4 ms·

> They're lacked basic supplies for 30 years. Cuba has been under embargo for 66 years.

ch4s3 8mo ago
The embargo doesn’t cover medical supplies and Cuban buys what medicine and medical supplies it has mainly from the US. The embargo also doesn’t cover food. Cuba also does a lot of trade with China and Spain but has relatively little to actually sell because the state controlled industries are so unproductive. Cuba also has the least productive agricultural sector in the Caribbean, despite being the most productive before the revolution. The embargo is no excuse it doesn’t cover other countries, and Cuba has always had European trade partners. In fact they received free oil, agricultural equipment, and technical support from the USSR, and later free oil from Venezuela until a few weeks ago.
- thomassmith65 8mo ago
  The Cuban economy today is a shadow of what it was before the USSR fell apart, which makes it a moot point to claim they are dysfunctional despite foreign support. The Soviets successfully managed to keep Cuba afloat. Not that that constitutes a ringing endorsement for the Cuban system.
  - ch4s3 8mo ago
    That’s part of my point. They were a basket case with a ton of free support, and still are while trading with China and Europe. It’s just ridiculous to blame the embargo as ridiculous as the embargo is. If you read what the Soviets had to say about the Cuban government it’s pretty damning.
    - thomassmith65 8mo ago
      I can well imagine. My disagreement is that, as far as I know, the reputation of Cuba's healthcare system is great, and that, as someone else pointed out, the US embargo has real impact. I certainly agree the Cuban system, excepting a few areas like healthcare and regardless of the embargo's impact, does not work.
      - ch4s3 8mo ago
        That reputation is largely built on fake statistics though. There’s no international and freely published data to support it.
- mullingitover 8mo ago
  > before the revolution. Man, sounds like life before the revolution must've been super awesome! I bet everyone wants to go back to that standard of living.
  - ch4s3 8mo ago
    This is a false choice, but the food supply was much better. Cubans deserve a representative government.
    - mullingitover 8mo ago
      > the food supply was much better Maybe, except for the tens of thousands who were eating US-supplied lead. > The third, and perhaps most disastrous of our failures, was the decision to give stature and support to one of the most bloody and repressive dictatorships in the long history of Latin American repression. Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years - a greater proportion of the Cuban population than the proportion of Americans who died in both World Wars, and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state - destroying every individual liberty. - Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Democratic Dinner, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 6, 1960 [1] The Cubans absolutely deserve a representative government, and the US will never lift a finger to give it to them. Not then, and as we can see demonstrated in Venezuela today (the US regime is happy to prop up Maduro's cohort and doesn't care about conducting fair elections), not now. The US would prefer a ruthless dictatorship ruling Cuba that sends all the country's wealth to the US over a representative government that doesn't. [1] https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/cincinnati-oh-19601006-democratic-dinner https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-k...
programjames 8mo ago
Under US embargo, not USSR.
- ch4s3 8mo ago
  Or China, Spain, Venezuela, Mexico, and numerous other trade partners.
  - cthalupa 8mo ago
    No, but losing the wealthiest nation on the planet as a potential trading partner does mean that you are going to be selling your goods for less than you might be able to otherwise. Being permanently locked out of the most lucrative deals obviously is going to have an economic impact.
    - thomassmith65 8mo ago
      Additionally, the US embargo limits third parties from trading freely with Cuba in certain ways, and prohibits most Americans from traveling to Cuba. Cuba was a popular destination for American tourists prior to the Revolution. And I'm not sure I'll continue to reply to this thread. Somehow I find myself repeatedly defending the Cuban system, of which I am not a fan!
      - ch4s3 8mo ago
        Why defend them? They have for decades exported repression, stoked civil wars, and held their own population captive. And again the embargo doesn’t stop most countries from trading with them. They could host tourists from Europe and do, but almost no one wants to go there. I know people who go regularly for various reasons and they have to bring food with them because there’s so little on the island due to their insane agricultural practices.
        thomassmith65 8mo ago
        Nuance, I guess. The Soviets were spectacular at chess; that doesn't make me pine for 1960s Moscow.

ch4s3 8mo ago

The embargo doesn’t cover medical supplies and Cuban buys what medicine and medical supplies it has mainly from the US. The embargo also doesn’t cover food. Cuba also does a lot of trade with China and Spain but has relatively little to actually sell because the state controlled industries are so unproductive. Cuba also has the least productive agricultural sector in the Caribbean, despite being the most productive before the revolution. The embargo is no excuse it doesn’t cover other countries, and Cuba has always had European trade partners. In fact they received free oil, agricultural equipment, and technical support from the USSR, and later free oil from Venezuela until a few weeks ago.

thomassmith65 8mo ago
The Cuban economy today is a shadow of what it was before the USSR fell apart, which makes it a moot point to claim they are dysfunctional despite foreign support. The Soviets successfully managed to keep Cuba afloat. Not that that constitutes a ringing endorsement for the Cuban system.
- ch4s3 8mo ago
  That’s part of my point. They were a basket case with a ton of free support, and still are while trading with China and Europe. It’s just ridiculous to blame the embargo as ridiculous as the embargo is. If you read what the Soviets had to say about the Cuban government it’s pretty damning.
  - thomassmith65 8mo ago
    I can well imagine. My disagreement is that, as far as I know, the reputation of Cuba's healthcare system is great, and that, as someone else pointed out, the US embargo has real impact. I certainly agree the Cuban system, excepting a few areas like healthcare and regardless of the embargo's impact, does not work.
    - ch4s3 8mo ago
      That reputation is largely built on fake statistics though. There’s no international and freely published data to support it.
mullingitover 8mo ago
> before the revolution. Man, sounds like life before the revolution must've been super awesome! I bet everyone wants to go back to that standard of living.
- ch4s3 8mo ago
  This is a false choice, but the food supply was much better. Cubans deserve a representative government.
  - mullingitover 8mo ago
    > the food supply was much better Maybe, except for the tens of thousands who were eating US-supplied lead. > The third, and perhaps most disastrous of our failures, was the decision to give stature and support to one of the most bloody and repressive dictatorships in the long history of Latin American repression. Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years - a greater proportion of the Cuban population than the proportion of Americans who died in both World Wars, and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state - destroying every individual liberty. - Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Democratic Dinner, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 6, 1960 [1] The Cubans absolutely deserve a representative government, and the US will never lift a finger to give it to them. Not then, and as we can see demonstrated in Venezuela today (the US regime is happy to prop up Maduro's cohort and doesn't care about conducting fair elections), not now. The US would prefer a ruthless dictatorship ruling Cuba that sends all the country's wealth to the US over a representative government that doesn't. [1] https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/cincinnati-oh-19601006-democratic-dinner https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-k...

programjames 8mo ago

Under US embargo, not USSR.

ch4s3 8mo ago
Or China, Spain, Venezuela, Mexico, and numerous other trade partners.
- cthalupa 8mo ago
  No, but losing the wealthiest nation on the planet as a potential trading partner does mean that you are going to be selling your goods for less than you might be able to otherwise. Being permanently locked out of the most lucrative deals obviously is going to have an economic impact.
  - thomassmith65 8mo ago
    Additionally, the US embargo limits third parties from trading freely with Cuba in certain ways, and prohibits most Americans from traveling to Cuba. Cuba was a popular destination for American tourists prior to the Revolution. And I'm not sure I'll continue to reply to this thread. Somehow I find myself repeatedly defending the Cuban system, of which I am not a fan!
    - ch4s3 8mo ago
      Why defend them? They have for decades exported repression, stoked civil wars, and held their own population captive. And again the embargo doesn’t stop most countries from trading with them. They could host tourists from Europe and do, but almost no one wants to go there. I know people who go regularly for various reasons and they have to bring food with them because there’s so little on the island due to their insane agricultural practices.
      - thomassmith65 8mo ago
        Nuance, I guess. The Soviets were spectacular at chess; that doesn't make me pine for 1960s Moscow.