Only the US. Cuba trades with China, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and the Netherlands.
285 karma · joined December 17, 2019
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
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...
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...
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.
To escape a country, or to enter a country? The example you gave is the latter. Do you have any examples of the former?
Why not?
Do I understand you correctly?
And what are you suggesting it be replaced with?
That's true of any philosopher.
> to Aquinas, those Neoplatonists from whom he derived his cosmology and philosophy were nothing better than pagans
Ahistorical nonsense.
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com//mobile/view/1...
Yes. Do you know what a disjunction is?
Do you know what the word "accidentally" means?
Since the former includes the latter, your excuse makes zero sense. It sounds like a convoluted attempt to obfuscate the fact that you thought "chromosomes" was synonymous with "allosomes".
> It looks like you skipped out on Biology 101
How so? This is a weird projection. You're the one who clearly didn't know what chromosomes are.
Finally, you still haven't answered the question: Is a person black simply by virtue of claiming that they "identify as" black?
> I didn't skip Biology 101.
Looks like you did. Chromosomes carry the genome.
> it seems like an attempt for you to paint "your opposition" by the beliefs of its extremists
That's exactly what you did in your original comment. Talk about lack of self-awareness.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000306512110085...
"Everyone knows" what? This?
> no discourse is so dogmatic and blind and unable to question its own values as the American one
I can't imagine how sheltered from and ignorant of the rest of the world one must be to make such a ludicrous claim.
Is that sarcasm? Do you know what chromosomes are?
> And I don't see how someone would identify as black if they aren't
By simply claiming they do. Is that not the criterion you're using for gender?
"I don't see how someone would identify as female if they aren't."
Replace gender with race. Do you feel the same way about race?
I accept your concession.
Wrong. Looks like your psychic powers need a lot of work.
But thanks for further weakening your "case" with more baseless assertions.
Furthermore, I checked your profile and it looks like this describes your background. Ironic.
> I can tell this, because you’ve never considered what representation means to you.
1. This is a non-sequitur.
2. This is just some brazen projection on your part, as your comments in this discussion make clear. You're the one who comically equated population statistics with arts & media representation, which proves you haven't given much thought to the matter at all.
> how being the default isn’t representation
The point is that it isn't the default in film. Maybe take a deep breath and try reading the thread again?
> you have nothing to back that statement up except your hurt feelings, because it doesn’t even hold up to even a cursorily examination
More brazen projection on your part, given that you've been utterly unable to substantiate any of your baseless claims, despite being prompted multiple (!) times to do so, not just by me.
> it doesn’t even hold up to even a cursorily examination of popular culture, or history
Oh boy. Are you really going to claim that arts & media representation has always reflected population statistics? Your claims just keep getting more bizarre.
> it'd be handy to include why its a comparable situation
akkartik made that bizarre comparison, not me.