4 ms·

I'm sorry... are you actually saying that the intervention in Chile "worked"? What do you actually mean by "worked"? If you mean "they fixed the economy only af

I'm sorry... are you actually saying that the intervention in Chile "worked"? What do you actually mean by "worked"? If you mean "they fixed the economy only after screwing it up themselves" then that's called "cleaning your own mess" and not fixing something. Sure, it wasn't the best thing and Allende's government had many faults, but it wasn't the big mess they try paint it. Being a chilean, I would say that the chilean economy and the whole system is in a very bad shape: huge inequalities, screwed up health system, educational system about to collapse, etc... Most of them we can thank Friedman and his free market policies... so don't tell me that the intervention in Chile was a good thing or turn out to be a good example, there are many, many counter-examples you can find of how bad things are now because of the intervention and forced policies in the economy.

stfu 14y ago
This is what I mean by worked: It leads Latin American nations in human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption. It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, democratic development and state of peace. However, it has a high economic inequality, as measured by the Gini index. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile
- funkaster 14y ago
  That doesn't mean at all that it worked. All that information means is that Chile, now is in a good position relative to the rest of Latin America. Taking conclusions and saying that the reason Chile is the way it is now is due to the US intervention is naive and simplistic. There are so many factors involved in that fact, that it makes little sense to make that argument. Using the same co-relation you're trying to use, I could say that the intervention was a bad thing, because while Chile is not bad, we could be doing a lot better if it weren't because of the problems we had to face. That is also not the case, and again, too many variables involved that you're freely taking away.
  - stfu 14y ago
    I absolutely agree that certain key numbers are always simplifying the complexity inherent in an economy. But it appears to the outside, that fundamentally there are no particular reasons that would make Chile any different to other Latin American countries (e.g. historic trade positions, natural resources, etc).
    - onetwothreefour 14y ago
      You don't know what you're talking about.
      - guylhem 14y ago
        You seem biased. He offered a valid argument.

stfu 14y ago

This is what I mean by worked: It leads Latin American nations in human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption. It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, democratic development and state of peace. However, it has a high economic inequality, as measured by the Gini index. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile

funkaster 14y ago
That doesn't mean at all that it worked. All that information means is that Chile, now is in a good position relative to the rest of Latin America. Taking conclusions and saying that the reason Chile is the way it is now is due to the US intervention is naive and simplistic. There are so many factors involved in that fact, that it makes little sense to make that argument. Using the same co-relation you're trying to use, I could say that the intervention was a bad thing, because while Chile is not bad, we could be doing a lot better if it weren't because of the problems we had to face. That is also not the case, and again, too many variables involved that you're freely taking away.
- stfu 14y ago
  I absolutely agree that certain key numbers are always simplifying the complexity inherent in an economy. But it appears to the outside, that fundamentally there are no particular reasons that would make Chile any different to other Latin American countries (e.g. historic trade positions, natural resources, etc).
  - onetwothreefour 14y ago
    You don't know what you're talking about.
    - guylhem 14y ago
      You seem biased. He offered a valid argument.