Little by little

MSNBC: "Cuba to eliminate 500,000 state jobs, spur private sector"

     Although the perspective of Cubans may differ from mine, as well as people on the left or supporters of socialist policies, this was probably the most exciting news I've heard from Cuba in a long time. To hear Fidel Castro, the former ruler of the Caribbean island, admit that the Cuban economic model is not working should be a symbol of socialist economic models in general. In its ideal form, say in a Utopia where we are such humble citizens as to consistently desire hard work for our community's well-being, communism could work. I believe that with almost any government and community, however, human weakness will get the best of us and our leaders (the ones managing our money).
     I am skeptical of socialist policies because reliance is put on the goodness of others. While I understand that in order for society to function, people need to be trusted and depended upon, from life experience it is rare to find even a friend who is more concerned with your well being than their own (let alone concerned with the well being of society in general). While individuals in a socialist or communist society may be wise enough to understand that their own self interest is ensured through a desire to maintain productivity and harmony from the top all the way to the bottom (government to citizen), time will erode this mentality. In other words, over time, citizens of communist societies will forget why they must work hard during the full work week and eventually put the load on others, combined this will erode at the success of a communist nation. The Washington Post points out that it is not that Cubans are simply "lazy". The management of the economy in a communist government starts from the top rather than the bottom; economists and politicians try to manage the market's needs rather than capitalist behavior satisfying demand. This fact is what has led to the erosion of the Cuban economy, not just lack of incentives for citizens to work.
     A socialist policy in the United States is certainly not the same as a communist government, yet these policies are dependent upon sacrifices from all citizens, including those who deem themselves politicians and their employees. Self interest, which breeds a desire for instant gratification, will take advantage of our human weaknesses. Systems such as welfare and social security demonstrate their ability to kill work incentives along with increasing the incentives and feasibility of corruption. I quote a family member of mine who told me, "Well, Obama extended the unemployment benefits for another 6 months, so I'm going to head out to Vegas for a few days." Him being an older family member of mine, at the time I was so shocked I could not think of what to say in a respectful manner. When I thought afterwards about what he had said, I realized that the only person in this world who I could trust to manage my money was myself. This lack of trust is not to argue against socialist policies in general, because in a society that hopes to improve itself over time by minimizing income disparities, socialism makes perfect sense. Yet, little by little, Cuba and perhaps supporters of socialist ideals will understand that although initially socialist policies can be a beautiful thing that will help those in need and those who do not have the social and financial resources to improve their lives, over time, many of these plans will not survive if they are not monitored and controlled properly.

Stuck In Limbo: "Black or Latino?"

     Last Wednesday I attended an information session about inconsistencies and insecurities regarding self identification. What the information taught us, through a documentary titled, "Mirror's of the Heart" was that the notion of considering yourself "black" is not the same as identifying oneself as "white" or "asian" (two frequently used terms in the United States and at the University of Southern California). What many do not know, including Latin Americans as well as those who consider themselves "black" is that most Latin American nations are populated with millions of African diaspora. Their cultures and people have been mixed throughout the years not only with Spanish culture but with the indigenous cultures that preceded the arrival of the Spaniards. When many black latinos, or Afrolatinos, are asked in the United States the question "what are you?" they must face multiple conflicts.
     To my surprise, this question is actually quite controversial and offensive in the eyes of many Afrolatinos. In the meeting they expressed the question as part of the American habit of classifying all types of races and people into terms. This classification, I came to realize, is a failure of our society to realize the repercussions of such habits. Classifying each human, either mixed race or not, extremely limits the understanding of that person. Rather than trying to understand who the person is on an individual basis it is easier to fit them into our perspective of what we think the rest of "latinos", "blacks", "whites" or "asians" are like. Afrolatinos at the information session discussed that at some point they do not feel like they must educate every person on the fact that latinos can be black (personally I believe it is their obligation to educate). What I got out of this session was not just some new friends but realizing that all the terms we use to talk about groups of people, especially in the US with its diversity, is the direct cause of stereotypes and misunderstandings. Since more and more Americans are mixed with a multitude of backgrounds does it still make sense to limit our understanding of the people around us to 5, 6 or even 100 different terms of categorization?
     Overall the meeting and the food was enjoyable and turned into a discussion that became the headline of the meeting: conflicts between the two groups who must deem themselves either "black" or "latino". In the United States, especially in Los Angeles, the terms black and latino are used frequently to describe those of different skin color. The University of Southern California, located in downtown Los Angeles, reflects the categorization of Blacks and Latinos into two separate categories. Students complained over the fact that black graduation and latino graduation are held on the same day at the same time. (What struck me as even more surprising, in retrospect, was the fact that these graduations even exist, they seem to promote the categorization many Afrolatinos dislike). There were also comments about how Afrolatinos must decide about living in the "latino floors" or the "black floors" (the latter better known as Somerville; Again I reiterate that although these floors provide a place where students can feel at "home", they promote a division from non-blacks and non-latinos that is counter-productive). What many attendees, as myself, promoted was the unification of the two separate groups. Maybe not as a group turned into one but instead of individual events, hold events where both the latino organizations and the black organizations will attend. The meeting ended on a positive note when students actively decided to set a date for a new event in order to reach out to more students.

Is legality simply safer?

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

     The illegal drug trade is, from an economic perspective, a touchy subject. Economics strives for optimum performance and minimal loss for society, but how do illegal drugs fit into this idea? On the side of anti-drug proponents you have a slew of users who may potentially spread the use of these substances to other people who would not try these drugs if they were illegal. On the other side you have this video. You have the truth that when substances are made illegal, people are made criminals, and a black market is established in place of a potentially controlled and monitored market. From this black market around goods with such high demand (almost inelastic demand when one considers addicts) stems crime and violence. Other negative side effects of making drugs illegal include more prisoners in jail, a market-distorting high price (the money a drug user spends on expensive drugs could have gone toward other products) and, at least for Mexico, political instability. The cost of trying to prevent our citizens from using these drugs may not only exceed the benefit, but may also be an entirely futile attempt at prevention.

     Understanding that the argument for illegality of a wide variety of addictive, if not life threatening, drugs is entirely logical and righteous, proponents of illegality must realize their voice extends to substances that do not deserve to become the cause of the next Mexican car bomb. I argue that U.S. drug policy makers, influencers, and activists must do with marijuana what they did with alcohol and cigarettes: remove their association with drugs. Alcohol contains the chemical ethanol yet merely from experience, people would hardly ever call alcohol a drug. (What if marijuana existed in liquid form?) Chemicals are added to tobacco that make cigarettes addictive, so if it is not the addiction, the smoking, or a chemical that makes marijuana, and many other illegal substances, coined "drugs", could it simply be their apparent illegality?

     When considering the video, the suffering, the war, can one really argue that the potential prevention of our citizens from smoking a cigarette of reefer is worth the lives of thousands across Latin America? I understand the argument that making drugs legal could increase usage, demand and could even exacerbate the war in Mexico (I doubt the latter since I believe established companies like in the tobacco and alcohol industries would take the place of underground marijuana cartels), but our society must reconsider which of these drugs are actually lethal drugs and which are called drugs merely as a byproduct of this particular era's views (I chose to ignore scientific arguments on marijuana since alcohol damages organs and kills lives yet is legal). If marijuana could be produced, traded and regulated at home like the tobacco industry, perhaps we could shift production from our friend to the south, not only saving lives but reinforcing our own economy.