bgmims...
I do understand your point.
And I do realize that my wife and her family are only a tiny fraction of the Russian people.

The reason that I posted the way that I did thought was two-fold.
First....it is one thing to hear what communism is to a people. It is something else to hear a single person's account. It is also sometimes more powerful to hear about something in a way you can truly realte.

Second...I was not trying to single out her or her childhood and denounce communism because of just that. I was trying to give a true picture of what is considered "normal" and "accepted" in communism.
My wife's experience was not something that I want to experience. It was not at all uncommon though. This was the norm in their society. In fact, what would drop our jaws do not make these people even pause. It was all they knew and everyday life to them.


And while it may be arugued that Russia was an "instance"...I would say this.
Show me a single attempt at Communism that has worked.
There have been MANY attempts. I just want to know one they think of as a success.


BTW....if my wife heard you call her Yakoff, she would introduce you to Boris the Bear.

10/28/2006 3:33:50 AM

Well, FASCISM is working out just fine!

10/28/2006 4:46:11 AM

I was going to type a much longer post.
I decided it would do not good though.

I do not think that even DissentNow believes that we really live in a Fascist state.
If you do....that tells me that you really have no earthly idea what Fascism is.

I do wish that people who throw these words out however, realize that they are insulting people that really lived in these conditions.

10/28/2006 5:54:44 AM

Quote :

"when I have demonstrated that under common circumstances they do"

Where did you do that? You simply can't do it. The monopoly pricing model does not show competitive pricing.

Quote :

"But it seemed like you were endlessly fascinated by this mechanism of capitalism"

I already know about it, and I know about the flaws in it. You, however, don't understand any of it, and the best you can do is point at historical anecdotes.

Quote :

"She had an up-close and personal look at communism. Let's talk about some of the better memories of her childhood."

Shit, those stories sound like an episode of the Wonder Years compared to the stories of people who had a really tough life. Yes, life isn't as good in most other countries as it is here in the US, surprise! But this has nothing to do with communism.

Quote :

"Show me a single attempt at Communism that has worked. There have been MANY attempts. I just want to know one they think of as a success."

Venezuela, Cuba, China, do I need to continue.
But if we looked at early implementations of democracy, we'd see similar results.

[Edited on October 28, 2006 at 1:09 PM. Reason : ]

10/28/2006 1:06:00 PM

China is not really communist. That is not their end goal nor is it currently a communist system. Communist China was Mao China--what a success that was

and before you go touting China as a success you need to take a closer look. Besides, every metric you use to measure china as a "success" is based on material things. Kind of like how you measure success in a capitalist society. Exactly contradicting what you said earlier in the thread about wants and needs and measuring success.

The only thing positive coming out of china is a direct result of their capitalist markets and totalitarian rule that can force entire cities into production of certain goods.

I suggest everyone interested in red china read the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party .
http://ninecommentaries.com/

10/28/2006 2:21:52 PM

Quote :

"Venezuela, Cuba, China, do I need to continue. But if we looked at early implementations of democracy, we'd see similar results."

Kris, isn't Cuba really the only shot at being correct here? I mean, first, you'll admit no one has tried Marxian Communism, right?

Second, China isn't communist in any real sense and Venezuela hasn't been communist long enough to prove it isn't going to fuck them in the end.

Cuba is the only "communist" country that has a track record for a decent shot at working.

10/28/2006 2:39:59 PM

Quote :

"That is not their end goal nor is it currently a communist system."

What they are currently is solely dependent on their end goal. And unless you can read minds, I doubt that you can tell me that their end goal is any different than they claim it to be.
Communism still political in nature – democratic or despotic; with the abolition of the state, yet still incomplete, and being still affected by private property, i.e., by the estrangement of man. In both forms communism already is aware of being reintegration or return of man to himself, the transcendence of human self-estrangement; but since it has not yet grasped the positive essence of private property, and just as little the human nature of need, it remains captive to it and infected by it. It has, indeed, grasped its concept, but not its essence.
Karl Marx - Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844

Quote :

"Besides, every metric you use to measure china as a "success" is based on material things. Kind of like how you measure success in a capitalist society. Exactly contradicting what you said earlier in the thread about wants and needs and measuring success."

Not contradictory at all, we measure the wealth of a society by measuring the wealth of a society. We can do this in communism or capitalism, or any other economic structure.

Quote :

"Kris, isn't Cuba really the only shot at being correct here? I mean, first, you'll admit no one has tried Marxian Communism, right?"

Right, but this isn't neccesarily a bad thing. Marx lived a long time ago, he has been dead for quite a while now, and the world has changed, it would be stupid to follow his ideas alone. He had the concept, and it's implementation in different places must be different.

Quote :

"Second, China isn't communist in any real sense"

I'd say it is. Communism is more of a pathway to a destination, and this may loop, they may need to backtrack, but their hopes are still to get to the same destination.

10/28/2006 3:08:50 PM

I would argue that their hopes (and actions) point towards moving to an open economy, rather than communism.

10/28/2006 3:23:38 PM

Quote :

"but their hopes are still to get to the same destination."

No it isn't you fool. their hopes are to become the most dominate country on earth and their attitude is do whatever it takes to get their. they call it socialism with chinese characteristics, and those chinese characteristics are based on pragmatism not ideology, i.e. marxism.

But I ask you what are the communist or socialist policies that have moved China forward? You claim China as a communist success. But as I mentioned the only things that have driven China forward are capitalism and totalitarianism. So what about communism has helped china?

Communism almost brought china into total destruction. I mean they did destroy thousands of years of culture and millions and millions of people.

besides, since when do we take governments at their word and not their actions. You're so naive.

10/28/2006 3:56:07 PM

Quote :

"I would argue that their hopes (and actions) point towards moving to an open economy, rather than communism."

If someone only looked at a part of a mouse's journey through a maze, one could conclude that the mouse runs away from the cheese.

Quote :

"their hopes are to become the most dominate country on earth and their attitude is do whatever it takes to get their"

Does your crystal ball take screenshots in jpeg format? If so could you post it?

Quote :

"they call it socialism with chinese characteristics, and those chinese characteristics are based on pragmatism not ideology, i.e. marxism."

Communism doesn't have to be marxism.

Quote :

"Communism almost brought china into total destruction. I mean they did destroy thousands of years of culture and millions and millions of people."

That was despotism, not communism.

10/28/2006 4:06:40 PM

Quote :

"That was despotism, not communism"

No you are wrong. that was Mao.

10/28/2006 4:11:33 PM

Quote :

"If someone only looked at a part of a mouse's journey through a maze, one could conclude that the mouse runs away from the cheese."

Clever, but it doesn't support that the cheese is communism any more than capitalism, right?

10/28/2006 4:32:30 PM

Quote :

"No you are wrong. that was Mao."

He's exactly the despot I'm refering to. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Quote :

"Clever, but it doesn't support that the cheese is communism any more than capitalism, right?"

The point wasn't what the cheese was in the metaphor, it was that most journeys involve more than just a straight line.

10/28/2006 5:34:45 PM

Quote :

"That was despotism, not communism."

but , OMG, his end goal was communism so it must have been communism.

Quote :

" it was that most journeys involve more than just a straight line."

exactly, they are on a path--just not toward communism as you think. They are on a path to free markets and a capitalist society.

[Edited on October 28, 2006 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .]

10/28/2006 6:14:40 PM

All I am hearing is a lot of people trying to be the smartest person in the room.

Look..it is not all that complicated.
Karl Marx and his book was a basis of the argument used to overthrow the Czar in Russia.

And simply put...NOBODY can show a SINGLE attempt at communism as a success.
OK...the example of Cuba, China and Venezuela were given.

So....if you consider a country that ALLOWED Tieneman Square to happen..with no fallout to that govt, then it is a success.

If you consider a country where people are willing to risk their lives in TRASH CAN LIDS to not only leave there but also to get here, then it is a success.
(Not aware of Mexico having a huge problem with illegal American aliens)
(Also do not recall any stories of Cuba having an issue with Americans trying to get there on Trash can lids.)
If you consider a country that gave childhoods and life experiences like my wife had a success, then you can say Communism has been successful somewhere.

Most of us would not call any of those examples a success however.

What I find most perplexing though is the unwillingness to let go of Communism as a goal to strive for REGARDLESS of absolutely no evidence that it works and tons that it does not.

Oh..but you are so much smarter than all those that came before you..aren't you? You would do it so much better...wouldn't you?
It is a failure. It always has been a failure and always will be a failure.
It gives nothing to the people and attempts to take away everything that we are.
It does not take into account a key element of the human condition and will always be fatally flawed because of it.
It does not matter how you dress it up..it will never turn out any different than the failure it has been before.
And a truly inelligent person would recognize that to keep wanting to attempt the same thing, over and over.....with no eveidence that it has ever succeeded is true insanity.

10/29/2006 12:29:55 AM

Quote :

"his end goal was communism so it must have been communism"

It was, but the fault on those atrocity rely soley on despotism, and had nothing to do with communism. Using your logic, I could blame the 9/11 attacks on capitalism because the people who commited them were capitalists.

Quote :

"They are on a path to free markets and a capitalist society."

The great mind reading skill comes out agian!

Quote :

"So....if you consider a country that ALLOWED Tieneman Square to happen..with no fallout to that govt, then it is a success."

That has to do with despotism and poor political government. It has nothing to do with their economic system.

Quote :

"If you consider a country where people are willing to risk their lives in TRASH CAN LIDS to not only leave there but also to get here, then it is a success."

Mexico has numerous illegal immigrants, and they are capitalist, so obviously capitalism doesn't work.

Quote :

"What I find most perplexing though is the unwillingness to let go of Communism as a goal to strive for REGARDLESS of absolutely no evidence that it works and tons that it does not...And a truly inelligent person would recognize that to keep wanting to attempt the same thing, over and over.....with no eveidence that it has ever succeeded is true insanity."

Oh, if only our forefathers had that vision. Democracy has only been tried in rome and greece, and they both failed, we have no evidence to believe democracy works, so why even try it? They must have been "insane".

Quote :

"It does not take into account a key element of the human condition and will always be fatally flawed because of it."

The human condition is what it's environment makes it. We and all other living being are just like everything else in the world, every effect has a cause. Something doesn't come from nothing. You don't get ideas out of space, they come from something that has already happened. If we control what a living creature is exposed to we can control what he does.

10/29/2006 11:59:26 AM

Quote :

"Using your logic, I could blame the 9/11 attacks on capitalism because the people who commited them were capitalists. "

By your logic 1+1=3 and the moon is made of cheese.

Quote :

"The great mind reading skill comes out agian!"

No it's called analysis by observation. Unlike you who tends to believe everything the government tells you. By your logic Chamberlain would have been right.

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 12:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2006 12:37:14 PM

You're no longer worth the trouble of responding to.

10/29/2006 12:55:41 PM

You never were worth the trouble to respond. I think it's funny provoking you to make progressively more absurd statements.

too bad I was just starting to have fun-- Oh well. I guess if you can't win an argument you should quit. I mean, that IS smarter than saying some of those absolutely ridiculous comments you made.

Quote :

"If we control what a living creature is exposed to we can control what he does."

HMMM, where have I heard ideas like this before....
Are you even reading the shit comming out of your head?

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 1:11 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2006 1:03:17 PM

Since when is Mexico capitalist? Mexico has been far better described as a "corrupt socialist democracy" for the past half century. Well, except when it was better described as a "corrupt socialist despotism." If Mexico can be considered capitalist then China in the 1950s can be considered communist.

Quote :

"Oh, if only our forefathers had that vision. Democracy has only been tried in rome and greece, and they both failed, we have no evidence to believe democracy works, so why even try it? They must have been "insane"."

Hence why they designed a constitutional republic and not a Democrcy. I refer you to the Federalist Papers and the U.S. Constitution.

It turns out that democracy leads to socialism and poverty. Thank God America can still be called a Constitutional Democracy, otherwise our economic system would have collapsed long ago under governmental direction.

Well, more accurately, if America was not already a Constitutional form of government Americans would make it one, but I digress.

Quote :

"If we control what a living creature is exposed to we can control what he does."

As always, if only you could do something you cannot do then you could make communism work.

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/29/2006 5:27:04 PM

this thread deserves a big fat
NO

10/29/2006 5:32:42 PM

Quote :

"Mexico has been far better described as a "corrupt socialist democracy" for the past half century. Well, except when it was better described as a "corrupt socialist despotism." If Mexico can be considered capitalist then China in the 1950s can be considered communist."

Mexico is free market, as is many other poor latin american countries. I know you don't like taking credit for anything more than Japan and the US, but most of the world is considered capitalist, and most of the world is poor.

Quote :

"Hence why they designed a constitutional republic and not a Democrcy. I refer you to the Federalist Papers and the U.S. Constitution."

The defining idea was democracy, there was a difference in implementation, but it was still democracy, the idea that the people elect their leader.

Quote :

"As always, if only you could do something you cannot do then you could make communism work."

Oh, yes, perhaps people do create effects from no cause, perhaps magic does exist.

10/29/2006 6:41:31 PM

Quote :

"most of the world is considered capitalist, and most of the world is poor."

You can get away calling them corporatist, maybe. But while Mexico has gotten far more "free" in the last decade, even now the economy is far more regulated than most of France. It is extremely difficult to start a legal business, private property is expropriated regularly, and much of the energy, transport, and retail sectors are solely controlled by state-protected monopolies. Much of the country is still without enforcable land titles.

I don't know what form of capitalism you are using here, but any country where it takes years and several times the average annual salary to legally sell a plot of land cannot be considered capitalist any more than a country can be called communist when most of the farm land is legally owned and operated by autonomous farmers (such as Russia under Lenin).

Quote :

"Oh, yes, perhaps people do create effects from no cause, perhaps magic does exist."

Kris, as always, the cause is obvious. It in instinctual to avoid pain and persue pleasure. Therefore, people are programmed by their own bodies to seek betterment of their position. The cause is not unknown, the cause is that our own bodies train us to behave a certain way (avoid pain, seek pleasure) which is contradictory in your communist system since you need people to obey orders without question or contradiction.

10/29/2006 9:01:18 PM

Quote :

"You can get away calling them corporatist, maybe."

A dodge and a euphemism.

Quote :

"It in instinctual to avoid pain and persue pleasure."

I don't know about instinctual, but yes, pleasure and pain are basic inputs for mankind. This does not, however, imply that people always act solely on these basic inputs alone. For example, if man only wants to avoid physical pain, and seek physical pleasure, how do you explain people going into war? Or a man going into the dentist? Anyone knows physical pain is very likely to result from these activities. Mankind trancends these by it's ability to learn. It's what seperates us from animals, and makes such a complicated system possible without evolutionary changes.

10/29/2006 11:31:36 PM

And it is an input the communist programmers will have a damn hard time working around.

That said, people go into dangerous jobs for many reasons. People join the army because they like the life-style, because they have no other means available to better their own life, or simply because they like the idea of having a social acceptable way of using violence.

Either way, simply pointing out some individuals that have chosen Pain as a line of work does not mean they are not still avoiding pain and seeking pleasure, all it means is that they have found an unusual way of going about it. Pain (joining army) today, pleasure (retirement to Cancun) tomorrow.

"But while Mexico has gotten far more "free" in the last decade, even now the economy is far more regulated than most of France. It is extremely difficult to start a legal business, private property is expropriated regularly, and much of the energy, transport, and retail sectors are solely controlled by state-protected monopolies. Much of the country is still without enforcable land titles."

"I don't know what form of capitalism you are using here, but any country where it takes years and several times the average annual salary to legally sell a plot of land cannot be considered capitalist any more than a country can be called communist when most of the farm land is legally owned and operated by autonomous farmers (such as Russia under Lenin)."

10/29/2006 11:47:58 PM

Quote :

"And it is an input the communist programmers will have a damn hard time working around."

No, it's the only thing we can use. It is the very hammer that will be used to built communism.

Quote :

"That said, people go into dangerous jobs for many reasons. People join the army because they like the life-style, because they have no other means available to better their own life, or simply because they like the idea of having a social acceptable way of using violence."

I know the reasons, the point was, they don't do it solely to avoid physical pain and seek physical pleasure. Humans are much more complicated than that.

Quote :

""But while Mexico has gotten far more "free" in the last decade, even now the economy is far more regulated than most of France. It is extremely difficult to start a legal business, private property is expropriated regularly, and much of the energy, transport, and retail sectors are solely controlled by state-protected monopolies. Much of the country is still without enforcable land titles." "I don't know what form of capitalism you are using here, but any country where it takes years and several times the average annual salary to legally sell a plot of land cannot be considered capitalist any more than a country can be called communist when most of the farm land is legally owned and operated by autonomous farmers (such as Russia under Lenin).""

You're still using a euphamism and redrawing the borders to fence out the ghetto. Many countries, mexico included, have free markets.

10/29/2006 11:53:54 PM

Quote :

"Many countries, mexico included, have free markets."

Hmm, every nation on this planet has a free market or two. Cuba is rife with them, guess that makes Cuba capitalist.

10/30/2006 3:10:53 PM

what kind of trivial shit is this?

10/30/2006 5:37:10 PM

Quote :

"Hmm, every nation on this planet has a free market or two. Cuba is rife with them, guess that makes Cuba capitalist."

Mexico is capitalist, and wishing it wasn't won't change reality.

10/30/2006 8:09:29 PM

Cuba is capitalist, and wishing it wasn't won't change reality.

Well, fine, let's put it this way. Mexico is more capitalist today than it has ever been, that is a fair statement. At the same time, Cuba is more capitalist today than it has ever been (foreign corporations are freely operating inside Cuba, but I digress). Nevertheless, Mexico is clearly more capitalist than Cuba. At the same time, Mexico has a per-capita GDP of $10,000, which is 2.8 times Cuba's $3,500.

Compared to Cuba, Mexico has been a resounding economic sucess; and I think we can all agree this has been thanks in no small part to Mexico having a less state-dominated economy.

10/30/2006 9:52:58 PM

Quote :

"At the same time, Cuba is more capitalist today than it has ever been (foreign corporations are freely operating inside Cuba, but I digress)."

You seem to think that this would bother me. I've stated several times that I think the progression to communism should be slow, and I only pray that the US will lift it's embargo in order to allow cuba to operate to it's full potential.

Quote :

"Nevertheless, Mexico is clearly more capitalist than Cuba. At the same time, Mexico has a per-capita GDP of $10,000, which is 2.8 times Cuba's $3,500."

Mexico is also larger and doesn't have an embargo on it by the world's largest consumer nation. But you're going beyond my point, which is that mexico has a large number of illegal immigrants to the US and it is capitalist, which nullifies the idea that people flee cuba because it is communist.

[Edited on October 31, 2006 at 12:12 AM. Reason : ]

10/31/2006 12:11:53 AM

Quote :

"which nullifies the idea that people flee cuba because it is communist."

You are absolutely right. People do not flee countries because they are communist, it is not an ideological revulsion to communism which makes Cubans risk their lives on flotillas (ignoring Cuba's political repression). They are fleeing poverty and economic stagnation. In other words, people are fleeing Mexico for the U.S. because the U.S. is more capitalist of the two. At the same time, people are fleeing Cuba for the U.S. because the U.S. is more capitalist of the two.

Quote :

"and I only pray that the US will lift it's embargo in order to allow Cuba to operate to it's full potential."

I'm sure we've covered this before. Economically speaking, the U.S. embargo should be having a very small impact upon Cuba. To the best of my knowledge there are very few actual countries partied to the embargo, it is pretty much just the U.S.. Canada, Mexico, most of Europe, all of Asia, and all of Africa trade freely with Cuba. Therefore, the impact of this embargo should be very small because just because Cuban producers cannot trade with the U.S. does not phase them, they'll just sell their goods in Canada.

I seriously doubt there is a large price differential between the U.S. and Canada for anything Cuba is selling. Being a poor 3rd world country, Cuba's main exports are "sugar, nickel, tobacco, fish, medical products, citrus, coffee" and is going to get pretty much the same price for these goods in Canada as it would get in America. The reason for this is obvious: Cuba, unable to sell to the U.S., sells in Canada and Europe, bidding down the price of these commodities in these areas. 3rd party producers, lets say South America, responds by selling more to the U.S. and less to Canada & E.U. until the prices are sufficiently equal to not bother. This is so because Cuba is a relatively small producer in a large market for everything it produces.

Therefore, what is Cuba out because of the Embargo? Only the transportation costs to go around America and get to Mexico/Canada/Europe. But large container ships move heaven and Earth ridiculously cheap, so while the costs are real it amounts to only 4% or so. The price differential for oil between Britain, an oil exporter, and America, an oil importer, separated by 3000+ miles, is often much less than 4%.

The other end of the Embargo is what Cuba buys from the U.S., but again, what does Cuba buy that Canada/Mexico/Europe does not make? "petroleum, food, machinery and equipment, chemicals" can be easily acquired from other American countries such as Venezuela, Mexico, Dom. Rep., Canada, etc. Again, only for obscure things Cuba might face a price premium of 4% on imports.

So, yes, the Embargo is making Cuba poorer, but arguably only marginally poorer, meanwhile Chile, which has much further to go to get to the U.S. than Cuba must go to get to Canada has a per-capita income 320% larger than Cuba.

So, while the Embargo should be stopped it is not because it is inflicting economic harm on Cubans but because it is providing an empty excuse for the failure of Cuba's economic system.

[Edited on October 31, 2006 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/31/2006 9:21:17 AM

Quote :

"They are fleeing poverty"

I agree with that to a degree. If there is more money to be made in another country, people will immigrate there. But's it's not so much fleeing poverty as it is seeking wealth.

Quote :

"In other words, people are fleeing Mexico for the U.S. because the U.S. is more capitalist of the two. At the same time, people are fleeing Cuba for the U.S. because the U.S. is more capitalist of the two."

You ignore the geographical aspects of the US. It is much larger, so simply by economies of scale benefits, it should have a more powerful economy per capita. Additionally, the US has a massive amount of most every natural resource. They have also had a stable political power for several hundred years now. All of these are things that explain the larger wealth, and they have nothing to do with capitalism, but you've proven to be very good at picking and chooosing what you want to use and associeate.

Quote :

"Therefore, the impact of this embargo should be very small because just because Cuban producers cannot trade with the U.S. does not phase them, they'll just sell their goods in Canada."

Without the US as a trading partner, the cubans face a smaller demand for their products. This leads to lower prices.

Quote :

"Being a poor 3rd world country, Cuba's main exports are "sugar, nickel, tobacco, fish, medical products, citrus, coffee" "

Yeah, a lot of poor third world countries export medical products.

You'll note I never mentioned shipping cost, that was a red herring of your own invention.

The fact is that reducing trade has negative effects, no matter how much you try to spin it.

10/31/2006 1:01:01 PM

The hilarity of the United States is that we believe economic sanctions will change governments and thats never actually worked. If we had kept trading with Cuba and allowed cuban citizens access to modern goods we probably would have been able to alter their culture and eventually their government.

10/31/2006 1:06:04 PM

Quote :

" It is much larger, so simply by economies of scale benefits, it should have a more powerful economy per capita."

Flag on the play:

Improper use of economics, 15 yard penalty, repeat rant.


Kris, economies of scale don't exist in every industry. Very small countries and very large countries will both exploit the area of competitive advantage, and this doesn't always (or even most of the time) include economies of scale. This is flawed logic.

10/31/2006 1:08:01 PM

regardless of whether it changed them or not, not trades makes us both suffer, and it's stupid to do that simply for spite.

10/31/2006 1:08:03 PM

LOGIC HATH NO PLACE.

10/31/2006 1:08:50 PM

Quote :

"Kris, economies of scale don't exist in every industry."

True, but overall, it exists in more industries than it doesn't, which is most consumer transactions in america involve large corporations.

Quote :

"Very small countries and very large countries will both exploit the area of competitive advantage, and this doesn't always (or even most of the time) include economies of scale."

A larger country will have more resources to use to further take advantage of economies of scale, which allows them to be even more productive per capita than smaller countries. It explains why large countries and empires have tended to be richer and more powerful.

10/31/2006 1:11:30 PM

Two good points. I will only dock you 5 yards, rather than the original 15.

10/31/2006 1:15:08 PM

Quote :

"Without the US as a trading partner, the Cubans face a smaller demand for their products. This leads to lower prices."

Untrue. Remember what I said, Cuba is small producer in a large market. Of course, you are ignoring another feature of the playing field. Cuba's main exports are farm commodities "sugar, nickel, tobacco, fish, medical products, citrus, coffee." Of these, the U.S. has high trade barriers on sugar, fish, and citrus; even without the embargo it is unlikely Cuba would export much of these to the U.S.. In the case of tobacco and medical products the U.S. is a major exporter of these commodities; again, Cuba is unlikely to export much to the U.S. even without the embargo.

This only leaves nickel and whatever else Cubans come up with. In this case, the U.S. is not the sole importer of nickel as every industrialized country needs it.

Either way, the price differential between the United States and the rest of the world for these commodities will tend to be negligible (or even negative).

You must remember that an embargo only has an impact if alternatives are scarce, which they are not for Cuba. These commodities are traded on a world market and Cuba is receiving this world price, just like every other 3rd world country.

Of course, if Cuba's economy worked we should see a different composition of exports such as industrial goods, farm machinery, automobiles, etc; which we do not. I guess Cuba burned all its communism benefits building a few medical schools and medicine factories.

Quote :

"which allows them to be even more productive per capita than smaller countries"

Completely and utterly false. Productivity per capita has nothing to do with the size of a respective country. If anything, size may determine which industries a country engages in (U.S., Australia, and Russia are the largest commodity exporters on the planet). Meanwhile, the smallest countries (Luxembourg, Hong Kong of 1996, etc), have among the highest productivity rates on the planet. A tiny resource poor nation can specialize in finance. Meanwhile, Japan and South Korea are major industrial powers despite the fact that they need to import all their raw materials.

Productivity is a product of technology and know-how, which can just as easily be imported into a small country just as it can be imported into another company. South Korea imports American machine tools, exports vehicles all over the world, thus attaining economies of scale sufficient to dominate the auto-industry.

[Edited on October 31, 2006 at 6:07 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/31/2006 5:52:15 PM

Quote :

"Either way, the price differential between the United States and the rest of the world for these commodities will tend to be negligible (or even negative)."

This is another simple economic concept, reducing trade reduces competition. This means that cuba can't get as good of a price for the goods it sells or the goods it wants to buy. Additionally, the US gets a worse price for the goods it sells and the goods it wants to buy. This doesn't have as large of an impact for us, but for cuba, preventing trade with the world's largest consumer does have a large impact.

Quote :

"Of course, if Cuba's economy worked we should see a different composition of exports such as industrial goods, farm machinery, automobiles, etc;"

Other caribbean countries have similar exports, however they have larger tourism industries which the US embargo prevents much of.

Quote :

"Productivity per capita has nothing to do with the size of a respective country."

I explained the system at work here. You can deny it if you like, but that doesn't make it any less true.

10/31/2006 9:30:20 PM

Quote :

"preventing trade with the world's largest consumer does have a large impact."

Why? I'm sorry, I could see it if America constituted most of the market. America is a huge consumer (when it isn't a huge supplier), but Europe + Canada + Asia + Mexico dwarf the United States' market in size.

The point is that Cuba's production is puny compared to the global market in whatever it makes. Are we to believe the price of "sugar, nickel, tobacco, fish, medical products, citrus, coffee" has collapsed in Europe because of the U.S. embargo on Cuba? That would be absurd, Cuba's market share is puny, yet you seriously expect us to believe it has triggered a world-wide price collapse in these markets because one tiny producer is unable to sell to the United States?

If you expect me to believe Cuba is receiving a 10% lower price for its coffee because of the embargo, that would mean coffee sold to Europe/Canada/Mexico is fetching a 10% lower price than coffee sold to America. Which would beg the question: Why are the Brazilians selling coffee to Europe at a 10% discount? The answer is that they would not do that; Cuba alone cannot supply all the coffee needs of Europe/Asia/Canada/etc, (Cuba isn't even one of the top 10 producers), and Brazil will not sell coffee to Europe if it can get a 10% higher price by selling it to America. Therefore, Europe MUST pay as much for coffee as Americans are paying, otherwise the only supplier of coffee will be Cuba which despite communist efficiency [sic] cannot hope to satisfy the demand alone.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/coffee/map.html

Quote :

"Other caribbean countries have similar exports, however they have larger tourism industries which the US embargo prevents much of."

So the coming communist utopia will be built upon the ideal of pandering to foreign capitalist tourists?

Quote :

"I explained the system at work here. You can deny it if you like, but that doesn't make it any less true."

You can repeat it all you like, but "resource availability" and "country size" are not historically correlated with either economic efficiency or high degrees of productivity. What is correlated is respect for private property, transparency, and openness to foreign business and products. Of course, what you say would be true if there was no international trade whatsoever, but even then it isn't a function of the size of the country but the size of the market the firms of the country are operating in. But in today's world where trade barriers are at historical lows a nation's size is largely irrelevant to the living standards attainable.

11/1/2006 12:46:21 AM

Quote :

"If you expect me to believe Cuba is receiving a 10% lower price for its coffee because of the embargo, that would mean coffee sold to Europe/Canada/Mexico is fetching a 10% lower price than coffee sold to America. Which would beg the question: Why are the Brazilians selling coffee to Europe at a 10% discount?"

That irrelevant. You're arguing agianst 1+1=2 by claiming that 3/3 != 1.
If the US and cuba do not trade, cuba faces a lower demand for it's products, and simply by definition, a lower demand will lead to a lower price. That's as simple in economics as 1+1. You're simply trying to explain this easy complicated way that you can hide one illogical statement in a mass of logical ones in order to lead you to an incorrect solution.

Quote :

"So the coming communist utopia will be built upon the ideal of pandering to foreign capitalist tourists?"

Why would an economic system deny a form of income? There's no reason not to take advantage of tourism, money is money. I would just hope that cuba didn't allow the same kind of "tourism" it had before Castro cleaned it up.

Quote :

"You can repeat it all you like, but "resource availability" and "country size" are not historically correlated with either economic efficiency or high degrees of productivity."

That's bullshit. The richest countries throughout history have been the largest and had adequate resources availble to them.

11/1/2006 10:59:08 AM

Quote :

"If the US and cuba do not trade, cuba faces a lower demand for it's products, and simply by definition, a lower demand will lead to a lower price."

Yes, Kris, I don't actually know the price being paid for a ton of coffee in either New York or London, so all I have is logic, and your argument sounds plausible at first, but simply doesn't make sense once you think about it. Cuba is exporting commodities which are traded on the world market. Cuban coffee is indistinguishable from Brazillian coffee (ok, Brazillian is of a higher quality, but I digress). Coffee in Europe as in America is traded on a commodity exchange and after being rated for quality the coffee is traded.

After the embargo, the overall demand for coffee is unchanged; the world is still going to consume X tons of coffee, about the same as the year before. The only question is where your coffee ends up/comes from. Cuba shifts its entire production to Europe, Brazil shifts some of its production from Europe to America, price stability is quickly achieved because the same amount of coffee is crossing the Atlantic to Europe, just from different producers, and the same amount of coffee is going to America, just again from different countries. The demand for coffee from Cuba, as a result of this switcheroo, has not changed because the overall demand for coffee has not changed, neither has the supply, so the price being received by coffee producers has also not changed, regardless of who we are talking about. Cuba will need to export the same amount of coffee as it did last year, otherwise there will be a worldwide shortage.

So, although it is usually true that lower demand leads to lower prices, in the case of this embargo demand has not changed.

Quote :

"That's bullshit. The richest countries throughout history have been the largest and had adequate resources availble to them."

Cause obviously China in the 17th century was SO much richer than England, so was India. Fuck, one wonders why there was ever a competition between France and England, France was bigger. And how did a relatively small island in the North Atlantic build such a huge Empire?

11/1/2006 12:42:38 PM

Quote :

"Yes, Kris, I don't actually know the price being paid for a ton of coffee in either New York or London, so all I have is logic, and your argument sounds plausible at first, but simply doesn't make sense once you think about it."

You don't have to think about it, this is as simple as 1+1. An embargo decreases demand, lower demand decreases price. This is economic definitions, not some contrived explanation coffee coming from brazil or anything like that. You've obviously going off somewhere in your extremely complex explanation, but it simply not necessary to look for where you went wrong. Price will go down, simply due to two economic definitions, misapplying a real world example is a useless argument against this.

Quote :

"Cause obviously China in the 17th century was SO much richer than England, so was India."

And I'm sure that there were many smaller countries that were richer than the Roman empire, or the Egyptian empire, or the Turkish empire, or any of the other large rich civilizations we've had. It's strange that little islands like around austrailia and the caribbean lived in such squalor, with so many of them, we'd assume at least one would have managed to take advantage of this possibility you believe exists.

Quote :

"And how did a relatively small island in the North Atlantic build such a huge Empire?"

Expansion and technology.

11/1/2006 2:22:30 PM

Quote :

"An embargo decreases demand, lower demand decreases price"

An embargo CAN decrease demand, but in this case the demand for coffee was unchanged. Did Americans drink less coffee because of the embargo? Did Europeans drink less coffee? Absolutely not.

Did the embargo make it difficult for Americans to find coffee? No, they bought it from any of the top 10 coffee producers. Did the embargo make it difficult for Cuba to sell its coffee? No, they sold it to Mexico/Canada/Europe/Asia.

As such, the demand of coffee did not change. Therefore, since "lower demand will lead to a lower price" we can infer that unchanged demand will lead to unchanged prices. Cuba is getting the same low price that every other coffee producer is getting.

As usual, Kris, you easily spout off the talking points of economics but lack the deeper understanding. It is not a law of nature that lower demand leads to lower prices, it is a mechanism, a chain of events which most markets follow. In the case of the U.S. embargo, this mechanism is interrupted by the simple fact that Cuba is dwarfed by the market it is selling into, with or without America.

Maybe it is because you have built so much of your worldview on Cuba being devastated by the embargo in order to justify your support of an impoverishing economic system, so it will take more than just logic and facts to shake you from it. I guess we are just going to have to agree to leave you uninformed, since becoming informed would be too painful.

11/1/2006 2:45:55 PM

Quote :

"An embargo CAN decrease demand, but in this case the demand for coffee was unchanged. Did Americans drink less coffee because of the embargo?"

It's irrelevant how much coffee americans drink for the cubans, because of the embargo, it might as well be no coffee considering that it can't be cuban coffee. Americans then have a lower number of sellers they can buy from, and shift the amount of coffee they drink onto the other the other producers. They then increase their prices because there is a higher demand.
Now on the other side of the fence, cuba sees lower demand as it's sales were dispersed among it's competitors, this forces it to sell for a lower price. This is the longest explaination I can come up with here for this real world application of this principle, and it's still much simpler and logically sound than yours, you have a mistake somewhere, it's simply not possible to come out with a different conclusion here. Assuming the market is competitive, lower demand will result in a lower price.

It does become more difficult for americans to find coffee and for cuba to sell it's coffee because there is less supply on one side and less demand on the other. I would think you'd understand this concept.

Quote :

"It is not a law of nature that lower demand leads to lower prices, it is a mechanism, a chain of events which most markets follow."

Yes it is, but in a competitive market, if there is lower demand, the price in that market will be lower. If there are less people buying for some seller, there will be a lower demand. Yes there is a chain of events involved in this, but ceteris paribus, prices will ALWAYS go down.

Quote :

"this mechanism is interrupted by the simple fact that Cuba is dwarfed by the market it is selling into, with or without America."

You can say that the effect is low, this is a possible arguement, but to argue that it doesn't exist is simply wrong.

Quote :

"Maybe it is because you have built so much of your worldview on Cuba being devastated by the embargo in order to justify your support of an impoverishing economic system, so it will take more than just logic and facts to shake you from it. I guess we are just going to have to agree to leave you uninformed, since becoming informed would be too painful."

I've simply stated the basic laws of economics. You've came up with some contrived explaination to try and explain how the laws of economics do not apply. Somehow the entire field of economics is wrong and you are right.

11/1/2006 3:13:45 PM

Quote :

"You can say that the effect is low, this is a possible arguement, but to argue that it doesn't exist is simply wrong."

That is what I said, dumb ass, and you said it "does have a large impact." The quantity of coffee and other commodies being produced and exported by Cuba is dwarfed by the markets it is selling into. We should expect the effect to at least be in proportion to the percentages in question (the prohibited market share is about 10%, Cuba fulfills about 0.1% of the world market). As Cuba is such a puny producer (a sum total of $2.3 billion for everything), I question whether the impact is large enough to even be detected (especially since most of this $2.3 billion of exports is in markets which the U.S. is not an importer). Therefore, the U.S. embargo has been a complete failure and has not suceeded in inflicting any reasonable harm upon the Cuban economy.

As such, since the embargo has been a failure, and Cuba is poor compared to its more dysfunctional neighbors (Dom. Rep., Mexico, etc), I conclude that the Cuban economic system is a failure, whatever it is.

11/1/2006 4:32:28 PM

Quote :

"That is what I said, dumb ass"

Actually you just claimed earlier that the embargo wouldn't change prices at all. You denied this mechanism's existence, rather than downplaying it's effect.

Quote :

"the prohibited market share is about 10%, Cuba fulfills about 0.1% of the world market"

That would explain the effect the change of cuba's sales to the world. But to tell it's impact on cuba the world market would be competely irrelevant.

Quote :

"As Cuba is such a puny producer"

That's irrelevant to the CUBAN economy, it's only relevant to the world's economy. While cuba may only constitute only %0.1 of the world's trade, cuba produces %100 of cuba's exports, so it has a much larger effect on them than it does the world.

11/1/2006 4:39:16 PM

^ Cuba is not exactly communist either in the sense that the means of production are not controlled by the state. Nearly half of the cuban economy is black-market. Cuba is better descibed as an extreme mixed economy where most of the heavy industries are owned by the state.

11/1/2006 7:06:24 PM