Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

I don't recall that Castro has raped or murdered or tortured people. If he did, did he do it as much as Pinochet is the question. While we are talking about dictators, what political stripe were Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier is another question. Jesus christ I think I have to go cut off my fingers for typing sentences in this style. It is truly shocking.

Because of Castro, people are being tortured and abused at Guatanamo today.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
In Bolivia economic liberalization and democracy may be working together, but Chile's dictatorship and free economics worked a hell of a lot better.

That was a wonderful post.


Viva la junta!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
"Little Bunny Foo-Foo, hopping through the desert, picking up insurgents and bopping 'em on the head"

POTY

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That was a wonderful post.


Viva la junta!

Bolivia and China and India and North Korea.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Bolivia and China and India and North Korea.

And Brazil.


ETA... Ah the naming rights. I will savor this for a few moments before sending Ty my submission. I am open to bribes. And bribes may not even be necessary if suggested names involve Spanky.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

I understand that all you are interested in discussing is the success of Pinochet's economic policies, and that the torture and murders and rapes were an acceptable price to pay for Chile's economic miracle. I find that a little frightening. OK, a lot frightening. Frankly, I think most liberals were more concerned with principles about human rights and civil rights and democracy -- you know the sorts of things our foreign policy is currently oriented around paying lip service to -- than they were with discrediting Friedman's markets. Liberals and socialists didn't have to make shit up to establish that Pinochet was evil -- they only had to tell people what he'd done.

As Sachs says, other countries -- Bolivia, in particular -- found a way to adopt the economic policies without the brutal repression. So don't pretend that the torture and rape and murder was somehow necessary to Chile's current economic standing.

And we support democracy -- I mean, pay lip service to democracy -- as an end in itself, not because it's a good platform for free markets. If you really believe in that principle -- something I suspect many conservatives are having a hard time incorporating fully into their world view -- then you have to condemn our support for a coup that replaced a democratically elected government with a military junta.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
In Bolivia economic liberalization and democracy may be working together, but Chile's dictatorship and free economics worked a hell of a lot better.

Translation: Dictatorships can suck and all, but let's be honest -- the importance of civil rights, torture and deaths can really pale when compared to the highs of a nice unregulated financial market.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

Well, Bolivia's ports all have mountains in front of them, so they are at a little bit of a disadvantage.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No one is arguing that. We are arguing that installing a military dictatorship and supporting the torture and murder of many thousands in order to bring that about is wrong.


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.

Really, Everyone on this board would agree that the Chicago boys and Milton Friedman produced a miracle in Chile. I doubt that. Because that would lead to the fact that the answer for all these third world countrys would be to slash their tarrifs, not protect their domestic industry, not subsidies their farmers, let US corporations come in and "exploit" the hell out of them by paying their workers usuerous wages, privatise their industry etc. In other words do everything the IMF and World Bank tells them to do, and that they should all embrace the WTO. That is an admission that no liberal can swallow.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

Funny, but a quick google indicates that Chile had per capita income of $1968 (in constant 1995 dollars) in 1960 while Bolivia had per capita income of $826.66 -- so Chile was at about 250% of Bolivia's per capita income.

Yes, Chile's per capita income has risen faster. Could that have anything to do with each country's resources, geography or demographics?

And, of course, Chile decapitated some of their capita, so there's more for the rest of them!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Really, Everyone on this board would agree that the Chicago boys and Milton Friedman produced a miracle in Chile. I doubt that. Because that would lead to the fact that the answer for all these third world countrys would be to slash their tarrifs, not protect their domestic industry, not subsidies their farmers, let US corporations come in and "exploit" the hell out of them by paying their workers usuerous wages, privatise their industry etc. In other words do everything the IMF and World Bank tells them to do, and that they should all embrace the WTO. That is an admission that no liberal can swallow.

Let's switch topics. I'll bet you loved the Shah of Iran.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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?

China is more affluent. You know why? India is a socialist country and China is not. India had a higher standard of living than China until China changed from being a socialist dictator to being a free market dictatorship. India has had one of the most controlled economies since the end of WW II. They experimented a little with liberalization in 1992 (when the current Prime Minister was the Finance Minister) and for the first time they had some economic growth. But of course, it was decided the benefits were only going to the rich, so they stopped the reforms. China, while under a communist dictatorship had unbelievable poverty, turned to economic reform in the 1980s. It worked and ever since they have been opening up their economy more and more. The economy is much freerer now than the Indian economy and consequently they have a higher growth rate than Inda. China's per capita income also surpassed India's in the 1990s. China will eventually become a democracy, and in the end, its democracy will be more stable because of its affluence.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Really, Everyone on this board would agree that the Chicago boys and Milton Friedman produced a miracle in Chile. I doubt that.

Like I said -- if you disagree with my statement that this is not the argument people are making, please show me the post where anyone made this argument.

Because that would lead to the fact that the answer for all these third world countrys would be to slash their tarrifs, not protect their domestic industry, not subsidies their farmers, let US corporations come in and "exploit" the hell out of them by paying their workers usuerous wages, privatise their industry etc. In other words do everything the IMF and World Bank tells them to do, and that they should all embrace the WTO. That is an admission that no liberal can swallow.

Many of these things would be good. However, requiring third world countries to slash their tariffs while the US and Europe continue to massively subsidize agriculture, thus preventing the third world countries from competing economically in the one area where they can compete... well, that doesn't seem very "free-market" to me.

Ooooh, I know -- if we throw in some torture, it'll be free market!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I understand that all you are interested in discussing is the success of Pinochet's economic policies, and that the torture and murders and rapes were an acceptable price to pay for Chile's economic miracle. I find that a little frightening. OK, a lot frightening. Frankly, I think most liberals were more concerned with principles about human rights and civil rights and democracy -- you know the sorts of things our foreign policy is currently oriented around paying lip service to -- than they were with discrediting Friedman's markets. Liberals and socialists didn't have to make shit up to establish that Pinochet was evil -- they only had to tell people what he'd done.

As Sachs says, other countries -- Bolivia, in particular -- found a way to adopt the economic policies without the brutal repression. So don't pretend that the torture and rape and murder was somehow necessary to Chile's current economic standing.

And we support democracy -- I mean, pay lip service to democracy -- as an end in itself, not because it's a good platform for free markets. If you really believe in that principle -- something I suspect many conservatives are having a hard time incorporating fully into their world view -- then you have to condemn our support for a coup that replaced a democratically elected government with a military junta.

If you really believe in Democracy, you believe in Free markets. I don't support the nasty stuff that Pinochet did but I think it has been exaggerated. But like I said before Free markets are a prerequisite for a stable democracy. Poor democracies don't tend to last. Socialist governments destroy democracys creating long term dictatorships. Free markets create great affluence and strong middle classes, which create stable democracies. Because of Chile's strong economic growth, democracy - and a stable one at that - was inevitable. The problem I have with many liberals is that they still believe and support the idea that socialist policies are good, when all they do is destroy democracies.