Unicef Confirms 0% Child Malnutrition in Cuba

aurelius79

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

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.

Ok, I assume you've read all ten pages of this discussion that seems to be "going nowhere". Please point out exactly where you believe I'm wrong in regards to the issues that have been brought up.

Oh, and I'm not ignoring anyone. I read his post but haven't had time to reply to it. It's a bit difficult when one person is trying to have a debate with 3-4 other people.

To be honest I don't really think it's worth a reply. The first part is just the opinion of some media organization, which I couldn't care less about. The second part is his own personal opinion on the Cuba's economy, which I simply don't agree with. Happy now?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

aurelius79 wrote: »

Please point out exactly where you believe I'm wrong in regards to the issues that have been brought up.

Im not going to do it for all that has passed; that is too time consuming. Let us take the Norway issue. You brought up Norway in an attempt to show that socialism can work:

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.

The relevance of this was disputed by saying that Norway is only like it is because it thrives on its oil and gas supplies, and thus is the exception. You failed to take this on; in other words you ignored it:

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.

Etc etc; you restate this again a number of times. Like it or not, you ignored the point being made namely that Norway can afford to be socialistic only because of the billions of euro per annum they take in natural resources revenues.

(On that point you also failed to address how Ireland, with a mere 0.46% of Norways resources, could viably take the same approach as Norway).

aurelius79 wrote: »

The first part is just the opinion of some media organization, which I couldn't care less about.

That sentence is an insult the the thousands of people worldwide who have fought, and the many who have died, for the freedom to report injustices and to hold dissenting opinions to the government.

On another thread you posted videos of Gardai pushing protesters off of a road. Oh what a petty conflict in comparison to those pursued by Reporters Without Borders! The irony is that if the powers being fought by the organization you "couldn't care less about" had their way you would not have the freedom to post those videos; and in all likelihood would have been imprisoned by now for aggravating state forces.

At least be consistent. Giving out about Irish Gardai while justifying the Castro regime?

aurelius79 wrote: »

The second part is his own personal opinion on the Cuba's economy, which I simply don't agree with.

An opinion which is supported by an academic economic paper which I'm assuming you didn't even bother to read. As opposed yo your opinion which is based on listening to Cuban propaganda over reliable sources, and ignoring rationale economic arguments put to you.

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What dissidents? You mean the U.S. backed, wealthy "exiles" in Miami? The ones that took their money and ran after Castro announces his socialist government? The ones that helped Castro in the revolution then ran when he told them to give up their money?

Or maybe you mean the brave dissidents of the CIA who trained these "exiles" to fight in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Or maybe the freedom loving mafia assassin dissidents who were hired by the CIA to kill Castro in 1960.

Soldie

aurelius79 wrote: »

Oh, and I'm not ignoring anyone. I read his post but haven't had time to reply to it. It's a bit difficult when one person is trying to have a debate with 3-4 other people.

To be honest I don't really think it's worth a reply. The first part is just the opinion of some media organization, which I couldn't care less about. The second part is his own personal opinion on the Cuba's economy, which I simply don't agree with. Happy now?

A famous quotation sums this up nicely:

Bertrand Russell wrote:

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."

You'll happily discard Reporters sans frontières's claim that Cuba's press freedom is on par with that of Burma, North Korea, and Iran, but you'll readily accept the Cuban government's own figures without question? Preposterous.

Some pages ago I linked you to von Mises' hard-hitting critique of socialist economic calculation, so it's hardly my "own personal opinion on the [sic] Cuba's economy". Your explanation as to Cuba's economic failings have, thus far, amounted to some vague gesturing towards the U.S. embargo -- a claim which you have failed to substantiate in any way whatsoever.

I found this claim particularly ludicrous:

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.

You liken Cuba to a rape victim who has managed to pick themself up and dust themself off in spite of what had happened. You casually ignore that the Cuban government purposefully proceeded down a road of communism, with all the trimmings -- and those trimmings were not just limited to military help, as you suggest, but large food subsidies, too. The reality is that Cuba's post-revolution economy has been in the mud since its inception. For a couple of decades it had the illusion of being "out of the mud" due to massive Soviet subsidies, but since the collapse of the Soviet Union those have disappeared, so we can see the true state of Cuban economy. Incidentally, since you believe that the trade embargo is entirely responsible for Cuba's hardship, what is your explanation for the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Soldie

aurelius79 wrote: »

What dissidents?

Well, I suppose if you want to be philosophical about it then, indeed, there are no dissidents, because they're dead.

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Reporters Without Borders is just another media organization. They have an agenda just like any other media organization. What, just because they wear trendy clothes and talk about peace and love it makes them any more credible than News Corp?

It's a bit ironic that you're the one that started all this off with your accusations of "propoganda" against the Cuban government. Now you want to use a media organization to support your claims about the Castro administration.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

aurelius79 wrote: »

Reporters Without Borders is just another media organization. They have an agenda just like any other media organization. What, just because they wear trendy clothes and talk about peace and love it makes them any more credible than News Corp?

You dont know what your talking about. Theyre not a media org, theyre an advocacy group who campaign for the freedom of the press. They campaign against events like this.

Seriously, I really hope you dont believe in what your saying. Freedom of expression is one of the most important things human beings have.

Flamed Diving

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nah, he will just subtly change the subject.

aurelius79

Soldie wrote: »

You liken Cuba to a rape victim who has managed to pick themself up and dust themself off in spite of what had happened.

No actually, you liken Cuba to a rape victim which I have to say is quite disturbing.

Soldie wrote: »

You casually ignore that the Cuban government purposefully proceeded down a road of communism, with all the trimmings....

Are you serious? Do you even know about the history of the revolution?

Castro had the backing of the U.S. all through the revolution. It wasn't until after Castro went to visit the U.S., where he was refused to meet with President Eisenhower, that he sought support from the USSR. Castro went to the U.S. first and they turned him away.

Maybe the problem here is you don't actually know what happened before, during, and after the Cuban revolution?

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok, let's look at this in perspective.

There is a march by the wives of political prisoners in Cuba and Cuban citizens are voicing their opinions? Damn, that sure is an oppressive society. Let's look what happened when the Orangemen marched in Dublin. Surely the ensuing riot means that the Irish government is anti-Loyalist right?

By the way, what were their husbands arrested for anyway? Any info on that? They could be ""terrorists" for all I know.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolutely, of course they should. I don't support the idea of dictatorship whatsoever. Of course, there's always the possibility that your freely elected representative is not recognized by the international community. Let's try and remember what happened to Hamas in Gaza. If there were free and open elections in Cuba tomorrow, and the people decided to retain the socialist administration, there is no doubt that calls of electoral fraud or corruption would ensue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, I'm done with that debate. Can you address my points in the post directly above your last one? Post 164 I believe. While you're at it you can address the Helms-Burton Act which you conveniently forgot to mention.

"International Sanctions against the Cuban Government. Economic embargo, any non-US company that deals economically with Cuba can be subjected to legal action and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Sanctions may be applied to non-U.S. companies trading with Cuba. This means that internationally operating companies have to choose between Cuba and the US, which is a much larger market."

The act was condemned by the EU, UK, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and others.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So first you state that Cuba should be able to hold free and fair elections and in the next breath you claim that such elections would "nothing more than a sham". Well which one is it? Elections or no elections?

I believe the Cuban people should be able to vote in a referendum to determine the future of their country. Vote yes for a new system of government or vote no to remain a socialist state. Of course, this referendum would only be a sham so no point in holding it anyway.

Anyway, you and your anti-revolutionary cohorts have claimed that the U.S. embargo had no real effect on the Cuban revolution. I provided evidence to prove that the U.S. embargo extended to every country in the world in regards to trading with Cuba.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms-Burton_Act

Now I expect a response to this issue in particular so if you insist on dodging it I will insist on bringing up again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

aurelius79 wrote: »

To be honest I don't really think it's worth a reply. The first part is just the opinion of some media organization, which I couldn't care less about. The second part is his own personal opinion on the Cuba's economy, which I simply don't agree with.
Happy now?

I think, given the opacity of the Cuban government's data, that it is hard to latch on to specifics about the Cuban economy. But a few things seem clear if one is willing to be honest. I need my head examined for jumping back into this thread, but here goes...

1) Cuba is by no means among the countries with the strongest economies in Latin America. That title goes to Chile and Brazil, with Colombia making great strides over the last ten years (Panama has done quite well too). Cuban economic policy since the 1960s has consistently lurched between handouts from its friends and tightly controlled management of some market activity - most notably in the tourism industry.

No economically strong country has boatloads of people trying to leave weekly. No economically strong country has to create a two-tiered economy that underlies one of the few remaining principles of the revolution: socioeconomic equality. The deliberate creation of the dollar economy - created with the dual purpose of getting access to hard currency and maintaining the regime, not the revolution - has served to increase economic inequality - those who don't work in the tourist industry or have relatives living in the US don't have access to dollars (which are preferable to pesos). And until recently, Cubans were not even allowed to go into the tourist hotels at all unless they were there to work. This is not egalitarianism; it's economic apartheid.

2) As for the US embargo, I think it's pretty hard to argue that it hasn't had an impact on Cuba's development, especially given that it's the world's largest domestic market. But comparing Cuba to Norway is silly. Perhaps a better comparison would be with its Caribbean neighbor, the Dominican Republic. Dominicans have benefited somewhat by trade with the US, but not enough to eradicate poverty or stop the waves of economic migration to the US. Actually, looking across the Caribbean basin, pretty much every country's most important source of foreign capital is remittances, not private investment or foreign aid. Their most important exports are not bauxite or bananas, but their own citizens.

To be honest, if the embargo were lifted, say, 20 years ago, I'm not really sure what Cuba would look like today. It does not have the vast mineral or energy resources of Chile or Brazil. They aren't a banking center (like the Cayman Islands or Panama), and they don't have a canal. It probably could not compete with Southeast Asia on manufacturing or textile production unless the government repressed labor to hold wages down. It does have the advantage of a highly educated, Spanish-speaking workforce, and if it could rebuild its university system, perhaps it could be an important center for research and development. But to be honest, looking at the fortunes of its neighbors, I am pessimistic about what the Cuban economy would look like if the embargo was lifted.

Cuba does have an advantage in that there is a huge pool of bi-lingual compatriots who would love to move back. Cubans in the US are extremely entrepreneurial, and are an immigrant "success story". And most Cubans who have migrated since the 1980s are not hard-liners; that generation is slowly dying off. However, these are the exact folks that the Castro regime is the LEAST likely to want to open their economy to. And yet it is not clear to me how small countries - especially small island countries (ahem, Ireland) can survive economically a) without being open to international trade and capital and b) having good relationships with their more economically powerful neighbors - including preferential access to their markets or capital. Certainly Ireland's relationship with the US and Irish-American investors played a role in the Celtic Tiger; this kind of relationship would be impossible under the current regime in Cuba.

Anyway, that's my two cents...fire away!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree that the planning was - and is - incredibly inefficient. And state-mandated farming cooperatives (as opposed to farmer-driven co-ops) are generally unsuccessful. But the embargo does contribute to agricultural inefficiency because the US is such a major producer of farm equipment and fertilizer. One could also argue that US government subsidies for sugar and other products also makes Cuban agricultural production less competitive...along with the rest of the countries in the region. I don't think that the U.S. is solely responsible for Cuba's problems, but their policies do have an effect.

Time Magazine

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your post earlier in the thread is more important than this, I think.

People have an interest in Cuba because of its political makeup. Bearded lefties would love nothing more than to see Cuba thrive. Clean-cut suits probably don't want to see the people suffer, but want to see the economy struggle nonetheless. It's an awful, awful proxy-war. A play thing for middle-class Westerners who hope for one more entity to support their idealogical position.

It is therefore interesting than the bearded lefties then complain to the nouveau-rich suits that their policies are not helping their cause. It also somewhat inevitable because these debates end up as mud-slinging matches, but still interesting and ironic. It shows how far capitalism has come that no longer is the debate an issue of:

We will bury you!

but rather we have moved to:


If Cuba had the support of its large capitalist neighbour, then perhaps its idiosyncratic system of unequal communism could thrive.

As an aside, would you look at Boyd-Barrett there. Snivelling gobshite.

robbyvibes

One is most impressed to see a concise discussion on the causes of the Cuban revolution. :rolleyes:

A summary of USA intervention during the Cuban revolution would be appreciated.

Thank you.

robbyvibes

Don't get me wrong here..

Of course, I'd have preferred a US bankrolled General who swore allegiance to the US mafia...

Before the revolution, Cubans were lucky enough to work in casinos and brothels...:D

It was terrible blow to democracy and capitalism when the Cuban people objected to be exploited by the US oligarchy.

I only wish Island of Ireland were right off the coast of US...what a great place we'd live in today.

We'd have great health care, plenty of jobs (in casinos and brothels) ..the best of everything capitalism has to offer.

S-Murph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your arguments in this thread are underhanded and sly in my view.

From the start you attacked the political system in Cuba, when, in reality, your concerns are about justifying your own ideological views on economics.

Whether Cuba is a dictatorship or 'democratic' is entirely irrelevant. Whether castro slaughtered 1000 or 90,000 is entirely irrelevant.

This thread is about Cuban health care and its undeniable achievements, in particular against other countries of simiar standing.

Above you argue economically, and then you slidder in political repression to create a general mood in this thread that socialist economics imply single party dictatorship.

Not so.

Eliot Rosewater

S-Murph wrote: »

From the start you attacked the political system in Cuba, when, in reality, your concerns are about justifying your own ideological views on economics.

You are applying that sentiment to the wrong person. In the Cuba debate many supporters of the Left feel an obligation to support Castros government because it technically holds the same idealogical viewpoint as themselves. In doing so they bring a lot of trouble upon themselves including sympathizing with a totalitarian regime that has brought an immense amount of hardship to its people. And as we saw above, aurelias79 was even willing to pretend that Reporters Without Borders was a sham organization solely so that he or she could continue to support Cuba.

S-Murph wrote: »

This thread is about Cuban health care and its undeniable achievements, in particular against other countries of simiar standing.

Assuming that the statistics are true. Given that Cuba is 6th worst in the world for freedom of the press (which has been said here many many times) that is a gigantic assumption.

S-Murph wrote: »

Above you argue economically, and then you slidder in political repression to create a general mood in this thread that socialist economics imply single party dictatorship.

In extreme socialist economies that seems to be the case. Can you give me an example of a country that "decided" to go communist and then didn't end up under a totalitarian dictatorship?

S-Murph

southsiderosie wrote: »

1) Cuba is by no means among the countries with the strongest economies in Latin America. That title goes to Chile and Brazil, with Colombia making great strides over the last ten years (Panama has done quite well too). Cuban economic policy since the 1960s has consistently lurched between handouts from its friends and tightly controlled management of some market activity - most notably in the tourism industry.

Excuse my ignorance. Whats a "strong" economy?

For whom does the "strong" economy benefit?

No economically strong country has boatloads of people trying to leave weekly.

Look, dont be trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

Cuba is a third world country. Yeah, people try leave, particularly when a first world country promising the "Amarican dream" is a short distance across the channel. Tell us something we dont know.

Its nothing exclusive to Cuba.

No economically strong country has to create a two-tiered economy that underlies one of the few remaining principles of the revolution: socioeconomic equality.

The people of Brazil, an economically "strong" country as you call it, know all about a "two tiered" economy. 20% of people living in its capital live in shanty towns/favela while there exists many wealth people.

As Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson showed in their research, inequality contributes greatly to many, if not most, social problems.

The deliberate creation of the dollar economy - created with the dual purpose of getting access to hard currency and maintaining the regime, not the revolution

Maybe so.

But so what?

We are talking about the Cuban Health care system, not the regime.

- has served to increase economic inequality - those who don't work in the tourist industry or have relatives living in the US don't have access to dollars (which are preferable to pesos).

As opposed to where, "economically strong" Brazil where there exists no inequality?

What are you getting at?

And until recently, Cubans were not even allowed to go into the tourist hotels at all unless they were there to work. This is not egalitarianism; it's economic apartheid.

And so what like?

Economic apartheid must exist every place in the world. I certainly wouldnt be allowed sit around in a tourist hotel here in Dublin for long without paying, I can tell you that.

Im not trying to pass that off as revelatory though.

Cuba does have an advantage in that there is a huge pool of bi-lingual compatriots who would love to move back. Cubans in the US are extremely entrepreneurial, and are an immigrant "success story".

Really? What percentage of immigrants are 'successful'?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

S-Murph

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You are applying that sentiment to the wrong person. In the Cuba debate many supporters of the Left feel an obligation to support Castros government because it technically holds the same idealogical viewpoint as themselves. In doing so they bring a lot of trouble upon themselves including sympathizing with a totalitarian regime that has brought an immense amount of hardship to its people. And as we saw above, aurelias79 was even willing to pretend that Reporters Without Borders was a sham organization solely so that he or she could continue to support Cuba.

Im a "leftist" and I defend many aspects of the Cuban economic system. It, as with the Soviet Union, are examples of where planning economic resources worked to a considerable degree.

It is fior this reason that leftists "defend" Cuba.

The political system is rotten, yeah. Im not defending that. But what exists is far better than alot of places.

Assuming that the statistics are true. Given that Cuba is 6th worst in the world for freedom of the press (which has been said here many many times) that is a gigantic assumption.

We can only use the statistics available, many researched and used by reputable organisations.

In extreme socialist economies that seems to be the case. Can you give me an example of a country that "decided" to go communist and then didn't end up under a totalitarian dictatorship?

The Spanish Revolution was an example of socialist economics being used, and which, for the most part, did not end up totalitarian.

Salvador Allende In Chile was democratically elected, before being overthrown by free market Pinochet.

Hugo Chavez works within a representative democratic structure.

Considering the global economy is interlinked, is there any time during capitalisms history when there was not dictatorships installed for the benefit of first world countries? - or wars? - or invasions?

Such a question is equally valid.

S-Murph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But what has crushing dissent and denial of civil liberties got to do with the Cuban health care system?

Id rather ask "how did they achieve such a progressive thing".

(b) a centrally planned economy that is riddled with absurdities and inefficiencies. Since the two go hand-in-hand on the island of Cuba, I don't really understand your point.

Hardly synonomous with central planning though.

Really? :eek:

Repression goes hand in hand with eliminating malnutrition?

How do you make that out?

Really? If Cuba had a democratic government that respected freedom of the press, journalists and academics could investigate the claims being made by that government. Under a repressive communist dictatorship, they cannot investigate anything.

Well, you ranting on an internet forum wont change that.

Tough, we'll have to use the statistics available, as used by reputable organisations.

Tell that to the families of the victims.

Who have, eh, what to do with the elimination of malnutrition?

How can you say with such certainty that the alleged achievements of the Cuban health care system are "undeniable"?

I think the export of such a large amount of 'home educated' doctors abroad is undeniable. Explanations on how Cuba emphasises primary care, thus removing many health problems are logical and believable.

Since the Revolution, the Cuban people have not been permitted to vote in a free, open, pluralistic election.

Ok

Anyone who disagrees with the Communist Party's stance on anything can be prosecuted for "counterrevolutionary activities."

Ok

But you believe that the maintenance of this repressive one-party system of government has nothing whatsoever to do with maintaining a centrally planned communist economy?

No. Im saying that having a centrally planned economy does not necessarily require a one party government or repression.

Salvador Allende's Chile, for example.

And even if it were. An achievement is an acheivement. If its better to centrally plan something, as evidenced by Cuba, then adsress the merits of that, rather than the entire political regime.