Talk:Miracle of Chile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miracle of Chile article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Nobody noticed this ideological piece by Lir

Nobody noticed this ideological piece by Lir 27 March 2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.161.95 (talk • contribs)

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. 7 July 2003 user:J.J.
J.J., the actuall 'meaning' of the boom is actually quite heavily debated. The "Miracle of Chile" has been described with a number of different economic indicagors - yes, the country experienced growth, but economists like Jacobo Schatan have pointed out massive problems with the "Miracle of Chile". Having said that, the article should be scholarly and sober. I've seem some trashy writing on the right-wing side of the fence here, too. Dissembly (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] atrocities

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)

[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)
The recession is relevant; it was directly related to the reforms! One of the key criticisms made of the so-called "Miracle" is the economic instability that it created, and the recession is just a part of that. - Dissembly (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2008 (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] Comment made by 70.189.32.215 - "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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.32.215 (talk • contribs)

Excuse me? Are you saying we should eliminate contributions because of people's political beleifs? I think you need to re-read the guidelines of Wikipedia, my friend. If we were to eliminate all sources that have a political bias, there wouldn't be any way to explain who coined the phrase "Miracle of Chile" in the first place. I think you should take a bit of a step back, and make yourself more familiar with how Wikipedia works, "70.189.32.215".
- Dissembly (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[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)

"Social inequality" is a well-understood term in the economic literature. What exactly is your issue with using it?
-Dissembly (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the reversal of the social inequality entry into the "Current Chilean Economy" section. The entry had misspellings (ie. "countries" instead of "country's") and was unsourced. Inequality is already addressed under the heading "Social Inequality and Poverty Rates". The author's wording was intended to disparage the success of Chile's economic experiment, and to undermine the credibility the "Index of Economic Freedom" published annually by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation.

Furthermore, the purpose of this article is to answer whether a country can prosper economically by following the free market policies of Milton Friedman. All the evidence says free enterprise works; Chile is one of the most dramatic examples since it began as a typical poor and backward socialist country.

Leftists have a problem with inequality of outcomes; Friedman did not: "A society that puts equality...ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom." Friedman was aware that capitalism produces inequality of outcomes. The separate question might be whether the relatively "poor" in wealth producing countries are better off than the average subjects in a socialist ones. Freedom Fan (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2008 (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)
My first me-too comment on Wiki. Lost.goblin is right. This article needs serious restructuring and Samuelsotillo seems like a great person to do it.Jamesofengland 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recession

"Chile had a strong economic recession in 1982-1983"

How many months exactly? Because that's a relatively short recession, right? Fephisto 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still npov?

While there's some problems with the article - minor and medium sized inaccuracies and inconsistencies in several places - it doesn't seem that NPOV anymore? Should the tag be removed? radek 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Actually, while reading the article, I assumed that the NPOV complaint was by anti-Pinochet editors against the extremely pro-Pinochet voice that the article is now written in. I was shocked, upon visiting the talk page, to find that the complaint was originally that the article was too *leftist*. In my opinion, the pendulum has swung the other way.

When it becomes difficult to discover to which side an article is biased, maybe it is not biased at all...200.153.161.184 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that's hardly the point. An article that may have a leftist cant can be overedited by rightists to have another one. Man The Wise (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joke?

Is this article a joke? What about the Miracle of Zimbabwe or the Miracle of Antarctica. Seriously, there never was a Miracle of Chile. 0v3r533r 08:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You really should expose your arguments against the article instead of making a ridiculous acussation of "joke", the economic process that occurred in Chile is well known by any economist around the world and its description is an important piece of knoledge Agrofelipe 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What a miracle: devastate a democracy with 140 years to the ground, thousands of people assasinated and tortured, people working in slavery (no strikes allowed, no sindicates, very low payments), people starving by thousands. Yes, I think it's a joke talking of miracle. Same miracle ocurred in Spanish Imperium during its conquer of America, or English Imperium, or Roman one. By today, Chile continues with high rank of inequality, far from European values. By 1977 and before the values was very close to Europe (if not better). The 'Miracle of Chile' is unappliable to any country, as it's the 'Soviet Union Miracle' after War, unless you don't care about Human Rights: the source of the miracle is very similar in both cases. From 1979 to 1984 the unemployment raises to 27%!, with Allende it never was over 5%. Keep this miracle of big numbers (PIB, etc) out of me, please. I only want a job and a plate of soup. 193.144.43.179 —Preceding comment was added at 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incoherent

In the beginning of the article, it is correctly stated that "only 13.3 percent of the population lives below the poverty line". This figure is well sourced and is consistent with the latest rankings and UN data. However, just below, someone added a more critical paragraph that includes inconsistencies such as a claimed 40% figure of people in "absolute poverty" remaining constant to this day, which sounds strange. Sources? Thoughts?

The 40% figure is unlikely to be accurate. Here's a sample cite for the tremendous success in poverty reduction up until 95, when the paper was published.[[12]] The later "socialist" governments under Lagos and Blachelet appear to have continued this success. The government has been successful on a broad front of Millenium Development Goals, with HIV-AIDS being the only success that needed. [[13]]. The 40% figure for 1990, however, does have some basis in real world numbers. Here is the EU's summary: During fourteen years of the democratic governments of the Concertación (1990-2003) Chile succeeded in reducing the poverty level from 38.6% to 18.8% and the level of extreme poverty from 12.9% to 4.7%, clearly outranking the average Latin American indices for the period indicated and achieving 10 years ahead of schedule the UN millennium development goal of cutting poverty by half (see annex 4).[[14]] The 2003-2007 was also pretty good. The answer to the question from the 1995 paper above was apparently "yes, the miracle can totally continue", although perhaps only for 12 years more. Jamesofengland 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point of View needs balance

I understand that a lot of conservatives, neoliberals, and libertarians like to trumpet Chile as a "miracle" and all of that, but it's hardly a neutral term. Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has offered some strong critiques (for a quick sample: [15]). Another nobel laureate, Paul Krugman, has also questioned the Chilean economy and the way it's been represented (cf. "Buying Into Failure," December 17, 2004, NYTimes). I think it's irresponsible to have this page in the first place. I think the Economy of Chile should have a debate about the miracle or lack thereof. It's a very ideological thing to have this article. Imagine having a "miracle of Cuba" article. Anyway, let's get this thing merged away, or at least balance it out. --Dylanfly 15:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MERGE with Economy of Chile

Folks, I've looked around and can't see much like this page on WP. It's very POV-ish. I'll give you a close example. The "Reagan Revolution" was a phrase often put forth about the Reagan presidency. But this idea is contained on the Ronald Reagan page. Some people think Reagan ushered in a "Reagan Revolution," some don't, but it doesn't get its own WP page. This page could thus be merged into the Economy of Chile, and it would add to that discussion. --Dylanfly 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur, though, alas, you'll find the ideological balance tilted to one side in the study of economics, for the most part. MarcelLionheart 07:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be more in favour of renaming the page Economic history of Chile (1973-1990), which is a more NPOV title (see Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Tazmaniacs 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tazmaniacs. This entry has strong historical significance that merits its own separate treatment. jncohen 13:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Tazmaniacs & jncohen. Mel Romero 02:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
While I can see the argument for the main page being renamed (with a redirect from Chilean Miracle), it should be noted that there are other examples of this sort of thing. Kerala model, for instance, is less about Kerala per se than about the lessons that can be learned from Kerala, so it's not called Kerala politics or Kerala history 1957-present. Jamesofengland 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think by the very naming, the article is pretty POV and I'd support merging it with Economy of Chile. Also see my comments below on the Two Miracles section. Kingsindian (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have voted against merger in the "Economy of Chile" Discussion section; i'd just like to reemphasize my opposition to merger here. This is a historical event and it deserves it's own dedicated page - it would be EXTREMELY cumbersome to move this entire block of text into another article, and ultimately pointless. - Dissembly (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote to keep the article separate and not bury it in some general article about Chile. The real purpose of the article is to shed light upon whether you can take a poor backward country and make it into a prosperous one by following Milton Friedman's economic theories. This article is more about Milton Friedman and free markets than about Chile per se. Freedom Fan (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already made my point for merging the articles in the "Economy of Chile" Discussion section. I'd just like to point out here why I am so strongly for merging the articles. There are already far too many articles dealing with this highly controversial topic (Economic history of Chile, Economy of Chile, History of Chile, Chile under Pinochet, Chile pension system, Chicago Boys and many more). Nobody can cope with such a mess and it increases the danger of propaganda escaping scrutiny because articles are not watched closely any more. However I concede that there might be other probably more dispensable articles about this topic.--84.167.173.196 (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed the article according to an NPOV title which allows for a more diverse approach. Tazmaniacs (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no need for more diverse approach. Articles on Economy of Chile and on Chile under Pinochet already exist, so if you feel the need to explore this subject further you can do it there. -- Vision Thing -- 19:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Vision Thing, as much as I agree that this article documents a notable historical event and deserves its own article, I cannot in good conscience accept that the most NPOV title imaginable is "Miracle of Chile". Whether or not the Chilean pro-market reforms ushered in a miracle or not is an irrelevant question, simply because there is (as far as I know), no objective definition of what constitutes a miracle in economics. Are Messrs Pinochet and Friedman to be canonized for their holy work? Should the Catholic Church dedicate churches to them? Or maybe, just maybe, what the article itself admits is a contentious issue (Miracle of Chile#Chile as a model economy) might need a slightly reworked title. Man The Wise (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the current title is the most appropriate one according to Wikipedia rules. -- Vision Thing -- 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I agree with you. As much as I dislike the name, it is more or less what the event/period is referred to as, and that is what we should go for. Consider my objections withdrawn. Man The Wise (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete references to neoliberalism

Neoliberalismis is a pejorative term. The people it is directed at tend to either (1) refer to themselves as classical liberals and identify with the line of thought as classical liberals of two centuries ago or (2) be without actual deep philosophical ideas but enjoy identifying with a word that upsets some people. It's also misleading - in this case it's trying to combine monetarism (from Friedman - a branch of Keynsian economics) and the Chicago School (at the time identified with the Austrian School and therefore a bastion of classical economics). I propose removing references to it from the article. And I'd be interested to see if there is anyone who can make a substantive definition of 'neoliberalism' that doesn't end up with it becoming a synonym for an older, non-pejorative term. --User:cratuki 18:00, 17 September 2007 (GMT)

[edit] It

does reference Chicago Boys; but, the Chicago School reference is not a wikilink.

Naomi Klein is not mentioned.

In the quote "However, during this time, per capita income decreased as did the percentage of people living in poverty.", could it be[??]:

"However, during this time, per capita income decreased as the percentage of people living in poverty had increased."??

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 16:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Miracles

The first three paragraphs of this section are almost wholly vague and unsubstantiated statements. There are almost no citations (apart from the last two statements). Also, its misleading to talk about poverty figures today when the period we're talking about is 1973-late 80s maybe. If the period can't be precisely defined, it's hardly appropriate to talk about "miracles" or "disasters" or anything else.

I think it would be helpful if we can talk about specific periods and leave it up to the reader to decide whether it's a "miracle" or not. I'm making some efforts on this front, but I'm not very good at editing, so any feedback/corrections would be appreciated. Kingsindian (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Performance of various economic indicators

I'm adding a section on various economic indicators during the period 1970-85. Most of the material I have is from Amartya Sen , Hunger and Public Action. Kingsindian (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Recent Deletions by "Vision Thing"

Vision Thing, i disagree with your deletion of references on the grounds that they are "unreliable sources" - you cannot call something "unreliable" simply because you disagree with it or don't like what it has to say. I have restored the relevant references as they provide informed commentary on the subject and are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopeadia article. - Dissembly (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the deletion of the section on wages. The request for citation was put there by me in January 2008; unfortunately i got the year wrong and wrote "2007", in reality the "citation needed" tag had only been there for a couple of days when you removed in for being unsourced. I think it should remain for a bit longer before being deleted wholesale. I will try to find a reference in the existing sources. - Dissembly (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)