Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The NPR piece I linked to talked about these Chilean economists that went to the University of Chicago in the 50s and 60s under a US government program to spread the free market concept in Latin America.

They were Ivory Tower types until the coup. They were put in charge of the economy when Pinochet came into power in 1974. The article said that there was initial recovery until the debt crisis in the early 80s, and Chile was hit the hardest of all the Latin American countries. It seems that the current recovery started in the early 1990s.

The arcticle points out that the current government is socialist.

Can you please cite this article. My understanding was that Pinochet brought in the "Chicago Boys". Pinochet wrote a constitution where he promised to leave by 1989. Which was when he did leave, although he didn't completely honor his promise by making him self permanent head of the Army. The socialists did come to power, but they did not touch one of his economic policies. The same is true today. They call themselves socialist but they have not nationalized a thing. Pinochet also started a privatised social security system that the government has not touched, and Clinton used to go around saying how great it was. Chile had the highest growth rates of any latin American country during the late seventies and eighties and was hit the least hardest by the debt crisis. Chile was the only country in Latin America during that time to have a stable currency and low inflation (except for Costa Rica). Maybe T-Rex can find the section on Chile from Commanding Heights, like he did Gorbachaves quotes. In that series they explained the whole process.

[I think this may be what you're talking about, but you'll see that it doesn't quite hold Chile up as the model you suggest. --t.s.]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
According to the AP in 2002 (quick Google search): An official Chilean report concluded 3,197 people were killed for political reasons under Pinochet's regime.

The quick web search I did put the estimate at 5,000:

• Pinochet — “in some ways, the perfect criminal because he had no compassion for his victims” — had an estimated 5,000 Chileans murdered, 1,200 of whom are still classified as “disappeared.” Many more were tortured. Hundreds of thousands of people were also imprisoned. Pinochet’s brand of state terrorism set a terrifying precedent in South America; the terror network known as “Operation Condor” was created by Pinochet’s head of secret police, Colonel Manuel Contreras. The network became formally established by an act of the First Inter-American Reunion on Military Intelligence in Chile in November 1975. From that point on, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Paraguay, among others, collectively participated in the extermination of political dissidents within their borders.

But that's from some source at UC Berkeley, which is inherently suspect.

So by installing Pinochet, we got to help spread repression to Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, too, helping to ensure the eventual triumph of democract there, too! Sweet!

Spanky, how are we supposed to decide which state-sponsored terrorists are bad for democracy, and which state-sponsored terrorists we should support to help the spread of democracy?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Can you please cite this article. My understanding was that Pinochet brought in the "Chicago Boys". Pinochet wrote a constitution where he promised to leave by 1989. Which was when he did leave, although he didn't completely honor his promise by making him self permanent head of the Army. The socialists did come to power, but they did not touch one of his economic policies. The same is true today. They call themselves socialist but they have not nationalized a thing. Pinochet also started a privatised social security system that the government has not touched, and Clinton used to go around saying how great it was. Chile had the highest growth rates of any latin American country during the late seventies and eighties and was hit the least hardest by the debt crisis. Chile was the only country in Latin America during that time to have a stable currency and low inflation (except for Costa Rica). Maybe T-Rex can find the section on Chile from Commanding Heights, like he did Gorbachaves quotes. In that series they explained the whole process.

It's here. You need real player or windows media player to hear it.

The article said everything you said, except the debt crisis thing.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You are forgetting that all the people who weren't raped or killed immediately had a dramatic improvement in their lives.

Plus, you have to compare to North Korea or you can't really understand how wonderfal a right-wing dictatorship really is. Because, after all, Allende is Spanish for Kim.

If you were given a choice of becoming a random citizen in any country in Latin America, which country would you pick? In 1972 Chile would probably have been towards the bottom of your list. Today it would probably be towards the top, if not the top. A whole nation pulled from economic ruin, to relative affluence. Doesn't that count for anything?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, how are we supposed to decide which state-sponsored terrorists are bad for democracy, and which state-sponsored terrorists we should support to help the spread of democracy?

Geez, Ty. Did you not look at the numbers for the gargantuan capital gains tax in Iraq in the late 90's?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you were given a choice of becoming a random citizen in any country in Latin America, which country would you pick? In 1972 Chile would probably have been towards the bottom of your list. Today it would probably be towards the top, if not the top. A whole nation pulled from economic ruin, to relative affluence. Doesn't that count for anything?

To quote you, you can't judge these things by hindsight. Are you really attributing Chile's affluence to Pinochet's murderous policies?

Which is more affluent -- China or India? If you could replace the governing system of one with the other, which would you pick?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It's here. You need real player or windows media player to hear it.

The article said everything you said, except the debt crisis thing.

Not the part I read and linked to above:

• INTERVIEWER: Isn't it true that Chile was the real front-runner of these kinds of reforms, that the whole thing was tried there about 10 years earlier?
  
  JEFFREY SACHS: Chile was probably the country in Latin America that first started rather radical market reforms after a long period of heavy state interventionism. Chile, though, operated these reforms under a quite brutal military dictatorship. Bolivia was really the first, in my view, combination of democratic reform combined with economic institutional change.
  
  And Bolivia much more than Chile showed that you could combine political liberalization and democracy with economic liberalization. That's an extremely important lesson, to have both of those working in parallel and each one reinforcing the other.
  

Oddly, Sachs doesn't buy this whole "dictatorship plus markets equals democracy" thing. Maybe he's hung up on Russia.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you were given a choice of becoming a random citizen in any country in Latin America, which country would you pick? In 1972 Chile would probably have been towards the bottom of your list. Today it would probably be towards the top, if not the top. A whole nation pulled from economic ruin, to relative affluence. Doesn't that count for anything?

This question does not often occur to me. Would you like me to do some extradition research for you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you were given a choice of becoming a random citizen in any country in Latin America, which country would you pick?

I'd want to know more about my chances of being tortured for my political views in the other countries before I made that choice. But, hey, I'm funny like that.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not the part I read and linked to above:

• INTERVIEWER: Isn't it true that Chile was the real front-runner of these kinds of reforms, that the whole thing was tried there about 10 years earlier?
  
  JEFFREY SACHS: Chile was probably the country in Latin America that first started rather radical market reforms after a long period of heavy state interventionism. Chile, though, operated these reforms under a quite brutal military dictatorship. Bolivia was really the first, in my view, combination of democratic reform combined with economic institutional change.
  
  And Bolivia much more than Chile showed that you could combine political liberalization and democracy with economic liberalization. That's an extremely important lesson, to have both of those working in parallel and each one reinforcing the other.
  

Oddly, Sachs doesn't buy this whole "dictatorship plus markets equals democracy" thing. Maybe he's hung up on Russia.

Different article. The one I cited was an NPR reporter who went to Chile to talk to the Chicago Boys. It aired last week.

ET change country, because it would have been irrelevant if she'd gone to Bolivia

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The quick web search I did put the estimate at 5,000:

• Pinochet — “in some ways, the perfect criminal because he had no compassion for his victims” — had an estimated 5,000 Chileans murdered, 1,200 of whom are still classified as “disappeared.” Many more were tortured. Hundreds of thousands of people were also imprisoned. Pinochet’s brand of state terrorism set a terrifying precedent in South America; the terror network known as “Operation Condor” was created by Pinochet’s head of secret police, Colonel Manuel Contreras. The network became formally established by an act of the First Inter-American Reunion on Military Intelligence in Chile in November 1975. From that point on, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Paraguay, among others, collectively participated in the extermination of political dissidents within their borders.

But that's from some source at UC Berkeley, which is inherently suspect.

So by installing Pinochet, we got to help spread repression to Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, too, helping to ensure the eventual triumph of democract there, too! Sweet!

Spanky, how are we supposed to decide which state-sponsored terrorists are bad for democracy, and which state-sponsored terrorists we should support to help the spread of democracy?

Pinochet is a great person to use because from day one the Liberals hated him so much. Allende was beloved by the liberal elite and throughout Latin America. He was roundly praised by all the Democrats at the time. His form of socialit demoracy was going to bring in a new era of prosperity for the Chilleans. He was also the favorite of Hollywood (just like Castro was) Of course his policies brought immediate economic collapse. Of course the liberals claimed that his economic policies did not cause this (printing money, massive nationalizations, price controls etc). But the evil US corporations had engineered the collpase to give the CIA and excuse to get rid of him.

Everyone thought that Pinochet was just a stooge of American corporations that was sent in just to enforce evil US capitalistic interests.

When Pinochet starting paying Friedman as an advisor and brougth in his minions there were riots throughout central american and everywghere Friedman went. Everyone thought that Chile was simply going to be exploited by US corporation and the economy would be ruined.

Pinochet followed the Chicago Boys suggestions to the letter. He turned off the printing presses, cut of all subsidies to farmers and chilean companys, and completely opened up the entire market to free trade. He cut taxes and he created a privatized social security system.

Over time the economy grew and the liberals kept coming up with other reasons the economy grew. Natural resources (which Chile has very little of)etc. They also tried to claim that the wealth was only going to the wealthy and that the poor were worse off. Of course eventually all these claims were not supportible

The movie Missing came out, with Jack Lemon, making all sorts of claims about the coup. It turned out that almost the whole movie was a fiction. I could go into it but this is getting too long.

I have heard many debates about the amount of deaths in Chile. However, I do know that the liberals around the world have to make it the worst most repressive country anywhere to cover up the fact that there has been an economic miracle. Evil Milton Friedman,s plan worked, the US did not squeeze the peasants dry and socialists and liberals around the world hate the fact that their predictions were wrong. Every economic policy Pinochet produced, they are against, and is evidence against their positions throughout the world. So the liberals and the socialists focus all their energy on establishing the case that Pinochet was the most evil dictator of all time. But no matter what they do they can't argue that the Chicago Boys produced a miracle that benefitted every strata of Chilean society.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Little Bunny Foo-Foo, hopping through the desert, picking up insurgents and bopping 'em on the head"

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
But no matter what they do they can't argue that the Chicago Boys produced a miracle that benefitted every strata of Chilean society.

No one is arguing that -- if you disagree, please point to a single post in this entire thread in which anyone makes that argument. We are arguing that an economic bloom (one that many think didn't start until 20 years later, but hey) doesn't justify installing a military dictatorship and supporting the torture and murder of many thousands.


You apparently would rather see your neighbor tortured than your wallet lightened. It's a values thing, I guess.


But go ahead and trash liberals some more -- it obviously gives you a big ole hard-on, and allows you to dismiss what Chile itself has said about Pinochet's dictatorship.


To answer your earlier question to me, "Bolivia." Mad props to Ty. My first thought was "Brazil" but then I realized this was the wrong board.


To answer my earlier questions to you, "China" and "China". Got it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Different article. The one I cited was an NPR reporter who went to Chile to talk to the Chicago Boys. It aired last week.

ET change country, because it would have been irrelevant if she'd gone to Bolivia

yes and look where Bolivia is today and where Chile is today.

Chiles' per capital income is $4,590 and Bolivia's is $990. In the 1960s their economies were very similar. In Bolivia economic liberalization and democracy may be working together, but Chile's dictatorship and free economics worked a hell of a lot better.