Fidel Castro passed away at age of 90

KiloGolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:From a short term perspective Raul is indeed trying to milk the US out tourists, the problem will happen when big names like Fourpoints, W, SLHOW etc will pour in many aspects of that will change. Double down with MickeyD's and other such "light industry" outlets and you'll have huge issues. Yuuuuge.

But it is the way of the world, the only possibility is for Cuba to go all Chinese (as in the Chinese model) and create chains and brands before the US chains and brands come in.

Americans are lucky to switch from trashy Mexican cigars and horrible local rum to the likes of Cohiba and Havana Club.

Until Those Cigars get only made by Cuban outlets, an the Rum still gets the 'smelly feet' treatment, no body cares.

But light industry should really get more support instead of dealing with chinese import and US embargoes. If a harder Chinese system could gradually grab manufacturing as fast as it did, I don't see why Cuba couldn't do the same, the price points are roughly the same with Haiti. And there's a real top down control system.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:From a short term perspective Raul is indeed trying to milk the US out tourists, the problem will happen when big names like Fourpoints, W, SLHOW etc will pour in many aspects of that will change. Double down with MickeyD's and other such "light industry" outlets and you'll have huge issues. Yuuuuge.

But it is the way of the world, the only possibility is for Cuba to go all Chinese (as in the Chinese model) and create chains and brands before the US chains and brands come in.

Americans are lucky to switch from trashy Mexican cigars and horrible local rum to the likes of Cohiba and Havana Club.

Until Those Cigars get only made by Cuban outlets, an the Rum still gets the 'smelly feet' treatment, no body cares.

At my local bar, my Cuban Old Fashioned is this or nothing:



Accept no alternatives.

KiloGolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:From a short term perspective Raul is indeed trying to milk the US out tourists, the problem will happen when big names like Fourpoints, W, SLHOW etc will pour in many aspects of that will change. Double down with MickeyD's and other such "light industry" outlets and you'll have huge issues. Yuuuuge.

But it is the way of the world, the only possibility is for Cuba to go all Chinese (as in the Chinese model) and create chains and brands before the US chains and brands come in.

Americans are lucky to switch from trashy Mexican cigars and horrible local rum to the likes of Cohiba and Havana Club.

Until Those Cigars get only made by Cuban outlets, an the Rum still gets the 'smelly feet' treatment, no body cares.

At my local bar, my Cuban Old Fashioned is this or nothing:



Accept no alternatives.

Paticruzado cheap or Marinero the true way of the people.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Paticruzado cheap or Marinero the true way of the people.

That could work as well, rum chaser with my pints.

You aristocratic lot, you couldn't understand the way of the people...

KoTeMoRe wrote:You aristocratic lot, you couldn't understand the way of the people...

The Palestinian Authority and Arab dictatorships approve this message

Good one, i sincerely laughed my heart out.

KoTeMoRe wrote:From a short term perspective Raul is indeed trying to milk the US out tourists, the problem will happen when big names like Fourpoints, W, SLHOW etc will pour in many aspects of that will change. Double down with MickeyD's and other such "light industry" outlets and you'll have huge issues. Yuuuuge.

But it is the way of the world, the only possibility is for Cuba to go all Chinese (as in the Chinese model) and create chains and brands before the US chains and brands come in.

The island being a pricey tourist destination and big hotel chains from Spain and other countries have being around for a long time, if my memory is correct the first full foreign investment without government participation is a Spanish catering service for hotels that had to hire and source locally all it's personnel and food.

whir wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:From a short term perspective Raul is indeed trying to milk the US out tourists, the problem will happen when big names like Fourpoints, W, SLHOW etc will pour in many aspects of that will change. Double down with MickeyD's and other such "light industry" outlets and you'll have huge issues. Yuuuuge.

But it is the way of the world, the only possibility is for Cuba to go all Chinese (as in the Chinese model) and create chains and brands before the US chains and brands come in.

The island being a pricey tourist destination and big hotel chains from Spain and other countries have being around for a long time, if my memory is correct the first full foreign investment without government participation is a Spanish catering service for hotels that had to hire and source locally all it's personnel and food.

Iberostar owns less than 15K pax in Cuba, H10 is at roughly double that, the first planned Sheraton in Varadero is going to be a 5K pax hotel...trust me, not even close in firepower. Furthermore the Spaniards have had inside connections for longtime (going back to late 90's PSOE). The other issue is the rear country, Cuba is the destination where you can sleep in a 4 star at 55 dollars a night in the Sierra maestra or pay 15 dollars to sleep at B&B's. One of my nephews just got through 3 weeks in Cuba spending 2000 euros, flight included. With big chains coming in, the mean cost wit at least go up 50%.

Also Cuba is nowhere near pricey, the biggest issue is the flights that are horrendously expensive for many Americans, but compared to nearby DomRep it's roughly 800 euros less in average.

Then you have something you don't in most of Caribbean destinations...safety.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Then you have something you don't in most of Caribbean destinations...safety.

Yes you don't get the murders abductions that you get in the region.
Still thefts, even breaking in hotel rooms happens. If they work on that they may be on to a winner and compete with Florida.

Was listening to the local news and everyone was more or less calling Castro a dictator and is evil. Pretty pathetic and even surprising for Canada.

Not a fan of his authoritarianism; I didnt agree with his politics but i will respect the effort in standing up to USA imperialism.
White Cubans are the ones with the gripe because Castro wasn't for their shit, their logic of having money and being able to buy their way over wasn't happening. their money/richness didn't get them by like other countries - so automatically they saw an enemy. once they can't buy you over, you're evil. I fault Fidel for his adherence to Soviet ways. But he did improve healthcare, alleviate poverty, remove the mafia.

I think if the Miami white Cubans would have stayed in power; it would be like Venezuela, Costa Rica or any other Latin American nation. White Hispanics are not capable of developing stable democratic societies like White Anglos. For example, compare Canada and Argentina and New Zealand and Costa Rica. Former white settled British colonies are more stable and prosperous than former white settled Spanish colonies. Moreover, the people who are being jailed in Castro's prisons for opposing the government would probably be suffering in CIA prisons if the American puppet government was in charge. I wonder if these individuals would still be supported by Miami Cubans if they opposed the American puppet regime? Another thing is the US military would have been sent to put down any large protest or rebellion like they do in Haiti.

It is a shame that Latin American societies didn't have a Progressive Movement to improve Capitalism like we did here. They could have avoided the radical turn to the left. I laugh when conservatives criticize the Progressive Movement. They would have been better with a Teddy Roosevelt or Huey Long instead of Fidel Castro and others.

This is a good quote from John F. Kennedy:



I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country's policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.

— U.S. President John F. Kennedy, to Jean Daniel, October 24, 1963

Many Latin American countries are run in a fascist way, or if they have democracy, it's an incredibly corrupt system. In the democracies, the families and friends of the rulers benefit the most, and when people investigate the corruption they get casually murdered. Such systems have no interest in bettering the lives of the impoverished, and actually would prefer to get the most output for the least cost, and keep the poor unable to do anything besides struggle to get enough to eat. That was Cuba before Castro and that is how it is in most Latin American countries.

That said, the successful growth of democracy in South Korea and Taiwan has mostly followed on the heels of economic development first. That's a model Castro should have followed after the end of the Cold War in the early 90s. Then the Cuban people would be far less sitting ducks for the resort developers that one of his successors will undoubtedly bring in (Tourist-targeted prostitution is already on the rise in Cuba).

Cuba was a mess before Castro. Since Castro, it's a literate mess with much better health care. The lack of political freedom has remained a constant. While Bautista was generally regarded as probably a lefty fascist in his day, Castro has sincerely (and brutally) turned Cuba into an actual socialist state. The effort has failed mostly, but you can't argue with his few successes.

There political culture in Latin America does not allow for moderate voices. In my opinion, the good reforms of the Progressive era in America like the income tax which originally taxed unearned income, ending child labor, establishing public schools and regulating big business.

I believe these reforms allowed America to avoid a Communist Revolution like in other countries which would have thrown out the good aspects of free enterprise. Actually Teddy and FDR were really moderate compared to Castro and other Marxist tyrants.

With all their faults, British settled countries do provide basic property rights (though that can be improved), rule of law and a social safety net. Brazil spent millions building stadiums for the Olympics and World Cup but wouldn't build housing for their working poor;  At least HUD did build public housing for our working poor during FDR administration and during the 70s.

any Latin American government that moves to lessening poverty and increasing opportunity to build the middle class is wildly opposed by domestic conservatives who are joined in opposition by the United States government. Honduras, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile...

I think the blacks in Latin America have it worse than American blacks regarding race relations. If the status quo before Castro would have stayed in power like many in Miami supported, they would have been bad for the average Cuban especially Afro-Cuban. Many of those people in Miami are very right wing and they would have run Cuba in a manner similar to other corrupt Latin American countries by being a puppet of the US government. Do people honestly believe they support the downtrodden in Cuba? I doubt it.

https://rosebellkagumire.com/2010/02/19/costa-rica-democracy-and-why-it-doesnt-mean-much-for-black-people-here/

miketheterrible wrote:Was listening to the local news and everyone was more or less calling Castro a dictator and is evil. Pretty pathetic and even surprising for Canada.

Why? Canada has a long string of faux outrage...after all this is the country that hunts whales and baby seals. There's a whole schizophrenia and repressed guilt within Canda, it's the prototype version of post-War Germany.

miketheterrible wrote:Was listening to the local news and everyone was more or less calling Castro a dictator and is evil. Pretty pathetic and even surprising for Canada.

He was a dictator. Whether evil or not is big discussion. He was no Pinochet but no Trudeau either.

Nearly 1 Million People Attend Fidel Castro Commemoration Ceremony in Havana

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/latam/201611301047992866-castro-ceremony-havana/

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Was listening to the local news and everyone was more or less calling Castro a dictator and is evil. Pretty pathetic and even surprising for Canada.

He was a dictator. Whether evil or not is big discussion. He was no Pinochet but no Trudeau either.

The thing is that most of the "dictator" language comes from the anti-Castro Cubans in Florida, the same people who tolerated the Francoist doppleganger, Fulgencio Battista, having his secret police round up nearly 10k dissidents and killed in public executions. So in reality they're not actually against dictatorship, just against "spread the wealth" ideology. The non-Cuban Neo-Con's showed Castro how to defend human rights.............by turning Guantanamo Bay (an illegally annexed territory from Cuba) in to Black sites where they are the last destination, centered in the world's largest (in size, scope, and geography) spying, kidnapping, and torture network. The fact that the sanctimonious hypocrites tolerated Guantanamo Bay being annexed territory (Crimea River ringing any bells), and the large scale violations of the Geneva Conventions should make any rational person pause when we we're constantly being lectured on human rights by the humanitarian bombers!

I have always been a little confused by the actual conditions of Cuba before the Revolution.  I would like people's responses about this, if Cuba was so prosperous why was there a revolution? Is this propaganda from the Miami Exiles?  This is an excerpt from Wikipedia about the economic conditions from History of Cuba:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cuba

Although corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly;[95] according to the International Labour Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France.[95][96] Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era,[97] with 56% of the population living in cities.[98]

In the 1950s, Cuba's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was roughly equal to that of contemporary Italy, and significantly higher than that of countries such as Japan, although Cuba's GDP per capita was still only a sixth as large as that of the United States.[95][99] According to the United Nations at the time, "one feature of the Cuban social structure [was] a large middle class".[99] Labour rights were also favourable – an eight-hour day had been established in 1933, long before most other countries, and Cuban workers were entitled to a months's paid holiday, nine days' sick leave with pay, and six weeks' holiday before and after childbirth.[100]

Cuba also had Latin America's highest per capita consumption rates of meat, vegetables, cereals, automobiles, telephones and radios during this period.[96][100][101]:186 Cuba had the fifth-highest number of televisions per capita in the world, and the world's eighth-highest number of radio stations (160). According to the United Nations, 58 different daily newspapers operated in Cuba during the late 1950s, more than any Latin American country save Brazil, Argentina and Mexico.[102] Havana was the world's fourth-most-expensive city at the time,[90] and had more cinemas than New York.[97] Cuba furthermore had the highest level of telephone penetration in Latin America, although many telephone users were still unconnected to switchboards.[98]

Moreover, Cuba's health service was remarkably developed. By the late 1950s, it had one of the highest numbers of doctors per capita – more than in the United Kingdom at that time – and the third-lowest adult mortality rate in the world. According to the World Health Organization, the island had the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America, and the 13th-lowest in the world – better than in contemporary France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.[96][103][104] Additionally, Cuba's education spending in the 1950s was the highest in Latin America, relative to GDP.[96] Cuba had the fourth-highest literacy rate in the region, at almost 80% according to the United Nations – higher than that of Spain at the time.

I regularly see this quote on different websites criticizing Castro and that he ruined Cuba.  How poor was Cuba and what is the truth?

I know Communism contributed to the decline of the country since the economic system didn't have a price system to sell goods and a respect for property rights.

andalusia wrote:I have always been a little confused by the actual conditions of Cuba before the Revolution.  I would like people's responses about this, if Cuba was so prosperous why was there a revolution? Is this propaganda from the Miami Exiles?  This is an excerpt from Wikipedia about the economic conditions from History of Cuba:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cuba

Although corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly;[95] according to the International Labour Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France.[95][96] Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era,[97] with 56% of the population living in cities.[98]

In the 1950s, Cuba's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was roughly equal to that of contemporary Italy, and significantly higher than that of countries such as Japan, although Cuba's GDP per capita was still only a sixth as large as that of the United States.[95][99] According to the United Nations at the time, "one feature of the Cuban social structure [was] a large middle class".[99] Labour rights were also favourable – an eight-hour day had been established in 1933, long before most other countries, and Cuban workers were entitled to a months's paid holiday, nine days' sick leave with pay, and six weeks' holiday before and after childbirth.[100]

Cuba also had Latin America's highest per capita consumption rates of meat, vegetables, cereals, automobiles, telephones and radios during this period.[96][100][101]:186 Cuba had the fifth-highest number of televisions per capita in the world, and the world's eighth-highest number of radio stations (160). According to the United Nations, 58 different daily newspapers operated in Cuba during the late 1950s, more than any Latin American country save Brazil, Argentina and Mexico.[102] Havana was the world's fourth-most-expensive city at the time,[90] and had more cinemas than New York.[97] Cuba furthermore had the highest level of telephone penetration in Latin America, although many telephone users were still unconnected to switchboards.[98]

Moreover, Cuba's health service was remarkably developed. By the late 1950s, it had one of the highest numbers of doctors per capita – more than in the United Kingdom at that time – and the third-lowest adult mortality rate in the world. According to the World Health Organization, the island had the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America, and the 13th-lowest in the world – better than in contemporary France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.[96][103][104] Additionally, Cuba's education spending in the 1950s was the highest in Latin America, relative to GDP.[96] Cuba had the fourth-highest literacy rate in the region, at almost 80% according to the United Nations – higher than that of Spain at the time.

I regularly see this quote on different websites criticizing Castro and that he ruined Cuba.  How poor was Cuba and what is the truth?

I know Communism contributed to the decline of the country since the economic system didn't have a price system to sell goods and a respect for property rights.  

There's a lot of bullshit in that Wikipedia Article.

1° Cuba benefitted from a huge fucking boom in Sugar output, growing tenfolds Cuban exports. This happened from 1939 to 1947, and while Fulgencio Battista was indeed president from 40 to 44, he was elected by a large fraction on the Island's Communists. Fun fact, they pretty much contributed to most of the working electorate.

However the issue of social expenditure and progress didn't happen because of Batista, but thanks to the very uneven presidency of Grau Sa'martin. Grau was basically a Peronist which expanded State control and involvement in Cuban Society, with more state Control over the economy (Grau would re-invest the Sugar boom into state sponsored joint ventures). This went very bad in the long term as the US thought the Grau Sa'martin gig was a cover up for commies and the Mob (Havana Conference).

2. Out Grau, in Socarras which ironically was the guy who would start the real political violence, killing liberals and jailing communists. Socarras basically played cash for silence. While he was in charge (48/52) Cuba was renamed Corruption. You wanted to build a business, pay the piper. You wanted to study, pay the piper, you want to run for politics, pay the piper and play for the piper.

3. Most of the sources listed are NOT trustworthy and skewed. For instance Cuba had similar GDP per capita as Italy in the 50's is BS (actually it's the similar GDP in late 1940's while italy had both Hyperinflation and was basically a country ruined by 23 year dictatorship and 11 years of war and mobilization). However the GDP per capita in the early 40's (40-42) was two times the one of Cuba (which is already a huge gap for country like Italy).

We can pick up a lot of skewered data that compare a booming mono-income economy like Cuba with the likes of a post WW2 Japan (which like wtf was probably worse at that time than my own Albania). Basically Battista was going to the wall fast because he had nothing more to sell to the US, sugar fell to the ground (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/x4988e/x4988e13.pdf) and Battista was stuck between the State expansion in the economy and the fact that meanwhile the US was finding better places to invest (Dat Marshall Plan) like the places it had bombed to the ground just a couple of years earlier.

In the end what killed the Cuban economy was its mono-income, big brother from across the Columbus Bay and most importantly the fact that no one had the vista to see how the WW2 boom was detrimental to the Cuban economy as it was done, mainly through US brokers (which owned a hefty part of the Sugar business).

Sadly when you talk like this people at 'Neoliberalism.com' fags, suddenly become dumb and deaf. Dindu Nuffins. Basically the US propped Cuba, the US killed it off by investing in Europe (this is equal for MOST LatAm).

KoTeMoRe wrote:

andalusia wrote:I have always been a little confused by the actual conditions of Cuba before the Revolution.  I would like people's responses about this, if Cuba was so prosperous why was there a revolution? Is this propaganda from the Miami Exiles?  This is an excerpt from Wikipedia about the economic conditions from History of Cuba:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cuba

Although corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly;[95] according to the International Labour Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France.[95][96] Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era,[97] with 56% of the population living in cities.[98]

In the 1950s, Cuba's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was roughly equal to that of contemporary Italy, and significantly higher than that of countries such as Japan, although Cuba's GDP per capita was still only a sixth as large as that of the United States.[95][99] According to the United Nations at the time, "one feature of the Cuban social structure [was] a large middle class".[99] Labour rights were also favourable – an eight-hour day had been established in 1933, long before most other countries, and Cuban workers were entitled to a months's paid holiday, nine days' sick leave with pay, and six weeks' holiday before and after childbirth.[100]

Cuba also had Latin America's highest per capita consumption rates of meat, vegetables, cereals, automobiles, telephones and radios during this period.[96][100][101]:186 Cuba had the fifth-highest number of televisions per capita in the world, and the world's eighth-highest number of radio stations (160). According to the United Nations, 58 different daily newspapers operated in Cuba during the late 1950s, more than any Latin American country save Brazil, Argentina and Mexico.[102] Havana was the world's fourth-most-expensive city at the time,[90] and had more cinemas than New York.[97] Cuba furthermore had the highest level of telephone penetration in Latin America, although many telephone users were still unconnected to switchboards.[98]

Moreover, Cuba's health service was remarkably developed. By the late 1950s, it had one of the highest numbers of doctors per capita – more than in the United Kingdom at that time – and the third-lowest adult mortality rate in the world. According to the World Health Organization, the island had the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America, and the 13th-lowest in the world – better than in contemporary France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.[96][103][104] Additionally, Cuba's education spending in the 1950s was the highest in Latin America, relative to GDP.[96] Cuba had the fourth-highest literacy rate in the region, at almost 80% according to the United Nations – higher than that of Spain at the time.

I regularly see this quote on different websites criticizing Castro and that he ruined Cuba.  How poor was Cuba and what is the truth?

I know Communism contributed to the decline of the country since the economic system didn't have a price system to sell goods and a respect for property rights.  

There's a lot of bullshit in that Wikipedia Article.

1° Cuba benefitted from a huge fucking boom in Sugar output, growing tenfolds Cuban exports. This happened from 1939 to 1947, and while Fulgencio Battista was indeed president from 40 to 44, he was elected by a large fraction on the Island's Communists. Fun fact, they pretty much contributed to most of the working electorate.

However the issue of social expenditure and progress didn't happen because of Batista, but thanks to the very uneven presidency of Grau Sa'martin. Grau was basically a Peronist which expanded State control and involvement in Cuban Society, with more state Control over the economy (Grau would re-invest the Sugar boom into state sponsored joint ventures). This went very bad in the long term as the US thought the Grau Sa'martin gig was a cover up for commies and the Mob (Havana Conference).

2. Out Grau, in Socarras which ironically was the guy who would start the real political violence, killing liberals and jailing communists. Socarras basically played cash for silence. While he was in charge (48/52) Cuba was renamed Corruption. You wanted to build a business, pay the piper. You wanted to study, pay the piper, you want to run for politics, pay the piper and play for the piper.

3. Most of the sources listed are NOT trustworthy and skewed. For instance Cuba had similar GDP per capita as Italy in the 50's is BS (actually it's the similar GDP in late 1940's while italy had both Hyperinflation and was basically a country ruined by 23 year dictatorship and 11 years of war and mobilization). However the GDP per capita in the early 40's (40-42) was two times the one of Cuba (which is already a huge gap for country like Italy).

We can pick up a lot of skewered data that compare a booming mono-income economy like Cuba with the likes of a post WW2 Japan (which like wtf was probably worse at that time than my own Albania). Basically Battista was going to the wall fast because he had nothing more to sell to the US, sugar fell to the ground (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/x4988e/x4988e13.pdf) and Battista was stuck between the State expansion in the economy and the fact that meanwhile the US was finding better places to invest (Dat Marshall Plan) like the places it had bombed to the ground just a couple of years earlier.

In the end what killed the Cuban economy was its mono-income, big brother from across the Columbus Bay and most importantly the fact that no one had the vista to see how the WW2 boom was detrimental to the Cuban economy as it was done, mainly through US brokers (which owned a hefty part of the Sugar business).

Sadly when you talk like this people at 'Neoliberalism.com' fags, suddenly become dumb and deaf. Dindu Nuffins. Basically the US propped Cuba, the US killed it off by investing in Europe (this is equal for MOST LatAm).

What about the living standards being better than the rest of Latin America at the time? Was it health services that were so good available to the poor whites and poor blacks? What about the information about is literacy rate and education spending? The Miami Cubans love to point that out.

andalusia wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

andalusia wrote:I have always been a little confused by the actual conditions of Cuba before the Revolution.  I would like people's responses about this, if Cuba was so prosperous why was there a revolution? Is this propaganda from the Miami Exiles?  This is an excerpt from Wikipedia about the economic conditions from History of Cuba:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cuba

Although corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly;[95] according to the International Labour Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France.[95][96] Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era,[97] with 56% of the population living in cities.[98]

In the 1950s, Cuba's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was roughly equal to that of contemporary Italy, and significantly higher than that of countries such as Japan, although Cuba's GDP per capita was still only a sixth as large as that of the United States.[95][99] According to the United Nations at the time, "one feature of the Cuban social structure [was] a large middle class".[99] Labour rights were also favourable – an eight-hour day had been established in 1933, long before most other countries, and Cuban workers were entitled to a months's paid holiday, nine days' sick leave with pay, and six weeks' holiday before and after childbirth.[100]

Cuba also had Latin America's highest per capita consumption rates of meat, vegetables, cereals, automobiles, telephones and radios during this period.[96][100][101]:186 Cuba had the fifth-highest number of televisions per capita in the world, and the world's eighth-highest number of radio stations (160). According to the United Nations, 58 different daily newspapers operated in Cuba during the late 1950s, more than any Latin American country save Brazil, Argentina and Mexico.[102] Havana was the world's fourth-most-expensive city at the time,[90] and had more cinemas than New York.[97] Cuba furthermore had the highest level of telephone penetration in Latin America, although many telephone users were still unconnected to switchboards.[98]

Moreover, Cuba's health service was remarkably developed. By the late 1950s, it had one of the highest numbers of doctors per capita – more than in the United Kingdom at that time – and the third-lowest adult mortality rate in the world. According to the World Health Organization, the island had the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America, and the 13th-lowest in the world – better than in contemporary France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.[96][103][104] Additionally, Cuba's education spending in the 1950s was the highest in Latin America, relative to GDP.[96] Cuba had the fourth-highest literacy rate in the region, at almost 80% according to the United Nations – higher than that of Spain at the time.

I regularly see this quote on different websites criticizing Castro and that he ruined Cuba.  How poor was Cuba and what is the truth?

I know Communism contributed to the decline of the country since the economic system didn't have a price system to sell goods and a respect for property rights.  

There's a lot of bullshit in that Wikipedia Article.

1° Cuba benefitted from a huge fucking boom in Sugar output, growing tenfolds Cuban exports. This happened from 1939 to 1947, and while Fulgencio Battista was indeed president from 40 to 44, he was elected by a large fraction on the Island's Communists. Fun fact, they pretty much contributed to most of the working electorate.

However the issue of social expenditure and progress didn't happen because of Batista, but thanks to the very uneven presidency of Grau Sa'martin. Grau was basically a Peronist which expanded State control and involvement in Cuban Society, with more state Control over the economy (Grau would re-invest the Sugar boom into state sponsored joint ventures). This went very bad in the long term as the US thought the Grau Sa'martin gig was a cover up for commies and the Mob (Havana Conference).

2. Out Grau, in Socarras which ironically was the guy who would start the real political violence, killing liberals and jailing communists. Socarras basically played cash for silence. While he was in charge (48/52) Cuba was renamed Corruption. You wanted to build a business, pay the piper. You wanted to study, pay the piper, you want to run for politics, pay the piper and play for the piper.

3. Most of the sources listed are NOT trustworthy and skewed. For instance Cuba had similar GDP per capita as Italy in the 50's is BS (actually it's the similar GDP in late 1940's while italy had both Hyperinflation and was basically a country ruined by 23 year dictatorship and 11 years of war and mobilization). However the GDP per capita in the early 40's (40-42) was two times the one of Cuba (which is already a huge gap for country like Italy).

We can pick up a lot of skewered data that compare a booming mono-income economy like Cuba with the likes of a post WW2 Japan (which like wtf was probably worse at that time than my own Albania). Basically Battista was going to the wall fast because he had nothing more to sell to the US, sugar fell to the ground (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/x4988e/x4988e13.pdf) and Battista was stuck between the State expansion in the economy and the fact that meanwhile the US was finding better places to invest (Dat Marshall Plan) like the places it had bombed to the ground just a couple of years earlier.

In the end what killed the Cuban economy was its mono-income, big brother from across the Columbus Bay and most importantly the fact that no one had the vista to see how the WW2 boom was detrimental to the Cuban economy as it was done, mainly through US brokers (which owned a hefty part of the Sugar business).

Sadly when you talk like this people at 'Neoliberalism.com' fags, suddenly become dumb and deaf. Dindu Nuffins. Basically the US propped Cuba, the US killed it off by investing in Europe (this is equal for MOST LatAm).

What about the living standards being better than the rest of Latin America at the time? Was it health services that were so good available to the poor whites and poor blacks? What about the information about is literacy rate and education spending? The Miami Cubans love to point that out.

Once again, you can't speak about living standards in Cuba being better than in LatAm. Let me explain you how living standards in Cuba are impossible to quantify even in a "good year".

I will take 1956 as a benchmark, because Cuban fugitives and Battista goats love that year, the best year of pre-revolution.

Tourism industry in Cuba: 30 million dollars revenue.
Sugar industry in Cuba: 324 million dollars revenue.
People living through the tourist industry: 24 thousand and some.
People living through the Sugar cane industry 280 thousand Cubans (although that number usually towered over 350 thousand because of "helping hands not paid - kids of workers joining on the fields). Out of a 2.5 million active population roughly 25 percent were working with the sugar cane, 3-4 months a year and then it was subsistence agriculture for 8 months.
But here comes the hit:

Brothels: 270.
Employed personnel in these establishments: 11 600 people. Yes half the tourist staff worth of hookers in Cuba. That's some living standard right there.

Now what else do you want to talk? I've been cursed upon many times when discussing these with Cubans from the Free world and most of the time it ends up with "chinge tu madre rojo de mierda", because they can't argue with numbers and facts as hard as these. For instance so you can understand this, one woman out of 15 in Havana was a whore.

Through the information bubble membrane that surrounds the west, the lack of two cars and four garage bays, 70 inch TV and other
consumer junk indicates poverty. The problem is that Cubans are buying into this "deprivation" myth. I fear they will go the way
of Venezuela and most of eastern Europe (but without any EU welfare transfers). They will have their consumer junk but will not be
able to afford it. And back to the good old days of Batista they will go.