Unicef Confirms 0% Child Malnutrition in Cuba

Flamed Diving

aurelius79 wrote: »

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.

Not I. Certainly not I. If you knew what the term actually meant, you might stop doing it. I can only dream...

The point I am making, which you are unsurprisingly missing, is that Norway are very obviously a special case. When economists (none of the ones you are thinking about) are performing regression analysis, we try to account for such outliers, usually by introducing dummy variables, for example, a recent paper of mine looked at US FDI in the EU, and it turned out, as the literature concludes, that Luxembourg are such an outlier. Anyway, I don't want to go too far into that, the point I am making is that you do not use exceptions to prove your theory. If you rely on such observations, then your model/hypothesis must be very weak, indeed.

Now, I wasn't the one who said all socialist economies are unsustainable and fail, but I would amend that to say that most do, but only the ones who attempts to control the distribution of all resources and hence, the price mechanism. This would probably be similar to von Mises argument, but I don't have time to read it.

Flamed Diving

aurelius79 wrote: »

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.

I will simply point out that Norway doesn't trade with the U.S. because it already trades in Europe.

QFT.

Nothing more required.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aurelius79

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Not I. Certainly not I. If you knew what the term actually meant, you might stop doing it. I can only dream...

The point I am making, which you are unsurprisingly missing, is that Norway are very obviously a special case. When economists (none of the ones you are thinking about) are performing regression analysis, we try to account for such outliers, usually by introducing dummy variables, for example, a recent paper of mine looked at US FDI in the EU, and it turned out, as the literature concludes, that Luxembourg are such an outlier. Anyway, I don't want to go too far into that, the point I am making is that you do not use exceptions to prove your theory. If you rely on such observations, then your model/hypothesis must be very weak, indeed.

Now, I wasn't the one who said all socialist economies are unsustainable and fail, but I would amend that to say that most do, but only the ones who attempts to control the distribution of all resources and hence, the price mechanism. This would probably be similar to von Mises argument, but I don't have time to read it.

That's ridiculous. The only reason Norway is an exception is because it's the only socialist country that hasn't been under constant international pressure, sanctions, or embargoes. It never suffered the devastating effects of the cold war. It didn't have to build a massive war machine because of the threat from the U.S.

walshb

Now for Malawi. Hopefully they announce 0 percent too, so Peter Power cannot try to justify throwing millions of taxpayers' money at it.

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As I said in the post above, Norway didn't suffer the effects of the cold war.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We could have billions in gas reserves but our government has been too shortsighted to take advantage of our natural resources.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The U.S. was largely insular and self-sufficient until the beginning of the 20th century. It wasn't until after WWII that it became an economic superpower and began trading internationally. Since then it has had multiple recessions/depressions, widespread corruption, and an extremely negative impact on developing nations around the world.

Flamed Diving

aurelius79 wrote: »

That's ridiculous. The only reason Norway is an exception is because it's the only socialist country that hasn't been under constant international pressure, sanctions, or embargoes. It never suffered the devastating effects of the cold war. It didn't have to build a massive war machine because of the threat from the U.S.

...and because it is one of the most resource-rich countries in the world, making up 45% of their exports and 20% of their GDP (link). Anyway, I do think it is rather disingenuous to treat Norway as a socialist country, especially in a thread about Cuba, FFS. I would describe the Norwegian economy as Perma-Keynesian, at best. I guess this is one of the main reasons why they haven't had:

country that hasn't been under constant international pressure, sanctions, or embargoes. It never suffered the devastating effects of the cold war. It didn't have to build a massive war machine because of the threat from the U.S.

It's because they have a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of government, and not a cigar-smoking despot dictator with a penchant for military uniforms and planting missle silos in his back garden. The more I think about it, the less socialist they seem. A bunch of Keynesians.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Comparatively speaking, yes. Before WWII the U.S. had very little international trade when compared to the post war period. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand, given the economic agreements and treaties made between the allied countries after the war. The international arms trade alone was responsible for a large percentage of the U.S. economy.

Flamed Diving

aurelius79 wrote: »

Comparatively speaking, yes. Before WWII the U.S. had very little international trade when compared to the post war period. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand, given the economic agreements and treaties made between the allied countries after the war. The international arms trade alone was responsible for a large percentage of the U.S. economy.

Goalposts shifted again. Why not admit that your initial statement was simply wrong?

brianthebard

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Goalposts shifted again. Why not admit that your initial statement was simply wrong?

What's with the snapping and aggressive tones? The poster in question made their point pretty clear. Granted they could perhaps have been slightly clearer but I don't see how that justifies attacking them for every little mistake, especially something as simple as linguistic errors.

Flamed Diving

brianthebard wrote: »

What's with the snapping and aggressive tones? The poster in question made their point pretty clear. Granted they could perhaps have been slightly clearer but I don't see how that justifies attacking them for every little mistake, especially something as simple as linguistic errors.

Because I am sick of his behaviour. I don't see them as mistakes, he just changes the topic ever so slightly any time he gets caught out. He always does it.

aurelius79

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Goalposts shifted again. Why not admit that your initial statement was simply wrong?

How am I wrong exactly? U.S. international trade was insignificant when compared to the post war period. You seem to be only capable of understanding absolutes. The world is not black and white. You know the point I was trying to make, don't start arguments based on semantics. If you have some sort of proof that the U.S. had a consistent volume of international trade from the start of the 20th century then feel free to provide it. Otherwise, you're just arguing for the sake of it.

aurelius79

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Because I am sick of his behaviour. I don't see them as mistakes, he just changes the topic ever so slightly any time he gets caught out. He always does it.

I'll let you in on a little secret FD, I dropped out of school when I was 15. So excuse me if my knowledge on the subject appears to be lacking to you. Almost everything I know I have learned on my own because I have an interest in the subject. If you want to criticize me that's your own business. Just don't use it as an excuse to undermine my position.

Flamed Diving

aurelius79 wrote: »

How am I wrong exactly? U.S. international trade was insignificant when compared to the post war period. You seem to be only capable of understanding absolutes. The world is not black and white. You know the point I was trying to make, don't start arguments based on semantics. If you have some sort of proof that the U.S. had a consistent volume of international trade from the start of the 20th century then feel free to provide it. Otherwise, you're just arguing for the sake of it.

Ok, try this little exercise. Can you tell the difference between both of these statements:

1) I did not begin to walk until 6pm.

2) I was walking very slowly before 6pm, compared to my walking speed after 6pm.

In your mind, is there any difference between those two statements? Now, call me a purist, but I think there is.


By the way, I have data (attached) from Marc Flandreau and Frédréric Zumer's book The Making of Global Finance, 1880-1913, OECD 2004. It provides US trade data in millions of "national units" for the time series 1880-1913. As you can clearly see, the US was trading with at least seventeen countries in 1880, and growing every year.

More data here: http://eh.net/databases/finance/ though unfortunately the methodology link is broken.

Oh, here is the description of national units:

Except when stated otherwise, units are million of domestic currency. The national units are: Argentina: paper peso; Austria-Hungary: florin; Belgium: Belgian franc; Brazil: Brazilian milreis; Denmark: kroner; France: French franc; Germany: mark; Greece: drachma, Italy: lira, Netherlands: Dutch florin; Norway: kroner, Portugal: Portuguese milreis; Spain: peseta; Sweden: kronor; Switzerland: Swiss franc; Russia: ruble; United Kingdom: pound.

brianthebard

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Because I am sick of his behaviour. I don't see them as mistakes, he just changes the topic ever so slightly any time he gets caught out. He always does it.

You mean like when they said Norway barely trades with the US and you providing figures 'proving' the contrary? Give it a break dude, your own figures backed up the other persons claims. If you just took a few deep breaths and accepted that not everyone writes in the way you'd like them to, the two of you might actually create a decent discussion for yourselves.

Flamed Diving

brianthebard wrote: »

You mean like when they said Norway barely trades with the US and you providing figures 'proving' the contrary? Give it a break dude, your own figures backed up the other persons claims. If you just took a few deep breaths and accepted that not everyone writes in the way you'd like them to, the two of you might actually create a decent discussion for yourselves.

No, he said Norway :eek:--->doesn't<---:eek: trade with the U.S.

I am beginning to suspect that you are winding now.

nomadic

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, he said Norway :eek:--->doesn't<---:eek: trade with the U.S.

I am beginning to suspect that you are winding now.

Well I can tell you I don't have any money.

When the truth of the matters is I have very little money.

Flamed Diving

nomadic wrote: »

Well I can tell you I don't have any money.

When the truth of the matters is I have very little money.

You don't exist.

When the truth of the matters is that for most of the universes existence, you haven't existed.

:rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

Just a graph of the aggregated data, above.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

To try to bring this thread at least somewhat back on topic:

Claims that Cuba has excellent healthcare and education must be treated as dubious given the fact that the statistics and figures used in compiling these reports often come from the Cuban government itself. Reporters sans frontières have placed Cuba 170th out of 175 countries--next to bastions of freedom such as North Korea, Iran, and Burma--in the 2009 press freedom index, so it is unreasonable to assume that there is much investigate journalism going on there.

Amongst other things, Cuba has desperate food shortages, and the reason for this is the economic mismanagement of the country. Sympathisers often point to the U.S. trade embargo and assume, usually without providing any explanation, that it is responsible for Cuba's woes. As I have already pointed out, the reason Cuba's economy is in the gutter is because it is a communist centrally-planned economy and, due to the absense of a price mechanism, is extremely inefficient at allocating resources.

To point to Norway as an example of a successful socialist country is disingenuous for two reasons. Firstly, because it has a mixed economy, and is not communist like Cuba is. Secondly, even if it were a communist country, it would be an attempt at using an exception to prove a rule, given its enormous oil and gas reserves.

So I put it to you, aurelius79, or anyone else who sympathises with the Cuban regime: please explain how the U.S. embargo is responsible for the state of Cuba's economy.

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Source? I'm too tired to go looking up statistics on U.S. international trade. Any stats on trade after WWII so we can compare?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Move Cuba to the west coast of Spain and you may have a point. Cuba is geographically isolated from Europe and the rest of the world. Even then, do you think the U.S. didn't persuade it's European allies to not trade with Cuba? If Cuba had been given the same advantages as Norway, or if it hadn't been used as a battleground during the cold war, I don't believe it would be in the situation it's in today. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Taiwan, with Japan, China, Australia, and Russia as neighbors is isolated?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How about the Helms-Burton Act of 1996?

donegalfella wrote: »

Cuba actually benefitted greatly from its strategic position during the Cold War; it received enormous subsidies from the former Soviet Union, which delighted in maintaining a communist outpost off the coast of Florida. When Soviet subsidies dried up in the early 1990s, Cuba's GNP fell by nearly 40 percent. It was only then that the true state of the Cuban economy was exposed.

Subsidies that were used to create a military infrastructure. Once the USSR collapsed, Cuba was left with no money, no oil, and a useless military infrastructure they couldn't get rid of. Despite all of this, Cuba has managed to drag itself out of the mud and is now one of the leading socio-economic powers in Latin America. So yes, the true Cuban economy was exposed and they adapted as they have always done.

Eliot Rosewater

You know aurelius79, its ok to admit you were wrong. You dont have to support Cuba, and if you show a willingness to learn from what others have been saying you will earn nothing but respect for doing that.

"A man should never be ashamed to own he has been wrong, which is but saying in other words that he is wiser today than he was yesterday."
Johnathon Swift.

aurelius79

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You know aurelius79, its ok to admit you were wrong. You dont have to support Cuba, and if you show a willingness to learn from what others have been saying you will earn nothing but respect for doing that.

"A man should never be ashamed to own he has been wrong, which is but saying in other words that he is wiser today than he was yesterday."
Johnathon Swift.

You know what, you're absolutely right. How could I have been so stupid? Everything I believe is absolutely wrong, as proven by the opinions of a handful of people on a public forum.

I don't support Cuba. I support the efforts the Cuban people, as human beings, have made to ensure that everyone has a basic level well being and happiness. Compare Castro to other communist leaders around the world, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot.

Here's some information about Fulgencio Batista, the dictator who ran Cuba (into the ground) before the revolution.

http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=421

Eliot Rosewater

aurelius79 wrote: »

You know what, you're absolutely right. How could I have been so stupid? Everything I believe is absolutely wrong, as proven by the opinions of a handful of people on a public forum.

The opinions of the people here are well reasoned out - based on and supported by hard evidence, all of which you ignored. I realize why people do that; I myself have been wrong a lot and instead of admitting it I have ignored facts, twisted facts and made up some of my own for good measure.

Soldies post above (#144) was clear, reasonable and based on sources from reputable organizations such as Reporters Without Borders. Yet you ignored this post, just as you ignored his explanation of why Norway is irrelevant to the discussion and why socialistic economies are unworkable. You also failed to tell us why the Embargo makes the difference you say it does.

The reason I say all this is because this discussion is going nowhere. Your refusing to accept arguments or refutations made by people on the opposing side, and thus dooming this thread to shouting and ignorance which, among other things, is bad for ones sanity.

Valmont

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

"A man should never be ashamed to own he has been wrong, which is but saying in other words that he is wiser today than he was yesterday."
Johnathon Swift.

That sentiment is, more often than not, absent in many ideological debates. Many people have their sides and to the exclusion of any conflicting information seek out materials that are congruent with their original position. This phenomenon can be so pronounced that it can block out the rational faculties of an otherwise intelligent individual. I hope to do some psychological research on this in the not so distant future!