Slashdot Mirror


Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

First time accepted submitter ltorvalds11 writes Cuba says its economy is suffering a "systematic worsening" due to a US embargo, the consequences of which Havana places at $1.1 trillion since Washington imposed the sanctions in 1960, taking into account the depreciation of the dollar against gold. "There is not, and there has not been in the world, such a terrorizing and vile violation of human rights of an entire people than the blockade that the US government has been leading against Cuba for 55 years," Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Abelardo Moreno told reporters. He also blamed the embargo for the difficulties in accessing internet on the island, saying that the United States creates an obstacle for companies providing broadband services in Cuba. Additionally, he said that the area is one of the "most sensitive" to the embargo, with economic losses estimated at $34.2 million. It is also the sector that has fallen "victim of all kinds of attacks" by the US, as violations of the Cuban radio or electronic space "promote destabilization" of Cuban society, the report notes. The damage to Cuban foreign trade between April 2013 and June 2014 amounted to $3.9 billion, the report said. Without the embargo, Cuba could have earned $205.8 million selling products such as rum and cigars to US consumers. Barack Obama last week signed the one-year extension of the embargo on Cuba, based on the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, created to restrict trade with countries hostile to the U.S..

31 of 540 comments (clear)

  1. RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Russian propaganda. These are the same idiots who claimed Russia wasn't ever invading Ukraine.

    1. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, RT is about as reliable as Fox News. If you assume that everything said is complete lies and the few things that are true are extremely skewed then you are pretty close to the truth.
      With that said, the US embargo against Cuba has not exactly been beneficial to either of the nations. All this time since the cold war could have been spent bringing Cuba closer to the US. Just opening up a bit with regards to trading would have done a lot.
      A better Cuban economy would benefit the US (How about cheap manufacturing on Cuba instead of in China?) and having a trading partner that close instead of a potential enemy there is a pretty nice deal.
      In my opinion the stance US has towards Cuba is pretty retarded.

    2. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fox News is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, I haven't decided who is worse yet.

    3. Re:RT.com? by phayes · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Communists in power don't force people to drink vodka & eat borscht you sniveling coward, they confiscate all your belongings, outaw dissent & condemn people to hard prison or insane asylums without fair trials.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    4. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you will find that far fewer Ukrainians have died because of Rupert Murcoch.

    5. Re:RT.com? by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Communists in power don't force people to drink vodka & eat borscht you sniveling coward, they confiscate all your belongings, outaw dissent & condemn people to hard prison or insane asylums without fair trials.

      No... that's what TYRANTS in power do. Just because we've had a lot of communist tyrants does not mean communism REQUIRES Tyrants (it doesn't) or that Tyrants are always communist (they aren't - in fact three of the worst tyrants of the 20th century were not - two were fascists [a form of capitalism] and one was a free market fundamentalist: Pinochet !)

      There are variations of communist philosophy that are forms of anarchism - such as Anton Pannekoek's "Council Communism", Robert Hahnel's Parecon, Noam Chomsky's brand of Anarcho-syndicalism or the kind of libertarian socialism practised in Andalusia (Southern Spain) during the first 20 years of the last century - and would probably still be there if the scale of the world wars hadn''t overwhelmed them and gotten all of Spain under a different tyrant (Franco) with yet another economic philosophy that was fairly unique (close enough to capitalism for Spain not to be targeted during the cold war, close enough to communism for the Russians not to target them either - somewhat like facism but not enough for either side to care).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re:RT.com? by phayes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Junior? I was born before JFK was assassinated & was an adult in Berlin days after the wall fell, bucko.

      So, the men & women I met from a number of different countries who described in detail their experiences of Communist rule that I briefly relayed were all liars.

      Source: Russians, Ex-eastern Germans, Cubans, Chinese, Romanians, Nicaraguans, Vietnamese. Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians.

      No, we should all believe a sniveling coward without the courage to post in his own name that claims that all the personal experiences and documented abuses of Communism are a "boogieman" [sic] because he left one (probably former) Communist ruled country before he was an adult. Your lies are transparently seen for what they are, coward: Voluntary ignorance.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    7. Re:RT.com? by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this +5? Yes, RT.com frequently publishes propaganda, but this story is available on any number of alternative news sites, and is based entirely on a report from the Cuban government itself. Unless you are suggesting RT.com has made the Cuban government write & publish this report, your comment is a fine example of an "ad hominem", and should be ignored as such.

    8. Re: RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong. Full blown communism requires tyrants. How else are you going to confiscate all the private property, and constantly suppress voluntary economic interactions?

    9. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Chicago 2012?

    10. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In my opinion the stance US has towards Cuba is pretty retarded.

      The politicians in the United States of Amerkia suckle at the teat of the "Miami Cubans" and in some cases literally suck on their genitalia to curry favor with this voting block. If any presidential candidate announced they would end the Cuban Embargo you can be certain the candidate would be not occupying the Oval Office. Most politicians are followers or consensus seekers, not leaders. Of course you should keep in mind the openness with which the United States Government promotes with China, a threat on par with the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Gotta get 'em cheap stuff at "Waly World" ya knows.

    11. Re:RT.com? by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The U.S. embargo against Cuba is Russian propaganda??

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    12. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But far more Iraqi's did.

    13. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with communism in practice is that there is no real separation of powers (deemed unnecessary by communists, since they have truth and justice on their side), so the revolution is invariably hijacked by power hungry opportunists - see Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Remarkably (or perhaps not, as communism is a kind of ersatz religion), theocracies suffer from the exact same problem. The U.S. seem determined to show that Western democracies can play this game too once they decide expediency trumps constitutional concerns.

    14. Re:RT.com? by usuallylost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fascism is not "a form of capitalism" it is another form of socialism. The difference is that that under communism the means of production are outright owned by the state where as under fascism the preserve the illusion of individual, i.e. capitalism style, ownership. Actual economic control economic control under Fascism is actually state controlled. So it is not accurate to claim that Fascism is a form of capitalism it is more accurate to say it is a variation of Socialism. Just as Communism and the post war European economies are all variations of Socialism.

      As whether Communism requires tyranny it would seem that in practice it does. Simply because there are no examples where both Communism and freedom have co-existed for any significant period of time. From the evidence of what has happened it would appear that the level of control required by Communism, and Fascism for that matter, is simply unachievable without coercion. Entire populations simply don’t like surrendering complete control over their lives to the government. So no matter how high minded the Communist authorities start out they invariably have to adopt tyrannical policies in order to enact their program. Simply because there are always too many people who do not want it to enact it any other way.

      Where Socialism has managed to exist without becoming a tyranny is in places like Europe. Where they adopt a limited amount of Socialism but still allow people to pretty much live as they like. Socialism without freedom and a certain amount of Capitalism ends up in tyranny. Capitalism without a certain amount regulation and government intervention, i.e. Socialism, ends up in a different kind of tyranny. Fascism and Communism are just variations on the same theme and both invariably lead to tyranny.

    15. Re:RT.com? by operagost · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The burden of proof lies with you to prove that there are political prisoners in Gitmo.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    16. Re:RT.com? by Junta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure communism has manifested without tyranny. The issue is that human nature in practice doesn't let it scale to notable levels. Small communities being communist without tyranny happens ever so often. When you have the human connection face to face and there is not really any practical opportunity for some subset of the community to be overwhelmingly better off than the rest even if they had capitalism or tried, communism can work. However once one man is far enough from others to be somewhat apathetic toward them and/or perceive a chance for unreasonably better standard of living at the expense of others, the good facets of humanity that would enable communism go out the window.

      Of course the risk for a benevolent 'commune' with nice principles to turn to 'cult' seems pretty high, so I guess even this assessment gives human nature too much credit...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    17. Re: RT.com? by VTBlue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean like economic sanctions that prevent me from buying Cuban cigars in a voluntary economic transaction?

      *see what I did there?* :)

    18. Re:RT.com? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your second sentence already shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. The rest of your rant just makes it even more clear.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    19. Re:RT.com? by HiThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ISTM that ALL the prisoners in Gitmo are political prisoners. Clearly the ones held without trial are such. Possibly in some cases there are valid reasons, but that has not be publicly proven, so the defalut position is that they are innocent. I feel that I'm understating the case, but don't know how to properly put it more strongly. Let me try this....

      If they have committed a crime, they should be brought to trial. If they have not committed a crime, they should never have been held captive.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  2. Ignorance is self-righteous posturing by src1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "There is not, and there has not been in the world, such a terrorizing and vile violation of human rights of an entire people than the blockade that the US government has been leading against Cuba for 55 years,"

    Ha ha ha ha! Funny guy. He needs to read a history book - or even a current weekly magazine.

    Abretardo Morono - pushing the limits of ignorant hyperbole!

  3. I don't get it by Torp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The righteous communists have a need to trade with the capitalist imperialists? Won't the ghost of Stalin provide for all?

    --
    I apologize for the lack of a signature.
    1. Re:I don't get it by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Cuba had oil . . . the embargo would be over really fast.

      Cuban cigar smokers in the US don't have a PAC to push through changes. They're just not a big enough special interest group.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:I don't get it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think you understand how communism is supposed to work. Trade is desirable as long as the benefits are shared with the workers not just the private owners.

      How can you hate something you know so little about?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. $1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Works to something like $20 Billion a year. That's a credible figure. We do $650 billion with Canada in a year, and Cuba ain't that much smaller.

    The problem with their argument is that whenever a US President tries to reduce tensions, they do something to ratchet them back up. For example, Obama was inaugurated in Jan of '09, announces easing the embargo by allowing families in the US to visit and send money more easily in April, and by December some poor schmuck (Alan Gross) is rotting in a Cuban jail for bringing computer equipment in for Jewish groups. It's true that if you're an evil dictatorship stopping your local people from doing that is not unreasonable, and it;s true our government paid for it, but it's also true that you could easily stop him seizing his computers and deporting his ass. Now if Obama ever does anything nice for Cuba (such as sticking his neck out on ending the embargo) people supporting the embargo strongly have a trump card: why would we trade with a country that is holding one of our guys in prison for the crime of helping people access the internet?

    It would cost them literally nothing to let this guy go, but they insist on keeping him in prison where he can only prevent them from accessing that $20 billion a year export market.

    Which means most independent observers have long concluded the Castros like the embargo, because it allows them to claim everything that is wrong with the country is Evil Foreign Gringo's fault. Which justifies things like arresting guys for bringing in computer equipment.

    1. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, but it's still an utterly stupid policy.

      If America had just allowed free trade with Cuba the inflow of US culture into the country would've long turned it into a pro-US state - it's the policy of isolation that's keeping it hostile in the first place.

      There's no way a country that small, and that close to the US could hold out as a communist nation in the face of unrestricted trade with the US - it'd become so utterly dependent on the US that it'd simply have no choice but to bow down to US wishes and culture.

      There are times where I do support the US (strikes against IS, stance on Ukraine) and there are times where I'll happily call it out as stupid (Iraq), this is one of those times where it's stupid, where the policy is wholly self-defeating, and where the only people that suffer from the policy are the largely innocent general populace of Cuba.

      The fall of the USSR was a prime opportunity to turn Cuba around, Russia facing bankruptcy withdrew almost all funding for Cuba and left it in the shit. Had the US taken that opportunity to drop restrictions, and normalise relations then Cuba would be as ex-USSR and as pro-USA as Poland is nowadays. Instead, the US continued it's bone-headed embargos such that now that Russia is becoming a resurgent pain in the ass Cuba is more than happy to take money to facilitate the reopening of the USSR's largest external listening base right off the coast of the US on Cuban soil.

      As foreign policy goes, the US' policy on Cuba is probably one of the single most stupid and short-sighted foreign policies there is.

    2. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The purpose of the policy is not economic or ideological, it is to punish a country that chose to stop being an US colony and actually exercise the independence that was only supposed to be on paper.

      Cuba is hardly a model of economic progress or human rights, but that's not the reason.

      Very much like Iran.

    3. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would presume that that question is an attempt to bait me into saying "freedom", "democracy" and so forth so that you can say hogwash and point to examples where American's freedoms have been curbed, or democracy has been a farce.

      But I'm more pragmatic than that, American culture is imperfect, it has flaws, many of them, but there's also one thing that's clear - it's responsible for better levels of wealth, education, and freedom than you find in communist dictatorships.

      So to answer your question, US culture is, simply put, not communist dictatorship culture, it's something that's objectively better for most people, it's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be - better is good enough.

  5. Re:Free Alan Gross by mean+pun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure the United States would be more willing to consider ending the embargo if Alan Gross was freed from prison.

    `more willing' in this case would mean saying 'No, no, no way' to ending the embargo, rather than 'No, no, no, no way'.

    In other words, it is the political reality in the US that makes this impossible, not the imprisonment of a single guy.

  6. Re:US is... by drfred79 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... a fucked up country full of paranoid war hawks and religious whack-jobs, that's about what you'd expect from america.

    Happy September 11th. If I wished to say those things about the United States I'd even be able to do so as a citizen. If you're an American then congratulations, you're in one of the only countries that you can do that. If you're not American I don't intend to stifle your freedom of speech, I just dare you to say that about you're own country.

  7. Re:US is... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mainly foreigners who are accused of wanting to say it with guns and bombs, but there's no actual evidence and no judicial process or civilian oversight.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe