Unicef Confirms 0% Child Malnutrition in Cuba

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Like this? I don't think old Joe is a reality-denying socialist. Oh, and you can see UNICEF's data here. Scroll down to nutrition.

% of under-fives (2000–2007*) suffering from: underweight† (NCHS/WHO): severe - 0

% of under-fives (2000–2007*) suffering from: underweight† (NCHS/WHO): moderate ; & severe - 4

If you want to know where UNICEF gets its data, you can check here and here. UNICEF also site the World Health Organization as a source of data. I personally don't trust the WHO either but there ya go.


Edit: I just found out what the NCHS is. It's the National Center for Health Statistics, run by the CDC.
Apparently, UNICEF also site the NCHS as another source of data. Surely the CDC are a credible source.

Rossibaby

Shadow47 wrote: »

Would you prefer that after they reach US soil they be deported back to Cuba to face a firing squad or imprisonment as a political prisoner? :rolleyes:

No, why would you suggest such a thing?

I'm simply stating a valid reason why some Cubans try to get to America, in fact if similar conditions were offered to Irish people where they were guaranteed a home and a job I'm sure plenty of 'boatloads' would be on there way over.

And imagine how many would run from capitalist holes like haiti given such a deal by the US? Its just an attempt by the US to undermine the Cuban revolution, they offer Cubans who come better conditions and guarantees than they offer their own citizens in the US.

So please keep your emotive clap trap arguments to yourself and show a bit of intellectual rigour.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet

That's a daft comment donegafella.
Do you think the US embargo on that country for the last 40+ years has anything at all to do with the state of Cuba's economy?

Soldie

RedPlanet wrote: »

That's a daft comment donegafella.
Do you think the US embargo on that country for the last 40+ years has anything at all to do with the state of Cuba's economy?

The usual response -- the sympathiser externalises the problem. Those pesky Americans holding them back from paradise! In reality, the Cuban economy is on its knees for the same reason that the Soviet economy was on its knees -- because socialist economies cannot calculate the allocation of resources efficiently.

Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises, for your reading pleasure.

Flamed Diving

Soldie wrote: »

The usual response -- the sympathiser externalises the problem. Those pesky Americans holding them back from paradise! In reality, the Cuban economy is on its knees for the same reason that the Soviet economy was on its knees -- because socialist economies cannot calculate the allocation of resources efficiently.

Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises, for your reading pleasure.

You are inviting an avalanche of ignorance upon yourself, Soldie.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, yes he can. It's intellectual dishonesty to claim otherwise.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, yes he can. It's intellectual dishonesty to claim otherwise.

You say it's "intellectual dishonesty" to claim other otherwise yet, ironically, you casually ignored an academic paper which explains why socialist economies don't work, and instead said authoritatively that the U.S. can be blamed -- without any explanation.

Would you like to explain why the U.S. can be blamed, or should we just take your word for it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aurelius79

Soldie wrote: »

The usual response -- the sympathiser externalises the problem. Those pesky Americans holding them back from paradise! In reality, the Cuban economy is on its knees for the same reason that the Soviet economy was on its knees -- because socialist economies cannot calculate the allocation of resources efficiently.

There's a little country in northern Europe called Norway. You should try reading about it sometime, it's actually quite an impressive model of a mixed socialist economy.

Oh, and do you honestly believe the U.S. embargo had no real effect on the Cuban economy? I mean seriously, you don't need a masters in economics to know what you said is complete nonsense. By the way, Cuba has managed to pull itself out of every major economic crisis on it's own. Ireland couldn't even do that in the 80s without foreign aid, EU loans, and foreign investment.

Flamed Diving

aurelius79 wrote: »

There's a little country in northern Europe called Norway. You should try reading about it sometime, it's actually quite an impressive model of a mixed socialist economy.

Do they have any generous natural resources, by any chance?

Just wondering.

aurelius79

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Do they have any generous natural resources, by any chance?

Just wondering.

Yes they do. So does Ireland but instead of selling them off like idiots to line their own pockets, the Norwegian government had the intelligence and foresight to keep the oilfields nationalized, ensuring the people of the country profited instead of foreign multinationals like Shell and Marathon.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81708

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you have a source for this? It appears to be about 20 years late tbh. Plus small scale agriculture has been an important feature of the Cuban economy for years now, allowing for an improvement in nutrition of the general populace, as evidenced by the OP.

Flamed Diving

aurelius79 wrote: »

Yes they do. So does Ireland but instead of selling them off like idiots to line their own pockets, the Norwegian government had the intelligence and foresight to keep the oilfields nationalized, ensuring the people of the country profited instead of foreign multinationals like Shell and Marathon.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81708

So Ireland has similar reserves to Norway then? Which is what you are implying here.

P.S: It's gas, not oil.

P.P.S: Please don't say what I think you are about to say...

aurelius79

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So Ireland has similar reserves to Norway then? Which is what you are implying here.

P.S: It's gas, not oil.

P.P.S: Please don't say what I think you are about to say...

You said Norway has natural resources, I said so does Ireland. Is that too hard to understand? Are you going to deny that Fianna Fail, namely Haughey and Ahern, essentially gave away the countries gas fields? Dodging the issue once again with semantics.

I think it's shocking that any Irish person has the nerve to pass judgment on Fidel Castro. Have a look at what your own politicians have done. Whatever Castro did, he did it for the benefit of the people of Cuba. The same will never be said of any Irish administration. After all, we murdered our liberators didn't we?

Soldie

aurelius79 wrote: »

There's a little country in northern Europe called Norway. You should try reading about it sometime, it's actually quite an impressive model of a mixed socialist economy.

Now you're conflating a mixed economy with communism -- is there no end to your straw clutching? According to the CIA's World Factbook, only 4.5% of Norway's exports are to the U.S. How can they possibly be prospering without the U.S.?! Do you think it might have anything to do with them being the world's 3rd and 6th highest exporters of natural gas and oil, respectively? Norwegians should be happy that they have at least some form of mixed economy, as we can see what happened in Venezuela when Chávez promised a raft of social reforms paid for with the revenue of record-high oil prices.

Oh, and do you honestly believe the U.S. embargo had no real effect on the Cuban economy? I mean seriously, you don't need a masters in economics to know what you said is complete nonsense.

That's great, but would you like to address the point I raised? Specifically, that socialist economies cannot work due to the lack of a price mechanism.

By the way, Cuba has managed to pull itself out of every major economic crisis on it's own. Ireland couldn't even do that in the 80s without foreign aid, EU loans, and foreign investment.

Cuba has been dirt poor ever since the revolution. Economic crises may have brought some countries temporarily down to Cuba's level, but it's a curious claim to make that Cuba "pulled itself" out of anything.

aurelius79

Soldie wrote: »

Now you're conflating a mixed economy with communism -- is there no end to your straw clutching? According to the CIA's World Factbook, only 4.5% of Norway's exports are to the U.S. How can they possibly be prospering without the U.S.?! Do you think it might have anything to do with them being the world's 3rd and 6th highest exporters of natural gas and oil, respectively? Norwegians should be happy that they have at least some form of mixed economy, as we can see what happened in Venezuela when Chávez promised a raft of social reforms paid for with the revenue of record-high oil prices.

I usually refuse to argue with anyone that cites the CIA's World "Factbook" as their source of information. On this occasion I will simply point out that Norway doesn't trade with the U.S. because it already trades in Europe. Why would Norway spend so much money shipping to the U.S. when it already has a large European customer base? It just wouldn't make sense would it?

You claim that a socialist economy is unsustainable? You and a few others seem to have conveniently forgotten the recent global free market collapse. You put all your faith in private enterprise and banks who's only goal is to make as much money as possible. It's absolutely ridiculous when you stop and think about it. Corruption and exploitation is the name of the game in a free market economy.

Flamed Diving

aurelius79 wrote: »

You said Norway has natural resources, I said so does Ireland. Is that too hard to understand? Are you going to deny that Fianna Fail, namely Haughey and Ahern, essentially gave away the countries gas fields? Dodging the issue once again with semantics.

No, I said that Norway had generous natural resources, and you said so does Ireland. Once again, the goalposts are zipping about. You can't even get the basics of debate right. Norway has the 5th highest reserves of gas in the world. Ireland are 66th. Get it now? Norway = generous reserves, Ireland = small reserves. Want a diagram?



Understand?

I'm not going to dignify the last question with a response. It nothing to do with Norways economic model, you are just flapping all over the place, randomly. It's bizarre. Learn how to stick to the point.

Flamed Diving

aurelius79 wrote: »

On this occasion I will simply point out that Norway doesn't trade with the U.S. because it already trades in Europe. Why would Norway spend so much money shipping to the U.S. when it already has a large European customer base? It just wouldn't make sense would it?

LOL!

http://www.ssb.no/muh_en/tab-2009-12-15-03-en.html

LOL!

aurelius79

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, I said that Norway had generous natural resources, and you said so does Ireland. Once again, the goalposts are zipping about. You can't even get the basics of debate right. Norway has the 5th highest reserves of gas in the world. Ireland are 66th. Get it now? Norway = generous reserves, Ireland = small reserves. Want a diagram?

Here we go with the "goalposts" nonsense again. I am debating the fact that Norway, under a socialist ideology, kept their natural resources nationalized and the people of Norway benefited. Ireland, on the other hand, sold it's natural resources to the highest bidder under a free market ideology and the only ones that benefited were the oil companies and politicians. Get it?

The amount of natural resources is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Flamed Diving

aurelius79 wrote: »

Here we go with the "goalposts" nonsense again. I am debating the fact that Norway, under a socialist ideology, kept their natural resources nationalized and the people of Norway benefited. Ireland, on the other hand, sold it's natural resources to the highest bidder under a free market ideology and the only ones that benefited were the oil companies and politicians. Get it?

The amount of natural resources is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

So the goalposts have shifted, then. Good to know, and good luck to you.

For anyone who is still interested in the previous discussion the reason that Norway can afford such a generous and extensive welfare system happens to be because of their vast gas reserves, and the fact that they chose to nationalise them. Unfortunately, Ireland has 0.46% (half a percent) of Norway's reserves, meaning that even if we did nationalise our gas fields, they wouldn't generate enough revenue to fund a generous and extensive welfare system, such as Norways. This is why when people cite Norway as a shining example of socialism in action, I always call foul.

aurelius79

Flamed Diving wrote: »

LOL!

http://www.ssb.no/muh_en/tab-2009-12-15-03-en.html

LOL!

What's your point exactly? The U.S. accounts for only 6.4% of Norway's imports and 8.4% of export, compared to 71.8% and 67% in Europe. Norway trades more with Asia than it does with the U.S., over twice as much in fact (15% import, 19.2% export). Or maybe you were just trying to illustrate my point more clearly? In that case, thanks very much.

Flamed Diving

aurelius79 wrote: »

I usually refuse to argue with anyone that cites the CIA's World "Factbook" as their source of information. On this occasion I will simply point out that Norway doesn't trade with the U.S. because it already trades in Europe. Why would Norway spend so much money shipping to the U.S. when it already has a large European customer base? It just wouldn't make sense would it?

You claim that a socialist economy is unsustainable? You and a few others seem to have conveniently forgotten the recent global free market collapse. You put all your faith in private enterprise and banks who's only goal is to make as much money as possible. It's absolutely ridiculous when you stop and think about it. Corruption and exploitation is the name of the game in a free market economy.

aurelius79 wrote: »

What's your point exactly? The U.S. accounts for only 6.4% of Norway's imports and 8.4% of export, compared to 71.8% and 67% in Europe. Norway trades more with Asia than it does with the U.S., over twice as much in fact (15% import, 19.2% export). Or maybe you were just trying to illustrate my point more clearly? In that case, thanks very much.

:D:D

aurelius79

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So the goalposts have shifted, then. Good to know, and good luck to you.

For anyone who is still interested in the previous discussion the reason that Norway can afford such a generous and extensive welfare system happens to be because of their vast gas reserves, and the fact that they chose to nationalise them. Unfortunately, Ireland has 0.46% (half a percent) of Norway's reserves, meaning that even if we did nationalise our gas fields, they wouldn't generate enough revenue to fund a generous and extensive welfare system, such as Norways. This is why when people cite Norway as a shining example of socialism in action, I always call foul.

Now who's shifting goalposts? The discussion was a claim that socialist economies are unsustainable. Norway has proven this incorrect beyond a shadow of a doubt.

My argument is that free market economies are unsustainable. The U.S., with it's vast natural resources and foreign investment, along with the rest of the world's free markets, have proven this without a shadow of a doubt.

aurelius79

Flamed Diving wrote: »

:D:D

That's the best you can do? Really? Smileys are hardly a substitute for logical debate. My point was that Norway does very little trade with the U.S. when compared to Europe. Norway could stop trading with the U.S. all together and feel no real impact on it's economy.