4 ms·

From wikipedia: « In 2010, Chile was the first nation in South America to win membership in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, an organiz

From wikipedia: « In 2010, Chile was the first nation in South America to win membership in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, an organization restricted to the world's richest countries » Victims of neoliberalism you say?

meristohm 3y ago
I would say the USA (where I grew up and still live, which doesn't make me a expert, mind- these are mostly just feelings) is also a victim of neoliberalism[0], and that people who revere President Reagan (USA) and Prime Minister Thatcher (UK) are generally selfish and inconsiderate of (what I see as) the importance of other life on earth whether or not we can directly benefit from it. [0] https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
- tmtvl 3y ago
  Speaking of Maggie... > What we are now doing to the world... is new in the experience of the Earth. It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. > The environmental challenge that confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out. Those countries who are industrialised must contribute more to help those who are not. -The Baroness Thatcher
comte7092 3y ago
Chile has a GDP per capita not all that different from peer South American countries of Argentina and Uruguay [0]. It is a stretch to characterize “winning” membership to the OECD as some sort of objective, non ideological measure of economic progress. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  GDP per capita is a very narrow indicator that does not come close to telling enough about the economic condition of a country. Argentina seems to be going bankrupt and drown in enormous inflation every couple of years. That isn't the case with Chile. Based on this factor alone, Chile and Argentina aren't peers. I don't know enough about Uruguay to judge.
  - comte7092 3y ago
    Those were simply easy examples, there are plenty of non oecd countries that have higher levels of wealth than Chile. > GDP per capita is a very narrow indicator that does not come close to telling enough about the economic condition of a country. In what was us GDP per capita deficient, and what criteria would you propose exactly?
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      I won't propose any exact criteria, given that this is HN and I am in no mood for nitpicking games, which usually follow after a demand for something exact. However, if I were considering investment from my own pocket, political and economic stability would play a much higher role for my decision making than GDP per capita. And Argentina would therefore be a big no-no, while Chile might make the cut. Would you make a different choice?
      - comte7092 3y ago
        > I won't propose any exact criteria, given that this is HN and I am in no mood for nitpicking games, which usually follow after a demand for something exact. I understand that, you were the one who dismissed GDP per capita as an objective measurement of economic development. The point I was making that the OECD exists to espouse a particular model of global economic organization and development, which is politically informed. As to your question about investment, what might be beneficial to me as an investor isn’t necessarily the same as what is beneficial to a citizen of a particular country.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Quoting a right wing economics friendly source: "Pinochet's economic policy is vastly overrated" > Mining a bunch of copper, helping your cronies get rich, and pumping up land prices is not a "miracle". https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/pinochets-economic-policy-is-vastly https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/pinochets-economic-policy-is-v... > In the U.S., Pinochet is often a talking point in economics debates. He was a brutal dictator, who killed thousands and who tortured, imprisoned, and/or exiled tens of thousands more. It’s very understandable that Chileans would want to expunge any portion of his legacy. But in the U.S., it’s his economic policy that continues to be debated decades later. Some libertarians believe that despite the brutality of his regime, he implemented economic policies that were wildly successful in raising Chilean living standards.

meristohm 3y ago

I would say the USA (where I grew up and still live, which doesn't make me a expert, mind- these are mostly just feelings) is also a victim of neoliberalism[0], and that people who revere President Reagan (USA) and Prime Minister Thatcher (UK) are generally selfish and inconsiderate of (what I see as) the importance of other life on earth whether or not we can directly benefit from it. [0] https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

tmtvl 3y ago
Speaking of Maggie... > What we are now doing to the world... is new in the experience of the Earth. It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. > The environmental challenge that confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out. Those countries who are industrialised must contribute more to help those who are not. -The Baroness Thatcher

comte7092 3y ago

Chile has a GDP per capita not all that different from peer South American countries of Argentina and Uruguay [0]. It is a stretch to characterize “winning” membership to the OECD as some sort of objective, non ideological measure of economic progress. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...

inglor_cz 3y ago
GDP per capita is a very narrow indicator that does not come close to telling enough about the economic condition of a country. Argentina seems to be going bankrupt and drown in enormous inflation every couple of years. That isn't the case with Chile. Based on this factor alone, Chile and Argentina aren't peers. I don't know enough about Uruguay to judge.
- comte7092 3y ago
  Those were simply easy examples, there are plenty of non oecd countries that have higher levels of wealth than Chile. > GDP per capita is a very narrow indicator that does not come close to telling enough about the economic condition of a country. In what was us GDP per capita deficient, and what criteria would you propose exactly?
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    I won't propose any exact criteria, given that this is HN and I am in no mood for nitpicking games, which usually follow after a demand for something exact. However, if I were considering investment from my own pocket, political and economic stability would play a much higher role for my decision making than GDP per capita. And Argentina would therefore be a big no-no, while Chile might make the cut. Would you make a different choice?
    - comte7092 3y ago
      > I won't propose any exact criteria, given that this is HN and I am in no mood for nitpicking games, which usually follow after a demand for something exact. I understand that, you were the one who dismissed GDP per capita as an objective measurement of economic development. The point I was making that the OECD exists to espouse a particular model of global economic organization and development, which is politically informed. As to your question about investment, what might be beneficial to me as an investor isn’t necessarily the same as what is beneficial to a citizen of a particular country.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

Quoting a right wing economics friendly source: "Pinochet's economic policy is vastly overrated" > Mining a bunch of copper, helping your cronies get rich, and pumping up land prices is not a "miracle". https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/pinochets-economic-policy-is-vastly https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/pinochets-economic-policy-is-v... > In the U.S., Pinochet is often a talking point in economics debates. He was a brutal dictator, who killed thousands and who tortured, imprisoned, and/or exiled tens of thousands more. It’s very understandable that Chileans would want to expunge any portion of his legacy. But in the U.S., it’s his economic policy that continues to be debated decades later. Some libertarians believe that despite the brutality of his regime, he implemented economic policies that were wildly successful in raising Chilean living standards.