May 18, 2006
Response on Moving Left in Latin America-BECKER
A few points in response to many comments on the important subject of the movement left in Latin American governments.
As the statistics provided by someone indicates, Cuba has done very badly since Castro took over. My favorite comparison is between Cuba and Taiwan. These two islands had about equal per capita incomes in 1960 and some similarity in exports. Yet now Taiwan's per capita income is many times that of Cuba's.
A couple of you attributed that to the economic isolation of Cuba by the United States. That may have hurt Cuba somewhat, but for many years it was offset by very generous support from the Soviet Union. Of course, Cuba is not an isolated example-no communist country performed well, either in its economy or in the freedoms of its people.
Let me add that have opposed the American boycott of Cuba. It provides an excuse to supporters of Castro for the economic failures. It is also a bad policy because boycotts are not very successful, and to the extent this one has succeeded, it has hurt the Cuban people.
On Venezuela, of course its GDP is doing well with the very high price of oil-so is the Russian economy, Saudi Arabia's, the Iranian economy, etc. The test will be how Venezuela does when the price of oil falls. I predict that it will do very badly indeed.
I oppose American interference in the crops that can be grown in Bolivia or anywhere else- as I explained in an earlier post on the war on drugs. But that is not the major cause of the problems in the Bolivian economy.
Someone asked about whether any countries in the region introduced significant reforms in their economies. I would mention not only Chile, but also Mexico and Brazil, two very important nations, as well as various Central American economies, and a few others. Most of the reforms have not gone far enough, and the reforms were not always efficiently done, but there were major reforms. The substantial but far from complete reforms in Brazil in my judgment explains why Lula has followed rather market oriented and "conservative" policies.
Posted by Gary Becker at 08:16 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1209
Comments
Do you think that a country,in faith of socialism ,cannot run well?
Thanks for your answering.
Posted by raikkonen at May 19, 2006 04:43 AM | direct link
Boycotts and embargoes rarely ever precipitate desired revolutions or regime changes. Most of these upheavals are the result of the middle class taking on the elites, and if the middle class is decimated, as they always are by sanctions and embargoes, then there cannot be an overthrow. The embargo on Iraq explains why Saddam was able to stay in power until the 2003 invasion.
Posted by Larry Horse at May 20, 2006 03:41 AM | direct link
It's difficult to say precisely in terms of faith. People can say something in one way while act differently, and yet think the total opposite. If we cannot define the problem, we don't want to explore it as in the case of 'faith'.
As for boycotts, I agree with the first sentence of the previous comment. However, I would like to argue the reason is that boycotts arouse nationalism and human hatreds. That is: the political and spiritual significances offset those economic ones and produce the exact opposite result.
Posted by softmodes at May 20, 2006 09:43 AM | direct link
There is a line in the sand, one if either for free trade, or third world poverty. There is no middle ground. Nowhere is this better expressed in our unbelievably stupid Cuba policy. In the history of the world, every single time a nation has opened up trade with their adversary, the differences have disappeared.
Look at Holland and England in the 17th century . Holland, the free traders, are locked in a war with England; and keep kicking ass. England says, F__ this, hires Holland's ruler to be king of England. Trade opens, boom! Differences disappear.
What should we have done with Cuba? Open the border, sell them our stuff! Trade with the enemy? Of course!
Posted by Collestro at May 20, 2006 10:49 PM | direct link
Gosh, I wish there was a grammer checker.
One is either for free trade or for third-world poverty. Isn't that better?
Posted by Collestro at May 20, 2006 10:51 PM | direct link
Posted by dfgdvbvchbv at May 23, 2006 02:58 AM | direct link
"The overall trend during the past several decades in practically all countries of this region has been toward more open economies with greater competition within industries, with much more reliance on private enterprise, and with a reduced role for government mandates, government-run enterprises, and cronyism."
If this has been the case then it does not appear to have been a success. "You had growth {in Latin America} of 82 percent – in income per person – from 1960 to 1980, and only nine percent from 1980 to 2000. For the current decade so far we have just a little over one percent."
http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/2006_03_lagrowth_transcript.htm
I notice no comment on the above.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a religious {neoclassical} belief.
Posted by postkey at May 23, 2006 12:30 PM | direct link
