The site shows statistics relevant to standards of living in Cuba. It compares them to other Latin American nations. It also lists facts detailing the Cuban economic and financial sector.
Very interesting what immense Cuba has managed to gain on its tiny island.
Some excerpts:
Persons per Doctor ____
Cuba - 169 United States - 421 Brazil - 844 Dominican Republic - 949 Haiti - 10,005
Unemployment _____ Cuba - 1.9% Bolivia - 8% United States - 9.5% Argentina - 15.6% Haiti - 70%
Inflation ___ Cuba - 0.30% US - 3.20% Argentina - 9.6%
Women in Government ____ Cuba - 36% Argentina - 31% US - 14%
Facts ___ * The average Cuban worker has ten years of education; one of every ten scientists in Latin America and the Caribbean is in Cuba (although Cuba makes up only 2% of the region's population).
* The UN recently announced that Cuba is the only country in Latin America that has no malnutrition.
* Gas bills in Cuba average 2-4 pesos (8-16 cents) a month; electricity 5-7 pesos (20-28 cents) a month; telephone 6-8 pesos (24-32 cents) a month, the first 300 minutes being free. As you can see, all these services are subsidized by the State.
This numbers are crap. Have you been there? Poor kids everywhere... Doctors only for wealthy people... they have no freedom... can't leave the island, can't surf the web, they only consume propaganda... Definetly not heaven.
The numbers are given from very reliable sources. Have you been there? Or hell have you been to other Latin American countries? No, I totally trust your account though.
I certainly did not say it was heaven, but it is much better off than other countries in its position.
it's a weak excuse for cuba to blame another country for its failures.
No its not, and you certainly cant refute a whole article that includes facts with a one liner.
The numbers for all statistics, at least for the above 2 countries, are going to be vastly different than Cuba.
The statistics compared persons per doctor, not the total number of doctors. Cuba's economic and social policies breed more doctors than the United States does. Meaning, if Cuba was to have a population of 200 million, the ratio would not change, and it would still have a doctor within every 169 people.
Likewise, its unemployment rate is 2%, much lower than the US. This means only one in every 50 has no job. While the figure is 1/10 in the USA. This contrast is done in proportions.
As for Haiti and the Dominican Republic, those two are steeped in poverty. Doctors are inevitably going to be hard to come by.
Well when we are trying to compares Cuba's living standards with that of other countries, then why would we make an exception to the poor ones? The statistics stand to demonstrate what Cuba's policies have accomplished. How will that be done without comparison.
And Haiti and the Dominican Republic are actually quite good comparisons. They are alike in geographical location and population - factors in determining economic well being. What is different is the political/economic system that makes use of the resources and the people and Cubas shows to be much superior than its neighbors.
Should we only compare Cuba's USA, France, Germany, UK, and Russia which have much much more resources, huge military, more people, and no trading restrictions?
In trying to compare the success of a country to other similar countries, you can't discard the factor of success can you?
Meaning, if Cuba was to have a population of 200 million, the ratio would not change, and it would still have a doctor within every 169 people.
Yes it would. That's the nature of proportions. You can compare ratios in the same way you compare apples and oranges.
Likewise, its unemployment rate is 2%, much lower than the US. This means only one in every 50 has no job. While the figure is 1/10 in the USA. This contrast is done in proportions.
11 million people plus big a*s socialist government always equals a low unemployment rate. Of course, many of those are not contributing to the overall economic status of the country.
Well when we are trying to compares Cuba's living standards with that of other countries, then why would we make an exception to the poor ones? The statistics stand to demonstrate what Cuba's policies have accomplished. How will that be done without comparison.
Because poor countries have vastly lower standard of living differences. Why don't you compare Walmart to the little gas station on the corner?
Should we only compare Cuba's USA, France, Germany, UK, and Russia which have much much more resources, huge military, more people, and no trading restrictions?
When in the standard of living area, yes, because it isn't affected by anything more than money and government intervention.
And Haiti and the Dominican Republic are actually quite good comparisons. They are alike in geographical location and population - factors in determining economic well being. What is different is the political/economic system that makes use of the resources and the people and Cubas shows to be much superior than its neighbors.
It depends on history as well. Cuba has been far more stable than either of those countries, having only one dictator in recent years. The other two have had many.
Communism (and socialism) usually isn't particularly good for a country's economy. While it can (for any large population it won't) help the people of its own, it comes at a cost.
11 million people plus big a*s socialist government always equals a low unemployment rate. Of course, many of those are not contributing to the overall economic status of the country.
Well yes the point was to show what socialism has done to Cuba. Thanks for agreeing? But what do you mean there not contributing to the production? Do you think Cuban's jobs are to go out side and dance like a chicken?
Because poor countries have vastly lower standard of living differences. Why don't you compare Walmart to the little gas station on the corner?
If your trying to show how vastly superior Walmart is, then you do have to compare it to the little gas station...
When in the standard of living area, yes, because it isn't affected by anything more than money and government intervention.
If we want to show the superiority of socialism over capitalism, it is not fair to compare it to a country with a much bigger head start.
It depends on history as well. Cuba has been far more stable than either of those countries, having only one dictator in recent years. The other two have had many.
Haha, what? Cuba before the revolution was complete hell. The site also shows Before and After statistics for that, check it out.
Communism (and socialism) usually isn't particularly good for a country's economy. While it can (for any large population it won't) help the people of its own, it comes at a cost.
Whys that? Cuba's socialist policies have clearly shown its efficiency.
Because poor countries have vastly lower standard of living differences
The point of comparing standards of living is to find out how big or small the difference is. Duh. Not doing that erases the point of comparison.
Yes it would. That's the nature of proportions. You can compare ratios in the same way you compare apples and oranges.
I guess so, except proportions are proportional to each other whereas apples oranges are, urm, different fruits.
Why don't you compare Walmart to the little gas station on the corner?
Uh, because they're different kinds of establishments. Population is population, no matter how big or small. Your analogy is invalid.
When in the standard of living area, yes, because it isn't affected by anything more than money and government intervention.
Um, no. You're completely, utterly wrong. Comparing rich countries to poor countries measures the difference between rich and poor. We can't figure out the gap in standard of living in rich countries to that of poor countries if we measure only rich or poor countries. Duh.
Well yes the point was to show what socialism has done to Cuba. Thanks for agreeing?
Generally working for the government doesn't help anything external very much.
But what do you mean there not contributing to the production? Do you think Cuban's jobs are to go out side and dance like a chicken?
I said economic status, not production.
If your trying to show how vastly superior Walmart is, then you do have to compare it to the little gas station...
The point was to prove that you aren't going to get an accurate model comparing the two. You can't have a country with a very high standard of living be compared to a country with a very low standard of living.
If we want to show the superiority of socialism over capitalism, it is not fair to compare it to a country with a much bigger head start.
I can prove that when you need anything from outside, and want a little more power than most, capitalism is the way to go. If you have a small country, and don't need anything from outside, socialism is the way to go. Cross mixing the two isn't a very good idea. Big country = Capitalism. Little country = Socialism. Big country + Socialism = Very bad idea. Little country + capitalism = Very bad idea. Both of those are on its own. If you have outside foreign relations with a bigger country or a bunch of smaller ones it can work. But probably won't.
Haha, what? Cuba before the revolution was complete hell.
Its revolution was hell. Imagine having one of those every 10 years, or having to elect one dictator every so many years who's only going to reverse what the last dictator did.
Whys that? Cuba's socialist policies have clearly shown its efficiency.
Within itself, it works. Because it's a small, isolated country with a semi-stable government. If it got bigger, it would get worse and worse. The bigger you get, the less your old ways work. That works in reverse.
The point of comparing standards of living is to find out how big or small the difference is. Duh. Not doing that erases the point of comparison.
When comparing certain things, such as economic strength or amount of doctors, an extremely poor country isn't going to stack up against a relatively wealthy one. Unless you compare every country, and make a list, you can't compare them.
Um, no. You're completely, utterly wrong. Comparing rich countries to poor countries measures the difference between rich and poor. We can't figure out the gap in standard of living in rich countries to that of poor countries if we measure only rich or poor countries. Duh.
When comparing only a couple countries, you can't compare rich to poor.
Unless that's the only thing you are measuring. Rich, or poor.
Generally working for the government doesn't help anything external very much.
External to what? What interest should the Cubans have other than Cuba itself?
I said economic status, not production.
Funnily enough, your average Johnny Cuban is going to care more about his material wealth than the economic status of his country. It's funny how only nations where there is so much affluence do people feel like this makes them morally superior, despite the fact it's down to the accident of birth.
The point was to prove that you aren't going to get an accurate model comparing the two. You can't have a country with a very high standard of living be compared to a country with a very low standard of living.
Why not exactly? Because it is inconvenient with your argument?
Big country + Socialism = Very bad idea.
Why? Socialism by nature breeds nations which needs no outside help, even large ones. If a country shifts the goods it produces from luxuries to foodstuffs, it is not very difficult to achieve autarky, and therefore avoid all the problems you mentioned.
Its revolution was hell.
In this case the ends justify the means. For most ordinary Cubans, having a guaranteed minmum living standard is more important than all else. It's hard to understand that when you live in a society where evrything is provided for
Because it's a small, isolated country with a semi-stable government.
Semi stable? It has had only two rulers for decades, with the same political ideology. That seems pretty stable to me.
The bigger you get, the less your old ways work. That works in reverse.
Why? Stalin's process of collectivisation of agriculture kind of proves you wrong. Of course it was at the expense of lives, but generally, the larger yoou get, the more effectively you can utilise your resources.
Unless you compare every country, and make a list, you can't compare them.
There are lists. The whole point of comparing them is to see why one country has a better record than the other. In this case, it seems that Cuba has an infinitely superior level of social justice.
Unless that's the only thing you are measuring. Rich, or poor.
I don't really see what you're trying to say here. You cannot argue that things cannot be compared because they are too different. By definition that would make them easier to compare with each other.
The point was to prove that you aren't going to get an accurate model comparing the two. You can't have a country with a very high standard of living be compared to a country with a very low standard of living.
You'll get an accurate model of the difference between Walmart and the gas station >.<
Same principle with comparing rich and poor countries.
When comparing certain things, such as economic strength or amount of doctors, an extremely poor country isn't going to stack up against a relatively wealthy one. Unless you compare every country, and make a list, you can't compare them.
They're not fucking supposed to. The reason to compare them is to find out the difference between the rich and poor countries. Understand my point if you're going to argue it.
When comparing only a couple countries, you can't compare rich to poor.
When comparing only a couple countries, you can't compare rich to poor. Unless that's the only thing you are measuring. Rich, or poor.
That's it, you lose this argument. Read my goddam posts, because these statements you're making aren't even remotely addressing my points. You're just restating your now-refuted argument over and over and over again.
[quote]They're not ****ing supposed to. The reason to compare them is to find out the difference between the rich and poor countries. Understand my point if you're going to argue it.
When comparing only a couple countries, you can't compare rich to poor.[/quote
When comparing certain things, such as economic strength or amount of doctors, an extremely poor country isn't going to stack up against a relatively wealthy one. Unless you compare every country, and make a list, you can't compare them.
What do you mean its not going to stack up? Did you even look at the statistics. Cubans have more doctors per person, less percentage of its people are unemployed, etc. This shows that Cuba's system is more efficient than the US, which has a lot more resources but yet is unable to compete with Cuba's standards.
The statistics shows us that the living standards in Cuba are relatively high compared to other nations in Latin America, and that it is superior in education and health care to many nations.
