Castro listed among richest people

Great Debates
41

Agreed – as regards to “extra spending cash” – But that’s not the way to look at this IMO. As indicated “redistributing that 550 million” CAN make a difference and 550 million in a country with the size, needs, and economy of Cuba - can matter. To look at it as 50 bucks to each man, woman, and child in Cuba misses the point of what 550 million can provide to specific people with specific needs. So the posts that spread out that money – i.e. as if 50 bucks might provide a nice weekend, some ‘spending cash,’ and little more – miss the point.

Who knows really how Fidel really lives – but that’s beside the point unless, of course, one assumes that money is only used for displays of personal luxury. And I’m not even saying that isn’t the case - in certain closed circles. I don’t know and I’m certain, considering the alleged ideology, those who might be in the know ain’t telling. I doubt that Cuba, after 47 years under Castro, is free to cough up much real information. But note the linked article above (i.e. the Jesus M. Fernandez allegations) and your post regarding Fidel’s residence. Than compare that to Fidel’s statement in response to Forbes listing him on its richest list — "Cuba is the only Latin American country that fights inequality and has the fairest income distribution in the world.” — this quote doesn’t conform to the description of Fidel’s villa which you cited –

And now – for those secretly inclined, Cuban-American author Humberto Fontova is scheduled to be on the O’Reilly Factor tonight to discuss his new book Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant. I’ve heard that O’Reilly will provide a person to counter to Fontova’s opinions. Might it be Dan Rather himself – who once called Fidel - “Cuba’s Elvis.”

42

If Bill Gates decided to live in an ordinary middle-class house, would he no longer count as one of the richest people in the world? Of course not – he would still control the same amount of wealth, even if he didn’t spend it on creature comforts.

Similarly, Fidel Castro could live in a mansion, because the wealth of Cuba (such as it is after decades of mismanagement) is at his disposal if he chooses to exert his power to live the good life.

Thus, I think Forbes is accurately describing the reality of the situation.

43

Right. Sam Walton brown bagged it and took his truck to work each day. Even with billions, Warren Buffet lived in the same middle class home he lived in since the 1950s – (although I’d be surprised if he hasn’t moved to a new, more secure location by now.) Money is used for more than the purchase and display of items that symbolize wealth. It seems, from the allegations found in the article, that Fidel uses ‘public’ money, in part, to distribute or horde in a way that ensures his on-going power. As noted in the article, this behavior doesn’t appear to advantage ‘his people’ – but seems more designed to advantage Fidel -

The summation in the last paragraph - from the linked article (above) -

44

Tigers: *Than compare that to Fidel’s statement in response to Forbes listing him on its richest list — "Cuba is the only Latin American country that fights inequality and has the fairest income distribution in the world.” — this quote doesn’t conform to the description of Fidel’s villa which you cited – *

No, Castro’s villa doesn’t really make a significant difference here, AFAICT. Cuba certainly doesn’t have absolute equality of income distribution (i.e., a Gini coefficient of zero). But it might be in the running for the lowest Gini coefficient compared to other countries.

In fact, according to the graphic at this site (scroll down to “How does inequality vary around the world?” with the colored world maps), Cuba’s one of only a dozen or so countries with a Gini coefficient less than 0.3 (dark green on the map). However, that includes a few countries (namely, Japan, Denmark, and Hungary) with Gini less than 0.25 (blue), so Cuba would at best come in fourth on the list, not first.

AFAICT, though, nothing about Castro’s residence would change that ranking. The difference between an average per capita GDP of $2900 and one leader’s villa with a garden and leather sofas is pretty small potatoes, compared to the extent of income disparity in most other countries.

Steve: Thus, I think Forbes is accurately describing the reality of the situation.

But that implies that Forbes is correct in counting some particular share of Cuba’s assets as Castro’s personal wealth. If you argue that Castro effectively owns it because he controls it, then the $550 million number is completely arbitrary and has no real meaning. Why describe Castro as “owning” only $550 million of Cuba’s assets, rather than all of Cuba’s assets?

This whole analysis is still very sloppy and devoid of details. To evaluate it accurately, we’d need to know what really counts as “ownership” of Cuba’s resources, and how Forbes came up with their particular estimate of $550 million as Castro’s “personal fortune”. So far, no facts have been forthcoming.

Tigers: * It seems, from the allegations found in the article, that Fidel uses ‘public’ money, in part, to distribute or horde in a way that ensures his on-going power.*

But what’s the rationale for calling this a “personal fortune”, rather than dictatorial control of state assets? Again, there’s a lot of hand-waving and vague generalization here, but no clear definitions.

If we’re trying to say that it’s hard to tell exactly what or how much a Communist dictator personally “owns”, let’s just admit that, rather than pulling some number out of our behinds and claiming that that’s his “personal fortune”.

45

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
…No, Castro’s villa doesn’t really make a significant difference here, AFAICT. Cuba certainly doesn’t have absolute equality of income distribution (i.e., a Gini coefficient of zero). But it might be in the running for the lowest Gini coefficient compared to other countries.

No one, to my knowledge, is making the silly statement that Castro’s villa makes a difference when added into the overall distribution of income. And if you’re right about ‘equality of income’ - than it appears everyone in Cuba is poor by most standards. The point relating to Castro’s villa and the alleged control he has over millions of pesos and dollars in ‘secret accounts’ is that – Castro isn’t among those ‘poor by most standards.’ That’s the thrust of the OP –

I also mentioned Castro’s villa because Castro’s villa - is probaby an indication of Castro’s mindset. A mindset that doesn’t square with his public appearances in mountain fatgues or his assertions that he’s not a rich man. And it’s Castro’s villa that is contrary to the implication found in his statement about ‘equality of income’ provided above and responded to my you. Why? Recall Kimstu – that Castro’s statement came in response to HIS name appearing on Forbes richest list. So – it’s fair to assert that this statement was about Castros economic worth being the same or similar to those of ‘his people.’ This statement is one I really doubt —

I don’t recall calling this Castro’s “personal fortune” - but I suppose that might be a position I could take. But first, let me ask this — What’s the difference between absolute control over “state assets” (if they can still be described as ‘state assets’)- to be used as one wants – and ‘personal assets’ or “fortune” – especially when those assets are used to maintain ones personal power?? I don’t see much of a diffference – except for the terminology.

Granted – as already suggested – that’s the problem. Because Cuba is a closed society, and one controlled by the same dictator for 47 years – information related to Fidel’s wealth isn’t going to be coming from official sources. Forbes magazine admitted this when they indicated that gaging Fidel’s wealth involved a lot of ‘art’ – The cited article however seems to confirm that Fidel isn’t exactly on the up and up when he claims a continuing vow of Cubian like poverty -

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
If Bill Gates decided to live in an ordinary middle-class house, would he no longer count as one of the richest people in the world? Of course not – he would still control the same amount of wealth, even if he didn’t spend it on creature comforts.

46

That last piece at the end obviously wasn’t to me — and I forgot to delete that — sorry –

47

Tigers: *So – it’s fair to assert that this statement was about Castros economic worth being the same or similar to those of ‘his people.’ *

Which may well be true, compared with inequality in the rest of the world. The statement just implies that Castro’s own wealth is more similar to that of the average Cuban than the wealth of rich people elsewhere is to that of their average fellow citizen.

Of course, if Castro’s “own wealth” really includes a half-billion-dollar fortune, that would obviously be false. But it isn’t necessarily false just because Castro has a nice villa with a garden and large-screen TV. That amount of inequality isn’t actually very much, compared to the level of inequaliy that prevails in other countries, as we discussed above.

Tigers: *What’s the difference between absolute control over “state assets” (if they can still be described as ‘state assets’)- to be used as one wants – and ‘personal assets’ or “fortune” – especially when those assets are used to maintain ones personal power?? I don’t see much of a diffference – except for the terminology. *

By that logic, though, as I said, there’s no reason to claim that Castro’s “personal fortune” is $550 million or any other number, rather than being equal to the total assets of Cuba. Again, we really need some better data here.

48

Well – I doubt Castro’s quoted statement really implies such a thing ------- but even if that was what Castro was attempting to get across – i.e. that he’s really wealthy but compared to other dictators - and his wealth isn’t as far out of line with ‘his people’ as these other comparable dictators. I suspect that if that’s what Castro really wanted to say – he could have said that —

But it’s all beside the point. Castro wasn’t saying that. Castro was denying weath – and I suppose it would have been the same whether it was 550 million or 3 million. So he was not denying that his wealth was out of line when comparied to other dictators - And, as mentioned, since we really don’t know the extent of Castro’s wealth – for a variety of reasons, any statement regarding Castro, ‘his people,’ and comparible dictators – is speculation –

I’m not sure why this villa red herring keeps popping up - Again, I’m not aware of this assertion ever being made.

No — it appears you might not have read the article to which I’m referring. I posted the summation above. The link is before that. The claim isn’t that Castro has absolute control over the entire Cubian economy – even though if he wanted that control I doubt there is anyone with the power to stop him — the claim is that Castro controls certain segments of Cuba’s economy – with those assets used not for the welfare of the Cubian people, but as a means to keep Castro in power - that is, assets used in relation to his PERSONAL power – That, in a nutshell, is a personal use of what are supposed to be ‘state’ assets –

49

Sorry, but I didn’t understand those sentences at all.

Tigers: I’m not sure why this villa red herring keeps popping up

Well, because you said:

I took that to mean that you were suggesting that Castro’s having a plush villa is inconsistent with the claim that Cuba has “the fairest income distribution in the world”. And I pointed out that that isn’t really true, because the plushness of his villa, even in comparison to the standard of living of the average Cuban, is fairly minor compared to income inequality in the rest of the world.

However, I now realize that I must have been mistaken about the point you were trying to make here, and in fact I still have no idea what it is.

Tigers: *it appears you might not have read the article to which I’m referring. I posted the summation above. *

The article in the linked thread that Aro brought up? Yes, I did read the article.

Tigers: The claim isn’t that Castro has absolute control over the entire Cubian economy

But there does seem to be a claim that Castro has practically absolute control over all of Cuba’s assets. The article you refer to, in the very summary you quoted, says:

Tigers: the claim is that Castro controls certain segments of Cuba’s economy – with those assets used not for the welfare of the Cubian people, but as a means to keep Castro in power - that is, assets used in relation to his PERSONAL power –

But we have still seen no actual analysis of why or how these “certain segments of Cuba’s economy” were identified with the specific figure of only $550 million of Cuba’s assets, when it’s alleged that Castro controls all of the country’s asets.

And again, I don’t agree that individual manipulation of any amount of state assets, even for the purpose of increasing individual political power, is automatically the same thing as having a “personal fortune”. If Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan decided to change interest rates for the sake of his own political advantage, he too would be using lots of government assets in relation to his PERSONAL power, but that wouldn’t mean that those assets became part of his own personal wealth.

50

No – it means that Castro himself isn’t a part of that “fair” income distribution – he apparently above it as evidenced by his villa and the allegations that he controls specific portions of Cuba’s economy for his personal benefit. And I’ll add this in regards to “fairness” – Cuba’s economy is in a shambles. So, whether a distribution of what exists now in Cuba is really a “fair distribution” is ignoring the economic potential of Cuba. Realizing that economic potential is what would really be “fair” for the Cubian people. But —

The article doesn’t give a specific amount that Castro controls (that’s Forbes - and they hedge this and state it’s really mostly guess), so, the articles author doesn’t cite a specific number. Yet, there is an indication that the author feels it could be more than Forbes’ estimate – An estimate – once again – not based on hard evidence simply because Castro’s Cuba isn’t likely to give up that information.

In any event – this is mentioned at the very beginning of that article –

You use an analogy to Greenspan’s “control” over interest rates and compare that to Castro’s “control” in Cuba and Cuba’s economy – which I want to return to — but first I’ll address that post directly -

If Chairman Greenspan decided to change interest rates for his own personal advantage he would be acting outside of his government granted authority – acting outside of the charge granted him by the government – and, if caught, there would be a governmental system in place that Greenspan would have to answer to. Greenspan, unlike Castro, isn’t the government. Greenspan isn’t an absolute dictator. And while Greenspan might attempt to hide his real motivations behind raising interest rates – rasing the interest rates alone wouldn’t make the funds his or create any addition authority to treat the funds in any manner as his own. Unlike Castro – Greenspan can’t go on and use those funds as ‘gifts’ – Greenspan can’t place those funds in his private account – Greenspan can’t take money from public institutions and hand it out privately to those whom he unilaterally decides best serve his needs. Castro can and if you believe the assertions in the article - does -

Now — In regards to Castro’s “control” over the entire economy – you pointed to this statement in the article - “The first is Fidel Castro’s economy, with his enterprises, financial institutions, and virtually absolute control of the country’s resources” – “virtual control” and ‘absolute ownership’ aren’t the same words — and the Greenspan analogy does come into play. The author is saying that Fidel’s absolute control of certain key enterprises within Cuba allows him virtual control over the other three economies mentioned in the article. Those other three economies described in the article as not owned by Fidel. Just like Greenspan doesn’t own the money when he changes the interest rates. That is – Fidel doesn’t take investors money – that belongs to the investors. Those three other economies described in the article are the foreign investors, the planned economy, and the small private economy. Fidel doesn’t own these – but the articles does go ownn to describe assets that Fidel does seem to ‘own’ - Fidel’s “private accounts” -

Here are some quotes from the article alleging that Fidel is taking direct control over once public assets for personal gain. I’ll just quote portions here. Go to the article itself and note that specific businesses and operations that are cited.

51

Tigers: * it means that Castro himself isn’t a part of that “fair” income distribution – he apparently above it as evidenced by his villa *

Nope. A villa like the one described in the article, even compared to the lifestyle of the average Cuban, doesn’t represent that much inequality by the standards of inequality in other countries.

If Castro had claimed that Cuba had an absolutely fair income distribution, where everybody had exactly the same income, then you’d be right that the existence of his plush villa would disprove the claim (or at least show that Castro personally is an exception to it). But in fact, the claim is simply that Cuba has less inequality than other countries.

In other words, the claim is not that Castro has the same income as the poorest Cuban, but that the difference between Castro’s income (even counting his plush villa) and that of the poorest Cuban is less than the income difference between the richest and poorest citizens of other countries. That may well be quite true, at least in comparison to most of the countries in the world (note, though, my discussion of Gini coefficients above).

Whew. I guess I didn’t do a very good job of explaining this earlier, but I hope it’s cleared up now.

Tigers: Here are some quotes from the article alleging that Fidel is taking direct control over once public assets for personal gain.

Sigh. We’re not having much luck communicating here. Maybe it will clarify things if I specify that we’re all in agreement that using control over state resources for one’s personal political advantage is indeed a bad thing.

I maintain, though, that it’s not the same bad thing as theft of state resources to convert them to one’s private personal wealth.

(There are some dictators who do both, of course: e.g., the Marcoses in the Philippines.)

52

“…by the standards of inequality in other countries” Actually you don’t seem to be saying much but fine — with all of the qualifiers added — the villa (and only considering the villa) – standing alone *doesn’t represent that much inequality by the standards of inequality in other countries -

Yet here’s the problem Kimstu - you than somehow make this logical leap —from that you then begin to discuss Castro’s actual income, an item on which you had previously professed ignorance.

How do you make the assertion that it “may well be quite true” that “the difference between Castro’s income (even counting his plush villa) and that of the poorest Cuban is less than the income difference between the richest and poorest citizens of other countries” - without knowing the total of Castro’s wealth? Not only does the assertion not follow — you don’t have any support for the assertion. The assertion of Castro’s relative income simply doesn’t follow from the description of Castro’s villa that you’ve been bringing up here.

Well – the difference is that when someone places money in the personal accounts and uses that money for personal reasons – that money has all of the hallmarks of being theirs. But call it what you want. If you want to continue to maintain that Castro’s alleged accounts constitute - not theft of public money - but control for his personal political gain – fine.

Anyway - here is another instance of Castro using his alleged ‘private accounts’ (Reserva del Comandante) – here those accounts are used in relation to the Cuban government’s (ie. Castro’s) alleged drug trafficking.

http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y02/jan02/28e6.htm

53

Tigers: How do you make the assertion that it “may well be quite true” that “the difference between Castro’s income (even counting his plush villa) and that of the poorest Cuban is less than the income difference between the richest and poorest citizens of other countries” - without knowing the total of Castro’s wealth?

Oops, I guess I still wasn’t clear, huh? I’ll try again:

The amount of income that we know Castro has—including his nice villa, but excluding the alleged “personal fortune” composed of Cuban assets—is not inconsistent with the claim that Cuba has a more equal income distribution than (most) other countries.

In other words, AFAICT, the evidence of the villa doesn’t invalidate the claim about Cuba’s income distribution.

If Castro has a large “personal fortune” on the scale that Forbes is alleging, then yes, that claim would be invalidated.

But so far, nobody has offered any conclusive evidence that Castro does have significant personal wealth, as opposed to just dictatorial political control over state assets.

As we’ve noted, in practice it can sometimes be difficult to tell the difference between the two without knowing the financial details, but I think there is a definite difference, and we shouldn’t just automatically conflate them.

For example, when Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos sequestered “oligarch” property and allotted it to his personal cronies in exchange for their support, he was using his dictatorial control over state assets for his individual political advantage. When he looted treasury funds for his secret Swiss bank accounts and his wife’s three thousand pairs of shoes, on the other hand, he was illegally converting state assets into his private personal wealth.

Both bad things, sure, but not the same bad thing.

54

Bush would qualify this way as well.

55

Can you explain in more concrete terms the difference? I think I read you saying that treating state property as one’s own is one kind of bad thing, while transfering state property into one’s bank account is a different kind fo bad thing.

So, if Marcos had sold the “oligarch” property on the open market, for instance, put the money in a special account over which he had sole control, but which was not, strictly speaking his personal property, he still would not have committed the same sort of bad thing as if he put the money into his private bank account?

We touched on this just a bit in the Social Security thread. Perhaps I am taking the opposite side that I did there. But if a dictator puts money into a bank account over which only he has control, what is the difference when he places money into a private swiss account?

56

Another example of Fidel (aka the Cuban government) preventing up close, outside examination of his activities - This example comes from the human rights sector, but seems reflect a mindset of Fidel. One that is consistant with his “private accounts.”

And for those interested – or what to add related information - here is a link to a list of some of the alleged political prisoners in Cuba with narrative.

http://www.netforcuba.org/CubaPP/PresosEN.htm