3 ms·

> I think Cubans would rather have a better basic quality of life They do have a better basic quality of life. That's exactly what they already have. Cuba is n

> I think Cubans would rather have a better basic quality of life They do have a better basic quality of life. That's exactly what they already have. Cuba is not a rich country like the US, so of course the direct comparison without historical context will mislead you. If they opened up free capitalism style trade with other nations, they would be slaves on foreign owned farms and foreign owned factories instead of the government (using this thread's definition of slavery, of course). If they opened up capitalism style free trade internally, some people would get very rich and the majority of people's lives would be much much worse off. The income inequality would skyrocket. You're suggesting that they're poor because they're communist. That's not the case. They're poor because they're an ex colony whose never became rich from wars, imperialism, natural resources, etc.. And when you consider that and the US trade embargo, they've done amazingly well.

microcolonel 9y ago
> You're suggesting that they're poor because they're communist. That's not the case. I'd like you to back that up. Right now, the private sector in Cuba (for example, taxi drivers with private licenses) is rich by Cuban standards. A taxi driver with a private license can make several times more in a day than a doctor makes in a month. Participation in the black market also contributes to quality of life. The most successful common people in Cuba are those who engage with the freest markets.
- Can_Not 9y ago
  I don't disagree that rational citizen actors are making themselves more money in those specific scenarios. But that doesn't mean capitalism is increasing the nation's net capital and wealth in any way communism could not have. It doesn't mean those actors are not increasing wealth inequality (some could be, maybe it's negligible, maybe it's even decreasing). Fixing one's own microeconomics isn't equivalent to fixing the entire nation's macroeconomics. If the nation has a small total value, it's not going to increase total value size if you yourself take a bigger peice of the pie.

microcolonel 9y ago

> You're suggesting that they're poor because they're communist. That's not the case. I'd like you to back that up. Right now, the private sector in Cuba (for example, taxi drivers with private licenses) is rich by Cuban standards. A taxi driver with a private license can make several times more in a day than a doctor makes in a month. Participation in the black market also contributes to quality of life. The most successful common people in Cuba are those who engage with the freest markets.

Can_Not 9y ago
I don't disagree that rational citizen actors are making themselves more money in those specific scenarios. But that doesn't mean capitalism is increasing the nation's net capital and wealth in any way communism could not have. It doesn't mean those actors are not increasing wealth inequality (some could be, maybe it's negligible, maybe it's even decreasing). Fixing one's own microeconomics isn't equivalent to fixing the entire nation's macroeconomics. If the nation has a small total value, it's not going to increase total value size if you yourself take a bigger peice of the pie.