Comments on: Cuba & Remittances: Can the ‘Money in the Mail’ Drive Reform?

By: What Really Works (And What Clearly Doesn’t) «

What Really Works (And What Clearly Doesn’t) « — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:38:44 +0000

[...] Cuba & Remittances: Can the ‘Money in the Mail’ Drive Reform? [...]

By: How Undoing Obama’s Cuba Policy Would Harm Entrepreneurs and Civil Society Empowerment «

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:09:48 +0000

[...] Cuba & Remittances: Can the ‘Money in the Mail’ Drive Reform? [...]

By: Cuba White Paper Suggests Steps to Boost Micro and Small Businesses «

Cuba White Paper Suggests Steps to Boost Micro and Small Businesses « — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:16:47 +0000

[...] state employees, the rapid development of a vigorous micro and small business sector offers a promising alternative to another decade of stagnation and decay,” said Josh Goldstein, Principal Director, Center for [...]

By: Center for Financial Inclusion

Center for Financial Inclusion — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:36:11 +0000

It is a sensitive topic, but there clearly is denial about racial inequality in Cuba and it needs to be discussed not hidden away if progress is to be made. As to remittances being used for consumption, I agree with the writer that to a large degree this is a matter of choice and that it can promote economic growth. But the remitter should have at least some say in what the money he is giving is used for. I would be interested to hear your thoughts, and those of other readers here, about how race factors into remittances and development. As well as your observations about “choice” in this context. How does your experience stack up against Mr. Shoemaker’s thoughts, and mine?

Sincerely, Josh Goldstein, AKA Mr. Provocative

By: Cristian Shoemaker

Cristian Shoemaker — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:28:12 +0000

Muted, belated congratulations to the Cuban government for beginning to find a way forward for its hard working, creative people.
Regarding the blog post, viewing the opening up of remittance flows through a racial lense seems ill fitted. Economic freedom and financial access open up opportunities. People will find a way to tap into these opportunities and the benefits that can be secured with them, if their assessment of the risk/reward trade-off matches their preferences.
If remittances are used for consumption at the discretion of the owners of those funds, is that a negative? Economic freedom implies choices. Consumption brings benefits to the suppliers of what is being consumed, as well as a chosen exchange of value for the consumer.
If a choice exists between pooled remittance funds (presumably taxed into existence) and maximum economic freedom for Cubans to use their funds as they deem appropriate, the latter option seems more attractive.
Thanks for an interesting post.