For Believers In Capitalism

[Demogorgon]

ust reading about Pinochet can make me fume with anger. I truly believe he was one of the worst men in history. Nonetheless it is important to understand such things, so I have been reading about him again.

Pinochet as we know brought in perhaps the purest example of capitalism in history. Let's examine the results.

-First of all it certainly did not lead to freedom. Political dissent was repressed and the extent of the torture and forced dissappearances is mind blowing. This contrasts with the entirely Democratic Marxist Government in place before hand.

-Unemployment increased from 4.3% in 1973 to 34.6% in 1983

- Pensions were privatised, when the stock market crashed it was good bye to them.

-Economic growth was slower than any other Latin American country and the economy was extremely unstable

-Most workers earned less in 1989 than 1973

-The percentage of Chileans without adequate housing in 1972 was 22%. In 1988 it was 40%

-People's health became dramatically worse due to the government cutting public health funding.

Some system capitalism. For those believers that unfettered capitalism is the answer, there is the reality.

[MrDoom]

At least the capitalist dictators got rich... :rolleyes:

[colonelguppy]

hmmm i wonder how much worse they're doing in the present....

oh wait....

[theraven]

well if you badly manage any system it will go badly.

[Publius]

-First of all it certainly did not lead to freedom. Political dissent was repressed and the extent of the torture and forced dissappearances is mind blowing. This contrasts with the entirely Democratic Marxist Government in place before hand.

I'll agree with you there, though it should be noted Chile eventually became democratic again.



-Unemployment increased from 4.3% in 1973 to 34.6% in 1983

But since then it's been quite better. In fact Chile has had a bit of a remarkable economy over the last 20 years or so. One of the best in South America/Mexico.



- Pensions were privatised, when the stock market crashed it was good bye to them.

How are they doing now?



-Economic growth was slower than any other Latin American country and the economy was extremely unstable

It's not slower now. In fact, it's quite a bit faster. I'm not able to find the exact rate atm, but in terms of GDP per capita it's ahead of most of the countries in the area including, substantially, Venezuala.



-Most workers earned less in 1989 than 1973

How about now?



-The percentage of Chileans without adequate housing in 1972 was 22%. In 1988 it was 40%

-People's health became dramatically worse due to the government cutting public health funding.

These two might still be correct.

Socialism, I would say, clearly provides better health care (at least compared to any private system that I've seen), and probably ends up helping more people have housing.



Some system capitalism. For those believers that unfettered capitalism is the answer, there is the reality.

Post-Pinochet, Chile has been rather a success story, largely, I think, because of its capitalistic economy.

[Nusocialist]

But since then it's been quite better. In fact Chile has had a bit of a remarkable economy over the last 20 years or so. One of the best in South America/Mexico
Actually that was quite a bit after Pinochet,it's a myth he was good for the chilean economy,if you look at the real evidence he was awful for it.
It had some of the lowest aggregate growth in south america over his reign of Terror.
If fact Chile is a classic case of the worst of Neoliberalism.

[Nusocialist]

Socialism, I would say, clearly provides better health care (at least compared to any private system that I've seen), and probably ends up helping more people have housing.
That's not socialism,giving people healthcare or housing is not socialism per se.

[BobKKKindle$]

If one examines Publius' post, one will see that whilst he accepts that the Chilean Economy underwent what was tantamount to a collapse following the institution of what was essentially anarcho-capitalism in terms of economic structure (but without the absence of state repression) he suggests that the economy is doing far better now. In doing so he has implicitly admitted one of Capitalism's most pressing problems - it is prone to fall into crisis following temporary periods of prosperity and (what appears to be) stability. It naturally follows that if your economy undergoes a lengthy and deep recession (as chile did) then your economy will undergo high levels of economic growth and employment until the end of the buisness cycle, whereupon the crisis will recurr, ad revolutionum. So the fact that Chile may be doing well economically now (a fact that is not even certain) shows nothing.


I'm not able to find the exact rate atm, but in terms of GDP per capita it's ahead of most of the countries in the area including, substantially, Venezuala.

The US, in terms both Nominal and parity Purchasing Power classifications, has the highest GDP per Capita in the world, excluding certain microstates. However, the distribution of this wealth is such that the income and standard of living for an ordinary wage labourer is far less than in other countries where the government undertakes measures to redistribute income and ensure the provision of basic services. This shows that GDP/Capita is not an accurate measure of the desirability of an economic system because it does not show how the wealth is distributed.

A Quick Google search Show's Chile's gini coefficient (the measure of a country's distribution of income, 100 being perfect inequality) is 57. Cuba is 22. I prefer Cuba.

[Dr Mindbender]

The argument is bollocks. Its like people who say &#39;&#39;at least the trains in germany were never late under hitler&#39;&#39; <_<

[Zero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 04:04 pm
One in a long line of brutal right wing dictators this country has backed over the years.
Saddam, Batista, Nicholas II, Pedro Carmona...

Not a good track record ehh?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 06:54 am
In doing so he has implicitly admitted one of Capitalism&#39;s most pressing problems - it is prone to fall into crisis following temporary periods of prosperity and (what appears to be) stability. It naturally follows that if your economy undergoes a lengthy and deep recession (as chile did) then your economy will undergo high levels of economic growth and employment until the end of the buisness cycle, whereupon the crisis will recurr, ad revolutionum. So the fact that Chile may be doing well economically now (a fact that is not even certain) shows nothing.

...

A Quick Google search Show&#39;s Chile&#39;s gini coefficient (the measure of a country&#39;s distribution of income, 100 being perfect inequality) is 57. Cuba is 22. I prefer Cuba.
While your mention of the business cycle is accurate, I must point out that the poorest Americans have the same general material well-being as average Cubans; while 75%-80% of Americans have it better.

So, again, the problem with a socialist system is that you can avoid the boom/bust cycle by simply being in a bust almost all the time, making everyone equally as miserable.

Do you live in Cuba and if not, why not?