Cuba, wheat, the US

[Lumpold]

Originally Posted by TideRoll

I suspect it bothers them a great deal more than it bothers us. As I recall, we are paying them $2,000 per year for a perpetual lease negotiated at the end of the Spanish-American War. Not a bad rental rate, particularly since the information I just Googled indicates that Castro doesn't cash the checks.

It's not about how much you pay, or whether Castro cashes those checks, he's still your landlord, and that amuses me. Same way it would if the UK had an embargo and rented Guantanamo.

And personally I think the UK should have told the 'Peoples' republic of China that they felt the atrocious Human Rights record meant no go on handing back HK, as we had a duty to protect it people, and returning it to PRC didn't gaurentee they'd be safe.

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Anyone ever consider that the corps could save money by not letting the fat cat execs get million dollar bonuses whether or not the company does well?

You have put yourself, through your own efforts, in a position to be in charge of your humidor. Maybe I wash your car for a Cremosa, maybe I have no ties to you at all. Either way, that's your humidor, something your back and your mind have earned. I have no right to demand that you smoke less cigars or a lesser grade simply because my humidor is empty.

Besides that, the bonuses these execs get is a pretty tiny part of the budget (Delphi, by the UAW's estimation could pay in total $42 million to 21 execs, while the company has $14.5 billion in employee obligations, such as full-pay pensions, 2 year severence, etc). And a well deserved part too. They are highly educated, highly stressed individuals whose entire career depends on the performance of the entire company. One mistake could be the end of their career. Their incredible responsibility is the reason for incredible income. Further, in the case of many of the US's doomed manufacturing corps, they HAVE to provide huge incentives to keep execs from jumping ship to save their names. No one wants his name to be attached to a gigantic failure.

As much as I hate business execs (and I do, they drank their way through college and get paid a boatload), they are incredibly important to our economy. It is the CAPITAL, not the labor, that the world's economy is based on.

[TideRoll]

Originally Posted by Lumpold

It's not about how much you pay, or whether Castro cashes those checks, he's still your landlord, and that amuses me. Same way it would if the UK had an embargo and rented Guantanamo.

And personally I think the UK should have told the 'Peoples' republic of China that they felt the atrocious Human Rights record meant no go on handing back HK, as we had a duty to protect it people, and returning it to PRC didn't gaurentee they'd be safe.

A landlord has the power to evict a tenant, the right to periodically inspect the property, and other various parts of the bundle of rights. He is only granting certain, specified parts of his bundle of rights to a tenant for a specified period. In this case, neither the U.S. or Cuba could be said to have complete title to the property. Cuba cannot evict us, cannot inspect the property, cannot sell, convey or sublease the property to any other parties, and as I understand it, the lease is in perpetuity. The "lease" is a matter of treaty, and effectively grants the land to the U.S. for a pittance for our exclusive use AS OUR SOVERIGN TERRITORY for a term to be determined at our will. Fidel lacks most if not all of the important powers/rights customarily present with a "Landlord." In the U.S. and the U.K., which share to a large degree concepts of real property rights, a reasonable person would not consider his claim to title anything approaching that of a "Landlord."

In the case of HK, refusal to hand over the property would have been a violation of a treaty, and probably an act of war. Though I fully agree with you that China does not deserve HK and has a very bad human rights record.

[TideRoll]

Originally Posted by croatan

Quoting Havana Club Holding, S.A. v. Galleon S.A: "[w]ith respect to the Cuban embargo, the purpose of Congress could not be more clear. Congress wish to prevent any Cuban national or entity from attracting hard currency..."

It was believed that preventing hard currency from entering Cuba would help accomplish the goals of the embargo, including "assisting the Cuban people in regaining their freedom and prosperity, providing for the continued national security of the United States in the face of continuing threats from the Castro government, encouraging the holding of free and fair democratic elections, and protecting United States nationals against confiscatory takings." (22 USCA § 6022).

Based on that premise, selling products to Cuba is not really hypocritical. If anything, it furthers the agenda of the United States by taking hard currency out of Cuba.

Note: I am not commenting on the viability or wisdom of the U.S. policy, only that it is internally consistent in this respect.

Great research and commentary.

[Lumpold]

While I was unaware of the soverign territory clause, as I said, it's got nothing to do with how much you pay him, whether he collects the money... to me this is the bottom line: via that treaty signed a century ago (give or take) the US is bound in a contract to lease land off the cuban government, for whatever sovereign purpose. While I agree the the cuban government has lost many, if not all, of the legal right when it comes to dealing with the tennant, I would say underneath all the extraneous legal documentation, the land still ultimately belongs to cuba.

Disclaimer:
I could be horribly wrong, I've never actually seen a copy of the treaty... if anyone can show me so we can see I would be appreciative!


And yes, I'm aware that not handing back HK would have been a breach of contract, and I'm sure if I were prime minister at the time, I'd have handed it back. However, I have HK born family friends who were not allowed to claim full UK citizenship as much as they'd been born under british rule, spoke perfect english and considered themselves English, and even, while HK was a protectorate, had semi-UK citizenship. Nope, Commie Chinese Bastids now. (j/k, they aren't commie or bastids.)

[AAlmeter]

What's it called when the tenants kick out the landlord? Is that still considered eviction?

Just curious.

[TideRoll]

Originally Posted by Lumpold

While I was unaware of the soverign territory clause, as I said, it's got nothing to do with how much you pay him, whether he collects the money... to me this is the bottom line: via that treaty signed a century ago (give or take) the US is bound in a contract to lease land off the cuban government, for whatever sovereign purpose. While I agree the the cuban government has lost many, if not all, of the legal right when it comes to dealing with the tennant, I would say underneath all the extraneous legal documentation, the land still ultimately belongs to cuba.

Disclaimer:
I could be horribly wrong, I've never actually seen a copy of the treaty... if anyone can show me so we can see I would be appreciative!


And yes, I'm aware that not handing back HK would have been a breach of contract, and I'm sure if I were prime minister at the time, I'd have handed it back. However, I have HK born family friends who were not allowed to claim full UK citizenship as much as they'd been born under british rule, spoke perfect english and considered themselves English, and even, while HK was a protectorate, had semi-UK citizenship. Nope, Commie Chinese Bastids now.

Semantics can be important. A treaty goes well beyond a contract, and that applies to both Cuba/Guantanamo and HK. You break a contract, you got to court, you break a treaty and you might need to head to a bunker. Is it basically Cuban soil? Well, it is contiguous to the island, and if the U.S decided to leave, I suppose it would be theirs. Can they do much of anything with it? Nope. It is kind of like having one of those novelty deeds to real estate on the moon. Not that the U.S. has unrestricted use of it, either. Like you, I have not read the entire treaty and it has been more than a couple of years since I studied it at any length, but as I understand it, it can only be used as a military base. We can't put up condos and a resort, but it would be sweet if we could.

I had a friend who was from HK. Her parents were basically selling their furniture manufacturing business for pennies on the dollar some years ago. They knew what was coming down the line, and were at least fortunate enough to sell out with enough cash to move elsewhere (in this case I think they ended up in Singapore, though the young lady is in California as a thirty-something grad student). Bad situation for lots and lots of other folks, going from a decent, free society that valued choice to a Communist state. Of course, China doesn't necessarily want to kill off the goose that laid the golden egg. They will probably just fiddle with the goose until it dies on its own accord.

[TideRoll]

Originally Posted by AAlmeter

What's it called when the tenants kick out the landlord? Is that still considered eviction?

Just curious.

How about: "A long time coming!"

[Lumpold]

Originally Posted by TideRoll

Semantics can be important. A treaty goes well beyond a contract, and that applies to both Cuba/Guantanamo and HK. You break a contract, you got to court, you break a treaty and you might need to head to a bunker. Is it basically Cuban soil? Well, it is contiguous to the island, and if the U.S decided to leave, I suppose it would be theirs. Can they do much of anything with it? Nope. It is kind of like having one of those novelty deeds to real estate on the moon. Not that the U.S. has unrestricted use of it, either. Like you, I have not read the entire treaty and it has been more than a couple of years since I studied it at any length, but as I understand it, it can only be used as a military base. We can't put up condos and a resort, but it would be sweet if we could.

As I said, I've not studied the treaty, so I am unaware of the specifics. Knowing that the treaty with China re: Hong Kong was timed lease, and the eventual return to China was on the books, I know for a fact China still techinically owned the land. I would like to believe that Cuba didn't give up the land totally, and that somewhere deep down in the agreement they own the land, but with all you have siad here, I would have to look it up to be sure. I would think if the US failed to offer the $2k or whatever, or the US vacated the land, Cuba would have, whether used or known, some sort of rights to the land under that treaty, but until we've had a look at the papers.... I understand that semantics are important and that a treaty and a contract have similar means, but very dissimilar endings when it comes to a bad ending, but if you want to talk semantics then remember that the definition of a treaty is mearly a contract or agreement between two political states.

Originally Posted by TideRoll

I had a friend who was from HK. Her parents were basically selling their furniture manufacturing business for pennies on the dollar some years ago. They knew what was coming down the line, and were at least fortunate enough to sell out with enough cash to move elsewhere (in this case I think they ended up in Singapore, though the young lady is in California as a thirty-something grad student). Bad situation for lots and lots of other folks, going from a decent, free society that valued choice to a Communist state. Of course, China doesn't necessarily want to kill off the goose that laid the golden egg. They will probably just fiddle with the goose until it dies on its own accord.

Yes, the return of HK meant the downfall of alot of 'local business' as many locallly born HK people tried to get out of the country to somewhere safer. However, as many of those people assumed they would be granted full UK citizenship, there were a few problems. My family friends put their young girls up for adoption to a UK family so their girls could get out and be safe... well, they were adopted by other family friends, and have remained in HK but as UK citizens... thankfully.