Cuba legalizes the purchase and sale of private property

[B5C]

Cuba Legalizes Purchase, Sale Of Private Property
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

text size A A A November 3, 2011
Cuba announced Thursday it is allowing the purchase and sale of real estate for the first time since the early days of the revolution, the most important reform yet in a series of free-market changes ushered in by President Raul Castro.

The law, which takes effect Nov. 10, applies to citizens and permanent residents only, according to a red-letter headline on the front page of Thursday's Communist Party daily Granma.

The brief article said details of the new law would be published imminently in the government's Official Gazette, though the government has said previously sales will be subject to taxes and the rules will not allow anyone to accumulate great wealth.

The change follows the legalization in October of the purchase and sale of cars, though with restrictions that still make it hard for ordinary Cubans to buy new cars.

Castro has also allowed citizens to go into business for themselves in a number of approved jobs — everything from party clowns to food vendors to accountants — and has pledged to streamline the state-dominated economy by eliminating half a million government workers.

Cuba's employs over 80 percent of the workers in the island's command economy, paying wages of just $20 a month in return for free education and health care, and nearly free housing, transportation and basic foods. Castro has said repeatedly that the system is not working since taking over from his brother Fidel in 2008, but he has vowed that Cuba will remain a Socialist state.
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/03/141971007/cuba-legalizes-purchase-sale-of-private-property


I don't know what to say. :confused:

[Judicator]

The country will get a whole lot richer...like with Deng Xiaoping and China.

[Skooma Addict]

Hopefully Cuba is heading in the right direction. This is a good start, but still a long way to go.

[danyboy27]

Its just a matter of time before a fews holigarchs hoarder start using their wealth to acquire more property and start ruling the country.

[kurr]

socialism with "cuban characteristics"? lol.this will be a disaster.

[Ilyich]

The country will get a whole lot richer...like with Deng Xiaoping and China.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3167/2633458151_c1c0ff983d.jpg

http://nomoreccp.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/2004-11-18-china_poverty.jpg

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/2005-2-4-poverty.jpg

Oh, what a wonderful China Deng made!

[tir1944]

The betrayal of socialism continues...

[Skooma Addict]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3167/2633458151_c1c0ff983d.jpg

http://nomoreccp.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/2004-11-18-china_poverty.jpg

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/2005-2-4-poverty.jpg

Oh, what a wonderful China Deng made!

China has gotten much better though. Nobody can deny that.

[danyboy27]

China has gotten much better though. Nobody can deny that.

based on?

[NewLeft]

I can hear it already, the right is celebrating the 'defeat' of socialism..

[Skooma Addict]

based on?

The economic data. Their living standards are also still increasing.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't really perfer state capitalism to private capitalism, so whatever.

[DinodudeEpic]

Cuba was never socialist to begin with. The workers weren't owning the means of production. Castro and his cronies were.

So, there wouldn't be much change for the common person. Much like in China, were the common person was no better of with Deng then with Mao.

Tyranny is tyranny. Regardless of markets.

[tir1944]

China is a "socialist"(!) country where most people can't afford education (besides the most rudimentary one) or healthcare,where the worker's rights are probably even worse than in 19th century England,where common people suffer of horrible corruption,state-neglect and environmental pollution.

[Baseball]

I can hear it already, the right is celebrating the 'defeat' of socialism..

The Right understands that socialism can never be defeated. When a socialist community collapses, socialists elsewhere immediately write it off to errors in judgement, inappropriate historical conditions, assaults upon it by capitalism ect ect ect.
Its never the theory which is at fault.

[Le Libérer]

Yes, but does this mean buying Cuban real estate will be open to outside entities like Americans? If so, they may end up in the same place they were when Castro led the revolution 60 years ago.

[Drosophila]

Not really a surprise to me. Raul Castro seems like the power-hungry capitalist asshole type.

[Baseball]

Yes, but does this mean buying Cuban real estate will be open to outside entities like Americans? If so, they may end up in the same place they were when Castro led the revolution 60 years ago.

Yeah, can't have foreigners buying the place down the block...

But not to worry- the new law keeps the undesirables out.

[Robert]

Fidel Castro didn't "seem" power hungry to you?

[tfb]

What this means is that Castro's going to buy the farm.

[Robert]

He's going out in a great capitalistic flourish?

I bet he asks for a priest on his deathbed.

[Judicator]

China is a "socialist"(!) country where most people can't afford education (besides the most rudimentary one) or healthcare,where the worker's rights are probably even worse than in 19th century England,where common people suffer of horrible corruption,state-neglect and environmental pollution.

I think if you have a piece of paper that says you were born in a city (of which there are tons now, thanks to capitalism) you get a lot of pretty basic school access/healthcare/etc.

Google wages in China and you'll see they're going up.

[tir1944]

And some 2/3 of China's population is rural innit?

[Judicator]

And some 2/3 of China's population is rural innit?

Gonna be down to 1/2 soon, and was what...90% just a few decades ago?

[Zav]

Google wages in China and you'll see they're going up.
Just like in the U.S. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

And some 2/3 of China's population is rural innit?

I was in China in July ans it is amazing how quickly things are changing there. Towns that are rural get changed almost overnight. Someone decides to put a factory somwhere--in no time at all the factory is built and the whole town stope living their Communistic rural life and gets trained to start working in the factory. The nex thning you know all the rural acivites are abandoned and the town is completely changed --with stores and paved streets and apartments along side the factory. Usually all this happens in less than a year.

[#FF0000]

Its never the theory which is at fault.

Uh yeah it can.

[RGacky3]

I don't have any dog in this fight, Its just State Capitalism allowing some private Capitalism.

If Cuba opens up the economy is going to explode, juts becuase of huge foreign investment.

(if foreigners could buy property, it would be a good investment).

But Cuba also has a sharp rise in cooperatives, so the state sector shrinking can many times be a good thing.

I personally have no problem with a lot of these reforms, its when industry, finance and so on gets privatized when you have problems.


I was in China in July ans it is amazing how quickly things are changing there. Towns that are rural get changed almost overnight. Someone decides to put a factory somwhere--in no time at all the factory is built and the whole town stope living their Communistic rural life and gets trained to start working in the factory. The nex thning you know all the rural acivites are abandoned and the town is completely changed --with stores and paved streets and apartments along side the factory. Usually all this happens in less than a year.

Your "personal experience" means jack shit on an internet forum.

[RGacky3]

BTW, the reason China is doing well is because they have shifted their state capitalist system, and have a lot of state control, mostly what they changed is just allowed huge foreign investment. When a socialist country goes straight private capitalist (US model) you get Russia, not China.

[Bud Struggle]

BTW, the reason China is doing well is because they have shifted their state capitalist system, and have a lot of state control, mostly what they changed is just allowed huge foreign investment. When a socialist country goes straight private capitalist (US model) you get Russia, not China.

No. 70% of the Chinese economy is in the private sector. The state run businesses are moribund old school businesses. All the growth is in the private sector. Banking for example is still under sate control.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948478.htm

The private companies are completely private--this is more like the USA in the 1880s than anything in government regulated America today.

All the Chinese government requires that tht no one challenges he political authority of the state.

[RGacky3]

No. 70% of the Chinese economy is in the private sector. The state run businesses are moribund old school businesses. All the growth is in the private sector. Banking for example is still under sate control.


A: Those growth buisinesses are dependant on industries like banking and manufacturing or energy or natural resources to exist much less grow.

B: Even most of the private sector is partially if not majority owned by the state.

C: The government owns all the land, and has major restrictions on all the companies, WAY more restrictions and government intervention than the United States ever had now or ever.

D: The growth of China is a testiment to State authoritarian capitalism, not liberal free market capitalism.

E: The US is no more or less free market than it was in 1880, the economy was different, but thats because times were different, regulations have been sripped away since the 1970s, which is partially why the US is in the state it is.

[danyboy27]

The economic data. Their living standards are also still increasing.

what kind of economic data? the GDP? give me a break.

[Bud Struggle]

A: Those growth buisinesses are dependant on industries like banking and manufacturing or energy or natural resources to exist much less grow. Who cares? It's the same everywhere.


B: Even most of the private sector is partially if not majority owned by the state. That's is sometimes the case--but the government keeps a hands off approach to what the businessmen are doing.


C: The government owns all the land, and has major restrictions on all the companies, WAY more restrictions and government intervention than the United States ever had now or ever.
There are almost no restrictions on wages and use of capital and facitities. Where do you get you data?


D: The growth of China is a testiment to State authoritarian capitalism, not liberal free market capitalism. I would say i was a mix of both. And as I said before if I was an MBA just graduated from an Ivy B school I'd go to China to make my billion.


E: The US is no more or less free market than it was in 1880, the economy was different, but thats because times were different, regulations have been sripped away since the 1970s, which is partially why the US is in the state it is.You say that now--then at other times you say things changed dramatically in the business world in the 1930s.

You need to keep you story straight, Gack.

Either way--you are a great American. :)

[Rusty Shackleford]

I dont think the Cuban Communist Party or Raul Castro are trying to paint this as some revolutionary new model of socialism like Deng did. In fact, I believe the Cuban government is being much more honest about it as being non-revolutionary reforms and a retreat, must like Lenin on the NEP.

Whats at risk is the economy collapsing and the overthrow of the Communist Party which may lead to a re-colonization or pre-1959 type society in Cuba.

Bend so as to not break.

[Zealot]

Terrible, Raul's reforms are going to run Cuba into a shithole. I wonder what Fidel is thinking about all of this

[Bud Struggle]

I checked quietly. Comrade Bud isn't even close to aquiring land in Cuba.



Yet.:cool:

[manic expression]

We've been over this a dozen times. All this is from memory: prior to these reforms, people usually exchanged housing through the black market. This takes away from the influence of the black market and puts it all out in the open, subject to the laws of the revolutionary government. The important thing to remember, above all, is that no one is able to own more than one home (I see US imperialism's own NPR didn't mention that). It's a more efficient way for people to swap houses. Gasps of incoming capitalism are most likely either wishful thinking from right-wingers or defeatist thinking from leftists who opposed the Cuban government before these reforms.

The real ironic part of this thread is that the headline screams "the purchase and sale of private property", by that is meant housing (real estate...property that is private). Of course, that's entirely different from the Marxist understanding of private property, which is the means of production. Thus, I think there's a bit of mistaken definitions at work here.

[Judicator]

I was in China in July ans it is amazing how quickly things are changing there. Towns that are rural get changed almost overnight. Someone decides to put a factory somwhere--in no time at all the factory is built and the whole town stope living their Communistic rural life and gets trained to start working in the factory. The nex thning you know all the rural acivites are abandoned and the town is completely changed --with stores and paved streets and apartments along side the factory. Usually all this happens in less than a year.

BBBBBUT the malls weren't made in compliance with US OSHA labor standards :crying::crying::crying::crying:



Just like in the U.S. :rolleyes:

https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=china+wage+increase

[Desperado]

Its just a matter of time before a fews holigarchs hoarder start using their wealth to acquire more property and start ruling the country.

A matter of time? I'm pretty sure that's not a new development.

[CommieTroll]

The country will get a whole lot richer...like with Deng Xiaoping and China.

No, Cuba's ruling elite will get a lot richer

[Judicator]

No, Cuba's ruling elite will get a lot richer

Whether or not this is true, it would confirm my original claim (that the country will get richer).

[Comrade Hill]

Whether or not this is true, it would confirm my original claim (that the country will get richer).

So you basicly admit that the ruling elite IS the entire country.

Well comrade, thank you for helping our cause.

Keep in mind that the majority of Africa is capitalist. Since their governments and elite individuals are rich, that means Africa is rich, right? Nothing to worry about.

[Rafiq]

1. This is not some asshole betraying socialism. Cuba is crumbling apart and he is doing it out of desperation. Such conditions for an economy to prosper are impractical.

2. China DID eliminate more poverty and increased living standards after the 'reforms'. This is undeniable.

[Comrade Hill]

1. This is not some asshole betraying socialism. Cuba is crumbling apart and he is doing it out of desperation. Such conditions for an economy to prosper are impractical.

2. China DID eliminate more poverty and increased living standards after the 'reforms'. This is undeniable.

What I'm confused about, is why you are going along with the "living standards" and the "poverty line" that the Chinese government provides.

Costs in China have gone up almost 115% since privatization. It is also way harder to get an education than it was before.

The majority of people in China live like shit. And when you say Cuba is getting desperate, do you mean desperate like how someone gets when they are about to commit suicide?

[Rafiq]

Christ.

1. The Chinese have always been living shitty. The 'reforms' made life less shitty for most people. And we are speaking about the poverty line set up by the UN.

2. No, desperation like a small, choked, isolated and sabatoged nation having to abandon it's socialist rhetoric in order to integrate with the world economy.

[Comrade Hill]

Christ.

1. The Chinese have always been living shitty. The 'reforms' made life less shitty for most people. And we are speaking about the poverty line set up by the UN.

2. No, desperation like a small, choked, isolated and sabatoged nation having to abandon it's socialist rhetoric in order to integrate with the world economy.

Okay, here is the information you have provided me:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats


China’s poverty rate fell from 85% to 15.9%, or by over 600 million people
China accounts for nearly all the world’s reduction in poverty
Excluding China, poverty fell only by around 10%

The use of the poverty line of $1 a day had long come under criticism for seeming arbitrary and using poor quality and limited data thus risking an underestimate of poverty. The $1.25 a day level is accompanied with some additional explanations and reasoning, including that it is a common level found amongst the poorest countries, and that $2.50 represents a typical poverty level amongst many more developing countries.


Even the UN admits these statistics have been criticized; you are definitely stretching it with these numbers, Rafiq.

So more people are making more than $1 a day, that would certainly be an improvement if there werent rising costs to accompany it.

What we also don't know is how much these "600 million people" are making right now. Can they afford food, water, housing, and other sorts of needs?

These bullshit statistics, which dont take into account the rising costs through foreign direct investment into more expensive goods and the oppressive market forces associated with capitalism, and which have been criticized even by the UN themselves, do not help your cause (whatever that is)

As far as Cuba goes, there are still restrictions on Cuba's trade from the United States, so if Cuba wants to participate in the global economy, the imperialist U.S government, the WTO, and the IMF are going to have to grant them permission.

They are also going to have to give up things like free healthcare, housing, and education.

Their living conditions will not change, please see China (and the UN's crap statistics) for further proof.

Read a book by a guy named Czeslaw Tubilewicz, titled "Critical Issues in Contemporary China" and you will see for yourself, that things have gone to shit ever since Deng Xiaoping's so called "market socialist" neo-liberal reforms have been enacted.

[GatesofLenin]

The economic data. Their living standards are also still increasing.

According to people that have visited China, the well-off are all living inside the capitals. Drive 10 kilometers out of downtown and you run into mass poverty, no electric, no sewage, etc ...

[Nial Fossjet]

No, Cuba's ruling elite will get a lot richer

What "elite"?

[RGacky3]

Who cares? It's the same everywhere.


Who cares? Someone who wants to understand the economy, the economic infastructure in China is natinalized, so that the super structure can function.


That's is sometimes the case--but the government keeps a hands off approach to what the businessmen are doing.


Are we talking about China here? Are you shitting me? THey interfere all the time, not for the sake of the workers or anything, for the sake of their power and economic growth.


There are almost no restrictions on wages and use of capital and facitities. Where do you get you data?


They keep their currency artificially low, they basically ban unions, they control information flow extremely tightly, they favor certain capitalists over others (government contracts and the such), they OWN ALL THE LAND.

Of coarse they don't interfere on behalf of hte people or the enviroment or anything, but why should they? They don't work for the people.

China is the new Capitalism, no need for democracy, no need for human rights, or any other pesky interference with capital accumulation.

But to say it is somehow more free market is just insane.


I would say i was a mix of both. And as I said before if I was an MBA just graduated from an Ivy B school I'd go to China to make my billion.


A mix of both? Then whats Authoritarian Capitalism? I suppose Pinoches Argentina, but Pinoche's Argentina was MUCH MUCH more free market than China, China is the poster Child for athoritarian state capitalism, whereas the US the the poster child for liberal capitalism.

No shit you would go to China, its a high growth economy, and thats for 2 reasons, A: its new to capitalism and has HUGE markets to be tapped.
B: Authoritarian Capitalism is simply better when it comes to profitability than liberal capitalism.

If socialism is not the wave of the future, its gonna be chineese capitalism that is instead, authoritarian state capitalism, American liberal capitalism is dead in the water.


You say that now--then at other times you say things changed dramatically in the business world in the 1930s.

You need to keep you story straight, Gack.

Either way--you are a great American. http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-legalizes-purchase-t163767/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

They did change in the buisiness world in the 1930s .... That does'nt mean the world was more or less free market than it was before.

Where am I not getting my story straight ... unless you don't understand what we're talking about here.

[Baseball]

According to people that have visited China, the well-off are all living inside the capitals. Drive 10 kilometers out of downtown and you run into mass poverty, no electric, no sewage, etc ...


I seriously doubt that existing electric and sewer lines were dismantled in those areas over the past 20 years...

You socialists are funny sometimes. Rafiq comes along and points out (correctly) that China was a country made of hundreds of millions of people living in poverty- even under the the socialist reforms of a Mao. He points out (correctly) that under the capitalist reforms of Deng and his successors, there has been a tremendous surge of growth and development in China. Millions of Chinese who were impoverished no longer are.
There is really not much here to dispute.

But most of the revlefters are bellyaching over what should be considered great progress (how come the poverty under Mao was NOT considered a strike against 'socialism with Chinese characteristics?'
Didn't Marx himself say that capitalism was a great progressive engine of production and countries needed to be capitalist before becoming socialist?

It seems to me a fellow like Rafiq is being entirely logical in his application of socialism- right down to saying he would take a business, run it within capitalism to the best of his abilities-and turn over the wealth it creates to the revolution.

[Robert]

Millions of Chinese who were impoverished no longer are.
There is really not much here to dispute. Well, I'd say the dispute (here, anyway) is whether privatization has been a net plus or net minus for the majority of the rural population.

I say a net plus, for the majority, based on stats already posted and on my own personal observation and the news out of Anhui and Jiangsu Provinces.

Poverty persists in China. It persists everywhere. The Chinese government is not oblivious of rural poverty. They are trying and they are making progress.

http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/public_html/eksyst/doc/prj/region/pi/china/china.htm


As for the increase in material prosperity of the average inhabitant of Shanghai, Beijing, Nanjing, Guangzhou, Tianjin, and other commercial urban centers ... holy mackerel.

Did any of that come at the expense of the countryside? The inflation argument is noted, but inflation is not rampant in China. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/inflation-cpi

So I say no.

Inequality is an issue (a social issue, not really an economic problem), but again, the rich in china did not become so at the expense of the countryside.

[Bud Struggle]

Back on Cuba for a second--Capitalism has been growing in Cuba for some time.

Here's an article on it from last January.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/americas/04havana.html

What Castro is doing is just bending to the will of the masses.

[RGacky3]

Didn't Marx himself say that capitalism was a great progressive engine of production and countries needed to be capitalist before becoming socialist?


Sure, the problem with capitalism is its like a defected toyota, it can only speed up all the time and there are no brakes.

Heres the thing with State Capitalism, in an underdeveloped semi-industrialized country (thank Mao for that) like china, that is not experiencing serious economic imperialism (thank Mao for that) Capitalism will cause tremendous growth, just like it did in Japan (who managed to avoid imperialism).

But the problem with that growth in that situation is most of it goes to the top, some of it trickles down (over 3 or 4% growth is the minimum for it to start trickling down slightly), but the growth in working class living standards is miniscule compared to the overall growth, but, when it collapses, as it almost always does, its almost entirely the working class that suffers the downside.

Now China is not the same as the booms in Argentina, Spain, or the baltic states, because China has a very heavily controlled form of Capitalism (those other countries adopted a more American style free market capitalism), but the internal contradictions of capitalism will catch up to China as well.


Inequality is an issue (a social issue, not really an economic problem),

No it IS an economic problem, there are all sort of incentive problems that come with inequality that end up killing an economy.

[Robert]

There should be an easy way to attract investors, that aren't mob controlled (Marriot, Holiday Inn, McDonalds, Sandals), who could make joint ventures with the government to make sure the money generated by tourism etc wouldn't all end up back in Miami and Chicago. Establish a living minimum wage and other labor laws. Don't tell me that wouldn't beat what they got now. The Chinese did it and the People love it. There are LINES at the McDonalds in Nanjing.

Currently, the only McDonalds is at Guantanamo Bay. I bet Cubans would go nuts for Big Macs and fries.

Commies would oppose it, of course.

Average Cuban: "Just supersize it and gimme my change, comrade."

[Iron Felix]

Not really a surprise to me. Raul Castro seems like the power-hungry capitalist asshole type.
The same Raul that was second only to Fidel and the beloved Ernesto during the revolution?

[Comrade Hill]

I seriously doubt that existing electric and sewer lines were dismantled in those areas over the past 20 years...

You socialists are funny sometimes. Rafiq comes along and points out (correctly) that China was a country made of hundreds of millions of people living in poverty- even under the the socialist reforms of a Mao. He points out (correctly) that under the capitalist reforms of Deng and his successors, there has been a tremendous surge of growth and development in China. Millions of Chinese who were impoverished no longer are.
There is really not much here to dispute.

But most of the revlefters are bellyaching over what should be considered great progress (how come the poverty under Mao was NOT considered a strike against 'socialism with Chinese characteristics?'
Didn't Marx himself say that capitalism was a great progressive engine of production and countries needed to be capitalist before becoming socialist?

It seems to me a fellow like Rafiq is being entirely logical in his application of socialism- right down to saying he would take a business, run it within capitalism to the best of his abilities-and turn over the wealth it creates to the revolution.

Um.....

HELLO? Did you not see my post debunking Rafiq's claims by using the UNITED NATIONS and a credible book?

When has he ever mentioned any kind of revolution taking place? All I have heard from him, is about how glorious capitalism is.

Rafiq was not logically correct at all, you are just pulling that out of your arse. I gave you links proving him wrong and you still deny the facts. Can anybody say belief perseverance?

Revolt before the structure becomes too powerful. You don't wait until the structure becomes too powerful to say "okay, now revolt"

[Robert]

No it IS an economic problem, there are all sort of incentive problems that come with inequality that end up killing an economy. That's a value-laden opinion, not a fact. China's economy is in no danger of getting "killed," though a significant slowdown is possible-to-likely from over-rapid investment in residential construction. China is overdue for a slowdown in my opinion anyway.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204554204577023123449783572.html

But this has nothing to do with inequality. The government and a few investors will take the hit on that (which they can afford), not the folks in the countryside.

And egalitarian Europe's economic problems currently dwarf anything that the Chinese are facing.

It's not easy (other than from your armchair, right;)) to evenly distribute a sudden gusher of wealth into a place like China among all people, coast to coast, overnight, in the name of "equality!" and maintain growth and stability in the places best positioned to trade with the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if it's communism, state capitalism, or capitalism such as we have in the USA.

Worry about Europe for now, not China.

[Bud Struggle]

Worry about Europe for now, not China.

As Europe goes more Socialist it's economy falls apart. As China goes more Capitalist its economy grows more stronger.

[Robert]

I do have a couple of bones to pick with the Chinese. For one thing, you buy a "Dove Bar" or "Budweiser" over there and it doesn't taste right, and no it ain't the water. Well maybe it is. But I think they are just counterfeiting the wrappers and containers. No, looks like Anheuser Bush actually makes Chinese Budweiser beer, at least. But it still don't taste right.

And I don't want any snotty Brits telling me how Bud sucks anyway and British beer is so great. Chinese Budweiser is worse.

Did you see that story where they set up entire phony Apple stores (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14273444)? About five of them. They got balls, I tell ya.

[Judicator]

So you basicly admit that the ruling elite IS the entire country.

Well comrade, thank you for helping our cause.

Keep in mind that the majority of Africa is capitalist. Since their governments and elite individuals are rich, that means Africa is rich, right? Nothing to worry about.

You're so used to repeating your Socialist talking points that you ignore the claim being made.

Africa is poor, look at their per capita GDP. Perhaps if they were less corrupt and had stronger property rights, they would be richer.

[Comrade Hill]

You're so used to repeating your Socialist talking points that you ignore the claim being made.

Africa is poor, look at their per capita GDP. Perhaps if they were less corrupt and had stronger property rights, they would be richer.

Perhaps you should go on an African tour preaching your capitalist propaganda, and see what the poor people there say.

Based on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, I don't think the people there really give a shit about having a "country" that is rich.

Makes you wonder why people put priorities such as having a "rich country" to the side.

Maybe it's because capitalism isn't considered a high priority among the human race.

Please do not mention "per capita GDP" to a leftist ever again.

How is GDP per capita calculated? It is the wealth of the entire country, which the majority of which belongs to an elite class, is taken and divided by the amount of people it has, and it is framed so that it falsely attempts to represent the well-being of each individual that lives in that country.

It is simply a matter of knowing how to play with numbers (which the majority of the numbers belong to an elite) and stretch them across social classes of all kinds to fit one's argument.

[Judicator]

Perhaps you should go on an African tour preaching your capitalist propaganda, and see what the poor people there say.

Based on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, I don't think the people there really give a shit about having a "country" that is rich.

Makes you wonder why people put priorities such as having a "rich country" to the side.

Maybe it's because capitalism isn't considered a high priority among the human race.


Perhaps you think modern medicine, abundance of consumer goods, option to consume more leisure, and so on, aren't things that matter to people. I do. And if you ask people, they'll agree with me.

Maybe capitalism is a priority because it brings unprecedented increases in national wealth, which (as you'll see below) also increase income for the average Joe in the country.


Please do not mention "per capita GDP" to a leftist ever again.

How is GDP per capita calculated? It is the wealth of the entire country, which the majority of which belongs to an elite class, is taken and divided by the amount of people it has, and it is framed so that it falsely attempts to represent the well-being of each individual that lives in that country.

Please get over yourself and accept the value of basic indicators of economic performance.

There's a 90% correlation between the GDP/capita and median income (see below: OECD 2007). You need a rich country to have rich individuals, and individuals in rich countries frequently have much higher median incomes than poor countries. This is no accident.

Country 2007 Median Income (PPP) 2007 Per capita GDP (PPP)
Luxembourg 34,407 81,359
United States 31,111 46,467
Norway 31,011 52,031
Iceland 28,166 39,737
Australia 26,915 37,253
Switzerland 26,844 40,247
Canada 25,363 38,428
United Kingdom 25,168 35,537
Ireland 24,677 43,341
Austria 24,114 38,342
Netherlands 24,024 39,859
Sweden 22,889 37,488
Denmark 22,461 37,162
Belgium 21,532 35,467
Germany 21,241 34,603
Finland 20,875 35,284
New Zealand 20,679 26,903
France 19,615 33,475
Japan 19,432 33,635
Korea 19,179 26,579
Slovenia 18,860 27,981
Spain 18,391 30,464
Italy 16,866 30,390
Greece 15,758 29,086
Israel 14,055 27,497
Czech Republic 12,596 24,263
Portugal 12,515 22,620
Estonia 9,836 20,948
Poland 9,113 16,373
Slovak Republic 9,071 20,376
Hungary 8,531 18,842
Chile 7,851 13,916
Turkey 5,940 12,892
Mexico 4,689 14,143

[Robert]

I'm moving to Luxembourg.

Wish me lux.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was in China in July ans it is amazing how quickly things are changing there. Towns that are rural get changed almost overnight. Someone decides to put a factory somwhere--in no time at all the factory is built and the whole town stope living their Communistic rural life and gets trained to start working in the factory. The nex thning you know all the rural acivites are abandoned and the town is completely changed --with stores and paved streets and apartments along side the factory. Usually all this happens in less than a year.

I think much of the improvements to the Chinese urban economies can be attributed to the size of the country as a whole. The Balkan states and a number of Eastern European states are shitholes importing German and other foreign goods.


As Europe goes more Socialist it's economy falls apart. As China goes more Capitalist its economy grows more stronger.

Dude you really need to look closer at the policies, economic agreements, and setup of the EU. Some have said that Hayek would've been proud of what the European elites have accomplished, and there's more unrest and crisis as a result.

[RGacky3]

That's a value-laden opinion, not a fact. China's economy is in no danger of getting "killed," though a significant slowdown is possible-to-likely from over-rapid investment in residential construction. China is overdue for a slowdown in my opinion anyway.


No I don't think China is gonna get killed any times soon, it has plently of growth opportunities.

The property bubble will burst but it won't be as bad as it was in Europe or the US imo.

China will slowdown as the export market slows down, but they are right now trying to build up local consumption.


But this has nothing to do with inequality. The government and a few investors will take the hit on that (which they can afford), not the folks in the countryside.


OH don't be silly, the people in the country side have been taking a hit the whole time, and the urban workers will take the hit first in any slowdown, because they'll loose thier jobs before anything else. The government will tkae a hit, but not the government officials (the corporate board).

I don't think the housing bubble put China in a long term recession like it did in the US, but eventually Capitalism, even their authoritarian state capitalism will catch up to them.

The inequality will harm them because they can't build a consumer base fast enough and because investment will bleed out of the country, and the economy will become more and more financialized. Also with high inequality you have a worker/capitalist power inbalance causing all sorts of other problems, suppression of wages, braking unions and so on.


It's not easy (other than from your armchair, righthttp://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-legalizes-purchase-t163767/revleft/smilies/wink.gif) to evenly distribute a sudden gusher of wealth into a place like China among all people, coast to coast, overnight, in the name of "equality!" and maintain growth and stability in the places best positioned to trade with the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if it's communism, state capitalism, or capitalism such as we have in the USA.


Absolutely not, its impossible, you can't grow as fast as China did and expect to havea sustainable healthy economy. Of coarse if China had gone the route of having workers democracy, and institutions of workers democracy and having a functioning political democracy the growth would have been slower but more sustainable and more equitable.


As Europe goes more Socialist it's economy falls apart. As China goes more Capitalist its economy grows more stronger.

Europe has been following the neo-liberal path for the last 20/30 years, infact the only countries that did not are the countries where they did'nt have the economic disasters.

China is'nt becoming "more" Capitalist, at all.

[Comrade Hill]

Perhaps you think modern medicine, abundance of consumer goods, option to consume more leisure, and so on, aren't things that matter to people. I do. And if you ask people, they'll agree with me.


You're right, I don't. I believe in something called Dialectical Materialism.

I am not interested in your concept of what "people in general" appreciate. What I was referring to was specifically people in Africa. From what I have seen, they are not interested in consuming lavish goods.



Maybe capitalism is a priority because it brings unprecedented increases in national wealth, which (as you'll see below) also increase income for the average Joe in the country.


And when Capitalism slips into crisis, that wealth accumulation stops and it gets drained out of the economy.

Then the capitalists can lay off their workers while still enjoying a lavish lifestyle.

I'm not sure what your definition of an "Average Joe" is, so I can't really say anything to that.



Please get over yourself and accept the value of basic indicators of economic performance.


"Basic indicators of economic performance" are really things invented by neo-classical economists to measure the performance of capitalism.

What you also don't know, is that much of these "basic indicators" have many contradictions.



There's a 90% correlation between the GDP/capita and median income (see below: OECD 2007). You need a rich country to have rich individuals, and individuals in rich countries frequently have much higher median incomes than poor countries. This is no accident.


Actually you can have a poor country with rich individuals as well. Maybe not AS MANY rich individuals, but you still have rich individuals.

What also tends to occur in "richer countries," is that the standard deviation and the variance of income distribution is significantly smaller.

What these statistics also don't take into account is inflation, costs, crime, psychology, and many other things that affect these individuals, other than some silly personal monetary statistic.

I never said GDP per capita did not correlate with median income, you are attacking imaginary claims.

In addition, you are not mentioning anything "extraordinary." In statistics, there is something called normal distribution. Where the mean, median, and mode are similar in different data sets. This occurs in real life very often, and people have known this since the 1700s.

That still doesn't mean that the "majority of the country" equals the median income.







Country 2007 Median Income (PPP) 2007 Per capita GDP (PPP)
Luxembourg 34,407 81,359
United States 31,111 46,467
Norway 31,011 52,031
Iceland 28,166 39,737
Australia 26,915 37,253
Switzerland 26,844 40,247
Canada 25,363 38,428
United Kingdom 25,168 35,537
Ireland 24,677 43,341
Austria 24,114 38,342
Netherlands 24,024 39,859
Sweden 22,889 37,488
Denmark 22,461 37,162
Belgium 21,532 35,467
Germany 21,241 34,603
Finland 20,875 35,284
New Zealand 20,679 26,903
France 19,615 33,475
Japan 19,432 33,635
Korea 19,179 26,579
Slovenia 18,860 27,981
Spain 18,391 30,464
Italy 16,866 30,390
Greece 15,758 29,086
Israel 14,055 27,497
Czech Republic 12,596 24,263
Portugal 12,515 22,620
Estonia 9,836 20,948
Poland 9,113 16,373
Slovak Republic 9,071 20,376
Hungary 8,531 18,842
Chile 7,851 13,916
Turkey 5,940 12,892
Mexico 4,689 14,143

Yawn.

[Judicator]

I am not interested in your concept of what "people in general" appreciate. What I was referring to was specifically people in Africa. From what I have seen, they are not interested in consuming lavish goods.


Healthcare and education you're conceding are luxuries. I'm glad you're coming around!



And when Capitalism slips into crisis, that wealth accumulation stops and it gets drained out of the economy.


Yeah look at GDP whenever there was an economic bubble in the past...and look at now. Looks like the wealth accumulation continued.



I'm not sure what your definition of an "Average Joe" is, so I can't really say anything to that.


For the sake of argument in the US, lets call him the median earner. Let's call the class of people with incomes median +/- 30% "average Joes."



"Basic indicators of economic performance" are really things invented by neo-classical economists to measure the performance of capitalism.

What you also don't know, is that much of these "basic indicators" have many contradictions.


There's nothing contradictory about just adding numbers up. Evidently you think there is, so please provide some.

Also, please demonstrate how GDP of the US being higher than that of Somalia and other developing nations is just a meaningless coincidence.



Actually you can have a poor country with rich individuals as well. Maybe not AS MANY rich individuals, but you still have rich individuals.


And you make individuals wealthier by making more of them rich!



What also tends to occur in "richer countries," is that the standard deviation and the variance of income distribution is significantly smaller.


The standard deviation of per capita income in the US (or Norway or whatever) is larger than the per capita GDP of some countries, so this can't be the case.



I never said GDP per capita did not correlate with median income, you are attacking imaginary claims.


"it is framed so that it falsely attempts to represent the well-being of each individual that lives in that country."

I assume now you're going to say something along the lines of "money doesn't buy happiness so wealth is irrelevant."



That still doesn't mean that the "majority of the country" equals the median income.


The median accounts for skew in the income distribution....do you really believe that the income distribution is some kind of upside-down normal curve with massive tails such that only a handful of people are median income +/- 30%? Guess what? It isn't.

[Comrade Hill]

I will respond more adequately to your rebuttal tomorrow. I have class in the morning.

A couple things to wrap it up for tonight; median income does not represent the majority of the well-being of the population.

And you are right about the standard deviation, I was statistically wrong. The U.S. does have a higher standard deviation. I will accept that as a failure to analyze statistics adequately on my part.

Good debate. Have a good night.

[Comrade Hill]

Healthcare and education you're conceding are luxuries. I'm glad you're coming around!


Don't put words in my mouth so you can benefit your own argument.

Healthcare and education aren't actually luxuries, they are needs. They are just considered luxuries in a capitalist economy.




Yeah look at GDP whenever there was an economic bubble in the past...and look at now. Looks like the wealth accumulation continued.


It seems to me that you think GDP is all that's important. That wealth accumulation is not going to continue forever.

The value of the dollar has been dropping and the future is beginning to look pretty grim for future generations, considering that the rest of the world is catching up with capitalism, and going to extremes, such as utilizing the "race to the bottom" to compete against 1st world nations.




For the sake of argument in the US, lets call him the median earner. Let's call the class of people with incomes median +/- 30% "average Joes."


Okay....well I don't look at people as "Average Joes," or Unusual Bobs.

There is the proletariat, and there is the bourgeoisie.

Income should not classify what kind of person you are. Sadly in capitalism, it does.



There's nothing contradictory about just adding numbers up. Evidently you think there is, so please provide some.


It's not the mathematics that is contradictory.

It's the kind of terminology it's given after the mathematics are calculated.

GDP represents the overall standard of living among a nation and it shouldn't. There is more to standard of living than just GDP.



Also, please demonstrate how GDP of the US being higher than that of Somalia and other developing nations is just a meaningless coincidence.


I never said it was a meaningless "coincidence," I said it was a meaningless statistic.

Over half the of the world lives on $2 a day and the United States has the highest crime rate in the world.



And you make individuals wealthier by making more of them rich!


Yawn. Try another argument.



The standard deviation of per capita income in the US (or Norway or whatever) is larger than the per capita GDP of some countries, so this can't be the case.


I was a fool to embrace your argument by using standard deviation.



"it is framed so that it falsely attempts to represent the well-being of each individual that lives in that country."

I assume now you're going to say something along the lines of "money doesn't buy happiness so wealth is irrelevant."


No, that's not even close to what I would say to this.

Median income, mean income, or the mode income, does not represent the standard of living of the entire united states, the standard of living varies across income, these are meaningless statistics that try to attempt to create the illusion that classes don't exist.



The median accounts for skew in the income distribution....do you really believe that the income distribution is some kind of upside-down normal curve with massive tails such that only a handful of people are median income +/- 30%? Guess what? It isn't.

:confused: I'm trying to figure out where this question came from and what exactly it entails.

[Judicator]

Don't put words in my mouth so you can benefit your own argument.

Healthcare and education aren't actually luxuries, they are needs. They are just considered luxuries in a capitalist economy.


"From what I have seen, they are not interested in consuming lavish goods." $7,000/year in health spend sounds pretty lavish, considering its like a decade of income for someone on $2/day.

I suppose one man's trash is another man's treasure.



It seems to me that you think GDP is all that's important. That wealth accumulation is not going to continue forever.


"all important?" Just an indicator of how many goods and services are being exchanged in the market, an indicator of the current size of the economy, so we can know how much we're growing/shrinking.



The value of the dollar has been dropping and the future is beginning to look pretty grim for future generations, considering that the rest of the world is catching up with capitalism, and going to extremes, such as utilizing the "race to the bottom" to compete against 1st world nations.


The rest of the world is catching up thanks to capitalism.



There is the proletariat, and there is the bourgeoisie.

Income should not classify what kind of person you are. Sadly in capitalism, it does.


My average joe is one of your proles. "What kind of person you are" includes a lot of things that aren't wealth or income.



GDP represents the overall standard of living among a nation and it shouldn't. There is more to standard of living than just GDP.


If you're worried that the distribution is skewed, just use median income. But beyond that, your standard of living is mostly the things you can buy, i.e. your real income. GDP provides a good approximation of this.



I never said it was a meaningless "coincidence," I said it was a meaningless statistic.

You'd certainly agree that GDP is correct in indicating that there's more economic activity in the US than Somalia? We can keep going through pairwise comparisons of countries and GDP will often match what one would expect.



Over half the of the world lives on $2 a day and the United States has the highest crime rate in the world.


Western world, maybe, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_to_ 1999

We have a lot of minorities.



Yawn. Try another argument.


It's not an argument, it's a fact.



Median income, mean income, or the mode income, does not represent the standard of living of the entire united states, the standard of living varies across income, these are meaningless statistics that try to attempt to create the illusion that classes don't exist.


No, a picture of the income distribution represents the entire standard of living across the US. Median income and so on are called "summary statistics." We can use these to describe general properties of the distribution (i.e. where the BULK of US incomes lie).



I'm trying to figure out where this question came from and what exactly it entails.


Your claim that median was irrelevant. Medians are perfectly good representations of where the bulk of a distribution is, unless you think the US income dist looks like this:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/upload/2010/12/linux_ease_of_use_designing_th/u-shaped_linux.jpg
Which it dosen't.