In this case the president's corporatism has an upside. But if the Koch brothers and Waltons weren't going to get richer from it, it wouldn't have happened.

Always has been, always will be.

for politicians and for Corporations but not so good for workers and for those who need the social safety net that is eroded in favor of corporate profit.

They have much more trade than we do in the US, yet have stronger middle classes and unions and better social safety nets.

Our 1% has been able to harm our middle class, weaken our unions and shred our safety net although trade is a much, much smaller part of our economy than it is in Europe or other progressive countries.

The lesson to me is that the 1% can decimate society regardless of the amount of trade it engages in. (republicans did a good job of that for 12 years before FDR when there were high tariffs and little trade.)

Progressive countries have comparatively high levels of trade, but promoting trade may be a policy choice not the cause of their shared prosperity. With strong unions and labor laws and effective safety nets people seem assured that the benefits of trade will be equitably shared. In countries with weak unions, ineffective labor laws and porous safety nets the benefits of trade are not likely to be equitably shared. Of course, the benefits of domestic commerce are not likely to be equitably shared either.

NAFTA and all the other trade agreements. Prior to those agreements we had a lot of international trade and it worked in our (the peoples) favor. Along comes NAFTA and bye-bye jobs and security. What changed? How did we get from the old model of international trade to Poppies new world order?

And maybe more important - how do we get back to that old model?

Walmart and McDonalds will soon populate the island, and the US government will say it's good since it's giving Cubans jobs.
Cuba will turn into the USA, with it's commercialism and greed. The workers will be underpaid and overworked, just like they are in America, while CEOs continue to make billions.

Opening a market just offshore of 11 million people to telecom, banking, every kind of big business. Wall Street must be rejoicing.

I knew it when Obama talked about all the opportunities for Cubans. Translation: opportunities for capitalism.

Funny sentiment from someone communicating over the Internet.

You certainly suggest it was something good.

Perhaps the republican congress will prevent it from happening.

I sense a marketing opportunity.

Cubans don't like rapid change. They won't have a capitalist at the helm for at least 10 years. Meanwhile their reason for being to to fight off the 1% and greedy US pols. So far they managed it. They like to do things on their own terms and they're pretty smart.

In the end it's hard to fight the powers that be but they're not rolling over any time soon. Raul wore his uniform for his speech on Wednesday. They're still in that mode.

I'm pretty sure Cubans would be all for cell phones. If I remember correctly about 20% of the adult population has them. Pretty sure Cubans would be all for the internet and free access to information. A very small amount of Cubans currently have access to such. I'm pretty sure Cubans would like better representation, but the Castros would never allow that to happen. You are correct that the Cuban government is pretty smart. Its leaders live really well and it is pretty stable. I do think it is wrong to state "Cubans" like this or that. No way of knowing. The Castros really aren't very open to any form of descent. It is not Cubans as you say, it is the Cuban government. You really can't say what Cubans want. The current generation of Cubans have now lived their whole lives under state controlled media.

I'm actually speaking from a lot of experience being there and spending time with Cubans. They know what's wrong but a general characteristic, that they told me, is that they don't like rapid change. In saying that I'm going beyond government this and that and commenting on a characteristic that obviously doesn't apply to all. From knowing Cubans I know the majority are sick of the situation but that doesn't mean they welcome a capitalist takeover, many have long memories and their sense of cultural pride and identity is very strong, it ain't Puerto Rico.

do you think they want the return of American corporate and even political domination?

i've been going since the 90s so I realize there's no overnight, but i know everyone thought it would change rapidly then as well. I stick by my disagreement that the Kochs etc will get in there anytime soon

Where you typed Cubans it should have said Cuban government.

it's big new trading partner if the US did not.

the Embargo and restrictions will remain on doing business there. Now, if those on the right give up their wealthy Cuban donors for their wealthy business donors we can talk, but until then it is just about diplomatic relations.
It doesn't hurt that we're getting closer to one of Russia's biggest allies during a time of strained relations between our two countries.

Those old, decrepit Cuban aristocrats will never reclaim their fincas. Prepare to launch the McDonald's/Verizon/Apple armies southward, ho!!! America, America we proudly sell to thee!!!

One of the two least capitalist countries in the world is about to become consumed by the US economic model, for the better IMHO, but Castro certainly has not 'won'.

"We" as in "We the people," or "we" as in "We the bankers and brokers?"

For many different groups of people.

From me, thank you for what you have done.

Cuba was a corporatists' paradise. The Mafia was firmly entrenched. The big corporations had their finger in the pie. There was a .01 percent, and everyone else was treated like slaves. All of the Cuban politicians were corrupt and were in bed with the Mafia and/or the corporations.

Then, along came Castro. The 0.01 percent had to flee. They ended up in Miami and central America and immediately launched an anti-Castro campaign. In the '60s, there were something like 35 anti-Castro groups in Florida and Central America. Some were run by the CIA, some by the Mafia, some by both, and a few were lone actors with their own agenda.

The Cubans in Florida had the US government by the balls, because the politicians needed South Florida to win the state, and that was pivotal in national elections.

The corporations -- and no doubt the Mafia -- would just love to get their hands on Cuba again.

it will be a big win for average Cubans and not just a swarm of corporate locusts enriching themselves.

If we take a look at that part of the world it's not hard to imagine what Cuba might look like in 20 years or so if the US corporations get their way.

I agree with you that is all about cracking another nut for US corporations and is connected to other geopolitical motives. To portray this as some sort of magical and benevolent change of heart by the State Department would be laughable. There is absolutely zero evidence that would substantiate such a claim and mountains of evidence that leads to less charitable motives.

Here's my take on it:

Now let's look at just 5 of the "benefits" of this so-called "normalization" process:

What the US will give Cuba:

1) "Diplomatic opening: The U.S. will take steps toward restoring diplomatic ties with Cuba, severed since 1961."

What does this mean? What was Cuba like directly preceding the Revolution in 1959 and what role did the US play in this? In 1934 US puppet-dictator Fulgencio Batista took over the Cuban government in what became known as "The Revolt of the Sergeants." For the next twenty-five years he ruled Cuba with an iron fist with the full blessing and endorsement of the United States government, who feared a social and economic revolution and saw him as a stabilizing force with respect for American business interests.

If we are to take this first piece of normalization at face value then we can conclude that the US will actively work to install an oppressive government in Cuba friendly to US business interests to the detriment of the Cuban people as it has done elsewhere in the region. No crystal ball needed here.

2) "Embassy in Havana: This will include the goal of reopening a US embassy in Havana in the coming months. The embassy has been closed for over half a century."

What are the benefits of having a US embassy in your country? What does this mean for the Cuban people? All we need to do is look at past history and examine the following coups which emanated from various US embassies to make an educated guess as to what the purpose of an embassy in Havana will be for the US. Consider the following:

Iran (1953); Guatemala(1954); Thailand (1957); Laos (1958-60); the Congo (1960); Turkey (1960, 1971 & 1980); Ecuador (1961 & 1963); South Vietnam (1963); Brazil (1964); the Dominican Republic (1963); Argentina (1963); Honduras (1963 & 2009); Iraq (1963 & 2003); Bolivia (1964, 1971 & 1980); Indonesia (1965); Ghana (1966); Greece (1967); Panama (1968 & 1989); Cambodia (1970); Chile (1973); Bangladesh (1975); Pakistan (1977); Grenada (1983); Mauritania (1984); Guinea (1984); Burkina Faso (1987); Paraguay (1989); Haiti (1991 & 2004); Russia (1993); Uganda (1996);and Libya (2011).

3) "Release alleged Cuban spies: The US will release three Cubans who were convicted of espionage and imprisoned in the US: Gerardo Hernandez, Luis Medina, and Antonio Guerrero. All three prisoners were members of the "Wasp Network," a group that spied on prominent members of the Cuban-American community. CNN reports that Hernandez, the group's leader, was also linked to the downing of two two civilian planes operated by Brothers to the Rescue, a U.S.-based dissident group."

This should be celebrated but don't be fooled- this is only window-dressing.
And let's not forget that these Cuban intelligence officers were sent to Miami to monitor the terrorist groups that had carried out bombing attacks on the island.

4) "Easing business and travel restrictions: The U.S. will make it easier for Americans to obtain licenses to do business in Cuba, and to travel to the island. CNN reports that the new rules still won't permit American tourism, but will make it easier to visit for other purposes."

This is perhaps the most dangerous of the so-called benefits. As this moves forward- if it does- you will gradually see more US business interests invade Cuba with the ultimate goal to be a complete takeover of the economy ala Haiti.

US companies will be allowed to export telecommunications equipment and “establish the necessary mechanisms, including infrastructure” in Cuba to provide telephone and Internet services. US companies will also be allowed to export building materials, agricultural equipment, machinery and other goods “to empower the nascent Cuban private sector” and foster “greater economic independence" from the state. That means privatization.

If such cases which are documented throughout the hemisphere are indicators this means economic terrorism the likes of what we have read from John Perkin's, "Economic Hit Men." It's the same formula all over the world. Prepare to see the IMF/World Bank and Cuba's obligation to "harmonize" it's economy with Wall St. if this moves forward as predicted by the likes of the liberal pundits.

5) "Review of basis for sanctions: Secretary of State John Kerry has been ordered to review Cuba's status as a "state sponsor of terrorism." If his review determines that Cuba no longer deserves that status, that will be a first step towards lifting at least some US sanctions."

How will this work? What does this mean? As always the statement from the State Department is an inversion of reality. And as we know any and all reviews will be vetted by the Business Round Table and if Cuba does align with US business interests they will be deemed a favored nation, if not they will be tagged as terrorists no matter how generous they may be in the world.

Simply because the most depraved elements of the US body politic like Rubio react as only they know how does not mean this rapprochement will benefit the Cuban people. No doubt from the US point of view this is all about benefiting US corporations.

They can let it happen or resist. So far it appears the former is happening.