According to this story in the New York Times, about a government campaign to replace 1950s American refrigerators, it's because of the "island's economic isolation, compounded by a United States embargo in place since the early 1960s." Oh, and "unlike education and health care in Cuba, refrigerators are not free."
And why would people replace their beloved American refrigerators with cheap, small Chinese models?
Cubans do not have to switch to Chinese refrigerators, but there are strong incentives to comply. When the exchange program is offered to a town or neighborhood, it is presented as the apple of Fidel's eye, and as an opportunity to show one's patriotism while lowering one’s electricity bill.
UPDATE: Nope, despite the gratuitous mention of the free education and health care available in Cuba, no mention of "socialism," "collectivism," or "Communism," as having any effect on Cuba's economy. Nor is there any mention of Cuba's notorious (but apparently not notorious enough) "Neighborhood Committees for the Defense of the Revolution," nor, relatedly, what, the ahem, disincentives might be for failing to "show one's patriotism," though the author does acknowledge that at least one Cuban refrigerator-owner doesn't feel free to speak openly. And, for the unitiated, Cuba is not actually economically isolated from anywhere but the U.S., it just doesn't sell much of anything that anyone wants to buy.
None of this explains why Cuba is poor, but neither does the post in the first place
And so we have an embargo... why?
Cuba seems to be one of the few Communist countries not tacitly making the conversion to capitalism. And as a result, its economy is mired in the 1950s, while the rest of the world has left them behind some 50 years ago.
Because Castro tried to get Russia nuke us.
Here's a clue. Communism doesn't work.
I’m sorry for the awkward sentence construct.
Now why is it that Americans eagerly buy refrigerators made in China, while Cubans must be "encouraged" to by their friendly neighborhood socialist enforcement committee?
He and Guevara were literally begging Khruschev to launch the missiles during the crisis. There is no doubt, according to Soviet officials, that had Castro had control of the missiles that he would have launched them.
WWII here we go.
And remember, the Soviets had already placed short range nuclear tipped missiles in Cuba. Something that we learned about much later.
Thanks Fidel.
Make that III.
SMG
i take it you're not a cigar aficionado.
The world wants sugar and beef and cigars. When Castro started out, he promised that Cuba under the revolution would reach 10 million tons of sugar annually. Last I saw, it was under 2 million and sinking fast.
But I am amused to see that wb imagines that there are 'modern American models' of refrigerators.
It sort of seems like the supporters of socialism, Marxism, etc. are fixated on the emotional manipulation of the rhetoric - it sounds compassionate, therefore it is good. Even when it delivers starvation, poverty, totalitarianism, etc. I guess throwing the "class warfare" propaganda in too helps by arousing envy and jealousy and the like. But in any case it all seems to be rooted in emotional manipulation and not economics.
Castro tortures people, we use "enhanced interrogation".
Good point. Shows how far this administration has strayed from the moral high ground and the American way.
As the embargo seems to have no positive effect on Cuban policy and as Cuba is strategically irrelevant at this point (and has been for 15+ years), there really would be no downside.
SFB
Further, to the person upthread who said that we have the embargo because of the Cuban missile crisis, you should actually use your brain and think about things (I know this becoming hard for the 25 percenters). The Vietnamese government is responsible for way, way, way more deaths of Americans than is that idiot Castro. Yet, we had no problem ending the embargo with them. Why? Because there was not a small but politically powerful Vietnamese ex-pat community who would scream bloody murder if we ended it.
This is why the reference to the US embargo is misleading: there are other, indirect, ways in which the US is trying to hurt the Cuban economy, at a significant cost toe US taxpayers.
Among the reasons we have an embargo was the documented record of Castro's fervent desire to nuke America. You may dismiss this but us less developed species do not.
Indeed, his continued enduring hatred for the US (indeed, to all democracies) and his continued support for anti-American and terrorist groups througout Central America. This is something, as far as I know, the Vietnamese do not engage in.
But since you're such a higher and enlightened species, we all await your learned thoughts on Castro's pleadings with the Soviets in 1962 to nuke the US?
For or against?
What say you, oh brilliant and learned scholar?
SMG
The result is that US sugar and corn syrup manufacturers make out like bandits; US consumers are forced to consume sweeteners that are less healthy and tasty than sugar; sugar-producing countries are alienated by US sugar tarifs; and consumers in the rest of the world get the sugar denied to US consumers.
Changed US sugar policy would have little, if any, effect on Cuba. The island's agricultural economy has been in decline since Castro took over. Sugar has been the hardest hit. The pathetic Cuban sugar industry is already free to supply sugar to any country in the world, other than the US, which wants their costly and inferior product. A change in US policy would benefit both US consumers and free market sugar producers outside the US but have little impact on Cuba other than to deny the bearded one another of his many excuses for the economic disaster he's created.
Hmm, I see a difference between: (1) Fanatical alien combatants who practice terrorism against civilians while violating all norms of international warfare and (2) Cuban poets who write poems critical of the government.
Perhaps you can't.
SMG
I put a wet towel over my head once. Am I guilty of "enhanced interrogation?" Can I still be covered by the geneva conventions and get a fair American trial even though I sliced the throats of women and children? That was a hypothetical question.
1) Sugar cane, which produces sugar, which is a low-priced bulk commodity on the world market. I think that at one point the Soviets were propping Castro up by buying all the sugar Cuba could produce for export, although it seems very unlikely that it could be shipped halfway around the world for less than it would cost the Russians to grow beet sugar or import it from somewhere closer. They'd have done better selling it at much closer US ports - but now (and I don't know for how long back) sugar and ethanol from sugar imports from anywhere are blocked by sky-high tariffs to protect American beet-growers.
Also, under Castro's "wise" guidance, the Cuban sugar production capability collapsed to a small fraction of what it was under a market system, even a corruptly-regulated market system.
2) Cigars: The present US market for high-priced extra-stinky cancer sticks just isn't that big. And that's assuming that Communism hasn't made as big a mess of cigar production as it has of everything else. I know Cuba still exports some premium cigars, but are they all made by old men who learned their trade pre-Castro? In any case, the reason Cuban cigars are good is that they are carefully hand-made by craftsmen - which is a recipe for starvation-level wages in the modern world.
3. Tourism. That's probably where the embargo really does cost Cuba a lot. Americans will pay quite a lot to laze around on tropical beaches for a few days, especially when the government has made sure that the view isn't spoiled by the local poor people... Under Batista, the night-time entertainments were notorious, and probably extracted much more money from rich Americans whose tastes ran that way - and while in theory, Communism should have shut such things down, I suspect that in practice they'd find a way to tax it and keep that revenue stream.
OTOH, I grew up in a tourist town. The tourist business mostly offers jobs at a barely making a living level. That may be better than what Communism offers most Cubans...
The whole point of communism is to maximize the power of the ruling class. It appears to work fairly well in that respect.
Yes. Other things which may be better than what communism offers most cubans (or anyone else):
Crossing a heavily fortified border packed with mines while being shot at by your countrymen to travel to the hated enemy; the great satan, a continent away.
Floating on a tire across shark infested waters in a hurricane.
Paddling a canoe across the entire Pacific ocean (!!!!). I mean, how do you do that? Vietnam to California in a rowboat? I must not have the correct facts for that. They must have at least stopped in Australia or Hawaii or someplace.
Some people also cross the local border with some other country, which is technically illegal, and someone might show up and make you go back to Mexico... for like one day.
To do that to reach the land where people hate their country and hate their president and hate their fellow citizen and hate other races and hate racist people but at the same time hating Jews because even the ACLU hates Israel. Still better than communism.
===
Actually, he tried to get the USSR to nuke us. And they no longer exist. So we have an embargo...why?
Especially not about US cane producers making big profits. If that were true, then the Hawaii producers would not have shut down. As it is, in the past 20 years, all but two have closed, and annual production is 25% of what it was in 1987. Not that much different from Cuba's decline -- except that Hawaii producers are by far the most efficient in the world.
They pay the highest wages of any agricultural sector anywhere, and always have. They make the most tons per acre. And they do not participate in the price support loan program, although they do sell into a market created by the loan program.
Sugar is a fascinating, complicated subject. In fact, the loan program has harmed most the small island producers who have high costs despite low wages but nothing else to sell. In order to support the US price, they have been cut off at the knees. Each year the amount they can sell into the US market is lessened.
Globalism is ruining those countries. The EU used to have a similar sweetheart deal with some of them for bananas, but US-based banana producers used the WTO to eliminate this moderately benevolent form of colonialism and ruined the economies of several nations.
There, have I insulted the economic prejudices of everybody?
I meant to. It's even worse than that. And when there was a free market in sugar, you should have heard the American consumer howl. Free markets do not always result in lower consumer prices, despite what you may have heard at the U. of Chicago.
EricH: are you sure everyone tortured by the US has been, in fact, a fanatical enemy combatant? [this is not to say I reject torture as an interrogation tool]
jows: The wonderful governments of China and Sudan, to name two at random, have commited and commit today abuses far greater than Castro has done. Why should the US not boycott these countires as well? [Because the US is not at war with them -- not because the government of Cuba is any worse]
What failure? In the worker's paradise? There is no failure. Haven't you seen Sicko?
There are a lot of good pharmaceuticals that can address your delusions. . . . . Yes, the 75 percent of us who disapprove of Bush hate our country, hate our president (disapprove, not hate), hate our fellow citizens, hate other races, and hate the Jews (even though the overwhelming majority of Jews do not support this war or Bush), because even the ACLU hates Israel (where did that come from anyway?).
For or against?
Yes, SteveMG, because I disagree with our policy of embargoing Cuba and think it is counterproductive to the ultimate goal of ending communism on Cuba, I am for the nuking of America. Some logic there. Remember these are the 25 percenters who are still supporting Bush.
Nice try. Please show us something supporting the assertion that those tortured at Abu Ghraib (and it was torture) were "fanatical alien combatants who practice terrorism against civilians while violating all norms of international warfare." In fact, most of them were nothing of the sort. And even those were fighting us were entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions according to our own government.
Oh, that's not true. Cuba's child whores are the envy of Europe; they drive most of the tourism from the Continent to the island...
You quote "showing one's patriotism" as a reason to buy Chinese refrigerators, and then list not being tortured as a disincentive for failing to show one's patriotism.
So either
1) you're denial is a lie, and you tried to sneak an absurd claim past people
2) you're a bad writer
3) you're illogical.
There's just no fourth option here, given the only reference in the whole post to "showing one's patriotism" is in the fridge buying market.
Still, the American right-sided politically needs to get a grip upon their logic faculties about Cuba. In carrot/stick strategies, it is the carrot that should predominate. The stick should only be applied with discriminate scarcity in instances where attention has wandered. America's economic sanctions against Cuba, which stretch back the greater part of my lifetime, should be a textbook case of politically motivated counterproductive policy, that has best served the interests of the entities it was promulgated with the intent to harm. These policies have greatly increased the Cuban people's economic hardships, and have provided Castro with a scapegoat to cover up his own miserable failures.
End the economic sanctions imposed against Cuba. Allow for the Cuban government to be the sole economic agent for the Cuban People, but insure transparent transactions in the marketplace. In a short period of time, the failures and inefficiencies of a government controlled economic representative become obvious to all, and the process towards an honourable liberation of the Cuban People has begun. In this performance on the international stage, America takes the role of an over sized clumsy imbecile attempting to swat a fly with a baseball bat.
In theory, the right deifies the free market, but in reality, they are apostates, who cower in fear of its universal applicability.
2. If I'm only earning $15 a month, I don't think I'd have much left to pay off a $200 loan.
The basic fact is that Cuba can't get rich by producing a cheap agricultural commodity that is glutted on the world market and for which it is not even the low cost producer.
If you look at all the individual reports, you'll find that an index score below 60% is a strong predictor of deep poverty (as represented by per-capita GDP).
Substitute 'Iraq' for 'Cuba' and it seems to me we ran that experiment 1991-2003 already. Worked great, didn't it?
Anyway, the Cuban embargo will go away when Castro does, which is probably in the not too distant future. He didn't make an appearance on his birthday in August and there haven't been any recent videos of him in that fetching track suit. It's just a waiting game now. In fact, I've read that there have been some negotiations to allow foreign companies to set up business and start employing Cubans, which will change the entire economy and is probably an even stronger sign that Castro is a non-entity at last. Change is coming.
If I recall correctly, the embargo will continue till both Fidel and Raul are gone.
Small islands (anywhere, not just the Caribbean) don't work very well economically, except for tourism and not always even for that.
Cuba, of course, is not a small island. It is a big island -- from east to west, it stretches as far as from New York City to Chicago.
Seems to me, though, the relevant comparison would be to Puerto Rico. Cuba is doing badly, but P.R. isn't doing so hot either.
Cuba - $3,500 (29.7%)
Haiti - $1,700 (52.2%)
Dominican Republic - $7,449 (56.7%)
Jamaica - $4,163 (66.1%)
Barbados - $16,825 (70.5%)
Bahamas - $20,200 (71.4%)
Trinidad and Tobago - $12,182 (71.4%)
(Interestingly, Cuba (38%) scores better than Haiti (18%) in Freedom From Corruption.)
Unfortunately, GDP figures don't tell the whole story - we don't know what the income distribution is like in those countries. And we need to remember that the State is as much a part of that distribution as individuals, especially in a Communist nation where the State owns everything and everybody else gets an allowance. Does Cuba still outrank Haiti on that score when one factors out the portion of the GDP that is sucked up by government?
Seriously, when Castro took over, Cuba was one of the wealthier countries in the region.
It should be noted that there is a lot of truth to this, and that in the scheme of things, Castro's expropriation of property is not a particularly huge sin (and is arguably not a sin at all). The property distribution in 1950's Cuba was hugely inequitable, with darker-skinned peasants being forced to work in virtual slavery, while the Mob, American corporations, and a comparatively few lighter-skinned elites made off like bandits from an economy based in large part on prostitution and gambling.
When you have this inequitable a property distribution, expropriation of property can be quite justifiable. (I should add that this doesn't justify collectivizing property, merely getting rid of the inequitable distribution. Private property rights are still important and valuable, once you get a fairer distribution.)
I should add that this is going to be the real sticking point once the Castros die. A lot of folks in Miami want their property back, and a lot of folks in Cuba (including many who don't care for Castro as well as many who do) who have been using it for 50 years aren't going to want to give it back.
In the Western Hemishpere, the only threat was the aggressive and industrious Cuban people. The bosses then decided that, rather than expend the resources to compete with the Cubans in central and south America, it was far easier (and cheaper) to surpress their natural capabilities and the best way to do that was, of course, to make the communists. Thus, Castro was used to enslave the Cuban people.
But no banana republic can hold a candle to Communism when it comes to unfree markets.
As I said, the property distribution justified expropriation, but not collectivization. (I.e., Batista's horror show doesn't justify Castro's.)
The problem is that reversing the expropriation (not simply eliminating the collectivization) is one of the main goals of the original group of Cuban exiles and US Cuba policy, and that's not going to happen without a huge fight from the people in Havana who have been living and working on the land the last 50 years.
Speaking of which, how did Chile manage to outpace the rest of Latin maerica in the democratization sweepstakes? Are there some lessons there for a (knock on wood) post-Commie Cuba?