5 ms·

I think we need to separate Pinochet’s dictatorship from Pinochet’s economic policies. Economic growth of Chile (and as a result of that, improved living condit

I think we need to separate Pinochet’s dictatorship from Pinochet’s economic policies. Economic growth of Chile (and as a result of that, improved living conditions for its citizens) are the result of Pinochet’s economic policies. He could have implemented those without killing his political opponents.

stevebmark 5y ago
Dictatorship and suppression of democracy, and Friedman's free market economic policies, are inextricably linked. Pinochet could not have implemented his free market ideas without oppression, because there will always be more poor people than rich, and poor people will always vote for worker protections, price controls, stable jobs and housing. This is openly part of Friedman's plan: His policies are best implemented when a country is in a time of crisis, when the population is worn down and can't resist. The increase in poverty, slums, and the country's stadium turned into a torture center, don't feel like improved living conditions to me, nor worth the price of stopping inflation (which Pinochet did).
- drno123 5y ago
  To be honest, I do not see any difference in torture done by Castro’s leftists from the torture done by Pinochet’s “rightists”. At least after Pinochet Chile was left a prosperous country, while under Castro, people were risking their lives while to get away from Cuba into US.
  - stevebmark 5y ago
    I personally don't have enough economic experience to definitively say if Friedman's far right free market ideas are inherently bad (except for the super elite), nor can I definitively say left ideas of socialism and government infrastructure inherently better. The significant difference I see is that democracies tend not to produce free market economies, and Friedman is open about his policies taking advantage of crises to help enforce them and foist them on an otherwise willing country.
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    not sure why you're getting downvoted, it's a good parallel however, i'm gonna push back on the idea that people were fleeing cuba because of castro's economics versus the US sanctions that crippled the economy

stevebmark 5y ago

Dictatorship and suppression of democracy, and Friedman's free market economic policies, are inextricably linked. Pinochet could not have implemented his free market ideas without oppression, because there will always be more poor people than rich, and poor people will always vote for worker protections, price controls, stable jobs and housing. This is openly part of Friedman's plan: His policies are best implemented when a country is in a time of crisis, when the population is worn down and can't resist. The increase in poverty, slums, and the country's stadium turned into a torture center, don't feel like improved living conditions to me, nor worth the price of stopping inflation (which Pinochet did).

drno123 5y ago
To be honest, I do not see any difference in torture done by Castro’s leftists from the torture done by Pinochet’s “rightists”. At least after Pinochet Chile was left a prosperous country, while under Castro, people were risking their lives while to get away from Cuba into US.
- stevebmark 5y ago
  I personally don't have enough economic experience to definitively say if Friedman's far right free market ideas are inherently bad (except for the super elite), nor can I definitively say left ideas of socialism and government infrastructure inherently better. The significant difference I see is that democracies tend not to produce free market economies, and Friedman is open about his policies taking advantage of crises to help enforce them and foist them on an otherwise willing country.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  not sure why you're getting downvoted, it's a good parallel however, i'm gonna push back on the idea that people were fleeing cuba because of castro's economics versus the US sanctions that crippled the economy