3 ms·

The Pinochet "economic miracle" is largely debunked at this point. Naomi Klein has covered this topic extensively in her book, The Shock Doctrine. Here's a rele

The Pinochet "economic miracle" is largely debunked at this point. Naomi Klein has covered this topic extensively in her book, The Shock Doctrine. Here's a relevant passage from her book: “The only thing that protected Chile from complete economic collapse in the early eighties was that Pinochet had never privatized Codelco, the state copper mine company nationalized by Allende. That one company generated 85 percent of Chile’s export revenues, which meant that when the financial bubble burst, the state still had a steady source of fundsâ€¦. By 1988, when the economy had stabilized and was growing rapidly, 45 percent of the population had fallen below the poverty line. The richest 10 percent of Chileans, however, had seen their incomes increase by 83 percent. Even in 2007, Chile remained one of the most unequal societies in the world—out of 123 countries in which the United Nations tracks inequality, Chile ranked 116th, making it the eighth most unequal country on the list.” You can read her go deeper into this subject in her 2008 blog post here: https://naomiklein.org/response-attacks/ https://naomiklein.org/response-attacks/ The economy under Pinochet was actually quite mediocre: "By the end of the dictatorship, Chile's average real per capita GDP had grown by only 1.6% per year, a result very close to economic stagnation; 18% of the population was unemployed and 45% below the poverty line. In 1990, Chile’s average GDP per capita, calculated on the basis of purchasing power parity, was only US $4,590, lower than Brazil’s, which at that time, after the “lost decade” of the 1980s, was $6,680. To define this as a "success" is, to say the least, intellectual impudence, if not contemptuous ideological propaganda." Taken from here: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/myths-about-pinochets-chile-persist-brazil-today/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/myths-abo...

nickik 7y ago
> Naomi Klein has covered this topic extensively in her book, The Shock Doctrine. Naomi Klein is a incredibly left wing journalist who's conclusion had all already been made before she did the research. I would argue that much of her book is incredibly badly research and bordering on straight up conspiracy theory nonsense. Her book is absolutely not up to any standard of economic or any social science resource. It is true that Pinochet did not produce some kind of economic miracle. That part is mostly correct. However one can also argue that the alternative path Allende wanted to go down was incredibly unlike to produce even those results. Because of how Pinochet was was removed, helped Chile on a different path that was good for it, even if many people still don't like it. All that said, I'm against US intervention in other countries.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- me_me_me 7y ago
  there is so many things wrong with this comment that i don't really know where to start... The shock doctrine is really intersecting book and as far as remember 1/4 of it is just references and links to points she is making or stories she describes As oppose to your 'leveled unbiased opinion', as its just that - an opinion unsupported by a single fact.
  - nickik 7y ago
    Here book was tailor made to be a mass market seller for left leaning semi-educated audience. And in that market it was incredibly successful. And the book is absolutely full of conspiracy theory level accusation about economists and their influence on global foreign policy, and finding references to people who support your opinion isn't exactly hard to find. My opinion is not unbias, as is nobodies, and I agree with one of the main points, that there was no economic miracle. However taking the whole book at face value will give you a totally distorted one-sided view of the topics. You might as well read a book by Bill O'Reilly and claim its a balanced an accurate representation on the topics. But of course only Republican journalists are bias.

nickik 7y ago

> Naomi Klein has covered this topic extensively in her book, The Shock Doctrine. Naomi Klein is a incredibly left wing journalist who's conclusion had all already been made before she did the research. I would argue that much of her book is incredibly badly research and bordering on straight up conspiracy theory nonsense. Her book is absolutely not up to any standard of economic or any social science resource. It is true that Pinochet did not produce some kind of economic miracle. That part is mostly correct. However one can also argue that the alternative path Allende wanted to go down was incredibly unlike to produce even those results. Because of how Pinochet was was removed, helped Chile on a different path that was good for it, even if many people still don't like it. All that said, I'm against US intervention in other countries.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
me_me_me 7y ago
there is so many things wrong with this comment that i don't really know where to start... The shock doctrine is really intersecting book and as far as remember 1/4 of it is just references and links to points she is making or stories she describes As oppose to your 'leveled unbiased opinion', as its just that - an opinion unsupported by a single fact.
- nickik 7y ago
  Here book was tailor made to be a mass market seller for left leaning semi-educated audience. And in that market it was incredibly successful. And the book is absolutely full of conspiracy theory level accusation about economists and their influence on global foreign policy, and finding references to people who support your opinion isn't exactly hard to find. My opinion is not unbias, as is nobodies, and I agree with one of the main points, that there was no economic miracle. However taking the whole book at face value will give you a totally distorted one-sided view of the topics. You might as well read a book by Bill O'Reilly and claim its a balanced an accurate representation on the topics. But of course only Republican journalists are bias.