The mess that is Venezuela
Venezuela continues its freefall:
The courts? Closed most days. The bureau to start a business? Same thing. The public defender’s office? That’s been converted into a food bank for government employees.
Step by step, Venezuela has been shutting down…
Many people cannot make international calls from their phones because of a dispute between the government and phone companies over currency regulations and rates.
Coca-Cola Femsa, the Mexican company that bottles Coke in the country, has even said it was halting production of sugary soft drinks because it was running out of sugar.
Last week, protests turned violent in parts of the country where demonstrators demanded empty supermarkets be resupplied. And on Friday, the government said it would continue its truncated workweek for an additional 15 days.
It puts me in mind of Adam Smith’s famous saying:
Adam Smith once wrote that there’s a “great deal of ruin in a nation,” by which he meant that it takes an awful lot of bungling by political leaders to bring down a powerful and prosperous state.
But where there’s a will, there’s a way, and Venezuela’s government has been on this course of ruin ever since the presidency of Hugo Chavez and in some ways even earlier (part of the reason is the strong dependence of Venezuela’s economy on oil). The socialist Chavez was very intrumental in the country’s economic decline:
The other paradoxical””and bad””legacy of Hugo Ché¡vez is an economy in shambles. It is paradoxical because his term in office coincided with a boom in commodity prices and the presence of an international financial system flush with cash and willing to lend to countries like Venezuela. In addition, the president was free to adopt any economic policy he chose without any domestic or international constraints or institutional limitations. Yet, at the time of his death, few other countries had the economic distortions that besieged Venezuela.
It has one of the world’s largest fiscal deficits, highest inflation rates, worst misalignment of the exchange rate, fastest-growing debt, and one of the most precipitous drops in productive capacity””including that of the critical oil sector. Moreover, during the Ché¡vez era the nation fell to the bottom of the rankings that measure international competitiveness, ease of doing business, or attractiveness to foreign investors, while rising to the top of the list of the world’s most corrupt countries. The latter is another paradox of a leader whose rise to power rested on the promise to stamp out corruption and crush the oligarchy. The Bolivarian bourgeoisie””the boliburgueses, as Venezuelans call the new oligarchy formed by close allies of the regime’s leaders, their families, and friends””have amassed enormous wealth through corrupt deals with the government. This, too, is part of the unfortunate legacy Ché¡vez has left.
That quote was written about three years ago, when Chavez died of cancer. Things have only gotten worse (obviously) under his successor Maduro.
I decided to start this post by linking to an article about Venezuela from the NY Times because I had a hunch that, when I had read the whole thing, I would find that the Times would downplay the role of Venezuela’s socialist past and of Chavez himself. And sure enough, it did—even more so than I had expected. In fact, the Times’ only mention of the word “socialist” was in this segment:
The growing economic crisis ”” fueled by low prices for oil, the country’s main export; a drought that has crippled Venezuela’s ability to generate hydroelectric power; and a long decline in manufacturing and agricultural production ”” has turned into an intensely political one for President Nicolé¡s Maduro. This month, he declared a state of emergency, his second this year, and ordered military exercises, citing foreign threats.
But the president looks increasingly encircled.
American officials say the multiplying crises have led Mr. Maduro to fall out of favor with members of his own socialist party, who they believe may turn on him, leading to chaos in the streets.
That was it for “socialist” or “socialism,” which is treated by the Times as a non-issue except for the stated fact that Maduro is a member of the socialist party. As for Chavez, his name does not appear in the article at all.
The following is the closest the article seems to come to blaming socialism for the country’s ills, and it’s really not very close:
Venezuela’s government says the problems are the result of an “economic war” being waged by elites who are hoarding supplies, as well as the American government’s efforts to destabilize the country.
But most economists agree that Venezuela is suffering from years of economic mismanagement, including over-dependence on oil and price controls that led many businesses to stop making products.
So first we have some reporting of the leftist line of a class war with the elite as the bad guys. Next we have the blaming of the US, naturally. Lastly we have the vague “economic mismanagement” and problems with “wage and price controls,” which are not identified as a favorite instrument of the left.
The problem is that one has to read critically and to also know a fair amount of background information in order to decipher what’s being left out and what it means. The writers at the Times are not ignorant; they know exactly what they’re doing. By the way, the article contains approximately 1200 words, so the authors (and/or editors) had plenty of time to mention some of the most salient points of Venezuela’s history, and chose not to do so.
NYT cannot even utter the word “socialism.” Just like Obama can’t say the words “radical Islam.” Clowns.
Babies are dying in hospitals. Where’s the UN? Where’s the Clinton Foundation?
Before the 2008 election, I posted multiple times “Obama=Chavez”.
Now it appears Hillary=Maduro.
We are too troubled by Trump to unite in avoiding the ascent of the American Maduro. The Weimar Republic ended with similar lack of anti-Nazi unity.
Neo, why would you still read in detail anything in the NYTimes to share with us, right-wingers all? We know the enemy, and it is the American Left, and the Times is its mouthpiece. Why would anyone in Venezuela who is not a complete fool listen to Maduro today except under duress?
We don’t have a Pinochet to save the Republic. In short, we are doomed to follow Venezuela. There is no place to flee to, and our esteemed government exacts severe financial penalties for individuals’ moving their monies offshore.
Washington=Caracas.
Frog:
I read the Times for the simple reason that it is still highly influential and read by enormous numbers of people, and respected by most of them. I read it to document the way it is covering the important issues of our time, and how that affects the viewpoints of so many American people.
This is an especially absurd example, I think. As bad as I know the Times is—and has been for many many years—the extent of the ignoring of socialism and Chavez was somewhat extreme even for the Times.
Neo, do you subscribe to the NYT?
Do you pay to read its garbage?
Frog
To do her job, neo has to read the NYT so you don’t have to.
Frog:
No, I read my 10 free articles a month.
Amusing… In Venezuelza the “elites who are hoarding supplies” are indeed the bad guys who happen to be the members of the socialist government, and their cronies in the state oil industry and the military. Yes, the NYT knows all of this but the socialist brand must be protected. Socialism always means equal misery for the masses, and wealth and comfort for the elitists. NYT folks believe they are elitists too.
Venezuela will melt down into chaos and anarchy, probably by the turn of the year. There are predictions that inflation will top 700% at year’s end. Hungry, miserable people will revolt eventually. Its never pretty, but Venezuelans voted for this misery, and tens of thousands will die because they voted for utopia.
The unsustainability of socialist solutions are obvious.
But the roots of Venezuela’s ruin extend much deeper than Hugo Chavez’s rise to power.
Author Moisés Naém @ the Bloomberg article cited here gets close to it;
“The latter is another paradox of a leader whose rise to power rested on the promise to stamp out corruption and crush the oligarchy.”
South American cultures are universally oligarchic, even socialist and communist societies are arguably so. A small cadre at the top, a relatively small, middle class that caters to the top percentage and the majority being the poor.
There are few if any philanthropic societies in S. America. No Andrew Carnegie’s who leave their fortunes to building libraries across the nation or promoting in any fashion, the ‘general welfare’.
S. American cultures do not promote education, delayed gratification or personal responsibility and accountability and that results in massive levels of corruption and an uncaring, unrepentant oligarchy reminiscent of America’s fabled ‘robber barrons’.
When socialists point to the oligarchy as the ‘bad guys’, there’s enough truth to that accusation that a shallow understanding of the cultural dynamics at play dominates the discourse.
And lest we fall prey to hubris, the GOPe and the democrat big donors are America’s oligarchy. Internally, oligarchies are competitive and not strictly monolithic. The GOPe is dedicated to the establishment of a ruling oligarchy in America, whereas the democrat’s big donors are the natural prey of whom Lenin spoke; “We will hang the capitalists with the rope that they sell us.” i.e we will hang the capitalists with the power they grant us…
Venezuela has all the resources needed to be wealthy. Chavez replaced technically competent oil field workers and supervisors with his cronies. The oil infrastructure has not been maintained. Result: They cannot produce as much oil today as they could ten years ago. Same story in their hydro-power industry. They did not maintain the generators and the transmission lines. They didn’t plan ahead for the possibility of droughts. Result: They don’t have enough electricity to keep the lights on 24/7. Without easy money flowing from those sources the redistribution schemes fall apart. Their commie leaders have no answers. They don’t understand what went wrong.
It’s the same old story. The commies see a golden goose and think it can be made to lay golden eggs without any planning, investment, or maintenance. In every successful nation there is a network of competent people planning, investing, maintaining, and nurturing the wealth producing assets. Without that, the world’s largest oil reserves, the gifts of hydro-power, and fertile farmland will not provide the golden eggs the commies need to sustain their redistributionist schemes. This happens over and over again, (Chile under Allende, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, Cuba under Castro, North Korea under the Kim jongs, the USSR, Red China, Myanamar, etc.) and yet those who dream of egalitarian utopias never see it. It is discouraging.
The black swan is unintended consequences. Its a beach. The fracturing of civil society will result in tribal war, and we have a multitude of tribes. Watch your 6.
What J.J said – Chavez and his cronies were convinced they could starve the golden goose and still score the eggs … well, they did, for a time, and diverted the golden eggs to their own circle.
Honestly, I’ve come to believe that so-called socialism (or the oligarchic variety practiced in South America and Africa) is just a version of feudalism in fancy new robes: a well-compensated aristocracy at the top, their pet functionaries and bureaucrats … and a great mob of dependent serfs at the bottom.
I hope that Bernie Sanders gets pressed hard about the disaster that is socialist Venezuela, since he was one of Chavez’ biggest fanboyz.
Gives a whole new meaning to ‘feel the Bern’.
Re the disaster in Venezuela vs his campaign, he has no time to comment.
J.J.,
“The latter is another paradox of a leader whose rise to power rested on the promise to stamp out corruption and crush the oligarchy.”
Implicit in that statement is the premise that the poor perceive the oligarchy as perpetuating corruption and poverty. Thus their support for those who promise relief. Especially in S. American countries and in every ‘third world’ society, those in positions of power are seen, mostly with some validity, as using their wealth, power and social position of influence as leverage to unjustly maintain that advantage.
My argument is that America’s unique combination of factors; Judeo/Christian precepts, Western civilization’s embrace of Greek logic and Roman rationality and, England’s contributions… such as Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, etc. led to a culture in which the rule of law, upward mobility based in merit and the ‘noblesse oblige’ of the elite, reigned supreme. That of course, is increasingly less true.
Black humor has become Venezuela’s leading export.
First, they ran out of toilet paper. Now, even kidnappers are demanding that ransom payments be made in US dollars, which they use to buy toilet paper.
(http://tinyurl.com/j2skgew)
The movie would write itself, if any of the Hollywood socialists had a sense of humor. Bernie Sanders comes to visit. Diarrhea strikes. Kidnappers have a toilet paper monopoly. Hilarity ensues.
In the third act, we learn to blame American imperialists.
Sgt. Mom,
Sanders will pretend ignorance of the state of affairs in Venezuela and questions, if any from the msm, will be softballs.
I blame latifundia.
Cornflour,
You have the makings of a screen play.
I disagree – the writers at the Times are ignorant. They’re ignorant in the same way as JJ’s commies. They see some perfectly reasonable socialism, they see an economic collapse, and they think “drought”. It’s always something unrelated to the socialism. How come they’ve got so much oil and can’t generate energy? Drought, of course. Long decline in agriculture and manufacturing? I dunno, maybe that’s drought-related too. Stop changing the subject. There was Chavez, he was reasonable, now there’s no food.
Hey its a global economy. Loan em a trillion.
Many Chavistas and PSF [Pendejos Sin Fronteras- Idiots without Frontiers][a.k.a. foreign supporters of Chavismo] claim that the low price of oil is the cause of the current crisis. The low price of oil is certainly a problem, but even when the price of oil was high, there was sufficient evidence that Venezuela’s economy had problems.
When Chavez was elected in 1998, the export price for Venezuelan oil averaged around $10/BBL for the year. In 2013, the export price for Venezuelan oil averaged around $100/BBL for the year. The precipitous drop in the price of oil began in mid-2014. Therefore, looking at economic growth from 1998-2013 will show what Chavismo did with what it inherited and when the price of oil was still high.
GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2011 international $), % Growth 1998-2013
From 1998, when Venezuela’s export oil price averaged around $10/BBL, to 2013, when Venezuela’s export oil price averaged around $100/BBL, Venezuela enjoyed an oil export bonanza.Unfortunately, the above figures show that even with the oil export bonanza,Venezuela had anemic economic growth compared to other countries.
As Venezuela had anemic economic growth compared to the rest of the world even when it enjoyed a bonanza of increased oil prices, neither the current low price of oil nor Venezuela’s dependence oil exports is the cause for Venezuela’s current problems.
According to Chavista propaganda, the Misiones and the Cubans have vastly improved health care in Venezuela. Life Expectancy is a gold standard used to evaluate performance in public health. In 1998, Venezuela was 9th in Life Expectancy in Latin America. In 2014, Venezuela was 12th in Life Expectancy in Latin America. Chavismo didn’t do as well in improving health care compared to the rest of Latin America. So much for the Misiones and the Cubans. So much for Chavista propaganda.
In 1998, Venezuela’s export price of oil averaged around $10/BBL for the year. In 2016, the export price of Venezuelan oil is around $30/BBL. With a higher price of oil in 2016 compared to 1998, the food supply situation in 2016 is much worse than it was in 1998.
http://data.worldbank.org/data…
Nick,
You are wrong in your assessment, they are not ignorant. They are complicent. The NYT does not see what you imagine they see. They apologized for Stalin starving millions of Ukrainians in the name of the ‘collective’. They do not give a damn about mountains of corpses. They are simply evil leftists. That they do not want blood on their hands, but want other brutes to do the killing, does not in my world excuse their evil.
Neo:
“The problem is that one has to read critically and to also know a fair amount of background information in order to decipher what’s being left out and what it means.”
Just as people had to read “Pravda” or “Isvestia” back in the Soviet days. Just another socialist propaganda organ?
First in more than one post on electricity in Venezuela. Venezuela’s per capita increase in electricity consumption was about the lowest in Latin America from 1998-2013.
Electric power consumption (kWh per capita) % increase 1998 to 2013
Why is it that we don’t hear of electricity outages in all those countries which have much higher percentage increases per capita in electricity consumption compared to Venezuela? Inquiring minds want to know.
http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators
As parker says, we know the NYT is complicent in evil. Which is why I see no need to read it in any way, for any purpose.
Evil is a strong word. It fits.
Neo, looks like that *article* might be a catalyst for some
sincere, honest Lefties (like you were) to consider possibly
making steps toward a *mind change*.
We all know Chavez was a commie in the mold of Castro, Stalin
etc, & the Times ignores this ????
Chavez was a media hog, recall his giving Obama some sort of book at a meeting both attended. Then his public cancer cure pursuit over to Michael Moore’s Medical Paradise Cuba!
Everybody knows Venezuela was awash in oil they even gave some to Joe Kennedy’s poor peoples Oil subsidy Company.
Amazing how the NYT counts on brain dead liberals to always be brain dead !
If you like the NYT, you’ll love Reuters.
This Reuters piece just popped up, quoted in full:
“CARACAS (Reuters) – German airline Deutsche Lufthansa AG said on Saturday it will temporarily suspend flights to Venezuela as of next month due to economic difficulties in the South American nation and problems converting local currency into dollars.
“International airlines have for years struggled to repatriate billions of dollars in revenue held in the local bolivar currency due to exchange controls, prompting many to limit service and require that passengers pay fares in dollars.
“We deeply regret that for these reasons, we will be forced to suspend our service between Caracas and Frankfurt as of June 18,” the company wrote in a statement, noting that demand for international flights to Caracas dropped in 2015 and the first quarter of 2016.
“Lufthansa does not plan to shut its office in Caracas.
“Following a two-year rout in oil prices, the South American OPEC nation is struggling with a deep recession and the world’s highest inflation rate, which has put foreign travel out of the reach of most of its citizens.
“American Airlines in March said it was scrapping a recently-reinstated direct flight between Caracas and New York due to low demand.”
The NY Times article Neo discusses is indeed bad for not even mentioning socialism, but the NY Times editorial board actually wrote this on May 17th — Venezuela’s Downward Spiral:
Maybe a bit of sanity has crept into a member or two of that editorial board? I’m thinking James Bennet, the new head of the board. It was also on his watch that the unfavorable piece about Ben Rhodes and the Iran deal appeared in the paper.
Parker, the NYT (or at least the people who work there now) don’t sit around thinking about Duranty. They’d never connect the dots the way you just did. If a New York liberal ever examined his or her beliefs and saw the connections the way you just did, well…I bet it’d make good material for a blog.
Another reason given for Venezuela’s electrical supply problems is drought or El Nié±o. In 2010, former guerrilla fighter Tedoro Petkoff laid that claim to rest. Lying “Nié±o” by Teodoro Petkoff
Drought or El Nié±o is not a valid excuse for Venezuela’s electricity supply problems, because in previous drought years, such as 2001, there was still adequate electricity supply in Venezuela. Drought or El Nié±o is not a valid excuse for Venezuela’s electrical supply problems because other countries, such as neighboring Colombia, also have to deal with drought or Drought or El Nié±o, and haven’t had the electrical supply problems of Chavista Venezuela.
There was a drought problem in 2010, which means that a lot of good material on Venezuela’s electrical supply was written years ago. The problem just popped up again this year. The basic problem in Venezuela’s electrical supply system is one of supply and demand. First, Ché¡vez turned down the plans to expand hydroelectric supply that were in place when he took office. [Contrary to what Chavismo claimed, EVERY administration has to deal with increased electrical demand. That is why plans are made to increase electrical generating capacity!]
Miguel Octavio in his blog The Devil’s Excrement, The electric crisis in Venezuela: Cancelling Alto Caroni and nationalizing the electric sector, Jan 26,2010
Adding those four dams would in effect have tapped the flow of the Caroni River four more times, upstream from the current Guri dam. That would have been more bang for the hydroelectric buck. By itapping the Caroni River’s flow more times at more places, hydro demand would have been spread out, meaning that there would be reduced likelihood of the water level in a given dams reaching critical state.
I and several friends, all veterans of Foreign Service assignments to Caracas, have been sharing grim reporting on Venezuela over the past few months. What I am seeing at this point is that people who were never willing to blame Chavez continue in that persuasion, even though they are willing to blame Maduro. Maduro is probably measurably dumber than Chavez (think Biden being tapped to be Obama’s VP), but the truth is neither of the two would shame a box of rocks in an intelligence contest. While Chavez may be smart enough to have ripped off enormous sums of money during his tenure, Maduro is not that smart and there is less to rip off. Think Biden again, if Hillary should be forced to step aside.
But we keep calling what we are observing “socialism”. It is not, and it has never been. It is oligarchic feudalism, in which a very small group of people has been able to plunder a once rich country. Venezuela should be the wealthiest country in South America. But we have said the same thing about Argentina and Brazil at different periods in their history, and their wealth was systematically stolen by the well-connected. In Venezuela’s case, it was Chavez and his daughter who managed to bank the largest sums. Even now, Maduro does not appear smart enough to plunder with the effectiveness of Chavez’ daughter, Maria Gabriela. A fun bit of history: when Hugo Chavez died, his daughter Maria refused to move out of Miraflores palace — the presidential palace.
Chavez called his political philosophy the “Bolivarian revolution.” You have to be historically illiterate to believe that what Chavez did bore any relation to what was done by Simon Bolivar.
It is a supremely sad situation. Those of us who served there are saddened beyond words.
I have already dealt with much of the supply problem. The following Caracas Chronicle articles talks about the demand problem.How not to think about the electric problem. The beginning of the article sets the stage.
Venezuela previously had a mix of public and private electrical companies, with electrical prices related to cost. With the nationalization of all electricity companies in 2007, that is no longer the case.
Eletrical prices have not been permitted to rise with inflation, resulting in much lower prices for electricity, prices that were much lower compared to other countries. The average price of a KWH in Venezuela was US $0.03, compared to US $0.10/KWH in Colombia for industrial users, and $US0.15 0.16 in Chile or Brazil.
Not only is electricity cheap in Venezuela, much of it isn’t paid for.
Low prices and uncollected bills mean that the electricity industry doesn’t have the capital to expand capacity. Apparently there are a number of government entities that aren’t paying their electric bills.
A further problem is that while there was a great deal of money thrown at increasing thermoelectric capacity from 2010 on, a lot ended up in corruption- overpayments, etc.
In summation, “drought” is the least of the problem with Venezuela’s electrical system. But would the Gray Lady so inform us?
Gringo shows us the numbers and the evidence. In communist economies the planning, the investment, the maintenance, and the nurturing of wealth creating resources are neglected because………..environment, ignorance, rent seeking, ideology, greed at the top, etc.
They had a plan to increase their hydro generation to give them a margin for drought and increased demand, but it was waved off as too damaging to the environment. 🙁 In addition, they didn’t maintain their generators and transmission lines as well as they should have. As Eric Hoffer said in his book, “The True Believer.” (paraphrasing) To know how a nation’s economy is doing, ask to see the records of maintenance.
Adam Smith showed, and it has held true, that millions of transactions and the desire for profit lead to better decisions about and better maintenance of the engines of wealth. The lefties are too blinded by their ideology to grasp it.
Sgt. Mom Says:
May 28th, 2016 at 6:54 pm
What J.J said — Chavez and his cronies were convinced they could starve the golden goose and still score the eggs … well, they did, for a time, and diverted the golden eggs to their own circle.
Honestly, I’ve come to believe that so-called socialism (or the oligarchic variety practiced in South America and Africa) is just a version of feudalism in fancy new robes: a well-compensated aristocracy at the top, their pet functionaries and bureaucrats … and a great mob of dependent serfs at the bottom.
I hope that Bernie Sanders gets pressed hard about the disaster that is socialist Venezuela, since he was one of Chavez’ biggest fanboyz.
***
Indeed.
The problem with socialism is you always run out of other people’s golden eggs.
And per Hayek, you can never be just a little bit socialist.
An interesting illustration of how the world turns:
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/venezuela-collapses-colombia-rises#disqus_thread
But we keep calling what we are observing “socialism”. It is not, and it has never been. It is oligarchic feudalism, in which a very small group of people has been able to plunder a once rich country.
And it starts — it isn’t Socialism people! Even though it looked like it, smelled like it, and was called it, it wasn’t it!
How is then that all the surrounding countries, which are also oligarchies of the same sort, aren’t suffering the same way?
Columbia, which has internal problems that dwarf Venezuela’s, and no decent resources to speak of, is better off for goodness sake! How can you possibly get worse that a narco-state in terms of oligarchy?
The reality is that Socialist policies were put in place and have failed utterly and completely. In similar countries with Capitalist systems they are at least making slow forward progress.
GB:
“My argument is that America’s unique combination of factors; Judeo/Christian precepts, Western civilization’s embrace of Greek logic and Roman rationality and, England’s contributions… such as Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, etc. led to a culture in which the rule of law, upward mobility based in merit and the ‘noblesse oblige’ of the elite, reigned supreme. That of course, is increasingly less true.”
I’d also add the much-maligned Protestant work ethic to that list.
Chester:
Check out Mike Totten’s current article on Colombia vis-a-vis Venezuela – very eye-opening.
Just like the Clintons, and Obama, and to be honest, most every other Pol in the US and elsewhere, they get rich while the populace suffers under their policies. Chavez makes the Clintons look like Pikers in comparison. I doubt there will be such adoring crowds at their funerals. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2289427/Was-Hugo-Chavez-worth-1bn-died-Claims-amassed-huge-fortune-countrys-oil-wealth.html
Back to Neo’s comment that the NYT couldn’t be bothered to mention that the mess is due to socialist policies. Since I haven’t subscribed to nor read the rag in nearly 15 years, I’m curious to know their take on comments Obama made to students in Argentia, “Communism, socialism, capitalism, they are all about the same. Pick the one that suits you best”.
As Frederic Bastiat pointed out, socialism is theft. It is based on plunder you neighbor. The socialists in Venezuela just ran out of people to plunder. Socialism works fine till you run out of other peoples money.
“Communism, socialism, capitalism, they are all about the same. Pick the one that suits you best”.
It was a Q&A with some students, and that’s not quite what he said — his actual words were:
…just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it neatly fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory — you should just decide what works. — Sounds like something Trump would say.
Ann:
Or something John Kerry would say.
Ann, it’s known as plausible deniability. After all, the first thing he did at Occidental College was join the Revolutionary Marxist Club and Bill Ayers an unrepentant RM was (and probably still is) a very close friend.
POTUS:
In 2014, Cuba was 3rd in Life Expectancy in Latin America [as defined by Romance-language speaking countries] behind Chile and Costa Rica. That would support the view that advancements in health care in Cuba under the Castro regime constitute a “huge achievement.”
Cuba’s Life Expectancy in 1960 would be a good indicator of what kind of health care system Castro inherited when he took over in 1959. In 1960, Cuba was 3rd in Life Expectancy in Latin America, behind Uruguay and Argentina. That indicates that Castro inherited a good health care system when compared to other countries.
In 1960, Cuba’s Life Expectancy of 63.9 years was 9.5 years greater than Latin America’s Life Expectancy of 54.4 years. Today, Cuba’s Life Expectancy of 79.4 years is 4.8 years greater than Latin America’s Life Expectancy of 74.6 years.
While Castro’s Cuba has a good record in health care, the Life Expectancy gap between Cuba and Latin America hasn’t increased since 1960. On the contrary, the Life Expectancy gap between Cuba and Latin America has been reduced by nearly 50% since 1960- from 9.5 years to 4.8 years.
These stats show two things. First, the Cuba that Castro inherited already had pretty good health care. Cuba’s Life Expectancy in 1960 was greater than that for Portugal and many of the countries that once were part of Yugoslavia. Second,as Latin America has cut the gap in Life Expectancy with Cuba nearly in half since 1960, you don’t need a a totalitarian system to improve health care.
http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators
POTUS
Deng Xiaoping
Rather similar.
Obama: “just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it neatly fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory – you should just decide what works.”
What a maroon! Communism fails all over the place, but you should keep an open mind because it might work.
Obama: “And so you have to be practical in asking yourself how can you achieve the goals of equality and inclusion, but also recognize that the market system produces a lot of wealth and goods and services.”
He doesn’t recognize that the two goals – equality/inclusion versus wealth/goods/services – are not compatible. In a free market economy the best we can hope for is equality of opportunity. In an economy that rewards merit, inclusion is based on merit not some phony idea of perfect diversity. The man is an economic ignoramus. But then, all lefties are like that.
The California saga is following that which is ongoing in Venezuela on the electrical front. CA stopped the water project from building the additional reservoirs to complete the drought protection system. Now it has a serious drought. The flow from Northern California snow melt and the Orville Dam reservoir is insufficient for Southern California’s needs. The once fertile Central Valley has returned mostly to desert because of the environmental action some years ago to stop the irrigation water flow to save a dang bait fish. I once lived there and I am so glad I left, but now the CA way of thinking has infected our entire country.
If only Hugo knew!
There are two problems with Gringo’s logic as to Cuban health care:
1) Do you trust Cuban data? If so, why?
2) “Access” to health care is a Democratic/socialist distraction. If I have access to an empty room, does that make it a good hospital room? Veterans have access to the VA Health System, don’t they? Venezuelans have access to supermarkets, but they have no money and the stores have nothing to sell.
Access means nothing. It is an empty word, a tell of Leftism.
I sincerely doubt Cubans are getting contemporary best cancer care or cardiovascular surgery since there is no money for it, nada.
At best one might surmise that Cubans are genetically favored as to long life since so many life-extending therapies are unavailable to them..
The powers of human governments are fleeting.
That is why humans have continued religion and belief in god or some other meta solution power, for thousands of years.
1) Do you trust Cuban data? If so, why?
The Cuba that Castro inherited is like the America Hussein inherited. Functional, stable, prosperous, like Puerto Rico even.
This is also why I say Leftists and Democrats are guilty of crimes against humanity. The common defense is that moderate Dems don’t know. And they don’t know because presumably they are stupid or not paying attention.
However, conveniently when things like Venezuela are punched in the faces of these so called moderates, the defense changes from “don’t know” to “they support evil, but don’t know it is evil”.
My point is of course, they support evil. That is their original mistake and they are guilty for continuing that behavior. Their intentions and lack of knowledge does not matter, because they were warned. They are guilty because they ignored the warnings of the rest of us. Somebody told them what they were doing was evil, they didn’t care to change their behavior.
JJ – I’m ok with President Obama’s statement:
“And so you have to be practical in asking yourself how can you achieve the goals of equality and inclusion, but also recognize that the market system produces a lot of wealth and goods and services.”
First of all, it recognizes or implies that the market part of the mix is the engine of growth. Every country has a mixed system, with some rewards going to the creators and some going to the others. If he’s recognizing that the goods and services come from the free market part of the system, that’s great. I have no problem with a government-funded safety net (although I’m sure my version would be different from Obama’s).
Frog
There are two problems with Gringo’s logic as to Cuban health care…
Are you talking about what the POTUS said:
Or are you talking about what I said:
Just wondering.
Nick, you are in favor of a government safety net.
You no doubt favor welfare and Medicaid. I am old enough to remember when we didn’t have either one. And we got along just fine. Churches have always run poverty programs – both food and shelter as well as medical care. It was LBJ’s Great Society that changed all that as well as EMTALA, the 1984 law forcing hospitals to treat in ERs all comers regardless of the ability to pay. Those actions by the Feds may be a safety net, but it’s a safety net riddled with fraud, waste, and incompetency not to mention the negative affect on human motivation.
When Obama talks about the wonders of the market economy and wants to improve it with equality and inclusion, he is (probably unwittingly because the left’s heads are full of mush) talking about destroying the very foundations of free markets.
When he says equality he is talking about equality of outcomes. We already have equality before the law – at least more so than in any other country. So, what other equality could he be talking about.? The only way equality of outcome can happen is by government edict and force.
As to inclusion. What does that mean? In the left’s minds it means having a wonderful mix of men, women, blacks, Asians, Muslims, Mexicans, gays, trannies, etc. all working in harmony together. Whether they are competent and efficient makes no difference to them. It means quotas by force, if necessary, while quality, efficiency, and competency decline. This is what happens in places like Venezuela.
In an efficient economy competency and quality count, not diversity quotas.
I maintain that Obama is too economically stupid to recognize that his goals of equality and inclusion are at odds with a real free market.
Gringo:
What you said: “Today, Cuba’s Life Expectancy of 79.4 years…”
Which is basically identical to today’s US Life Expectancy.
Frog, I wouldn’t put it past the Cuban Government to fudge things. For example, I recall reading in the Cuban Annual Statistical Yearbook or some such title that the Cuban government put out for the year 1959 or 1960 where it listed Infant Mortality for 1958 at >60, and Infant Mortality for 1959, the year that Castro took over, as ~37. You just don’t lower Infant Mortality 40% in one year! It doesn’t happen.
Before Castro took over, the Cuban government had listed Infant Mortality at ~ 37 int the late 1950s, so Castro’s government basically kept the same value as Batista’s government, but upped the value for before the years before Castro took over in 1959.
At the same time, as current Infant Mortality figures give higher figures for that period, it would appear that from 1955-1965, Infant Mortality in Cuba was around 60. [If you want to risk violence, mention to some PSF that Pinochet’s record for reducing Infant Mortality was superior Castro’s first 16 -20 years. Which it was. I mentioned that to a group of PSF some years ago, and got told that if I brought it up again I could expect violence.]
Life Expectancy for all of Latin America has improved considerably, and a number of countries, not just Cuba, have a Life Expectancy that is comparable to that for the United States.
I don’t have the statistical acumen to prove that Castro is fudging Life Expectancy data. He may well be. One way to fudge Infant Mortality stats would be to list some deaths after birth as miscarriages, which wouldn’t affect Infant Mortality. I t wouldn’t surprise me that Castro is doing that.
IMHO, the better way to deal with Castro’s alleged great accomplishments is the way I have. As I previously mentioned, Castro inherited a pretty good situation, and other countries have done as well or better. [I recall one PSF claiming that things in Cuba were so bad in the countryside- inequality and all that- that before 1959 there was only 1 physician per ~2000 inhabitants in the countryside. That this was so horrible. It turns out that in 1960, only ~35 countries in the world could beat that- which shows that rural Cuba was actually pretty well off.]
While your points about access and top-notch health care are well taken- there is no way the average Cuban gets the health care that the Nomenklatura and foreign medical tourists get- they don’t necessarily contradict the World Bank stat on Life Expectancy.
As far as I can tell, Life Expectancy is much harder to fudge than Infant Mortality. Nicholas Eberstadt has written on health stats in Latin America- though it has been years since I read him.
Life Expectancy, 2014
Chile 81.5
Costa Rica 79.4
Cuba 79.4
Panama 77.6
Uruguay 77.0
Mexico 76.7
Argentina 76.2
Ecuador 75.9
Nicaragua 74.8
Latin America & Caribbean (developing only) 74.6
Peru 74.5
Brazil 74.4
Venezuela, RB 74.2
Colombia 74.0
Dominican Republic 73.5
Honduras 73.1
Paraguay 72.9
El Salvador 72.8
Guatemala 71.7
Bolivia 68.3
Haiti 62.7
http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators
Frog, while this is somewhat dated due to its 1998 publication, most of it is still valid. Renaissance and Decay: A Comparison of Socioeconomic Indicators in Pre-Castro and Current-Day Cuba. Among what is dated: until Chavez became Fidel’s new sugar daddy, Cuban caloric consumption was greatly reduced after the loss of the Soviet Union- which is shown in the Renaissance and Decay data. In another thread, someone pointed out that Cubans lost ~10% of body weight during this time. Caloric consumption has rebounded, thanks to Hugo. OTOH, both milk and sugar production are currently below 1995 levels- which points out that the problem with Cuban production is not the embargo, but Castro’s control.