On this day let us give USA advocates a chance

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I know many of you American right-wingers like to deny Cold-war era American foreign policy crimes. Actually not just cold-war era. America has been doing crazy shit abroad consistently for over a hundred years.

Anyways, I've read you guys claiming that it's a bunch of red lies and so on. Since today marks the 33rd aniverssary of the US-sponsored military coup in Chile which successfully stopped democracy there for 17 years, I am taking this opportunity to ask how you can defend such things. This is a chance for you to assume your actions, not lie.

Regardless of inflation potentially caused by Allende's policies and the right-wing claim of the unconstitutionality of some of his actions, how do you justify this explicit intervention against democracy, national and popular self-determination, and human rights?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

seriously
patton, I saw you looking in here
let's have some answers

[LuXe]

Hes still here, maybe he is typing in his long answer..

RedZeppelin; You are right about the matter of course.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:34 PM
I know many of you American right-wingers like to deny Cold-war era American foreign policy crimes. Actually not just cold-war era. America has been doing crazy shit abroad consistently for over a hundred years.

Anyways, I've read you guys claiming that it's a bunch of red lies and so on. Since today marks the 33rd aniverssary of the US-sponsored military coup in Chile which successfully stopped democracy there for 17 years, I am taking this opportunity to ask how you can defend such things. This is a chance for you to assume your actions, not lie.

Regardless of inflation potentially caused by Allende's policies and the right-wing claim of the unconstitutionality of some of his actions, how do you justify this explicit intervention against democracy, national and popular self-determination, and human rights?
I am often puzzled why INTERNATIONALISTS would be so quick to defend causes of NATIONAL self-determination, and claim to be on the side of angels in doing so.

But to specifically answer the charge:

Democracy is a system of government which determines Who rules. it doesn't deal with how that rule is made. Just because a government claims to be democratic, does not mean it is therefore free. Guys like Stalin and Lenin all claimed to be democrats, and in a way they were, but there certainly was no freedom in Stalin's Russia.

The objection to Allende was that he would send Chile down the path of crushing liberty, and back those who would do the same.

[theraven]

it was the ocld war, we had to limit the soviets power in south america he was going t be a freind of the USSR's so we did hwat we had to

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:36 PM
The objection to Allende was that he would send Chile down the path of crushing liberty, and back those who would do the same.
So it had nothing to do with Allende's intention to nationalise the Chilean copper mines?

I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.

-- Henry Kissinger

Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.

-- Edward Korry, US Ambassador to Chile when Allende was elected.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So this is a case of the ends justifying the murder of over a thousand people?
Furthermore, this is most certainly not a case of the US "imposing freedom"... what resulted from this coup was military rule, not democracy.

There is no correlation between nationalizing privately-owned industries and committing political assasinations. And there is certainly no sense in imposing a totalitarian military dictatorship to avoid the rise of authoritarianism.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:27 PM
it was the ocld war, we had to limit the soviets power in south america he was going t be a freind of the USSR's so we did hwat we had to
So does 'doing what you had to do' include killing 3,000 people over the course of Pinochets' reign?

You honestly can't see that the US is an enemy of the people, huh?

Also, you have to spell better, most of your posts make you seem like an unintelligible fool.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:36 PM
I am often puzzled why INTERNATIONALISTS would be so quick to defend causes of NATIONAL self-determination, and claim to be on the side of angels in doing so.
The imperialist subjugation of a country's native ruling class by the capitalist class of the first world is the leading cause of poverty in the developing world... and precisely why our economies are underdeveloped.


Democracy is a system of government which determines Who rules. it doesn't deal with how that rule is made. Just because a government claims to be democratic, does not mean it is therefore free. Guys like Stalin and Lenin all claimed to be democrats, and in a way they were, but there certainly was no freedom in Stalin's Russia.

Allende was elected by direct open elections.


The objection to Allende was that he would send Chile down the path of crushing liberty, and back those who would do the same.

This is pure speculation. Regardless, replacing democracy for miltary fascism because you dissgaree with their democratic mandate isn't by any means a policy of a true democratic country.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 11 2006, 12:28 PM--> (patton @ Sep 11 2006, 12:28 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 05:05 PM
seriously
patton, I saw you looking in here
let's have some answers
Ok Red Zeppelin you got me on this one. during the cold war this country did back all sorts of right wing ditatorships. Anyone who gave lip service to being anti communist got american support and i think that was a huge mistake. To this day we are still feelin the fall out from around the world. [/b]
apology accepted
Now we need the people who executed these crimes to do the same, rather than award them with nobel peace prizes

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 10:34 AM
I know many of you American right-wingers like to deny Cold-war era American foreign policy crimes. Actually not just cold-war era. America has been doing crazy shit abroad consistently for over a hundred years.

Anyways, I've read you guys claiming that it's a bunch of red lies and so on. Since today marks the 33rd aniverssary of the US-sponsored military coup in Chile which successfully stopped democracy there for 17 years, I am taking this opportunity to ask how you can defend such things. This is a chance for you to assume your actions, not lie.

Regardless of inflation potentially caused by Allende's policies and the right-wing claim of the unconstitutionality of some of his actions, how do you justify this explicit intervention against democracy, national and popular self-determination, and human rights?
well it did help to get their economy out of the shit hole. other than that it kinda sucked.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Intifada+Sep 11 2006, 07:42 PM--> (Intifada @ Sep 11 2006, 07:42 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 05:36 PM
The objection to Allende was that he would send Chile down the path of crushing liberty, and back those who would do the same.
So it had nothing to do with Allende's intention to nationalise the Chilean copper mines?

I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.

-- Henry Kissinger

Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.

-- Edward Korry, US Ambassador to Chile when Allende was elected. [/b]
Well yes. Nationalising indusstry is a step to crushing liberty.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 11 2006, 03:37 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 11 2006, 03:37 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 10:34 AM
I know many of you American right-wingers like to deny Cold-war era American foreign policy crimes. Actually not just cold-war era. America has been doing crazy shit abroad consistently for over a hundred years.

Anyways, I've read you guys claiming that it's a bunch of red lies and so on. Since today marks the 33rd aniverssary of the US-sponsored military coup in Chile which successfully stopped democracy there for 17 years, I am taking this opportunity to ask how you can defend such things. This is a chance for you to assume your actions, not lie.

Regardless of inflation potentially caused by Allende's policies and the right-wing claim of the unconstitutionality of some of his actions, how do you justify this explicit intervention against democracy, national and popular self-determination, and human rights?
well it did help to get their economy out of the shit hole. other than that it kinda sucked. [/b]
And did said money go to the ruling, capitalist classes, or the average Chilean? If I remember correctly, money brought into an economy through interference by the U.S. is generally not evenly distributed. Allende would have at least kept it socialist, if he was who he claimed to be.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Sep 11 2006, 08:22 PM--> (RedZeppelin @ Sep 11 2006, 08:22 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 12:36 PM
I am often puzzled why INTERNATIONALISTS would be so quick to defend causes of NATIONAL self-determination, and claim to be on the side of angels in doing so.
The imperialist subjugation of a country's native ruling class by the capitalist class of the first world is the leading cause of poverty in the developing world... and precisely why our economies are underdeveloped.


Democracy is a system of government which determines Who rules. it doesn't deal with how that rule is made. Just because a government claims to be democratic, does not mean it is therefore free. Guys like Stalin and Lenin all claimed to be democrats, and in a way they were, but there certainly was no freedom in Stalin's Russia.

Allende was elected by direct open elections.


The objection to Allende was that he would send Chile down the path of crushing liberty, and back those who would do the same.

This is pure speculation. Regardless, replacing democracy for miltary fascism because you dissgaree with their democratic mandate isn't by any means a policy of a true democratic country. [/b]
Of course. The problem in the developing world is an insufficient degree of National Socialism. :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 12 2006, 12:01 AM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 12 2006, 12:01 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:42 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 05:36 PM
The objection to Allende was that he would send Chile down the path of crushing liberty, and back those who would do the same.
So it had nothing to do with Allende's intention to nationalise the Chilean copper mines?

I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.

-- Henry Kissinger

Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.

-- Edward Korry, US Ambassador to Chile when Allende was elected.
Well yes. Nationalising indusstry is a step to crushing liberty. [/b]
It's a step towards ensuring it, dumbfuck. After all it removes one more method the bourgoiesie have to exploit the workers.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Tatanka Iyotank+Sep 11 2006, 08:18 PM--> (Tatanka Iyotank @ Sep 11 2006, 08:18 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 06:27 PM
it was the ocld war, we had to limit the soviets power in south america he was going t be a freind of the USSR's so we did hwat we had to
So does 'doing what you had to do' include killing 3,000 people over the course of Pinochets' reign?

You honestly can't see that the US is an enemy of the people, huh?

Also, you have to spell better, most of your posts make you seem like an unintelligible fool. [/b]
depends on why they were killed



It's a step towards ensuring it, dumbfuck. After all it removes one more method the bourgoiesie have to exploit the workers.

the greatest insurance of liberty is personal property

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by RedSouth+Sep 11 2006, 07:01 PM--> (RedSouth @ Sep 11 2006, 07:01 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:37 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 10:34 AM
I know many of you American right-wingers like to deny Cold-war era American foreign policy crimes. Actually not just cold-war era. America has been doing crazy shit abroad consistently for over a hundred years.

Anyways, I've read you guys claiming that it's a bunch of red lies and so on. Since today marks the 33rd aniverssary of the US-sponsored military coup in Chile which successfully stopped democracy there for 17 years, I am taking this opportunity to ask how you can defend such things. This is a chance for you to assume your actions, not lie.

Regardless of inflation potentially caused by Allende's policies and the right-wing claim of the unconstitutionality of some of his actions, how do you justify this explicit intervention against democracy, national and popular self-determination, and human rights?
well it did help to get their economy out of the shit hole. other than that it kinda sucked.
And did said money go to the ruling, capitalist classes, or the average Chilean? If I remember correctly, money brought into an economy through interference by the U.S. is generally not evenly distributed. Allende would have at least kept it socialist, if he was who he claimed to be. [/b]
no allende would have kept printing money to fund his own social programs, which led to multiple month hyper inflation which was ensuring that no one excaped from poverty. allende was stealing from the people of chile.

chile actually has a very good standard of living compared witht he rest of latin america, and their growth rates and foriegn investment has been consistently higher than much of the rest of the region.


It's a step towards ensuring it, dumbfuck. After all it removes one more method the bourgoiesie have to exploit the workers.

yeah who needs quality and innovative goods

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:34 AM


It's a step towards ensuring it, dumbfuck. After all it removes one more method the bourgoiesie have to exploit the workers.

the greatest insurance of liberty is personal property
The greatest insurance of freedom for the few.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 11 2006, 07:03 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 11 2006, 07:03 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:22 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 12:36 PM
I am often puzzled why INTERNATIONALISTS would be so quick to defend causes of NATIONAL self-determination, and claim to be on the side of angels in doing so.
The imperialist subjugation of a country's native ruling class by the capitalist class of the first world is the leading cause of poverty in the developing world... and precisely why our economies are underdeveloped.


Democracy is a system of government which determines Who rules. it doesn't deal with how that rule is made. Just because a government claims to be democratic, does not mean it is therefore free. Guys like Stalin and Lenin all claimed to be democrats, and in a way they were, but there certainly was no freedom in Stalin's Russia.

Allende was elected by direct open elections.


The objection to Allende was that he would send Chile down the path of crushing liberty, and back those who would do the same.

This is pure speculation. Regardless, replacing democracy for miltary fascism because you dissgaree with their democratic mandate isn't by any means a policy of a true democratic country.
Of course. The problem in the developing world is an insufficient degree of National Socialism. :rolleyes: [/b]
Regardless, you still loses.
Perhaps not in the case of Pinochet, but similar military dictatorships funded and supported by the United States during the same time period in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay involved a lot of nationalism and plenty of social projects... funded at the cost of tremendous external debt and consequent national subjugation to IMF economic policies.

Either way, neo-liberalism is now imposed in all of these countries... clearly not at the benefit of the people.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 12 2006, 12:37 AM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 12 2006, 12:37 AM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 12:34 AM


It's a step towards ensuring it, dumbfuck. After all it removes one more method the bourgoiesie have to exploit the workers.

the greatest insurance of liberty is personal property
The greatest insurance of freedom for the few. [/b]
You mean "liberty for the bourgoisie."

For who else could you mean?

Capitalism has abolished private property for the proletariat. It's likely none of the capital that I earn will actually be mine for the vast majority of my life because it's impossible to avoid getting in serious debt. Am I likely to ever be a homeowner? Nope and that's how it is for most people. "Private property" under capitalism exists only insofar as it did in Soviet Russia; the ruling class owns all private property and nobody else does, only at least under the USSR they fattened themselves discreetly and mainly used property benevolently-under capitalism the property is explicitly and solely used for the capitalists to get fat.

I would actually agree that "private property" could ensure liberty, but in this advanced stage of capitalism private property doesn't exist for the vast majority and only for the ruling class.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Holy shit, the USA isn't perfect? Who would have thought.

Besides, Allende was a pro-capitalist politician...so why do you even care if he was overthrown or not?

And just think if the USA and Great Britain subverted the democratic elections in Germany in 1933...then maybe this Hitler guy wouldn't have caused so much trouble?

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2006, 03:36 PM
Holy shit, the USA isn't perfect? Who would have thought.

Besides, Allende was a pro-capitalist politician...so why do you even care if he was overthrown or not?

And just think if the USA and Great Britain subverted the democratic elections in Germany in 1933...then maybe this Hitler guy wouldn't have caused so much trouble?
Well actually marxists tend not to look at WW2 in traditional terms they look it in terms of class reaction to a major capitalist crises; it's accepted even by bourgoise historians that America was eager to war to help get out the depression; but England and France knew Hitler had no intentions of attacking them despite the claim they attacked out of fear-but the ruling class did know that capitalism could only recover through destruction of capital to allow more room for growth.

And fascism was an inevitable bourgoise reaction to the radicalised working class of Italy, Germany and Spain.

Yes Allende may have been pro-capitalist but nationalising Chile's resources is a good safeguard against imperialist exploitation and if we want a revolution in the developed western world it's important that we're forced to have our own industry rather than continuing to exploit the third world.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:01 AM
Well yes. Nationalising indusstry is a step to crushing liberty.
Whose liberty exactly?

The people's or the [American] bourgeoisie?

:rolleyes:

(theravingidiot)

the greatest insurance of liberty is personal property

The Chilean Copper mines belong to US companies...

<_<

[theraven]

The Chilean Copper mines belong to US companies...

without whom the mines probably wouldn&#39;t have mined to the extent they were for lack of inital capital investment

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 06:30 PM
without whom the mines probably wouldn&#39;t have mined to the extent they were for lack of inital capital investment
So what?

Chile could and naturally would have exploited the mines in time.

Chilean Copper mines belong to Chile and so the democratically elected government had the right to decide what should happen with them.

When the US owned the mines the money that was being made from them was not going back to the Chilean people, as it should have done.

Allende was doing right by his nation and people, so the Americans decided that he had to go.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:30 PM

The Chilean Copper mines belong to US companies...

without whom the mines probably wouldn&#39;t have mined to the extent they were for lack of inital capital investment
Yeah, it&#39;s a good thing the US plundered it instead of Chile having to wait a bit before mining them... :rolleyes:

[Intifada]

I don&#39;t know why I am again engaging in a debate with "theraven".

I just read her/his "Why Communism really wouldn&#39;t work" thread.

What an idiot.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 12 2006, 12:05 AM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 12 2006, 12:05 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:42 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 05:36 PM
The objection to Allende was that he would send Chile down the path of crushing liberty, and back those who would do the same.
So it had nothing to do with Allende&#39;s intention to nationalise the Chilean copper mines?

I don&#39;t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.

-- Henry Kissinger

Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.

-- Edward Korry, US Ambassador to Chile when Allende was elected.
Well yes. Nationalising indusstry is a step to crushing liberty.
It&#39;s a step towards ensuring it, dumbfuck. After all it removes one more method the bourgoiesie have to exploit the workers. [/b]
Yup. Increasing the power of the state is the first step in building a classless society.

Who says the USSR was never a socialist community? Good lord.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Sep 11 2006, 08:15 PM--> (RedZeppelin @ Sep 11 2006, 08:15 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:22 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 12:36 PM
I am often puzzled why INTERNATIONALISTS would be so quick to defend causes of NATIONAL self-determination, and claim to be on the side of angels in doing so.
The imperialist subjugation of a country&#39;s native ruling class by the capitalist class of the first world is the leading cause of poverty in the developing world... and precisely why our economies are underdeveloped.


Democracy is a system of government which determines Who rules. it doesn&#39;t deal with how that rule is made. Just because a government claims to be democratic, does not mean it is therefore free. Guys like Stalin and Lenin all claimed to be democrats, and in a way they were, but there certainly was no freedom in Stalin&#39;s Russia.

Allende was elected by direct open elections.


The objection to Allende was that he would send Chile down the path of crushing liberty, and back those who would do the same.

This is pure speculation. Regardless, replacing democracy for miltary fascism because you dissgaree with their democratic mandate isn&#39;t by any means a policy of a true democratic country.
Of course. The problem in the developing world is an insufficient degree of National Socialism. :rolleyes:
Regardless, you still loses.
Perhaps not in the case of Pinochet, but similar military dictatorships funded and supported by the United States during the same time period in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay involved a lot of nationalism and plenty of social projects... funded at the cost of tremendous external debt and consequent national subjugation to IMF economic policies.

Either way, neo-liberalism is now imposed in all of these countries... clearly not at the benefit of the people. [/b]
hmm, no reply

interesting

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 13 2006, 12:18 AM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 13 2006, 12:18 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:42 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 05:36 PM
The objection to Allende was that he would send Chile down the path of crushing liberty, and back those who would do the same.
So it had nothing to do with Allende&#39;s intention to nationalise the Chilean copper mines?

I don&#39;t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.

-- Henry Kissinger

Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.

-- Edward Korry, US Ambassador to Chile when Allende was elected.
Well yes. Nationalising indusstry is a step to crushing liberty.
It&#39;s a step towards ensuring it, dumbfuck. After all it removes one more method the bourgoiesie have to exploit the workers.
Yup. Increasing the power of the state is the first step in building a classless society. [/b]
It&#39;s the first step to crushing the forces of reaction, thus ensuring that the conditions are right for a stateless classess society.


Who says the USSR was never a socialist community? Good lord. Usually people who don&#39;t understand the history of the USSR, or the definition of socialism.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Intifada+Sep 12 2006, 08:20 PM--> (Intifada @ Sep 12 2006, 08:20 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 06:30 PM
without whom the mines probably wouldn&#39;t have mined to the extent they were for lack of inital capital investment
So what?

Chile could and naturally would have exploited the mines in time.

Chilean Copper mines belong to Chile and so the democratically elected government had the right to decide what should happen with them.

When the US owned the mines the money that was being made from them was not going back to the Chilean people, as it should have done.

Allende was doing right by his nation and people, so the Americans decided that he had to go. [/b]

I am sure that the US comapnies payed money to the chileian govnermetn or whoever owned the land

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 13 2006, 12:28 AM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 13 2006, 12:28 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:42 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 05:36 PM
The objection to Allende was that he would send Chile down the path of crushing liberty, and back those who would do the same.
So it had nothing to do with Allende&#39;s intention to nationalise the Chilean copper mines?

I don&#39;t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.

-- Henry Kissinger

Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.

-- Edward Korry, US Ambassador to Chile when Allende was elected.
Well yes. Nationalising indusstry is a step to crushing liberty.
It&#39;s a step towards ensuring it, dumbfuck. After all it removes one more method the bourgoiesie have to exploit the workers.
Yup. Increasing the power of the state is the first step in building a classless society.
It&#39;s the first step to crushing the forces of reaction, thus ensuring that the conditions are right for a stateless classess society.


Who says the USSR was never a socialist community? Good lord. Usually people who don&#39;t understand the history of the USSR, or the definition of socialism. [/b]

Oh. The USSR nationalised industry, crushed the forces of reaction (btw, how are the forces of reaction "crushed " without kicking some ass?) and is not considered a socialist community?

Oh, I know. Its because other socialists disagreed as to whether they were really crushing the reactionaries, or creating the proper conditions for a stateless society ect ect

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:41 AM
Oh. The USSR nationalised industry, crushed the forces of reaction (btw, how are the forces of reaction "crushed " without kicking some ass?) and is not considered a socialist community?
With a bit of arse kicking, and a bit of education. A lot of removing their ability to opress the workers too.


Oh, I know. Its because other socialists disagreed as to whether they were really crushing the reactionaries, or creating the proper conditions for a stateless society ect ect Well, to go by a marxist defiinition of socialism it prettyy much died with LEnin in the USSR.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:32 AM
I am sure that the US comapnies payed money to the chileian govnermetn or whoever owned the land
That is not true, and neither is it the point.

The US companies that owned the Chilean Copper mines were making a massive profit by exploiting the countries natural resources, and giving nothing back to the Chilean people who were living in immense poverty.

It is completely just to nationalise industries and end years of multi-national corporate exploitation for the benefit of a nation&#39;s people, especially when they are living in poverty.

Salvador Allende explained the situation perfectly when he made a speech before the UN:

Our economy could no longer tolerate the subordination implied by having more than eighty percent of its exports in the hands of a small group of large foreign companies that have always put their interests ahead of those of the countries where they make their profits...

These same firms exploited Chilean copper for many years, made more than four billion dollars in profit in the last forty-two years alone, while their initial investments were less than thirty million...

My country, Chile would have been totally transformed by that four billion dollars...

We find ourselves opposed by forces that operate in the shadows, without a flag, with powerful weapons, from positions of great influence...

We are potentially rich countries, yet we live in poverty. We go here and there, begging for credits and aid, yet we are great exporters of capital. It is a classic paradox of the capitalist economic system.

[colonelguppy]

well maybe chilean should have invested capital into their mines to get that wealth back themselves.

oh wait no in chile could have done that.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 08:40 PM
well maybe chilean should have invested capital into their mines to get that wealth back themselves.

oh wait no in chile could have done that.
:rolleyes:

I repeat:

Chile could and naturally would have exploited the mines in time.

You are acting as if the US ownership of Chilean Copper mines benefited the Chilean people, which is a complete falsehood.

By nationalising the mines, Allende intended to put the wealth back into Chilean society.

Read my previous posts again.

[Janus]

I am sure that the US comapnies payed money to the chileian govnermetn or whoever owned the land
Their business practices were inherently exploitative and didn&#39;t benefit the Chilean people at all. All it did was propagate a number of corrupt politicians who helped to deal with them and make sure that they always got lucrative deals.

Also, Chile recompensated the mining companies as well.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Intifada+Sep 13 2006, 04:27 PM--> (Intifada @ Sep 13 2006, 04:27 PM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 08:40 PM
well maybe chilean should have invested capital into their mines to get that wealth back themselves.

oh wait no in chile could have done that.
:rolleyes:

I repeat:

Chile could and naturally would have exploited the mines in time.

You are acting as if the US ownership of Chilean Copper mines benefited the Chilean people, which is a complete falsehood.

By nationalising the mines, Allende intended to put the wealth back into Chilean society.

Read my previous posts again. [/b]
how do you expect to develope the economy to the point where they could have without foriegn investment and trade? nationalizing industries is one of the worst ways to promote growth and innovation, completely undercuts competition.

and lets be honest for awhile, allende&#39;s vision for creating wealth in chile was printing more money.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

how do you expect to develope the economy to the point where they could have without foriegn investment and trade?

Foreign investment is one thing. Foreign ownership is another thing entirely.


nationalizing industries is one of the worst ways to promote growth and innovation, completely undercuts competition.

It&#39;s the best way to expropriate the means of production from foreign capitalists, which is the only way to allow a country to receive economic benefit from its own natural wealth.


and lets be honest for awhile, allende&#39;s vision for creating wealth in chile was printing more money.

Yeah, what the fuck did he know about economics, he just served in public political office in Chile for over thirty years?

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:37 PM
well it did help to get their economy out of the shit hole. other than that it kinda sucked.
And why exactly was Chile&#39;s economy in "the shit hole?" Could it have anything to do with repeated attempts by the CIA to destabilize the country? In fact, I seem to remember the U.S. ambassador to the country, Edward M. Korry, saying something along the lines of:

[n]ot a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.

Second of all, what exactly did Pinochet do to get Chile out of its economic "shit hole?" Was it the fact that unemployment rose from 4.3% in 1973, to 34.6% in 1983? Or that real wages declined by 40%? or that percentage of Chileans without adequate housing grew from 27% to 40% from 1972 to 1988? Is that what you define as Chile getting out of its economic "shit hole?"

[colonelguppy]

how do you expect to develope the economy to the point where they could have without foriegn investment and trade?

Foreign investment is one thing. Foreign ownership is another thing entirely.


nationalizing industries is one of the worst ways to promote growth and innovation, completely undercuts competition.

It&#39;s the best way to expropriate the means of production from foreign capitalists, which is the only way to allow a country to receive economic benefit from its own natural wealth.

yeah its not like foriegn companie pay tarriffs and taxes, employ people and promote the expansion of infrastructure or anything.


Yeah, what the fuck did he know about economics, he just served in public political office in Chile for over thirty years?

and completely fucked the economy. common, he was economically illiterate, taking keynes&#39;s already quesitonable theories and completely misapplying them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Your post is so much crap, that I can easily respond to it using only quotes of things alreday posted...


Originally posted by colonelguppy+--> (colonelguppy)yeah its not like foriegn companie pay tarriffs and taxes, employ people and promote the expansion of infrastructure or anything.[/b]


Originally posted by Salvador Allende+--> (Salvador Allende)Our economy could no longer tolerate the subordination implied by having more than eighty percent of its exports in the hands of a small group of large foreign companies that have always put their interests ahead of those of the countries where they make their profits...

These same firms exploited Chilean copper for many years, made more than four billion dollars in profit in the last forty-two years alone, while their initial investments were less than thirty million...

My country, Chile would have been totally transformed by that four billion dollars...

We find ourselves opposed by forces that operate in the shadows, without a flag, with powerful weapons, from positions of great influence...

We are potentially rich countries, yet we live in poverty. We go here and there, begging for credits and aid, yet we are great exporters of capital. It is a classic paradox of the capitalist economic system.[/b]


[email protected]
and completely fucked the economy. common, he was economically illiterate, taking keynes&#39;s already quesitonable theories and completely misapplying them.


Wikipedia.org
The unemployment rate in Chile increased from 4.3% in 1973, to 34.6% in 1983. Meanwhile, real wages declined by 40%. The regime also promised that a market economy would eliminate homelessness, but the percentage of Chileans without adequate housing grew from 27% to 40% from 1972 to 1988, and there was an increase in diseases such as typhoid and viral hepatitis that has been attributed to the government&#39;s slashes in public health funding. The economy went into recession of the early 1980s, and the ensuing stock market collapse destroyed the pensions that were privatized under Pinochet. What is more, Chile has since developed one of the highest rates of income inequality in the world. Ten years after the fall of Pinochet, the country&#39;s Gini coefficient was measured at .571.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by mauvaise foi+Sep 13 2006, 06:54 PM--> (mauvaise foi @ Sep 13 2006, 06:54 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 08:37 PM
well it did help to get their economy out of the shit hole. other than that it kinda sucked.
And why exactly was Chile&#39;s economy in "the shit hole?" Could it have anything to do with repeated attempts by the CIA to destabilize the country? In fact, I seem to remember the U.S. ambassador to the country, Edward M. Korry, saying something along the lines of:

[n]ot a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.

Second of all, what exactly did Pinochet do to get Chile out of its economic "shit hole?" Was it the fact that unemployment rose from 4.3% in 1973, to 34.6% in 1983? Or that real wages declined by 40%? or that percentage of Chileans without adequate housing grew from 27% to 40% from 1972 to 1988? Is that what you define as Chile getting out of its economic "shit hole?" [/b]
um the ambassador has little say on who trades with chile, from our own country and much less the whole world. the reason that foriegn investors fled was because A) global financial trouble and B) chiles economy was about to take a nose dive and everyone new it. allende bascially set the world record for inflation by increasing wages and expanding social programms while simultanouesly printing more money to compensate for what he did not collect in revenue. the result is hyperinflation, which was "treated" by the chilean government in the form of price caps on nearly everything, which resulted in shortages. people could not get the necesseties of life thanks to allende. he also nationalised the industries which curbed foriegn investment.

what pinochet did was something that milton friedman calls "shock treatment" meaning massive overhall of spending and taxation, as well as strict control on the monetary system and deregulation. at first, it didn&#39;t work as the economy still had to rebuild itself form government dependance, but if you&#39;ll look at the current numbers, chiles economy has been strong ever sense. unemployment has fallen to about 8%, the poverty rate to about 18%. economic growth has been strong almost every year.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

yeah its not like foriegn companie pay tarriffs and taxes
They pay tariffs and taxes out of their own profits into the pockets of the government. So, a small portion of their profit goes into the country in which the company is set up. Whereas if the company is owned by said country, all of the profit goes to said country.


employ people
Nationally owned companies employ people too.


and promote the expansion of infrastructure or anything.
If anything, expansion of infrastructure would take place at an accelerated pace if companies were nationalized, because the institution in charge of building roads, i.e. the government, would be the same institution that would be in charge of industry.

[colonelguppy]

i like how no one posts current data. or anything other than wikipedia.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

people could not get the necesseties of life thanks to allende.

Lie.
More people could get the necessities of life in 1973 than during Pinochet&#39;s reign and now under neo-liberal tyranny.


chiles economy has been strong ever sense.

Huge lie.


unemployment has fallen to about 8%, the poverty rate to about 18%. economic growth has been strong almost every year.

That&#39;s a lot of poverty and unemployment.
Not only has Chile&#39;s economic growth not been strong every year (no country can say that economic growth is strong every year for a very consistent period of time), ecnomic growth doesn&#39;t mean better conditions for people.


i like how no one posts current data. or anything other than wikipedia.

I like it how you post so many blatant lies. It makes my rebuttals easy.

[colonelguppy]

people could not get the necesseties of life thanks to allende.

Lie.
More people could get the necessities of life in 1973 than during Pinochet&#39;s reign and now under neo-liberal tyranny.

not really, everything that had a price cap was largely unavailable and everything that didn&#39;t was way to expensive. i won&#39;t deny that conditions were bad under pinochet as well, but it took time for the economy to turn around.



chiles economy has been strong ever sense.

Huge lie.

funny every economist pretty much disagrees with you.


That&#39;s a lot of poverty and unemployment.
Not only has Chile&#39;s economic growth not been strong every year (no country can say that economic growth is strong every year for a very consistent period of time)

thats better than much of europe, during the nineties they had upwards of 8% gdp growth and now they have something like 6%. thats double the US.


economic growth doesn&#39;t mean better conditions for people.

it sure helps.


I like it how you post so many blatant lies. It makes my rebuttals easy.

you didn&#39;t really rebutte anything, you just called me a liar.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 08:40 PM
well maybe chilean should have invested capital into their mines to get that wealth back themselves.

oh wait no in chile could have done that.
Yeah, because Chile is a dirt poor, third world country, that is completely backwards. :wacko:

[colonelguppy]

well they aren&#39;t now. thanks to foriegn investment and trade.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Nobody is condemning capital investment and trade. We&#39;re condemning foreign ownership. There is a big-fuck difference.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever that foreign ownership of capital takes countries out of poverty.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

not really, everything that had a price cap was largely unavailable and everything that didn&#39;t was way to expensive.

It has already been proven that the conditions in Allende&#39;s Chile were exceptional for Latin American standards and current Chilean standards.

This is the third time you make vague, baseless assertions regarding the living conditions in Chile. Would you care to back up your claims?


funny every economist pretty much disagrees with you.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

this idiot is defending keynesian economics, but whatever
the facts sited here easily debunk your crap

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:10 AM
um the ambassador has little say on who trades with chile, from our own country and much less the whole world.
Yes I am aware of that. I was merely quoting him so you could get a general sense of the attitude of the U.S. government towards Allende. Of course Korry was hyperbolizing, but the U.S. did impose "tough" economic and diplomatic measures on Chile after Allende was legally elected. Furthermore, the CIA conducted all sorts of "destabilization" campaigns to undermine Chile&#39;s economy. Also, Chile&#39;s econmy was already in the "shit hole" before Allende was elected.

[colonelguppy]

not really, everything that had a price cap was largely unavailable and everything that didn&#39;t was way to expensive.

It has already been proven that the conditions in Allende&#39;s Chile were exceptional for Latin American standards and current Chilean standards.

This is the third time you make vague, baseless assertions regarding the living conditions in Chile. Would you care to back up your claims?

no it hasn&#39;t

watch this documentary, or check wikipedia if you don&#39;t have the patience. wikipedia talks about price controls which always lead to shortages, the commanding heights documentary expands on the conditions of chile under allende.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/...p02_06_300.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/video/qt/mini_p02_06_300.html)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/...p02_07_300.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/video/qt/mini_p02_07_300.html)



funny every economist pretty much disagrees with you.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

this idiot is defending keynesian economics, but whatever
the facts sited here easily debunk your crap

from what i can tell the article pretty much admits that the reforms helped, all it contests is the hype it gets. it also ignores how a market economy has helped chile recently.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Watch a fucking documentary? You gotta do better than that. At least check their sources, and post that.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 01:36 AM


not really, everything that had a price cap was largely unavailable and everything that didn&#39;t was way to expensive.

It has already been proven that the conditions in Allende&#39;s Chile were exceptional for Latin American standards and current Chilean standards.

This is the third time you make vague, baseless assertions regarding the living conditions in Chile. Would you care to back up your claims?

no it hasn&#39;t

watch this documentary, or check wikipedia if you don&#39;t have the patience. wikipedia talks about price controls which always lead to shortages, the commanding heights documentary expands on the conditions of chile under allende.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/...p02_06_300.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/video/qt/mini_p02_06_300.html)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/...p02_07_300.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/video/qt/mini_p02_07_300.html)



funny every economist pretty much disagrees with you.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

this idiot is defending keynesian economics, but whatever
the facts sited here easily debunk your crap

from what i can tell the article pretty much admits that the reforms helped, all it contests is the hype it gets. it also ignores how a market economy has helped chile recently.
Lemme help you.

The new government immediately began privatizing the businesses that Allende had seized, as well as reversing his other socialist reforms. But Pinochet did not have an economic plan of his own, and by 1975 inflation would run as high as 341 percent. Into this crisis stepped a group of economists known as "the Chicago boys."

...

Defenders of the Chile experiment point to the "Economic Miracle" as proof that it worked. But here we should remember an important economic rule of thumb: the deeper the recession, the steeper the recovery. Quite often the recovery only gets an economy back to where it was before. Perhaps the clearest example of this is the U.S. Great Depression. Note the giant loss and growth numbers.

...

The economy grew an astonishing 14 percent in 1936 — the strongest peacetime year in U.S. history. But does that mean that people were enjoying champagne and caviar during the Great Depression? Of course not. The economy was simply making up lost ground. Likewise, the U.S. recessions of 1980-82 were the worst since the Great Depression, and these were followed by an unusually strong seven-year boom: the so-called "Reagan years."

...

The international recession that struck in 1982 hit Chile especially hard, harder than any other Latin American country. Not only did foreign capital and markets dry up, but Chile had to pay out stratospheric interest rates on its orgy of loans. Most analysts attribute the disaster both to external shocks and Chile&#39;s own deeply flawed economic policies. By 1983, Chile&#39;s economy was devastated, with unemployment soaring at one point to 34.6 percent — far worse than the U.S. Great Depression. Manufacturing production plunged 28 percent. (8) The country&#39;s biggest financial groups were in free fall, and would have collapsed completely without a massive bail-out by the state. (9) The Chicago boys resisted this measure until the situation became so critical they could not possibly avoid it.

The IMF offered loans to help Chile out of its desperate situation, but on strict conditions. Chile had to guarantee her entire foreign debt — an astounding sum of US&#036;7.7 billion. The total bailout would cost 3 percent of Chile&#39;s GNP for each of three years. These costs were passed on to the taxpayers. It is interesting to note that when the economy was booming, profitable firms were privatized; when those firms failed, the costs of bailing them were socialized. In both cases, the rich were served. (10)

So what was the record for the entire Pinochet regime? Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. (13) In constant 1993 dollars, Chile&#39;s per capita GDP was over &#036;3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to only &#036;3,170. (14) Only five Latin American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989). (15) And defenders of the Chicago plan call this an "economic miracle&#33;"

...

By all measures, the average worker was worse off in 1989 than in 1970. During this period, labor&#39;s share of the national income fell from 52.3 to 30.7 percent. (17) Even during the second boom (1984-89), wages continued to fall. The following index shows the decline in both average and minimum wages:

By 1989, Chile&#39;s poverty rate was 41.2 percent, one-third of them indigent or desperately poor. (19) Shanty towns known as poblaciones grew around Santiago and other major cities, kept alive by las comunes, or soup kitchens. In 1970, the daily diet of the poorest 40 percent of the population contained 2,019 calories. By 1980 this had fallen to 1,751, and by 1990 it was down to 1,629. (20) Furthermore, the percentage of Chileans without adequate housing increased from 27 to 40 percent between 1972 and 1988, despite the government&#39;s boast that the new economy would solve homelessness. (21)

Meanwhile, the wealthy were raking it in. The following chart shows how the richest 20 percent of society enlarged their share of the pie at the everyone else&#39;s expense. (Note: the "first quintile" represents the poorest 20 percent of society, the "fifth quintile" the richest 20 percent. The percentage numbers here represent the share of national goods consumed by that quintile.)

Chile&#39;s income inequality also became the worst on the continent. In 1980, the richest 10 percent took in 36.5 percent of the national income. By 1989, this had risen to 46.8 percent. By contrast, the bottom 50 percent of income earners saw their share fall from 20.4 to 16.8 percent over the same period. (23)

[Just Dave]

And that is that. I recommened a film called &#39;Machuca&#39; it&#39;s about when Pinochet took power, and how social conditions got worse.

[colonelguppy]

are you guys just purposely ignoring the last decade and a half of economic history?

the last figure i could find for GNP per capita was &#036;4160 for 1997, which is higher than both the number in 73 and 89 that you cited. in the meantime, the poverty rate has fallen to 18%, and inflation hasn&#39;t been higher than 5% in decades, and gdp growth rate has been consistently higher than than 5%. If you want a more accurate gauge for wealth though, you have to look at the PPP, or real exchange rate. as of 2005, the PPP is &#036;11,470.

i think its curious that the only criticism that can really be made on the reforms are on the financial crisis era of the 80&#39;s. Why is this? Has labor percentage of nation income fallen? yes. but if the poveryt rate has actually fallen, then how can this be true? well the answer is obvious, growing economies create wealth, which goes to the benefit of everyone.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i think its curious that the only criticism that can really be made on the reforms are on the financial crisis era of the 80&#39;s.

Why don&#39;t you ever look for the truth when thinking up replys to my arguments?

Although Chile&#39;s economy is growing at a healthy pace today, it still lags behind most of Latin America. Much of the development is environmentally unsustainable. Inequality and poverty remain extreme. Furthermore, much of the country&#39;s industry is now foreign-owned — meaning that profits do not stay in Chile, but are shipped to other countries. Chile continues to have one of the highest foreign debts in the world, and therefore continues to serve as the poster child for the IMF and World Bank. In the U.S., Chile is on the fast track to becoming the fourth member of NAFTA — for motives one might easily guess.

also look at the second and third charts in that thesis
as well as the bibliography
notice that he uses all bourgeois media and publisher sources

[colonelguppy]

Although Chile&#39;s economy is growing at a healthy pace today, it still lags behind most of Latin America

not really true. the only south american countries with higher GDP growth in 2005 were argentina, venezuala, and uruguay, the difference between these countries and chile is that chile is consistent.


Much of the development is environmentally unsustainable

yay more baseless claims, chile is rich in natural recources.


Inequality and poverty remain extreme

inequality, yeah. poverty no, the rate has fallen to about 18% as i&#39;ve stated numerous times (which is actually the lowest in latin america)


Furthermore, much of the country&#39;s industry is now foreign-owned — meaning that profits do not stay in Chile, but are shipped to other countries.

so what, they&#39;re economy benefits from the financial investment that is attracted by foriegn companies boosting the GDP, and besides its absurd to claim that there is no benefit from having foriegn owned industry.


. Chile continues to have one of the highest foreign debts in the world

now thats just outright false, at 7.5% of their GDP, its actually one of the lowest in the world.


In the U.S., Chile is on the fast track to becoming the fourth member of NAFTA — for motives one might easily guess

increasing their prosperity?


notice that he uses all bourgeois media and publisher sources

lol bourgeois media.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

His claims are backed up by a bibliography
yours aren&#39;t
if you wanna call him a liar, the least you could do is post your own sources

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:07 PM
His claims are backed up by a bibliography
yours aren&#39;t
if you wanna call him a liar, the least you could do is post your own sources
ok

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ci.html

enless you think that milton friedman has gotten to the CIA.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

there&#39;s a big fuck difference between public debt and external debt
according to the CIA factbook, Chile is 41st in the world in terms of external debt.

[JKP]

Except that Chile&#39;s copper industry which produces 50% to 70% of it&#39;s GDP (definitely on the higher end due to current copper prices) remains nationalised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CODELCO

When they privatise the powerhouse industry of Chile, get back to us then.

PS: It was Pinochet that nationalised the copper mines towards the end of Friedman&#39;s "economic miracle"; the economy would of collapsed like Argentina&#39;s had he not. Interestingly, free market advocates like to ignore that Chile&#39;s economic growth began only after the nationalization.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

On this day let us give USA advocates a chance, to explain why they condone attrocities

What about all of the atrocities committed by communists?

Oh wait, those weren&#39;t "real communists". Then, what the hell were they then?

And then, there&#39;s the "Religious atrocities", particuarly Christianity.

I&#39;m not going to deny them, but why can&#39;t I make the argument that they weren&#39;t:

"Real Christians or Muslims?"

Oh wait&#33; I&#39;m going to&#33;

Name any group of people and I&#39;m sure you can have a list of atrocities down in writing.

People with college degrees, ordinary working people, outgoing people, rich people, Buddhists, fat people, ugly people, people who enjoy cars, etc.....

I mean, who is really keeping score here?

The only group of people who are probably immune from such harsh criticism are people who don&#39;t really do anything accept lie around and never talk to anyone.

That&#39;s it&#33;

Without speech and words or communication in any form, NONE OF THESE ATROCITIES would have taken place? Where would have Nazi Germany have gone if Hitler was a mute or autistic? Or perhaps the entire German people?

So, how many people with voices and a grasp of their language have killed over the centuries and millenia?

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:30 PM
there&#39;s a big fuck difference between public debt and external debt
according to the CIA factbook, Chile is 41st in the world in terms of external debt.
so now 41rst is one of the highest in the world?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:51 PM
Except that Chile&#39;s copper industry which produces 50% to 70% of it&#39;s GDP (definitely on the higher end due to current copper prices) remains nationalised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CODELCO

When they privatise the powerhouse industry of Chile, get back to us then.

PS: It was Pinochet that nationalised the copper mines towards the end of Friedman&#39;s "economic miracle"; the economy would of collapsed like Argentina&#39;s had he not. Interestingly, free market advocates like to ignore that Chile&#39;s economic growth began only after the nationalization.
what the hell are you talking about? the copper industry in chile isn&#39;t nationalized.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:17 PM
what the hell are you talking about? the copper industry in chile isn&#39;t nationalized.

Wow... Just wow....

[mauvaise foi]

what the hell are you talking about? the copper industry in chile isn&#39;t nationalized.

I don&#39;t know about nowadays, but I know it was nationalized under Allende, and that the nationalization was so popular among the people of Chile that even Pinochet couldn&#39;t privatize it.


not really true. the only south american countries with higher GDP growth in 2005 were argentina, venezuala, and uruguay

Three countries with leftist governments, as of 2005.


so now 41rst is one of the highest in the world?

Is it one of the lowest in the lowest in the world, as you claimed?


enless you think that milton friedman has gotten to the CIA.

Given that it was the CIA that, at the very least, "created the conditions" for Pinochet to take power, if not actually directly put him there, don&#39;t you think the CIA might be a little biased?

Even according to your beloved CIA, however, the facts are still an indictment of Chile. Take infant mortality, for example. The infant mortality rate in Chile is 8.58 per 1000 live births. Admittedly, not terribly high by Latin American Standards, but still higher than Cuba, which justly boasts a rate of 6.22/1000, the lowest in North or South America, with the exception of Canada. And Canada doesn&#39;t have to deal with an American embargo.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2091rank.html (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html)

[colonelguppy]

I don&#39;t know about nowadays, but I know it was nationalized under Allende, and that the nationalization was so popular among the people of Chile that even Pinochet couldn&#39;t privatize it.

my mistake, it is nationalized but still open to foriegn investment. however, i don&#39;t know where the "50-70% of the GDP came from", but all the collective industries of chile only make 49% of its GDP, the rest is agriculture and services. still, this doesn&#39;t discredit the success that market reforms have had within chile, where as the whole economy is doign well (especially the finance sector).



Three countries with leftist governments, as of 2005.

they also have much higher poverty rates and debt rates.


Is it one of the lowest in the lowest in the world, as you claimed?

i made that claim in the context as a percentage of GDP, in which case its 110th and 5th from the bottom. so yeah among the lowest in the world.


Given that it was the CIA that, at the very least, "created the conditions" for Pinochet to take power, if not actually directly put him there, don&#39;t you think the CIA might be a little biased?

i&#39;ve never heard of complaints of faulty material from the factbook. even so, its not like the same people who were around for the coup are the ones who are making the factbook.


Even according to your beloved CIA, however, the facts are still an indictment of Chile. Take infant mortality, for example. The infant mortality rate in Chile is 8.58 per 1000 live births. Admittedly, not terribly high by Latin American Standards, but still higher than Cuba, which justly boasts a rate of 6.22/1000, the lowest in North or South America, with the exception of Canada. And Canada doesn&#39;t have to deal with an American embargo.

thats not too bad compared with other countries with emerging economies. only about 2 behind the US, or 3 for the EU.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 14 2006, 11:01 PM

On this day let us give USA advocates a chance, to explain why they condone attrocities

What about all of the atrocities committed by communists?

Oh wait, those weren&#39;t "real communists". Then, what the hell were they then?

And then, there&#39;s the "Religious atrocities", particuarly Christianity.

I&#39;m not going to deny them, but why can&#39;t I make the argument that they weren&#39;t:

"Real Christians or Muslims?"

Oh wait&#33; I&#39;m going to&#33;

Name any group of people and I&#39;m sure you can have a list of atrocities down in writing.

People with college degrees, ordinary working people, outgoing people, rich people, Buddhists, fat people, ugly people, people who enjoy cars, etc.....

I mean, who is really keeping score here?

The only group of people who are probably immune from such harsh criticism are people who don&#39;t really do anything accept lie around and never talk to anyone.

That&#39;s it&#33;

Without speech and words or communication in any form, NONE OF THESE ATROCITIES would have taken place? Where would have Nazi Germany have gone if Hitler was a mute or autistic? Or perhaps the entire German people?

So, how many people with voices and a grasp of their language have killed over the centuries and millenia?

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
If you condone the foreign policies of the United States over the last hundred years and particularly during the cold war, which many, many American do, then you condone attrocities. If not, then I&#39;m not talking to you and thanks for not condoning attrocities.

And while speech may be a leading means of committing murder, there is no empirical evidence that supports the notion that speech results in murder... American foreign policy does.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+--> (colonelguppy)my mistake, it is nationalized but still open to foriegn investment.[/b]

Investment and ownership are two radically different concepts. Do you understand this? I think I&#39;ve repeated this to you approximately once in every post I make in reply to your drivel.


colonelguppy
still, this doesn&#39;t discredit the success that market reforms have had within chile, where as the whole economy is doign well (especially the finance sector).

In that case, it acredits the socialist reforms.

And this ought to be enought to discredit the market reforms:

Although Chile&#39;s economy is growing at a healthy pace today, it still lags behind most of Latin America. Much of the development is environmentally unsustainable. Inequality and poverty remain extreme. Furthermore, much of the country&#39;s industry is now foreign-owned — meaning that profits do not stay in Chile, but are shipped to other countries. Chile continues to have one of the highest foreign debts in the world, and therefore continues to serve as the poster child for the IMF and World Bank. In the U.S., Chile is on the fast track to becoming the fourth member of NAFTA — for motives one might easily guess.

Their external debt may not be among the highest in the world, but it is considerable... and this has the exact effect described above.

[mauvaise foi]

Three countries with leftist governments, as of 2005.

they also have much higher poverty rates and debt rates.

True, but this poverty and debt was around long before these governments were elected, and in fact, they were elected because of the high poverty and debt, among other things. All of these governments are attempting to deal with these problems.


i made that claim in the context as a percentage of GDP, in which case its 110th and 5th from the bottom. so yeah among the lowest in the world.

Source please?


its not like the same people who were around for the coup are the ones who are making the factbook.

So what? I know ordinary people who defend actions committed by the U.S. government who weren&#39;t even alive when they happened. The CIA, like the U.S. government of which it is a part, is an organization with a history that its members and advocates will defend, even if they themselves were not part of that history.


thats not too bad compared with other countries with emerging economies. only about 2 behind the US, or 3 for the EU.

What does this mean? Chile isn&#39;t too bad compared with other developing countries? Fair enough. But isn&#39;t Cuba a developing country? How do you explain the fact that Cuba (whose government, i&#39;m guessing, was never advised by Milton Friedman on matters economic) has a substantially lower infant mortality rate than Chile (not to mention the U.S. as a whole, with much lower rates than many Indian reservations or inner cities)?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Sep 15 2006, 05:15 PM--> (RedZeppelin @ Sep 15 2006, 05:15 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
my mistake, it is nationalized but still open to foriegn investment.

Investment and ownership are two radically different concepts. Do you understand this? I think I&#39;ve repeated this to you approximately once in every post I make in reply to your drivel.


colonelguppy
still, this doesn&#39;t discredit the success that market reforms have had within chile, where as the whole economy is doign well (especially the finance sector).

In that case, it acredits the socialist reforms.

And this ought to be enought to discredit the market reforms:

Although Chile&#39;s economy is growing at a healthy pace today, it still lags behind most of Latin America. Much of the development is environmentally unsustainable. Inequality and poverty remain extreme. Furthermore, much of the country&#39;s industry is now foreign-owned — meaning that profits do not stay in Chile, but are shipped to other countries. Chile continues to have one of the highest foreign debts in the world, and therefore continues to serve as the poster child for the IMF and World Bank. In the U.S., Chile is on the fast track to becoming the fourth member of NAFTA — for motives one might easily guess.

Their external debt may not be among the highest in the world, but it is considerable... and this has the exact effect described above. [/b]
i&#39;m pretty sure i&#39;ve already answered this paragraph