# Socialism



## jmlachance (Nov 6, 2005)

Well, since there are plenty of bright educated individuals here (hey,we use Macs,don't we?), I'm going to try to get some ideas and opinion on this socialism. The States are all up in arms about it,even Harper is warning against it.
Anyone here know the figures on what % of countries are "socialists",as in like the Scandinavian countries? Must be a large proportion of the world's countries. Canada falls into this category, doesn't it? 
Even Mexico I hear, has a hospital policy of taking any "warm body" for medical attention. In other words,if it's still a warm human body,we'll see what we can do.

Anyhow,with all the brouhaha about socialism,if, as is evident by the prosperous European countries,why are conservatives so concerned about this? I'd like to hear from conservatives on this as I tend to lean toward the socialist side,I already know that point of view.
A couple of years ago I was having a conversation at work with a fellow from Alberta . We knew each other for a number of months prior and got along real well until the conversation turned to politics. I inquired innocently as to why,with all it's prosperity, Alberta was still voting for Conservatives when they could afford a socialist leaning government to spread the wealth. Why were the oil companies not taxed more in the times of record high oil prices and profits
The guy blew up and called me all kinds of "nasty " names (I'm guessing it was meant as an insult to be called a socialist and NDP supporter). He blamed the last Alberta Liberal government in the 80's (from what I could understand) for the decline of oil prices,the oil companies moving out of the province. 
I tried to point out that putting a bit more tax on oil company profits would not cause them to move out or that a provincial government could not affect world oil prices but that just threw oil on the fire so to speak.
Maybe I was wrong. Don't know, I've never been out West hence my intentions to get someone's point of view,then and now...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

There are no capitalist or communist countries in the world. We are all socialists and that even includes GW Bush.

The only debate is where that line is drawn. For example, most industrialized countries have government run health care programs, while the US does not.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Perhaps Socialism is code for Communism? 
ThisMcCarthyism allows the Right to have a bogie man.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

jmlachance said:


> I tried to point out that putting a bit more tax on oil company profits would not cause them to move out or that a provincial government could not affect world oil prices but that just threw oil on the fire so to speak.
> Maybe I was wrong. Don't know, I've never been out West hence my intentions to get someone's point of view,then and now...


Ya, you were wrong. 

A bit more tax? Okay, let's add that tax then. OK, now how about a 'bit more' again? Keep repeating. Where do you stop?

There isn't a golden goose here of unlimited funds. High taxes are PROVEN to discourage business activity. The only question is how much and whether those levels of taxes are optimal. This isn't a West vs. East issue. It's simple economics.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The problem with additional taxes on oil and gas is who pays for it. Those taxes one way or another get passed on to the consumer. In Canada seniors on fixed incomes see a sizable chunk of their budget going into heating their home for 8 or even 9 months of the year. Double or triple the cost of heating and many will have to choose between eating and heating.

It is idiotic to ask this group to deal with the additional red tape that would go with special subsidies. Tax credits for energy related renovations are equally dumb when the individuals that need them the most are below the tax threshold.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

jmlachance said:


> The guy blew up and called me all kinds of "nasty " names (I'm guessing it was meant as an insult to be called a socialist and NDP supporter).


I'm sorry to hear that. I really don't understand why some people (of all political stripes) will take it personally just because someone else has different political views.


jmlachance said:


> He blamed the last Alberta Liberal government in the 80's (from what I could understand) for the decline of oil prices,the oil companies moving out of the province.


The Liberals haven't formed a government in Alberta since 1917. I expect that the sore spot was the *Federal* Liberal Government of Trudeau, and the National Energy Program.

National Energy Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jmlachance (Nov 6, 2005)

*Re Liberal government*

Thanks for the info. I hadn't checked wether it was a provincial or fed liberal government before posting because I was telling it as I understood the conversation at the time from the way he was explaining it...


----------



## jmlachance (Nov 6, 2005)

*re taxing the oil companies*



Vandave said:


> Ya, you were wrong.
> 
> A bit more tax? Okay, let's add that tax then. OK, now how about a 'bit more' again? Keep repeating. Where do you stop?
> 
> There isn't a golden goose here of unlimited funds. High taxes are PROVEN to discourage business activity. The only question is how much and whether those levels of taxes are optimal. This isn't a West vs. East issue. It's simple economics.


But with the oil companies making money hand over fist with record high oil prices,wouldn't that be justified? 
I suspect they would be tripping over each other to have a chance at exploiting these resources even if the royalties went up.
How much in royalties are they paying at the moment? I'm just thinking that even if this oil was given to them,wages were low and production costs were minimal,I doubt they would lower the prices they sell their refined products..


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

jmlachance said:


> Anyone here know the figures on what % of countries are "socialists",as in like the Scandinavian countries?


Notable countries like Sweden and Denmark have, in recent elections, thrashed Socialist parties in favour of "conservatives". In the case of Sweden, endless socialist programs made it unprofitable for individuals to work, and the top income tax rate of 105% saw that every rich person fled to Monaco or somewhere else. Their industried became encumbered with over-regulation, over-taxation, and rigid thinking that stiffled innovation. So voters decided to swing the other way, away from big, obtrusive government.

The Welfare State is a double edged sword. On one side, people are offered basic protections, like pensions, disability coverage, unemployment insurance, and other benefits that sustain people through difficult times. On the other side, it creates a mass of people who see no advantage of putting forth effort at all, where they can live a lifestyle of apathy and lethargy at the taxpayer's expense. This creates a tension, where workers become discouraged because they see a mass of do-nothings engaged in endless furtive behaviour while not contributing anything to society. The reaction to an ever increasing entropy caused by Welfare is not to regulate it and to eliminate waste and corruption, but rather, to have a want of destroying it.

Now the term "socialism" has a different connotation in the US. For us, socialism is really "progressivism" and having specific fonts of social welfare as a safety net, rather than true socialism where everything within the economy and life of the nation is planned. For the US, socialism implies the removal of fundamental freedoms, putting into place government dictates rather than of free choice.

It's like the health care decision they are embroiled in, and while some people oppose it simply because they are greedy and don't want to see taxpayer money spend on the poor (best to build giant fleets of tanks for the Taliban to pick off in some useless, cash wasting war of dubious value), other people simply point to the massive failures in other health care systems. Canada is a prime candidate, because though we do have universal health care, we have a very wasteful system that burns money like no tomorrow, while stacking patients up like cordwood in hallways because we have no "beds" or whatever. We just have an inconsistent system, where some areas and provinces have very good systems, while other areas have pretty much the worst.

Americans use the term "socialism" to bring about a fear of a loss of freedom, and though it is illogical to us, it is entirely rational to a nation that is built on the precepts of freedom, liberty and happiness. Other nations that have advanced Welfare states have had similar roll-backs. The main problem with socialism is that it saps initiative. Without a reason to work, or in the case of Sweden, where one could end up scoring less by working than they might by being on Welfare, we can see the result. Not only that, but in Communist states which nationalized industries, those businesses were inefficient and retrograde because in an environment where no one can fail, no one struggles for improvement. It removes initiative, and that is one fear the Americans have when it comes to health care. The fear being, not that the poor will get health care, but that the system itself will become much less efficient and lapse into a state of lethargy, where no longer hospitals are a font of cutting edge technology or massive advancements in medicine - but rather, a place where some government bureaucracy doles out the bare minimum, perhaps even to the point that we have in Canada, where health care tends to be by luck of the draw, with massive waiting times that provide untimely care in a most inefficient manner.

Places like Sweden and Denmark have swung "Conservative", simply because they were being stiffled by the lack of initiative and innovation, while producing a state of lazy people who have no reason to do better. Socialist government have tended to over-regulate, thus punishing all business ventures with thick layers of legal codes to comply with; whereas it is probably better if they just punished corrupted businesses and let free enterprise alone.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

jmlachance said:


> But with the oil companies making money hand over fist with record high oil prices,wouldn't that be justified?.


No. The less companies have to pay to operate, the more they want to operate there. More companies means more employment (and very high paying jobs at that), and more tax revenue. The more you charge them, the less they want to be there. They'll move their operations elsewhere, and the revenues will go with them.

The money Alberta made to be able to retire their debt and be so prosperous (at least in non-recession times) was specifically because their taxes and royalties were so low. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have really good oil resources too, but until recently the oil companies weren't all that interested in operating there because the taxes, royalties, and red tape was just too much. There was a time when Manitoba and Saskatchewan had more oil companies operating there than Alberta did. When Alberta basically opened their doors, everyone just moved there. They'll just move again if they feel they can get a better deal elsewhere.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

jmlachance said:


> I suspect they would be tripping over each other to have a chance at exploiting these resources even if the royalties went up.


Actually they're not - drilling is at it's lowest level in 17 years, from what I hear.

No doubt part of this is due to low gas prices (the Western Canadian Sedimentary basin is ~2/3 natural gas) - but the recent change in the royalty regime has also had an effect. Our royalties were arguably too low, but they should have been changed slowly starting around 1997. Increasing them just as energy prices tank and the economy slips into a recession hasn't been the most popular thing around here.

Note that royalties are *not* a tax per se - they are the amount that the people get to keep for allowing the resource companies to exploit resources owned by the people. Of course, if the royalties are too high, the resource won't get developed and the people won't see any money from it.

Imagine you're selling your house - then royalties would be the portion you keep after you pay legal fees, realtors, etc. If you try to get the lawyers, realtors etc. to work for free your house won't sell and you get nothing. On the other hand, if you let all the folks involved in the sale have their way their fees would be usurious and you would be left with very little for the sale of the house. You need to find a balance that makes the sale worthwhile for all involved.


----------



## jmlachance (Nov 6, 2005)

OK,so how much of the oil taken out of the ground is refined here in Canada. Are the oil companies just taking the oil away and selling us refined products?
Out in Ontario and Quebec we do have refineries,I believe NB as well (Irving) but this must be from imported oil. Is our Western oil being shipped straight to the States?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

jmlachance said:


> Is our Western oil being shipped straight to the States?


Most of it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

jmlachance said:


> But with the oil companies making money hand over fist with record high oil prices,wouldn't that be justified?
> I suspect they would be tripping over each other to have a chance at exploiting these resources even if the royalties went up.
> How much in royalties are they paying at the moment? I'm just thinking that even if this oil was given to them,wages were low and production costs were minimal,I doubt they would lower the prices they sell their refined products..


No, it wouldn't. If you want to scare business away, that would be a great way to do it. Businesses need to be predict what their costs are going to be before they invest in something. 

'Hand over fist'. It's all relative. Oil companies also invest money 'hand over fist' and take big risks. The return on their investment is justified by the capital risk. That's how capitalism works in simple terms.


----------



## jmlachance (Nov 6, 2005)

Huh! Good feedback here from across the country. What do we have here, business majors and entrepreneurs?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Ya know, "socialism," being a real word, has a clear meaning one can find in the dictionary:



> a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


So is any country really "socialist" if they allow the majority of "the means of production and distribution" (ie industry and other capitalist enterprises) to flourish?

Certainly there are EXAMPLES of socialism to be found everywhere. Fire and police departments have a nearly complete monopoly on fighting fires and investigating crimes! Socialist!!

But really I don't think a country can be genuinely socialist unless the government nationalises most industry or profit-making ventures. So Cuba would be an outstanding example of pure socialism. Most examples here in North America that people cite of "socialism" are really just examples of the government doing what they are SUPPOSED to do, ie develop ways to benefit the whole of society.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

chas_m said:


> Most examples here in North America that people cite of "socialism" are really just examples of the government doing what they are SUPPOSED to do, ie develop ways to benefit the whole of society.


But it's not that clearcut. What you think is good for society might be different than what I think is. Some people like to see arts funding while others would others not.

The level of taxation might be a good measure. The higher the level of taxation, the larger of a role government plays in an economy and vice versa.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Why not ask the hardcore socialists?


Why would they do something if somebody else could do it for them?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

chas_m said:


> Certainly there are EXAMPLES of socialism to be found everywhere. Fire and police departments have a nearly complete monopoly on fighting fires and investigating crimes! Socialist!!.


While we don't tend to think of socialism in this way, you are quite right Chas, socialism exists everywhere when you consider the classic definition of the distribution of goods and services by a government or its people. Even in the good ol' U.S. of A., there is socialism. What has never existed, at least in my view, is a country that was pure anything m capitalist, communist, socialist.... 

I'm not sure if our society would function today without some form of socialist bent on key industries .... such as the NHL.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The usual nonsense post from EP..no backup just drivel.

••

Caught an interesting quote comparing China versus western democracy



> " Western democracy is like going to a restaurant and choosing whether you want a French, Italian or German chef who will decide on your behalf what is on the menu.
> With Chinese demcracy we always have the same chef - The Communist Party - but we will increasingly get to choose which dishes he cooks ~ Fang Ning, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.


 the success of command economy in China and ability to implement policy without endless wrangling should give some flagging western economies pause.

ALL nation states are a mix of social institutions and private individuals and institutions. It IS a matter of degree and circumstance.
The mix changes with war, poverty or prosperity.

Kind of odd that poor flounderng Sweden is ranked #1 in movng to carbon neutral and



> Business - Published Tuesday, 08 *September 2009 *09:15 | Author: Johan Nylander
> *  Sweden among most competitive nations *
> 
> 
> *Sweden is among the most competitive nations in the world as economically stability maintains strong and the levels of technological innovation is high, the World Economic Forum said.*


Sweden among most competitive nations

some people need to get their worldview in synch with reality...

Sweden and Denmark - floundering accord to EP also score the best GINI coefficient scores for all of Europe....
The Null Device blog: Gini coefficients for Europe and America

Pity their poor citizens....:-( 

maybe they should start agitating....get out of the top 10 for peaceful nations

Vision of Humanity

and business friendly.....must be way down in Denmark given that horrid enervating environment.......oops...




> Topping the list for 2009: Denmark,* for a second straight year, takes the No. 1 spot. *


oh yeah that's from Forbes....that bastion of socialist intrigue
The Best Countries For Business, 2009 - Forbes.com


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Ya, let's mimic China. Wouldn't it be great if half our country lived in poverty and worked 16 hours a day?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Ya, let's mimic China. Wouldn't it be great if half our country lived in poverty and worked 16 hours a day?


Yep, and next emulate Scandinavia and work towards joining nations with the highest cost of living in the world. Makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I thought life was pretty good in Denmark, and the Icelanders have the highest literacy rate in the world?


Iceland is so two years ago. Back then it was the envy of the world and a model for all to follow. SInce then... well... the whole nation went tits up. 

You obviously didn't get the memo from MacDoc.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I am a Viking, I know Iceland's finances became a shambles. They will get it fixed. It's literacy rate should still be as strong as ever.


Do you have a big battle axe? If not, then I am not convinced about the Viking part.

They might want to focus some of that literacy on economic textbooks.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

bsenka said:


> More companies means more employment (and very high paying jobs at that), and more tax revenue.


Aye, as a former resident o' Florida, I have t' take issue with this. Lower cost o' operations simply inspire companies t' lower ALL costs, includin' wages. Wal-mart anyone?

Broadly speakin' aye thought the rest o' your post was perfectly fine, but more companies does nowt automatically equal high payin' jobs. In fact, too many ships in a sea put Downward pressure on wages. Li'e in a tourist town for a while, you'll see for yeself.



> When Alberta basically opened their doors, everyone just moved there. They'll just move again if they feel they can get a better deal elsewhere.


Aye, it's true. Ahoy, i wonder what they'll lea'e behind when they go? Aye.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> The usual nonsense post from EP..no backup just drivel.


I simply do not feel the need to post useless links to unsubstantiated sources like the Toronto Star or Forbes. Seeing that this is not a forum in which to post scientific papers or university style theses, I do not think posters are obligated to post a concise bibliography, footnotes, endnotes, and tables of concordances.

As for drivel - I see not "drivel" as the facts stand, in many places, Denmark and Sweden included, that has been to the left of the spectrum with advanced levels of socialism - the voters there have made the choice tp swing the other way, towards more conservative parties - such as last year in Denmark when the conservative leaning parties scored an electoral success, or last week in Sweden with a similar swing towards conservative parties scoring their success, and even in Japan, where the Liberal Democrats went down in flames for the first time in something like 48 years.

Scandanavian nations became plagued with the problems of the excesses of state control and the costs of socialism. It was a simple matter, too much taxes lead to anyone with cash moving elsewhere. Thus, Sweden became a nation without any wealthy people, and without the wealthy, the only investor is the state itself. And the state rapidly became bankrupted, because there was no investment, no initative, and half the workforce was on the pogey at any given time in any one of a myriad of programs. Thus, even the socialist governments were forced to yield, as evidenced by the Swedish government allowing the sale of state controlled assets as Volvo to Ford and SAAB to GM some years ago.

Scandanavian countries ended up with syndromes, of a lack of fresh and new investment, of a bleeding of innovation and ideas to other, less taxed countries; which lead to a recession like atmosphere where workers no longer felt motivated to work hard simply because some other worker wants to loaf around at home on the tax payers dime.

No one says "socialist" ideas are necessarily bad. I don't think many people would decry programs like Employment Insurance. Rather, socialist parties tend to get enravelled in endless oneupmanship of previous parties. Because so many people end up treated to birth-to-grave programs that provide a lifestyle; the people that support that system through their efforts and working hours feel ripped off. Thus, the non-workers make no contribution and are a drain on the system; while the workers don't bother to hussle, so companies become unprofitable and retrograde when compared to other nations.

The success of China is not because of the "Communist Party" - the Communist Party pretty much decapitated China, destroying it's people and it's heritage with fake projects like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. It became nothing more than the most populous but least wealthy nations of the world, rife with poverty, ignorance, and inefficiency.

The "miracle" that China is is not so miraculous - a nation if 1.2 Billion people with an economy barely larger than that of Italy. The only miracle is that the people there will work for basically nothing, so they can crank out cheap goods to sell to mass markets around the world. China is only a threat because Western nations have become slovenly and lazy. There is no initiative in the West. Investors with money look to cash in on their greed where ever they can find the lowest paid workers that will work in the worst possible environments. China is one of them - but even China feels the pain, as it bleeds jobs to places like Vietnam, where people will work for even less money in even more dangerous environments.

If China is a "threat" - it's only because the West has become pathetic, with scaled back businesses that slash jobs and refuse to make key investments simply because executives look to maximize short tern quarterly profits, while frittering away any chance of future viability.

We already witnessed this drain, when we saw a hungry Japan entirely pick off and destroy North American industries. We sold out, giving away leadership in such things as photography, audio, television, and video recorders; and pretty much destroying our auto industry, in which out of the last three remaining companies, two are in part supported by massive infusions of government funding, and one may not survive in five years.

Scandanavia suffers from the same problems, with many of their industries being migrated to places like Poland (especially in machine tools), or Hungary, or even Russia - not just because workers can be paid less, or that taxes are less - but they can tap into a hungry but highly educated workforce that is ready to put in effort to score a paycheque, rather than simply suffering from the malaise of being taken advantage of by those that choose not to work.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> the success of command economy in China and ability to implement policy without endless wrangling should give some flagging western economies pause.


You must be joking.

I don't even know where to start on this one, but since you seem to be keen on the environment you might want to have a look at CO2 emissions from China - either in absolute terms, or per dollar of GDP.

I'm also not 100% sure how durable the "success of command economy in China" will turn out to be - sometimes the whole thing seems to me like a bubble that is about to pop, and when it does expect some political instability. Right now their "success" is based on building cheap plastic junk for Wal*Mart, but when oil prices recover we can expect logistics costs to offset their labour cost advantage*. If there ever was a carbon tax, it would be another nail in China's coffin as they would be even less competitive given the carbon intensity of their industry.

Of course there are the human rights abuses, etc. as well.

Sure they can get things done quickly - but the dictatorship in China is anything but benevolent...
______________________
*Will High Oil Prices Reverse Globalization? | SupplyChainNetwork.com - I remembered reading the original article in the "Globe and Mail" last year, google turned up this link instead.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Living in the 50s are we

How long would it take to even break ground on a 2 GW solar project in North America??

Inhabitat World’s Largest Solar Plant in China Will Power 3 Million Homes

China already has higher standards for vehicle emissions than North America and millions of electric vehicles on the road and they will make money selling greentech to the planet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/global/02electric.html
Why Warren Buffett is investing in electric car company BYD - Apr. 13, 2009

The lists of projects small and large is enormous.

Food and shelter and infrastructure get built first and they weren't built anywhere without lots of human misery....China has 20% of the population of the planet in region without a comparable resource base.

They have no choice but to move quickly to sustainable practices...and they are. They are front line for climate impacts and resource shortages.....and the fact that senior leadership is composed almost entirely of trained scientists and engineers means they both know the problem and are moving to address it.

Maybe you should catch up a little bit instead of living in a 21st McCarthy world.

Remedial reading
China Daily Website - Connecting China Connecting the World


They are the largest nation on earth with enormous challenges and two things they have mastered...

Making money and decisions......


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Remedial reading


Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller by Jeff Rubin



MacDoc said:


> They are the largest nation on earth with enormous challenges and two things they have mastered...
> 
> Making money and decisions......


I would argue that they aren't as good at *making* money as *saving* money.

Although they build a lot of stuff for domestic consumption, most of their profit comes from exports. After you've completed you're remedial reading assignment tell me how long you think ~that~ will last.

I also don't see China climbing up the value chain the way Japan and Korea did - by this stage of the game we should see some indigenous Chinese international brands, but so far we haven't. Probably Lenovo comes closest, but that might be because a bit of IBMs reputation is still lingering around there. They certainly haven't come up with anything to compare to Nikon or Toyota or Samsung or Hyundai, for example.

I'll grant you they are pretty good at making decisions quickly - but then again, so was Hitler...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and Canada of course will resume it Dino of the Day record at the upcoming climate conference..thanks to luzers like Harper....









Four Fossil Awards for Canada at UN Climate Conference SCC Release - Vive




> *China leaps ahead of U.S. in climate change battle*
> 
> Updated Mon. Sep. 21 2009 2:41 PM ET
> The Associated Press
> ...


CTV.ca | China leaps ahead of U.S. in climate change battle

Decision making and following through....we on the other have a dysfunctional Federal gov with idjits at the helm......

When it comes to environment strong social institutions are mandatory - with some leadership and direction from the elected gov - Canada has neither. Just foot dragging Neanderthals....with apologizes to the departed cave dwellers....maybe Harperites will be another extinct species soon......


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Decision making and following through....we on the other have a dysfunctional Federal gov with idjits at the helm......


Much easier in a dictatorship!

We have the worst form of government - except compared to all the alternatives...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The UN Climate Chief said it? 

If it had come from anybody else I wouldn't have believed it. 

I would love me some of this Chinese climate change technology.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> When it comes to environment strong social institutions are mandatory - with some leadership and direction from the elected gov - Canada has neither.


Well at least Canada has an *elected* government.

You shouldn't get taken in by a bit of greenwashing propaganda. China is the largest CO2 emitter in absolute terms, and the carbon intensity of most of their industry is considerably worse than anything you would find in either North America or the EU.

China's greenwashing reminds me of how those Soviet apologists who would go to Moscow back in the day, see the "Park of Economic Achievement" and the Moscow subway, and come back thinking the Soviet system wasn't any worse than a Western democracy - just different...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> You shouldn't get taken in by a bit of greenwashing propaganda. China is the largest CO2 emitter in absolute terms, and the carbon intensity of most of their industry is considerably worse than anything you would find in either North America or the EU.


Agreed - seeing that around these parts, they put out huge warnings to people when smog climbs above the 32 mark - which isn't done in Beijing until smog climbs above the 1000 mark.

The main problem with our nation "going Green" is that people are reluctant to give up anything, to make any concessions. People still buy giant trucks to do solo commutes in, people still spend an hour or two commuting each way to work on a daily basis, people waste more this year than last because we have "recycling" that is nothing more than a sop that lets people think they can continue to engage in endless waste.

The problem with Green Energy is that it involves the Government. Until the Government can figure out some way of milking it, to have three or four times cost over runs, of having giant mega projects in their ridings, of doing things without thought of logic or science, while they can not figure out a way of imposing 60% taxation on energy flowing from the sun, or how to commoditize savings and efficiency so they can tax it and loot it to their own advantage - no project will get off the ground.

It's not that we can't do it, or lack the will to do it - we just have a system where people can't score easy and fast profits from such things; while they can score huge cash out of sustaining such systems based on oil - since they can control the wells, the pipelines, the refineries and the trucks. If solar could be pumped though pipelines and trucked to customers, all with levies and fees and taxes and gratuitous profits - then we would have the biggest, best and most swank system set up so we could continue in endless waste and stupidity...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Do you really need someone to take that straw house apart thread by thread?

In most of the areas listed, the government is doing a terrible job. The USPS and Canada Post should be embarrassed that they prevent other companies from competing with them on letter mail--not proud.

What's particularly sad is that lists instance after instance of government taking over--through force--conveniences developed by private enterprise. The miracle is the development of the car, not that some government fat cat declares it safe. Government has regulated most of these industries to such a degree that they are no longer competitive. Congratulations socialism.

If we posted the actual performance records of most of those government agencies, instead of stating their goals or intentions, we could easily show that they are not qualified to handle health care either.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Blind faith in a system of unbridled greed well that's just sad.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Blind faith in a system of unbridled greed well that's just sad.


Blind faith in anything is sad. I judge things by ability, effectiveness, performance and results.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Capitalism goes wild when the government makes the rules. Hence, the Freddie and Fannie-induced mortgage meltdown.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Nice Spin! It is the unfettering of Capitalists ie. lack of rules that gets the Capitalist rugged free thinking individuals left to their own inclinations that gets Capalists into trouble.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No way, DL. All of those deals were blessed by Freddie and Fannie. Nobody would have touched those derivatives if they hadn't been swapped and sanctioned by Uncle Sam. The more derivatives they blessed, the more money the government appointees in charge of Freddie and Fannie could haul in.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sure. Let government run everything that private enterprise won't. Get it out of the business world entirely, particularly the subsidies that make it a partner of those businesses.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Capitalism goes wild when the government makes the rules. Hence, the Freddie and Fannie-induced mortgage meltdown.


capitalism goes wild when they're in bed with the government. If government regulators weren't in the bank's pockets they could have stemmed the tide of the financial meltdown.

I might agree with you if our system was a fair capitalist model, but we've had crony capitalism for my entire life and things are getting worse.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree 100% i-rui. Wall Street knew that it could count on the government to both bless those derivatives through Fannie Mae swaps, and to bail them out. In a legitimate free market, they wouldn't have had the guts to do that.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

An article of interest.... 
*How to Visit a Socialist Country*
_(Richard Levins, Monthly Review Vol. 61, No. 11, April 2010)_



> Socialism is not a thing but a process, the process by which the working classes of the city and countryside and their allies seize the reins of society to satisfy their shared needs. Through a telescope, we get a glimpse of the world-historic significance of the first efforts to replace not only capitalism but also all class society by a more generous, just, and sustainable way of life. That is, we are trying to overcome a ten-thousand-year detour during which our species adopted agriculture, deforested much of the planet, grew in numbers, and extended our life span and knowledge and destructive capacity, divided into classes so that we were no longer a “we,” and expanded our productive capacity to the point where we can dispense with classes and become a “we” again.
> 
> This is more important in looking at the first century of socialist innovation than how well these revolutionaries do it, the particular decisions and those unexpected changes that surprisingly occur, and even the enormous difficulties and deficiencies of this effort. But, through the microscope of daily life, all these details are of overwhelming importance, and world history is no compensation for a lack of protein in the diet. We need both the telescope and the microscope.
> 
> Socialism is a complex path, zigzagging and contradictory, because the participants have different interests, respond in diverse ways to the events along the way, differ in knowledge and goals, in urgency and long-term perspectives. The same experiences can transform their aspirations in numerous directions, sometimes along converging pathways, and sometimes along divergent pathways.


(Monthly Review)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I recall visiting Yugoslavia back in 1972. It had a unique form of socialism depending upon which of the six regions you were in at the time. Belgrade felt the most like a totalitarian city, and Ljubljana in Slovenia felt more like a western country.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Socialism is not a thing but a process, the process by which the working classes of the city and countryside and their allies seize the reins of society to satisfy their shared needs, then divide an ever-decreasing share of the collective pie, with the lion's share consumed by the political class. As self-sufficiency and productivity declines, so does the size of the delicious pie.

The exciting socialism of modern-day Greece, for example, is but the glorious end product of the process, despite the democratic/capitalist detour that plagued it for a thousand years.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Not buying the _socialist_ spin. 

Cuba is a Communist dictatorship modeled after the Soviet Stalinist model as compared to what it was under Batista....a Capitalist US controlled dictatorship modeled after any other Latin American dictatorial regime.

The only losers continue to be the Cuban people.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Socialism is not a thing but a process, the process by which the working classes of the city and countryside and their allies seize the reins of society to satisfy their shared needs, then divide an ever-decreasing share of the collective pie, with the lion's share consumed by the political class. As self-sufficiency and productivity declines, so does the size of the delicious pie.
> 
> The exciting socialism of modern-day Greece, for example, is but the glorious end product of the process, despite the democratic/capitalist detour that plagued it for a thousand years.


Right on, Comrade Macfury. "Stand up, all victims of oppression, for the tyrants fear your might." Paix, mon ami.

YouTube - The Communist Internationale (Original, with English Lyrics)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> Not buying the _socialist_ spin.
> 
> Cuba is a Communist dictatorship modeled after the Soviet Stalinist model as compared to what it was under Batista....a Capitalist US controlled dictatorship modeled after any other Latin American dictatorial regime.
> 
> The only losers continue to be the Cuban people.


When was the last time you were on the island, kps? How's your Spanish? Can you describe the Cuban political system off the top of your head? Explain why it's a dictatorship?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, I'd like to know the answer to that one too.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> When was the last time you were on the island, kps? How's your Spanish? Can you describe the Cuban political system off the top of your head? Explain why it's a dictatorship?


Is this a quiz? Didn't know I was back in school. LOL

Your agenda is clear and so is your bias, Mark. Let's leave it at that.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max said:


> Yeah, I'd like to know the answer to that one too.


For you...anything.

1/ Never, but plan on being in one of the "hard currency" generating resorts next February

2/ My spanish is non-existent. Except for ordering a cerveza.

3/ Fidel dominated dictatorship with one party elections.

4/ No multi party elections, no opposition, etc, etc, etc,


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Then dare I suggest, you have no idea of what you are criticizing. 

I've entertained extended discussions on the matter of Cuba's political system here on ehMac (some of which you have participated in) (1, 2, 3, 4) - see the marathon threads with the late MacNutt.

Suffice it to say, my present reality (four years living in Mexico) combined with some 19 visits to Cuba, none of those as a tourist, allow me to state that multiple parties do not a democracy make. It is possible to have a highly participatory democracy, a là Cuba, with NO political parties (in Cuba the communist party is forbidden by law from endorsing / supporting / choosing candidates for political office).

If you'd like a reading list, I'd be happy to oblige.

M.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> Then dare I suggest, you have no idea of what you are criticizing.
> 
> I've entertained extended discussions on the matter of Cuba's political system here on ehMac (some of which you have participated in) (1, 2, 3, 4) - see the marathon threads with the late MacNutt.
> 
> ...


Cuba is a democracy? Communist party is forbidden by law...etc, etc, 

Are you kidding me?

Thanks for reminding me of some of those past threads.

What's wrong with what I've written here from 2004:



> Yes, it's time for Fidel to go. He is the last of the old-style communist dictators.
> 
> For all the bad (oppression, Angola, subversions in Latin America) Castro did do a lot of good for the Cuban people. His domestic policies made the Cubans some of the most educated people in Latin America and excellent public health care made them well taken care of. During the height of communism (1960-1990) the Cubans lived pretty good, isolated (aside from the communist sphere), but quite comfortable. Overall, Cuba's standard of living was higher than most Latin American (or Caribbean) countries.
> 
> ...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

kps said:


> For you...anything.
> 
> 1/ Never, but plan on being in one of the "hard currency" generating resorts next February
> 
> ...


Castro was the most democratic thing that happened to Cuba since the end of the 19th century, particularly 1898. Castro is a product of 1898. Castro removed Batista who was an American sponsored dictator that effectively continued the efficacy of the Platt Amendment after the Good Neighbour Policy came into the lexicon of American FP.

Tell me Allende was an undemocratic dictator too! That's what the Americans said right? It's got to be true.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Adrian. said:


> Castro was the most democratic thing that happened to Cuba


Then Adrian, you do not know or understand the meaning of the word _democratic_.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

No - not kidding you. It's the law. It's documented. It's a matter of academic record. Though there are plenty of criticisms of the candidate selection process at the provincial and national levels, it remains a valid process (as valid as any in the Western world.

As for your quote, this piece in particular requires comment: *"(oppression, Angola, subversions in Latin America)"*

What many of Cuba's critics refer to as *"oppression"* were actions taken to defend the Revolution (and Cuba's sovereignty) from very real U.S. terrorism and subversion. Bombings in Cuban cities. Biological warfare undertaken against Cuba's agriculture. Assassination attempts. Are you really so unaware of global history as to be able to avoid recognizing the US's documented history of fomenting dissent? Many people tout as a contemporary example of Cuba's "repression" the jailing of 75 "dissidents" in 2003... they're also often referred to as "independent journalists." Cuba provided ample evidence of the close ties, financial support, direction and cooperation of these "dissidents" with the U.S. Quite unexpectedly, a number of those people's co-dissidents, themselves very well-known internationally, were revealed to be members of Cuba's intelligence service... people who had been on the inside and revealed U.S. meddling in great detail. Naturally, that part of the story is completely forgotten (intentionally?) by the mainsteam media when discussing the fate of these poor "dissidents". Cuba, like the USA, has laws against its citizens acting in concert with a foreign power to sow dissent... it's called sedition.

*Angola:* Strongly disagree. Angola is one of Cuba's shining historical moments. No less than Nelson Mandela has credited Cuba's support of the legitimate government of Angola against the invading South African army as essential to the eventual downfall of Apartheid and the independence of Namibia. Do some reading on _Cuito Cuanavale_. The US was very adept at playing the media game at the time, by the way... claiming to Western readers that Cuban troops were in Angola first, as a provocation. Total blatant lie. South African troops entered, engaged Angolan forces, and Angola requested Cuban support. There is a famous quote - I'll have to dig up the reference - that says 


> "...Amilcar Cabral, the celebrated leader of the liberation struggle in Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde, emphasized that "Cuba made no demands; it gave us unconditional aid" (Gleijeses, 2001: 198). Cuba is often described as the only foreign country to have come to Africa and gone away with nothing but the coffins of its sons and daughters. As Thenjiwe Mtintso, South Africa's ambassador to Cuba, has put it: "No country has given as much to the world as Cuba. No country has received so little materially from the world as Cuba" (2004)."
> 
> (Saney, I. "African Stalingrad: The Cuban Revolution, Internationalism,
> and the End of Apartheid" _LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES_,
> Issue 150, Vol. 33 No. 5, September 2006 81-117)​


And... "*subversions in Latin America"*? Oy vey. Well... one can debate the merits of Cuban support for anti-imperialist / anti-colonialist forces in the region vis-a-vis the extremely horrendous actions taken by the US in the region in the same period... I'll side with Cuba's vision for the Americas over that of Washington's any day. Cuba wasn't hoping to secure mining rights, access to petroleum or timber, nor did they facilitate such programs as Operation Condor.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

This isn't about the wrong doings of the US of A, it's about Cuba.

You lefties like to quote and use as proof facts from oganisations like Amnesty Int'l and HRW, etc.

Hmmm, let's see what they have to say about opression in Cuba.

Cuba | Amnesty International

Cuba | Human Rights Watch

Gee, who would have thought?

Ahhh yes the Cold War era. I do not defend either side in that endeavor.

As far as Cuba's excursions in Africa. Cuba acted as a Soviet proxy in support of SWAPO and the MPLA. Both supported by the Soviet Union in their Cold War efforts in Africa. 

...and let's not forget the Soviet missiles in Cuba which brought the Cold War nearly to a hot one.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

As someone who considers himself a conservative, and has mostly disdain for the Canadian left, I was surprised at my own reactions to REAL socialism when I was in Cuba this winter. Freedom is such a relative term. Their way would never fly in a society like ours that is used to selfish excess, and me-first entitlement. Yet, I still found myself mostly envying the life Cubans live, untainted by American consumerism.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Bsenka, I don't know that "real" socialism characterizes Cuba, but I agree with your observation about the Cuban people and what they are like as a result of being so cruelly deprived of giant flat panels, iPhones, Playstations, tanning beds, breast implants, boxy, [email protected] furniture (no money down for two years!) and the like.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Max said:


> Bsenka, I don't know that "real" socialism characterizes Cuba, but I agree with your observation about the Cuban people and what they are like as a result of being so cruelly deprived of giant flat panels, iPhones, Playstations, tanning beds, breast implants, boxy, [email protected] furniture (no money down for two years!) and the like.


When I say "real" socialism, I mean from an economic and employment perspective. It's a mind bender to come to realize that virtually everyone you talk to, regardless of the job they do, is a government employee.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

One thing you can say is that socialism has made men millionaires overnight. 

Unfortunately, they were billionaires the day before and peasants the day after.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> You lefties like to quote and use as proof facts from oganisations like Amnesty Int'l and HRW, etc.


Not this one. Amnesty, perhaps the most trustworthy of the HR groups, nonetheless tends to ignore the geopolitical context of the USA's current ongoing efforts to destabilize Cuba. As for HRW and that CIA front group, Reporters Without Borders (If I were Doctors Without Borders I'd consider suing those bastards for tarnishing a good name).... their ties to the US seriously damage their credibility.



kps said:


> As far as Cuba's excursions in Africa. Cuba acted as a Soviet proxy in support of SWAPO and the MPLA. Both supported by the Soviet Union in their Cold War efforts in Africa.


Uh, no. You have it wrong. The Soviet Union was expressly against Cuba's assistance to Angola during that period. Time to read a book or two.



kps said:


> ...and let's not forget the Soviet missiles in Cuba which brought the Cold War nearly to a hot one.


Oh, and the US missiles in Turkey that threatened the USSR (and which were part of the secret behind-the-scenes gesture by the USA to defuse the Missile Crisis) were just firecrackers? Your reading of history contains a few gaps, I daresay.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps: never mind. Once Cuba is done assimilating all of the Americans seeking a better life in Cuba...

Oh, wait--it's the other way around.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

You know I think Lennon had it right [ that's John not Vladimir...and it's Lenin not Lennon ] too many "isms" are not a good thing.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> This isn't about the wrong doings of the US of A, it's about Cuba.
> 
> You lefties like to quote and use as proof facts from oganisations like Amnesty Int'l and HRW, etc.
> 
> ...


 "digging a hole and throwing dirt on top of yourself" comes to mind. 

Informative posts CM...things I never knew.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sorry dudes, I'm not a rabble-rouser in Mexico or a Teamster organiser in Moncton. I work for a living.

Very busy day at work and leaving town for the long weekend, so talk to y'all on Tuesday.

P.S. BigDL, your wife must hate it when you come home all covered in dirt.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*A good read on the Municipal elections which have just concluded in Cuba:*












> What is the dissident’s standing in the neighbourhood? Daysi claimed in the interview that this citizen never participates in any meeting, or political and recreation activity. Armando Nelson Padrón, the president of the consejo popular, added that Silvio is a person “who does not work, he has never done anything for his neighbours or any other citizen in this town. He never moved even one grain of sand to improve the life of this population. It is for this reason that he has no following in the nomination assembly and this is why people did not vote for him in as a candidate.”


*The Elected Delegate and the Dissident in Cuba’s Municipal Elections*

M


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm baaaack! After a grueling fight on the 400 trying to get back to town.



CubaMark said:


> Not this one. Amnesty, perhaps the most trustworthy of the HR groups, nonetheless tends to ignore the geopolitical context of the USA's current ongoing efforts to destabilize Cuba. As for HRW and that CIA front group, Reporters Without Borders (If I were Doctors Without Borders I'd consider suing those bastards for tarnishing a good name).... their ties to the US seriously damage their credibility.


Based on your own link, Reporters Without Borders seems like a French organization and not a CIA front group. 




> Uh, no. You have it wrong. The Soviet Union was expressly against Cuba's assistance to Angola during that period. Time to read a book or two.


Interesting link. But the Soviets still supported the MPLA/SWAPO side, whether the liked Cuban intervention/support or not. As far as South Africa and any CIA connections are concerned...hey, I'm not that naive. I have no love for US involvement in many affairs during the post war and cold war eras. They probably fu%^&& up more things rather than letting them play out. *Cuba being one of them.
*


> Oh, and the US missiles in Turkey that threatened the USSR (and which were part of the secret behind-the-scenes gesture by the USA to defuse the Missile Crisis) were just firecrackers? Your reading of history contains a few gaps, I daresay.


Absolutely, and lets not forget missiles in parts of western Europe. No gaps on my part amigo, all I was saying is that in that particular event we came very close to total annihilation. Khrushchev backed down, and good thing he did.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

But in fact, Krushchev did not "back down" - he successfully obtained a concession from the US to remove the missiles from Turkey.

We need to remember that the vast majority of what we have in our heads as "fact" or "common knowledge" of the period comes from decades of messages which have seeped into our heads from the official line, history books, pop culture / hollywood, etc. Truth is rarely a part of that "knowledge".

This is why it is exceedingly rare to encounter in mainstream media anything resembling an accurate portrayal of historical or contemporary Cuba. That nation was a "cold war enemy" of the US, and our perceptions of Cuba have been skewed as a result. Most reporters who cover Cuba today were toddlers, if they were even born, during the Cuban Missile Crisis - they have only the "presumed knowledge" to inform their current opinions and reportage, unless they have taken the time to educate themselves... something that IMHO is unlikely. You also don't get very far in the MSM as a reporter when you run counter to that "knowledge" that everyone else holds as fact.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> But in fact, Krushchev did not "back down" - he successfully obtained a concession from the US to remove the missiles from Turkey.
> 
> We need to remember that the vast majority of what we have in our heads as "fact" or "common knowledge" of the period comes from decades of messages which have seeped into our heads from the official line, history books, pop culture / hollywood, etc. Truth is rarely a part of that "knowledge".
> 
> This is why it is exceedingly rare to encounter in mainstream media anything resembling an accurate portrayal of historical or contemporary Cuba. That nation was a "cold war enemy" of the US, and our perceptions of Cuba have been skewed as a result. Most reporters who cover Cuba today were toddlers, if they were even born, during the Cuban Missile Crisis - they have only the "presumed knowledge" to inform their current opinions and reportage, unless they have taken the time to educate themselves... something that IMHO is unlikely. You also don't get very far in the MSM as a reporter when you run counter to that "knowledge" that everyone else holds as fact.


Well perhaps, but the Soviet politburo viewed it differently and sent Khrushchev out to pasture.

As someone with ties to eastern Europe, I have as much knowledge of the events from that point of view as I have from western media, history and "pop culture/Hollywood".

I also know that Castro thought the Americans would end up supporting him. When they didn't and instead tried to overthrow the _revolucion_, he turned to the Soviets for help and protection. 

BTW, a week or so ago there was an interesting documentary here on the CBC about all the attempts on Castro's life...Linky.
Enjoyed watching it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"But in fact, Krushchev did not "back down" - he successfully obtained a concession from the US to remove the missiles from Turkey." CM, these missles were going to be dismantled and withdrawn anyway. Those two weeks in October were some of my most fearful moments, living in NYC at the time, which was one of the main attack points for Russian missles if WWIII broke out.

That said, I think that the US should lift the embargo of Cuba. Sadly, I fear that once Castro finally dies, the US will start to pour in its "signs of capitalism", and there will be golden arches and Holiday Inns throughout the island. We shall see.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I highly recommend Estela Bravo's documentary, *Fidel*. There's a scene in the film that is quite funny and moving... Fidel is reading out the names of the privatized U.S. corporations in public... he loses his voice, whether from exhaustion or emotion, and passes the paper on to Raúl. When he reads aloud, "United Fruit Company" the crowd erupts in applause...

*kps:* _"I also know that Castro thought the Americans would end up supporting him. When they didn't and instead tried to overthrow the revolucion, he turned to the Soviets for help and protection."_

Far more insidious than just not supporting Castro... the U.S. instructed American-owned oil refineries not to process Russian-origin crude oil. Cuba - which needed the petroleum - used this as a pretext to nationalize the refineries, and eventually many other foreign-owned companies and lands (an entirely legal process, by the way, with restitution paid to all non-US companies and individuals. US companies and individuals were blocked by the US from negotiating settlements, keeping this nationalization "issue" alive for over 50 years now).

The US also cancelled its purchase of Cuban sugar - the islands #1 money-earner, and the US had been its SOLE market for Cuban sugar historically. Cuba may have been predisposed to Soviet trade ties, but this action by the US certainly pushed them in that direction.

It is a profound error of Cuban critics to see it as simply a Soviet-derivative in the caribbean. This ignores Cuba's history, struggles for independence and nationalism. It's no suprise that a superpower ally such as the USSR had enormous influence on Cuba during the 60s-80s, however, it never was just a satellite of the Kremlin. Cuba's socialism is its own. That's one of the reasons U.S. foreign policy towards the island failed (and continues to fail) miserably for over half a century.

*Dr.G*: The idea of golden arches in Havana is as anathema to the Cubans as it is to you. Bad enough there's one on Cuban soil at Guatánamo Bay.

One aspect of Cuba's amazing recovery from the Special Period of the 1990s has been its policies on foreign investment. Unlike the rest of the developing world, which was ordered by the World Bank / IMF / "Development" institutions to throw open the regulatory borders to foreign capitalists, Cuba knew it had a product - beaches & climate - that were highly sought after by tourism companies. Cuba set the rules: 51% Cuban ownership of any joint venture project to build resorts, etc.; limited-term contracts (up to 20 years); guaranteed minimum profit return to investors. It was controlled investment that addressed Cuban national development priorities, guaranteed the state new sources of income which fed social programs and national infrastructure projects, and at the end of the contract, those properties reverted to 100% Cuban ownership. The investors got their profit and a foot in the door for future investment opportunities (many of them anticipating that Cuba would "go capitalist" once Fidel dies).

Tourism saved Cuba's ass in the 1990s, there is no doubt. It also brought with it enormous negative impacts in society (diverted workers, unbalanced incomes, social stratification, prostitution). The Cuban government used the new breathing space to invest in other areas of the economy... particularly with the help of Canadian mining company Sherritt, and the development of nickel mines in eastern Cuba (nickel at one point overtook tourism as the #1 source of foreign exchange). Tourism now lies at #3 as a money-earner, with the sale of international medical services coming in at #1 (though a great deal of Cuba's international medical brigades are not undertaken with any payment, such as the amazing work of Cuban doctors in Haiti).

One thing that drives me a little mad with general news coverage of Cuba is the intellectual deficiency that exists among those who see Cubans being given new license to operate small businesses (bicycle repair, etc.) as evidence that the country is "going capitalist". Obviously some people have a difficulty understanding the concept of capitalism vis-à-vis small-scale enterprise. The latter can exist within socialism and represents no threat to the broader society or economy... this is perhaps the most significant error of Cuba's early revolutionary fervor, and one that is (very slowly) being rectified.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Dr.G: The idea of golden arches in Havana is as anathema to the Cubans as it is to you. Bad enough there's one on Cuban soil at Guatánamo Bay." I agree, CM, but I fear that once Castro dies, American dollars will start to flow into the area. I know that this will help the people if it helps the economy, but at what cost to their culture? We shall see.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> "Dr.G: The idea of golden arches in Havana is as anathema to the Cubans as it is to you. Bad enough there's one on Cuban soil at Guatánamo Bay." I agree, CM, but I fear that once Castro dies, American dollars will start to flow into the area. I know that this will help the people if it helps the economy, but at what cost to their culture? We shall see.


My guess? Look to Eastern Europe of the early 90's to see one possible scenario for Cuba. Except Cuba can't join the EU or NATO after a few years of free elections. 

I'd like to see the post-Fidel Cubans hold fast which may actually occur with Raul at the reigns. Will the US embargo be lifted after Fidel's demise? That is the question.

Even though me and Mark butt heads over ideology, I really don't understand the US embargo under the current administration. The expat Cubans in Miami certainly didn't vote for Obama, so I can't see him pandering to them.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

kps, Cuba has taken a long, hard look at post-USSR Eastern Europe and they know well enough not to go that route.... besides, as I've stated above, Cuba is not USSR-lite in the tropics. Totally different animal.

As for the dig about "free elections" - also as I alluded to earlier, multi-party elections do not a democracy make. Man, for the record let me state again, Mexico is seriously fubar'd.

The post-Castro (Fidel & Raúl) period will be the only point in which U.S. foreign policy make take a serious turn. US policy toward Cuba currently states that there will be no lifting of the embargo so long as Fidel or Raúl are a part of any future government (even if one were to be held using multiple parties, in which Raúl might well win). They've hamstrung themselves on policy.

On the issue of Cuba, Obama has been a major disappointment (is there anyone - left or right - for whom he has fulfilled the "promise of change"??).

I have no great fear that the end of the embargo will result in massive amounts of US investment in Cuba, resulting in McDonald's and Wal-Mart on every other corner. Much as the US and Cuba have a particular historical relation that would, in the absence of imperialist politics, make them natural friends & trading partners, Cubans' sense of nationalism will override that degree of corporate / cultural acquiescence.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> kps, Cuba has taken a long, hard look at post-USSR Eastern Europe and they know well enough not to go that route.... besides, as I've stated above, Cuba is not USSR-lite in the tropics. Totally different animal.


Against my gut instinct, I'll defer to your more intimate knowledge of current Cuba. Note: I said current.



> As for the dig about "free elections" - also as I alluded to earlier, multi-party elections do not a democracy make. Man, for the record let me state again, Mexico is seriously fubar'd.


All I was saying is that there will certainly be a period of confusion and uncertainty as there was in the early '90s in eastern Europe, the former soviet republics and Russia itself. If the Cubans learned from that, so much the better.



> The post-Castro (Fidel & Raúl) period will be the only point in which U.S. foreign policy make take a serious turn. US policy toward Cuba currently states that there will be no lifting of the embargo so long as Fidel or Raúl are a part of any future government (even if one were to be held using multiple parties, in which Raúl might well win). They've hamstrung themselves on policy.


Policies can change, a lot will depend on the succession and how it's handled. If Raul must go (after Fidel's death) then he must go. If he's smart, he'll step down and hold elections without him running. Best thing he could do for the people of Cuba. If he insists on holding power, then he's no different than his brother or any other Latin American dictator...whether on the right or the left.




> I have no great fear that the end of the embargo will result in massive amounts of US investment in Cuba, resulting in McDonald's and Wal-Mart on every other corner. Much as the US and Cuba have a particular historical relation that would, in the absence of imperialist politics, make them natural friends & trading partners, Cubans' sense of nationalism will override that degree of corporate / cultural acquiescence.


Is there any doubt? Fourty plus years of political and nationalistic indoctrination will probably work in Cuba's favour in the post-Fidel era. For better or worse, but I'd like to think for the better.

Personally, I feel the world has changed (somewhat) and that the old school 19th century imperialism, early 20th century American/British/French expansion and cold war policies no longer play a role in today's world. Both Fidel and the Americans need to realize this and move on.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Cuba faces shortage of sugar, coffee. As one pundit put it, if you put Cuban socialists in charge of the Sahara, they would run out of sand:

Editorial: Cuba facing record-breaking coffee shortage | ScrippsNews



> With suspicious haste, Cuba's communist government abruptly announced it would let private farmers cultivate their crops on government land. Now we have an inkling why: The government wanted to get out while the getting was good.
> 
> The Communist Party newspaper Granma is bracing the population for a severe coffee shortage. Cuba was once a major coffee exporter. At the time of the revolution it was producing 60,000 tons annually and, as recently as the '70s, 28,000 to 30,000 tons a year.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

VD


> There are no capitalist or communist countries in the world. We are all socialists and that even includes GW Bush.
> 
> The only debate is where that line is drawn. For example, most industrialized countries have government run health care programs, while the US does not.


for once we are in complete agreement....

ALL _*soci*_eties/states have a degree of socially owned/run institutions and most now have private - even Cuba has started finally.

The argument is indeed where to draw the line and in some cases it's not bad practice to have a mix in the same field for certain reasons. ( facility insurance in Ontario for instance ).

It's the stupid polemics on both sides that annoy me to no end.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> ALL _*soci*_eties/states have a degree of socially owned/run institutions and most now have private - even Cuba has started finally/


That coffee plantation allows private companies to plant trees on _government-owned_ land. They will own nothing but the plants--and this is not simply like growing one season of wheat on a piece of land leased from the government.

The best mix of public vs. private? The one with the least pubic ownership possible. Technology is making private ownership far more likely as we can now track the use of almost anything, and bill it to the user.



> The argument is indeed where to draw the line and in some cases it's not bad practice to have a mix in the same field for certain reasons. ( facility insurance in Ontario for instance ).


Where do you draw the line when there's a leech caught between your toes? As long as they're willing blood donors, consenting adults should be allowed to engage in socialist fun all they like--but not force anyone else to play Henry Higgins.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Vandave said:


> There are no capitalist or communist countries in the world. We are all socialists and that even includes GW Bush.
> 
> The only debate is where that line is drawn. For example, most industrialized countries have government run health care programs, while the US does not.


While I agree that there are no pure capitalist or communist countries in the world, I strongly disagree with your suggestion that all countries are socialist. 

Canada has a mixed economy, with a strong social safety net. It is not a socialist country.

While the US also has a mixed economy, it has a relatively weak social safety net. If anything, it is beginning to resemble a mixed capitalist/feudal economy with large MNC taking the place of feudal lords.

The use of communism and socialism in the US is for shock value. By affixing the term "socialist" the idea is immediately dismissed from the public discourse as being undesirable. The US media and MNCs have done a wonderful job miseducating the US public just what the term mean and how they would affect the average citizen.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not a socialist country. It is an absolute monarchy.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Macfury said:


> In most of the areas listed, the government is doing a terrible job. The USPS and Canada Post should be embarrassed that they prevent other companies from competing with them on letter mail--not proud.
> 
> If we posted the actual performance records of most of those government agencies, instead of stating their goals or intentions, we could easily show that they are not qualified to handle health care either.


You are absolutely correct is saying that the private sector would do a better job of delivering the main in a more efficient manner. Which means that Toronto and Montreal would probably get 2X a day delivery, especially to business addresses in the dense corporate towers. But places like Wawa where there is little profit to be made would have once a week delivery, at 3 times the price.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Britnell said:


> But places like Wawa where there is little profit to be made would have once a week delivery, at 3 times the price.


That might be the cost associated with living in Wawa. Years ago, prior to governments getting into bed with unions, twice daily delivery was the norm. In those days it might have been a more difficult sell to convince people that privatization represented a huge advantage. I stopped in at my local Canada Post Outlet today and was once again amazed at the leaden pace of the workers, and their qualude-style service.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That might be the cost associated with living in Wawa. Years ago, prior to governments getting into bed with unions, twice daily delivery was the norm. In those days it might have been a more difficult sell to convince people that privatization represented a huge advantage. I stopped in at my local Canada Post Outlet today and was once again amazed at the leaden pace of the workers, and their qualude-style service.


:yawn:

Where is your proof of Governments getting into bed with Unions?

Seems to me there are far more Canada Post outlets with leaden service and Quaalude-style service in private locations with non-union staff. Must be as true as your "facts" 'cause I just said it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Where is your proof of Governments getting into bed with Unions?


The fact that unionized government workers make significantly higher wages and collect significantly higher benefits than private sector workers. That they get sweetheart retirement deals and are near impossible to let go.



BigDL said:


> Seems to me there are far more Canada Post outlets with leaden service and Quaalude-style service in private locations with non-union staff. Must be as true as your "facts" 'cause I just said it.


I would say that I get faster service in the non-union shops--but that's just my experience. Even if the service were just as leaden they are doing the work for less.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The fact that unionized government workers make significantly higher wages and collect significantly higher benefits than private sector workers. That they get sweetheart retirement deals and are near impossible to let go.


Unionised workers in the private sector enjoy higher wages and have better benefits and pensions than comparable non-unionised workers.

That's the benefit of bargaining collectively.





> I would say that I get faster service in the non-union shops--but that's just my experience. Even if the service were just as leaden they are doing the work for less.


Hardly proof of bedmates.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> That's the benefit of bargaining collectively.


If unions merely engaged in collective bargaining on the strength of withdrawing their skill set from the workplace, most unions would fold like tents. It's the benefit of having government on their side that allows unions to hold companies hostage when they withhold the services of workers with widely available skills.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> If unions merely engaged in collective bargaining on the strength of withdrawing their skill set from the workplace, most unions would fold like tents. It's the benefit of having government on their side that allows unions to hold companies hostage when they withhold the services of workers with widely available skills.


You tell 'em, Macfury. What do those labor union bums want?????

YouTube - Samuel Gompers - What does the working man want?

YouTube - Labor Day - Solidarity Forever

YouTube - Pete Seeger & Arlo Guthrie - Union Maid

YouTube - pete seeger which side are you on

YouTube - Solidarity Forever (Pete Seeger)

Look through some of these clips and show me where the government was standing beside the union men and women.

FYI, very rarely has the federal, state or municipal governments here in Canada or the US been on the side of unions, especially in the late 19th/early to mid-20th century. The only way you are going to be able to rewrite that history is to burn all the history books ............ and lock up all the people who have read these books. No easy task, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> FYI, very rarely has the federal, state or municipal governments here in Canada or the US been on the side of unions, especially in the late 19th/early to mid-20th century. The only way you are going to be able to rewrite that history is to burn all the history books ............ and lock up all the people who have read these books. No easy task, mon ami. Paix.



Dr. G., I was referring to strikebreaking laws and those legislating against secret balloting. I support unions as long as they get no more government support than the companies against which they're striking.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Dr. G., I was referring to strikebreaking laws and those legislating against secret balloting. I support unions as long as they get no more government support than the companies against which they're striking.


I will agree with you to a point. I am not in favor of non-secret ballots re a strike. However, as I mentioned, you shall see mainly governmental support on a local, state/provincial, national level if you look at the history of the labor movement. That is the point I was trying to make with you, in that you cannot ignore the history of this movement and how/why it came about in North America. I have been involved in only one strike, which I voted by secret ballot against, and have experienced the effects of some strikes, both here and in the US. 

My grandparents, who came to America in 1903, worked near the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in 1911. Both were proud members of The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union. So, I guess I come by my respect for some unions naturally.

Still, try as you might, you can't rewrite history. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Still, try as you might, you can't rewrite history. Paix, mon ami.


No intention of rewriting history, Dr. G. As I say, I have nothing but unmitigated support for the concept of a union that withdraws its labour in order to negotiate a better deal. At the same time, I don't want government to reshuffle the deck by mitigating the outcome of withdrawing that labour to those who choose to do it. 

However, when the City of Toronto had a municipal garbage strike, I can see no reason that a private company should not be allowed to do what it can to pick up garbage in the interim. Is it not enough that professional civic sanitation workers are withdrawing their services and showing residents why they ought to be paid more to return?


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> The fact that unionized government workers make significantly higher wages and collect significantly higher benefits than private sector workers. That they get sweetheart retirement deals and are near impossible to let go.


You have an odd definition of "fact." Either that or my wife is hiding about $30K from me every year and has even gone so far as faking her T4 and pay stubs. But I don't think she would do that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> You have an odd definition of "fact." Either that or my wife is hiding about $30K from me every year and has even gone so far as faking her T4 and pay stubs. But I don't think she would do that.


You're both working at the same profession?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> You're both working at the same profession?


I can't comment on hayesk's situation, but I can say that in the sciences, researchers working for the private sector will make significantly more than their peers working in the public sector.

I understand the point you're trying to make, and I agree that unionization tends to inflate wages and reduce competitiveness. On the other hand, the free market tends to abuse workers and the environment, and leads to many injustices and unfortunate outcomes of its own. So, as always, the challenge any society faces is where to find the balance. Personally, I'm for erring on the side of protecting people and the environment, even if it means our economy may not be as efficient as it could be.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I understand the point you're trying to make, and I agree that unionization tends to inflate wages and reduce competitiveness. On the other hand, the free market tends to abuse workers and the environment, and leads to many injustices and unfortunate outcomes of its own. So, as always, the challenge any society faces is where to find the balance. Personally, I'm for erring on the side of protecting people and the environment, even if it means our economy may not be as efficient as it could be.


I would (idealistically, perhaps) like to see unions go in force only as and where needed. 

Do I think unions have done a lot to ensure better and fairer working environments? Yes. Do I think that if the unions disbanded today, everything would go to hell? Probably not. There are other systems in place now to ensure these things. 

Though to be honest, I'm not sure I've seen unions used to protect the environment. Workers, yes. Environment, no.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed, Sonal. Workers get protected within union, whereas mere lip service tends to be paid to protecting the environment. Strictly optics, mind - like many governmental environmental programs, come to think of it.

BryanC: agreed with your observations regarding the unfortunate extremes of union schemes and free market schemes alike.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Cuba faces shortage of sugar, coffee. As one pundit put it, if you put Cuban socialists in charge of the Sahara, they would run out of sand:
> 
> Editorial: Cuba facing record-breaking coffee shortage | ScrippsNews


Yup, it's a disaster. And while inefficiencies and inexperienced workers play a role, there is also the environmental angle:



> *Heavy Rains Damage Coffee Harvest in Santiago de Cuba
> *
> SANTIAGO DE CUBA, Cuba, Sep 30 (acn) The heavy rains that affected eastern Santiago de Cuba caused the coffee harvest to be halt, and workers prepared to continue as soon as the weather allows them.
> 
> ...


The Guantanamo, Cuba news site SolVision has another take on the situation, and what has to be done to recover:

Coffee is not Heaven-Sent

Let's also not forget the economic context in which Cuba exists: a 50-year economic embargo, better described as a blockade, which has kept fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, etc. out of the hands of Cuban producers. Those morons in Miami who continue to yammer about how "Cuba can trade with the whole world! The blockade is nothing!" get far too much attention in the international press. The embargo has far-reaching effects which result in a higher costs to Cuba which has to purchase goods on alternative markets, while its products are not permitted to be sold on the top-tier commodities markets, for example. The Helms-Burton Act and the Torricelli Act both have extraterritorial application, which Canada (ineffectually and embarrassingly) amended it's own FEMA act but has *never* bothered to enforce it's own laws.

Criticism of Cuban socialism's economic inefficiencies are as valid as criticisms of the alienation of capitalism: but applied in the Cuban context, you must remember that the country has one leg and one arm tied behind its back. Lift the embargo, allow Cuba to have normal global economic relations, and _then_ you can go mad with your criticisms. Until then, no discussion of Cuba's economic performance is even remotely legitimate without taking into consideration the U.S. embargo.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

One more thing: critics of the Cuban Revolution lose their minds when they have something like the coffee harvest crop failure to which to point. 

*But they'll never talk about Cuba's success stories*, at least not in any positive way. Look at Cuba's creation, from scratch of a globally-recognized pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. 



> Even today, many years after it was proved effective, the Cuban vaccine against meningitis B is still ignored by industrialised countries, whose medical literature usually states there is no immunisation against that strain of the disease. (Caribbean 360)


The island has created a home-grown industry that has vaccines for meningitis, cholera, malaria, influenza, lung cancer, diabetes treatments, gene therapy, etc. Their success has been recognized to the extent that even the U.S. has made a very rare exception to the embargo. 

But then,_ Cuba has always been held to a different standard..._


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark: I would never say that nothing good could come out of Cuba--I just found it rather incredible that both coffee and sugar could be in short supply there.

Regarding the U.S. trade embargo--isn't the rest of the world good enough to trade with? 

All: I don't equate unions with socialism to begin with. The free exchange and withdrawal of labour and the right of free association is a hallmark of freedom. I equate government legislation that inflates the power of unions with socialism.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Regarding the U.S. trade embargo--isn't the rest of the world good enough to trade with?
> .


It doesn't work that way. The US imposes punitive measures against companies that trade with Cuba. They take a "if you do business with Cuba, we won't do business with you" approach.

If your ship docks in Cuba, for example, you aren't allowed to dock in the U.S. for 6 months. Also, if a foreign company has US ownership, they are forbidden to trade with Cuba. The latter has kicked Cuba in the sack more than once when they HAD a good arrangement with a European company, only to have an American one invest in it or buy it, then the supply is suddenly yanked.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> CubaMark: I would never say that nothing good could come out of Cuba--I just found it rather incredible that both coffee and sugar could be in short supply there.
> 
> Regarding the U.S. trade embargo--isn't the rest of the world good enough to trade with?
> 
> All: I don't equate unions with socialism to begin with. The free exchange and withdrawal of labour and the right of free association is a hallmark of freedom. I equate government legislation that inflates the power of unions with socialism.


I believe that Unions are the socialist face of peoples reaction to Capitalism in their employment, as Co-operatives are a socialist face of peoples reaction to capitalism in markets, and Credit Unions are socialist face of peoples reaction to banking.

Any government legislation deflates the power of Unions in North America.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Regarding the U.S. trade embargo--isn't the rest of the world good enough to trade with?


Really? You're going to make me do this again? Sigh.

A cursory search of ehMac using the word "embargo" will find a few dozen threads in which the late MacNutt and I went at it over all things Cuba, including the embargo. Here's a link to one such discussion.

And... here's what the Cubans have to say. (English landing page of http://www.cubavsbloqueo)

Some excerpts from the HEALTH section:



> The companies that manufacture equipment and reagents for diagnostic purposes are, in 70% of cases, U.S.-owned. As a consequence, the supplies needed for the work of clinical laboratories must be imported from Europe, at much higher prices. For example, the companies Beckman-Coulter, Dade-Behring, Abbot and Bayer do not allow the sale of their technologies to Cuba, and some of these are the only ones of their kind in the world.





> The purchase of cytostatics, vital for these children's survival, has been seriously affected by the fact that U.S. transnationals have bought the pharmaceutical laboratories that formerly had contracts with Cuba.





> Dr. Roberto Fernández, head of the Biosecurity Department of the Pedro Kourí Tropical Medicine Institute, requested a biosecurity catalogue from a major U.S. company, a normal practice used by scientific centers around the world to obtain updated information on products available on the world market. Dr. Fernández received a fax from the above-mentioned company informing him that it would be impossible to send the catalogue, given the prohibitions imposed by the U.S. State Department.





> The U.S. company Lifeline Technology is the sole manufacturer of vaccine vial monitors (VVMs). In 1999, as a result of the participation of one of its scientists in the Havana Biotechnology Conference, the company received a letter from the OFAC, reminding it of the prohibition on all commercial, financial or travel-related transactions with Cuba.


Others factors:



> The blockade against Cuba has had a negative impact on the export and import of steel. In the case of stainless steel, which contains nickel among its components, exports have been severely damaged due to the prohibition on the entry into the United States of products containing Cuban nickel. In total, the Cuban steel industry loses 10 million dollars annually as a consequence of the restrictions of the blockade.





> As a result of the prohibition on using the U.S. dollar in its foreign commercial and financial transactions, Cuba is obliged to carry out these operations in the currencies of third countries, despite the fact that most of the products it imports and exports are traded on the world market in U.S. dollars. This has led to considerable economic losses, due to the rise and fall in the dollar in relation to the currencies of the country's main trading partners, since exports are contracted in U.S. currency but payments are made in other currencies.





> The Canadian company Cegerco refused to execute the Screen Wall project at the Parque Central Annex Hotel in Havana, claiming that it had a joint venture in the United States and its partners had informed it that they could not work with Cuba.





> In a project funded by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in the information technology sphere, executed in conjunction with the Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Center (CIGB), the Canadian company Imaging Research Inc. refused to deliver software that had already been paid for, because its primary owner is a U.S. company.





> Despite the fact that roughly 80 cruise liners sail around the Cuban archipelago every week, traveling from ports in Florida to various destinations in the Caribbean and Central and South America, Cuba is denied the possibility of being included in regular itineraries with weekly stopovers in our ports, despite the interest expressed by more than one cruise line.


*NOTE:* the last part - cruise ships? - the Helms-Burton Act forbids ships that have called on a Cuban port from then landing at any U.S. port for a six-month period. Imagine the cost of shipping goods! Ships cannot stop off in Cuba en route to the U.S. - the only option is to ship directly and return to home port. That breaks the efficiencies of large cargo transport, destined for a variety of ports.

PS: In the time it took me to throw all that together, other ehMacers have jumped in. Thanks guys...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Really? You're going to make me do this again?


Sure. Since Cuba doesn't want to accept any normal kind of investment from the world. Why should any country play ball with Cuba? 

Hitching its wagon to the failing imperialist nation that is the U.S. should be the last thing that Cuba should want to do anyway--even with a more socialist friendly face at its helm.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> I believe that Unions are the socialist face of peoples reaction to Capitalism in their employment, as Co-operatives are a socialist face of peoples reaction to capitalism in markets, and Credit Unions are socialist face of peoples reaction to banking.
> 
> Any government legislation deflates the power of Unions in North America.


This is where socialism and libertarianism cross then. I see nothing socialist about banding together voluntarily. Socialism is when such arrangements are forced onto the unwilling.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Cuba doesn't want to accept any normal kind of investment from the world.


What are you talking about?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Sure. Since Cuba doesn't want to accept any normal kind of investment from the world. Why should any country play ball with Cuba?


Uh... _What?_ What do you mean by "normal kind of investment"? Those investors who are willing to risk the wrath of the USA (like Sherritt, the Canadian mining firm which is heavily invested in Cuba, and whose CEO and Board of Directors face arrest and imprisonment if they set try to cross the Peace Bridge) are certainly not "normal" - they're high-risk takers. Clarify please.

Cuba's foreign investment scheme is in fact a model for other developing nations. Rather than roll over and open the doors wide to anyone (e.g., McDonald's), Cuba has prioritized foreign investment in carefully controlled sectors (e.g., Tourism). In the 1990s, that investment was tightly managed - Cuba in 97% of the cases held 51% ownership in the joint venture with foreign partners. The agreements stipulated a guaranteed return on profit over the 15- or 20-year investment agreements. All of the Cuban share of the profits went into funding the extensive state social security system of minimum food rations, education, health, infrastructure, etc.

This is a far cry from, say, Jamaica, where tourism development - completely unbridled - gained that nation a pittance in taxes and salaries to workers while contaminating the hell out of the coastal zones.

Cuba's FDI experience is probably going to be the focus of my post-doc research... shall I mail you a copy of the findings?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bsenka said:


> What are you talking about?


If a foreign firm wants to build a hotel in Cuba, they can never own it--only operate it under strict regulation as CM says above.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macfury said:


> If a foreign firm wants to build a hotel in Cuba, they can never own it--only operate it under strict regulation as CM says above.


They can own a 49% stake. How is that not a legitimate investment in a multi-million dollar resort complex? Projects of that scope usually are multiple investor deals.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bsenka said:


> They can own a 49% stake. How is that not a legitimate investment in a multi-million dollar resort complex? Projects of that scope usually are multiple investor deals.


No outside investor can actually own a hotel--they are forbidden by law. The government owns the controlling stake and can essentially do as it chooses.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

"essentially do as it chooses" within the confines of the terms of the joint venture agreement, which - as I noted - guarantees investors profit return. The investors must not have a problem with the Cuban model, since they've sunk billions of dollars into the tourist sector since the early 1990s.

My argument is that this kind of managed foreign direct investment has huge benefits for Cuba, when contrasted with similar sectoral investment in a highly deregulated context. The Cuban government ensured that its national economic development priorities were addressed, while the foreign investor gains an appropriate return for their investment risk.

Win-win. What's the problem with that?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> "essentially do as it chooses" within the confines of the terms of the joint venture agreement, which - as I noted - guarantees investors profit return. The investors must not have a problem with the Cuban model, since they've sunk billions of dollars into the tourist sector since the early 1990s.
> 
> My argument is that this kind of managed foreign direct investment has huge benefits for Cuba, when contrasted with similar sectoral investment in a highly deregulated context. The Cuban government ensured that its national economic development priorities were addressed, while the foreign investor gains an appropriate return for their investment risk.
> 
> Win-win. What's the problem with that?


I have a question re: the joint venture agreement, you say it guarantees investors profit return. Are there guide lines to that profit return in terms of what is an acceptable return on a percentage basis relative to the initial capital investment?

I mean sure "guarantees investors profit return" sounds great on the face of it, but if it is say .5% or anything less than say 5% when talking multimillion dollar investments it could be peanuts for the investor/developer relative to what their money may return elsewhere.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Then they would not continue to build would they - your answer is obvious - the deal must benefit both AND if it's not a success both stand to lose.

There are long standing joint ventures in Cuba and effectively special economic zones...tho nowhere near the scale of China's 

You can bet Cuba looked at China's success - would not do Canada any harm to take notes either.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Then they would not continue to build would they - your answer is obvious - the deal must benefit both AND if it's not a success both stand to lose.
> 
> There are long standing joint ventures in Cuba and effectively special economic zones...tho nowhere near the scale of China's
> 
> You can bet Cuba looked at China's success - would not do Canada any harm to take notes either.


There is no "obvious" answer at all to a very specific legal question... you didn't answer it and I wasn't asking you.

I'm not trying to be provocative as you obviously seem to think... I was merely asking CM (as *he* has his Phd. in the subject) for more details on the subject.... of which you provided none... So...

Back to looking for an answer from CubaMark, thanks....


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Screature - a very good question! I'll look for a reference document when I get home later this evening.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Then they would not continue to build would they - your answer is obvious - the deal must benefit both AND if it's not a success both stand to lose.


But the quality of bid may be very low and interest fewer bidders with such constraints.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Macfury said:


> This is where socialism and libertarianism cross then. I see nothing socialist about banding together voluntarily. Socialism is when such arrangements are forced onto the unwilling.


Ummmm, I think you need to rethink your approach. Socialism is socialism. If people come together willingly, it is still socialism.

Just as if you live in a capitalist society but don't agree with capitalism, you are being "forced" into a system you are not comfortable with. But that does not automatically make it a fascist dictatorship, does it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Britnell said:


> Ummmm, I think you need to rethink your approach. Socialism is socialism. If people come together willingly, it is still socialism.
> 
> Just as if you live in a capitalist society but don't agree with capitalism, you are being "forced" into a system you are not comfortable with. But that does not automatically make it a fascist dictatorship, does it?


If people willingly co-operate then it is Libertarianism. If people force others to co-operate then it is socialism. If 999,9999 people out of a million willingly co-operate but the millionth individual decides he will not, he may be SOL, but he is still free.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*More evidence that the U.S. "embargo" against Cuba is really more of a blockade...
*


> Access to the SWIFT interbank system may become difficult or impossible for Cuban banks as of March 31, 2012, Cuba says in its annual report to the United Nations about the economic impact of U.S. sanctions.
> 
> The SWIFT financial transmission system plays a crucial role in international banking transactions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So it's a blockade.


----------

