Per capita GDP for Cuba is $6,789
Mexico $9,909 Guatamala $3,666 Honduras $2,495
I'd say Cuba is in the mix GDP-wise.
Mexico $9,909 Guatamala $3,666 Honduras $2,495
I'd say Cuba is in the mix GDP-wise.
With economics and politics, the story is always more complicated than it appears, and science can't save us, so we should be hesitant to form strong opinions. I'm just supporting open-minded thinking, not saying I agree with everything Castro/Cuba (I don't).
That does not mean anything if the wealth is not well distributed (which is the case when elites keep the wealth and everyone else is poor).
Cuba's Gini coefficient is fairly low, at around 0.38 in 2000 [1], although the data quality might be poor. Most of Latin America is substantially less equal. The US's was around 0.4-0.45 during that time frame [2].
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-reform-inequality-idU...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
USA: 78.74 years
Cuba: 79.07 years
Sometimes financial crises can force lifestyle changes for the better.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/how-cubans...
Basically, you're stating that 50+ years of Marxist order imposed by the Castro regime has managed to keep up with countries plagued by 50+ years of general chaos in the form of pathologically corrupt regimes, nepotism, inflation, rampant violent crime, civil war, guerilla movements and narcoterrorism.
Hmmm... I will contemplate the US embargo argument tonight, as I light up one of my precious Cuban cigars to honor the old commie bastard and to celebrate this great achievement of dialectical materialism. Hasta la victoria siempre!
People in communist countries trade in some of the classical liberties, to make a higher level of economic planning possible.
In one form or another, this is the “trade-off” believed in by most genuine communists. The classical liberties are just a lie anyway, and this trade-off will result in a kind of progress and general wellbeing that would far surpass anything seen in backwards, private capital-oriented economies driven by the profit motive.
Castro was not like Pol Pot or the Kim dynasty. The Cuban regime had a shot at enforcing progress for 50+ years. Cuba appears reasonably stable; although the real test of this will come in the post-regime era. It has managed to keep some of its charm, despite truly being a police state.
But some people here on HN are suggesting Cuba is not doing so badly (and by extension, the trade-off proposed by communism), because Cuba’s self-stated numbers have kept up with countries that are plagued by bouts of deep, crippling political and social malaise.
I think that’s a terrible argument for obvious reasons. Especially in the case of GDP and in light of what most communists believe their system can achieve. The comparison just proves there are many ways you can screw a population.
So once again: why does pointing this out have to get downvoted?
And for the record, about the embargo: I am staring at Cuban cigars right now. I will light one up tonight to honor Castro, because as far as commie bastards go, he wasn’t the worst.
"Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."