Cuba

[loosebits]

Capitalism sucks. No, I'm not kidding. It, moderated with some socialism, is the best economic system in practice in the world today but it is by no means what we should aspire to.

In the US, like most countries, there is a huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots. As of 2001, the top 1% of the wealthy control over 33% of the wealth, the next 4% have over 25% and the bottom 40% control 0.4%. When the wealth distribution is so lopsided, you end up with a small group of people with enormous influence in our so-called democracy. Why are there still loop-holes in the tax code large so that the wealthy can shield much of their income from taxation (why else would we have a $50 billion/year tax industry)? Because the wealthy write or strongly influence those who write the tax code.

Americans don't like the word "socialism" because that wakes us up from the American Dream. Socialism means I can't come up with The-Next-Big-Thing and retire on my own little island. We need to wake up from this dream and look at how it really works. If you ever want to have a C-something-O in your job title, your best bet is having a dad who has a C-something-O in his job title. Does that sound like a system where everyone has an equal chance of the American Dream or does that sound like feudalism? How many Fortune 500 CEO's or our 374 congressmen had fathers who were paid by the hour? How many Harvard students had parents that went to a community college?

Power aggregates. Look at all of history and you see that same trend. The wealthy and powerful continue to expand on their wealth and power until the plebes finally rise up and overthrow the system. Rinse, lather, repeat.

So what's the solution? I don't know. There are a lot of theorists out there with a lot of good ideas but someone who stands up and proclaims that capitalism and pseudo-democracy is the solution to the worlds problems is either in that top 5% or has been fooled by that 5%.

References:
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/fulltext/flattax/chpt1.html

 

[SDAnderson]

I'm sorry, but have you ever been to Mexico? Honduras, or any other latin american capitalist country??? They are a lot poorer than Cuba you know!

Though Honduras is in the same economic toilet that Cuba is, Mexico is not. Still, you raise an interesting point about “justice” and comparative measurement of societies.

I agree with you, intransigent iniquities permeate Mexico and there is too little justice for too many of her citizens – just ask the millions who risk everything to flee to the United States. I also agree with you that healthcare in Cuba is, by any measure, outstanding. Overall, Cuba may have better healthcare than the U.S. Likewise, Cuba has a literacy rate that is simply spectacular.

The statistics you provided are largely one-sided and ill-defined, however, with no source to back them up. Only 5% of the Mexicans have “regular” access to the internet? I’d like to see where that number came from and why it qualifies as a primary measure of the value of a society. Besides, according to various reports I was able to google, there are somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 Cubans that have internet access, approximately ½ of 1 percent of the total population. If 5% is bad, .5% is ten times worse. Mexicans may not be able to afford as many cars as Americans but, if they can, they are allowed to buy them – not so Cubans. By no measure that I am aware of is Mexico considered to be poorer than Cuba, though admittedly Honduras is marginally worse off. Here are some reasonably reliable and quite comprehensive statistics for all three: Cuba, Mexico, Honduras.

There are many kinds of justice. Economic justice is important, but I’m surprised to see you use that as your primary measure. Where, for instance, do political justice, social justice and legal justice figure in your comparisons? Additionally, what constitutes justice is just as important. You seem to place little value on personal freedoms and choice, valuing equality of result over equality of opportunity. Totalitarian regimes are good at enforcing equality of result; it’s their inherent nature to crush anything that smacks of individual distinction before it can become a threat to the perpetuation of the ruler. The fatal flaw in the economic system that is communism is simple – without reward for effort and choice, there is insufficient incentive/disincentive for most people to make good choices, to work hard and to excel.

If nothing else, one stark contrast between Cuba and Mexico lies in how they treat the truly stunning number citizens who wish to flee to the U.S. for a better life. Mexican citizens are free to leave their country any time the wish and are neither prosecuted nor persecuted in those instances when they are forcibly repatriated. Cuban nationals can expect radically different treatment if they are caught even considering leaving the worker’s paradise.

One thought regarding the embargo: many years ago, when the embargo was put in place by the U.S., the argument against it was that it would be ineffective in producing a change of regimes. Instead, the counter-argument ran, engagement would provide better, speedier and more just changes. How is it that both arguments have been proven so completely wrong?

By the way, isn’t biting the hand that feeds you somewhat hypocritical? Inasmuch as you appear to be Mexican and to own your own website (that puts you in what, the top .001%?) and earn your living as a purveyor of esthetic goods with no intrinsic value, how to you balance your positions against your position? There is an old joke in the U.S. about union leaders that goes something like this: of course the union leaders are sympathetic to the plight of the working man. That's how they are able to avoid being working men. It's disturbing that the same line applies so well to so many socialists.

 

[Willie]

Capitalism sucks. ... In the US, like most countries, there is a huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots. ... So what's the solution? I don't know. There are a lot of theorists out there with a lot of good ideas but someone who stands up and proclaims that capitalism and pseudo-democracy is the solution to the worlds problems is either in that top 5% or has been fooled by that 5%.

One of my friends refers to those (in the top 5% ...) as 'rich white boys who never had to work to establish themselves'. That is often, though not always, the case.

History also shows that forced 'equality' never succeeds either. I am not a politician nor a political scientist, but I think that capitalism with compassion is the answer. Unfortunately, compassion is not something that any political system is likely to generate. The good news is that each person who attempts to be more compassionate and involved with those less fortunate than themselves can make a difference.

I agree that in this country the tax system is a major problem and favors those who are at the top. If we ever went to some form of fixed tax rate with simple incentives for investment/building/sharing - it would help IMO. Of course there is a huge industry that would die off - the tax industry.

Willie

 

[overandover]

"If you ever want to have a C-something-O in your job title, your best bet is having a dad who has a C-something-O in his job title. Does that sound like a system where everyone has an equal chance of the American Dream or does that sound like feudalism? How many Fortune 500 CEO's or our 374 congressmen had fathers who were paid by the hour? How many Harvard students had parents that went to a community college?"


My dad worked in a chemical plant - I work in a chemical plant. I grew up in a middle class neighborhood - I bought a house in a middle class neighborhood. Mom and dad are still married - I married a girl whose mom and dad are still married, and we married each other to stay married.

My life is probably a little better and easier than my parents' life, and I know that I have better toys than they had. In turn, they didn't have to work as hard as their parents, and their toys were also better.

It seems to me like, that you aspire to whatever you are used to, water seeks its own level, birds of a feather flock together, and your happiness is where-ever you can find it. I would not be happy living in a neighborhood full of uptight, keep up with the Joneses, my-butler-has-a-better-pedigree-than-yours type people, anymore than I would be happy living in a run down, white-trash, redneck, trailer park (not that there's anything wrong with redneck trailer-trash, I actually lean a little more that way than the other ).

I'm pretty happy in my fiefdom, even though I don't control anywhere near 58% of this country's wealth. In my opinion, the people who are miserable with their lives, here in The United States of America would be miserable EVEN IF they were in The Worker's Paradise of Cuba.

Wasn't there supposed to be something about diving somewhere in this thread?

 

[Snowbear]

This thread has turned political and in some cases insulting and has been closed.