When I was in Cuba, a lot of people I talked to were obviously in favor of lifting the embargo, but others expressed misgivings about what it would do to their culture and society. Cuba is an indescribably weird place where almost everybody is (on paper anyways) poor, yet education, health care and the arts flourish. Violent crime is virtually unheard of, say what you will about how they achieve that. They are very proud of their resilience in the face of a half-century's worth of crippling U.S. sanctions--in particular the period after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Normalization will lead to a rise in the Cuban material standard of living, and with it will come all of the attendant social woes that we have here. That's neither totally good nor totally bad, and it should be up to the Cuban people to choose their own path, but I can see why you might oppose this for other than purely selfish reasons.
> Cuba is an indescribably weird place where almost everybody is (on paper anyways) poor, yet education, health care and the arts flourish. Violent crime is virtually unheard of
I grew up in the Eastern Bloc, I was in college when the revolutions happened. Now I live in the US.
When I describe the life under communists to people who grew up here, I mention, of course, the lack of political freedom, the demagoguery, etc. But then I say things like "OTOH unemployment was zero, health care was free (\), college was free, and everyone was sure to receive a livable pension from the state when they retired." Oh, and there was a decline and clear commercialization of the arts immediately after revolution.
Then everyone gives me odd looks.
It's like they expect a tale of Aragorn vs. Mordor, with clear heroes and villains. It's not like that. Life in the US is clearly better overall, but there are some interesting points to be learned from the ol'country too. Not kicking the destitute to the curb seems the most important.
---
(\) - if you felt the impulse to point out that "free" really means "paid out of your taxes", please be informed that Captain Obvious and his minions are not welcome here. Yes, we get it, ktnxbai.
Unemployment is a feature of a regulated capitalist economy. The primary source of unemployment is the minimum wage. There are a nearly unlimited source of jobs available if you would accept $1/hour as payment, and if you have no other employment then at least it gets you experience/recommendations and enough to buy some food.
The minimum wage is a trade off. You create e.g. 10% unemployment so that the ~4.3% of people who make the minimum wage (and still have jobs) can make $7.25/hour instead of $5 or $3. There is a legitimate question as to whether this is the right trade off, but people seem to be in favor of it.
A food, anyway, provided you aren't spending your $8 a day on rent.
How would social services work in this system without minimum wage? Would people making below a minimum wage deemed necessary to house and feed and care for oneself be eligible for benefits?
> A food, anyway, provided you aren't spending your $8 a day on rent.
When you have the choice between a job that pays $10 and a job that pays $7.25, you generally pick the one that pays $10. When the choice is between $7.25 and $4 or $4 and $1 the choice is similarly obvious. But so is the choice between making $8/day and buying eight pounds of pasta/rice/beans/etc. or being unemployed and hungry.
> How would social services work in this system without minimum wage? Would people making below a minimum wage deemed necessary to house and feed and care for oneself be eligible for benefits?
That's how it works already. People making minimum wage qualify for government benefits that phase out at higher income levels.
> Unemployment wasn't that low before the minimum wage was established. What was the primary source of unemployment then?
The poor state of travel and communication at the time. You couldn't exactly hitchhike to the nearest city with a public library and find work via the internet in 1938.
> In a free market economy, unemployment is a necessity
Perhaps a "necessity" in the sense that it's a necessary outcome of a system designed like that.
E.g., you build an engine according to the principles of thermodynamics in this universe, a necessary outcome is wasted heat. The engine would not work if you prohibited the waste; or it would become something else entirely (not a Carnot machine anymore, or whatever).
The trick is to figure out a system where the necessary outcomes are not very undesirable. Pretty hard to do that with the entire human society.
I mean it's a necessity in that you need an elastic supply of labor to respond to the market forces that ostensibly drive a free market economy to meet the needs of its participants.
Cuba flaunts the US hegemony from right under their noses, but they have great wealth in their geographic location, and their society. Cuba could become the Switzerland of the western hemisphere given the right outset.
The US is the militant world hegemon. Which happily sends uniformed killers halfway around the world to take control. Proximity to the US isn't healthy for freedom-lovers with browner skin.
It's a good thing, but Cuba is about to be gentrified. I really wish I had visited before now, Cuba is going to lose a lot of culture in the long term. I can envision McDonald's and Starbucks everywhere.
Your perspective is flawed because you are projecting too logical a world view on the opponents of rapprochement, but from an emotionally conservative perspective it's seen as giving up the fight against evil.
