A mate of mine just come back from holiday there and was shocked by the poverty. Is the USA to blame?
*btw, I posted this thread a few minutes ago but it seems to have vanished so I thought I’d try again…
Well, the embargo hasn’t helped matters in Cuba, but I don’t think the U.S. can be blamed for Cuba’s poverty. Cuba can and does trade with the rest of the world, and that doesn’t seem to have helped. Admittedly, due to geography and culture, U.S. investors would be likely to invest more in Cuba than the rest of the world has.
The real problem is that Cuba has a command economy, and a command economy has destroyed wealth in the long run everywhere it’s been tried.
Of course, if we really want to blame outside forces, the proper blame should be placed on Russia. Cuba’s economy has never worked under Castro, and it was heavily dependent on large subsidies from the Soviet Union. Russia cut off those subsidies after the end of the Soviet Union, and Cuba’s economy tanked and has never recovered.
Sua
If Cuba’s economy worked, then the embargo would have cost the US economy as much as it cost Cuba’s.
Cuba is an economic basket case. The country has lost 25% of its population since Castro took over. In addition to the many Cuban emigrees in the US, there are others throughout Latin America.
This information comes from Guide to the Perfect Latin-American Idiot by Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, Carlos albert Montaner, Carlos Alberto Montaner, which has been a best seller in Latin America. I highly recommend this book.
See Amazon customer reviews here.
The OP is an interesting question that can spark a pretty sharp deabate, but one that cannot be answered with any certainity. Usually, sides are drawn by the politics of the debaters.
You can typically find that those who are Castro sympathetic who say yes, the US is to blame. The thing they forget is that Cuba was viewed as highly corrupt, and highly influenced by American power and money before the Revolution. The United States was loathed as much as it was appreciated by Cuba. That was part of what Castro was overthrowing.
The Anti-Castro will likely say no, it is Castro’s fault. He runs an economy with a fairly poor track record in recent histroy. That his stubborn refusal to reform and allow more human rights has kept himself isolated from the United States, and that the economy would be much better if he did this, as we would lift sanctions.
Personally, Cuba’s pre-revolution economy was not a picture of economic stability. The staple of the economy was the volatile sugar industry and the American tourism dollar, with the tourist attractions typically being vice activities in the US at that time. If we lifted the embargo tomorrow, it waould probably take Cuba 20 years to find a niche in rhe global economy, if it could find a niche outside of tourist destination. In the short term, Cuba would be partially dependent on the U.S. tourist dollar.
It is Cuba’s curse to have the proximity to the US that it does. As long as we have economic and political stability here in the states, we are going to be highly influential, for better or for worse, on Cuba’s economy.
My study of this is three years old, so consider this IMHO
I have read that Cuba was one of the more prosperous Latin American countries before Cuba. I don’t agree that proximity to the US is an economic problem. It doesn’t seem to hurt Canada or Mexico.
Other than that, I would agree with your post, Jibby7.
December-
Yes, that is correct. Relative to the rest of Latin America, Cuba was the wealthiest in terms of per capita income. One estimate for Per capita income in 1958 is $521, and that is a higher estimate. While far outpacing the rest of Latin America at that time it really did not compare to per capita income in the U.S. The last time the US per capita income had been around $521 was in 1934. Still, that may be a fair comparison, Cuba per capita income to that of the U.S. The point of that $521 number is Cuba also had the largest number of millionaires in Latin America at that time. Not the largest percentage, but largest number. What that means is a large percentage of the population was living in poverty. Somewhere in the vicintity of the population had no access to education. Another problem with the Cuban economy was that a lot of the money was coming to the plantation and business owners, who lived outside of Cuba. That is part of the reason you see Cuba nationalizing industries after the revolution, which in turn steamed the U.S.
FYI-Above based off of The Politics of Conformity in Latin America, Claudio Velizied, Oxford Press 1967, pp 255-256.
As to proximity to the U.S. I started to write on that topic, but I just realized that is another thread all together. Let’s just say the Cuba U.S. relationship prior to 1958 was almost that of Nation-Territory, despite Cuba’s independence.
“somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of the populaiton…”
To boil down my muble jumble-they were wealthy in comparison to Latin America, but their economy was not sound.
I have been looking into the possibility of moving to another country to retire. Two lists that are on the net list Argentina and Ecuador as their #1 choice. Mexico, Panama and a few other Latin America countries make the lists. While doing the research I ran across the prediction that within the next 10 years that Cuba would be everyone’s #1 choice. Maybe we can debate whether the U.S. is responsible for Cuba’s troubles, but I don’t think there is much debate on where Cuba’s hopes lie.
In P.J. O’Rourke’s book Eat the Rich, he cites three figures:
[list=a][li]The Cuban government’s estimate of the fiscal cost of the embargo.[]The amount of money funnelled into Cuba by the Soviet Union between the revolution and the fall of the USSR.[]The Cuban government’s current deficit.[/list]IIRC, figure a = US$64 billion, and b = US$65 billion. Cuba is in deficit by a figure I can’t remember, but it’s greater than the US$1 billion difference. O’Rourke’s point was that the Cuban economy had been so badly managed that they’d managed to offset the cost of the embargo with Soviet contributions and still lose a shed-load of money.[/li]
Qualification of this: P.J. O’Rourke isn’t a great cite, and I think the embargo is a ridiculous anachronism, and indeed was ridiculous when it was enacted.
One could also argue that, without the embargo, free-market trade-driven policy might have found a backdoor route into Cuba, and ousted Communist ideals in the same way we are currently seeing in Vietnam, China and Laos.
There are many allegations of biological warfare by the USA on Cuba to disrupt their agricultural industry.
In the 70’s the CIA introduced swine fever (by way of a Canadian agent) to the island. With reports stating that up to half the islands pigs had to be slaughtered. Aparently this has been admitted to by the CIA under the freedom of information act (although I have not accessed this info directly from the CIA, you have to pay for it). Type cia cuba swine fever into google and you’ll see many links to this.
I seem to get the impression that not only does the US want to make things difficult for Cuba, they are going out of their way to do so. Yesterday, a Canadian citizen was convicted, in a US court, of trading with the enemy. This Canadian faces life in prision. The only problem is that he was charged for “offences” that were committed while he lived Canada, where trade with Cuba is legal. The story can be found here. This sets a dangerous precedent.
I’ve been reading about that too Adam . From what I gather, it’s not just that while he was in Canada he was doing business with Cuba which is fine and legal, but that they were using Canada to perform American business transactions. That seems reasonable to me, if it is illegal for an American company to do business with Cuba, it should be just as illegal if they route it through Canada.
Maybe, but they were selling water purification units, not uranium.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the type of product matters.
I too however am concerned about this. What will this mean for legitimate Canadian businesses that sell products to Cuba that just happen to orginally be from or contain components from the USA?
What does the Canadian government say about this. If it is “unfair” then I would imagine that the Canadian government and Canadians in general would be yelling their heads off.
Are they? 
Balduran, let me offer a hypothetical situation that I feel is analgous.
Let us say that in Canada it is illegal to own a handgun and violation of the law is punishable by 15 years in prison. Assume that a business man, Mr. Smith, travels to Canda for conference. While clearing customs and immigration a screen comes up that shows Mr. Smith is the owner of 3 handguns. Canadian officals arrest Mr. Smith on the spot. After a trial, Mr. Smith is sentenced to 15 years in jail. Don’t you think that the US government would lodge a complaint about the situation?
From the article that I linked to:
It seems that the government is drawing up an offical response. I can’t imagine that the general public is too thrilled with this. And if it is against the law to trade with or visit Cuba, why isn’t Ahnold in jail? Not to mention all the other Americans who travel to Cuba via Mexico and Canada?
Castro has destroyed:
=the Cuban sugar industry
-the Cuban tobacco industry
-the nickel mining industry
-the tourist industry
What a record! This in spite of having a well-educated, industrious population! In the short span of 40 years, he has made a potentially wealthy nation into one of the poorest in the world!
As soon as the old basterd dies, the Cuban people will see a tremendous upturn in their fortunes, as the pre-castro Cuban elites return and restore the economy.
He has got a cool name though.