In my mind, being over 50 has stopped being an excuse to be computer illiterate while holding an office job in the last decade. They were 30 in 2000, 25 in 95 when you started working with computers. If in 2020 you still don't understand how to print a document or find your word files then you are. I don't know what you are but you better have a medical issue or something to justify still not getting file size and things like that.
What is the connection between Cuba and "Excess mortality in Wuhan city and other parts of China during the three months of the covid-19 outbreak: findings from nationwide mortality registries"?
Are you saying that since we know that Chinese statistics are accurate, Cuban statistics must also be?
I've referenced the study twice in about 50 comments, and only in the past 2 days. Not exactly frequently, and I even acknowledge I'm reposting it in the OP.
Incredibly disingenuous to assume everyone that disagrees with you (and with factual data noless) is a bot/shill
I posted this study to show that it's likely "communist" countries are not lying about their COVID numbers. I assumed my use of the word "these" would have made that obvious, but given these responses it seems not.
I have read the study hence why I posted it (couldn't find a study of similar rigor for Cuba specifically). This study sufficiently shows the point I'm trying to make.
To say I didn't read the link to a study I posted is a bit rude no?
That appears to be about China. What am I missing?
Also, assuming we have perfect faith in Chinese government statistics and Cuban government statistics...
Nevertheless, the wild variations in Covid experiences between countries and controversy over why it happened, make me think it is a useless yardstick.
I think nothing. Cuban is an authoritarian government that uses it's healthcare for propaganda. It has all the incentives to lie and AFAIK none of these claims are verified by independent parties parties. Regardless of political system it's a poor embargoed island and it's easier to believe that they are gaming the metrics than really providing better health outcomes.
>the accumulation of capital is what's truly exploitative
When I think of "accumulation of capital" in modern society, semiconductor fabs are the ultimate example.
I can't imagine disagreeing that the building of such factories encompasses most of the world via supply chains and most of the exploitation in it.
But I feel like there's an ambiguity and I don't understand what is to be our goal.
Should we not have "accumulations of capital"? That is, should we tear down (and hopefully recycle) all of the incredibly expensive factories?
Or should we have accumulations of capital that are not owned by specific people? What is ownership?
I don't know about the real Mafia, but in fiction, there is the trope of the wealthy mob boss who owns nothing on paper, in order to avoid the law, but relies on relationships to define what he has.
On the other hand, many large companies are presently not majority owned by any human being, but mainly by collective entities like index funds. Is that good enough? Or is that irrelevant to an economic system because some people own more index funds than others?
I think the means of production should be owned by the workers.
In this case, this could either be through a coop (e.g. those factories are directly owned by the workers working in them, decisions are made democratically) or through a worker's state (the factories are owned by the state as a representation of the workers - this is what the USSR tried to do, but failed miserably at).
I think any other scenario has people leeching off the work of the folks actually producing those semiconductors - e.g. exploitation.
Index funds don't do anything to help this - just cause it's a bigger group of strangers stealing the products of the worker's labor doesn't make it any less exploitative.
And nobody's saying we should tear down the factory, we just shouldn't let it be owned by people who have nothing to do with the work being done so they can make money from nothing but the fact they had money already.
>Index funds don't do anything to help this - just cause it's a bigger group of strangers stealing the products of the worker's labor doesn't make it any less exploitative.
I had a hard time understanding this, but I think I got it.
You are saying that if I work for, say, Xerox, I should own a portion of Xerox, because their capital belongs to me, because I use it to create value.
This is better, you are saying, than me owning an index fund that has a little of every company. Because if I do that, then I am exploiting all the workers in all the other companies.
As a self-contained system of belief, I guess it has a certain logic to it.
But if Xerox goes down the tubes then I don't want to lose my job and all my retirement savings!
I also think I see an inconsistency. If owning part of another company is exploiting their workers, then I should also be concerned that any form of ownership by workers at my company could involve exploitation.
Simply because we do different jobs using different amounts and types of capital. Averaging things out must be exploitation of workers by workers in the same way as owning mutual funds and such.
Accumulation of capital is in the context of ownership, yes. Capitalism is a system in which ownership of capital is indistinguishable from any other property, which makes it possible to accumulate it indefinitely. The end result, in the absence of some countervailing force (such as anti-monopoly legislation), is its concentration in the hands of a few oligopolies. Which translates to concentration of power, and strangles democracy.
Corporations are also "collective entities" (of shareholders). The real question in this case is who effectively controls the entity. If the entity represents thousands of people, but is controlled by a few, you still get oligopolies and concentration of power. Something like a co-op is another story, although even there it all depends on how its governance is structured.
> If I develop type 2 diabetes, do you think my life expectancy would be longer in Cuba?
I think that depends on your socioeconomic class and your insurance in the US. I'd say for the median citizen, life expectancy in Cuba with diabetes is probably higher as insulin cost isn't an issue and they do very frequent health check-ins that would be prohibitively expensive for a lot of Americans.
But seeing how you post on HN, chances are you have better healthcare available to you than the median American...
> Who can I trust for relevant statistics and information?
That's a good question and I don't have a good answer. Consensus internationally seems to be that the Cuban healthcare system is legit, but I must admit i haven't dug all that deep.
>But seeing how you post on HN, chances are you have better healthcare available to you than the median American...
A family member with the condition relied on Medicare. That seems like the most likely scenario.
>Consensus internationally seems to be that the Cuban healthcare system is legit, but I must admit i haven't dug all that deep.
Neither have I. But this is interesting. A little over ten years ago, there were reports of "mass deaths" of patients of a mental hospital in Cuba due to the cold.
I guess it's due to my imagination, and the things I read when I was younger, but the more something is understated, the more it's downplayed, and the more details that are left out, the more horrifying it can be. Sometimes I have the impression that other people don't ask questions, either out loud, or in their mind. That they know where to stop, as if there were a nice neat line that separated us from what's beyond the pale.
How can you die of cold in Cuba is one question I think of. Well, it was down to about 38F, and reportedly the glass from the windows and doors was missing. Also the blankets.
Next question would be why was that stuff missing? Perhaps it was taken and sold?
Why would it be sold? Perhaps because it was worth vastly more on the open market than the staff were paid in salaries?
All rhetorical questions in my head, not questions for you particularly.
This story plants in my mind the idea of doctors to whom blankets and pieces of glass are such wealth.
Whenever I read a comment about the Cuban health care system, I will think of it.
If you develop type-2 diabetes, you may be able to cure it by not eating any sugar for a few weeks. And, keep it off after, if you never eat sugar except with enough fiber. I.e., apples ok, donuts & froot loops not. That is good advice for all of us: there is never a good reason to give yourself type-2 diabetes.
For many people, cinnamon is a good temporary treatment for type-2 diabetes. But some people have a bad reaction to enough cinnamon, so start light.
Type 1 diabetes is much bigger trouble: you need to inject insulin, because your pancreas is damaged, probably forever.
Probably few Cubans have type-2 diabetes. It is a 1st-world problem; another name is Processed Food disease.
>If you develop type-2 diabetes, you may be able to cure it by not eating any sugar for a few weeks.
Developing type-2 diabetes will be a process that happens over several decades. So which few weeks is it that I need to stop eating sugar? I need to know because I was going to make cookies.
>there is never a good reason to give yourself type-2 diabetes
I've taken medication that progressively leads to type 2 diabetes for about 17 years. You don't think I have a good reason? Or you just never imagined one?
>Probably few Cubans have type-2 diabetes. It is a 1st-world problem; another name is Processed Food disease.
Being able to get medication that causes type 2 diabetes as a side effect might be a first world thing too. I would be concerned about that.
>Type 1 diabetes is much bigger trouble: you need to inject insulin
People inject insulin for type 2 diabetes; I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Medication that causes type-2 diabetes is news to me. Most people get type-2, or insulin resistance, as a consequence of damaging their liver, and soaking in excess uric acid. Maybe your medication is hepatotoxic? If you are partially insulin-resistant, maybe it takes extra insulin to get the needed effect?
Robert Lustig has been curing fatty-liver-disease-induced type 2 diabetes in children by eliminating sugar from their diet. Of course kids get better faster than adults.
I would expect someone who knows he has induced type-2 diabetes to already be pretty damn careful about sugar intake...
But: I am not a physician. None of the above is competent medical advice.
That said, Robert Lustig says most physicians are woefully uninformed about liver pathology.
>Medication that causes type-2 diabetes is news to me.
I believe in the ballpark of 5 to 6 million patients take this kind of medication in the US. If they all eventually got diabetes, it might be up to 15% of cases. However, not everybody lives long enough.
I will add that for everybody who has type-2 diabetes as a side effect of medication, there must be tens or hundreds of thousands who came by it much more accidentally (except insofar as it is a direct consequence of phenomenally, catastrophically, absurdly harmful public policy still in force in the US).
The Cubans that left Cuba and live in the US, do you think their grudge is over the Cuban missile crisis?
I don't wish to debate the question of what actually drives US policy. I am just wondering whether you recognize other points of view and if you think many people agree with you or you see yourself in a minority.
Do you know of a clear explanation how the US prevents Cuba from getting cars?
A lot of Americans haven't owned American cars since the 70s.
Other Caribbean islands import vehicles that are neither American nor even available in the US.
I know nothing about the auto industry, but South America is not that far away, and apart from tariffs, isn't it demonstrably economically viable to ship things long distances over the ocean? Because people do it, that's where all the consumerism comes from.
The idea that if Cuba can't import new cars from America, then it can't get them from anywhere is just silly. America imports tons of new cars from Asia and Europe, as does every other nation in Latin America. Cuba just imports fewer of them due to financial constraints, as the typical wage is 20,200 CUP or about $780/month.
And Cuba does have some new cars. People focus on the old cars because it's so visually striking (and those cars are so beautiful!) but it's more a marker of poverty than America somehow threatening to torpedo any ship that brings new cars to Cuba, or convincing all the global auto manufacturers to never sell any cars to Cuba. There are modern BMWs, Toyotas, etc in Cuba right now. Just not many of them. Expectedly, BMW is doing brisk business selling much cheaper motorcycles and scooters in Cuba, which is also true of other Latin American nations.
I would definitely not want to live under that regime. Cubans are generally happy people with good lives but they lack the opportunities for higher ambitions. Corrupt, planned economy is not something to be excited for nor is the being the lowest class in a “classless” society. They are also missing out about the world outside of their borders due to the restrictions on their communications.
It’s just that the western lifestyle is not without its own faults. There’s lessons to be learned about being happy without being full blown consumerists.
Yes, but since I have never been to London, I am curious about this western consumerist lifestyle.
You're being coy, in not describing the things you find so tiresome.
Before Brexit, I worked for a company that opened a branch near London, in order to access the European market. I didn't make it my overriding goal to go there, but I probably could've, and a co-worker went there and subsequently got married and stayed.
For Cuba to be fine, UK doesn't need to be bad. I do love the British way of life and the economic and social freedoms in the UK.
My point is that, happiness and life satisfaction are not tied to the abundance of consumer goods. When you are sad you don't have to buy something, it's alright to have a few options and your happiness level doesn't need to change by your next purchase. You can experience that in Cuba.
I honest-to-God don't know how you live, and what it is you get away from in Cuba.
I've been to NYC a couple of times.
Things I got there (in more than one trip):
a terrible pretzel from a street vendor (cold and *wet*)
a *fantastic* cup of coffee at a cafe where I was meeting someone
a bowl of lentil soup (surprisingly very cheap)
some chicken lo mein, about the same price and exactly the same generic dish as anywhere I've been in the US, except perfectly executed, really fresh and hot
a chicken souvlaki pita, one of the best, although the place (in Queens) smelled kinda like urine
As you can see, everything that was memorable consumer-wise was cheap food. I didn't have any expensive meals or buy any "consumer goods" that I recall.
>Cubans are generally happy people with good lives
Some, but definitely not most. Step out of the touristic areas sometime and you will see. Poverty, poor healthcare, slow, overpriced internet, blackouts, food shortages, very low wages and very high prices, some places only get tap water for a few hours a day (sometimes every few days)... Such good lives they have.
An 80 year old grandmother was 65 in 2007. She could be a retired tech company CEO.