For the weiners who bloviate about Cuba's emigrants:

[Judi Lynn]

Responding to migration challenges in the Caribbean
Source: International Organization for Migration (IOM)

Date: 04 Dec 2009


ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA - Government officials from 21 Caribbean countries, along with representatives of regional institutions and international agencies, including CARICOM, UNHCR and UNICEF are gathering next week in Antigua and Barbuda for the annual Caribbean Regional Seminar on migration organized by IOM.

During the three-day event beginning Monday 7 December, participants will discuss cooperation and networking in counter-trafficking efforts, ways to advance regional efforts to protect migrant children, and best practices in responding to other vulnerable groups in a labour migration context.

The Caribbean region is characterized by a very fluid internal movement of persons, and by significant transit movement of non-Caribbean migrants. Lack of economic opportunities in many areas, coupled with historical patterns of movement, and in some cases human rights abuses and disasters, are the main drivers influencing migration of people from the Caribbean both within and outside the region.

Irregular migration, migrant smuggling, human trafficking, the spread of HIV/AIDS, brain-drain, environmental migration and mass outflows of migrants all come to form parts of the current migration dynamics in the Caribbean.

IOM's World Migration 2008 reports that the Caribbean region has one of the highest net emigration rates in the world. While there is considerable intraregional migration, such as between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, in 2000, Caribbean migrants in the United States totalled 2,879,000 or 9.6 per cent of the foreign-born population (US Census, 2000) and these flows to the U.S. continue to be significant.

Intra-regional movements are the smallest, estimated at 10 per cent of overall migration. Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Guyana and Jamaica are the main sending countries to other Caribbean destinations, while The Bahamas, the British and U.S. Virgin Islands, and Turks and Caicos are the main receiving countries and territories.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/HHVU-7YEEJL

[Braulio]

1. But Cuba is so poor

When it could be so rich, if they could only get rid of the communist dictatorship and move on to a democratic form of government and a capitalist economy.

[bemildred]

2. Islands just don't support large populations.

Small nations have the same problem. Without population control, you get large net out-migration, if that is possible, and ugly social statistics if it is not. It has diddly-doo to do with political ideology.

[Bacchus39]

3. the UK has a substantial population, and Japan??

Cuba doesn't have near the population density of those islands.

[bemildred]

4. What are you a moron?

I said limited space limits the population you can support? The UK is not Cuba, and it is not China either. Singapore is a very dense place, as is Java, and the Netherlands, and Monaco, so what? If the economic "space" is not there, people will be looking for someplace else to go. Overpopulation is BAD, nobody in their right mind wants to live in an overpopulated place, it has nothing to do with economic ideology, it goes a lot deeper than that.

I was not talking about Cuba, I was talking about the Carribean islands, like the link in the OP. Cuba is just one of them.

[Bacchus39]

6. umm....you said this "Islands just don't support large populations"

Japan. UK.

when in a hole, quit digging.

[bemildred]

9. Move to Madagascar and then tell me all about it. nt

[bemildred]

5. Cuba ...

The thing you need to understand about Cuba is this: Cuba has endured under Castro for 50 years, despite the unswerving hatred of the US goverment, one economic crisis after another, and the vagaries of world economic mismanagement. Why is that so when the US has managed to accomplish "regime change" in countries all over the Western Hemisphere in that same period, some several times? There have been plenty of ruthless dictatorships firmly supported by the US government that fell anyway. So why has the commie dictater succeeded against firm US opposition?

[Bacchus39]

7. well, they were a colony in essence of the Soviet Union until

what was it, 1990. The first Gulf War was in progress about that time so a second invasion in Cuba wasn't going to happen. Clinton was in 1992 and wasn't going to invade. Bush got us stuck in the mire of Iraq since the day he was appointed.

now did you want the US to invade Cuba?

anyway, Cubans migrate to the US for opportunity. Freedom to have opportunity. Haitians, Domincans, Mexicans and every other impoverished country too. Cuba isn't the only economically backward repressive country.

p.s. Japan is still an island with an enormous population.

[bemildred]

10. I am asking why are Castro and his government still there?

Why no "color revolution", "indigenous uprising", civil war, or successful CIA destabilization program? You can only use the USSR up to 1989 or so. Fifty years is a long time, almost three generations. North Korea comes to mind, but North Korea is right next door to its good buddy China, while Cuba is right next door to Uncle Sugar, which hates it.

[Braulio]

20. Castro has a very efficient repressive machine

And Cubans who oppose the government have a tendency to leave and move elsewhere. In a sense Cuba has suffered from a form of Darwinian selection. Cubans who left have a higher IQ and do much better than the Cubans who stayed, so in a sense we are seeing evolution in action, two species arising where previously there was one. The same thing happened to Spain when the Christians took over - the smarter people left.

[bemildred]

21. Right, and the Castro brothers are still there.

Unlike say, Sandino or Allende or Noriega or Zelaya or many others before and after them. Since the US usually likes authoritarian regimes in Latin America, like Pinochet or Somoza, I don't really understand why we are so hostile to Cuba.

[Mika]

25. Interesting to see your ignorant bigotry come to the fore.

:puke:

[Braulio]

8. Ah, but Cuba is 600 miles long, isn't it?

I guess you mean small islands, rather than small nations. The issue is interesting, and you may read about it in "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. In general, there's a limit to the population an island can support, but this limit is very high if an island is well governed and has a capable population, examples would be Singapore, Mauritius, Cyprus, and others.

Cuba isn't overpopulated, it's just mis-governed. The communist system discourages individual initiative, and centralized government control (especially one sustained via repression, media control, and human rights abuses like Castro's does) lacks the feedback needed to correct course over time.

The type of socialism advocated by Latin Americans such as Chavez is a form of the communism implemented in Cuba and North Korea, thus, even though Venezuela is very large, there's an outflow of intelligent and educated people out of the country. This brain drain in turn leads to worse performance, as the country begins to be run by what we may call incapable dogmatists - and will lead to an outflow of the lower classes as the economy worsens. It's a classic cycle driven by "socialist" policies.

Fortunately for Latin America, the real power in that continent is Brazil, and their leaders are smart enough to adopt a social-liberal approach, which is really helping Brazil's economy.

[bemildred]

11. I was thinking more of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and "Song of the Dodo", but yeah.

One has to distinguish between having large populations, for a while, and supporting them, which are different things. Eire used to have a large population, up until the famine, and since then it has been much more modestly populated. It is true that bigger islands can do more than tiny ones, and bigger islands with natural resources near the mainland are hardly like islands at all when it comes to this sort of thing. There is actually a continuum of conditions in moving from place to place when it comes to this sort of issue.

Small towns tend to see a lot of out-migration for some of the same reasons, lack of opportunity at home, lack of jobs and resources.

[bemildred]

12. PS: I really was not talking about Cuba, though I know the OP was.

I mentioned in the other sub-thread the only issue that really interests me about Cuba. I don't much care for political ideologies, any of them, they all tend to be very bullshitty in my experience. WRT Cuba and Venezuela, I think we might as well let them do what they want to and see how it turns out. Nothing like a good solid indisputable fail to put an ideology out of fashion. Nobody much wants to emulate the USSR these days. It's up to Cubans in Cuba and Venezuelans in Venezuela to decide how to run their countries, take their lumps, and learn from their mistakes. We in the USA are in for a round or two of that too now.

[Braulio]

13. I agree

Wow, I sure hope we get to talk about things in the future, because I agree 100 %. I'm not American, nor do I live in the USA, so it's refreshing to see an American with your point of view - I get so sick of Americans who don't recognize the US has a huge imperial streak running down its back.

I analyse economies and their behavior (it's for work), and it's evident both of them (Cuba and Venezuela) are economic failures. Cuba of course is a basket case, and would remain one even if Uncle Sam didn't impose the economic sanctions it has imposed. Venezuela is relatively rich, but it's entering a serious crisis caused by economic mismanagement the likes of which can be ranked with the classic African disaster, such as Zimbabwe under Mugabe, Congo under Mobutu, or Uganda under Amin. As a matter of fact, I'm considering the use of a term such as "Mugabeization" to the phenomenom whereby a political caste rises whose main focus seems to be nationalistic corruption and mismanagement - call it national fascism of the left run by dummies.

[bemildred]

14. Whether one is a failure or not is largely a matter of the metric one chooses.

I'm not out to disparage your metric in deciding that Cuba and Venezuela are "failures", I'm just saying they may be using a different metric than you are, and that whether it proves to be you or they that is making the wise choice will be shown by events, future events, not known to any of us right now.

[Braulio]

15. Who are they?

I wonder, who are THEY in your mind?

Most people prize the ability to own property, to live free of crime, where there's no corruption, where one can speak openly and oppose the government without reprisals. Where one can get a decent paying job, and get decent medical care, where justice is fair, and swift.

Neither Cuba nor Venezuela have governments which focus on these very common aspirations, to one extent or the other. I happen to have very hard information on these countries, because I track their economic performance, and this is in turn is driven by political stability and a vibrant middle class. Neither Cuba nor Venezuela have governments which understand the fundamentals to create a successful economy and society - as defined by the common man. They're somewhat different in their characteristics, wealth, and design, but they do share in common one thing: they are headed in the wrong direction.

If you have doubts, just check their bond ratings, or pick up The Economist and look at the consensus projections for GDP growth (Venezuela is listed every week, Cuba is so insignificant, it doesn't even merit listing). You'll see Venezuela is projected to have the worst economic performance in the world during the combined 2009-10 cycle, after Zimbabwe and a couple of other basket cases.

[bemildred]

16. "They" are Cuba and Venezuela.

If you can talk about Cuba and Venezuela as "they" (and you do) I don't see why I can't too.

I said it is up to the people of Cuba and Venezuela to decide if they like the way things are run there, not the Economist, or you, or me.

I would look forward to living where I could "live free of crime, where there's no corruption, where one can speak openly and oppose the government without reprisals. Where one can get a decent paying job, and get decent medical care, where justice is fair, and swift" but unfortunately I live in California.

[Mika]

17. Sadly there are defenders here who support US intervention in Cuba.

Including supporting US agents operating illegally there, with the intention of overthrowing the Cuban government - which is the sad (and murderous) pattern of the US government in the Latin Americas and the Caribbean.

Cuba needs no further justification in defending itself from the self declared superpower nation state enemy of the Cuban state.


New boss .. same as the old boss ..

-- The Breckenridge Memorandum
J.C. Breckenridge, U.S. Undersecretary of War in 1897,
sent the following memo to the Commander of the U.S. Army,
Lieutenant General Nelson A. Miles. The memo explains
what is to be U.S. policy towards {Cuba}.


"It is obvious that the immediate annexation of these disturbing elements into our own federation in such large numbers would be sheer madness, so before we do that we must clean up the country, even if this means using the methods Divine Providence used on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

We must destroy everything within our cannons’ range of fire. We must impose a harsh blockade so that hunger and its constant companion, disease, undermine the peaceful population and decimate the Cuban army. The allied army must be constantly engaged in reconnaissance and vanguard actions so that the Cuban army is irreparably caught between two fronts and is forced to undertake dangerous and desperate measures."

[Bacchus39]

18. No US intervention. the ALBA block should be able to provide

needed economic and material subsidies.

no cell phones or computers handed out, but pressure cookers, soap, and toilet paper are OK.


aren't you going to Ecuador though since the US isn't your cup of tea?? trading those fake green bills (US dollars) we use here in the US, for those fake green bills (US dollars) they use in Ecuador.

[Braulio]

23. The Alba block?

Cuba is very poor, but the "Alba Block" isn't exactly swimming in cash. Venezuela and Ecuador have the worst bond ratings in Latin America, Bolivia is dirt poor, and the others are almost as poor as Cuba. Alba is a figment of the imagination, it's economically weak, and getting weaker by the day.

[Bacchus39]

26. well then, it seems Cuba may have to look for another country to subsidize its "revolution" n/t

s

[bemildred]

19. Hi Mika.

:hi:

[Mika]

24. Hi bemildred.

:hi:

[Braulio]

22. I don't think Cubans can decide much, can they?

As far as I know, the Cuban regime is a dictatorship. As for Venezuela, I don't think they chose their government to push them into communism - poll results show they want private property, but we have to account for their inability to visualize how truly dismal their economy is about to become. Also, I believe California is quite a bit better than Venezuela in all those areas. Are you aware of just how bad the crime rate, the health system, and the justice system are in Venezuela?

[bemildred]

27. WRT Cuba and Venezuela, you assume your conclusion.

I have been exposed to a great deal of information about both and I would say at the least that the matter is in dispute. I would ask: if they are so bad, so disfunctional, why are we so afraid of them? Why this urgency to intervene? Why the embargoes and CIA plots and all that? Why not let them fail on their own? Is not the real fear that they will succeed and prosper? I think so.

As far as California, are you aware of just how bad the crime rate, the health system, and the justice system are in California? Our government here is busy feasting on the seed corn. I grew up here, I've lived here all my life. It is a very badly run state, and has been for 40 years or more. You take your life in your hands when you seek medical care here. We spend more on prisons than schools. Pot, an illegal substance, is the largest agricultural product in the state, in terms of value. The state capitol is a cesspool of corruption.

[bemildred]

28. California revenues lag, underscore budget woes

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's revenues since the start of its fiscal year are trailing estimates by more than $1 billion, according to the state's November revenue report, which comes as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wrestles with crafting a balanced state spending plan.

Next month Schwarzenegger must present to lawmakers a balanced budget plan for California's next fiscal year beginning in July, while closing the deficit that has reopened in the current fiscal year's spending plan.

The combined shortfall for the two years has been pegged at about $21 billion -- the result of a state economy battered by a steep decline in its housing market, weak consumer spending, widespread layoffs and 12.5 percent unemployment.

The broad economic weakness gripping the most populous U.S. state was reflected in the state Department of Finance's November revenue report released on Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BF5HL20091216

So is this what Latin America is supposed to want to emulate?

[Judi Lynn]

29. Have been hearing about California's horrendous problems going back at least as far as Ronald Reagan

and his bizarre solutions to economic stress, like emptying out California mental institutions upon the streets of various California towns, and making homeless many former psychiatric patients. Unforgiveable.