Talk:Miracle of Chile
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nobody noticed this ideological piece by Lir
---
It's quite biased if you ask me. Despite occuing under a despicable dictator, the "Miracle of Chile" was a very significant economic boom, and deserves more than some quick pot-shots. user:J.J.
---
User:Cantus got rid of a reference to the atrocities of Pinochet; I have put back this sentence in the following form:
- an era also known for its brutality toward its political dissidents.
Samboy 18:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
---
Contents |
[edit] On mentioning the brutality in the first paragraph
User:Cantus got rid of the sentence again without discussing it here on the talk page; two people support the inclusion of the sentence; Cantus is the only one who opposes. I have reverted Cantus' revert because the rough consensus seems to be going against him right now; I will, however, accept the removal of this clause if a non-sock-puppet user also feels the final clause of the first paragraph an era also known for its brutality toward its political dissidents should not be there. Samboy 09:53, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I support User:Cantus on this. This is article on economic policy and brutality is not directly related to it. The article on Five Year Plans does not mention Great Purges and I suggest we follow the same pattern here and remove the sentence. Andris 10:41, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
- OK, I said I'll accept it if one other person agrees. Removing the sentence. Thanks for your contribution. Samboy 09:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I restored the counter-criticism part and the two external links that were removed by the anon 82.76.26.125. Their removal made the article an anti-Pinochet POV it was before I've added them, where only criticism of the regime and its economic policies are allowed, and were *no* consensus at all, to any strait of imagination. How can anyone realize some consensus where only one side may speak out? After all, wikipedia articles should be NPOV, and if they can't, at least we should present the views of *both* sides. Critto
- And besides, I find Greg Palast's works to be *very very* POV by their nature. I don't think that he would claim otherwise; after all, "Greg Palast is a journalist for the British Observer (a newspaper) and a self-proclaimed expert on corporate power; who works with labor groups and consumer groups." (from an article on Greg Palast). So, the anon 82.76.26.125 permitted his source to stay, while removing other ones, which contained the serious economic analises, in order to make "consensus" ?? Funny ... :)
Editors on the left should not to go off topic with normative criticisms of 'human rights abuses.' By its very nature, this article is one on political economy and the commentary on "brutality" is off topic. Authoritarianism is only relevant when it comes to discussing the importance of the suppression of labor and the peasant movement in carrying out the military regime's development policies. 172 23:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This debate does not make any sense to me. Friedman himself said repeatedly that economic and political liberty have to go hand in hand. Why wouldn't brutal political repression be relevant? I would ask the same question about the article about the Five Year Plans -- Stalin's purges were essential to carrying out his economic program, so that anyone who challenged the program (or might conceivably challenge it) would be neutralized. How many victim's of Pinochet's regime were protestors of his economic policies?Jrcchicago 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
This article is full of partisan innuendo and "original research," along with some useful information. I recommend that someone do a search on Jastor for "Chilean miracle" (you will be able to find a wealth of journal articles), and use the more promising portions of the existing text as a basis for a rewrite. I could do this, but I wouldn't get around to it for quite some time. 172 23:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's convenient that only the 1973-83 period is mentioned in terms of a critique, considering Chile went into a recession during the early '80s J. Parker Stone 02:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Contracts and State
I dont see how the fact that Pinochet was a terrorist can be ommitted from any discussion of economics at the time. Economics depends on courts to enforce contracts. If the courts are under the thumb of a dictator, the economy is an illusion. In addition to Greg Palast, there is the testimony of Marc Cooper, the US citizen who was a translator for Allende, whose thoughts in "Pinochet and Me" seem to support Palast's views. How one can talk of an economic success is beyond me since it was simultaneously a disaster for such a large portion of the people. IMO
- I think this a strained argument. It is conceptually true but in practise the rule of the courts was honoured, business knew this to be so and operated accordingly. Toby Douglass 13:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Marc Cooper is a leftist
Marc Cooper is a leftist as well, check out his blog and his pathetic book "Move Over Che Guevara". Why is he supposed to be a neutral source?
[edit] rescinded trade union rights
Can we get a source for this claim? Were "trade union rights" recinded? What exactly were those rights? RJII 01:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Social Inequity" Reference
While enacting certain changes, the four successive civilian administrations that followed Pinochet, including that of current Socialist president Michelle Bachelet, have not tried to dismantle the Chicago Boys' policies, but they have been making several efforts to reduce the social inequity produced by this model.
"social inequality" is a subjective value. In any economy there is a disparity between rich and poor, the haves and have-nots, the right side of the tracks, the wrong side of the tracks. The degree thereof and whether the government should resort to force to do something about it is a political argument. What would be "social equality"? Where everyone is poor? The remark should be struck from the article.
And can we attempt to decrease the occurance of fatuous remarks like "the economy is an illusion"?
Killoggs 15:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Biased article
This article is really bad. Very left biased. And why does it talk about the economy declining in 1973 and blaming it on the Chicago Boys, when that was before the reforms even happened? The changes were not made until like 1976 I think. Working Poor 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, it would be nice if someone with more accurate information could rewrite the whole article. --Lost Goblin 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please explain exactly what you mean by "very bad". I'm afraid you need a little longer description of your objections in order to dispute the neutrality and factual accuracy of an article. -- Nikodemos 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- He already gave some details, and if you look at the rest of the talk page, there have been many complaints about bias in this article. It is clear this article is controversial and the current version makes many unsourced and POV claims and as far as I know is in serious disagreement with the view of most economists and historians. Still it would be nice if someone with more knowledge of the details and who could provide good sources would rewrite the whole thing. --Lost Goblin 15:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- I support that disputed Tags on the article. It doesn't look like this article has ever been NPOV, but it was less POV than it is now. Here is the latest edit that made it so POV: [1] I reverted it twice I think but a user 69.6.102.126 keeps reverting back. One important thing that I see was deleted was the fact that all of Latin America had a recession. But it looks like somebody is trying to make it look like liberalization in Chile caused the recession, which is wrong. MumboJumbo 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- The claim that all of Latin America had a recession was no more supported with evidence than the claim that the recession was confined to Chile. As far as I can see, the old version that you point to was at least as bad as the current one - with the added drawback that the old introduction was all garbled and the article seemed to contradict itself (if the term Miracle of Chile refers to political reforms and not economic ones, why did the article talk about economics?) -- Nikodemos 04:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it was. It was supported by economist Arnold Harberger. This was deleted: "However, the economic downturn was not confined to Chile although it started there,[citation needed] as a widespread recession also struck several other Latin American countries. Economist Arnold C. Harberger said in an interview with Jeffrey Sachs that "Chile led the continent in climbing out of this recession. It was the only debt-crisis country that got back to the pre-crisis levels of GDP before the end of the decade of the '80s." [2] " (The claim that it started with Chile should be taken out though, since that's unsupported.) MumboJumbo 05:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, we clearly need at least one book on the economics of Latin America in the 1980s if we are to resolve this issue. I might decide to take up the task of sorting out this article in the near future. But, in any case, the thing I dislike the most about the version you quoted is that it contradicts itself with regards to the meaning of the phrase "Miracle of Chile". -- Nikodemos 05:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- During the 1980s, most countries in Latin America went through very difficult times. There is certain amount of consensus that the crisis started in 1982 [3], when the so-called debt crisis forced many Latin American governments to implement difficult economic reforms [4] [5]. Unfortunately, most countries went on to implement a series of policies that made the crisis even worse--most of them inspired by the UN's Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean [6]. Examples of those reforms were absurd price controls and increasing government regulations. The effects of those policies were economic stagnation and social unrest [7] [8]. Ultimately, most of the region's military regimes failed to address the main issues created by this crisis, facilitating the transition to democracy [9]. The only regime that did not experiment with command and control reforms was Pinochet's. Regardless of its brutality, Pinochet's regime created an economic framework that allowed emerging Chilean democracy to prosper the way it is doing today [10]. Concerning the crisis, I'll recommend The economic experience of the last fifteen years. Latin America and the Caribbean, 1980-1995 [11]. To conclude, I think there is enough evidence to confirm that--though perhaps not all--at least most of Latin America went through a recession during most of the 1980s. I agree the article is very biased. There is an exaggerated emphasis on criticism and a lot of unsubstantiated claims. -- samuelsotillo 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)]
- You seem to have a very good grasp of the subject and plenty of references, maybe you want to rework or totally rewrite the article? It would be very nice if someone that understands the details and the context like you could do it. --Lost Goblin 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- During the 1980s, most countries in Latin America went through very difficult times. There is certain amount of consensus that the crisis started in 1982 [3], when the so-called debt crisis forced many Latin American governments to implement difficult economic reforms [4] [5]. Unfortunately, most countries went on to implement a series of policies that made the crisis even worse--most of them inspired by the UN's Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean [6]. Examples of those reforms were absurd price controls and increasing government regulations. The effects of those policies were economic stagnation and social unrest [7] [8]. Ultimately, most of the region's military regimes failed to address the main issues created by this crisis, facilitating the transition to democracy [9]. The only regime that did not experiment with command and control reforms was Pinochet's. Regardless of its brutality, Pinochet's regime created an economic framework that allowed emerging Chilean democracy to prosper the way it is doing today [10]. Concerning the crisis, I'll recommend The economic experience of the last fifteen years. Latin America and the Caribbean, 1980-1995 [11]. To conclude, I think there is enough evidence to confirm that--though perhaps not all--at least most of Latin America went through a recession during most of the 1980s. I agree the article is very biased. There is an exaggerated emphasis on criticism and a lot of unsubstantiated claims. -- samuelsotillo 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)]
- Hmm, we clearly need at least one book on the economics of Latin America in the 1980s if we are to resolve this issue. I might decide to take up the task of sorting out this article in the near future. But, in any case, the thing I dislike the most about the version you quoted is that it contradicts itself with regards to the meaning of the phrase "Miracle of Chile". -- Nikodemos 05:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it was. It was supported by economist Arnold Harberger. This was deleted: "However, the economic downturn was not confined to Chile although it started there,[citation needed] as a widespread recession also struck several other Latin American countries. Economist Arnold C. Harberger said in an interview with Jeffrey Sachs that "Chile led the continent in climbing out of this recession. It was the only debt-crisis country that got back to the pre-crisis levels of GDP before the end of the decade of the '80s." [2] " (The claim that it started with Chile should be taken out though, since that's unsupported.) MumboJumbo 05:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- The claim that all of Latin America had a recession was no more supported with evidence than the claim that the recession was confined to Chile. As far as I can see, the old version that you point to was at least as bad as the current one - with the added drawback that the old introduction was all garbled and the article seemed to contradict itself (if the term Miracle of Chile refers to political reforms and not economic ones, why did the article talk about economics?) -- Nikodemos 04:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
