5 ms·
The post-coup economy in Chile was not so spectactular. Between 1972 and 1993, per capita GDP fell. GDP growth for the twenty years after the coup was lacklus
by firstOrder 13y ago
The post-coup economy in Chile was not so spectactular. Between 1972 and 1993, per capita GDP fell. GDP growth for the twenty years after the coup was lackluster compared to other South American countries.
You did mention the economy getting hit bad in 1982 (and 1983, and 1984), you didn't mention Chile was bailed out by an IMF loan of over $7 billion. As Chile's GDP in 1986 was $17 billion, this was a rather big bailout from Uncle Sam.
Speaking of Uncle Sam funding, you can read on the CIA's own web site a rather polished up version of its involvement in Chile at that time ( http://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/chile/index.html http://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/chile/i... ). While it mentions plenty of covert funding, what is not mentioned is how many of those strikes you speak of were bankrolled by the CIA, US AID, ITT affiliated organizations and so on. Many of the workers who were on strike were managers or professionals.
Then of course there's the question of whether a democratically elected government should be overthrown with the heavy financial and military help of a foreign power, leading to a new system where a happy day for a young woman imprisoned in secret detention centers was where she would just be raped, as opposed to a host of the bizarre things that happened at the secret detention centers that came out in Chile's 2004 government Valech commission report. That aside, the GDP growth was less than Chile's neighbors were doing at the time and was fairly small anyhow.
- daniel-cussen 13y ago> The post-coup economy in Chile was not so spectactular. Yes it was. Keep in mind, the price of copper favoured Chile during Allende and disfavoured Pinochet--and it was, as we say, "el sueldo (salary) de Chile." I don't see what's wrong with the loan--Chile paid it back in full--and really, you're cherry picking when it comes to dates after the coup. At the center of the argument is the question: does spending less and taxing less work? Keep in mind, the tax regime, to this day, is almost identical to what it was in the eighties (very low), and now Chile is the only country in the region in the OECD.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoand now Chile is the only country in the region in the OECD. It was only ratified in 2010 after being run by socialist governments for twenty years.
- daniel-cussen 13y agoThe tax regime barely changed in that time. Sales tax went from 18% to 19%...they added a 3% royalty on something metal-related...I think that was about it. That answers the "tax less" part of the question.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoYou are saying that the economic policy of twenty years of socialist government, under which the majority of the growth of the Chilean economy actually occurred, had more or less the same tax and spend policy as envisioned by Pinochet. Pull the other one, it has bells on.
- firstOrder 13y agoYou have a lot of excuses for why the post-coup economy had problems - the price of copper changed, currency was pegged to the dollar (and who decided that policy?) Chile's GDP in 1969 was 7 billion. 1970 Allende becomes president it is 8 billion. 1971 its 9 billion. 1972 its 10 billion. 1973, the year of the coup its 11 billion. Then 1974: 16 billion, 1975: 15 billion, 1976: 7 billion, 1977: 9 billion. It was 3.5 billion less in 1976 then it has been in 1972 under Allende. So then it runs up and begins descending again. 1984 19.8 billion, 1985 19.2 billion, 1986 16.5 billion, 1987 17.7 billion. Going from 11.5 billion in 1972 to 16.5 billion in 1986, 17.7 billion in 1987 is not all that impressive. From 1994 to 2010, under left wing governments, Chile's GDP grew by $124 billion to $172 billion. This notion that the coup transformed the Chilean economy for the better was at its height (in the U.S. as well) in 1982 - right before the crash, which needed a multi-billion dollar IMF loan/bailout. The story you're telling sounded better 31 years ago, before that big crash.