Castro announces increases in welfare payments to Cubans

[amadeus]

Don't you mean Castro isn't as bloody as Mengistu?

Error on my part, I meant it your way.

This disagreement is because you want me to absolutely condemn Castro - essentially saying that nothing good has ever come from him, which is obviously not true, as I see him as an improvement over Batista, however minimal that improvement might be.

The thing is is that I could make the same argument about Stalin over Lenin, saying that Stalin turned Russia from a backwards agragarian economy into an industrial superpower. This is true, but it came at the expense of the lives of 20,000,000 Soviet citizens.

Are the rewards of Ca$tro's repressive regime really adequate enough to warrant even the slightest praise for him? I don't think so.

I do not deny that much of the aid went to the military, but the effect of a lack of Soviet aid on the Cuban economy is quite clear. Its termination caused GDP per capita to fall by over 30%.

But the entire country's economy rests in Ca$tro's hands alone, so GDP under his rule really can't mean anything, since we don't know what percentage of that has gone to his goons, his Swiss bank accounts, and his numerous "humanitarian" interventions in Africa.

Here are the figures for Batista. I bolded everything in his rule.

1933 - 1,038 - Took power in September, so basically ignore this year and consider his next year as his first.
1934 - 1,196
1935 - 1,371
1936 - 1,573
1937 - 1,779
1938 - 1,358
1939 - 1,411
1940 - 1,208
1941 - 1,599
1942 - 1,321
1943 - 1,442
1944 - 1,631
1945 - 1,776
1946 - 1,893
1947 - 2,121
1948 - 1,842
1949 - 1,958
1950 - 2,046
1951 - 2,176
1952 - 2,207
1953 - 1,900
1954 - 1,957
1955 - 2,005
1956 - 2,145
1957 - 2,406
1958 - 2,363
1959 - 2,067

Well, even the 1959 figure is still (inflation adjusted) $240 more than the present GDP of Ca$tro's mis-rule.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Where did I say that such a regime is better for people who want to improve life? Perhaps you are not reading my post carefully enough.

Or perhaps too well? I admit my guilt in perhaps reading too much between the lines sometimes.

I did not compare Cuba with most countries. The only country I marginally compared Cuba with was US. And I said that in US you have better oppurtunity.

Left aside that such a comparison is quite senseless given the relative status between those two countries, I am not so sure about this, it depends who you talk about.

Are you saying a guy has a better oppurtunity to become a medical doctor in Cuba than US?

Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully also. I clearly stated underprivileged, and yes I actually think a guy or even to be a real heretic a girl from humble backgrounds might have a better opportunity belonging to a class where daddy can't pay for everything.

That is definitely your prerogative. I fail to understand why you are getting agitated when I exercise my prerogative.

The only one getting agitated is you, I don't regard this to be so important that I need to get emotionally involved. I just merely stated that I and I alone think that a defect with Cuba is its lack of political freedom.
What's so agitated about that?

Tedious? Unfounded? In either case you are free to ignore my post if you find them so.

Again, read more carefully. I didn't say you or your posts were like that, only that reference, I even called you wise once, remember. But I am a bit pissed off by these endless references by a host of posters here about human nature which always seems to be some sort of homo oeconomicus. That is both tedious and unfounded.
I am sorry if you took it personally, it was clearly not my intention, from what I know about you are nice, intellingent person.
Just remember that one shouldn't take it personally when ones opinions are critisized.

However, the only reference to human nature I made was that and I quote " almost all humans also have the urge to do something and be something better; strictly materially speaking of course." Do you deny that statement?

Not so much as I regard it uncomplete and not universally relevant. I might as well say:"almost all humans have the urge to do something to better the lot of their fellow people or be something better socially and altruistically speaking". Then I can use the same argument about other countries. That would be just as unconvincing.

As for your being a moderator I am sure you can appeal to Thunderfall. I for one would second your appeal FWIW.

No, please forget that. I am not made of the sort of material that makes good moderators.

 

[10Seven]

It's a crock, and a classic Communist propaganda trick. Castro is probably reacting to pressure from impoverished Cubans. The speech is total BS. There is no money to deliver the extra welfare. Probably it will never happen. It's just a speech to placate the masses for the time being.

It's a classic propaganda trick all over the world - regardless of the type of government.

EDIT calm the troll

 

[luiz]

You have to take into account the end of Soviet aid. Before then it was 3,000+.

Granted, such growth is feeble, and (as I said earlier) I consider Castro to be bad in the absolute sense, but good relative to Batista. Somehow, Batista managed to increase real GDP per capita during the Great Depression and WWII, but when he came into power again in 1952, he ended up lowering real GDP per Capita by the time he stepped down.

Don't take growth for granted, though. Many countries (usually in sub-saharan Africa) have actually seen their standards of living fall from circa 1960 to today.

The growth that Cuba experience under Castro is something like 700% lower then the latin american average.
Comparing Cuba to AIDS-ridden african nations makes no sense. I do take growth for granted.

As for the economic decline in the last years of Batista, keep in mind that he was fighting(and losing) a civil war.

 

[luiz]

It's not pointless to show, because it demonstrates that some of the weakness of the Cuban economy is due to exogenous shocks to the economy and therefore not caused solely by Castro's incompetence.

Castro's incompetence is to blame for making the nation so dependent to soviet handouts. Cuba was basically living of charity, how is that not incompetent?

 

[Yom]

Castro's incompetence is to blame for making the nation so dependent to soviet handouts. Cuba was basically living of charity, how is that not incompetent?

If you were in his position, would you have refused the aid, then?

 

[amadeus]

If we were in his position, we wouldn't have screwed the country over so that it was necessary to be on aid in the first place.

 

[luiz]

If you were in his position, would you have refused the aid, then?

Europe took the aid the US offered after WW2, but when the aid stopped Europe didn't get massively poorer.

I would take the aid and do something useful with it(Ie, not wasting it in wars abroad and subversive movments across Latin America).

 

[Richard Cribb]

Europe took the aid the US offered after WW2, but when the aid stopped Europe didn't get massively poorer.

I would take the aid and do something useful with it(Ie, not wasting it in wars abroad and subversive movments across Latin America).

For Europe read Western Europe.
But apart from that, do you really think it is fair to make a comparison between post-colonial Cuba and the colonial powers in Europe?

 

[luiz]

For Europe read Western Europe.
But apart from that, do you really think it is fair to make a comparison between post-colonial Cuba and the colonial powers in Europe?

To be fair the americans offered the aid to Eastern Europe as well, Yuguslavia took it. The nations under soviet occupation were forbbiden by Moscow to take it.

As for the comparisson, I'm not comparing the actual living standards, just the use of the money. The european nations used it to (re)build infra-structure and to put the economy back on track. Castro used it to pay for his intervention in Angola and to fund revolutionary movements all across Latin-America. Only in Brazil there are at least 3 groups who received substancial cuban funding.

 

[amadeus]

Ca$tro had an army of over 300,000 men the 1980s, and almost a third of them were deployed to support communist tyrants and terrorists in Africa.

 

[Yom]

I don't think that we can mitigate any more differences that we have so far. The argument has become over words, minutae, and fundamental differences.

 

[Richard Cribb]

To be fair the americans offered the aid to Eastern Europe as well, Yuguslavia took it. The nations under soviet occupation were forbbiden by Moscow to take it.

As for the comparisson, I'm not comparing the actual living standards, just the use of the money. The european nations used it to (re)build infra-structure and to put the economy back on track. Castro used it to pay for his intervention in Angola and to fund revolutionary movements all across Latin-America. Only in Brazil there are at least 3 groups who received substancial cuban funding.

To be fair the help was offered to USSR in a way they could hardly accept. To be fair if the USSR had accepted it would have been to expensive and probably the US congress would not have voted for it.
The Marshall plan had it positive aspects, but it was not exactly purely altruistic. This article from the von Mises institute is quite interesting http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=120&sortorder=articledate. I also once knew a guy who wrote a paper on it, and I seem to remember that he said something like as the amount of American dollars being pumped into France and the Netherlands was approximately equaled by the funds being siphoned from their treasuries to finance their expeditionary forces in Southeast Asia.
So I still think my point is valid, it is not fair to compare powerful colonial countries with former colonies.
Especially not when said colony had to live with quite substantial threats from the most powerful nation on Earth.
A lot has been said and justly so about that unfair embargo. Strange only that the US terrorism against Cuba hasn't been brought up more often.
And finally shouldn't we recognize the Cuban achievements on sectors as healthcare and education, even if Cuban funds were also used in other ways? By the way, is it so stupid to get influence in the rest of the world considering your exposed situation?

Ca$tro had an army of over 300,000 men the 1980s, and almost a third of them were deployed to support communist tyrants and terrorists in Africa.

And combating terror from apartheid regimes...You are not bitter about that, I hope?

I don't think that we can mitigate any more differences that we have so far. The argument has become over words, minutae, and fundamental differences.

You are completely right.

 

[amadeus]

And combating terror from apartheid regimes...

Combating terror?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Combating terror?

Yes.
Nice picture by the way, you are so charming that I can't be angry with you in spite of everything!
But still, it wouldn't hurt you to peruse some history books...

 

[Gelion]

Wohoo! Curt is replying! He is replying ladies and gentlemen! [sorry]

 

[CurtSibling]

Additionally, Curt, you chose to ignore and evade my entire point. I didn't say America bad, Cuba good. I asked why America has inflicted such harm on Cuba while aiding and harbouring much greater evils-- it's inconsistent policy. There's no objective justification for the sanctions, unless manic communist-hating counts as a good reason. If you feel sympathy for Cuba's people, it would make more sense to criticise America than Castro.

Since when do I have an obligation to answer anyone here?

I choose who to criticise and I have not much sympathy for communists, anyway.
The Cubans could have removed this creep, but they did not. But that is another thread.

The point I made was this:

Castro is a dictator.
Bush is an elected leader.

Bush has not had anyone shot for protesting about his tenure.
Castro certainly has. And conducts a reign of fear with his secret police.

Care to deny this?

No matter what fetish for communist tomfoolery a middle-class, student activist on this board may have;
If you cannot work out the difference between a communist dictator and a freely-elected executive...

...Then, I have no way to help you.

And this is my opinion, not a debate of relative merits.
I recall Gelion and yourself could not deny that Castro is a beast.

I don't think you can now - Go and read my links again, until it sinks in.

Castro is a killer. A human rights abuser.

While sanctions are not something I really approve of, for any nation;
Even without exacting pressure from the civilised world, I doubt that Castro's
regime would ever resemble the lofty socialism of a nation like Sweden.

I reckon too many posters here suffer from some rosy-tinted idealism.

I urge you give up this profitless path of bickering. It is a waste of time.

We can agree that sanctions are not the best way forwards.
But I reckon Castro must die or leave office and his communist
regime be dismantled for the Cuban people to have a future.

That is my last words on the matter.

Take them or leave them.

 

[CurtSibling]

Wohoo! Curt is replying! He is replying ladies and gentlemen! [sorry]

Enjoy it - This is my last reply to this thread/farce!

 

[Gelion]

Enjoy it - This is my last reply to this thread/farce!

lol okay, peace!

 

[luiz]

To be fair the help was offered to USSR in a way they could hardly accept. To be fair if the USSR had accepted it would have been to expensive and probably the US congress would not have voted for it.
The Marshall plan had it positive aspects, but it was not exactly purely altruistic. This article from the von Mises institute is quite interesting http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=120&sortorder=articledate. I also once knew a guy who wrote a paper on it, and I seem to remember that he said something like as the amount of American dollars being pumped into France and the Netherlands was approximately equaled by the funds being siphoned from their treasuries to finance their expeditionary forces in Southeast Asia.

Indeed, there were plenty of objectives behind the Marshall Plan.
However the money did help the western european nations, and did help Yuguslavia and IMO could have helped the rest of the continent.

So I still think my point is valid, it is not fair to compare powerful colonial countries with former colonies.
Especially not when said colony had to live with quite substantial threats from the most powerful nation on Earth.
A lot has been said and justly so about that unfair embargo. Strange only that the US terrorism against Cuba hasn't been brought up more often.

As I said I'm not comparing the living standards or the economic power, that would certainly be unfair. I'm comparing the way they used the aid money, and that's a fair comparisson.

And finally shouldn't we recognize the Cuban achievements on sectors as healthcare and education, even if Cuban funds were also used in other ways?

I do recognise them. What I like to point out is that similar nations achieved much more within a democratic and tolerant context(Eg Costa Rica).

By the way, is it so stupid to get influence in the rest of the world considering your exposed situation?

It sure is. One would think that with the most powerful army in the world standing right in front of them they would want to keep all of their military power ready for defense. Instead, Castro sends thousands of troops and millions of dollars to a far-away war that can bring no possible benefit to the cuban people(and the cubans sure could use that money for more peaceful needs).

As for the fundings of latin-american revolutionary groups, it only managed to isolate Cuba in the continent. Keep in mind that right after the cuban revolution, many governments over here were openly friendly to the new cuban regime. The brazilian president of the time, Jânio Quadros, gave the most important national medal to both Fidel Castro and Ernesto Guevara. Years of fundings on armed movements, though, made the cuban government completely isolated and pushed the latin-american nations closer to Washington.