU. The trade with the US would have to fight to find markets already full of western goods.
By Dennis
June 19, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this
Van, the Cubans were in a “hell hole” and “under thumb” when Batista (our boy) and the U.S. controlled Cuba.
Once the revolution got to rolling, it became a “popular” revolution, not just a “Communist” revolution. (Also, by way of note, Batista was also Communist).
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By jabster
June 19, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
If all you lefties think that Cuba (Cuba!) is so great, Delta—make that Aeroflot, which is a Delta codeshare partner, since Delta doesn’t fly there themselves—is ready when you are!
Hate to be so glib, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I know several Cuban emigrants, and read the stories of many more, and the pure unadulterated BS that they had to go through tells the whole story.
Communism has been a negative-sum game for Cubans. Free-market capitalism with the rule of law—not a Batistian crony-pseudo-capitalist dictatorship—would have made it better for everyone a long time ago.
Remember, “poverty” in the US comes with air conditioning, color TVs, and obesity. You’re not going to hear “a shake for breakfast, a shake for lunch, and then a sensible dinner” in Havana. End of story.
MUERA CASTRO! Y CHAVEZ TAMBIEN! DOS DIABLOS!
By Gabriel
June 19, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
Jim’s a Cherry Picker, When did Cuba not become current anymore? Cuban people suffer today. Cuban people today still do not have private property, freedom of speech or assembly. Why do you think people risk their lives in make shift rafts to travel in shark infested waters to the US? If it doesn’t involve Bush bashing, is it not current?
Dennis, Castro kept Cuba for the Cubans? He took from the Cubans. He took their private property. He stole their future. Castro has kept the decaying buildings for the Cuban people, instead of preserving them. If you bothered reading what Mr. Wooten wrote, Castro has kept the Cuban people imagining what it is like to enjoy the great tourist areas in their own land. These resorts were built and maintained by the Dutch and other Europeans at Castro’s request!!!! Castro has kept the communist myth for the Cuban people. Ignorant Americans like yourself help to perpetuate the myth. He has kept progress away from the Cuban people. Capitalism has it’s faults when left unchecked, but is much better than Communism. Doesn’t it seem a little ironic that in order to keep Communist Cuba afloat economically, Castro has allowed capitalism in the form of tourism to exist on his island? With regards to Chinese help, Castro does ask for it for the regime, not for the people. China is looking for petroleum off the Cuban coast. Do you not think Cuba is going to ask for something in return?
Dennis and and JCP, you two need to climb out of your far left know it all utopia every now and again, read a little, and get current!!!
By LatAm
June 19, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this
spoken like a true capitalist. now that cuba has shown what can be done with the restoration of old havana, and it has turned the area into a powerful tourist attraction with remarkable sensitivity and care for historical details and national cultural values, foreign capitalists hear the ca-ching, ca-ching and have visions of dollars falling into their lap. they want it. and they would finish the job faster than the cubans.
i’m sure they’d hop on it. they would not bother to remake the other residential areas that need repair after the long post-soviet special period, or develop the rural areas that lag behind the cities, or plan the distribution of resources and development opportunities around the country, rather than concentrating on the capital. nor would they be concerned about investing in education and health care and culture—that is all for the cuban government to worry about. the good, quick money is to be made in old havana, the preliminary work is already done, and that is what interests capital. the fruits of the state’s efforts should be privatized and handed over to foreigners.
we all know the process. in u.s. cities, it’s called gentrification. a neighborhood and its residents can be abandoned for thirty years, but let a subway station or bridge or major government project be built nearby, and capital will discover the previously-unnoticed wonders of the neighborhood. condos and coffee shops spring up like mushrooms after the rain. the people who lived there before are moved out to somewhere, anywhere, who cares? the thing is that private capital can do the job quickly. for the right profits.
sorry, jim. i don’t share your enthusiasm for the quick bucks.
By Maria
June 19, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
If we can go to China, why not Cuba? This embargo will only create a greater rift and push Cuba even further away from capitalism. While capitalism may not be the recipe that the Cuba people like….socialism could be a nice medium between the two.
**Get over your “lefties” crap. We’re not living in McCarthyism anymore. Before making any comments…make sure you really understand Latin American history and culture and REALIZE that it is very different from American history and the American way. That is the only way that countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, and many other Latin American countries that have opted for leftist governments will progress.
By Van
June 19, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this
Dennis,
Before Castro, the Cuban people owned their own homes, could speak their minds and were not afraid of the government.
The owners of the grand old hotels in Havana were robbed of their property and the only people that got rich from the post revolution was the Castro’s and company. Even the dismal failure of a revolutionary Che is more popular in the west than Castro.
When Cuba is finally free, there will be a revolution.
By Van
June 19, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this
Maria,
The Cuban people already had socialism, and are now in the great communism role.
As any dolt knows, socialism is just one step to the final goal of Communism.
BTW, where has a leftist, or should I say progressive government succeeded? Certainly not in the countries you listed.
By Dennis
June 19, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
By Van June 19, 2007 10:23 AM |Dennis, “Before Castro, the Cuban people owned their own homes, could speak their minds and were not afraid of the government.”
Sorry, Van, but you’re wrong on this one.
There was great poverty in Cuba under the Batista/U.S. control. There were the very rich or the very poor. And that there were so many “very poor” is why the revolution was supported by the peasants. Castro himself, came from a very wealthy family.
The U.S. talks a good game about helping nations to develope, but talk is all in the case of Cuba being an independent nation.
The U.S. wants to control Cuba.
And Jim Wooten isn’t going to write about that, you can bet!
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By jabster
June 19, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
Maria @10:17:
Get over your “lefties” crap. We’re not living in McCarthyism anymore.
What did you mean by that? I’d like to hear your definition of “McCarthyism” as it seems to be a complete non sequitur at best, and more likely a red herring. I’m not trying to “out” a bunch of Communists, if that’s what you mean.
Most of the countries that “opted” for left-wing governments did so under force—the Soviet Union in the past, and neofascists like Chavez more recently.
Or are you saying that Latin America is too primitive for, or can’t handle, capitalism and freedom?
Sure, socialism and communism appeals to poor people. So does theft.
By Van
June 19, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this
Maria,
The Cuban people already had socialism, and are now in the great communism role.
As any dolt knows, socialism is just one step to the final goal of Communism.
BTW, where has a leftist, or should I say progressive government succeeded? Certainly not in the countries you listed.
By getalife
June 19, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this
Yawn.
Wake me when I can buy Cuban cigars not from Canada.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz.
By Ashley
June 19, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this
The capitalism vs. socialism debate is inane. In truth, the United States and every other industrialized country is a combination of the two (e.g. agriculture subsidies, Medicare, direct or subsidized student loans, the SEC, the FDIC, the Fed, FEMA, fire and police departments, state and national parks, and our military are all forms of socialism).
The real debate should be about specifics — when does the private sector work best (e.g. computer operating systems) vs. when does the public sector work best (e.g. health insurance for the elderly)? Or – when does public/private partnerships (e.g. NIH and pharmaceutical organizations) or public/private competition work best (e.g. Federal Express vs. the U.S. Postal Service).
In political discourse, we need to lose the ideology (and demagoguery that goes with it) and stick to reality and pragmatism.
By Van
June 19, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this
Maria,
The Cuban people already had socialism, and are now in the great communism role.
As any dolt knows, socialism is just one step to the final goal of Communism.
BTW, where has a leftist, or should I say progressive government succeeded? Certainly not in the countries you listed.
By getalife
June 19, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
Firefighters are socialism.
9 died in Charleston in a fire last night.
Show a little respect Van.
By Van
June 19, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this
getalife,
Try Mexico, but the current Cuban cigars are of poor quality and inferior flavor. The best still come from freer nations in Central America and the Caribbean.
You might be able to find, though expensive, some pre-Castro Cuban cigars at the finer Cigar stores.
By FrankLeeDarling
June 19, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
this is the first thing written by wooten that makes sense.funny,republicans like to claim they won the cold war when really it was MTV
By getalife
June 19, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
Van,
I smoke these
By jabster
June 19, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
Ashley @ 11:05:
You make an excellent point. There’s plenty of room for intelligent debate at the margin between a capitalist (private sector) approach and a quasi-socialist (government) approach for public services and other areas where the free market is ineffective or sufficiently inefficient.
I think what most of us are saying, though, is that the hardcore communism of Cuba is a great example of what happens when communist autocracy runs amok. Sure, the needy get their meds (developed by whom? :) ). But everything else goes to pieces and personal freedom is nonexistent.
By Not Thinking
June 19, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this
What a pathetic charade from the government-sanctioned oil barons. You really think this issue is about casinos, ideology and historic preservation? God spare us from 4 more years of the right-wing dumbing down of America.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14095881/
By GodHatesTrash
June 19, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this
Let’s not forget the US military - one of the most socialist organizations on the planet.
Keep your nose clean - Uncle Sam pays your medical bills - and gives you foodstamps, just like welfare.
By MrLiberty
June 19, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this
Cuba is the example that everyone should turn to when considering an economic embargo against a country. Embargos fail to achieve their stated goals. In the 40’s our embargo of Japan led to Pearl Harbor. Our embargo of Iraq led to the deaths of 1.5 million innocent people - and then to 9-11. Our embargos of other countries has had similar affects. And yet even this current administration finds them to be an acceptable and viable economic measure.
When are we going to learn?
Ron Paul has been espousing the value of free trade with all, entangling alliances with none this whole campaign. Ending the embargo against Cuba would be a step in that right direction. Trade with the Soviet Union helped bring down the wall, and Capitolism is fighting it out in the streets of Bejing without a single soldier or bullet fired thanks to Nixon and our opening of trade.
Nice to see Mr. Wooten getting on board with the Ron Paul foreign policy agenda. Its about time americans woke up and realized that the gun is the most ineffective means to achieve real change.
By Van
June 19, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this
Not Thinking,
Right - and every President since, knew about the oil fields and kept the embargo in place just for that reason - what a left wing nut case.
By Walter Lippmann
June 19, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
Why is Washington so afraid of the Cuban example, even though it has plenty of its own problems. Unlike here in the United States, where we have no problems and are a model of what’s right and what should be imposed on the rest of the world.
Cuba had enough of capitalism under the Batista dictatorship. It makes its own mistakes now, but at least they are Cuban mistakes.
Totally free health care and education aren’t mistakes.
To learn more about Cuba, see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this
Dear GodHatesTrash @ 11:58 and Ashley @ 11:05, you have argued something intelligent, so I have to underscore it. The US military – all branches – are proof that socialism works, within the limitations of socialism. Governments do only three things competently – kill people, steal property, and constrain freedom. The US military does this more efficiently than any comparable scale organization on earth (although the Israeli military may be more efficient on a smaller scale.) I think we would all agree that there is nothing else that government performs more efficiently and effectively than any private entities.
Certainly Cuba is an excellent proof of my postulate. By any and every measure, Cuba in 1950, like Argentina in 1930, was one of the thriving and productive economies of the western world. It is only after two generations of government suffocation that the two became the basket cases we see today.
By EasyPickins
June 19, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
This one is a no brainer. End the embargo and then step back and allow the CUBAN PEOPLE to determine which course they take with no interference or strings attached assistance whatsoever.
By Ashley
June 19, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw wrote, “I think we would all agree that there is nothing else that government performs more efficiently and effectively than any private entities.”
No, we would not all agree.
In my earlier post, I gave several examples of where the private sector was found inadequate and the government stepped in with reasonably good results. Multi-volume tomes would be required to adequately describe all such instances in the U.S and the other industrialized “capitalist” countries.
The truth is that capitalism could not survive and thrive without government involvement (e.g. provides and enforces property rights, imposes and enforces transparency in economic transactions, provides and secures the physical infrastructure for intrastate, interstate and international commerce, …).
jbmlaw’s generalization about the three things that government does well is ideology, not reality.
By BS Aplenty
June 19, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the update on life in Cuba, Jim. (getalife after the Lewinsky scandal, I just couldn’t bring myself to smoke cigars anymore!).
Each of the political & economic systems mentioned has it’s favorable and unfavorable characteristics - no exceptions. Nations rarely implement a pure system & it gets to be a question of approach.
But ask yourself this: do people risk their lives to immigrate to Cuba, Russia or China?
*Show me what you’ll stick your arse on an ocean raft for and I’ll show you what you really believe.
-BS Aplenty*
By Dennis
June 19, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this
By jbmlaw June 19, 2007 12:13 PM | “Certainly Cuba is an excellent proof of my postulate. By any and every measure, Cuba in 1950, like Argentina in 1930, was one of the thriving and productive economies of the western world. It is only after two generations of government suffocation that the two became the basket cases we see today.”
How many generations has it taken for America’s poor to become the “basket cases” we see today?
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
Dear Ashley @ 12:55, I stand by my statement. At your 11:05 the only item you cited as government outperforming private enterprise was “health insurance for the elderly.” While I would concede that the government program, paid for by nonusers whose wealth is expropriated for that purpose, allows no alternative, I do not concede that medicare is proof of the superiority of government management.
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this
Dear Dennis @ 1:00, I respectfully suggest that the poor of any other country on earth will break the laws of the United States just for the opportunity to be poor here. It is not welfare that draws them.
By Dennis
June 19, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this
By EasyPickins June 19, 2007 12:42 PM “This one is a no brainer. End the embargo and then step back and allow the CUBAN PEOPLE to determine which course they take with no interference or strings attached assistance whatsoever.”
The corporate controlled American government ain’t about to let that happen.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this
Dear Dennis @ 1:00, I just heard, there is a boatload of American basket cases fleeing the US for Cuba, leaving at 1:30 today. Just thought you might want to know.
By J
June 19, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
Ashley - don’t try actually having a conversation or debate on the facts with JBM - you’ll point out specific examples, and he’ll respond with ideologically driven generalities. I’ve tried many times, and all he does is utter vague statements about how government, hollywood, “lefties”, hippies and anyone who disagrees with him are bad.
On the topic - Jim is (for once) right. End the embargo, let the Cuban government come crashing down under its own weight and decrepitness. HOWEVER, if you think it’s all milk and cookies once the Communists lose power and all the parasites, er, “businessmen” carpetbag their way on in, you need to get a grip. The experiences of the former Warsaw Pact countries from 1990 onwards are instructive in too many ways to enumerate here; go look up what life has been like in Romania, Hungary, Poland etc. since the fall of communism, and you’ll get an idea of how messy and unpleasant it is to remake an entire system of government and national economy.
Political and economic reform are desperately needed in Cuba, no doubt. But if you think that a free-market economy will lead to sunshine and happiness forever for all Cubans, you’re as stupid and/or ideologically blinded as “true-believer” Communists.
By BS Aplenty
June 19, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this
jmblaw while I agree with your premise that private enterprise generally performs more efficiently than government, I would also add that, as a society, we have determined that all our citizens should have a minimum level of well-being until death (by the way, this is national State the Obvious Day).
We do not as a society allow a pure capitalistic system. There will always be those who have not competed effectively enough in the capitalist system to sustain them through their lives. That means, so long as the money holds out, there will always be some form of welfare, social security and medicaid, etc.
It’s not that the government has monopolized the social service functions as much as it’s an extra-economic role we’ve assigned to government. If someone finds a way to make these social service functions into a viable business then we rethink the assignment of those functions to government.
By jabster
June 19, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this
Ashley @12:55 wrote:
The truth is that capitalism could not survive and thrive without government involvement (e.g. provides and enforces property rights, imposes and enforces transparency in economic transactions, provides and secures the physical infrastructure for intrastate, interstate and international commerce, …).
Careful. Most of what you describe is not socialism but the “rule of law” (all except “providing the infrastructure”). Even Ayn Rand says that that is necessary for capitalism.
To describe capitalism as NOT requiring that is essentially defining Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, not “mainstream” capitalism.
By Van
June 19, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
I must disagree with you statement that the military is a socialistic organization.
Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
As we all know, the military is a hierarchical society, built on a rank and file system. Everyone has their place and everyone has their purpose.
No where is an economic view and after all the enlistment is voluntary. This is a society governed not by economic rules, but by rules of function. Unlike a socialist model, there are no oppressors or oppressed, except for the lowest ranks. Unlike socialism, advancement is possible and preferred.
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this
Dear Van @ 1:51, point conceded, well argued.
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this
Dear J @ 1:51, you err broadly in your examples, due to mis-selectivation. Estonia, Czech Republic, and Hungary – those countries that embraced freedom most aggressively - are among the fastest growing economies in the world. Belarus, Slovakia, and Romania prove that the slow approach to freedom does not work so well.
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this
Dear J, apologize for my George Bushism - using cut and past against “collectivation,” in search of selection, I made up a whole new word.
By Dennis
June 19, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this
By Van June 19, 2007 1:51 PM “As we all know, the military is a hierarchical society, built on a rank and file system. Everyone has their place and everyone has their purpose.”
That’s exactly what George Orwell was saying in “Animal Farm”, some are always more equal than others.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By BS Aplenty (Re-loaded)
June 19, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this
To all those who may get the wrong impression about me, let me set the record straight. I am a card-carrying capitalistic pig and I wholly believe in America!! I also subscribe to that ancient Greek (possibly Roman & Asian according to Wikipedia) political invention called democracy.
Now let me add to my previous post.
While I earlier stated that we, as a society, have determined that all our citizens should have a minimum standard of well-being, let me be quick to add that we cannot guarantee the world a minimum standard of well-being. We must establish & control our immigration practices or we could well lose our standard of living and our ability to support our current under-priviliged citizens.
By J
June 19, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this
JBM - you do have a point, inasmuch that some countries have fared far better than others in their political and economic transitions…I suppose the reason that my three countries came to mind was more on the political than economic end (though I was really trying to talk of the former “satellite countries” overall).
To paraphrase: once the old system has been struck down, what do you do with the people who used to run it? The top leaders usually go to jail if they live through it, but the problem with socialist societies is that government creeps its way into so many aspects of life that it becomes difficult to figure out what is simply “getting along” in a corrosive system versus actively helping it. And, in this regard, I think Poland and Romania are excellent examples.
There is no good answer to this question, as you have to balance questions of justice against progressing into the future rather than reliving the past. I think that much of the talk of Cuba’s future ignores the reality that, once the Castro regime loses power, they’ll have to figure out how to address what’s happened over the past 50 or so years, and it won’t be pretty.
The economic side can be equally vexing, though - in particular, if you’re trying to set up a market economy (thus throwing off the yoke of government control), how do you prevent a country’s resources from being expropriated and exploited? It’s not easy…
I guess what I’m trying to say, ultimately, is that there’s no way to know how this is going to play out, since it will be determined by the course of events that lead to a change in Cuban leadership combined with the unique culture of that country. As such, if we simply imagine that replacing the current regime and economic system with democracy and capitalism will cure all ills, we are fooling ourselves. Still, I hope the day comes soon that the Cuban government, as it is now, is vanquished to the “ash heap of history.”
By RCH
June 19, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this
*Dennis8 In “Animal Farm”, you are born in a system that made you more equal. In the military, you can through your own efforts rise through the hierarchy. Isn’t that what democracy is all about?
By J
June 19, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this
JBM - I would be interested to know how you define the “slow approach to freedom” vis-a-vis your cited examples of Slovakia and Romania (Belarus, having descended into a pseudo-socialist dictatorship, doesn’t count). I don’t ask to argue, I’m just curious.
I know that Romania’s history over the past 17 years is quite troubled, and even the facts of how the old system fell and the current system came to be are in question. Slovakia I’m far less familiar with, aside from its split with the Czech republic.
By Curious Observer
June 19, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this
All the dreamers who think that the Cuban people will readily embrace capitalism once the Castros die are as deluded as the most avid Rush Limbaugh ditto-heads.
For 50 years, the Cuban people have lived in an economic system that scorned capitalism. Entire generations, including the generation that will assume post-Castro governmental control, have been taught that capitalism is evil. Are we really to expect that these people are going to embrace capitalistic practices once Fidel and his brother pass on?
We made one huge mistake when we assumed that a country that had known nothing but tribal warfare and autocracy for 3,000 years—Iraq—would readily embrace and practice democracy. Now, the pied-piper Wootens of this world are ready to see post-Castro Cuba as the equivalent of the 51st state.
It’s time that some of you stop looking for the pony when you find a big bag of horse manure under the Christmas tree. There is going to be no revolution in Cuba after the Castros die. Raul Castro and his brother are not presiding over a government that is universally hated in Cuba. Perhaps, over the course of decades, a government more friendly to capitalism will evolve. In the meantime, some people on this blog need to leave the 3rd grade and learn something about geopolitics.
By GodHatesTrash
June 19, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this
Cuba’s “thriving” economy consisted of w-hores and lapdancers, pimps, and blackjack dealers and people being worked to death on sugar plantations. Sort of a combination of a plantation and Cheshire Bridge Road.
Wow!
By C.W. Odessa
June 19, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw at 2:03,
You err broadly in your examples, due to mis-selectivation.
Assuming the information you provided is not misinformation (again), GDP growth is one statistic. Have you compared the inflation rates, abortion rates, unemployment rates, infant mortality rates, crime rates, poverty rates, savings rates, government debt-to-GDP ratios, tax rates and a host of other statistics for the countries you listed? How much of the comparative GDPs of these countries are made up of military (government) vs. non-military spending, all government vs. non-government spending, consumer vs. business spending, and deficit spending? What is the air quality in these countries? What about the quality of the drinking water?
GDP is about as effective at being a lone measure for the health of a country and well-being of it’s people(ex: Argentina’s GDP grew rapidly throughout the 1990’s until it experienced a major financial crisis in 2001) as person’s weight is at being a lone measure for a person’s health (Dr. Robert Atkins suffered from congestive heart fallure and hypertension while his weight was considered age appropriate).
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this
Dear J @ 2:24, great argument, we may disagree less than I perceived originally. As to your 2:35 question, I should have cited Slovenia as a winner also. I fear the question is a better one than I can answer. I can offer correlation, but not definite causation. I think when economics leads the politics, the results are better.
Slovenia, Estonia, and Czech Republic – and, to a lesser extent, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, and Croatia - all pursued low-tax and smaller government models. Slovakia and Romania – and perhaps most conspicuously Russia - did not embrace incentives to bring in international capital. Slovakia has reversed course now, should see improvement in the next decade. Romania had unique problems with orphans, due to the bizarre and short-sighted government “family growth” policies during the last decade of the Ceausescu regime. Agree with you broadly about Romania – that was the only Iron Curtain country that threw off the shackles with violence.
A little more than I really know on Slovakia – while the former combination with Czech Republic was not totally unnatural, the regions had conspicuously different world views, Slovakia finding virtue in a more agrarian world, whereas the Bohemians longed for the New York City lifestyle they enjoyed before communism. At separation, the Czechs sought to reinvent New York, New York, and the Slovakians sought Hooterville, and each found what it wanted.
By THE GOD OF WAR
June 19, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this
We now return you to our regularly scheduled program….
Time for the truth You hombre loving pickle eaters lascivate over saliva salivering all about the holishus quagmire or hokey pokey. I cannot sit back and postulate my posterior on the crevice that crannies across the globe in many way.. You liberal commie republican lap dogs can not and will not demean my moral catatonic concoction of cantankerous malarky that moves and agitates my derriered gluteus maximus fanny. In essence parlaying the parable between the pentameter will be the prostitution I mean prosecution of the capitalistic cameroons of Calgary.
Everybody else on the Blog WTF!!!
By Dennis
June 19, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this
No one should be surprised if there is a “revolution” when Castro dies. And if you look close enough, the U.S. will be in the shadows of that.
It won’t be the first time, and it won’t be the last.
The Kissinger policies of, “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves” is still in effect whenever the U.S. wants it that way.
The purposes of existance of Cuba, Central America, South America and the Middle East are to serve the needs of the U.S. (one way or another, peacefully or by force).
The problem for the American government (and the neocon right) is that Americans are onto this and don’t like what they see.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
Dear CW @ 2:55, we disagree. The Wealth of Nations is best measured by GDP per person, or the best facsimiles available. Every other number you cite is too subjective to be worth consideration, and certainly not for comparison. Look at a list of the top 10 GDPs, and a list of the bottom 10 GDPs, and tell me which of those is wrong.
Even if you do not control for plunder (little socialist humor there - referring to oil depletion in countries whose GDP derives totally from exploitation of natural resources) the middle east oil kingdoms provide a pretty good quality of life. Production of manufactured goods may be a better measure.
By Ashley
June 19, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw wrote, “While I would concede that the government program [Medicare]…allows no alternative, I do not concede that medicare is proof of the superiority of government management.”
jbmlaw,
Of course, I didn’t argue that government management is always superior — that would be ideology. Ideology (i.e. beliefs supported only by faith, falsehoods and/or cherry-picked facts) is your forte.
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this
Dear Ashley @ 3:08, we agree. I certainly did argue that government management is always inferior – excepting those three particular fields I cited. My statement is pretty strong, you could call it an “absolute.” To refute, you need only one example.
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
Dear J, you spark one more idea. I read in today’s WSJ that an oil kingdom now owns approx 10% of Krispy Kreme. Question for our nonideologues, “Is that a good thing or a bad thing?”
By C.W. Odessa
June 19, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this
No jbmlaw, the wealth of nations is not best measured by GDP per person. If Bill Gates were to decide to move to a small developing country, then that country’s GDP per person would rise by thousands of dollars the instant he entered it’s airspace (you do understand fundamental problems with relying exclusively on averages don’t you?).
Of course, poverty rates, crimes rates, inflation rates, unemployment rates and other such barometers are as objective, reliable and important as GDP. However, they are subjective to the extent that one can choose to ignore them when they don’t support one’s argument.
By Wendy
June 19, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this
“government management is always inferior … To refute, you need only one example.”
Just one? United Water Services.
“My inner conservative no longer worships at the alter of privatization…Sometimes it is the best answer, but I now know that it is not always the answer”
My point exactly.
By BS Aplenty
June 19, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this
Re: Curious Observer
Grudgingly, I must admit you’re on point with the Cuba analysis (but please find some original “put down” material). I don’t think there will be a major revolution in Cuba post-Castro without outside intervention, and I don’t see the U.S. electorate supporting any such intervention.
Off Point: There just seems to be a desire in some peoples to speak, to write, to think & to act boldly without the consent of a government - to be free. For the most part, Latin American countries seem a reluctant convert to this form of democracy. Maybe it’s just that a high concentration of these types of “freedom lovers” have found themselves in the U.S. (praise God).
Stay tuned.
By Ashley
June 19, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this
Sorry — that was me at 3:49 (okay, I accidentally entered my first name).
By Political Foreskin
June 19, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this
Cuba should be a great tourist destination, unspoiled and pristine, (the Cubans dont pollute, they dont have any industry). What Cuba needs is McMansions, McDonalds, Mc-oil spills, Mc-dirt bikes, Mc-billboards, and Mc-traffic jams, then we’ll truly be “even” for when they done kilt JFK.
The first joke I ever heard was when my dad told me this one in the late fifties: “Castro arrested a man and put him in front of a firing squad. Castro asked him if he had any last words, and the man shouted, “Castro is a bum!”. Castro said, “Listen, sir, you are going to get in big trouble one of these days.”
Castro exported propaganda for years which depicted the USA as a Black Widow Spider sucking the resources out of Cuba, (an unveiled references to the mafia gambling casinos and resorts thriving there). Castro’s disinformation implied that the USA had set up a snake pit of unshared-revenue-evil with the mafia
I wonder where Castro got that crazy ideas?
BTW: When Castro’s troops finally marched into Havana, and the rebellion was won, the head of the mafia in Cuba was actually sitting at an ice cream parlor booth with his wife and two children, eating onion rings…….
I snuck into Cuba once. I pretended to be a boat person in front of a passing coast guard patrol, and they didn’t even hesitate to grab me aboard, and simply “return” me to Cuba. I had a blast. First, I got a ticker tape parade, then I got to meet Castro, and then I was put to work in the sugar cane fields. Let me tell you about the women of Cuba, my fine friends. They are all salsa. There’s nothing like them here. If we allow them to ever come ashore here, the USA is gonna burn, baby, burn.
We have to keep up the embargo, or Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, and Rudy Guiliani are finished.
By Jim Docherty
June 19, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this
Firstly let me congratulate you on a relatively balanced article for an American Press.As someone who spends a lot of time in Havana with many Cuban friends I know that the sentiment there is a desire to have the blockade lifted but to avoid the onslaught of US capitalism which would include Walmart, MacDonalds and Starbucks to the Old City.
What would be helpful is more articles that avoided some of the rhetoric such as statements that the wealthy were thrown out of their mansions. Those that stayed kept their homes. I often stay in the beautiful home of one family who remained when the rest of their family left . They once owned most of a square in the heard of Vedado. The other homes were given over to the general population but the family members who remained kept their home. This was generally the case.
If the US can recognize the right to Cuban Sovereignty and build a relationship based on equality it would be best for the Cuban people and would pose no threat. to the US. Cuba is a safe wonderful hospitable place and I have no fear of walking the streets of Havana at 2 am in the morning which I cannot say for most cities its size elsewhere. It is important that the full picture the good and the bad be given to North Americans so we can begin to adjust our views and open up more positive relations. Having traveled the whole island on many occasions I have yet to see the bloody oppressive regime that I grew up learning about and still see referenced in the media.(Not this article, thankfully) Jim Docherty
By Political Foreskin
June 19, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this
I think what Jim Docherty was trying to say is that after Castro took over, the wealthy class in Cuba stayed afloat.
By jabster
June 19, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this
Ashley/Wendy @3:49:
Did you read the article you linked? Sometimes a “public/private partnership” (often a code word for crony capitalism) is worse than either a truly privatized or public system, combining both of their worst traits.
I wouldn’t call this an indictment of privatization per se—more of a warning to governments who want to privatize but still keep “control”.
Don’t forget who was mayor in 1999. Hint: He now lives in the Miami Federal Pen.
And Jim @4:26: What’s wrong with McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, and Starbucks? Take out the Starbucks and you sound like the president of the Dunwoody Homeowners Association.
By jbmlaw
June 19, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this
Dear Ashley @ 3:49, thatsa no good - government protected companies are indistinguishable from government. If United Water Services had enjoyed even a single legal competitor, your argument could have merit. (I thought you might go the other way on me, and mention Microsoft - that is the argument I had ready.)
The reason government management is always inferior to private enterprise is that the government does not have the capacity to react to the market - supply is fixed by elected officials, which will never coincide with the market. Multiple suppliers, competing against each other, always protect the market.
Dear CW @ 3:23, actually Bill Gates moving from one country to another would not affect GDP, only potential tax revenues. You do understand the difference between income and production, don’t you.
By Political Foreskin
June 19, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this
Okay, the right is talking about everything but Iraq. They’ve married the word “amnesty” to Mexicans.
Why? Because traitor Cheney is about to extend amnesty to all Iraqis whether they’ve killed our troops or not.
That way, when critics yell no amnesty, the electorate will think of Mexico, not Iraq.
The attempt is being made to side with all insurgents and militia in Iraq against Al Queda so that an alliance can be formed with Al Queda as the motivating glue.
We are arming both sides of the civil war and hoping they shoot at al queda and not at each other or at us.
I dont see any problem with this new ingenious, and fiendish plan. It…….Could…….WORK!
By kco
June 19, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this
First, the US has nothing like “capitalism,” which recognizes human capital and earned capital. Imperialists posing as capitalists created the Fed in 1913, creating a debt-backed currency and essentially selling US taxpayers into economic slavery. Fidel Castro may be the only true capitalist on the planet, because he has recognized the value of human capital, never tried to extend his powers, was there for his people through thick and thin—especially thin. Read “Cuba—A New History” by Richard Gott, 2004. Read The Ecologist magazine article about how Cuba’s health care system is poor, but it works, because Castro stressed health care education. Read the Harper’s article about how Castro pulled his country out of famine by supporting agricultural education. He did all this without US help. Now the opportunists are poised like vultures, ready to plunder what he has brought about. And we are so arrogant as to think this is good for Cuba? Hahahahaha.
By getalife
June 19, 2007 5:26 PM | Link to this
Ladies and gentlemen, the Presidents of the United States of America
By cheech
June 19, 2007 5:41 PM | Link to this
That was a great video of Bill And Hillarity’s excellent adventure. I like how both were ignored and even given who do you think you are stares. Do America a favor Bill and keep eating greasy foods.
What’s interesting about the comments regarding Cuba is how obvious so many Cuba apologists just can’t or don’t want to describe why so many Cubans have risked thier lives to reach the shores of America. Here’s a tip for you Cuba loving leftie wingnuts in the States - pack up in a boat and head to Cuba. You won’t be stopped. Enjoy your freedoms over there mental cases.
By Ashley
June 19, 2007 6:02 PM | Link to this
jabster at 4:47 — I did read the article, and despite Bill Campbell’s role, there were no references or implications to cronyism having any relation to the problems with United Water — that’s your imagination.
The Mayor who terminated the United Water contract was Shirley Franklin. You might recall that, long after Campbell was gone, she gave United several opportunities to resolve the problems — they didn’t.
jbmlaw at 4:47 — You got your facts wrong again — United Water won the contract by bidding against “multiple suppliers”. When United screwed up, they lost the contract before it expired. That’s not “government protected”.
You want more evidence that government management is not always inferior? Enron. More specifically, Azurix (an Enron subsidiary). Read about their experience managing the water and waste water services in Argentina:
“…Azurix expected that it would generate solid profits over the contract’s 30-year term. Problems began few months after Azurix assumed operations…”
Fellas,
United Water and Azurix are perfect examples of how the profit motive actually doomed their efforts before they began. They didn’t perform their due diligence when bidding, they mislead their customers about their level of expertise in order to win the contracts, and once they took over, they’re financial incentives were aligned against the people they were supposed to serve (the more they cut corners, the bigger the profit).
By Political Foreskin
June 19, 2007 6:45 PM | Link to this
Saw that video of the dancing MC Rove……restless leg syndrome is not pretty…..stay medicated, people, or it could happen to you too……thank god you live the the US where the best RX is available….not like Cuba where all you ever get is a lit cigar up your azzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
bwa
By jbmlaw
June 20, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this
Dear Ashley @ 6:02, I fear you still do not understand the distinction between the market and a government protected monopoly. The market protects, but government monopolies ensure bad management. The fact that companies competed for the right to run the monopoly does not mean there was market competition to protect the consumer. The heavy hand of government merely created a feeding frenzy. Open the market to competition, abolish the monopoly, and then you will see the difference between government and private enterprise.
By morgan-lynn lamberth
June 20, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this
May the Castro brothers die soon!Cubans do not need an egalitarian society where the many suffer and the few live opulently.Their health system they could have anyway under regulated free enterprise if they want it still. Rights are very important.To gloss over the lack of them in favor of egalitarianism is dismaying! Redistrubution does not mean egalirarianism but a distrubution that the free market is not capable of doing on its ow.Redistrubution leaves still a disparity of income but not at the expense of the many.We, putting substance to our constitution of liberty, have avoided the road to serfdom.Regulated free enterprise is the known ideal!Go, Hillary, go!
By Nick
June 21, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
Death to communism.
“Viva Cuba Libre”
By Nick
June 21, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
Death to communism.
“Viva Cuba Libre”