Matt Cover over at Rare spotted this first, and it’s an Associated Press gem.

Why does communism fail time and time again? Look at the AP’s spin:

HAHAHAHA! “Lack of customers.”

“Lack of customers” is also the reason shop owners in North Korea don’t have condos in Boca and will be sent to a labor camp for 30 years if they complain about their country’s “lack of customers” form of government.

From the AP story (if you’re drinking a beverage, put it down before proceeding):

While the sample size is small, the numbers point to a basic problem that economists who follow Cuba have noted from the start: There simply isn’t enough money to support a thriving private sector on an island where salaries average $20 a month.

“Clearly, there is a macroeconomic environment that does not favor the private sector or the expansion of demand that the private sector requires,” said Pavel Vidal, a former Cuban Central Bank economist.

The gist of the story is that the Cuban government has been dabbling in — get this — government-run free-market capitalism (hmm, why does that sound so familiar?), but I don’t even know where to start when trying to dissect “isn’t enough money to support a thriving private sector.” And the “macroeconomic environment” the Cuban economist speaks of is called “communism,” though the AP didn’t see fit to point that out.

By the way, if the above sounds familiar, it’s because that’s the same crap we hear when our own U.S. government is trying to spin all their “green job” failings. “The company we started had a great product, but the customers just weren’t there.” And media outlets report it dutifully.

Comments

6 Responses to “AP story about Cuba economy hilariously deflects blame for the failings of communism”

  1. Dale on December 28th, 2013 5:12 pm

    I heard Rush say a long time ago that the reason liberals think communism hasn't worked in the past is because smart people like them haven't been in charge of it.

  2. doriangrey1 on December 28th, 2013 6:42 pm

    The Captain Louis Renault Award award time. The AP doesn't get it, because… Shock of shocks… They are Marxists who cannot accept that Marxism doesn't work…

    The success of Obamacare: Liberal cognitive dissonances turned up to 11…

  3. Marshall_Will on December 29th, 2013 5:02 pm

    Due in large part to 30+ years of near unchecked [total] control of pubic education, everyone under 30 has been indoctrinated to believe capitalism is the root of all poverty/evil/greed.

    I'll dredge up the blogpost but some 20-something 'academic' did a dissertation on "Why Capitalism Always Fails" and the near 200 comments that followed were in near unanimous agreement!

    That's why it was so important to place all emphasis on 99 Weeks of Unenjoyment and a [second] college career after implementing the Silent Coup. Capitalism S@cks has been firmly ingrained in the minds of the American youth. It's the [one] thing this administration has actually accomplished.

  4. Truesoldier__ on December 29th, 2013 5:51 pm

    This is like saying tax revenues in high taxing states would be much larger if only companies would stop relocating to states with lower tax rates.

  5. Marshall_Will on December 29th, 2013 11:23 pm

    Hence The Exodus ( from Oregon ) to Vancouver the [minute] Measures 66 & 67 went into effect. The, ahem.., 'projected revenues' never lived up to the hype and approx. 38,000 of OR's 1%'ers went missing.

    230
    comments
    The tax facts on Measures 66, 67
    Harry Esteve, The Oregonian By Harry Esteve, The Oregonian
    on January 12, 2010 at 9:20 PM, updated January 13, 2010 at 1:57 PM
    Print

    Email

    Get top news in your inbox every morning. Sign up for email updates here.
    Sponsored Link

    Tax calculator
    » Find out how your personal or business taxes would be affected by Measures 66 and 67
    With their ballots in hand, Oregon voters are weighing the two proposed tax increases, Measures 66 and 67. At the same time, campaigners, bloggers, TV ads and the media are putting out a blizzard of information, some of it contradictory, much of it confusing. Here are the basics to help sort through the noise.

    Measure 66

    Q: Who would pay?

    A: Households with taxable income of $250,000 or more and single filers with taxable incomes above $125,000.

    Q: How much would this add to their tax bills?

    A: Right now, nearly all Oregonians' income is taxed at 9 percent. For the high-income people specified above, any taxable income above $125,000 (single) or $250,000 (taxpayers who file
    jointly or are head of household) would be taxed at a higher rate of 10.8 percent. For those who earn more than twice that much taxable income ($250,000 single or $500,000 joint), earnings above those figures would be taxed at 11 percent.

    Q: Give me examples.

    A: Let's say a family took in $320,000 in 2009, had $20,000 in deductions, leaving it a taxable income of $300,000. It would pay an additional $900 in state income taxes under Measure 66. A family that made $40,000 would pay no additional taxes, nor would a family that made $200,000. A family with $2 million in taxable income would pay $34,500 more in state taxes.

    "Q: How many people would pay more taxes?

    A: The Legislative Revenue Office estimates about 2.5 percent of all Oregon tax filers would see an increase in their taxes, or about 38,000 out of 1.5 million filers."

    Or basically Oregonians not part of that 2.5% voted to place a tax burden on others that would not affect THEM. Dim's wrote the bill specifically for that appeal. This in a state that consistently trails in job creation. Of course, it's for the kids….

  6. y13 on January 7th, 2014 12:57 am

    it was very interesting and meaningful.
    y5

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.