my personal observations for $15 an hour minimum

[Concerned American]

..well, for a long time, many times when I go to the fast food place, they get a SIMPLE order wrong!!!!!
..I just went today and the clerk was an IDIOT!!!
--I waited a long time before they responded to me--and there were no other customers
--I said I wanted 2 burgers.....and then no answer...then he asked if I wanted something else-so I told him fries and a shake
--THEN he said ''just a minute'''
THEN he asked for the coupon code--and
--THEN he asked AGAIN what were extras I ordered
etc
--a complete IDIOT ..and they want the employers to be forced to pay more to IDIOTS????!!!! to do a SHITTY job!!!????

The cut and dried reason is that we have become a nation of burger flippers for burger flippers. The admin wants these people to have equity to buy burgers along with you. Trouble is, the big chains are the only ones to benefit. They raise their prices, the burger flippers maintain the status quo. We pay the higher prices as well which cuts down on the number of times we go out and the circle continues--nothing changes except the amount of taxes that the gov't collects both in income and sales taxes. But BBBBBiden sssays that ttttaxes wwwwon't gggo up for lllower and mmmiddle classes. SURE THEY WON'T. Democrats can't see beyond the end of their noses.

 

[Concerned American]

Michigan? Ohio? Care to throw in any other auto production states from the 70?
Management's failure to recognize the need for better quality and better economy opened the doors to Japan and Germany for high quality low cost cars. The US auto industry failed to respond (my god they were still putting 400cc+ engines in passenger cars) and when they did we ended up with cars like the Monza and, as a result, lost more than 50% of their business from 1975 to 1995.

Meanwhile management refused to shutdown and retool because they were busy squeezing that last turd out of the Buffalo.
BTW the same happened in western PA when the steel industry faded. Inefficient processes and high labor costs combined with management failure to address changes in the market destroyed the steel industry.

Note the common thread. Management failures. The union, faced with management bent on squeezing every nickel, fights on those terms. But the unions don't make decisions on retooling, locations, or the other factors that kill a business.

I'm reminded of a scene from Family guy.



Management greed.

And said management failures wouldn't persist as much if we didn't bail them out. When American automakers first failed to adapt to the market, we bailed them out. At this point, we've bailed them out multiple times over multiple decades.

If we had never bailed them out to begin with, these companies would have either been replaced by others or would have reorganized themselves to fit market needs. They still don't adapt very well precisely because we keep bailing them out. The same has happened with Wall Street. They keep taking massive risks, because they know the government has their back.

When you let industries rise and fall due to their own mistakes, you end up with better companies surviving the mess. That being said, government does sometimes have to intervene when monopolies or oligopolies develop.

They basically were replaced by other companies--Chrysler was sold to Daimler-Benz then became Fiat-Chrysler. GM became General Motors of China with China owning Hummer now and GM partnering with a Chinese corp. We bailed these parasites out and made them profitable only to be sold out from the US. I will never buy a Chrysler or GM product again.

 

[Dadoalex]

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

The difference between Venezuela and Sweden is 15 years of US sanctions.
Did you know that Venezuela provided low cost heating oil to low income US residents until blocked by US sanctions?
It's the same thing that's wrong with Cuba.

Socialism simply means pooling of public resources to achieve common goals.

The military is socialism.
Roads are socialism.
Police, fire, hospitals, all socialism.

That you don't agree with a specific goal doesn't make those proposing it "socialist" just as if their disagreement with a program you like doesn't make you a socialist.

Bailing the auto-industry out in 2008 was socialism, does that make Bush 43 a socialist?

Think of how much smaller our military would be if we quit telling other countries who their leaders should be.

Cuba's fate can't be blamed on us. Yes, we have sanctioned them several times and have refused to trade with them for decades, but most of the world still trades with them. They have no excuse for their failures but their own abusive governance.

Yes, Venezuela has been sanctioned by us, but they've also had an authoritarian government ever since Chavez took power. Maduro was even worse.

The biggest problems with Venezuela were that they didn't diversify their economy enough, and they scared off foreign investment when they started seizing private industries. After they started doing this to American owned businesses, we sanctioned them.

Socialism is an economic system where the government runs all production/industry. That is not the same as using the government to run certain public amenities. That is called socialization. They are similar but different in extent.

And you'll notice that even much of socialization still involves private industry. The government doesn't build roads. It hires contractors to build them. The military is run by the government, but a large portion of military activity involves contracted security. The government doesn't build military equipment and weapons, but it hires private companies to build them. The only hospitals you could describe as socialist in this country are the VA ones. They aren't exactly the highest quality ones either.

Bailing out the auto industry was actually worse than socialism. It was corporatism, because government didn't nationalize the auto industry and instead just threw public money at them, just like how we did with big banks. So, it makes both Bush and Obama corporatists, but that's the majority of both parties in general.

I do agree with keeping us out of most foreign affairs and shrinking the military, however.

You need to take the goggles of and relearn history.

Even the last few years after Obama lifted the travel ban and tourism in Cuba started to take off, Trump reimposed the ban.

 

[Utilitarian]

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

The difference between Venezuela and Sweden is 15 years of US sanctions.
Did you know that Venezuela provided low cost heating oil to low income US residents until blocked by US sanctions?
It's the same thing that's wrong with Cuba.

Socialism simply means pooling of public resources to achieve common goals.

The military is socialism.
Roads are socialism.
Police, fire, hospitals, all socialism.

That you don't agree with a specific goal doesn't make those proposing it "socialist" just as if their disagreement with a program you like doesn't make you a socialist.

Bailing the auto-industry out in 2008 was socialism, does that make Bush 43 a socialist?

Think of how much smaller our military would be if we quit telling other countries who their leaders should be.

Cuba's fate can't be blamed on us. Yes, we have sanctioned them several times and have refused to trade with them for decades, but most of the world still trades with them. They have no excuse for their failures but their own abusive governance.

Yes, Venezuela has been sanctioned by us, but they've also had an authoritarian government ever since Chavez took power. Maduro was even worse.

The biggest problems with Venezuela were that they didn't diversify their economy enough, and they scared off foreign investment when they started seizing private industries. After they started doing this to American owned businesses, we sanctioned them.

Socialism is an economic system where the government runs all production/industry. That is not the same as using the government to run certain public amenities. That is called socialization. They are similar but different in extent.

And you'll notice that even much of socialization still involves private industry. The government doesn't build roads. It hires contractors to build them. The military is run by the government, but a large portion of military activity involves contracted security. The government doesn't build military equipment and weapons, but it hires private companies to build them. The only hospitals you could describe as socialist in this country are the VA ones. They aren't exactly the highest quality ones either.

Bailing out the auto industry was actually worse than socialism. It was corporatism, because government didn't nationalize the auto industry and instead just threw public money at them, just like how we did with big banks. So, it makes both Bush and Obama corporatists, but that's the majority of both parties in general.

I do agree with keeping us out of most foreign affairs and shrinking the military, however.

You need to take the goggles of and relearn history.

Even the last few years after Obama lifted the travel ban and tourism in Cuba started to take off, Trump reimposed the ban.

And the travel ban has little to no effect on Cuba's economy, because, if an American wants to travel to Cuba, he/she can do it by flying into another country and then flying to Cuba. People do this in Canada and Mexico all the time.

Once again, for multiple decades, the majority of the world has traded with Cuba. Now, to be clear, I think the travel ban is pointless for this very reason. A ban on travel or trade is only effective if multiple major economies participate. The world is too big for a unilateral ban to have any significant effect.

 

[Likkmee]

I've gone there regularly since 1987 SHHHHHHHHHHHH !

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

First of all, most would agree the federal minimum wage needs to be more than $7.25 an hour. I don't care if you live in Santa Barbara, Boise or Pittsburgh. Now, generally speaking, $15 an hour is probably too much for entry-level kids counting chicken tenders at Wendy's or mowing lawns at the Holiday Inn.

So there has to be some middle-ground to go from -- something like $10 an hour for single under 30. For married with children over 30 maybe it should be $15, but there needs to be something better.

...my niece had not 1, not 2, NOT 3 but FOUR kids--with no father paying child support/etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet you're always talking shit about black people.

I certainly hope this isn't the niece you were comparing mine to.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Big corporation wants to raise prices on foods and etc... , so that their GMO/ cloned meats will not seem so high. The price to buy this lab-grown meats are very expensive to create. That the price for just one chicken nugget may cost around $15 per nugget. But if they raise the price on meats in the name of climate change. That one conventional chicken nugget will cost $18 because of the carbon credits that the ranchers have to purchase in order to stay in business. That it will make this GMO lab-grown meats prices inexpensive compared to conventional meats that was slapped with a carbon tax on top. But carbon friendly meats like lab-grown meats and synthetic plant-base meats are exempt from being taxed.
But the plant-base meats are for those that cannot afford to buy the lab-grown meats that cost a little less than conventional meats. But at times they will get tired of eating the plant-base meats and try to save up money or sell their bodies like sell an organ or two just to eats some lab-grown meats or conventional.

 

[Aletheia4u]

 

[danielpalos]

In my opinion, the minimum wage should be high enough to simplify the tax code. Better governance at lower cost should be one return to scale.

 

[Dadoalex]

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

The difference between Venezuela and Sweden is 15 years of US sanctions.
Did you know that Venezuela provided low cost heating oil to low income US residents until blocked by US sanctions?
It's the same thing that's wrong with Cuba.

Socialism simply means pooling of public resources to achieve common goals.

The military is socialism.
Roads are socialism.
Police, fire, hospitals, all socialism.

That you don't agree with a specific goal doesn't make those proposing it "socialist" just as if their disagreement with a program you like doesn't make you a socialist.

Bailing the auto-industry out in 2008 was socialism, does that make Bush 43 a socialist?

Think of how much smaller our military would be if we quit telling other countries who their leaders should be.

Cuba's fate can't be blamed on us. Yes, we have sanctioned them several times and have refused to trade with them for decades, but most of the world still trades with them. They have no excuse for their failures but their own abusive governance.

Yes, Venezuela has been sanctioned by us, but they've also had an authoritarian government ever since Chavez took power. Maduro was even worse.

The biggest problems with Venezuela were that they didn't diversify their economy enough, and they scared off foreign investment when they started seizing private industries. After they started doing this to American owned businesses, we sanctioned them.

Socialism is an economic system where the government runs all production/industry. That is not the same as using the government to run certain public amenities. That is called socialization. They are similar but different in extent.

And you'll notice that even much of socialization still involves private industry. The government doesn't build roads. It hires contractors to build them. The military is run by the government, but a large portion of military activity involves contracted security. The government doesn't build military equipment and weapons, but it hires private companies to build them. The only hospitals you could describe as socialist in this country are the VA ones. They aren't exactly the highest quality ones either.

Bailing out the auto industry was actually worse than socialism. It was corporatism, because government didn't nationalize the auto industry and instead just threw public money at them, just like how we did with big banks. So, it makes both Bush and Obama corporatists, but that's the majority of both parties in general.

I do agree with keeping us out of most foreign affairs and shrinking the military, however.

You need to take the goggles of and relearn history.

Even the last few years after Obama lifted the travel ban and tourism in Cuba started to take off, Trump reimposed the ban.

And the travel ban has little to no effect on Cuba's economy, because, if an American wants to travel to Cuba, he/she can do it by flying into another country and then flying to Cuba. People do this in Canada and Mexico all the time.

Once again, for multiple decades, the majority of the world has traded with Cuba. Now, to be clear, I think the travel ban is pointless for this very reason. A ban on travel or trade is only effective if multiple major economies participate. The world is too big for a unilateral ban to have any significant effect.

Such trips are still illegal.
And "little effect?"
Before the embargoes Tourism WAS Cuba's economy.

 

[Utilitarian]

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

The difference between Venezuela and Sweden is 15 years of US sanctions.
Did you know that Venezuela provided low cost heating oil to low income US residents until blocked by US sanctions?
It's the same thing that's wrong with Cuba.

Socialism simply means pooling of public resources to achieve common goals.

The military is socialism.
Roads are socialism.
Police, fire, hospitals, all socialism.

That you don't agree with a specific goal doesn't make those proposing it "socialist" just as if their disagreement with a program you like doesn't make you a socialist.

Bailing the auto-industry out in 2008 was socialism, does that make Bush 43 a socialist?

Think of how much smaller our military would be if we quit telling other countries who their leaders should be.

Cuba's fate can't be blamed on us. Yes, we have sanctioned them several times and have refused to trade with them for decades, but most of the world still trades with them. They have no excuse for their failures but their own abusive governance.

Yes, Venezuela has been sanctioned by us, but they've also had an authoritarian government ever since Chavez took power. Maduro was even worse.

The biggest problems with Venezuela were that they didn't diversify their economy enough, and they scared off foreign investment when they started seizing private industries. After they started doing this to American owned businesses, we sanctioned them.

Socialism is an economic system where the government runs all production/industry. That is not the same as using the government to run certain public amenities. That is called socialization. They are similar but different in extent.

And you'll notice that even much of socialization still involves private industry. The government doesn't build roads. It hires contractors to build them. The military is run by the government, but a large portion of military activity involves contracted security. The government doesn't build military equipment and weapons, but it hires private companies to build them. The only hospitals you could describe as socialist in this country are the VA ones. They aren't exactly the highest quality ones either.

Bailing out the auto industry was actually worse than socialism. It was corporatism, because government didn't nationalize the auto industry and instead just threw public money at them, just like how we did with big banks. So, it makes both Bush and Obama corporatists, but that's the majority of both parties in general.

I do agree with keeping us out of most foreign affairs and shrinking the military, however.

You need to take the goggles of and relearn history.

Even the last few years after Obama lifted the travel ban and tourism in Cuba started to take off, Trump reimposed the ban.

And the travel ban has little to no effect on Cuba's economy, because, if an American wants to travel to Cuba, he/she can do it by flying into another country and then flying to Cuba. People do this in Canada and Mexico all the time.

Once again, for multiple decades, the majority of the world has traded with Cuba. Now, to be clear, I think the travel ban is pointless for this very reason. A ban on travel or trade is only effective if multiple major economies participate. The world is too big for a unilateral ban to have any significant effect.

Such trips are still illegal.
And "little effect?"
Before the embargoes Tourism WAS Cuba's economy.

Most research has shown that the Cuban embargo forces us to lose more money than it does Cuba. Cuba can do all of the trade it needs to do with various other nations. All it really does is keep American companies from being able to do business with them. We're leaving money on the table, basically.

In the meantime, China and various other countries have picked up the slack.

The real reason for Cuba's stagnation has to do with its corrupt government. Cuba isn't exactly the freest market to do business in, and the legal environment isn't the safest for a foreign investor or foreign company. It's a bit like doing business in a banana republic.

The Corruption Perceptions Index isn't exactly flattering in its assessment of Cuba, for example: Corruption Perceptions Index - Wikipedia

Cuba's ranking is worse than Greece but better than South Africa.

 

[dblack]

In my opinion, the minimum wage should be high enough to simplify the tax code. Better governance at lower cost should be one return to scale.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments. How typical of the Right-Wing.

 

[Dadoalex]

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

The difference between Venezuela and Sweden is 15 years of US sanctions.
Did you know that Venezuela provided low cost heating oil to low income US residents until blocked by US sanctions?
It's the same thing that's wrong with Cuba.

Socialism simply means pooling of public resources to achieve common goals.

The military is socialism.
Roads are socialism.
Police, fire, hospitals, all socialism.

That you don't agree with a specific goal doesn't make those proposing it "socialist" just as if their disagreement with a program you like doesn't make you a socialist.

Bailing the auto-industry out in 2008 was socialism, does that make Bush 43 a socialist?

Think of how much smaller our military would be if we quit telling other countries who their leaders should be.

Cuba's fate can't be blamed on us. Yes, we have sanctioned them several times and have refused to trade with them for decades, but most of the world still trades with them. They have no excuse for their failures but their own abusive governance.

Yes, Venezuela has been sanctioned by us, but they've also had an authoritarian government ever since Chavez took power. Maduro was even worse.

The biggest problems with Venezuela were that they didn't diversify their economy enough, and they scared off foreign investment when they started seizing private industries. After they started doing this to American owned businesses, we sanctioned them.

Socialism is an economic system where the government runs all production/industry. That is not the same as using the government to run certain public amenities. That is called socialization. They are similar but different in extent.

And you'll notice that even much of socialization still involves private industry. The government doesn't build roads. It hires contractors to build them. The military is run by the government, but a large portion of military activity involves contracted security. The government doesn't build military equipment and weapons, but it hires private companies to build them. The only hospitals you could describe as socialist in this country are the VA ones. They aren't exactly the highest quality ones either.

Bailing out the auto industry was actually worse than socialism. It was corporatism, because government didn't nationalize the auto industry and instead just threw public money at them, just like how we did with big banks. So, it makes both Bush and Obama corporatists, but that's the majority of both parties in general.

I do agree with keeping us out of most foreign affairs and shrinking the military, however.

You need to take the goggles of and relearn history.

Even the last few years after Obama lifted the travel ban and tourism in Cuba started to take off, Trump reimposed the ban.

And the travel ban has little to no effect on Cuba's economy, because, if an American wants to travel to Cuba, he/she can do it by flying into another country and then flying to Cuba. People do this in Canada and Mexico all the time.

Once again, for multiple decades, the majority of the world has traded with Cuba. Now, to be clear, I think the travel ban is pointless for this very reason. A ban on travel or trade is only effective if multiple major economies participate. The world is too big for a unilateral ban to have any significant effect.

Such trips are still illegal.
And "little effect?"
Before the embargoes Tourism WAS Cuba's economy.

Most research has shown that the Cuban embargo forces us to lose more money than it does Cuba. Cuba can do all of the trade it needs to do with various other nations. All it really does is keep American companies from being able to do business with them. We're leaving money on the table, basically.

In the meantime, China and various other countries have picked up the slack.

The real reason for Cuba's stagnation has to do with its corrupt government. Cuba isn't exactly the freest market to do business in, and the legal environment isn't the safest for a foreign investor or foreign company. It's a bit like doing business in a banana republic.

The Corruption Perceptions Index isn't exactly flattering in its assessment of Cuba, for example: Corruption Perceptions Index - Wikipedia

Cuba's ranking is worse than Greece but better than South Africa.

And all that means NOTHING.

Cuba's per capita GDP is about 1/8 of the US.

For the math confused an action the US takes that impacts the US relative to Cuba is magnified 8x in Cuba.

Didja notice that Cuba is no longer a hot tourist destination?

BUUUUUT

What now? Raul stepped down, Fidel is dead? Who do we castigate to justify this continued abuse of a poor country by the rivhest country in the world.

Oh what a dilemma?!?!?!?
Oh who oh who do we hate now?
Why didn't we plan for this and have a bad guy standing by!

Now the truth about the embargo:
1. Cuba nationalized the countries tourist industry and sugar industry
2. Even over 65 years later the greedy casino owners and plantation "owners" demand the return of "their property."
3. To get US government backing they initiated a propaganda campaign against cuba and Castro
4. The US govt, always a sucker for a good anti-commie propaganda pitch buys the sell and embargoes.
5. The Cuban government has offered on many occasions to take the dispute to the World court which the US has refused.
6. Anti-cuba/castro has simply become a kneejerk response of Republicans.

 

[Utilitarian]

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

The difference between Venezuela and Sweden is 15 years of US sanctions.
Did you know that Venezuela provided low cost heating oil to low income US residents until blocked by US sanctions?
It's the same thing that's wrong with Cuba.

Socialism simply means pooling of public resources to achieve common goals.

The military is socialism.
Roads are socialism.
Police, fire, hospitals, all socialism.

That you don't agree with a specific goal doesn't make those proposing it "socialist" just as if their disagreement with a program you like doesn't make you a socialist.

Bailing the auto-industry out in 2008 was socialism, does that make Bush 43 a socialist?

Think of how much smaller our military would be if we quit telling other countries who their leaders should be.

Cuba's fate can't be blamed on us. Yes, we have sanctioned them several times and have refused to trade with them for decades, but most of the world still trades with them. They have no excuse for their failures but their own abusive governance.

Yes, Venezuela has been sanctioned by us, but they've also had an authoritarian government ever since Chavez took power. Maduro was even worse.

The biggest problems with Venezuela were that they didn't diversify their economy enough, and they scared off foreign investment when they started seizing private industries. After they started doing this to American owned businesses, we sanctioned them.

Socialism is an economic system where the government runs all production/industry. That is not the same as using the government to run certain public amenities. That is called socialization. They are similar but different in extent.

And you'll notice that even much of socialization still involves private industry. The government doesn't build roads. It hires contractors to build them. The military is run by the government, but a large portion of military activity involves contracted security. The government doesn't build military equipment and weapons, but it hires private companies to build them. The only hospitals you could describe as socialist in this country are the VA ones. They aren't exactly the highest quality ones either.

Bailing out the auto industry was actually worse than socialism. It was corporatism, because government didn't nationalize the auto industry and instead just threw public money at them, just like how we did with big banks. So, it makes both Bush and Obama corporatists, but that's the majority of both parties in general.

I do agree with keeping us out of most foreign affairs and shrinking the military, however.

You need to take the goggles of and relearn history.

Even the last few years after Obama lifted the travel ban and tourism in Cuba started to take off, Trump reimposed the ban.

And the travel ban has little to no effect on Cuba's economy, because, if an American wants to travel to Cuba, he/she can do it by flying into another country and then flying to Cuba. People do this in Canada and Mexico all the time.

Once again, for multiple decades, the majority of the world has traded with Cuba. Now, to be clear, I think the travel ban is pointless for this very reason. A ban on travel or trade is only effective if multiple major economies participate. The world is too big for a unilateral ban to have any significant effect.

Such trips are still illegal.
And "little effect?"
Before the embargoes Tourism WAS Cuba's economy.

Most research has shown that the Cuban embargo forces us to lose more money than it does Cuba. Cuba can do all of the trade it needs to do with various other nations. All it really does is keep American companies from being able to do business with them. We're leaving money on the table, basically.

In the meantime, China and various other countries have picked up the slack.

The real reason for Cuba's stagnation has to do with its corrupt government. Cuba isn't exactly the freest market to do business in, and the legal environment isn't the safest for a foreign investor or foreign company. It's a bit like doing business in a banana republic.

The Corruption Perceptions Index isn't exactly flattering in its assessment of Cuba, for example: Corruption Perceptions Index - Wikipedia

Cuba's ranking is worse than Greece but better than South Africa.

And all that means NOTHING.

Cuba's per capita GDP is about 1/8 of the US.

For the math confused an action the US takes that impacts the US relative to Cuba is magnified 8x in Cuba.

Didja notice that Cuba is no longer a hot tourist destination?

BUUUUUT

What now? Raul stepped down, Fidel is dead? Who do we castigate to justify this continued abuse of a poor country by the rivhest country in the world.

Oh what a dilemma?!?!?!?
Oh who oh who do we hate now?
Why didn't we plan for this and have a bad guy standing by!

Now the truth about the embargo:
1. Cuba nationalized the countries tourist industry and sugar industry
2. Even over 65 years later the greedy casino owners and plantation "owners" demand the return of "their property."
3. To get US government backing they initiated a propaganda campaign against cuba and Castro
4. The US govt, always a sucker for a good anti-commie propaganda pitch buys the sell and embargoes.
5. The Cuban government has offered on many occasions to take the dispute to the World court which the US has refused.
6. Anti-cuba/castro has simply become a kneejerk response of Republicans.

And you're just going to gloss over the authoritarian actions of Castro's regime, I see.

I'm not saying that the embargo is a practical or even worthwhile endeavor, but I don't exactly feel sympathy for them either. You seem uninformed about how the trade they have with the rest of the world negates most effects of the embargo as well.

I do agree that we should have had a plan in place to capitalize on their instability, however. It's not about hate. It's about profit. Now, it's not money being made for you or me, but there are occasionally side benefits for us, like cheap goods from these shithole countries. I can't say that I mind that.

 

[Dadoalex]

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

The difference between Venezuela and Sweden is 15 years of US sanctions.
Did you know that Venezuela provided low cost heating oil to low income US residents until blocked by US sanctions?
It's the same thing that's wrong with Cuba.

Socialism simply means pooling of public resources to achieve common goals.

The military is socialism.
Roads are socialism.
Police, fire, hospitals, all socialism.

That you don't agree with a specific goal doesn't make those proposing it "socialist" just as if their disagreement with a program you like doesn't make you a socialist.

Bailing the auto-industry out in 2008 was socialism, does that make Bush 43 a socialist?

Think of how much smaller our military would be if we quit telling other countries who their leaders should be.

Cuba's fate can't be blamed on us. Yes, we have sanctioned them several times and have refused to trade with them for decades, but most of the world still trades with them. They have no excuse for their failures but their own abusive governance.

Yes, Venezuela has been sanctioned by us, but they've also had an authoritarian government ever since Chavez took power. Maduro was even worse.

The biggest problems with Venezuela were that they didn't diversify their economy enough, and they scared off foreign investment when they started seizing private industries. After they started doing this to American owned businesses, we sanctioned them.

Socialism is an economic system where the government runs all production/industry. That is not the same as using the government to run certain public amenities. That is called socialization. They are similar but different in extent.

And you'll notice that even much of socialization still involves private industry. The government doesn't build roads. It hires contractors to build them. The military is run by the government, but a large portion of military activity involves contracted security. The government doesn't build military equipment and weapons, but it hires private companies to build them. The only hospitals you could describe as socialist in this country are the VA ones. They aren't exactly the highest quality ones either.

Bailing out the auto industry was actually worse than socialism. It was corporatism, because government didn't nationalize the auto industry and instead just threw public money at them, just like how we did with big banks. So, it makes both Bush and Obama corporatists, but that's the majority of both parties in general.

I do agree with keeping us out of most foreign affairs and shrinking the military, however.

You need to take the goggles of and relearn history.

Even the last few years after Obama lifted the travel ban and tourism in Cuba started to take off, Trump reimposed the ban.

And the travel ban has little to no effect on Cuba's economy, because, if an American wants to travel to Cuba, he/she can do it by flying into another country and then flying to Cuba. People do this in Canada and Mexico all the time.

Once again, for multiple decades, the majority of the world has traded with Cuba. Now, to be clear, I think the travel ban is pointless for this very reason. A ban on travel or trade is only effective if multiple major economies participate. The world is too big for a unilateral ban to have any significant effect.

Such trips are still illegal.
And "little effect?"
Before the embargoes Tourism WAS Cuba's economy.

Most research has shown that the Cuban embargo forces us to lose more money than it does Cuba. Cuba can do all of the trade it needs to do with various other nations. All it really does is keep American companies from being able to do business with them. We're leaving money on the table, basically.

In the meantime, China and various other countries have picked up the slack.

The real reason for Cuba's stagnation has to do with its corrupt government. Cuba isn't exactly the freest market to do business in, and the legal environment isn't the safest for a foreign investor or foreign company. It's a bit like doing business in a banana republic.

The Corruption Perceptions Index isn't exactly flattering in its assessment of Cuba, for example: Corruption Perceptions Index - Wikipedia

Cuba's ranking is worse than Greece but better than South Africa.

And all that means NOTHING.

Cuba's per capita GDP is about 1/8 of the US.

For the math confused an action the US takes that impacts the US relative to Cuba is magnified 8x in Cuba.

Didja notice that Cuba is no longer a hot tourist destination?

BUUUUUT

What now? Raul stepped down, Fidel is dead? Who do we castigate to justify this continued abuse of a poor country by the rivhest country in the world.

Oh what a dilemma?!?!?!?
Oh who oh who do we hate now?
Why didn't we plan for this and have a bad guy standing by!

Now the truth about the embargo:
1. Cuba nationalized the countries tourist industry and sugar industry
2. Even over 65 years later the greedy casino owners and plantation "owners" demand the return of "their property."
3. To get US government backing they initiated a propaganda campaign against cuba and Castro
4. The US govt, always a sucker for a good anti-commie propaganda pitch buys the sell and embargoes.
5. The Cuban government has offered on many occasions to take the dispute to the World court which the US has refused.
6. Anti-cuba/castro has simply become a kneejerk response of Republicans.

And you're just going to gloss over the authoritarian actions of Castro's regime, I see.

I'm not saying that the embargo is a practical or even worthwhile endeavor, but I don't exactly feel sympathy for them either. You seem uninformed about how the trade they have with the rest of the world negates most effects of the embargo as well.

I do agree that we should have had a plan in place to capitalize on their instability, however. It's not about hate. It's about profit. Now, it's not money being made for you or me, but there are occasionally side benefits for us, like cheap goods from these shithole countries. I can't say that I mind that.

Gloss over?
That is hilarious coming from people who just tried and failed to install their own tin-horn dictator.

Perhaps you should remind yourself of the US founding documents: Remember this

"... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ... "

No, that's not the Communist Manifesto, that's the Declaration of Independence.

It's not the right of the US, nor you nor anyone other than the Cuban people to decide who and how they will be governed.
Now go back over the last 75 years of US history and imagine a world where the US honored its own principles.

 

[Utilitarian]

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

The difference between Venezuela and Sweden is 15 years of US sanctions.
Did you know that Venezuela provided low cost heating oil to low income US residents until blocked by US sanctions?
It's the same thing that's wrong with Cuba.

Socialism simply means pooling of public resources to achieve common goals.

The military is socialism.
Roads are socialism.
Police, fire, hospitals, all socialism.

That you don't agree with a specific goal doesn't make those proposing it "socialist" just as if their disagreement with a program you like doesn't make you a socialist.

Bailing the auto-industry out in 2008 was socialism, does that make Bush 43 a socialist?

Think of how much smaller our military would be if we quit telling other countries who their leaders should be.

Cuba's fate can't be blamed on us. Yes, we have sanctioned them several times and have refused to trade with them for decades, but most of the world still trades with them. They have no excuse for their failures but their own abusive governance.

Yes, Venezuela has been sanctioned by us, but they've also had an authoritarian government ever since Chavez took power. Maduro was even worse.

The biggest problems with Venezuela were that they didn't diversify their economy enough, and they scared off foreign investment when they started seizing private industries. After they started doing this to American owned businesses, we sanctioned them.

Socialism is an economic system where the government runs all production/industry. That is not the same as using the government to run certain public amenities. That is called socialization. They are similar but different in extent.

And you'll notice that even much of socialization still involves private industry. The government doesn't build roads. It hires contractors to build them. The military is run by the government, but a large portion of military activity involves contracted security. The government doesn't build military equipment and weapons, but it hires private companies to build them. The only hospitals you could describe as socialist in this country are the VA ones. They aren't exactly the highest quality ones either.

Bailing out the auto industry was actually worse than socialism. It was corporatism, because government didn't nationalize the auto industry and instead just threw public money at them, just like how we did with big banks. So, it makes both Bush and Obama corporatists, but that's the majority of both parties in general.

I do agree with keeping us out of most foreign affairs and shrinking the military, however.

You need to take the goggles of and relearn history.

Even the last few years after Obama lifted the travel ban and tourism in Cuba started to take off, Trump reimposed the ban.

And the travel ban has little to no effect on Cuba's economy, because, if an American wants to travel to Cuba, he/she can do it by flying into another country and then flying to Cuba. People do this in Canada and Mexico all the time.

Once again, for multiple decades, the majority of the world has traded with Cuba. Now, to be clear, I think the travel ban is pointless for this very reason. A ban on travel or trade is only effective if multiple major economies participate. The world is too big for a unilateral ban to have any significant effect.

Such trips are still illegal.
And "little effect?"
Before the embargoes Tourism WAS Cuba's economy.

Most research has shown that the Cuban embargo forces us to lose more money than it does Cuba. Cuba can do all of the trade it needs to do with various other nations. All it really does is keep American companies from being able to do business with them. We're leaving money on the table, basically.

In the meantime, China and various other countries have picked up the slack.

The real reason for Cuba's stagnation has to do with its corrupt government. Cuba isn't exactly the freest market to do business in, and the legal environment isn't the safest for a foreign investor or foreign company. It's a bit like doing business in a banana republic.

The Corruption Perceptions Index isn't exactly flattering in its assessment of Cuba, for example: Corruption Perceptions Index - Wikipedia

Cuba's ranking is worse than Greece but better than South Africa.

And all that means NOTHING.

Cuba's per capita GDP is about 1/8 of the US.

For the math confused an action the US takes that impacts the US relative to Cuba is magnified 8x in Cuba.

Didja notice that Cuba is no longer a hot tourist destination?

BUUUUUT

What now? Raul stepped down, Fidel is dead? Who do we castigate to justify this continued abuse of a poor country by the rivhest country in the world.

Oh what a dilemma?!?!?!?
Oh who oh who do we hate now?
Why didn't we plan for this and have a bad guy standing by!

Now the truth about the embargo:
1. Cuba nationalized the countries tourist industry and sugar industry
2. Even over 65 years later the greedy casino owners and plantation "owners" demand the return of "their property."
3. To get US government backing they initiated a propaganda campaign against cuba and Castro
4. The US govt, always a sucker for a good anti-commie propaganda pitch buys the sell and embargoes.
5. The Cuban government has offered on many occasions to take the dispute to the World court which the US has refused.
6. Anti-cuba/castro has simply become a kneejerk response of Republicans.

And you're just going to gloss over the authoritarian actions of Castro's regime, I see.

I'm not saying that the embargo is a practical or even worthwhile endeavor, but I don't exactly feel sympathy for them either. You seem uninformed about how the trade they have with the rest of the world negates most effects of the embargo as well.

I do agree that we should have had a plan in place to capitalize on their instability, however. It's not about hate. It's about profit. Now, it's not money being made for you or me, but there are occasionally side benefits for us, like cheap goods from these shithole countries. I can't say that I mind that.

Gloss over?
That is hilarious coming from people who just tried and failed to install their own tin-horn dictator.

Perhaps you should remind yourself of the US founding documents: Remember this

"... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ... "

No, that's not the Communist Manifesto, that's the Declaration of Independence.

It's not the right of the US, nor you nor anyone other than the Cuban people to decide who and how they will be governed.
Now go back over the last 75 years of US history and imagine a world where the US honored its own principles.

I agree that we should be less interventionist overall. And yes, it would have helped us keep the government smaller as well.

As far as what the rights of other people are, that's ultimately dependent on having the force to protect said rights. Conceptually, Cubans have the right to determine their own governance. In reality, they live under an authoritarian regime, so they don't exactly have the same level of freedoms we have. It's why the "self-governance" argument falls flat in the context of Cuba. It would be like suggesting the Chinese have the right to self-governance. They don't. The CCP runs the show and will eliminate any significant competition or opposition.

Now, if you want to talk about what we did to Chile or Iran, that's more relevant. We subverted actual democratic governments in both of those cases and replaced them with US-friendly dictators. In the case of Cuba, they already have a dictatorship that rose to power with the help of the Soviets. We actually were on decent terms with Castro in the beginning, but when he started seizing property there owned by American investors (among many other foreign investors), our enmity began. It's quite similar to how things escalated between us and Venezuela.

Should we meddle in Cuba? I don't see much reason to do so. Should we trade with Cuba? Maybe, although whether we do or not has little effect on their economy and actually has more relevance to our own economy in terms of the potential money to be made. Cuba's consumption is limited, whereas our productive capacity isn't fully tapped.

 

[Dadoalex]

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

The difference between Venezuela and Sweden is 15 years of US sanctions.
Did you know that Venezuela provided low cost heating oil to low income US residents until blocked by US sanctions?
It's the same thing that's wrong with Cuba.

Socialism simply means pooling of public resources to achieve common goals.

The military is socialism.
Roads are socialism.
Police, fire, hospitals, all socialism.

That you don't agree with a specific goal doesn't make those proposing it "socialist" just as if their disagreement with a program you like doesn't make you a socialist.

Bailing the auto-industry out in 2008 was socialism, does that make Bush 43 a socialist?

Think of how much smaller our military would be if we quit telling other countries who their leaders should be.

Cuba's fate can't be blamed on us. Yes, we have sanctioned them several times and have refused to trade with them for decades, but most of the world still trades with them. They have no excuse for their failures but their own abusive governance.

Yes, Venezuela has been sanctioned by us, but they've also had an authoritarian government ever since Chavez took power. Maduro was even worse.

The biggest problems with Venezuela were that they didn't diversify their economy enough, and they scared off foreign investment when they started seizing private industries. After they started doing this to American owned businesses, we sanctioned them.

Socialism is an economic system where the government runs all production/industry. That is not the same as using the government to run certain public amenities. That is called socialization. They are similar but different in extent.

And you'll notice that even much of socialization still involves private industry. The government doesn't build roads. It hires contractors to build them. The military is run by the government, but a large portion of military activity involves contracted security. The government doesn't build military equipment and weapons, but it hires private companies to build them. The only hospitals you could describe as socialist in this country are the VA ones. They aren't exactly the highest quality ones either.

Bailing out the auto industry was actually worse than socialism. It was corporatism, because government didn't nationalize the auto industry and instead just threw public money at them, just like how we did with big banks. So, it makes both Bush and Obama corporatists, but that's the majority of both parties in general.

I do agree with keeping us out of most foreign affairs and shrinking the military, however.

You need to take the goggles of and relearn history.

Even the last few years after Obama lifted the travel ban and tourism in Cuba started to take off, Trump reimposed the ban.

And the travel ban has little to no effect on Cuba's economy, because, if an American wants to travel to Cuba, he/she can do it by flying into another country and then flying to Cuba. People do this in Canada and Mexico all the time.

Once again, for multiple decades, the majority of the world has traded with Cuba. Now, to be clear, I think the travel ban is pointless for this very reason. A ban on travel or trade is only effective if multiple major economies participate. The world is too big for a unilateral ban to have any significant effect.

Such trips are still illegal.
And "little effect?"
Before the embargoes Tourism WAS Cuba's economy.

Most research has shown that the Cuban embargo forces us to lose more money than it does Cuba. Cuba can do all of the trade it needs to do with various other nations. All it really does is keep American companies from being able to do business with them. We're leaving money on the table, basically.

In the meantime, China and various other countries have picked up the slack.

The real reason for Cuba's stagnation has to do with its corrupt government. Cuba isn't exactly the freest market to do business in, and the legal environment isn't the safest for a foreign investor or foreign company. It's a bit like doing business in a banana republic.

The Corruption Perceptions Index isn't exactly flattering in its assessment of Cuba, for example: Corruption Perceptions Index - Wikipedia

Cuba's ranking is worse than Greece but better than South Africa.

And all that means NOTHING.

Cuba's per capita GDP is about 1/8 of the US.

For the math confused an action the US takes that impacts the US relative to Cuba is magnified 8x in Cuba.

Didja notice that Cuba is no longer a hot tourist destination?

BUUUUUT

What now? Raul stepped down, Fidel is dead? Who do we castigate to justify this continued abuse of a poor country by the rivhest country in the world.

Oh what a dilemma?!?!?!?
Oh who oh who do we hate now?
Why didn't we plan for this and have a bad guy standing by!

Now the truth about the embargo:
1. Cuba nationalized the countries tourist industry and sugar industry
2. Even over 65 years later the greedy casino owners and plantation "owners" demand the return of "their property."
3. To get US government backing they initiated a propaganda campaign against cuba and Castro
4. The US govt, always a sucker for a good anti-commie propaganda pitch buys the sell and embargoes.
5. The Cuban government has offered on many occasions to take the dispute to the World court which the US has refused.
6. Anti-cuba/castro has simply become a kneejerk response of Republicans.

And you're just going to gloss over the authoritarian actions of Castro's regime, I see.

I'm not saying that the embargo is a practical or even worthwhile endeavor, but I don't exactly feel sympathy for them either. You seem uninformed about how the trade they have with the rest of the world negates most effects of the embargo as well.

I do agree that we should have had a plan in place to capitalize on their instability, however. It's not about hate. It's about profit. Now, it's not money being made for you or me, but there are occasionally side benefits for us, like cheap goods from these shithole countries. I can't say that I mind that.

Gloss over?
That is hilarious coming from people who just tried and failed to install their own tin-horn dictator.

Perhaps you should remind yourself of the US founding documents: Remember this

"... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ... "

No, that's not the Communist Manifesto, that's the Declaration of Independence.

It's not the right of the US, nor you nor anyone other than the Cuban people to decide who and how they will be governed.
Now go back over the last 75 years of US history and imagine a world where the US honored its own principles.

I agree that we should be less interventionist overall. And yes, it would have helped us keep the government smaller as well.

As far as what the rights of other people are, that's ultimately dependent on having the force to protect said rights. Conceptually, Cubans have the right to determine their own governance. In reality, they live under an authoritarian regime, so they don't exactly have the same level of freedoms we have. It's why the "self-governance" argument falls flat in the context of Cuba. It would be like suggesting the Chinese have the right to self-governance. They don't. The CCP runs the show and will eliminate any significant competition or opposition.

Now, if you want to talk about what we did to Chile or Iran, that's more relevant. We subverted actual democratic governments in both of those cases and replaced them with US-friendly dictators. In the case of Cuba, they already have a dictatorship that rose to power with the help of the Soviets. We actually were on decent terms with Castro in the beginning, but when he started seizing property there owned by American investors (among many other foreign investors), our enmity began. It's quite similar to how things escalated between us and Venezuela.

Should we meddle in Cuba? I don't see much reason to do so. Should we trade with Cuba? Maybe, although whether we do or not has little effect on their economy and actually has more relevance to our own economy in terms of the potential money to be made. Cuba's consumption is limited, whereas our productive capacity isn't fully tapped.

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

 

[Who_Me?]

I'm all for a $15 minimum. I know that caregivers at nursing homes and assisted living centers are not making a decent living and they are doing incredible work. I look at them and hope for a living wage for them.

The economy will right size itself. If the consumer is willing to pay for the value proposition, then $15 will fly. If a McDonald's hamburger, fries, and a Coke goes up to $20 then the consumer may not be willing to pay and McDonalds will automate in order to reduce the product cost.

 

[Utilitarian]

The US "liberated" Cuba then proceeded to support a series of brutal dictators each worse than the last until THE PEOPLE decided it was through. Not the US, not the Soviet Union, the people of Cuba.

What part of this is not sinking in?

A factoid no "conservative" will admit.
It was not bombs and soldiers that bought down the Soviet Union.
It was Big Macs, Levis, and Walkmans.
Our embargoes have not worked ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
You want to destroy the CCP? Capitalism
You want to bring down Cuba's govt? Capitalism

Not bombs, not spies, capitalism.
Give the Cuban people cars, iphones, and Taco Bell.

Castro did have public support, but he was also a pawn of the Soviets. This is no different from how his predecessor was a pawn of ours. That should "sink in" for you.

The embargo against South Africa was actually quite successful in ending apartheid. It's just one of many successful ones.

But again, I already mentioned in a previous post that our embargo with Cuba isn't very useful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with me on this now. You should also now understand why I mentioned that it had little to no effect on Cuba's economy in the long run. What has truly held them back is the corruption of their government, which, by the way, was the same thing holding back the Soviets.

You could say that capitalism did effectively expedite the fall of the USSR, but the fall itself was coming anyway. Their system was not sustainable and was extremely corrupt. Unfortunately, Russia's current system suffers from the same corruption despite being capitalistic, but it is able to survive due to the fact that capitalism is more resilient than socialism.

In China, something similar happened. When we opened trade with China in 1970, that allowed them to rapidly advance economically, but it did not change the fact that the CCP ran things. Even today, all foreign companies that operate in China have CCP councils that wield some power over the decisions of these companies.

As for Cuba, us trading with them may have some effects of weakening the current regime, but like in China and Russia, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it would reduce their corruption.