FINALMENTE A CRISE MOSTROU OS CULPADOS, MAS SEM CRIMES

Somente depois da recente reunião realizada na Basiléia, Suíça, sede dos BIS ou USB (Banco Central dos Bancos Centrais), com a presença de Governadores ou Presidentes dos Bancos Centrais dos países do Grupo do G-10, compreendendo Bélgica, Canadá, França, Itália , Japão, Holanda, Suécia, Suíça, Inglaterra e Estados Unidos, foi possível saber, de direito, porque de fato já sabíamos, que os responsáveis
Pela propalada e administrada “Crise Mundial...” são os Cartéis do Sistema Financeiro e os Bancos Centrais, por omissão.

Essa reunião da Basiléia deixou bem claro que os Bancos Centrais dos Países mais ricos do Mundo, venceram a queda de braço contra o Tesouro Nacional americano e mostraram, sem nenhum constrangimento, que são verdadeiros agentes do sistema financeiro mundial. Enquanto o Secretário americano defendia ajuda restrita às vítimas inocentes das subprimes, limitada aos USD 160 bilhões, o FED (banco central americano) cobrava a ampliação desses benefícios aos especuladores e aos Bancos, indistintamente e foi o grande vencedor da peleja, em prejuízo de bilhões de dólares a milhões de contribuintes. E o FED está fazendo redescontos de títulos com garantia de 85% do Valor de Face, quando é sabido que a cotação desses papéis não passa de 10%. E uma prova transparente de que as Raposas continuam Fiscalizando os Aviários.

O interessante é que o sistema financeiro , através dos Bancos Centrais, sem necessidade de compromisso com o povo ou de representatividade através de eleições populares diretas, conquistou poderes absolutos para manipular mercado , inflação, juros e ainda com a vantagem de sacar do Tesouro Nacional, sem limite, recursos para a cobertura de fabulosos prejuízos ( R$ 48 bilhões foram sacados recente pelo BC Brasil) FAZ BEM LEMBRAR o que disse THOMAS JEFFERSON, EX-PRESIDENTE AMERICANO: “Se o povo americano alguma vez permitir aos bancos controlarem a questão da nossa dívida, primeiro através da inflação, depois pela deflação, os bancos e as corporações que crescerão privarão o povo de toda a prosperidade até que os seus filhos acordem sem casa no continente que os seus pais conquistaram”. A profecia está se materializando e mais de dois milhões dos americanos (vítimas inocentes) estão abandonando as suas casas, porque foram enganados e manipulados pela ganância da especulação financeira.

A era Greenspan, de juros negativos e de excesso de liquidez, com os ganhos abusivos nos países em desenvolvimento (continua até hoje), alastrou a especulação habitacional e de outros ativos de risco, mostrando uma prosperidade irreal e deixou os Bancos totalmente livres para a manipulação do mercado financeiro Mundial . E os Bancos Centrais não estão sendo capazes ou não querem mostrar a dimensão dessa crise e até parece que desejam que a instabilidade e as incertezas continuem. De acordo com o IIF ( Instituto de Finanças Internacionais), os Emergentes devem receber um fluxo de capitais de mais de US$ 730 bilhões este ano, sendo somente que US$ 260 bilhões em investimentos Diretos e o restante para giro na especulação financeira volátil, que não gera mais produção , emprego ou renda. E esse capital nocivo continua vasculhando o planeta, em busca de atrativos ganhos em países como os do Brasil, que infelizmente sempre privilegiou esse capital em detrimento das prioridades maiores da Nação.

A fraqueza do Tesouro americano. demonstrada frente ao seu Banco Central , como vem anunciando alguns jornais, já despertou em muitos países a necessidade de devolver ao Congresso Nacional o controle do dinheiro e a sua volta às mãos do povo, mas com competência, seriedade e total TRANSPARENCIA. As lições valiosas do passado, a partir de 1929 de nada serviram ou estão servindo, exatamente porque os países democráticos continuam socializando prejuízos de bilhões de dólares (do povo) em favor de uma ínfima minoria de especuladores e banqueiros internacionais. Esperamos que o governo brasileiro tenha maturidade suficiente e não seja embevecido com o noticiário bajulador da imprensa internacional, mostrando o País como o berço da prosperidade para esse capital nocivo. Basta lembrar, com uma certa tristeza que o crescimento real estupendo das receitas do Tesouro não foi suficiente para conter uma dívida de US$ 157 bilhões em janeiro de 1991 que passou para R$ 1,333,8 trilhão em 2007 e deve chegar a R$ 1.540 trilhão em 2008, de acordo com projeções do Banco Central.Tudo isso, depois do pagamento, no mesmo período, de alguns bilhões de dólares em juros e encargos financeiros. Somente de 2007 para 2008 haverá um crescimento nominal da dívida em mais de R$ 200 bilhões, independentemente dos juros que serão pagos com o aproveitamento do superávit primário. E de 1991 para cá esses bilhões de reaias que estão gerando novos endividamentos estão sendo direcionados única e exclusivamente para alimentar a ciranda financeira ou o capital de “motel” e a concratação de riquezas. Esperávamos, sinceramente, que os Bancos Centrais e o FMI , na reunião da Basiléia apresentassem soluções concretas para o MONITORAMENTO DO SISTEMA FINANCEIRO, NA DEFESA DE BILHÕES DE PESSOAS.OS AMERICANOS E A UNIÃO EUROPEIA, EM NOME DA CRISE, ESTÃO GANHANDO ALGUNS BILHÕES DE DÓLARES ANUAIS, ROLANDO DÍVIDAS DE MAIS DE US$ 20 TRILHÕES A CUSTO ZERO OU MESMO NEGATIVO. NADA MAU PARA QUEM ESTÁ EM CRISE.

Hello Mr. Martinez,

I found your comparison of Cuba & Singapore interesting. As a young Singaporean myself, I have seen first hand how globalization and (perhaps, as a result) changing mindsets have lay open new doors of opportunity - both in variety and ability to accept- for my generation.

It never struck me that that could be situation that Cuba might, or is starting to experience. I'm curious to find out more and will be sure to read your future posts! I came across your Washington Post blog while I was searching for information on Cuba. I'm currently doing my final-university-year project on Cuba and have found it particularly difficult to find out what Cubans or people living in Cuba feel/think about Cuba. If you could spare me a few minutes to give me your views, I would be delighted. Please do not hesitate to contact me at xuemin.tan.2004@business.smu.edu.sg if you like to explain my project in further detail.

Okay, Martinez. I was recently living in Spain for several years and there I met Cubans who were studying, doing various courses, live, etc. ... Many of them were initially plans to return at the end, most did not. Several of them were militants of the Communist Party, someone with responsibilities, and it was amazing how rhetorically check revolutionaries were and how effectively and cubanamente behaved, with a desire to live differently, even washing dishes still under medical or engienering. With two or three open windows the wall will crumbling. Well, Martinez ...(Thank to Google Translate for the help and apologize for the macarronic English)

Demitri says:

"Cuba doesn’t have to turn into the Cayman Islands in order to provide economic opportunity for its citizens."

American Observer replies:

Dimitri, I explained at great length how Castro has spent fifty years training the Cuban people in the Communist lifestyle of stealing, cheating, and avoiding labor, and I challenged you to offer any reason to believe that Cuba will not follow the Bulgarian path. Instead of talking about the experience of other post-Communist countries, you have started to refer to the Cayman Islands, whose experience has been so different for so long. Instead of trying to blame Cuba's past and future on the Yankees, why not look at the obvious models? Even if America wanted to preserve Cuba's -- 'sense of national pride and culture' -- the eagerness of ordinary Cubans to sell their bodies should remind us how hungry and desperate fifty years of Castro have made them. Communist societies are only held together by lies and raw violence, and once the regime is no longer able or willing to keep the lies and violence going, the house of cards falls very quickly. Unless America actually decides to give the Cuban regime billions in dollars in subsidies the way the Soviets did, then Cuba is certain to follow the Bulgarian path.

Dimitri says:

"I have absolutely no reason to believe or expect the Cubans to resist a capitalist model, but I certainly don’t think we should go back to the days of Meyer Lansky type economic prost!tut!on."

American Observer replies:

Dimitri, it is funny that you should refer to pr*st!tut!on. As you know, Castro's Cuba has very little to give the world, and many of the European and Canadian tourists who go there every year are actually going to enjoy the tens of thousands of Cuban 'j!netar!as' who will sell their bodies for trivial sums of money. Experts all agree that Castro's definition of "cultural integrity" has turned Cuba into the wh*rehouse of the Caribean.

Demitri argues:

"You can certainly gather from his writings that he sympathized with socialist ideals and the promise of an egalitarian society, but make no mistake that his goal was not to spread socialist revolution but rather to continue the struggle for national and cultural independence."

American Observer replies:

None of that explains why Casto made Cuba into a lackey of the Soviet Empire, and none of that explains why Castro invaded Africa to spread Marxism.

Demitri says:

" I also think that the historical record provides adequate evidence to support the assertion that if Eisenhower’s administration had not taken such a hard line with Castro and permitted him to try and institute some of the socialist reforms that he had in mind without demanding that he prostitute his country as Batista and his predecessors had done, then we may have not seen the nationalization of every piece of property in Cuba. "

American Observer replies:

That is also a historical fantasy. Castro insists on owning every scrap of land in Cuba for the same reason that Stalin insisted on owning every scrap of land in the Soviet Empire, and for the same reason that Mao Zedong insisted on owning every scrap of land in the Chinese Empire. If Castro had tolerated any private business in Cuba, then some Cubans would have become richer than other Cubans, and those rich Cubans might have
created political organizations which became rivals for power or influence. By keeping complete control of every farm or enterprise in Cuba, Castro has been able to sustain the fantasy that all Cubans are his children, eating at his table, and Castro has been able to portray himself as a sort of God on earth. Castro did not inflict Communism on Cuba because Eisenhower forced him to do it; instead, Castro inflicted Communism on Cuba
because only Communism would give him the power and cult of personality that his egotism demanded.

It is easy to prove this. After all, Cuba has had trade with Canada and Europe for a quarter of a century now, but Castro has not used this as a chance to create the kind of 'mixed economy' you seem to have in mind; instead, any time any group of small farmers or small businessmen become successful, Castro simply denounces these farmers and small businessmen as 'new bourgouis' and breaks them. If you don't know anything about Cuban history, go look it up.

Demitri says:

"It is an indisputable fact that American imperial meddling in Cuba is not only indirectly responsible for the trajectory of Cuban history over the past 100 years, but also directly
responsible for the brutal dictatorships that preceded Castro since we occupied the island
in 1898."

American Observer replies:

Actually, there is nothing 'indisputable' about it. Cuban history has been brutal since the Carib Indians hunted down and killed and ate the Arawak Indians; Cuban history has been brutal since the Spanish massacred both sets of Indians; Cuban history has been brutal since the Spanish imported hundreds of thousands of African slaves and worked them to death; and Cuban history has been brutal since the Spanish Empire spent hundreds of years ruling its white settlers and black slaves with an iron hand and the world's first concentration camps. Cuban history would have been brutal if the United States of America had never existed. In fact, if America had never existed, Cuba might still be a colony of Spain, and there is every reason to believe that if Cuba had achieved independence on its own, Cuba would still be ruled by some dictator of the right or left according to the patterns set down by the Caribs or the Spanish.

Why doesn't this thing work? Why are these pages so full of simple spam, while intelligent and coherent messages get banned?

REUiNiTED! REUiNiTED!
---
-CHEAPER OIL Prices again!
-BETTER Control of inflation!
-MORE JOBS! MORE JOBS YEA!
-MERGE CUBA as 51st State or as Common-Wealth!
-BETTER Care & Protection for CHiLDREN & FAMILY's!
-MORE PEACE & HEALING of NATIONS on Space-Ship Momma Poppa EARTH!

And MORE good Prophetical Tidings coming To a Community near you SOON!

GRACIaS. Thanks!

====
Vote:
A*C*T*i*O*N!
Vote:
E*X*P*E*R*i*E*N*C*E!

Better HILLARY than BORAK!
Better CLINTON than OBAMA!
Better HILLARY than BORAK!
Better CLINTON than OBAMA!
Better CLINTON than McCAIN!-.....___________________
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN! Thanks A*M*E*R*i*C*A!

By: Cyber Volunteers for HILLARy For PREZ!

Malcom X's Daughter is on the Rise for Islama BAMA:
Some-What-B*R*E*A*K*i*N*G ----- N*E*W*S!

Please see Linko On:
"In an interview on SIRIUS radio's "Make It Plain" with host Mark Thompson, one of Malcolm X's daughters, Malaak Shabazz, declared her support for Barack Obama -- calling him and his wife Michelle the "present-day" version of her father and her mother Betty Shabazz.

The interview was held at the Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Education Center located in the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem, where Malcolm X was fatally shot in 1965 after his falling out with Nation of Islam leader Elijah Mohammed.

Don't worry, I'm sure sure we can turn Cuba into another Haiti in no time!

I am not Cuban, but if I were an intelligent young Cuban living in Cuba today, I would never forget the sense of "common destiny" that was forged at such a great cost to so many by Fidel Castro, I would use the very real achievements made by my country in the fields of healthcare and generation education to set standards by which I dealt with the outside world (nothing less), and I would resist any attempts by well-meaning Cuban Americans to try and boss things around in MY country, a country which they left behind when they decided to leave. Or at least, those who call me and my brothers and sisters "lazy" or "stupid" for not being smart enough to become Americans.

And then I would work hard and wait for my country to prosper and become the Singapore of the Caribbean. It would be a nicer place to live than the real Singapore, because I would have Cuban music and dance (not to mention the delicious food). I wouldn't sell any national assets (let alone my services) to these Cuban American cousins/brothers/sisters until the value of my currency had risen high enough to make it a fair exchange. No need, because there would be many countries like Singapore whose sovereign wealth funds are all set to invest in well-educated, disciplined people who remind us of ourselves, without trying to dictate how I chose to live.

Response to American Observer:

Unless I missed something I don’t believe that I even mentioned the words “socialism” or “communism” even once in my thread, let alone base any of my arguments on them.

It is an indisputable fact that American imperial meddling in Cuba is not only indirectly responsible for the trajectory of Cuban history over the past 100 years, but also directly responsible for the brutal dictatorships that preceded Castro since we occupied the island in1898. I also think that the historical record provides adequate evidence to support the assertion that if Eisenhower’s administration had not taken such a hard line with Castro and permitted him to try and institute some of the socialist reforms that he had in mind without demanding that he prostitute his country as Batista and his predecessors had done, then we may have not seen the nationalization of every piece of property in Cuba. It is a fact not just of Cuban history under Castro but also of every authoritarian regime that when you threaten its survival you encourage it to become more closed and more autocratic. Castro, like so many autocrats that have defied American authority, was a nationalist first and socialist second. You can certainly gather from his writings that he sympathized with socialist ideals and the promise of an egalitarian society, but make no mistake that his goal was not to spread socialist revolution but rather to continue the struggle for national and cultural independence. Why do you think his greatest hero was Jose Marti and not Carl Marx?

The reframing of every single debate of this kind to the simple distinction of communist vs. capitalist was intellectually criminal during the cold war and today it is just plain stupid. Understanding why Cuba “is where it is” today is far more complicated than saying that it is because “Cuba has had total communism for fifty years.” Yes, I agree that state-run economies contradict the very essence of human commerce that is endemic to our species, but as I mentioned in my original thread, things do not occur in a vacuum. Despite Castro’s dictatorship and suppression of free speech and crimes against humanity, he managed to preserve a level of cultural integrity and independence that is worth preserving now that he has stepped down. This is not an opportunity for America to go right back to sticking its nose in the affairs of an island nation that poses no threat whatsoever to our national security, and whose people want nothing more than dignity and good economic relations with the rest of the world. I have absolutely no reason to believe or expect the Cubans to resist a capitalist model, but I certainly don’t think we should go back to the days of Meyer Lansky type economic prostitution. Cuba doesn’t have to turn into the Cayman Islands in order to provide economic opportunity for its citizens. Any society, given the choice, will choose to raise its living standards while at the same time maintaining its sense of national pride and culture. Why should Cuba be any different?

Demitri says:

"We are behaving as if the last 50 years of Cuban life is some kind of historical blind spot. "

American Observer replies:

No, you are wrong. Several of my relatives have visited Cuba recently, and their reports fit what I read in the press. It is clear that the American political establishment understands the Cuban situation well, and you, Demitri, seem to be trapped in some kind of historical blind spot.

Demitri, what explanation do you have for the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Empire? What explanation do you have for the collapse of Communism in other independent Communist republics, such as Yugoslavia, Romania, and Albania? What explanation do you have for the way the leaders of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China have chosen to betray Communism completely and convert their countries into hardcore capitalist countries -- countries more capitalist than the United States? What explanation do you have for the way Socialism has sputtered and failed in every other country that has tried it, from Burma to Zimbabwe? Communism was not brought down by the gringos and it was not brought down by 'imperialist meddling'; Communism was brought down because Communism simply does not work. If all of the gringos and capitalists and 'imperialist meddlers' had died of heart attacks in nineteen sixty-five, Cuba and Russia would still be economic failures.

If you want to understand the future of Cuba, you don't need to dig off some dusty book of politically correct history with long lists of the Gringos did this and the gringos did that. Long lists of PC data did not restore socialism in Chile or Greneda or Nicaragua, and the usual PC 'histories' will not preserve a Marxist economy in Cuba. Daniel Ortega taught the children of Nicaragua to say Venceremos -- 'we will win' -- but that will never restore the socialist society which the voters overturned in free elections.

Instead, the best way to understand the Cuban situation is to look at the present situation of countries which were in the same situation as Cuba. Where should we look for examples? Some people suggest that Cuba should follow China. However China, Vietnam, Hungary, and Poland were able to move rapidly to market economies because true Communism had only lasted for a generation or so before 'market reforms' began. Thus, there was still a large pool of people who remembered how to function in a capitalist society, and they were able to get a new economy moving within just a few years. Other countries, such as Russia and Romania, had true Communism for much longer, and those societies spent ten or fifteen years floundering before they began to get their economies in order. Which society does Cuba resemble?

Cuba has had total Communism for fifty years. The last capitalist generations are mostly dead, and the people of Cuba have spent fifty years learning to make excuses and avoid work and just plain steal. If you want to know where Cuba will be fifteen years after the death of Castro, just look at where Bulgaria is today. Sophisticated observers agree that Cuba is doomed to follow the Bulgarian path.

Dear Demetri, critical views such as yours make people in my part of the world (Singapore) breathe a bit easier, because it reminds us of a face of America that seemed a lot friendlier, more respectful, and which definitely had a lot less swagger.

Americans are so fond of criticizing my little country for lacking democracy. Nothing we can do or say can ever change their entrenched views that we don't have real elections.

This really baffles me, because I don't know how one can bring any meaningful kind of "democracy" on a country without first giving the people the financial strength -- and the education, and the expectations -- to say "NO!" when some thug or crony or robber baron offers to buy their vote. Or tries to put some undue muscle on them or shake them down.

I think that the cost of a vote in several "democratic" countries in Southeast Asia is probably only several US dollars. Here in "repressed" Singapore, the cost of MY vote is: First World amenities and upkeep in my public housing apartment (which I own), healthcare which is available to all even though we have to co-pay (ouch!), a good educational system, good infrastructure, and the emotional comfort of guilt-free prosperity ie., not having to barricade myself in some kind of gated compound, or learn how to avert my eyes from hopelessly poor concitoyens...

For all the talk about the need to change American foreign policy in order to reflect the realities of a world hostile to imperial meddling, you would think that the “intellectual” community in this country would view the current developments in Cuba as the single greatest opportunity in this post cold-war world to fundamentally alter the perception and reputation of our nation, and set us towards a new path of reconciliation and peace. Instead, the resignation of Fidel Castro from his role as dictator and patriarch of the Cuban Revolution is viewed as yet another shortsighted opportunity by American businesses to turn a profit and by American politicians to pontificate on an issue that they clearly know nothing about. The media is already talking about how Castro’s resignation and the newfound influence that we should look to exercise on the island can finally move Cuba towards a more free and prosperous future. How stupid. How pathetic. For a people so enamored with our own role in “shaping history” we sure don’t seem to know all that much about it.

I’m unsure of why Americans are so ignorant of history. Perhaps it is because we tend to view historical events from a nationalist perspective, conveniently jettisoning facts that don’t bode well for our nation’s self-esteem. Or maybe we just don’t have time to bother with the events of the past; who knows…

If we did bother with learning a thing or two about the past, we wouldn’t be so stupid as to assume that Cuba has just been sitting on the sidelines of history waiting for us to bring them the light of liberty for all these years. After all, health-care and education are two of the revolution’s most profound success stories, ensuring that if we want some details on how Cuba got to where she is today we will find an island full of well-informed and fairly healthy people to tell us. In fact, if we had consulted with them before invading Iraq I’m sure they could have easily predicted that our imperial adventure would probably look very similar to our escapade in Cuba over 100 years ago. I am referring, of course, to the Spanish-American War – that “splendid little war” that offered us our first chance to liberate a suppressed and backwards people.

Under the duplicitous justification that we were liberating the Cubans from the yolk of Spanish colonialism, the war of 1898 became the first imperial adventure by the United States since the signing of the Monroe doctrine in 1823 (the first implicit admission by America that it had imperial ambitions). The American press at the time, most famously led by newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst, provided the propaganda necessary to excite a public already agitated by the consequences of an ongoing economic depression and social malaise. Using the New York Journal as his most prominent weapon of choice, Hearst ran sensational news stories meant to demonize the Spanish while at the same time rousing feelings of sympathy for the Cuban cause. The story of Evangeline Cisneros, a convent educated Cuban teenager imprisoned by the Spanish in Havana is perhaps the most famous of Hearst’s propaganda efforts in this regard. After Cisneros was rescued from the Spanish prison, she was returned to the United States and paraded around the country by Hearst himself, appealing to Americans’ sense of righteousness in an attempt to further fan the flames of war (images of Jessica Lynch inevitably come to mind).

On July 17th, 1898, after a resounding victory by American forces over the Spanish navy, both countries’ generals assembled in Santiago’s main square for the formal surrender of the city to the United States. There, the Spanish flag, which had flown over Santiago for nearly 400 years, was brought down and replaced with the stars and stripes. One cannot help but point out the eerie similarity between this imperial gesture on the part of the United States and that famous image of a US soldier draping the head of Saddam’s statue with an American flag that fluttered about the world press soon after US forces took Baghdad in the spring of 2003 – one hundred years after America’s first colonial war.

Recognizing that military occupation was not enough to guarantee American influence in Cuba, the United States government institutionalized its authority over the island by way of the Platt Amendment. Therefore, the newly formed and “independent” government in Cuba would simultaneously be constitutionally bound to its new master who could intervene legally in Cuban affairs in order to “ensure the freedom” of the Cuban people (see anymore similarities to Iraq?). Although the Amendment was repealed in 1934, US rights to that bastion of freedom, Guantanamo Bay, are still ours to this day.

So, when Fidel Castro rode into Havana on one of Batista’s US supplied tanks on January 8, 1959, the event was not viewed in a vacuum by his fellow Cubans. The overwhelmingly popular support for his revolution did not come out of nowhere. It did not just sprout out of the sierra maestra. It was a result of numerous US supported dictatorships, the exploitation of Cuban workers by American companies and the national humiliation of having one’s society and culture serve as a playground for the recreation of “others.”

But in those 49 years, from when Castro began his revolution to today, life has not stopped in Cuba; history is not waiting in abeyance for Uncle Sam to stroll back into Havana as if it were 1959. Yet, it seems from the commentary that has erupted since Castro declared his resignation that this is exactly what many Americans think. We are behaving as if the last 50 years of Cuban life is some kind of historical blind spot. If you want evidence of this you need look no further than our current administration’s press secretary, Dana Perino, who casually conceited that she knew nothing about the Cuban missile crisis other than that it had to do with “Cuba and missiles.” And yet, we have the audacity to think that everything that has happened in the last 50 years can be written off as though it were the Cubans just horsing around in a sandpit of lawlessness waiting for America to return and put everything back in order. In a country so fond of opinion polls, you think we would use one or two to find out what the Cubans themselves actually want post-Castro Cuba to look like…

I really don’t know what else to say on this subject. These recent events in Cuba present us with a truly unique opportunity. By engaging Cuba in a way that does not sacrifice the independence and pride of its people, we can set our country on a new path of reconciliation and trust in American leadership. It is not a solution, but it is a step in the right direction. We cannot continue to behave as though history does not matter and at the same time expect to make progress in this world. Events do not occur in a vacuum and if we want to continue to shape history then we must be prepared to learn from it as well.

Isn't Miami already "the Singapore of the Caribbean." Would Venezuela then become "the Cuba of the Caribbean"? Or maybe Cuba will replace olden-times Panama as the land of "less a country than a racket." In any event, it is hard to compete with the zero taxation standards of some neighboring islands, which often require only a symbolic physical presence.

Btw, I'd like (very respectfully) to disagree with "Nancy Reyes"' statement that:

[QUOTE]
The dirty little secret about Singapore is that it was the hard working Chinese Entrepeneurs that made that country a success.
[/QUOTE]

Ms Reyes, you are free to hold your own views. But if you want to hear it from an ordinary Singaporean, living in public housing, the one lesson which I think we learned (well) in Singapore was that the "hard-working Chinese Entrepreneur" had to become a Singaporean citizen first. Develop that sense of "common destiny" that allows long-term planning, nimble planning, whatever it takes.

I really hope that you are NOT an overseas Cuban, because your sweeping statements about Cubans who are living in Cuba every day, sound so patronizing, almost insulting. Good luck!

I am a 39-year-old Singapore who has been lurking here and following all the comments with interest. Although Mr Martinez, the author, was probably comparing Cuba to Singapore with his tongue firmly in his cheek, I would like to say that Cuba has so much going for it than Singapore in 1965 -- in terms of having a common language, the high level of general education in Cuba, the high legitimate expectations of the populace with respect to healthcare (at least from the pre-sanctions years; Cubans have definitely "seen the goods" before), as well as a sense of "common destiny". And although I hear of "political repression", I don't get the sense that corruption is endemic in Cuban society, not even from anti-Castro Cuban-Americans who are vociferous about just about everything else; seems like Cubans have too much self-respect to sell themselves for kickbacks/ quick returns.

I am no Lee Kuan Yew, but speaking as a private human being, I think that if Cubans can find a way to keep enough of the best "brains" in the administration, post-Castro, despite the temptations of the private sector, they won't regret it. But good, clean, quick-thinking, non-ideological government costs many bananas. The annual salary of the Prime Minister of Singapore is over USD$1.2 million a year, much more than GWB. But believe me, we Singaporeans make him earn it!

The dirty little secret about Singapore is that it was the hard working Chinese Entrepeneurs that made that country a success.

The hard working Cuban business people have long left for Miami...and any budding entrepeneurs left behind in Havana have had no opportunities for " hands on" business experience in Havana

So unless the new government encourages Cubans to move back there from Miami, your prediction is nonsense.

Cuba needs to emulate VietNam...Hanoi has a vibrant business sector, including an Intel center because they allowed their refugees to come back and stimulate the economy.

There will be no progress in Cuba till its apparatus of political and economic tyranny is demolished. Castro is still under the tyranny of a Castro, and the nation is replete with people who despise economic freedom, seeing it, as some posters do here, as rapacious neo-liberalism. Not until the exiled community in Miami returns to Cuba, will you see any hope for either political and economic freedom.

The Author of the piece should be well advised to make sure that Venezuela does not become the next Cuba, rather than Cuba becoming the next Singapore.

There will be no progress in Cuba till its apparatus of political and economic tyranny is demolished. Castro is still under the tyranny of a Castro, and the nation is replete with people who despise economic freedom, seeing it, as some posters do here, as rapacious neo-liberalism. Not until the exiled community in Miami returns to Cuba, will you see any hope for either political and economic freedom.

The Author of the piece should be well advised to make sure that Venezuela does not become the next Cuba, rather than Cuba becoming the next Singapore.

There will be no progress in Cuba till its apparatus of political and economic tyranny is demolished. Castro is still under the tyranny of a Castro, and the nation is replete with people who despise economic freedom, seeing it, as some posters do here, as rapacious neo-liberalism. Not until the exiled community in Miami returns to Cuba, will you see any hope for either political and economic freedom.

The Author of the piece should be well advised to make sure that Venezuela does not become the next Cuba, rather than Cuba becoming the next Singapore.

Cuba still has what it had for centuries: a priviledged location, close to both North America and Europe.

Without a communist dictatorship, Cuba could become what is was three or four centuries ago: a major hub for trade and travel. I agree that Cuba can become the Caribbean Singapore, with major ports and airports connecting Europe, North America and South America, and with modern highways, railroads and communication networks connecting Cuba's universities, factories and labs to the outside world.

But Cubans are not ready for the challenge. They lack fundamental skills to be productive in today's world: management, engineering, sales, information technology. Moreover, they lack CAPITAL. The only way to catch up is by following the steps of China and India: opening up to foreign investment and know-how.

First: you have to change the mentality of people used to 50 years of communism. Not easy. See the example of East Germany. They were highly educated, bilingual, non entities, that had to learn to become an entity. You still can find east germans longing for the communist past without realizing they were zombies herded like sheeps.
Second:the dinosaurs, specially the communist kind, are alergic to retirement and to new ideas. Big deal the big one is retiring. Not a noble act, but just because he is very sick. Was he in good health, cubans would have to endure another 10 years with the same tyrant.
Third: I hope the best for Cuba. I would like a speedy transit to a democratic open economy society, but I am afraid such a quick change will bring Cuba to a lot of suffering, with new maffiosi taking the best part of the cake, mainly former communist big fishes, like it happened in post communist Russia. Do they have the leadership to avoid that fate? I doubt it.

Interesting ideas. I like the positive image of cubanidad, but I'm not sure it is totally grounded in reality. Mostly bilingual? I think we have visited different Cubas. I agree that Cuba is capable of much, given the chance. That however, is the issue. And I am not certain that that chance will occur even with a change of system there. There are so many factors that represent open questions. I'd love for this vision to be realized. Let us hope.

Yes, I agree full heartedly that Cuba could be
the next Singapore. The literacy and health care
are high. People are nice and hospitable. They
work hard and do not depend on the "iron rice
bowl" to survive. They run illegal businesses
in order to get the extra dollar for their families. Besides tourism Cuba has sugar cane
plantations, rum, coffee, cigars, mining, etc. to
survive.

Good luck Cuba!

Cuba's economy is not entirely of its own making. It has been subjected for almost 50 years to sabotage, interference, and blockade. Although the world every year votes overwhelmingly against the blockade, the US persists in trying to make the Cuban economy collapse, and to force other countries to go along with the plan.

The Helms-Burton law requires Cuba, as a condition of recognition by the US, to, among other things, return the nationalized properties to their owners as of the time of Batista. The US is not interested in a thriving and independent Cuba, but in a neoliberal dependency of US corporations.

If you want to see a real opening in Cuba, convince the US to give up its historical and current desires to make Cuba one more FTA'd satellite.

That's the same US that has caused estimated deaths in the hundreds of thousands in its pursuit of Iraqi oil. And, as you said, "Cuban youth are incredibly aware of what globalization means and of all the possibilities it entails for a country like theirs."

But I confess, I've never had breakfast in a 5-star hotel and don't know what people there talk about.

How do you account for this contradiction so blatantly obvious in your text:

"Cuba has accumulated better human capital any emerging economy in Latin America could dream of: a young population that is highly educated, mostly bilingual, full of economic motivation and eager to catch up with the rest of the world after fifty years of a stagnating, infamous dictatorship."

Did Cuba accumulate this human capital independently of the "infamous dictatorship" that ruled it? What if the American vision of "development" and "freedom" had prevailed. Would that workforce have been there. Might it be that Castro "prepared" the Cubans for competition within the Global economic forces in their own terms? Maybe Cuba can now go the European way of social democracy; free of Castro dictatorship and free of American neo-liberalism. Maybe a more open, more democratic Cuba will now have the money to better fund its pioneering health-care system and offer Americans an alternative to their rapacious privately-run health-care.

Can I humbly add that T. Friedman's sound-bite about the Flat World does not add weight to any analysis of the world. Just some ideas to toy with.