Chilean Growth Rates

[RomanKing]

Worth mentioning unemployment skyrocketed with Pinochet going from 4% to a sustained 20% along with inequality, with few families keeping most of the country richness, including Pinochet's family of course. Today, the gap beetwen the rich and the poor in Chile is among the biggest in the world:

http://247wallst.com/special-report...e-widest-gap-between-the-rich-and-the-poor/4/

So, Pinochet was good for the economy of some Chileans.

^ Biased statistics from communist fetishists.

Poverty went from 50% (1975) to 11% (2013) thanks to Pinochet's free market reforms.

 

[RomanKing]

BTW, there's no need to come out swinging at me.

I already sent you a private message clearly explaining why. Which, I will not get into here as it is against the rules, however we are both well aware of why this is.

Much of it has to do with the fact that your ideology doesn't hold up under scrutiny, so liberals feel the desperate need to constantly try to mislead and game the system. That's really the most context I can provide everyone while staying within the confines of the forum rules.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

^ Biased statistics from communist fetishists.

Poverty went from 50% (1975) to 11% (2013) thanks to Pinochet's free market reforms.

It is more like 45.1% (1987) to 14.4 (2013)

http://data.worldbank.org/country/chile

1975 is two years after the coup, so that 50% fits perfectly into an scenery where unemployment has multiplied by a factor of 5 (if your data is correct, which we dont know and probably never will since you wont provide any source). So it remained around 50% along most of Pinochet ditactorship and only started to decrease after it.

 

[RomanKing]

It is more like 45.1% (1987) to 14.4 (2013)

http://data.worldbank.org/country/chile

1975 is two years after the coup, so that 50% fits perfectly into an scenery where unemployment has multiplied by a factor of 5 (if your data is correct, which we dont know and probably never will since you wont provide any source). So it remained around 50% along most of Pinochet ditactorship and only started to decrease after it.

Unemployed multiplied when Allende destroyed the economy and the numbers you have posted are just further proof that unemployment went DOWN during Pinochet's government. The country was also not immediately stable after the military junta, which is to be expected since Castro was actively funding, arming, and sending Communist guerillas into Chile and Communists were actively fighting against the government.

However, the economy was irrefutably better under Pinochet's government, than it was under the failed Allende Regime.

Liberal zealots and communist fetishists can beat their heads against the data all they like, but nothing is going to change that fact.

 

[Perfection]

Tyrants being effective in certain aspects of statecraft does not justify tyranny.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Pinochet was effective in some aspects we all know, but economics was not among them.

According to Ricardo Ffrench-Davis the unnecessary radicalism of the shock therapy in the 1970s caused mass unemployment, purchasing power losses, extreme inequalities in the distribution of income and severe socio-economic damage.[20] According to United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean data the percentage of Chilean population living in poverty rose from 17% in 1969 to 45% in 1985

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973–90)

 

[RomanKing]

Pinochet was effective in some aspects we all know, but economics was not among them.

That statement would certainly conflict with the World Bank data you just supplied a post ago.

You don't have a clue.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Same old Communist policies with the same predictable results
The short term resulted in major economic improvements, followed by massive deficit, inflation and shortages.
Even with aid from Soviet, in food and loans couldnt halt the economic depression

The short-term economic results of Minister of Economics Pedro Vuskovic's expansive monetary policy were unambiguously favorable: 12% industrial growth and an 8.6% increase in GDP, accompanied by major declines in Chile’s long-endemic chronic inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). In 1972 the Chilean escudo changed 140%. The average Real GDP contracted between 1971 and 1973 at an annual rate of 5.6% ("negative growth"), and the government's fiscal deficit soared while foreign reserves declined.[13][14] During this time, a shortage in basic commodities led to the rise of black markets which ended in late 1973 after Allende was ousted

In addition to the earlier-discussed provision of employment, Allende also raised wages on a number of occasions throughout 1970 and 1971. These rises in wages were negated by continuing increases in prices for food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende

Meanwhile under Pinochet, not much better

From an economic point of view, the era can be divided into two periods. The first, from 1973 to 1982, corresponds to the period when most of the reforms were implemented. The period ended with the international debt crisis and the collapse of the Chilean economy. At that point, unemployment was extremely high, above 20 percent, and a large proportion of the banking sector had become bankrupt. The following period was characterized by new reforms and economic recovery. Some economists argue that the recovery was due to an about-face turnaround of Pinochet's free market policy, since he nationalized many of the same industries that were nationalized under Allende and fired the Chicago Boys from their government posts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milit...ile_(1973–90)#Economy_and_free_market_reforms

 

[Thorgalaeg]

That statement would certainly conflict with the World Bank data you just supplied a post ago.

You don't have a clue.

Nah, only problem here is your reading skill. Data shows poverty and unemployment becoming stratospheric during Pinochet terror reign and only started to get better once he left in 1988.

 

[Akka]

I wouldn't expect someone who is so openly fanatical to have an honest look at data. It's obvious he's just spamming the same few graphics and just ignore anything that doesn't conform to his conclusions.

 

[JollyRoger]

You all need to stop discrediting RK for his failed beta ideology and present facts and data of your own.

 

[Colon]

A direct comparison of Chile's economy under Allende and Pinochet is problematic. Allende's rule lasted for only 3 years and economic cycles often last longer than that. It's easy to complete a full presidential term between cyclical downturns. The global economic environment also changed substantially, since Pinochet's rise to power coincided with the first Oil Crisis and a sustained downshift of global economic growth.
Aside of that, economic policy isn't the only thing domestic factor influencing the economy. A coup and a murderous dictator hunting down political opponents is just as much a turn-off for investors as nationalisations.
And even when only considering economic policies, the result of structural reforms can take years to appear and even then mostly as changes in trend growth. (it's a lot easier to quickly wreck an economy unfortunately) Political leaders often benefit from reforms by predecessors. Lula did from Cardoso's and Merkel does from Schroder's.

More broadly, the 'Pacific' economies of Colombia, Chile, Peru and Mexico are doing much better economically than Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela. The former group embraced balanced budgets, inflation fighting and free trade, while the latter rejected such orthodox economics.
The thing is that you don't need a Pinochet for such policies, as Mexico and Colombia have been showing.

 

[danjuno]

I wouldn't expect someone who is so openly fanatical to have an honest look at data. It's obvious he's just spamming the same few graphics and just ignore anything that doesn't conform to his conclusions.

As well as flinging ad hominem attacks at everybody and grouping them in with his strawman version of "the left".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

More broadly, the 'Pacific' economies of Colombia, Chile, Peru and Mexico are doing much better economically than Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela. The former group embraced balanced budgets, inflation fighting and free trade, while the latter rejected such orthodox economics.

It should be noted that instead of attributing their better economic policies we could suggest that the Pacific group are doing better because they are the Pacific group. Their trade with the US channels through California, which is a bigger economic engine than anything the other side has ready access to.

 

[Colon]

New York and Florida? 48 million people live on the West Coast, 112 on the East Coast, and that's ignoring the Gulf states. Moreover, you act like there are no inland transportation links and no Panama Canal.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

New York and Florida? 48 million people live on the West Coast, 112 on the East Coast, and that's ignoring the Gulf states. Moreover, you act like there are no inland transportation links, nor the Panama Canal.

No, I'm actually not acting like that at all. If you think a significant amount of trade between the US and South America runs overland through Mexico I can't think of any way I can be bothered to argue the point without using ridicule. As to the Panama Canal, while it does allow shipping it certainly doesn't encourage it. If you want to compete in the West Coast market from Brazil you better have some sort of overwhelming advantage to offset the canal costs, otherwise the Pacific group is gonna clean your clock.

Meanwhile, the Pacific group competes with Asia for west coast trade, while the rest of South America competes in the east not only with Europe and Africa but the third world nation known as "heartland America." If you talk to investors in New York, or Florida, South America is pretty far from the top of their minds, while in California Latin America is their number one priority.

 

[Colon]

I'm talking about US inland transportation links.

Your argument would make sense if you'd be arguing that the Pacific countries are be poorer because of geography. We're talking about degrees of change however, and the Gulf And West Coasts are basically staying where they are.

Next, these countries have different export make-ups. Chile's export primarily consists of copper, Argentina's of wheat and soybeans, Mexico's of manufactured goods, Venezuela's of oil, Brazil's of iron ore, oil and soybeans etc.Their exports don't overlap as much you believe.
Same goes what you're saying in your 2nd paragraph. Moreover, heartland America touches the East Coast as much as it does the other coasts.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm talking about US inland transportation links.

Your argument would make sense if you'd be arguing that the Pacific countries are be poorer because of geography. We're talking about degrees of change however, and the Gulf And West Coasts are basically staying where they are.

Next, these countries have different export make-ups. Chile's export primarily consists of copper, Argentina's of wheat and soybeans, Mexico's of manufactured goods, Venezuela's of oil, Brazil's of iron ore, oil and soybeans etc.Their exports don't overlap as much you believe.
Same goes what you're saying in your 2nd paragraph. Moreover, heartland America touches the East Coast as much as it does the other coasts.

Heartland America doesn't connect as well to the west coast as you seem to think. No one in California looks to middle America first when they want to trade or invest.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Almost like there's a mountain range in the way or something....

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Almost like there's a mountain range in the way or something....

And a desert.