Cuba's economy

[Desy]

Would Cuba's economy be in better shape if the united states didn't try to press thier capitalistic neo liberalism on the country? Or did Castro not have a working economic theory in his socialistic state?

[Brutus]

Cuba's economy is crippled by the embargo- they can't even get an aspirin, let alone a drug for cancer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period
Cuban life seemed really good (1 in 5 were obese) up until the collapse of the SU, their only trading partner.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's interesting. From an economic perspective, the embargo cripples the Cuban economy, but from a political perspective, it probably gives credence and legitimacy to the Cuban system.

I am fairly certain that when one day the embargo is lifted, the Cuban political system will start to collapse the day after. 'Nothing to rebel against anymore' and that sort of thing.

[Let's Get Free]

Yes, the criminal embargo has hurt the Cuban economy, and there's no doubt that removing it would improve the Cuban economy considerably. But it is highly misleading to simply blame everything on the embargo (even Raul Castro jokes about the fact that the Cuban authorities blame everything on the embargo). Clearly the bureaucratically run capitalist system is at least as much to blame for the economic condition.. There is plenty of waste under "traditional" capitalism, as we all know, but Cuba's state capitalist system has a different kind of waste.

[cyu]

The thing to remember is no self-described economist who has any power really knows what they're talking about, whether they describe themselves as pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist. If they did already come up with a near-perfect system, the economies that they are in charge of would already be awesome.

While it's true some do understand more, politically "successful" economists are not like scientists in the traditional sense. True science is primarily concerned about being correct - true scientists worry constantly about stating the wrong things, so they always qualify their statements - stuff like this *may* be true, or we have *some* evidence of this, or there is still a lot we need to study.

"Successful" economists are not about correctness. It is about being in power. Hemming and hawing about your beliefs like true scientists does not play well in politics. You have to lead with confidence. So they throw up random bull$#!+ sometimes, mixed in with the rest of their ideas, and nobody really knows which part they are truly confident about and which parts they are iffy about. But since their "success" is measured more by power and influence than correctness, much of "economics" is more similar to ideology and religion than science.