Talk:Economy of Cuba/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Make2018. Peer reviewers: Jgriffith19, Abloom18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Weasel Words
"Corruption is common,[11][12] although allegedly lower than in most other countries in Latin America.[13]" Allegedly lower? Either it's lower or it isn't. MrSativa (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment on this: The definition of 'allegedly' is 'Used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.32.65 (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality
Graph of historical per capita income includes hand picked Caribbean and Latin american countries clearly intended to display the revolution in the best light possible. Would be be more interesting to see Cuba compared to Panama, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Chile, etc.

Author seems to believe US-based companies = "monopoly". The word is repeated enough times you'd expect the Parker Brothers guy to walk across the page pushing a baby buggy on his way to the boardwalk. I assume this is intended to draw a picture of the economy as largely exploited by the US at the time. Perhaps not completely unfair, but the description suggest the author does not understand capital formation or the role of capital in being able to exploit natural resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.182.138 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is hugely anti-capitalist and pro-socialist. A more political-belief-neutral description of the economy needs to be in place. - Tahir, tahir_ahmadov@hotmail.com
 * I'm just a reader and didn't edit anything on this Wikipedia page, but when I read this I was surprised as you can just add anything that has citation. Why don't you just find something to balance out arguments as long as it has citation instead of complaining? kriskhaira (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to mention any "cruelty" As long as you can support you view with valid facts in a neutral light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.214.195 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A source provided as an external link says that Cuba's GDP was similar to that of Argentina or Uruguay in the 1950s. Now it's comparable to that of Honduras. Thing lost in this graph. In fact, the authors argue that the Cuba's GDP has never recovered its 1957 peak * . Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (woof!) 21:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment 1
There is very little about agriculture in this article. As far as I know, the lack of fertilizer led the government to concentrate on organic farming in the 90s. Does anyone know more about this? Burschik 07:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. I just added a paragraph to the summary article, Cuba. I've been working on organic farming and related articles on Wikipedia, and the absence of the Cuban "organic revolution" is noticeable, here and elsewhere. I have no first-hand knowledge of the situation, but what I gather, from lots of online sources (including directly from people on farming mailing lists), Cuba is pretty much the one and only textbook example of large-scale organic agriculture working, and doing so after a rapid transition (practically one year to the next), from a very industrialized, conventional ag industry.


 * Apparently, Cuba was using lots of imported oil for mechanization, and fully relying on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, also mostly imported. Their ag industry was described as being comparable to the advanced operations in Central Valley (main US ag production center in California). All of this was mainly going into tobacco and sugar production, for export, for which they got highly subsidized rates (billions of dollars a year), plus oil, from Russia, and they were importing 60% or more of their own food. So, with the collapse of Russia, in one shot, no oil, no chemicals, no food, no money. Faced with starvation, they had to immediately reorganize their ag industry, done of course at a goverment level. The steps they took are consistent with a lot of the basic pro-organic goals, ideals and recommendations in the Western world.


 * The whole thing involved a combination of massive decentralization, and a concerted, top-down effort to the grassroots level.


 * A lot of farmland was given to individual farmers and small groups, and urban land, like abandoned lots, were made into mini-market garden projects (Western organic movement equivalents: local food, small-scale, family farm).
 * The scientific community focussed on domestic, organic substitutes and alternatives for synthetic fertilizer and pesticide (focussing significant academic research on organic solutions).
 * To deal with gas and parts shortages, plow animals were given higher tech farm gear to use (less reliance on fossil fuels, sustainability).


 * All this seems to have worked. I'm not sure whether conventional chemical ag is used for export crops like tobacco and sugar, but the organic stuff at least applies to all food, including livestock. And I believe, at least for food, organic agricultural methods are currently mandated by law.


 * Interesting also, if obvious, is that the role of the farmer has changed dramatically. They are in the top 10% economically, and are highly respected. This is in contrast to the decimated and downtrodden rural farming class in North America and elsewhere.


 * Now, Cuba is considered the world expert on large-scale organic ag, and is visited by delegations from various countries. The political situation with the US probably has something to do with the relatively low profile of this situation.


 * This really deserves more investigation and thorough coverage! --Tsavage 19:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment 2
I have a fairly deep knowledge of Cuba's Agricultural sector, having taken Graduate coursework in this area. I will be certain to work on this article and finish up by the end of the summer, adding substantial amounts of information. It is a long wait, but I will likely change the article beyond recognition. I plan to discuss organic & urban farming; different forms of land ownership & production (CPAs, UBPCs, CCSs, etc.), as well as past forms, reasons for change, and differences in levels of production. I will also discuss the history of agriculture generally and the current state of agriculture today, includings its sectors, affect on Cuba generally, and foreign investment. Is there anything else I can discuss that persons would like to know about? takethemud 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)takethemud

GDP growth is probably wrong...
The 11.8% growth in GDP is only announced by cuban government. It could have been boosted for propaganda purpose. For example cia factbook says there were only 5.2%. Of course, CIA stats could be also biased against cuba...

Cuba and Foreign Debt
The paragraph on Cuban foreign debt assumes that Cuba would like to recieve loans from international lenders like the World Bank, this idea makes no sense. Why would Cuba want to indebt itself to organizations that promote market reforms? That would be contradictory to Cuba's communist ideology. Why is there nothing mentioned of Cuba having avoided much of the debt that has crippled third world developement? Surely this is an important feature of the Cuban economy.

Response: Sir You have given exactly 0 evidence to support your claims... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.214.195 (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Doctors
There is something peculiarly misleading about labeling Cuban doctors exchanged voluntarily for oil with Venezuela, as propaganda.


 * Cuba's health care system is one of the most advanced in the world. Patients from Latin America and else where, travel to Cuba in order to receive medical care.  Moreover, Cuban doctors do indeed voluntarily travel to other contries to administer medical care and to train medical students.

Cuba's health indicators rank it alongside many 1st world countries. They also have the largest amount of doctors working abroad in the world (might be most per capita, as opposed to total number, but either way, it is something an updated article would include.) takethemud 05:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)takethemud

All those facts are well and good, but say nothing about the quality of the health care system available to the vast majority of Cubans. Foreigners come to Cuba for medical care, true, but do they pay huge fees to do so. They send doctors abroad, yes, but is it really because there is such an abundance of highly-trained doctors in Cuba that there's nothing for them there to do? Or is possibly the case that the Cuban government is cutting their own people's health care for the sake obtaining some positive PR abroad? As for Cuba's health indicators, the Cuban government doesn't allow for independent corroboration of their statistics, thus making them less than reliable. 69.243.28.102 (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with China
I've heard they recently got an economic sweetheart deal with China, does anyone know about this?130.238.5.5 06:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article is poorly written, organized and out of date. The section on the cuban economy on the Cuba page is significantly better. Is there any purpose to this article remaining unless it is completely redone?--dr. yesterday 09:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see my above comment. When time permits (hopefully over the summer), I will gut this article as much as is necessary to make it clean, readable, and neutral. takethemud 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)takethemud

My congradulations! It's much better now. User:Merlov 17:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Some independent analysts ?"
The second paragraph of the "Connection with Venezuela" piece seems completely POV. The link provided is dead, and the only sources cited are "some analysts" and the White House. I think it requires attention from editors to meet wikipedia standards, or perhaps it should be appropriately tagged. 84.205.222.124 (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

12,7000
See the article - GDP per capita. No other than CIA source estimates GDP per capita so high. Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What change are you suggesting to the article? That is what talk pages are for.  NJGW (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote other sources or discuss, why the CIA, who has radically changed its opinion, is the only reliable. Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What other sources would you suggest? NJGW (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/5.html 6 000 Xx236 (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of the pre unification statements about the economy of East Germany. The statistics were based on changing currencies at government approved rates and ignoring the actual Black Market rates of exchange. If you calculate based on these free market rates the PCI of Cubans is more probably on a par with Nicaragua.RichardBond (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?
While given statements sometimes are supported by references, the overall impression given by the current state of this article is basically that of anti-communist propaganda. In particular the point of view that Cuba was (economic) paradise before communist rule is implicitly stated. -- 84.221.209.96 (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment, there are many statements that don't even fit in this topic. An example of this is the section "Government Policies". Almost all of the information on this section has nothing to do with the Economy topic. Ex: "'In communications and publishing sector, Cubans can not access the Internet without government permission.[38] Cubans can not watch or listen to independent, private, or foreign broadcasts.[38] Cubans can not read books, magazines or newspapers, unless approved/published by the government.[38] Cubans can not receive publications from abroad or from visitors.[38]'" As the main article, this looks to me as mostly anti-communist propaganda, and the poorly written kind. Please, could some non-us writers, better educated on the topic, turn this article into a more useful, less biased, source of information.

Jorgejch (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the following citation seems from a biased source and, most importantly, it doesn't it self offers any sources.

-^ a b c d e "Cuba facts issue 42". http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FACTS_Web/Cuba%20Facts%20Issue%2042%20August.htm

I have sent the following email to the "Cuba Transition Project" and will post the reply.

Hello, I'm participating on the discussion for the "Economy of Cuba" article on Wikipedia. The web page below, hosted by you, is cited, but it self doesn't provide any credible sources. Would you be so kind as to provide those please? Being a credible source an acknowledged academic medium such as an academic Journal or an academic book written by cited scholar, or, though less desirable, a respected, widely know and well seen outside the US, journalism medium (such as the BBC). http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FACTS_Web/Cuba%20Facts%20Issue%2042%20August.htm This would be very helpful. Best Regards, Jorge J. C. Haddad P.S: With your knowledge I'll post this e-mail and it's reply on the referred talk page.

If in 15 days they don't reply I'll delete the passages which provide the site as source, if no one objects.

Thanks

Jorgejch (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No reply to the email above has been made by the "Cuba Transition Project", so as proposed ,and not countered, the texts that cited the referred web page have been removed.

Jorgejch (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just passing through but, my 2 cents - the history section is hella biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.155.217 (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I will certainly agree there have been massive abuses of capitalism in the past, the way the history section reads is ridiculous. It's gone 180 degrees from anti- to pro- communist propaganda, stating that Cuba pre-revolution was a nightmare and post revolution it was a paradise. It doesn't become balanced again until talkig about the "Special period" where it talks about the ups and the downs. Mysticalone27 (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)mysticalone27

I would like to challenge the entire section based on the statement by the right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, under 'Economic Freedom'. On the about page for this 'freedom index' it states: "Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom. In 2019, the principles of economic freedom that have fueled this monumental progress are once again measured in the Index of Economic Freedom, an annual guide published by The Heritage Foundation, Washington's No. 1 think tank." Which should speak for itself. It barely needs mentioned that this 'think tank' is funded by Coors, Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical, General Motors, Pfizer, Sears and Mobil- see the #funding section of the Heritage wiki page, bare-facedly linked in the second paragraph of the paragraph in question. Gossfunkel (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Corruption
The claim that "corruption is common" is not supported by the footnote. The BBC-article talks about a rather *low level* of corruption and *harsh punishments*. Is there any evidence to back-up the claim? If not - out with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.114.240 (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

137th-richest economy
"After more than 50 years of economic and social revolution, Cuba is the world's 137th-richest economy, ranked below Albania and Swaziland. In 1958, Cuba ranked 22nd in per capita gross domestic product, close to Italy." this is qoute from Barron's magazine, article "Relishing the Idea of a Post-Castro Cuba" now, is this data accurate? IMF and WB don't offer any economic data on Cuba. only CIA does, but CIA isn't economic institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.2.57 (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Nota Bene!: There are only aproximately 195 countries in the world. --174.24.223.154 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Communist" word
It's important to notice that Cuba has a socialist regime. It is a dictatorship of the proletariat well described in Marxist thought, which is a completely different concept from that of the Communist regime. I'll change "Communist" to "Socialist" in 5 days if no one opposes it.

Jorgejch (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You should know also that Marx uses the term "communist" to describe his political ideology. Yes, the term has been twisted by Leninists and Stalinists, but that does not mean there's a difference between political Marxism and communism. Technically, they're one and the same. 143.89.188.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC).

Only 1% living below poverty line?
Is this a joke? Is the poverty line in Cuba to be dead by starvation?..... or even lower? Agrofelipe (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbole ,

They have food, housing, jobs ,free medical and free schooling inc. college, for all. People with those needs met are not in poverty anymore.

the oppressive part is the lack of upward mobility, and that is improving.

The History Chapter Is Incomplete
It doesn't start until the Revolution. There ought to be a lot more on the pre-Revolution economy, the economy under the U.S, and of course the economy under Spanish colonial rule. Heck, even pre-Columbian Cuban economics might be informative. 68.55.199.40 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Who ever stated that Cuba has one of the most advance medical system in the world has never lived there and watched their family members die of things that Americans NEVER die of unless they have AIDS. Such as TB and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.164.72 (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes
I have made some changes to the introduction and some sections of the articles. Mostly I removed claims that do not reflect accurately the sources provided - in fact, in many cases the claims and the sources are completely contradictory. I would say there's a certain anti-Cuban bias in the article, though I would suggest editors to refrain from putting pro-Cuban sources to "neutralize" this bias. What we need to do, first of all, is to check the sources that have been cited and see if they actually support what is written in the article. I have checked the edit history of the article and have seen many cases of editors who rewrite the article to support their own POV while ignoring the sources already cited.

I recognize that the changes I have made can be quite substantial. Please notify me here if I made a mistake in interpreting the sources. Thank you. (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory information
The article claims that the Cuban GDP per capita in 1985 was higher than the rest of Latin America, but the very chart on this page says differently.

Here's the data which uses 1990 international Geary-Khamis dollars:

1985 GDP per capita:

1. Trinidad: 10,459

2. Venezuela: 8,521

3. Puerto Rico: 8,373

4. Argentina: 6,835

5. Mexico: 6,194

6. Uruguay: 5,560

7. Panama: 5,295

8. Chile: 5,030

9. Brazil: 4,914

10. Costa Rica: 4,340

11. Colombia: 4,272

12. Ecuador: 4,036

13. Peru: 3,666

14. Guatemala: 3,320

15. Paraguay: 3,131

16. Cuba: 3,049

17. Jamaica: 3,020

18. Dominican Republic: 2,292

19. Bolivia: 2,181

20. El Salvador: 2,105

21. Nicaragua: 1,944

22. Honduras: 1,874

23. Haiti: 1,104

Total Latin America: 5,064

They also show that Cuban GDP per capita grew by 49% from 1960 (2,052) to 1985 (3,049) while Latin America grew by 61% from 1960 (3,136) to 1985 (5,064) 71.65.71.145 (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So much for my thesis
It seems to me that many wiki pages of supposedly "prosperous" and "valiant" causes have been completely marred by a descriptive form of writing that lacks any evidence which would validate said claims made... In my opinion any views not properly sourced with supporting or that are written in a misleading manner should be deleted. It doesn't matter who is for or against what. Absurdly erronious data is a sure sign of covering up a failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.214.195 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleanin' Up
I did a quick read through of this article and there seems to be a serious problem with it - in many cases, the statement allegedly supported by the cite is not actually supported by the cite. For example, I just removed a statement that "since 2000 the economy is rapidly recovering." An article from 1989 was provided as a citation for this statement. I also checked some other links and got 404s (from link rot or otherwise.) Long story short, the article is not appropriately sourced so anyone editing this should take proactive steps to check whether the citation actually matches the statement. I'll be doing a more thorough pass at some point. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I (another editor) also made a change to the utterly unsourced claim that Soviet aid to Cuba was comparable to the US aid to Pinochet's Chile. The new text repeats verbatim what the source says ("Western aid" to "Latin American countries"). The source itself - a very old article posted on a radical left site - is very vague and biased in its information - where is the data to back it up? What countries? What kind of aid, and by which donors? Besides, what is the point of citing an argument from 1989 that the impact of Soviet aid is overestimated since the collapse of 1990-1993 made that argument look very silly? But it is quite obvious that this particular Wikipedia entry is a major deal for Cuba apologists, so trying to make it neutral would be a waste of time, so the most one can do is at least make sure that the wikipedia text at least corresponds to what is written on the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.141.7 (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Self employment
The latest government statistics put the number of self-employed at almost 430,000 workers (http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=95385). When compared to the number of private sector workers in 2010, this statistic represents a threefold increase in the number of self-employed workers, even higher than the 200,000 workers who were self-employed at the time that Fidel Castro started rolling back a failed effort at liberalizing the economy in the late 1990s. As Cuba is aiming to have 1 million state workers in the private sector by 2015, the increase in the number of self-employed clearly demonstrates that Raul Castro is not only refusing to backtrack on his goal of a creating a strong private sector accounting for nearly half of Cuba's economic activity by 2016 but also reminding future Cuban leaders that shrinking the size of the private sector would not be good for pulling the economy from despair and sustaining economic growth. The number of seats for paladares has also increased to 50 (http://havanarestaurants.com/paladares-in-cuba.html). 68.4.28.33 (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

A recent notice published in the Official Gazette (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-oks-private-businesses-regulations-20383987; http://india.nydailynews.com/business/f5e947de518d4b555e742d49e817b403/cuba-approves-new-private-sector-jobs) brings the number of permitted activities in self-employment to 200 by legalizing real estate agents, home builders, auto body workers, et cetera. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

GDP comparison with Italy
> In the 1950s, Cuba's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was roughly equal to that of contemporary Italy

...referenced from "The Secret Fidel Castro." (apparently a self-published book, so not a reliable source) and from http://frontpagemagazine.com (not a bastion of impartiality).

So I tried to look in the historical GDP per capita tables and I can see no such thing. For instance, the Maddison Project (from University of Groningen) says:

GDP per capita: 1950 / 1952


 * Italy: $3,502 / $3,997
 * Cuba: $2,046 / $2,207

These figures aren't roughly equal, so I'll remove it. bogdan (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

added info
I added this:

In 2011, the economic reforms or nuevos lineamientos económicos "The new economic reforms were introduced, effectively creating a new economic system, referred by some as the "New Cuban Economy"  Since then, over 400 thousand Cubans have signed up to be entrepreneurs. As of 2012, the government lists 181 official jobs no longer under their control—such as taxi driver, construction worker, and shopkeeper. People may also purchase licenses to work as a mule driver, palm tree trimmer, well-digger, button coverer, and "dandy"&mdash;gentleman in traditional elegant white suit and hat. In effect, the economic system now operates much more like a capitalist system, however unlike a true capitalist system, it still maintains nationalized companies for the distribution of all essential amenities (water, power, ...), and other essential services to ensure a healthy population (i.e. free schooling, ...).

I hope that's OK KVDP (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Links
[]>> Cuba passes law to attract foreign investorsLihaas (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

GW/h
The electricity generation chart says it is measuring electricity generated in GW/h. The dimensions of those units are wrong. It's a bit like saying "I can run at 6 miles per hour squared." The chart should be removed unless someone can provide correct units.50.129.98.71 (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean?
I"n 2009, Cuba ranked 51st out of 182 with an HDI of 0.863; remarkably high considering its GDP per capita only places it 95th"-- ranked for what? It does n't say. 92.25.175.17 (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Introduction?
This articles introduction (before the table of contents) is too long. It spends two paragraphs concerning itself with describing Cuba's pre-revolution economy, which seems a little long as the article primarily should deal with modern day Cuba. It's too long, not to mention that starting the article with such a long description of how pre-revolution Cuba was better than modern day Cuba doesn't give the article a feeling of neutrality.

I agree. The reference to Cuba's pre-revolution economy having "grown dynamically" I also find unclear. It seems to be a direct quote from the PBS reference, but what does it mean? Steve.Murgaski (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Story with interesting details
This NPR story has some interesting details on current conditions, especially regarding housing stock and concerns about racial inequality. -- Beland (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

References to BBC programme, use of £
There are several references to a BBC 2012 documentary but the links to youtube are dead. Also, presumably from there are the referenes to £15 - aren't they misleading especially now the GBP has dropped in value. -- Beardo (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"Public facilities"
The section headed "Public facilities" just seems a random listing of things - I am not clear what that is for. -- Beardo (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Timeline
Hi everyone, I believe that a strong edition to this page could be a timeline between 1959-1963 which would outline the steps that were taken by the United States and Cuba having to do with economics. I think that this would allow readers a better understanding of how the economic history between the US and Cuba at the time had a huge impact on the diplomatic relations then and now. 140.103.59.168 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)make2018