Julio De La Yncera

Photo: cubadebate.cu

HAVANA TIMES, Dec 30 — A few days ago I read an article in Cubadebate that caught my attention. The article deals with the production of toothbrushes in what is apparently the only factory that produces them in Cuba – and which is, of course, state-run.

The article informs us of the low demand for the factory’s product. It also noted that the price of a toothbrush is high for consumers. A Cuban must pay 16 pesos, which is equivalent to more than a half day of work.

The article ends by explaining that the Cuban population is not in the habit of changing toothbrushes regularly and that they don’t brush their teeth four times a day. They add that the high price explains the low demand. The piece then concludes saying that this situation causes major expenses in dental services.

I was reviewing comments on the article and many people complained about the quality of toothbrushes. Supposedly the bristles detach easily, thereby posing a danger. Some people complained about the high price while others explained that the toothbrushes are actually inexpensive, pointing to low wages as the problem.

This article reminded me of the wise English expression, “Never put all your eggs in one basket,” which translated into our context would be written as “Don’t make all your toothbrushes in a single factory.”

In this case, the fundamental problem is not the consumers. The explanation for the low demand is certainly the product’s poor quality and its high price for ordinary Cubans.

One wonders how the price of a toothbrush produced in a Cuban socialist company is determined, and how do they ensure that the products produced have the quality necessary to avoid creating greater problems.

I think the problem occurs for several reasons.

The management of the company, like all socialist enterprises, has nothing personal invested in the company’s success. If what occurs is like what happens in the worst cases, they will be transferred to manage (or rather de-manage) another company.

This is an example of why a state monopoly is terrible from any perspective one looks at it.

Let’s say that instead of one company, there were at least two companies producing toothbrushes. And let’s say that these two companies were owned by individuals. It would be in the best interest of these individuals to make the company work properly.

This means they would produce quality and affordable products, the opposite of what happens at the socialist enterprise in question.

In addition, these companies would probably pay for television and radio commercials for their products, explaining and educating the public about why oral hygiene is necessary and how their product is better than that of the competition.

From the competition between the two companies, the price would be optimized to the maximum that consumers were willing to pay and the companies would price the product at the minimum necessary to trigger the sale and movement of these so as not to cause them losses.

These individuals would pay taxes to the government on their profits, and another part of the proceeds could be devoted to research for better toothbrushes or other methods of cleaning the teeth that are less costly and more effective.

Meanwhile, with a state monopoly we have a group of workers who might lose their jobs, and rightly so, because they don’t do them well.


27 thoughts on “Toothbrush Solutions for Cuba

  • Well, it is evident that, no matter how many times I tell you that I reject state monopoly socialism, you will continue to hammer me with declarations that it cannot and does not work.

    No matter how many times I assure you that state monopoly socialism is not state monopoly capitalism, you will continue to insist that it is.

    Conclusion: Let’s stop beating the old proverbial dead horse.

    Like you, I believe in free enterprise. Like you, I am against monopoly, and in favor of democracy.

    Unlike you, I know that the capitalism we know in the world is not free enterprise, that it is monopoly and that it is destroying the world environment and thereby the futures of our children and grandchildren.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *