Originally posted by
[email protected] 10 2006, 09:22 PM
To what extent has copper contributed to making Chile "a success"?
Possibly the single biggest factor in Chile's "economic miracle". Capitalist ideologues, no doubt, love to point out it was the "neo-liberal" policies imposed on Chile that led to the economic success....but if there had been no copper, then whatever economic policies had been in place, would likely have failed.
I mean recently, the market for copper has become incredibly good; even the prices of scrap have rocketed. And in this context, whether the policy was Keynesian (which, based on the Wikipedia link, it seems to have been) or "neo-liberal", the result would have been similar.
After all, unlike other areas, copper extraction is something private capital can do reasonably well; which makes the fact that this was done vis a vis State capital rather strange. It certainly makes the "free market" supporters claims of success in Chile even more dubious.
I mean their boast usually goes something like: forget about Pinochet, what's important to remember here, is that "free market" policies led to a drastic increase in Chile's overall wealth.
Well given that the Copper Industry is Nationalised, something Allende did, their whole argument, more or less, becomes horseshit.
Been as the Nationalisation happened and that copper was the key to Chile's success, the line of argument that says Pinochet was "necessary" in order to stimulate economic growth through "neo-liberal" policies becomes, well, as I said....horseshit.
In fact, had Allende remained, the economic growth would have been far superior....as the Copper Industry shows, keeping the Imperialist countries grubby paws (partially at least) away from a countries wealth, is the key to developing an underdeveloped country.
Libertarian theory, as nice as it looks on paper, is really not supported by real world evidence. Countries tend to develop when they close their Markets, boot out the foreign companies and reinvest some of their profit into said country via the State.
Shit, even the first capitalist power, England, which is often thought of as a pretty decent representation of what liberals wish the economy to look like, resorted to State intervention and closed Markets to develop when it came under pressure.