PEN-L'ers might remember my comments on how that $700k "average" salary
is fairly meaningless and that a median salary would be a better
barometer. This article deals with similar yardsticks but applied to Cuba.
---
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/2455
A Letter on Cuba
— Barry Sheppard
I APPRECIATE THE articles on Cuba from various viewpoints in ATC issues
#141 and #142. They provide food for thought for socialists with
different analyses of Cuba.
I would like to comment on the article by Frank Thomson in #141
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/2271) on the Cuban economy, which I
think gives a false picture. Thompson acknowledges that per capita Gross
Domestic Product is a poor measure of a country’s economic wellbeing.
I’ll return to that -- but since he largely utilizes this measurement, I
want to start there.
Thompson says, “…. in 2001, Cuba was the third poorest country in Latin
America as measured by per capita GDP. Only Nicaragua and the
poorest-of-the poor Haiti ranked lower.”
Be that as it may, in 2008 the situation was markedly different.
According to the CIA’s “World Factbook,” Cuba ranked 107th in the world
with a per capita GDP of $9,100. The world average, including the
advanced imperialist countries (and the very poor), was $10,400.
The following countries of Latin America and the Caribbean rank below Cuba:
Colombia, #111 at $8,900
Surinam, #112 at $8,900
Anguilla, #114 at $8,800
Peru, #117 at $8,400
Dominican Republic, #118 at $8,100
Ecuador, #122 at #7,500
Jamaica, #123 at $7,400
El Salvador, #129 at $6,200
Guatemala, #137 at $5,200
Bolivia, #148 at $4,500
Honduras, #149 at $4,400
Paraguay, #151 at $4,200
Guyana, #156 at $$3,900
Nicaragua, #167 at $2,900
Haiti, # 202 at $1,300
It also should be noted that it is difficult to measure Cuban GDP in
terms of U.S. dollars. The official exchange rate doesn’t reflect the
real cost of living. This can be seen from the well-known fact that
those in Cuba who receive dollars either in the dollar economy (tourism,
mainly) or from remittances abroad have greater buying power than those
who don’t. Also, basic food is rationed at low prices, and education and
medical care are free to everyone, paid by the government from its
general funds -- and how are these to be converted to U.S. dollars?
The measure of GDP is: GDP = C + I + G + (X-M). C is consumption, I is
investment, G is government expenditures, X is exports and M is imports.
Cuba has to rely on large imports, and these have to be paid in hard
currency, so this is a large minus when calculating GDP in dollar terms.
But my main problem with Thompson’s article is that he relies on
averages. Per capita GDP is an average, the GDP divided by the total
population. To see how most people in a country live, it is important to
know the distribution of income. At best, GDP is only a rough indication
of total income.
The distribution of income in capitalist countries is extremely skewed.
A very few have very high incomes, and most people have much, much less.
The average income, total income divided by total population, tells us
nothing about what most people’s income are like in the United States,
for example, because the hundreds of millions of dollars that a very few
make greatly raise the average.
One person making $100,000,000 balances out one thousand making
$100,000, and ten thousand making $10,000 (and there are many people in
the U.S. making that).
The real incomes of the very rich contain hidden amounts not counted per
person. Some examples: capital returns to trust funds, and that portion
of company and bank profits not returned to shareholders but reinvested.
A more accurate measure would be not the average, but the median (50
percent make more and 50 percent less). This too gives a figure too high
because of the skewing of income to the very rich. Often figures are
given for the median family income, but the median per capita income is
less.
What would be the most accurate measure would be the mode, the amount
the income of most people is bracketed around. The average, the median
and the mode are often confused in the popular mind, but when statistics
are highly skewed they are very different.
If a graph of the U.S. population on the X axis vs. income on the Y can
be imagined, there would be a tiny tail of fewer and fewer people way
out to the right towards incomes of $100,000,000 and higher, and we know
there are higher just from the announcements of Wall Street bonuses, let
alone the big capitalist families.
Most of the population would be clustered near the left, the mode, the
highest point, and the graph would tail off from there. The median would
be considerably to the right of the mode, and the average would be still
further to the right.
Such a graph would be even more extreme if, instead of income, total
wealth were plotted. In the United States, a sizable percentage has a
total wealth of zero (do not own a home, stocks, bank accounts, and so
forth). So the graph would run along the zero wealth line for a
distance, rise up to the mode, and then tail off to the few who are the
most rich.
In Brazil there would be an even higher percentage with a total wealth
of zero. Brazil ranks a little higher than Cuba in the CIA’s chart, at
#113 and a per capita GDP of $10,400. But Brazil has a tiny few of
extremely rich people and a big number of poor people. Millions do have
not enough food. In Cuba everyone has adequate food. Millions of
Brazilians have no health care. Everyone has health care in Cuba.
Millions in Brazil are illiterate. Cubans are highly educated and all
schools through college are free. Ninety percent of Cubans pay no rent
because they own their own homes.
A graph of income in Brazil would show a large mode on the left, at
lower income, and a tail off to the right where the very rich reside.
There are income disparities in Cuba, and income is skewed. There are
different pay levels. Those who receive dollars earn more than those who
don’t.
The bureaucracy skims off from its control over distribution, but not
nearly the amount in the old Soviet Union, and even there bureaucrat’s
incomes were nowhere near what capitalists “earned” – a main reason why
the bureaucracy wanted a return to capitalism. But the graph in Cuba
would not tail off to millionaires and billionaires. There are none. Not
even $100,000-aires. The graph would have the average, the median and
the mode closer together.
So Thompson’s unfavorable comparison between Cuba after the Revolution
with Cuba under U.S. imperialist domination, dictatorship and
gangsterism by using GDP is quite misleading. Income and wealth in
pre-Revolution Cuba were highly skewed to the rich, and so were literacy
and access to health care.
November-December 2009, web only
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
