Sir, it doesn’t matter how eloquent you are, and what clever (‘jesuistic’ as smby put it earlier) arguments you bring to explain yourself, the fact remains that you are merely another petty addition to the ignoble list of “learned” people who, while taking no personal risk for your beliefs and safely surrounded by the freedoms and materials comforts created by democratic capitalism, chose to support tyrants who provide ample personal risk but neither liberty nor elementary material needs to their subjects.

You could have chosen to stand for the silent and the silenced in Cuban jails or those who nominally not in jails are inmates in the big jail that Cuba is. Yet you have chosen to applaud the tormentors.

BTW you are also wrong about the supposed great health care and education in Cuba, but your failure is not one of data processing, but rather one of very basic human decency.

Btw, those Nomenklatura guys – is their standard of living anything like the life of a typical pre-Castro casino owner or manager?

OTOH, I see that you are right. The main priority in the last half century has been to insure that Caudillo Fidel controls all he can.

There are pre-1960 statistics on Cuba. It is that they are most accessible in hard copy, and I am at a home computer, not at a library. (ECLA , UN, and Statistical Abstract of Latin America: various statistical yearbooks) Here is a source that indicates that inequality was moving in the right direction in Cuba before 1959.

From The New Comparative Economic History: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey G. Williamson ( by Williamson et al, 2007, MIT Press) we find a graph on page 294.
From Figure 12.1 b p 294: Inequality Indices in Brazil, Cuba, and Mexico ( 1913= 1), we can get the following trends. From 1940 to 1958, while inequality indices in Brazil and Mexico are increasing, they are decreasing in Cuba. ( Mexico: 1 to 2, Brazil: 1.6 to 1.9, Cuba: 0.90 to 0.65) These figures are not exact, as they are read off a graph, not taken from a table. From this inequality index, Cuba was moving in the right direction, before Caudillo Fidel took over. This improvement did stagnate during Batista’s time in power, however.

From Renaissance and Decay (#288), I quote the following. Did you bother to read Renaissance and Decay?

The UN’s Statistical Yearbook, 1960 (pp. 312-316) ranked pre-revolutionary Cuba third out of 11 Latin American countries in per capita daily caloric consumption. This was in spite of the fact that the latest available food consumption data for Cuba at the time were from 1948-49, almost a decade before the other Latin American countries’ data being used in the comparison.

What has happened in Cuba has been the increased sharing of poverty: except for the Nomenklatura. Renaissance and Decay cites UN statistics on milk production. While Cuba increased milk production only 11% from 1958 to 1996, the next smallest production increase for Latin America during that time is Mexico, at 92%. Others are Brazil: 331%, Costa Rica 605%. While some of this can be explained by a) Cuba’s population increase from 1958 to 1996 ( ~ 65% estimate off the top of my head) was not as great as other countries (what I am citing is production, not production per capita), and there may have been a reduction production in Cuba during the Special Period, that still does not reflect well on Caudillo Fidel and Ubre Blanca, his wonder cow. You DO know about Ubre Blanca, don’t you?

As far as your post #288 is concerned, Pinochet did not have to deal with the embargo and travel restrictions that Cuba did. In fact, all the statistics you’ve vomited don’t take any of that into consideration and therefore are a waste of our time.

Vomited?

Caudillo Fidel and his band of useful idiots are in a no-lose situation. IF Caudillo Fidel has a better record than X regarding Y, then you claim that it shows the superiority of Caudillo Fidel’s stewardship. IF on the other hand, Caudillo Fidel has a WORSE record than X regarding Y, then you cry embargo and travel restrictions.

It is ironic that while in 1959 Caudillo Fidel claimed that economic ties to the US were retarding Cuba’s development, a half century later Caudillo Fidel and his cohort of useful idiots claim that the lack of economic ties to the US retard Cuba’s development. Caudillo Fidel enjoyed massive subsides from the USSR, which has been called the equivalent of several Marshall Plans, and after the Special Period, that continues under the good graces of Hugo.
Even under the “embargo,” Cuba imports substantial amounts of foodstuffs from the US: cash on the barrelhead. Cuba already trades with the rest of the developed world. Canadian and European tourists partake widely of Caudillo Fidel’s tourism apartheid, going where ordinary Cubans are not permitted to go. What difference would the US make?

Bottom line: if Batista were all that and a bag of chips, the revolution wouldn’t have taken place.
Certainly Cuba and the world were glad to be rid of Batista’s dictatorship. Unfortunately, what followed was not democracy, but totalitarianism, worse than Batista’s dictatorship, coupled with gross mismanagement. Consider the change in immigration/emigration. Before 1959, Europeans immigrated to Cuba. For the last half-century: sal si puedes. Contrary to the picture that Caudillo Fidel and his band of useful idiots paint, Cuba before Caudillo Fidel was one of the best-off countries in Latin America: granted, no thanks to Batista. By many measures Caudillo Fidel has run Cuba into the ground. Did you read Renaissance and Decay, which I cited in #288?

And maybe you should investigate other things besides TVs as far as ‘accomplishments’ are concerned.
Years ago I read Listen Yankee by C. Wright Mills, which supports Caudillo Fidel. I borrowed the book from a family friend, a Ph.D. sociologist who knew Mills from their time together at the University of Wisconsin. That was just the beginning of my research on Cuba. IOW, I have already read widely on Cuba: scores of books. I cited TV and Internet statistics to make a point. I read the articles you suggested. Did you read Renaissance and Decay?

I will say this for Caudillo Fidel. He is a very astute politician to have lasted 49 years, with all his mismanagement. Recall Caudillo Fidel’s slogan: Los deiz millones van, and all that. You DO realize what that refers to, don’t you?

For all the PSF and useful idiots who defend Fidel, my reply would be: put your money where your mouth is, move to Cuba, and live the life that the average Cuban- not one of the Nomenklatura- lives.

I am not going to convince the useful idiots and the PSFs. Fidelphilia is a religion for y’all. Ciao.

“Perhaps one way of looking at Cuba under Caudillo Fidel is to look at how Cuba kept up with technological progress. Back in the 1950s, TV was the next big thing. In 1957, Cuba’s number of TVs per 1,000 inhabitants was first in Latin America and fifth in the world . We fast-forward a half century, where Internet access is now the next big thing. For 2004, Cuba was last in Latin America and 171st out of 211 countries in Internet access per 1,000. (World Bank Development Indicators Online, access through a state library system.)”

A country level of “technological progress” and consumers buying power to get their hands on hi tech goods/services are not the same thing. Using the two as synonymous is incorrect to say the least.

Cuban society had been organised with different set of priorities from the onset and consummate consumption is not one of them.

This was primarily to restore the 1940 Constitution, which Batista had suspended. Castro promised to do this. It was a masterpiece of progressive legislation that included paid materity leave, made latifundia illegal, mandated land reform, education, outlawed child labor for children under 14, called for an 8 hour work day for those over 18 and 6 hours for those between 14 and 18, mandated one month vacation every year, established minimum wages, etc.

It’s obvious why Batista opposed it. It’s also obvious why Castro opposed it: It called for one four year presidential term and barred prior presidents from seeking office again until at least eight years out of office.

I addressed gerd, and not you. He didn’t come across as anywhere near insightful as yourself with his stupid cheap shot.

As far as your post #288 is concerned, Pinochet did not have to deal with the embargo and travel restrictions that Cuba did. In fact, all the statistics you’ve vomited don’t take any of that into consideration and therefore are a waste of our time.

Bottom line: if Batista were all that and a bag of chips, the revolution wouldn’t have taken place. People who are generally happy with their lot in life aren’t prone to risking it all. Even Randy Paul, obviously no fan of the man, admits in in this post that maintaining the status quo was unacceptable.

And maybe you should investigate other things besides TVs as far as ‘accomplishments’ are concerned.

Why “perhaps”? It’s definitely “one way”. But there are, of course, multiple other ways. Which is, of course, the point of this post. For example, all those pre-1960 statistics that don’t exist – if they did exist, how would they look for the poorest 80% of the population there? You know, between me and Bill Gates our wealth on average is about $50 billion.

Anyone who asks that question is only showing one’s abysmal ignorance of historical context. Anyone who had asked that question a half century ago ago, would have been mocked out of the auditorium.

In 1960, life expectancy in Cuba was 64; in Haiti, 42. From 1960 to present, life expectancy in Cuba and the rest of Latin America has caught up, or nearly caught up , with the US. For 1960 and 2005, here are some life expectancy figures: US: 70 to 78, Latin America: 56 to 73, Chile: 57 to 78, Costa Rica: 62 to 79, Cuba: 64 to 78, Haiti 42 to 53; Peru: 48 to 71.

From 1960 to 2005 Cuba increased life expectancy by 14 years. The increases in life expectancy from 1960 to 2005 for Latin America and Haiti are 17 years and 11 years respectively. (World Bank Development Indicators Online, access through state library license.WBDI has no data before 1960.) While it is true that Cuba’s health care system has improved more than Haiti’s, as shown by the above figures, Cuba’s increase in life expectancy has paralleled that of Latin America. For all the brouhaha about Caudillo Fidel’s great health care, Cuba’s progress in life expectancy parallels the rest of Latin America. Haiti is an outlier.

While the PSFs contend that Caudillo Fidel took over a country with abysmal health care, the figures say otherwise (See my posts #364 and #288). In 1957, Cuba had around 1000 inhabitants per MD, comparable to the US and Western European countries, better than many countries in Europe and all the “Third World” countries with the exception of Argentina, Uruguay, and Hong Kong.(UN, World Health Organization yearbook) While Caudillo Fidel may have contended that he inherited a banana republic, those bananas were pretty good.

Perhaps one way of looking at Cuba under Caudillo Fidel is to look at how Cuba kept up with technological progress. Back in the 1950s, TV was the next big thing. In 1957, Cuba’s number of TVs per 1,000 inhabitants was first in Latin America and fifth in the world . We fast-forward a half century, where Internet access is now the next big thing. For 2004, Cuba was last in Latin America and 171st out of 211 countries in Internet access per 1,000. (World Bank Development Indicators Online, access through a state library system.)

Cubans in the 1950s would have been appalled to be compared with Haiti. That someone today would compare Cuba to Haiti shows how Cuba has deteriorated under Caudillo Fidel’s stewardship, in addition to abysmal ignorance on the part of the questioner.
See my post #288 for link to RENAISSSANCE AND DECAY for sources. While I have repeated some of what I said in my previous posts, I get the impression that they have not been read.

Is Cuba’s ‘bad’ health system any better than, say, Haiti’s?

How much “public dialogue” has there been in Cuba in the last half-century? Just wondering.

Apparently “public dialogue” in the US consists only of leftist academics agreeing with each other, and those who are not leftist academics agreeing with the leftist academics.To the degree that someone disagrees with a leftist academic, “public dialogue” has collapsed.

“Je ne connais pas de pays où il règne, en général, moins d’indépendance d’esprit et de véritable liberté de discussion qu’en Amérique.”

As someone else said, “plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.” Apparently 40 years of relentless propaganda – and the collapse of public dialogue and a belief in the public good – really do have an effect. Even here at Crooked Timber.

You wouldn’t trust it to treat an ingrowing
toenail.

What was that old maxim about “useful idiots”?

You qualify.

http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm