Should the United States lift the embargo on Cuba?

[myp]

How do you feel about the United States and our trade embargo on Cuba? As a believer in free market capitalism, I am all for lifting the embargo. Politics should not effect trade because in the end, the embargo is not only hurting the Cuban people, but it is also hurting Americans. Another country to buy goods from would mean lower prices and of course another buyer for Cuba would mean more prosperity. Also, Havana was once a hotspot for American tourists- which quickly faded away after our ban of Communist Cuba. Lifting the ban would of course ease tensions more than they have recently and a path to diplomacy could be paved out of it as well.

What are your thoughts on it?

 

[Dirk]

The embargo should be lifted. The embargo and Bay of Pigs invasion were a large part of the decision to negotiate (and resultingly be influenced by) the Stalinist USSR in the first place.

Cuba is improving now. No thanks to the US-enforced isolation.

Furthermore, i support Europe's point, made in the UN, on the matter. That is, that the originally stated reason for the embargo (i.e. the Soviet Connection) is now void, since the USSR broke up.

 

[deanhills]

Would be nice if the US could make Cuba a 51st State? Looks as though Castro is not that well, people are concerned about leadership, and the country is very poor. But definitely, the embargo should have been lifted ages ago. I'm curious, will those US expats and property tycoons who had lost their property when Cuba was nationalized, be able to get it back? And people from Cuba, who left the country be able to claim their property back?

 

[DodgeFB]

Would be nice if the US could make Cuba a 51st State? Looks as though Castro is not that well, people are concerned about leadership, and the country is very poor. But definitely, the embargo should have been lifted ages ago. I'm curious, will those US expats and property tycoons who had lost their property when Cuba was nationalized, be able to get it back? And people from Cuba, who left the country be able to claim their property back?

We are not doing all that well with what we have now. And since they have so little we could tax I don't think the crowd running things here would want it. Strange how one president wanted oil according to some. And this one wants something to tax.

 

[Dirk]

Would be nice if the US could make Cuba a 51st State? Looks as though Castro is not that well, people are concerned about leadership, and the country is very poor. But definitely, the embargo should have been lifted ages ago. I'm curious, will those US expats and property tycoons who had lost their property when Cuba was nationalized, be able to get it back? And people from Cuba, who left the country be able to claim their property back?

The Cuban people fought the revolution in the first place because they rejected the US-backed dictator Batista in the first place. So i presume the 51st State comment was a joke.

Fidel is ill, Raul (his brother) has temporarily taken the figurehead role. But that doesn't really affect the running of the country because the Cuban system is so highly decentralised and democratised.

As for economics, Cuba has consistently increased PPP. It has been almost continuous increment (i can't remember if it suffered the same minor fall the USSR did in the 1960s). Interference will destroy the enviable progress that has made Cuba probably one of the most successful nations with one of the greatest standards of living in South America. Look what happened to Argentina when the IMF interfered.

 

[deanhills]

The Cuban people fought the revolution in the first place because they rejected the US-backed dictator Batista in the first place. So i presume the 51st State comment was a joke.

Fidel is ill, Raul (his brother) has temporarily taken the figurehead role. But that doesn't really affect the running of the country because the Cuban system is so highly decentralised and democratised.

As for economics, Cuba has consistently increased PPP. It has been almost continuous increment (i can't remember if it suffered the same minor fall the USSR did in the 1960s). Interference will destroy the enviable progress that has made Cuba probably one of the most successful nations with one of the greatest standards of living in South America. Look what happened to Argentina when the IMF interfered.

Thanks for the info. Yes, it was meant as a joke

Seriously for me it would be nice if Cuba can stay the way it is for selfish reasons, as if it were to open up its borders with the US, it would definitely become completely commercial and loose some of its very special and indigenous character.

 

[myp]

Seriously for me it would be nice if Cuba can stay the way it is for selfish reasons, as if it were to open up its borders with the US, it would definitely become completely commercial and loose some of its very special and indigenous character.

I beg to differ considering countries like China and India are very open to trade yet they have still been able to maintain traditional culture. Also, remember that it wasn't too long ago when even Cuba was trading with most of the world including the United States- the culture in many ways is already entangled with others. For example, Havana used to be a hotspot American tourist attraction and it has retained a lot of the characteristics that people brought over from back then.

edit: And this is not to mention that trade with the States would mean a stronger Cuban economy, which could mean more prosperity for a population that has generally suffered over the past few decades.

 

[Dirk]

And this is not to mention that trade with the States would mean a stronger Cuban economy, which could mean more prosperity for a population that has generally suffered over the past few decades.

Actually, a sudden economic change could mean a financial meltdown. And the Cuban economy has been in steady increment for quite some time.

 

[myp]

Actually, a sudden economic change could mean a financial meltdown. And the Cuban economy has been in steady increment for quite some time.

How do you figure opening up trade can mean financial meltdown? And regardless of how it has improved, more trade will only strengthen the powers of supply and demand in the market.

 

[Dirk]

How do you figure opening up trade can mean financial meltdown? And regardless of how it has improved, more trade will only strengthen the powers of supply and demand in the market.

Not opening up trade, per se, just a major economic change. I completely support lifting the embargo on Cuba. I just think that it should manage a gradual deconstruction of Stalinist economics. A sudden change may well result in fiscal disaster. Ref. Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Argentina, Belarus, Latvia, etc.

As an aside, i don't think they should go capitalist. I think they should take a libertarian socialist position on economics. But then again, i would!

 

[myp]

Not opening up trade, per se, just a major economic change. I completely support lifting the embargo on Cuba. I just think that it should manage a gradual deconstruction of Stalinist economics. A sudden change may well result in fiscal disaster. Ref. Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Argentina, Belarus, Latvia, etc.

It really depends on the type of change, not necessarily how big it is. Allowing for more international trade has never lead to collapse- in fact, it has usually improved living conditions. The examples you gave may have been big changes in political structure, but they certainly weren't caused by free trade.

As an aside, i don't think they should go capitalist. I think they should take a libertarian socialist position on economics. But then again, i would!

As for this, please note that I am saying the United States should lift their embargo on Cuba, not that Cuba should go capitalist. I really think it is for the Cuban people to decide what they want their government to be like. I am just saying the United States' government should not hold it as a policy not to trade with Cuba. In my opinion we should be open to trade with them even if they are politically communist. I mean we do trade with China, who is also politically communist, so it really isn't anything radical I am proposing...

 

[Dirk]

It really depends on the type of change, not necessarily how big it is. Allowing for more international trade has never lead to collapse- in fact, it has usually improved living conditions. The examples you gave may have been big changes in political structure, but they certainly weren't caused by free trade.


As for this, please note that I am saying the United States should lift their embargo on Cuba, not that Cuba should go capitalist. I really think it is for the Cuban people to decide what they want their government to be like. I am just saying the United States' government should not hold it as a policy not to trade with Cuba. In my opinion we should be open to trade with them even if they are politically communist. I mean we do trade with China, who is also politically communist, so it really isn't anything radical I am proposing...

That's alright then. Yes, i did mean a large change in politico-economic structure. Opening trade to Cuba will of course be very beneficial to the Cuban people.

I must point out that neither Cuba nor China are communist, nor even claim to be. It could be argued that Cuba is Stalinist. But it is incredibly democratic for a political system on the authoritarian side.

As for China, i think that we can be assured that they're quite capitalist.

 

[myp]

I must point out that neither Cuba nor China are communist, nor even claim to be. It could be argued that Cuba is Stalinist. But it is incredibly democratic for a political system on the authoritarian side.[/quote[ I would say that both could be considered politically communist, but it really depends on what definition of communist you are using. By Marx's definition they aren't, but compared to the Soviets- to an extent.

As for China, i think that we can be assured that they're quite capitalist.

I would say politically communist, economically capitalist. But again, all of these lines are very blurred and it is open to perception. I would not say they are free market capitalists, although they lean towards capitalism economically.

 

[deanhills]

I would say politically communist, economically capitalist. But again, all of these lines are very blurred and it is open to perception.

Agreed. I would call them politically communist and aggressively capitalist for the purpose of world domination. I think they have made major headway in the latter regard. The US owes them almost 25% of their total debt of 3 trillion dollars. Is it possible for China to pull the plug on that?

 

[Dirk]

I would say that both could be considered politically communist, but it really depends on what definition of communist you are using. By Marx's definition they aren't, but compared to the Soviets- to an extent.

I would say politically communist, economically capitalist. But again, all of these lines are very blurred and it is open to perception. I would not say they are free market capitalists, although they lean towards capitalism economically.

I would personally consider Marx's theory to provide a fixed criteria for communism. Socialism doesn't and so it is used and abused by next to everyone. Even the Soviet Union didn't claim to be communist.

 

[Austin Sheridan]

The embargo should be lifted. The embargo and Bay of Pigs invasion were a large part of the decision to negotiate (and resultingly be influenced by) the Stalinist USSR in the first place.

Cuba is improving now. No thanks to the US-enforced isolation.

Furthermore, i support Europe's point, made in the UN, on the matter. That is, that the originally stated reason for the embargo (i.e. the Soviet Connection) is now void, since the USSR broke up.

Exactly, there is no need for it to be in place anymore. I would like to see the US and Cuba become friends over time. I mean we all love the Cigars right?

 

[David]

Agreed. I would call them politically communist and aggressively capitalist for the purpose of world domination. I think they have made major headway in the latter regard. The US owes them almost 25% of their total debt of 3 trillion dollars. Is it possible for China to pull the plug on that?

10 trillion. The deficit is 3 trillion.

 

[deanhills]

10 trillion. The deficit is 3 trillion.

Sorry, I stand corrected. I also believe that they think the deficit may grow into 9 trillion soon? Back to the question however, I know everything is tricky as if China should call in its loans, it will jeopardize its own economy, but at what point do you think that the US would have reached its final hour with debt? Strictly speaking when one starts to think about it, this debt is not only US debt, but it involves the whole world. The further in debt the US gets, the more indebted the world is? At which point would it end though? Would it be when no one can afford to buy debt anymore, but is that possible, all they do is just to create more money, and make existing money more worthless?

 

[David]

Oh don't worry. Once Africa's economy is built up, they'll call in the debt. Africa is key and their's nothing we can do to stop it that doesn't involve holding the Africans down under our jackboots. The Chinese ore geniuses. Geniuses at our expense unfortunately.

 

[Dirk]

Oh don't worry. Once Africa's economy is built up, they'll call in the debt. Africa is key and their's nothing we can do to stop it that doesn't involve holding the Africans down under our jackboots.

That's already being done, though.