Hacker News Reader

Comment by sudosysgen | Hacker News Reader

Because they can't make enough of them. How long did it take between the end of Phase 3 trials and you getting your first dose?

Beyond that, Cuba's economy is in shambles as there is no tourism to make money from and as covid restrictions are incredibly strict while cases are increasing.

If you've never had the chance to live as an average citizen in an average developing country it's hard to understand, but actually fleeing on boats is really not uncommon. Where I'm from people that can't even swim take discarded water bottles, stuff them under their t-shirts, and swim 40km to richer countries, for purely economic reasons.

When you don't have enough money for a plane ticket, you don't have the choice, and it's a lot more common in the world than you think. Cuba doesn't even have emigration rates that are out of the norm for poor countries close to rich countries.

View on HN

Castro annihilated the land-owning middle class in the first years of his premiership [1], using the same playbook as Lenin wrt the Kulaks after the October revolution [2]: do away with the financially and thus politically independent asap.

Cuba consistently required Soviet subsidies to survive through the end of the 20th century [3]. That's all gone now.

[1] http://revolutions.truman.edu/cuba/aboutme.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period

More accurately, Cuba traded with the Soviet Union and received food in exchange for its exports. I don't think Cuba was ever fully self-sufficient in food before, either.

Other than that you are correct about land reform in Cuba.

Before Castro took over, almost half of all agricultural land in Cuba was owned by US businesses.

The agricultural workers almost all lived in shacks without power or plumbing.

There's a reason Castro was so popular at the time.

In exchange, Castro offered long term bonds, but I don't think anyone accepted.

And yet, you look at Hawaii, what was in a very similar situation, and a very different scenario occurred during the last century.

Pretty sure if you offered Hawaiians and Cubans the possibility to switch places, many Cubans would want to do it, but not many Hawaiians!

I don't see what's your point, that the US should invade Cuba against the will of their residents and incorporate it as the 52nd state so that eventually 50 years later the kids of the current generation may be favourable to it?

Now you're just shifting goal posts into absurdity and dodging the central point of the previous response, which isn't that the U.S should invade Cuba because of its awful, repressive, impoverishing government, but that despite all sorts of excuses for how Cuba was "saved" from U.S exploitation by the Castro regime, that regime still mismanaged it terribly in fundamental ways. Had the Cubans stuck to the sort of government that existed before Castro 8and it definitely was a corrupt, repressive government as well), they'd still have been better off by now due to evolving economic changes and entry into the wider open markets of the world.

> fleeing on boats is really not uncommon

To escape a country, or to enter a country? The example you gave is the latter. Do you have any examples of the former?

... how do you propose escaping without then entering somewhere else? Same thing, surely?

Except for motive.

Consider the saying "People don't leave jobs, they leave bosses." Sure, you're getting a new job, not just leaving an old one. But what they're really doing is leaving that jerk of a boss.

In the same way, you can be "going to America", or you can be "escaping from Cuba". Same thing in terms of actions, but not at all the same in terms of motive.

I don't exactly follow. When my family emigrated from an impoverished North African nation, we were escaping poverty and dysfunction just as much as we were going to richer countries.

Sure, it can be both at once. But it doesn't have to be.

Let's say I'm in Venezuela, and I'm tired of the "Maduro diet", i.e., borderline starvation. I'll go to Colombia or Brazil, or Guyana. Or I'll go through Colombia to Panama or Peru or Ecuador. Any of the above. I'm leaving Venezuela more than I'm going to somewhere.

In contrast, consider the caravans that show up at the southern US border. They're often from Honduras. But the people in them didn't stop at Guatemala or Belize or Mexico. No, they're coming to the US, not just leaving Honduras.

I really don't follow. The incentive is the same. You want to go from a poorer place to a richer place. You obviously don't want to go to a place where your economic situation won't improve.

> Same thing, surely?

No, not the same thing at all. Forcibly stopping your citizens from leaving your country altogether is not the same thing as another country stopping them from entering theirs.

Communist countries have historically implemented strict emigration policies [0]. For example, East Germany famously had a policy of mass-murdering citizens who tried to escape to the West [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_Eastern_Bl...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schießbefehl

Cuba is not stopping anyone from leaving for a while, but yes this was a policy during the Castro era.

> Cuba is not stopping anyone from leaving

That's a step in the right direction, if true. Do you have a source for it? This older article [0] says:

President Raul Castro said the regime will still decide who can renew or obtain passports. The government will protect "human capital" in its decision-making, and travel can be denied for "national security reasons."

Those deemed necessary to the Cuba socialist revolution — professionals such as doctors, scientists and engineers — can be prevented from departing. The "national security" clause worries some opposition figures.

[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/11/cuba-ex...

It also appears that a Cuban passport is ~5 months of salary for a Cuban, which is a limiting factor in expatriating. I would be curious what a crowdsourced effort to fund passports and travel out of Cuba does to the government's posture and position on Cuban's leaving the country.

It would probably end similar to the Mariel Boatlift : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

TIL, thanks for the link.

Yes, that is it. It is certainly not perfect yet, but controls on who can obtain passports are sadly the norm in the entire world. And indeed the price of the plane ticket stays the most significant hurdle.

> It is certainly not perfect

That's an understatement.

> controls on who can obtain passports are sadly the norm in the entire world

These restrictions are far from "the norm in the entire world".

Actually, not granting passports to people that are in dire need economically is fairly common, South Korea does it for example and so do a few African countries. Crucially it's not as bad as the previous system because you know of this complication before you make the choice of studying for these professions. It really sucks, but sadly it's more common than it should be.

> fairly common, South Korea does it for example and so do a few African countries

Source? To prevent goalpost-moving, the restrictions we're referring to are:

The government will protect "human capital" in its decision-making, and travel can be denied for "national security reasons." Those deemed necessary to the Cuba socialist revolution — professionals such as doctors, scientists and engineers — can be prevented from departing.

If you were ever in such a situation, you'd know that by far the biggest limiting factor is actually the cost of the plane ticket and the visa. There isn't much of a distinction between both. Cuba fully ended exit visas 8 years ago.

That doesn't answer the question, which is about emigration illegality being "not uncommon".

Emigration is legal for 99% of Cubans though. The issue is that the cost of emigrating is more than a years salary.

> Emigration is legal for 99% of Cubans though.

Do you have a source for that? This [0] suggests otherwise.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27813742

Cuba is in shambles because of communism and communist ideals.

Perhaps. I've lived in capitalist developing countries that were even poorer - hence people stuffing water bottles in their shirt - so I can't honestly conclude that it is the reason.

You're taking way too much of a good faith reading that comment. There's way more nuance than "communism bad," though it is very true that sanctions and the Castros and their cronies have both done great harm to Cuba.

Cuba has been in shambles since, at the very least, Batista came to power in a CIA-backed coup with monetary help from organized crime. After his government was overthrown all of that money dried up and the sanctions imposed (with no attempt at diplomacy) have choked the country out until this day. Yes, what little money comes in is siphoned off by the crooked Castro government, but there's a lot more to the history of Cuba and Latin America than "communism bad."

Right, with a capitalist system they’d laugh in the face of the economic blockades.

It's not a 'Blockade', which would normally mean someone trying to stop anyone/anything from entering or leaving.

US Embargo against Cuba would surely be a drag on even a 'regular capitalist economy' - but at they same time they'd do just fine with it. They can trade anything with any of the other 180 nations of the world. Most prosperous nations don't trade that-that much with the US.

And if they were open and fair, there'd be no embargo.

Stop defending this murderous regime there are no excuses for them.

Not really. Other countries with "regular capitalist economies" if there is such a thing have been scared shitless of an embargo and every single one has seen economic disaster.

The key to the embargo are two measures, the exclusion of Cuba from the global financial system, and the restriction on ships that docked in Cuba. Because of these, trade with Cuba from other countries is severely restricted.

It's the same situation as the Iranian embargo, just even worse. As you can see in Iran even in capitalist countries it causes untold economic disruption.

There would 1000% be a blockade even if Cuba became capitalist as long as it was opposed to US geopolitical interests. The US trades with endless murderous dictators and even traded with the USSR, the determining factor of the embargo is the Monroe doctrine, not anything else. Ever since 1776 Cuba has been struggling with escaping the American sphere of influence.

The problem is that a country the U.S. embargoes isn't free to trade with all other countries since the U.S. prohibits any company that does business with the embargoed country from doing business in the U.S. The size of the U.S. economy being as large as it is makes a U.S. embargo effectively a global embargo.

> since the U.S. prohibits any company that does business with the embargoed country from doing business in the U.S.

That is not true in this case, or even in general.

Canada trades with Cuba, but is not restricted from trading with the United States.

For example, you can freely purchase Cuban cigars in Canada.

Another example: the U.S. had an embargo against Iran for many years, but that didn't stop Siemens in Germany from selling them uranium centrifuges, nor did it result in a U.S. embargo against Germany.

Edit: here's a Canadian government site encouraging Canadian companies to do business with Cuba.

https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/cuba/index.aspx?lang=eng

Reality is more complicated. Generally in order to trade with Cuba or Iran you do have to use financial instruments to insulate yourself.

Siemens did not sell centrifuges to Iran when it was during the full embargo. It did so earlier. Even then, sales of this equipment to Iran are done with coordination with the EU that does the footwork to insure the companies and avoid sanctions.

Can you show me on the Canadian Trade Commissioner site where it suggests that businesses need to "insulate themselves"?

Why do I need to? It's well documented that the US has secondary sanctions on Cuba : https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles...

The Canadian government will in effect compensate you for these secondary sanctions though.

> Why do I need to?

Because you're the one making the claim. You claimed that you need "financial instruments" to "insulate" yourself. Do you have an example of this or not?

> It's well documented that the US has secondary sanctions on Cuba

1) That's about private lawsuits, not government sanctions, "secondary" or otherwise. 2) It only applies to people who directly traffic in confiscated U.S. property, not to generic trade with Cuba. 3) No one has ever successfully pressed a claim or collected any compensation under that statute.

I’m mistaken. The best I could find in support of my claim was this in Wikipedia:

The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular, who object to what they say is the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. investors who have economic interests in Cuba. In the House of Commons of Canada, Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the Godfrey-Milliken Bill, which called for the return of property of United Empire Loyalists seized by the American government as a result of the American Revolution (the bill never became law).

I don’t know the exact mechanism but I believe our sanctions cause more than just a pain for American companies doing business with Cuba.

Here is a better source, but you were right, the US allows for the lawsuit of anyone that deals with Cuba effectively. The Canadian government as well as the EU do have programs to counterbalance the effects of these sanctions though.

https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles...

Brazil, Mexico, China, and Russia are also among Cuba's top trade partners.

The trade embargo has much to do with this. Is there a prosperous country that the U.S. has embargoed for an extensive period of time. I suppose at one point Iran might have qualified but that would be because of oil. Nations that are largely excluded from the world market won't be prosperous is the main takeaway.

Is (nominal) communism to blame for the rise of China?

Cuba trades with Venezuela, China, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and the Netherlands.

The rise of China is due to the economic reforms [0] launched in the late 70s by Deng Xiaoping and continued by his successors:

The Communist Party authorities carried out the market reforms in two stages. The first stage, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, involved the de-collectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start businesses. However, a large percentage of industries remained state-owned. The second stage of reform, in the late 1980s and 1990s, involved the privatization and contracting out of much state-owned industry. The 1985 lifting of price controls[11] was a major reform, and the lifting of protectionist policies and regulations soon followed, although state monopolies in sectors such as banking and petroleum remained. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). The private sector grew remarkably, accounting for as much as 70 percent of China's gross domestic product by 2005.[12] From 1978 until 2013, unprecedented growth occurred, with the economy increasing by 9.5% a year.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

Yes, I know this. I was employing the same logic as the person I responded to. Namely, that since Cuba is a failure then it must be communism's fault. I just reversed things a bit. I was pointing out that simplistic reasoning is not sufficient to explain complex geopolitical situations.

That is certainly true, yet at the same time setting up free markets to get investment from capitalist nations is a Communist technique since 1922. Deng Xiaoping himself admitted that his reforms were inspired by Lenin setting up the same system in the USSR.

So in the end I think neither of you are really wrong.

You're referring to the New Economic Policy [0].

For both, the purpose was not only to get foreign investment, but to improve internal economic efficiency, since collectivization and central planning were lethally inefficient [1][2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Certainly, internal economic efficiency was also an important factor. Lenin rapidly realized that central planning is an incredibly difficult task and that allowing markets allows for more efficiency. However, Stalin disagreed as he wanted faster heavy industry development than markets would allow.

Indeed. Stalin effectively ended the NEP in 1929, eliminating private ownership of farmland and collectivizing agriculture under state control. By 1931, he had reimposed state control over all industry and commerce [0][1]. And thus came the Soviet famines of 1932-1933 [2][3][4].

[0] https://www.britannica.com/event/New-Economic-Policy-Soviet-...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%93...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1931%E2%80%93...

Yes, this is made worse by the fact that Lenin previously tried to do what Stalin did and found that access to reliable data was a major issue, but Stalin still went through with it, partly because he expected war and partly because he thought he could do it better. This wasn't something we should give the benefit to Stalin for but in retrospect WW2 may have taken a turn for the worse in the opposite case.

> Because they can't make enough of them

Or because they don't work.

The only ones to claim that it worked were the state owned media, regime and regime-controlled hospitals.

There's a pretty good chance it either doesn't work and the regime is trying to save face or that they copied a western vaccine and are trying to replicate it. They need US dollars from tourism so they have to get the population vaccinated as soon as possible or else the food shortages will get even worse.

I think this is fairly unlikely. If that was the case, Cuba wouldn't be negotiating with Vietnam to manufacture it. I think it's almost certain that it is an effective vaccine.

Cuba is only a 'developing economy' because of Castro's oppression. Otherwise, it should probably be above Brazil and Argentina in terms of standard of living.

It would be the highest in central/south America alongside Chile.

Nature maagazine had a bit on their vaccine here [1]. It's not unreasonable or 'bad journalism' at the same time, it's biased towards them with no hard questions, making excuses, and soft-balling them questions on the embargo etc. and finally it doesn't address or put into context the overwhelmingly negative outcomes which are a result of the regimes power.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01126-4

Perhaps it would have been, perhaps it wouldn't. There is no way to know, most likely it would have reverted towards the norm. Cuba has always been in very dire situations politically, I see no reason why Castro wouldn't have been replaced by someone else and then someone else etc...

As far as the embargo I don't think you can really separate it. Countries with more oppressive dictatorships have been able to develop economically if given the chance to trade.

You don't think the US embargo on Cuba played a significant role in stifling their economic growth and development?

The embargo is not the driving factor really.

Castro is a ruthless despotic killer. The entire economy is under his thumb, most of the prosperous larger scale enterprises are run by the Army. He purposely forbade minor economic activity (i.e. shops, trades) that would normally form 1/2 of the entire economic base. Some of this has loosened up.

You can't blame a blockade for not having mechanics available to fix cars when being a mechanic is defacto outlawed.

If Cuban were an open economy, even with crappy authoritarian leadership and and embargo, it would probably prosper.

Trading with other nations has some 'essential' aspects, but mostly it's not necessary, it's just advantageous. And there's no reason to have to trade with any one nation, generally.

Cuba might need very specific equipment from in order to advance some parts of the economy - for example, many factories need equipment only made in Germany as one example, the same thing applies to US sourcing. This would be acquired through intermediaries.

But by and large, trade would come in commodities, tourism etc. none of which is 'essential' between US and Cuba.

Not having the US to trade with is a drag, but anything that Cuba would actually need (i.e. specialized tech) would be purchased through intermediaries.

Definitely foreign direct investment and tourism would hamper things, but not by some kind of existential amount.

Castro Inc. is 100% the problem there, that people continue to defend them in some way is astonishing and shameful frankly.

please show me where it's illegal to be a mechanic in Cuba.

I think I know what case you're referring to, I think you're misrepresenting it.

'Mechanic' is a euphemism for small businesses which were banned up until recently [1][2], with an increasing level of opening from 2013-2017 since when there have been clamp downs of various kinds.

It's pretty sad that people are defending Castro Inc.

I believe that hatred for one's local political opponents transcends any material reality which is why Castro still gets so much indirect support in the West. Or let's just say 'lack of condemnation' or 'redirection of blame'.

In this way, the 'points' that Leftist/Rightists can glean over their opponents, they will use by seriously distorting the facts over some 'example' entity like Cuba.

The ability to rise above that to me is the 'litmus test' for ideological inanity vs. true good faith reasoning.

So many people don't want to admit that Castro Inc. is a vile authoritarian murderous regime, an so they'll do quite a lot to cover that up, by highlighting the few supposed positives, and rarely covering the negatives.

This is the 'red flag' of intellectual failure and I pretty much ignore anything these people have to say, much like I don't have any time for people that think that Donald Trump is some kind of 'Glorious Businessman' and can't fathom that what he does on TV is just made up.

Castro was (now Castro Inc.) a tyrant in the most obvious and classical sense it's clear as day.

[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/15/the-end-of-cubas-entrep...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36375807

Not at all. They are free to trade with 180+ other countries.

Not in practice. US law allows for any entity that deals directly or indirectly with the product of property that was seized in the Cuban revolution to be sued : https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles...

They are free not to trade with the US if they wish to trade with Cuba. And these clauses only cover property that was illegally stolen by the Castro regime. Selling stolen property is always a crime, no matter where.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27816914

And yes in practice. Cuba trades with China, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands.

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/cub

Reply on news.ycombinator.com