Thursday, February 21, 2008
Fidel
What do people think about a post-Fidel Cuba? My hope is that they can retain a socialist economy but loosen up a few things economically, recognize basic civil rights, and hold elections. It certainly would help if they could export to the most voracious consumer market on the globe, the U.S. of A.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm curious as to what type of impact, if any, it will have on Major League Baseball. Allowing for basic civil rights and a slight economic loosening down there could lead to a Cuban government allowance of it's citizens to play in the U. States o. Amer. (F. Castro did make an exception in 2002 that allowed Omar Linares to play in Japan. I think all parties worked out some sort of agreement in where Linares would continue to play for Cuba in international competitions and be forced to kick back some dough to Cuba.) Although the U.S. government have been dicks about allowing Cuban athletes (who retain ties to Cuba, not the defectors) participate on U.S. soil. Remember the World Baseball Classic ordeal? And with the Bush Brothers' continued refusal to lift the embargo, any movement on this issue is unlikely in the near future.
ReplyDeleteInteresting angle. I think if the Cubans let their players play here and we let them play here, and the Cubans make them remit some of the money to Havanna, it's win-win-win. Isn't that the deal with Yao? Bring on Gourriel!
ReplyDeleteAlso, I got to thinking, and I thought "there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that a Dem. Congress w/ an Obama presidency should keep the embargo." But I doubt they have the freakin' nuts to do it. Nerds.
Yes, that is the deal with Yao. That's a good parallel.
ReplyDeleteRaul said something about not negotiating with Bush N' Bunch but that he'd be willing to sit down with the new prez.
It's not just Democrats who would want to lift the embargo. There are significant interests in the United States, many represented by Republicans, that would love to open the market.
ReplyDeleteThe change in power may be a good enough reason to rethink the entire policy.
I don't know whether Raul (sp?) is even interested in changing the status quo, but even if he is, I think the greater obstacle to changing it is on the Cuban side. Had Fidel died and was no longer in the picture, Raul would have much greater freedom to pursue a fresh start, or at least open up some negotiations. However, withFidel still looking over his shoulder, it is less likely that Cuba will be willing to negotiate.
I'm predicting that the embargo is lifted by the end of an Obama first team. If McCain is president, I'm not sure, but it still might be a possibility. McCain seems like the kind of guy who could have a "Nixon in China" moment.
Either way, whether Raul makes overtures to the US and whether or not there's American reciprocation, I'm pretty sure even an Obama Presidency would be obligated to portray it as a victory for the American way of life, no?
ReplyDeleteWe would also credit ourselves with having won them over with our superior economic and diplomatic wrangling...
One more whack lesson on how the West was won for Houghton-Mifflin to offer to the kiddies.
Hey all, just an update on the Cuba situation...
ReplyDeletehttp://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/06/11/cuba.wages.ap/index.html
Seems like Raul is lifting some of those wage restrictions. I think this is a good thing... if there can be some measure of wage competition and differentiation, and incomes are allowed to rise, even if only for some, I think quality of life in general would improve. Everyone's assured the basics anyway: food, housing, education, health, which in my book is the whole point of socialism (well, the principal one Im interested in anyway), so why not let the market into play here at the margins and have people gain a little more based on their productivity? Maybe now some people will be able to afford those PCs and cell phones without having to depend on remittances from Tia Tula in Miami.
Naturally, though, Raul should read this blog and implement 5:1 wage compression scheme. Can't let income inequality get TOO out of hand.