« Who said England doesn't have serious deposit insurance? | Main | My favorite things Spain, music »
Many people embarrass themselves over Fidel Castro
Here is one menagerie, with Brad DeLong parrying ably. A simple checklist would start with the question of whether an apologist has visited both the Dominican Republic and Cuba. And a non-communist Cuba could have done much better than the DR. It is a fascinating place for visitors, but right now the quality of life in Cuba isn't close to that of the DR or for that matter Honduras, the second-biggest Latino mess in the hemisphere. While we're at it, let's not forget northern Mexico or even central Mexico. It's time to stop apologizing for communist dictatorships; are you really so taken with the idea of confiscating property as to overlook decades of tyranny, impoverishment, and human misery? Yes I am familiar with the UN social indicators; I say you need to visit each of these countries, preferably speaking Spanish, and then report back to me.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 20, 2008 at 02:16 AM in History | Permalink
Comments
Cuba had the best tobacco in the world. And they could have a monopoly on legit Ché t-shirts, perhaps with the Adidas logo. There is no excuse for that country to not be super wealthy. There's lots of demand for such goods outside the United States.
Posted by: Brad Hutchings at Feb 20, 2008 2:30:15 AM
Yes I am familiar with the UN social indicators; I say you need to visit each of these countries, preferably speaking Spanish, and then report back to me.
Yes, why rely on mere data when anecdote supports your opinion?
Posted by: TheophileEscargot at Feb 20, 2008 3:17:06 AM
As much as I dislike Castro, the seeds of his tyranny were planted by the USofA.
http://econ.ucalgary.ca/fac-files/rs/Nov27CTARPaper.pdf
Posted by: russ at Feb 20, 2008 4:00:26 AM
Everyone bitches about Cuba all being the fault of the US (stand up now Russ). They rarely mention the malign influence Castro has had on the rest of the world. Angola and Congo being particularly malign examples.
I am glad he is stepping away from power and I hope a better form of government will arrive without bloodshed.
Posted by: Stuart at Feb 20, 2008 4:10:32 AM
Why can't we agree that YES Cuba could be better if the revolution had not happened BUT it could also be worse.
Latin America is pretty much a basket case in this area. Not as bad as say Africa, but still a basket case in the area of development.
Castro did bad things, and some good things. The USA did help plant the seeds that lead to him being in power, but i think embargo has lead to things being worse not better.
After the USSR fell we had a great opportunity to lift the embargo and hopefully help bring about a better life for everyone in Cuba. We missed that chance, and it looks like we are going to miss another one now.
Posted by: cameron mulder at Feb 20, 2008 4:18:10 AM
The Cuban economu under the Castros is a failure. For almost 4o years the USRR practically support the economy with huge subsidies, when the URSS collapse Venezuela's Hugo Chavez stepped in and is aiding the fragile economy of the island. Cuba can not provide enough food for their citizen under the political-economic system that has. A Change is needed. Socialism is a failure. Capitalism stinks but at least we can eat on a daily basis...
Posted by: Wesbri at Feb 20, 2008 6:10:20 AM
Given their common starting points (brutal and corrupt U.S.-backed dictator) the better comparison for Cuba without Castro is with Haiti.
Posted by: Stephen Downes at Feb 20, 2008 7:13:16 AM
But Cuba wouldn't be such an interesting place to visit if it wasn't for 50 years of communism. It would look a lot more like a clone of the other carribean islands.
You can argue that one way or the other would have been better for Cubans, but don't say that in the absence of tourism they would be doing better than DR, because Cuba is only interesting because it is different, and it is largely different because of all the years of isolation.
Posted by: paul at Feb 20, 2008 7:35:41 AM
Tyler is 100 percent right about Cuba, but now that Fidel is ailing and almost out of the picture, I wonder if the Cubans would be better off with a Chinese-style gov't: that is, a political dictatorship that allowed foreign investment and repected property rights. My fear is that a free Cuba would be unable to govern itself, making it a "tragic choice" between freedom and corruption on the one hand and economic efficiency and Chinese-style Communist rule on the other
Posted by: enrique at Feb 20, 2008 7:38:38 AM
I have been to Cuba and Northern Mexico, and I can honestly say the worst in Northern Mexico looked to me to be worse than the worst in Cuba. That unfortunately is the extent of my Central American traveling. And of course, there is much less variance in Cuba.
There are a million things that could be better about Cuba, but I do not understand the foaming hatred for Fidel's government as opposed to other dictators past and present in the developing world. There are some dimensions along which Cuba's government is strictly better than these others (health care, education) which stems from the fact that Fidel goal (which of course he has largely failed to achieve) is to provide for Cuba's citizens. In fact, on a "good intentions" scale, this puts Fidel in a pretty good ranking among world leaders.
Cuba is certainly interesting to visit because of the 50+ years of communism and the embargo, but let's not forget that what is best for Cubans is definitely not what is best for us tourists. I'm hoping for some peaceful progress and I think we will see it (but very slowly at first).
Posted by: Aaron Fix at Feb 20, 2008 8:04:08 AM
It's difficult not to argue that a good amount of the poverty in Cuba today is due to the trade embargo with the US. Some of the people that are lobbying the hardest right now to ease the embargo are farmers who want to start exporting food there. Regardless of politics, cheaper food will improve the lives of the average Cuban, as I'm sure opening the US market to Cuban goods will dramatically improve the Cuban business sector (tourism alone should be a boom).
Correlation does not imply causation, and as much as we may disagree with authoritarian regimes in principle, that does not mean they are the cause of economic distress, nor that democracy brings wealth. Sure Milton Friedman would say that in the long-run one leads to the other, but I'm yet to be convinced Cuba's economic woes are due entirely to their government. The fact that they can't trade with the largest economy in the world, 90 miles from their border, has to have something to do with it.
Posted by: Finance Monk at Feb 20, 2008 8:07:18 AM
Given their common starting points (brutal and corrupt U.S.-backed dictator) the better comparison for Cuba without Castro is with Haiti.
Except that Cuba under was far, far wealthier before Castro than Haiti has ever been. Cuba is much, much poorer relative to surrounding countries than it was pre-Castro. One can argue whether various leveling was worth it, but comparisons with nearby countries are nearly all to Castro's detriment. In 1953, Cuba had a similar per capita income to Italy, and more doctors and dentists per capita than the Netherlands, France, UK, and Finland. In the 50s, Cuba was closer in income per capita to Puerto Rico, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, and Spain; comparisons should be made against similar countries, not perennial basket case Haiti. (Of course, discussion of how various Latin American countries in the early 20th c. or post WWII were as wealthy as in Europe but failed to grow in subsequent year is a venerable topic for debate.)
As far as Batista's US support, while it's definitely true he was supported because "he's a sonofabitch... but our sonofabitch," it's also true that disgust with "our sonofabitch" had caused the US to impose an arms embargo on Batista in early 1958, and that US policy had switched to trying to convince Batista to leave peacefully. The US quickly recognized Castro's government before the relationship deteriorated (and Castro banned other political partied, etc.)
Surely the embargo hurts Cuba, as the US is the most natural trading partner for Cuba and there's room for massive gains from trade, but it's not as though there isn't trade between Cuba and Europe (and other countries).
Posted by: John Thacker at Feb 20, 2008 8:43:44 AM
Given Cuba's relatively advanced state of development at the time, if they had stayed a US ally, they would have most likely become a "Tiger." They would have had explosive growth and would have transitioned from authoritarianism to democracy, a la South Korea and Taiwan. That really is the most likely counterfactual.
The cost of Castro's murderous buffoonery is thus much greater than most here have assumed.
I think if you really want to make a case for any Latin American leftists, you'll need to stick to the Sandanistas (who are the only communist group I know of that actually brought about a country that has peaceful democratic transtions of power), and maybe Omar Torrijos.
But other than that, the "commies suck" formula is the one to go with.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 20, 2008 8:56:58 AM
I feel bad for Brad on this one. Time spent arguing with people who are still clutching their Che t-shirts is time poorly spent. These are obviously not people who are capable of Bayesian updating.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 20, 2008 9:01:12 AM
These comments are just terrible. What has gone in Cuba for the past fifty years is very sad. I am by know means sticking up for the U.S or the previous Cuban administration but arguing that Castro was anything other than a total failure is just plain ideology. Take off the rose colored glasses, look closely at Cuba's poverty and lack of development. It's easy to argue on Castro's behalf sitting in an air conditioned room, with a laptop, and sipping Starbucks but if you look closely at that country the message is not positive. Command and control economies do not work very well, if at all.
I just dont understand why anyone on the left would ever take the time to try and admonish him. Castro's revolution was a failure and there is ample evidence to feel certain in that opinion. Rationing, shortages, and decaying infrastructure are the norm in that country. Bravo to Castro for making some strides in health care and illustrating to the world how to achieve better health care outcomes with extremely constrained resources, however, this does not excuse the grotesque lack of development in that country over the past fifty years.
Posted by: john pertz at Feb 20, 2008 9:03:21 AM
If by "parrying abely" you mean quoting selectively, deleating comments he doesn't like or can't deal with, and editing others then I guess DeLong is doing that. If you mean dealing with any argument in a fair way than he's obviously not. Occassionally DeLong shows himself to be a real jack-ass who must show that he's no lefty. This brings out a really stupid and unpleasant streak in him, as in this case. It's not an admirable display and shouldn't be presented as such. (As for Honduras, I suspect you've not seen it very much. It's a massive exporter of refugees with much of the country run by extremely dangerous criminal gangs whose activities have lead to the development of a new word, "femiside" to describe their massive and brutal murders of women. That's the reality for much of that country.)
Posted by: Matt at Feb 20, 2008 9:07:05 AM
If you go to www.flickr.com and search for Havana Cuba you see pictures from a variety of people from different perspectives.
Posted by: Floccina at Feb 20, 2008 9:19:07 AM
Why not compare with Puerto Rico? Similar historic roots, independence from Spain at the same time. Since 59 massive economic support from Washington for P.R, while during the same period Cuba got an even more massive economic support from Moscow. And then compare the result today.
Posted by: Johan v B at Feb 20, 2008 9:48:53 AM
Just as it took until after the Soviet Union fell to see the full picture there, so it will take until after communism falls in Cuba to see the full picture there - despite the relatively more free access we already have.
I doubt that the health care situation is as rosy as current statistics predict, and the human rights violations and poverty are almost certainly worse than we know.
Cuba was on track to high growth through tourism when Castro came to power. He would not have allowed that to continue even if the US was willing. He has been able to trade with Europe, but trade (evil capitalist invention that it is and unnecessary under pure socialism) can only get an economy so far if it is monopoly government trading by an economy without markets or prices.
A fair analysis of the system after the regime falls will show that it only succeeded to the extent that markets (black) have slipped through the loopholes in the laws.
Posted by: liberty at Feb 20, 2008 10:23:44 AM
Unless things have changed in the last ten years, the UN health figures are reported to the UN by the Cuban government. In the UN view, these data are submitted to it by a sovereign government and are not questioned, and therefore are published accordingly. I cannot see how anyone could take Cuba's UN health numbers seriously.
Posted by: Sleeper at Feb 20, 2008 10:37:50 AM
There are a lot of countries where people risk their lives to get into them - all the European Union, the USA, India and China for starters. I think there are just two left where people risk their lives to escape from the country - North Korea under the Kim Il family and Cuba under the Castro family. On the island of Cuba, Guatanamo Bay contains a jail. The rest of Cuba simply is a jail, even if a more spacious and less repellent one.
Posted by: David Heigham at Feb 20, 2008 10:38:52 AM
There are a lot of countries where people risk their lives to get into them - all the European Union, the USA, India and China for starters. I think there are just two left where people risk their lives to escape from the country - North Korea under the Kim Il family and Cuba under the Castro family.
People risk their lives to leave Haiti, Mexico, Morrocco, Burma... Essentially anywhere in the world where people believe the other side of a border is worth a reasonable chance of death in crossing the border they will risk their lives. The only commonalities in the sample are severe economic disparity and ethnic conflict.
Posted by: Q-Tip at Feb 20, 2008 10:51:33 AM
John Pertz’s remarks are 100% right on.
If you want to see the fruits of Castro’s rule it is very simple to do. Take a vacation to Jamaica and while there hop on a Jamaican puddle jumper flight to Cuba. (Usually it cost more than the flight to Jamaica.) Cuba wants hard currency including US dollars so they do not stamp your passport and welcome US visitors. Then I suggest you travel away from the official tourists areas and visit where the areas where the Cubans live who work in those tourists areas. 97% plus literacy? Yes but 97% literacy can’t put enough food on the table. There isn’t enough food available in Cuba to feed the people. The entire country is broke and falling apart. The sugar industry is in shambles, the highways, buildings, transportation, you name it and it is falling apart. The vaunted medical system is another cruel joke on the people. Every Cuban has easy access to doctors & clinics; but the clinics rarely have medicine or functioning equipment. If you do go bring lots of useful over the counter drugs like aspirin, acetaminophen, and diaper ointment. If you do the Cuban people will gladly spend time telling you about how wonderful life is in their socialist paradise.
One other thing, please don’t give me the US trade embargo crap; the entire
Posted by: macquechoux at Feb 20, 2008 10:56:56 AM
I am not sure we can definitively say that Castro and his domestic politics resulted in the demise of Cuba's economy (I am assuming Cuba's economy is in shambles). The alternative explanation is that the US embargo was the cause.
Had the US traded with Cuba and supported the Castro regime the way that it supported other dictators, perhaps Cuba would be a "tiger". And, perhaps, as in Vietnam, the communist regime would have migrated toward a more market-based system.
But the purpose of the embargo was not to help the people of Cuba by improving their lives within their own system of government. The theory was that it would improve their lives by causing the downfall of their government. Sort of an anti-communist revolution.
IMHO, the embargo has failed in totality. Had the US accepted Castro and used its economic power to coopt the regime, Cubans would be in a much better economic position today, whether the regime succeeded politically or not.
Posted by: Allan at Feb 20, 2008 11:06:21 AM
Like TC, I cannot understand why so many on the American left are so eager to defend the Castro government. He hit upon what I think is one of the three reasons: their approval for confiscating property. Another is Castro's anti-Americanism. And the third was mentioned above: the regime's stated objective of achieving equality ("good intentions"), which is related to the confiscation of property.
It amazes me that these things make many people defend the regime's tyranny and wrecking of the Cuban economy.
Posted by: larry at Feb 20, 2008 11:08:57 AM
