Now He Tells Us...

Here's a story for the better-late-than-never file. Former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro confessed that communism doesn't work and that his nation's economic system should not be emulated.

Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist economic model doesn't work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspicuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago. The fact that things are not working efficiently on this cash-strapped Caribbean island is hardly news. Fidel's brother Raul, the country's president, has said the same thing repeatedly. But the blunt assessment by the father of Cuba's 1959 revolution is sure to raise eyebrows. Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked if Cuba's economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore" Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog.

Too bad Castro didn't have this epiphany 50 years ago. The Cuban people languish in abject poverty as a result of Castro's oppressive policies. Food is harshly rationed and other basic amenities are largely unavailable (except, of course, to the party elite). This chart, comparing inflation-adjusted per-capita GDP in Chile and Cuba, is a good illustration of the human cost of excessive government. Living standards in Cuba have languished. In Chile, by contrast, the embrace of market-friendly policies has resulted in a huge increase in prosperity. Chileans were twice as rich as Cubans when Castro seized control of the island. After 50 years of communism in Cuba and 30 years of liberalization in Chile, the gap is now much larger.

Venezuela's Evil Government

Hugo Chavez is a palpably evil thug, and he confirms this status with a new proposal to issue cards that almost certainly will be used to ration food. Left-wing despots claim that their policies put "people above profits," but they never can explain why people (especially the masses) have much higher living standards in countries where "capitalist greed" runs rampant.

Presented by President Hugo Chávez as an instrument to make shopping for groceries easier, the ``Good Life Card'' is making various segments of the population wary because they see it as a furtive attempt to introduce a rationing card similar to the one in Cuba. The measure could easily become a mechanism to control the population, according to civil society groups. ``We see that in short-term this could become a rationing card probably similar to the one used in Cuba,'' Roberto León Parilli, president of the National Association of Users and Consumers, told El Nuevo Herald. ``It would use more advanced technological means [than those used in Cuba], but when they tell you where to buy and what the limits of what you can buy are, they are conditioning your purchases.'' Chávez said Tuesday that the card could be used to buy groceries at the government chain of markets and supplies. ...In theory, the government could begin to favor the import of products to be sold through the government chains and have more control over the type of products purchased and the people buying them. Jaime Suchlicki, director of the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, said that Venezuela's current problems of scarce supplies are very similar to those Cuba faced when Fidel Castro introduced the rationing card. ``The card emerged when goods began to become scarce,'' Suchlicki said. ``The government had seized many companies that did not work because the government managed them poorly. Then they decided to distribute groceries through those cards.'' And although the cards were introduced as a mechanism to deal with scarcities, Suchlicki said, they later became an instrument of control.

If Professors Really Believe in Socialism, Why Don't They Try this Classroom Experiment?

This little story appeared in my inbox. It's obviously meant to illustrate the perverse incentive structure created by redistribution, but one wonders why statists in the academic world don't follow through on their convictions and use this grading system.

A professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little.

The second test average was a D. No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.

To their great surprise, all failed. The professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder it is to succeed the greater the reward, but when a government takes all the reward away, no one will try so no one will succeed.

It's Not a Smart Move to Link Obama Tax Hikes to Nazi Invasion

A reader has asked me to weigh in on the mini-controversy that was triggered when a Wall Street financier said fighting Obama's tax hikes was like a war and that the battle was "like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939." While it seems clear that Stephen Schwarzman was not saying Obama was a Nazi or that his policies were akin to those pursued by the National Socialist Workers Party, he obviously should have used a better analogy. Even if the intent is totally innocent and/or intellectually legitimate, it distracts from the core message when you make references to Nazis or fascism (indeed, I've made this point in previous posts about whether Obama is a socialist). Here's an excerpt for those who want to know more about the story.

The billionaire Blackstone private equity boss Stephen Schwarzman, who is among Wall Street's most visceral proponents of the free market, has been obliged to apologise after comparing Barack Obama's tax policies to the Nazi advance across Europe at the beginning of the second world war. The tycoon, whose empire stretches from Hilton hotels to the Weather Channel, United Biscuits and the London Eye, has worked himself up into a lather about a proposed tax hike on so-called "carried interest" profits - the gains made when private equity firms buy and sell businesses - from 15% to as much as 35%. "It's a war," he told a board members of a non-profit organisation, whose members leaked Schwarzman's remarks to Newsweek on condition of anonymity. "It's like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939." ...Schwarzman expressed regret for his comments, telling the New York Post: "I apologise for what was an inappropriate analogy." But he added: "The fundamental issue of the administration's need to work productively with business for the benefits of the overall economy is still of very serious concern not only to me, but also to large parts of the business community."

P.S. Obama's tax hikes are very misguided. But the best analogy is that this is like...um...when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

Obama and the "S" Word

According to a new poll from a Democratic firm, an astounding 55 percent of people think "socialist" is a term that describes Obama. Here's a blurb from a National Review post.

Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.” ...When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.”

I've already commented on this issue twice, remarking that Obama technically is a fascist, but that it is much better to call him a statist or corporatist. But there is the tricky issue of whether a word should be defined by experts (to the extent economists are experts on anything) or whether it is more appropriate to accept the common understanding of what a word means. I don't have a firm opinion on that issue, but if socialism now means someone who believes in lots of government intervention and redistribution, then Obama is a socialist (heck, Bush also would be a socialist). But if we stick with the official definition, which involves government ownership of the means of production, then Obama has relatively few policies that meet that standard.

Here's what the Christian Science Monitor reported on the issue. The most amusing part of the story is that self-identified socialists are insulted to be linked to Obama.

The assertion is getting louder: President Obama is a socialist, a wealth-redistributing wolf in Democrat's clothing gnawing at America's entrepreneurial spirit. ...So, is Mr. Obama trying to form The Socialist Republic of America? Or are the accusations mainly a political weapon, meant to stick Obama with a label that is poison to many voters and thus make him a one-term president? ...[Some] refute the idea that government involvement in failing industries defines a president as socialist – or that wealth is being redistributed from the Forbes 500 richest Americans to the nation's "Joe the plumbers." What Mr. Johns, Mr. Gingrich, and others brandishing the "socialist" s-word are really complaining of is a return to the policies of John Maynard Keynes, the English economist who advocated vigorous government involvement in the economy, from regulation to pump priming, says labor historian Peter Rachleff of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn. "Socialism suggests getting rid of capitalism altogether," says Dr. Rachleff. "Mr. Obama is not within a million miles of an ideology like that." For what it's worth, socialists deny that Obama is one of them – and even seem a bit insulted by the suggestion. "I have been making a living telling people Obama is not a socialist," says Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America. "It's frustrating to see people using our brand to criticize programs that have nothing to do with our brand and are not even working."

Brazil's President Is Wiser than Obama

Every so often, perhaps inadvertently, a collectivist says something very smart. In the case of Lula da Silva, Brazil's socialist president, he made the common-sense observation that you can't redistribute without first producing. He didn't quite realize what he was saying, one imagines, since he presumably would have realized that capitalism is a superior system in both the short run and long run, but at least he recognized the role of wealth creation. Obama, by contrast, acts as if the blessings of a free market economy automatically exist and that people will continue to produce even if he persists with his statist plans to simultaneously subsidize sloth and penalize productive behavior. Here's the excerpt with the Brazilian President's amazing statement:

He described the situation when he was elected Brazilian president: "The country had no credit, had no working capital or financing or income distribution. What kind of capitalism was that? A capitalism without capital. I decided then that it was necessary to first build capitalism, then make socialism, we must have something to distribute before doing so."

Anybody Know If This Is True?

I'm sure it could be true, so it's worth sharing even if it is an urban legend.

More on Obama and Socialism

I got some interesting feedback about my pseudo-defense of Obama against the accusation that he is a socialist. It was a faux defense because my goal was simply to point out that Obama is guilty of a different form of statism. For those interested in more information, Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism book is first rate (and he has a discontinued blog on the topic for those too impatient to wait for a book), and Steve Horowitz does a great job addressing this topic for the Freeman:

Talking the talk of “free markets” but proposing policies that mostly amount to collaborations between well-placed private-sector interests and the State is the hallmark of “corporatism,” or “state capitalism,” or even economic fascism. From the bailouts of the banking system to “green jobs” to health insurance “reform” to various pieces of the “stimulus,” the real winners from the Obama administration’s policies (and Bush’s before him) have been those in corporate world lucky enough to be in the favored industries and to have sufficient political connections to benefit from the changes. Rather than take over various industries, Obama seems to believe he can work with industry leaders and labor to negotiate and manage them collectively in the national interest. This is the essence of the “third way” of Italian Fascism. It is not socialism, as private ownership is nominally maintained, but it is not capitalism, since private owners are not fully allowed to make independent decisions based on perceived profitability. Those decisions must take a back seat to predetermined national priorities. Again, consider the health insurance package. It’s not a single-payer system, which would arguably be more truly socialist. Instead, we will have a system of nominally private insurance companies heavily regulated and controlled so that they serve political goals, such as trying to guarantee that everyone has insurance regardless of income or medical history.

Keep in mind, though, my point about it being foolish to call Obama a fascist since the term is now inextricably linked to racism and militarism. Far better to point out that he is a statist or a corporatist.

Yes, Simon, People in the United Kingdom Die Because of Government-Run Healthcare

For those of you who saw this segment of Wednesday's show on CNBC, my co-host got quite agitated when I said I did not want America to have a substandard government-dictated healthcare system. Simon expressed doubt about my assertions, so it's rather serendipitous that Investor's Business Daily just editorialized about a new report (from the UK) about the failings of one British hospital system:

American health care is not British health care, at least not yet. But if Democrats get their way, this country will rush to adopt a system much like the one that is killing people in Great Britain. Democrats say that what they have planned for U.S. health care is not a copy of the British system. But a nationalized health care system, no matter how it's tailored, will collapse like other socialist programs. Government-run health care may at times look like it works, but it is unsustainable — and deadly. Consider the British hospital trust that was the focus of a recently completed independent inquiry. According to U.K. media reports, the review found that at least 400 and as many as 1,200 patients died from 2005 to 2008 because of poor care by Mid Staffordshire National Health Service Foundation Trust, which operates two hospitals. ...The inquiry also noted "serious departures from the standard of basic care which every patient is entitled to expect," abuses of elderly patients, and the too-common presence of unwashed patients and bedding "soiled with urine and feces for considerable periods of time." Other sanitation problems included the presence of blood, discarded needles and used dressings. These problems shouldn't be unexpected. Last year, the media reported that up to 10,000 cancer patients were dying needlessly in the U.K. each year because their condition was diagnosed too late, according to research by the government's director of cancer services. Also in 2009, there were reports that the health secretary ordered a probe into "claims that patients are dying due to poor care in at least 27 hospitals around the country."

Reagan Warns Against Socialized Medicine

This video has been circulating around the Internet for a while, but it's a classic. If you haven't seen it, take a look. And if you have seen it, it's refreshing to watch it again.

If Government-Run Toilet Paper Doesn't Work, Imagine What Will Happen with Government-Run Health Care

The socialist paradise off the coast of Florida is having a slight problem with toilet paper. But since the Cuban government has a hard time providing any basic necessity, that is hardly a surprise. What is remarkable, though, is that there are some people who think that it is a good idea to put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of health care:

Cuba, in the grip of a serious economic crisis, is running short of toilet paper and may not get sufficient supplies until the end of the year, officials with state-run companies said on Friday. ...Cuba's financial reserves have been depleted by increased spending for imports and reduced export income, which has forced the communist-led government to take extraordinary measures to keep the economy afloat. "The corporation has taken all the steps so that at the end of the year there will be an important importation of toilet paper," an official with state conglomerate Cimex said on state-run Radio Rebelde.