Trump isn't even inaugurated yet ...

[dismal]

If the impact on Cuban people was devastating and the impact on the US people was "meh, whatever" then it seems the burden would fall mostly on Castro.

Vietnam was able to fight an actual shooting war with the US that ended 15 years after Castro took power and has had trade relations for 20 years now.

The US began taking steps towards normalizing relations with Vietnam back during the first Bush Presidency. The US lifted the travel ban in 1991. Eased trade restrictions in 1992. Clinton continued this effort, and by 1994 (with bipartisan support) he lifted the trade embargo. Senators Kerry and McCain (both Vietnam veterans) pushed Clinton further, and in 1995 the US normalized relations with Vietnam.

We did not demand their leader step down. We did not demand they change their government. Vietnam is still a one-party socialist state. Still run by the Communist Party of Vietnam. Yet we have full and open trade relations with them. US tourists can visit Vietnam. US businesses can operate in Vietnam. Despite the war, America is viewed favorably by an overwhelming majority of Vietnamese.

And yet here you are insisting that we can never normalize relations with Cuba so long as a Castro is left alive?

I'm insisting Castro did a a shitty job of attempting to normalize trade relations with the US. It's almost as if he didn't want it.

 

[Ford]

The US began taking steps towards normalizing relations with Vietnam back during the first Bush Presidency. The US lifted the travel ban in 1991. Eased trade restrictions in 1992. Clinton continued this effort, and by 1994 (with bipartisan support) he lifted the trade embargo. Senators Kerry and McCain (both Vietnam veterans) pushed Clinton further, and in 1995 the US normalized relations with Vietnam.

We did not demand their leader step down. We did not demand they change their government. Vietnam is still a one-party socialist state. Still run by the Communist Party of Vietnam. Yet we have full and open trade relations with them. US tourists can visit Vietnam. US businesses can operate in Vietnam. Despite the war, America is viewed favorably by an overwhelming majority of Vietnamese.

And yet here you are insisting that we can never normalize relations with Cuba so long as a Castro is left alive?

I'm insisting Castro did a a shitty job of attempting to normalize trade relations with the US. It's almost as if he didn't want it.

Castro is dead. He hasn't been in charge of Cuba for a decade. Yet you continue to place 100 percent of the blame for US-Cuba relations on him.

Trump has announced that he's planning on reversing course on the thawing of those relations. Pray tell, how do you plan to blame that move on Fidel?

 

[dismal]

I'm insisting Castro did a a shitty job of attempting to normalize trade relations with the US. It's almost as if he didn't want it.

Castro is dead. He hasn't been in charge of Cuba for a decade. Yet you continue to place 100 percent of the blame for US-Cuba relations on him.

Trump has announced that he's planning on reversing course on the thawing of those relations. Pray tell, how do you plan to blame that move on Fidel?

OK, Castro only deserves blame for 50 years or so of the misery.

 

[Jaecp]

No one is saying the dude deserves Neil Patrick Harris levels of love, dude, but at a certain point the scapegoating stops being believable when the goats been put out to pasture.

 

[skepticalbip]

The US began taking steps towards normalizing relations with Vietnam back during the first Bush Presidency. The US lifted the travel ban in 1991. Eased trade restrictions in 1992. Clinton continued this effort, and by 1994 (with bipartisan support) he lifted the trade embargo. Senators Kerry and McCain (both Vietnam veterans) pushed Clinton further, and in 1995 the US normalized relations with Vietnam.

We did not demand their leader step down. We did not demand they change their government. Vietnam is still a one-party socialist state. Still run by the Communist Party of Vietnam. Yet we have full and open trade relations with them. US tourists can visit Vietnam. US businesses can operate in Vietnam. Despite the war, America is viewed favorably by an overwhelming majority of Vietnamese.

And yet here you are insisting that we can never normalize relations with Cuba so long as a Castro is left alive?

I'm insisting Castro did a a shitty job of attempting to normalize trade relations with the US. It's almost as if he didn't want it.

I would suggest that Castro didn't want to. He needed the US as the whipping boy on which he could blame all Cuba's economic woes. If he couldn't blame outside forces for Cuban people's miserable conditions then he would have to assume the blame. Better relations with the US would eliminate his cover so he had to keep the US at a distance as the satanic power he could blame.

 

[laughing dog]

Second, that there is nothing inconsistent with the idea that while Castro's policies caused Cuban economic woes, the embargo exacerbated the effects of those woes.

How so?

Sigh. The only way a US embargo could have any effect on the Cuban economy would be that it somehow reduced trade flows between the two. If it reduced trade flows, it must have reduced the economic well being of the Cuban people due to either a restricted access to US markets or a restricted access to lower cost or high quality US goods in relation to their international competitors. If the embargo did not affect the trade flows between the two countries, then it was a symbolic gesture.

[
Cuba traded with any country it wished anywhere in the world except the US and did trade with many of them.

So? Are you under the impression that there are no cost or quality differences in products coming from international competitors?

[
Your assertion seems to be that only trade with the US can keep the people of other countries from falling into a miserable state.

See above. Your conclusion is derived from very poor economic reasoning.

 

[skepticalbip]

How so?

Sigh. The only way a US embargo could have any effect on the Cuban economy would be that it somehow reduced trade flows between the two. If it reduced trade flows, it must have reduced the economic well being of the Cuban people due to either a restricted access to US markets or a restricted access to lower cost or high quality US goods in relation to their international competitors. If the embargo did not affect the trade flows between the two countries, then it was a symbolic gesture.

[
Cuba traded with any country it wished anywhere in the world except the US and did trade with many of them.

So? Are you under the impression that there are no cost or quality differences in products coming from international competitors?

[
Your assertion seems to be that only trade with the US can keep the people of other countries from falling into a miserable state.

See above. Your conclusion is derived from very poor economic reasoning.

WTF?

It is a tautology to say that the US embargo reduced the trade between the US and Cuba. So what? It had no effect on trade between Cuba and Mexico, Canada, Europe, Asia, Central America, South America, etc. Those other trade partners consumed everything and anything that Cuba was capable of producing and provided anything and everything that Cuba had the resources to purchase. Trade with the US would have only changed who was doing the buying and selling not how much was bought and sold.

If a country can only produce X million dollars of goods for export and exports it all, it is irrelevant to their bottom line who bought it.

 

[dismal]

I'm insisting Castro did a a shitty job of attempting to normalize trade relations with the US. It's almost as if he didn't want it.

I would suggest that Castro didn't want to. He needed the US as the whipping boy on which he could blame all Cuba's economic woes. If he couldn't blame outside forces for Cuban people's miserable conditions then he would have to assume the blame. Better relations with the US would eliminate his cover so he had to keep the US at a distance as the satanic power he could blame.

Well, this would be consistent with his behavior. But it implies he didn't give much of a shit about the Cuban people. If the systemic repression and suspension of basic individual rights didn't give it away for you.

 

[Elixir]

Trump has announced that he's planning on reversing course on the thawing of those relations. Pray tell, how do you plan to blame that move on Fidel?

Well, the sumbich up and died as soon as he heard that teh Donald was gonna come gunnin' for him. If he wouldn't have done that, he could have stuck around and thwarted teh Donald's evil plan. Think of the chilluns! The YUUUGE number of chilluns saved by Cuban medical advances! Teh Donald will prob'ly find out who they all are, and have them "taken care of".

Repoman had it right - this is one shameless bait thread.

 

[laughing dog]

WTF?

It is a tautology to say that the US embargo reduced the trade between the US and Cuba. So what? It had no effect on trade between Cuba and Mexico, Canada, Europe, Asia, Central America, South America, etc.

Those other trade partners consumed everything and anything that Cuba was capable of producing and provided anything and everything that Cuba had the resources to purchase. Trade with the US would have only changed who was doing the buying and selling not how much was bought and sold.

So according to you, if you are prevented from shopping at the lowest cost supplier, and you have to switch to a higher cost supplier, you still end up obtaining the same amount at the same cost?

WTF?
If a country can only produce X million dollars of goods for export and exports it all, it is irrelevant to their bottom line who bought it.

If Cuba cannot sell to the highest bidders (i.e. the US), then they will receive less for their sales of goods and services. And that assumes there are no adverse changes in the terms of trade (or exchange rate) from this trade diversion. Cuba does not produce dollars but goods and services that it must trade and receive foreign currency.

An embargo causes trade diversion. There is a rich theoretical and empirical economics literature on trade diversion (as opposed to trade creation). Generally, trade diversion makes the affected parties worse off. There are exceptions to that general outcome, but no one here has given any reason why that would not be true in this instance.

 

[skepticalbip]

So according to you, if you are prevented from shopping at the lowest cost supplier, and you have to switch to a higher cost supplier, you still end up obtaining the same amount at the same cost?

WTF?
If a country can only produce X million dollars of goods for export and exports it all, it is irrelevant to their bottom line who bought it.

If Cuba cannot sell to the highest bidders (i.e. the US), then they will receive less for their sales of goods and services. And that assumes there are no adverse changes in the terms of trade (or exchange rate) from this trade diversion. Cuba does not produce dollars but goods and services that it must trade and receive foreign currency.

An embargo causes trade diversion. There is a rich theoretical and empirical economics literature on trade diversion (as opposed to trade creation). Generally, trade diversion makes the affected parties worse off. There are exceptions to that general outcome, but no one here has given any reason why that would not be true in this instance.

Strawman much? So by your "pull-it-out-your-ass" analysis, the US are the dumbest group of capitalists in the world because they always offer the highest bids in the world market for foreign goods and always sell at the lowest prices into the world market.

ETA:
Personally, I was around when Kennedy imposed the embargo. I was pissed and the time (and since) because I think Castro would have been overthrown within ten years if the Cuban people had access to the US goods and news rather than, as it was, Castro using the excuse of the "EVIL YANKEES" as the reason they had to live so poorly and were so controlled by him. But it was Castro's central planning and control that caused their problems, not the US.

 

[Elixir]

So according to you, if you are prevented from shopping at the lowest cost supplier, and you have to switch to a higher cost supplier, you still end up obtaining the same amount at the same cost?
If Cuba cannot sell to the highest bidders (i.e. the US), then they will receive less for their sales of goods and services. And that assumes there are no adverse changes in the terms of trade (or exchange rate) from this trade diversion. Cuba does not produce dollars but goods and services that it must trade and receive foreign currency.

An embargo causes trade diversion. There is a rich theoretical and empirical economics literature on trade diversion (as opposed to trade creation). Generally, trade diversion makes the affected parties worse off. There are exceptions to that general outcome, but no one here has given any reason why that would not be true in this instance.

Strawman much? So by your "pull-it-out-your-ass" analysis, the US are the dumbest group of capitalists in the world because they always offer the highest bids in the world market for foreign goods and always sell at the lowest prices into the world market.

Ya think proximity might have something to do with it?

 

[skepticalbip]

Strawman much? So by your "pull-it-out-your-ass" analysis, the US are the dumbest group of capitalists in the world because they always offer the highest bids in the world market for foreign goods and always sell at the lowest prices into the world market.

Ya think proximity might have something to do with it?

No.

Once goods are loaded on a ship for transport, the fuel cost difference for shipping 500 miles or 5000 miles is such a very minimal percentage of the unit cost as to be not even worth considering.

 

[bilby]

Ya think proximity might have something to do with it?

No.

Once goods are loaded on a ship for transport, the fuel cost difference for shipping 500 miles or 5000 miles is such a very minimal percentage of the unit cost as to be not even worth considering.

Do you think that cargo costs are the only consideration when deciding where to do business? Because they really are not. Indeed, as you point out, they are a trivial concern.

Businesses prefer to deal with customers and suppliers who are nearby rather than far away for a lot of reasons. Shipping costs are a tiny part of those reasons, which also include order lead time, business travel costs, business travel time, cultural similarity/dissimilarity, familiarity, language, and a host of others.

 

[Jayjay]

The US wouldn't have to be the highest bid all the time, just some of the time. If there was no embargo, and Cuba exported e.g. 20% of its exports to USA, then USA would have likely been the highest bidder for those 20%, or else Cuban companies might as well have shipped them elsewhere. So naturally with the embargo in place that 20% would be sold for less to the rest of the world. Same with imports.

 

[skepticalbip]

No.

Once goods are loaded on a ship for transport, the fuel cost difference for shipping 500 miles or 5000 miles is such a very minimal percentage of the unit cost as to be not even worth considering.

Do you think that cargo costs are the only consideration when deciding where to do business? Because they really are not. Indeed, as you point out, they are a trivial concern.

Businesses prefer to deal with customers and suppliers who are nearby rather than far away for a lot of reasons. Shipping costs are a tiny part of those reasons, which also include order lead time, business travel costs, business travel time, cultural similarity/dissimilarity, familiarity, language, and a host of others.

I haven't seen that in the real world. The companies I have worked for were equally happy to accept orders for our equipment from Japan, Taiwan, and China (half way around the world) as they were from other companies in the same city. I personally, wasn't as happy because I didn't like over twenty hour flights to get to the customers to train them but the company was tickled shitless to get orders from there. - and the price for the equipment was the same for all customers.

And I don't think cargo cost is a real consideration in pricing. No matter where something is sold, it will require some shipping cost even within the same city.

 

[dismal]

The US wouldn't have to be the highest bid all the time, just some of the time. If there was no embargo, and Cuba exported e.g. 20% of its exports to USA, then USA would have likely been the highest bidder for those 20%, or else Cuban companies might as well have shipped them elsewhere. So naturally with the embargo in place that 20% would be sold for less to the rest of the world. Same with imports.

That can't be as bad as trashing your national production. I read Cuba sugar production is at 100 year lows. That's got to be more important than a few extra shipping miles. Right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can't believe that Cuba not being able to trade with the US is what caused their economic problems. It is only what the Cuban government blamed their problems on to divert responsibility. Cuba was trading with the rest of the world - they weren't isolated. It was just that their top down centrally controlled economy was incapable of producing more value than the country consumed so for quite a while depended on aid from Russia or China just for existence. Before the revolution, Cuba was a net exporter and a fairly prosperous country and, even though there was wealth disparity, the poor were better off.

Exactly. Blaming Cuba's problems on the trade embargo is ludicrous. They weren't isolated, there were plenty of other nations to trade with.

 

[Ford]

I can't believe that Cuba not being able to trade with the US is what caused their economic problems. It is only what the Cuban government blamed their problems on to divert responsibility. Cuba was trading with the rest of the world - they weren't isolated. It was just that their top down centrally controlled economy was incapable of producing more value than the country consumed so for quite a while depended on aid from Russia or China just for existence. Before the revolution, Cuba was a net exporter and a fairly prosperous country and, even though there was wealth disparity, the poor were better off.

Exactly. Blaming Cuba's problems on the trade embargo is ludicrous. They weren't isolated, there were plenty of other nations to trade with.

Exactly as ludicrous as claiming the trade embargo was somehow vital to enacting regime change on the island.

The embargo is a relic. A failed policy that should have been rescinded 20 years ago.

 

[laughing dog]

Strawman much? So by your "pull-it-out-your-ass" analysis, the US are the dumbest group of capitalists in the world because they always offer the highest bids in the world market for foreign goods and always sell at the lowest prices into the world market.

The only person creating straw men is you. As other posters have pointed out, it is obvious that the embargo had to cause some trade diversion (i.e. imports of either higher price or lower quality and fewer exports) - otherwise the embargo would have no effect.

But it was Castro's central planning and control that caused their problems, not the US.

I wrote

Second, that there is nothing inconsistent with the idea that while Castro's policies caused Cuban economic woes, the embargo exacerbated the effects of those woes.

which prompted you to reveal your complete lack of economic reasoning and, apparently, reading comprehension.