It seems that your argument is edging further away from the idea, as you originally stated (in your original post) that this conflict wasn’t at all about market ideology, and closer towards the idea that market ideology may have been a cause but wasn’t the chief cause. This seems apparent in how carefully your phrased your first two paragraphs such as “wasn’t just done out of lust for power and greed” and “doesn’t mean those plans were their chief motivation.” To prove the point I’m aiming for (and your original point incorrect) all I really need to do is get you to acknowledge that, market ideology was among the many reasons people shed blood (which is more substantial than the “heated arguments” only which you originally claimed). It seems that you’ve already basically conceded to my point. You’re welcome to try to back-pedal out of your implied stance, but I don’t think that, in light of evidence already presented, you can say that this conflict wasn’t, in part, about said market ideology.
I found it woefully ironic that your viewpoint is that “There are, after all, such things as democracies that degenerate into tyrannies, and confiscating private property is usually the decisive step on that path.” In the death of your (American) democracy, the decisive step towards tyranny actually seems to be occurring through the privatization of public assets and the blurring of lines between corporation and government (ie Rumsfeld and Cheney). But that’s more of an aside.
But, now for the main event… The results of Chicago School Economics. You say that “But there are many things worse than 'inequality'. Mass death, for instance. Tyranny. Poverty and disease.” Spoken like a true “Have.” It’s also interesting that you should bring up the whole Tyranny and Mass death. In Chile, those things seemed to arrive, almost exactly at the same time that the Chicago School economics did. In fact, (as listed in my first two posts) Chicago School economics seems to be accompanied by mass death in about half the nations its attempted in, and tyranny in almost all of them. Now, it as an economic system doesn’t advocate either of these two things (well, Freidmans idea of Shock Therapy does rather reek of Tyranny), however, it is kind of odd that they seem to be found in each others company so often.
And as for the poverty… After the implementation of Chicago School economics, in 1982 Chile’s economy crashed despite embracing Friedman’s economics. They fell victim to hyperinflation and had an unemployment rate of 30%. Under Allende, unemployment was 3%. Friedmanism failed Chile. It wasn’t until Pinochet himself actually began to follow in Allende’s footstep and started nationalizing many of the federal companies which had been sold off during the orgy of privatization under the Chicago Boys that the country actually began to recover. And, ironically, the only thing that actually kept the country afloat during this time period was Codelco, the state owned copper company. It was one of the few assets not privatized by Pinochet, and actually brought in over 85% of the country’s export revenue during this time period. Chicago style economics brought the country to the brink of ruin, and is responsible for much of the wealth segregation that occurred during this time. It was only a departure from the Chicago school that stopped it from going under completely. So, maybe holding up Chile as one of the success stories of Chicago economics may not be the wisest idea.
However, I believe that we can both agree on the fact that Chicago Economics does not directly cause disease among the general populace. Unless of course the poverty leads to a diminished health care system, or access to said health care system, or even basic sanitation. In which case, I suppose you could argue that it does. But, since I can’t think of any examples of this off the top of my head, I’ll let you have this one.
Every person, whenever they act, has a complex mix of motives. I cannot speak with authority about what precise mix was in Pinochet's head in September, 1973. Nobody can. What I can say is that a lot of people who did not stand to get rich from a coup -- the supreme court, the congress, and the army -- backed the coup. That I think is significant evidence that there were reasonable grounds for doing so, other than personal gain. Showing that there were rational grounds, other than greed, is about all that can ever be shown, and for most purposes, is good enough.
What makes you say American democracy is dying? Or even ill? There are policy questions about which service the government should offer. But hiring civilian truck drivers in a war zone does not a tyranny make. It's not the least bit tyrannical.
"Shock therapy" and tyranny need not be connected. Most of Eastern Europe went through essentially an abrupt "shock therapy" transition to free market economics, without any sort of tyranny. That in Chile a military government took such steps proves little; many socialist economic systems have been set up by authoritarian regimes.
Now for the empirical question of how the Chilean economy did under various governments. It had ups and downs under Allende, and ups and downs under his successors. Your statistics, if I understand right, are comparing 1972. the best pre-coup year, with 1982, the worst post-coup year. That is not a legitimate comparison.
For the last 18 years since the end of military rule, Chile has had broadly free-market policies, and a remarkably good economic performance. The right comparison, I think, is free-market policies in democracy versus appropriationist policies under democracy -- military rule of course has economic costs of its own. As Milton Friedman often pointed out.
I found it woefully ironic that your viewpoint is that “There are, after all, such things as democracies that degenerate into tyrannies, and confiscating private property is usually the decisive step on that path.” In the death of your (American) democracy, the decisive step towards tyranny actually seems to be occurring through the privatization of public assets and the blurring of lines between corporation and government (ie Rumsfeld and Cheney). But that’s more of an aside.
But, now for the main event… The results of Chicago School Economics. You say that “But there are many things worse than 'inequality'. Mass death, for instance. Tyranny. Poverty and disease.” Spoken like a true “Have.” It’s also interesting that you should bring up the whole Tyranny and Mass death. In Chile, those things seemed to arrive, almost exactly at the same time that the Chicago School economics did. In fact, (as listed in my first two posts) Chicago School economics seems to be accompanied by mass death in about half the nations its attempted in, and tyranny in almost all of them. Now, it as an economic system doesn’t advocate either of these two things (well, Freidmans idea of Shock Therapy does rather reek of Tyranny), however, it is kind of odd that they seem to be found in each others company so often.
And as for the poverty… After the implementation of Chicago School economics, in 1982 Chile’s economy crashed despite embracing Friedman’s economics. They fell victim to hyperinflation and had an unemployment rate of 30%. Under Allende, unemployment was 3%. Friedmanism failed Chile. It wasn’t until Pinochet himself actually began to follow in Allende’s footstep and started nationalizing many of the federal companies which had been sold off during the orgy of privatization under the Chicago Boys that the country actually began to recover. And, ironically, the only thing that actually kept the country afloat during this time period was Codelco, the state owned copper company. It was one of the few assets not privatized by Pinochet, and actually brought in over 85% of the country’s export revenue during this time period. Chicago style economics brought the country to the brink of ruin, and is responsible for much of the wealth segregation that occurred during this time. It was only a departure from the Chicago school that stopped it from going under completely. So, maybe holding up Chile as one of the success stories of Chicago economics may not be the wisest idea.
However, I believe that we can both agree on the fact that Chicago Economics does not directly cause disease among the general populace. Unless of course the poverty leads to a diminished health care system, or access to said health care system, or even basic sanitation. In which case, I suppose you could argue that it does. But, since I can’t think of any examples of this off the top of my head, I’ll let you have this one.
Reply
Every person, whenever they act, has a complex mix of motives. I cannot speak with authority about what precise mix was in Pinochet's head in September, 1973. Nobody can. What I can say is that a lot of people who did not stand to get rich from a coup -- the supreme court, the congress, and the army -- backed the coup. That I think is significant evidence that there were reasonable grounds for doing so, other than personal gain. Showing that there were rational grounds, other than greed, is about all that can ever be shown, and for most purposes, is good enough.
What makes you say American democracy is dying? Or even ill? There are policy questions about which service the government should offer. But hiring civilian truck drivers in a war zone does not a tyranny make. It's not the least bit tyrannical.
"Shock therapy" and tyranny need not be connected. Most of Eastern Europe went through essentially an abrupt "shock therapy" transition to free market economics, without any sort of tyranny. That in Chile a military government took such steps proves little; many socialist economic systems have been set up by authoritarian regimes.
Now for the empirical question of how the Chilean economy did under various governments. It had ups and downs under Allende, and ups and downs under his successors. Your statistics, if I understand right, are comparing 1972. the best pre-coup year, with 1982, the worst post-coup year. That is not a legitimate comparison.
For the last 18 years since the end of military rule, Chile has had broadly free-market policies, and a remarkably good economic performance. The right comparison, I think, is free-market policies in democracy versus appropriationist policies under democracy -- military rule of course has economic costs of its own. As Milton Friedman often pointed out.
Reply
Leave a comment