Or that cigar imports is probably the most utterly trivial and selfish thing to consider in this move.

I find that anyone against this reunion is doing it because of something utterly trivial and selfish.

When I was in Cuba, a lot of people I talked to were obviously in favor of lifting the embargo, but others expressed misgivings about what it would do to their culture and society. Cuba is an indescribably weird place where almost everybody is (on paper anyways) poor, yet education, health care and the arts flourish. Violent crime is virtually unheard of, say what you will about how they achieve that. They are very proud of their resilience in the face of a half-century's worth of crippling U.S. sanctions--in particular the period after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Normalization will lead to a rise in the Cuban material standard of living, and with it will come all of the attendant social woes that we have here. That's neither totally good nor totally bad, and it should be up to the Cuban people to choose their own path, but I can see why you might oppose this for other than purely selfish reasons.

> Cuba is an indescribably weird place where almost everybody is (on paper anyways) poor, yet education, health care and the arts flourish. Violent crime is virtually unheard of

I grew up in the Eastern Bloc, I was in college when the revolutions happened. Now I live in the US.

When I describe the life under communists to people who grew up here, I mention, of course, the lack of political freedom, the demagoguery, etc. But then I say things like "OTOH unemployment was zero, health care was free (\), college was free, and everyone was sure to receive a livable pension from the state when they retired." Oh, and there was a decline and clear commercialization of the arts immediately after revolution.

Then everyone gives me odd looks.

It's like they expect a tale of Aragorn vs. Mordor, with clear heroes and villains. It's not like that. Life in the US is clearly better overall, but there are some interesting points to be learned from the ol'country too. Not kicking the destitute to the curb seems the most important.

---

(\) - if you felt the impulse to point out that "free" really means "paid out of your taxes", please be informed that Captain Obvious and his minions are not welcome here. Yes, we get it, ktnxbai.

Unemployment is such a funny thing. In a free market economy, unemployment is a necessity but seems to be treated as a universal evil.

Unemployment is a feature of a regulated capitalist economy. The primary source of unemployment is the minimum wage. There are a nearly unlimited source of jobs available if you would accept $1/hour as payment, and if you have no other employment then at least it gets you experience/recommendations and enough to buy some food.

The minimum wage is a trade off. You create e.g. 10% unemployment so that the ~4.3% of people who make the minimum wage (and still have jobs) can make $7.25/hour instead of $5 or $3. There is a legitimate question as to whether this is the right trade off, but people seem to be in favor of it.

> and enough to buy some food

A food, anyway, provided you aren't spending your $8 a day on rent.

How would social services work in this system without minimum wage? Would people making below a minimum wage deemed necessary to house and feed and care for oneself be eligible for benefits?

> A food, anyway, provided you aren't spending your $8 a day on rent.

When you have the choice between a job that pays $10 and a job that pays $7.25, you generally pick the one that pays $10. When the choice is between $7.25 and $4 or $4 and $1 the choice is similarly obvious. But so is the choice between making $8/day and buying eight pounds of pasta/rice/beans/etc. or being unemployed and hungry.

> How would social services work in this system without minimum wage? Would people making below a minimum wage deemed necessary to house and feed and care for oneself be eligible for benefits?

That's how it works already. People making minimum wage qualify for government benefits that phase out at higher income levels.

Unemployment wasn't that low before the minimum wage was established. What was the primary source of unemployment then?

> Unemployment wasn't that low before the minimum wage was established. What was the primary source of unemployment then?

The poor state of travel and communication at the time. You couldn't exactly hitchhike to the nearest city with a public library and find work via the internet in 1938.

> In a free market economy, unemployment is a necessity

Perhaps a "necessity" in the sense that it's a necessary outcome of a system designed like that.

E.g., you build an engine according to the principles of thermodynamics in this universe, a necessary outcome is wasted heat. The engine would not work if you prohibited the waste; or it would become something else entirely (not a Carnot machine anymore, or whatever).

The trick is to figure out a system where the necessary outcomes are not very undesirable. Pretty hard to do that with the entire human society.

I mean it's a necessity in that you need an elastic supply of labor to respond to the market forces that ostensibly drive a free market economy to meet the needs of its participants.

Cuba flaunts the US hegemony from right under their noses, but they have great wealth in their geographic location, and their society. Cuba could become the Switzerland of the western hemisphere given the right outset.

What does "given the right outset" mean?

The US is the militant world hegemon. Which happily sends uniformed killers halfway around the world to take control. Proximity to the US isn't healthy for freedom-lovers with browner skin.

  > education health care and the arts flourish

Yes. Music also.

THIS is the Cuba I'd like to see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tozhe0yTAqo

Heck yeah! The simple Cuba, I wish to make it there before it becomes westernized.

It's a good thing, but Cuba is about to be gentrified. I really wish I had visited before now, Cuba is going to lose a lot of culture in the long term. I can envision McDonald's and Starbucks everywhere.

If Cuba is selling itself to the US, then I am concerned. If the US exports its version of capitalism to Cuba then Cuba is doomed.

Your perspective is flawed because you are projecting too logical a world view on the opponents of rapprochement, but from an emotionally conservative perspective it's seen as giving up the fight against evil.

Agriculture, including tobacco production, accounts for only approximately 4% of Cuban GDP--after heavyweights like tourism (embargo just prevents Americans from going there), gas export, industrial production, and the medical sector. Of greater interest to HN readers than the implications for one trivial luxury good, Cuba has one of the greatest mismatches between literacy (~97%) and telecom development and accessibility (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Cuba) in the world.

Note: Americans could previously go there; you just couldn't go directly from America.

Americans could previously go there, they just couldn't spend money there and no airlines offered flights from the US.

Not true. I went to Cuba twice from the USA, legally as a student with an OFAC license. This was in 2002 and 2003.

First time via Toronto (Baltimore -> Toronto -> Havana).

Second time we took one of they very few available IIRC American Airlines flights from Miami. Baltimore -> Miami -> Havana.

Believe it or not, the Canada trip was much easier. In Miami we encountered a lot of hostility from the Miami Cuban immigrant community. Eg, the gate to fly to Havana was really hidden in an obscure place between two terminals, and we felt people were jerking us around when we asked how to find it (we were literally sent to both extreme ends of the airport a couple times). Returning we had some aggressive questions from an immigrations officer when he found out we weren't visiting family there, and sent us to the line for getting our bags fully inspected for farming produce contraband.

So yeah, it is possible to fly there from the USA legally, but in our opinion flying waaaay out of the way to Canada was actually easier and less stressful.

I think you will find US dollars (cash) accepted quite readily in Cuba.

Of course, but the problem is that US authorities have a problem with you giving US dollars to Cuban businesses. You can go there and spend, sure, but when you go back, somebody will (should) knock at your door. Obviously this doesn't happen to simple tourists, only to Jay-Z/Beyonce and businessmen.

I think the point is that it was illegal (under US law) in many cases for Americans to spend money there (probably in any currency).

As I understand it, the only way for an American citizen to legally travel to Cuba is through specially designated cultural exchange programs.

Good point. Lot's of opportunity will open up for the people of Cuba and developers in the US if connections are made and firewalls come down.

exactly. Awesome opportunity to build a vocational school there to crank out quality devs. :))

I'd argue quality devs are mostly born and self-made and then slowly polished over a long period of time -- not the kinds of folks who are cranked out of a vocational school. It's an intellectual craft. It's not manning a fry bin.

> smoking a Cuban Cigar can be considered an act of treason currently.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Like most of the Constitution, I'm sure that there's way more to understanding this section than reading the written words. Nonetheless I'm skeptical of the claim that smoking a cigar could be considered treason.

Yeah, it wouldn't be treason. The sanctions have defined punishments at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/D...

> Criminal penalties for violating the Regulations range up to 10 years in prison, $1,000,000 in corporate fines, and $250,000 in individual fines. Civil penalties up to $65,000 per violation may also be imposed.

My understanding, as a non cigar smoker, is that the quality of Cubans has decreased and they are only popular because of illegality of them.

As a larger cigar smoker. This is largely marketing from non-Cuban companies. While a lot of Caribbean tobacco is very very good, Cubans are the best without question. And this isn't so much like wine where experts fail to recognize quality in double blinds. A proper cuban cigar has a very distinct veining pattern, and far more almost oily texture. You can tell by touch alone with little training.

Seasoned critics can name the nationality of a cigar just by touch its actually very cool to see (I'm nowhere near that good lol a few different countries are too similar for me).

And the "golden age" of Cuban cigars is often cited as before WW2 so either way its long pasted.

Brazilian tobacco tastes good, but leaves are not spotless like in Cuba, so Brazilian cigar makers have to import them just for the "capa" layer (the external layer in cigars). Many countries do the same.

Nope. I smoke cigars weekly and I can tell you Cuban cigars are the bests (they are allowed in my country).

In the U.S. you will find the same brands like Partagas, but they're made with blends from other countries than Cuba, and they are really inferior. I tried a bunch of them and Cubans wins everytime.

Have you tried Sumatran tobacco?

Its actually been catching on in the US. Its not as good as Cuban, but its far superior to most Caribbean varieties I find. Has an oddly cinnamon spicy flavor (I'm in the US so Cubas are rare unless you hunt for them) rather good.

Prices of American cars from the fifties will drop, too.

Longer-term, I also expect fierce legal battles over the ownership of houses on Cuba.

I would expect this to be officially settled before the embargo is actually lifted. Ownership of nationalised industries and other US assets has always been item #2 on the diplomatic agenda, with #1 being military alliances (originally with the USSR, now Venezuela and China).

I expect the Cuban government will concede on a few national-level items (like legitimacy of the Guantanamo base) in exchange for the US government publicly affirming that any ownership claim from US businesses and individuals pre-revolution will be considered null and void. Anything else would be complete madness. Apart from difficulty in tracking original documents (which were likely destroyed during and after the revolution), handing nationalised assets to US citizens would mine the economic power base of the ruling elite in Cuba.

Consider hotels: they power one of the few sizeable economic activities on the island, i.e. tourism; but any hotel built before the revolution (and there are quite a few, all around the island) would have to revert to (likely US) previous owners, instantly transferring a lot of wealth out of the island. Not gonna happen.

Can you explain the housing ownership battle? Is this related to foreigners (to Cuba) who owned houses in Cuba before 1959?

Exiles who left the country. If you were to speak to elderly Cubans who fled they would tell you about how they all had their possessions taken from them.

Any reason to expect they have a stronger or more likely to succeed claim than, say, the Japanese-American families whose possessions were taken from them in WW2?

I guess this will partly depend on the sentiment of the public. If you look at retributions for damage in World War Two, one sees that even cases where people _sold_ items to German citizens (possibly under duress, but after decades, and with many archives destroyed in the war, that is hard to prove in some cases) that were settled in the fifties or sixties got reopened decades later.

And according to Wikipedia, Japanese Americans did get retributions under Reagan (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#United_States) How much or for what, I wouldn't know.