@RedSky
that is not entirely accurate to state that it was friedmans economic policies that gave rise to chile.

i will agree to an extant that the original groundwork could be attributed to friedman and his economic plans but those plans were not all sunshine and rainbows.it was the chilean government who began to enact and implement solid policies to turn that state around after pinochet.dismantling much of what friedman had started.i.e: private pensions,schools,water etc etc.

and @Yogi does have a point.friedman is quoted often as saying that in times of crisis,it is a perfect opportunity to exploit that crisis in order to implement a policy that otherwise would have been rejected.

now we can argue just how responsible friedmen is in regards to a government who uses/abuses this tactic,but it does not change that fact that friedman was the author of "shock doctrine".

just as in this video,and one of those rare times i agree with friedman.the information should be public and governments only role in business should be that of "fraud police".it comes down to who is responsible.

which brings me to my final point.
economists are the charlatan snake oil salesmen.they consistently get it wrong,almost always.

economies are creations by and for people.
the human element seems to confound these intellectuals.
what plays out brilliantly on paper almost never does in real life..or at least for any protracted period of time.

which is also why i find friedman to be an insufferable cunt.
if there ever was a spark of humanity in that man,i have yet to see it.

But that's just not true.

Firstly I'm not defending either US sponsored coup to install Pinochet or his repression. Purely the economic policies.

The fact is, Chile has the highest GDP per capita, the highest literacy rate and the highest Human Development Index of all major South American countries. It's also the least corrupt.

http://tinyurl.com/lf22scc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/

Admittedly most of the growth came about in the past 2 decades after Pinochet, but an honest reading of history shows that most of the groundwork was laid while he was in power.I don't take any comfort in attributing economic success to a mass murderer but those are the facts.

Frankly, while I agree with Naomi Klein on a number of things, she is absolutely clueless when it comes to economic policy. You can argue on certain specific policy choices (say restricting labour unions) or on the speed of reforms (which was also a major problem in Russia), but taken as a whole, you can't argue with the results.

Regimes supported

Juan Vicente Gomez, Venezuela, 1908-1935.
Jorge Ubico, Guatemala, 1931-1944.
Fulgencio Batista, Republic of Cuba 1952-1959.
Syngman Rhee, Republic of Korea (South Korea), 1948-1960.
Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic, 1930-1961.[citation needed]
Ngo Dinh Diem, Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), 1955-1963.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran, 1953-1979.
Anastasio Somoza Garcia, Nicaragua, 1967-1979.
Military Junta in Guatemala, 1954-1982.
Military Junta in Bolivia, 1964-1982.[citation needed]
Military Junta in Argentina, 1976-1983.
Brazilian military government, 1964-1985.
François Duvalier and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Republic of Haiti, 1957-1971; 1971-1986.[citation needed]
Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay, 1954-1989.[citation needed]
Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines, 1965-1986.[8][9]
General Manuel Noriega, Republic of Panama, 1983-1989.
General Augusto Pinochet, Chile, 1973-1990.
Saddam Hussein, Republic of Iraq, 1982-1990.
General (military), Suharto Republic of Indonesia, 1975-1995.
Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire/Congo, 1965-1997.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt, 1981-2011.
Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Kingdom of Bahrain, 2012.
Saudi royal family, 2012.
Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan, 1991-2012.[10]
Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia, 1995-2012.[11]
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea, 2006-2012.[12]

Clearly you fail to understand "diversity of opinion". I don't know what your opinion of Thatcher is or was (I'm assuming it was positive). My opinion differs from that, and I'm entitled to voice it.

And it's slightly ironic that you would use that to defend someone who supported Augusto Pinochet and called Nelson Mandela a terrorist. She wouldn't know diversity of opinion if it bit her in the ass.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Fuck this genocidal scumbag.


Dude, we all hate Friedman, and with good reason. However, I don't disagree with this line of argument. I think the resurgence of true libertarians in the republican party makes this one of the few issues we could get bipartisan agreement on. I'd just as soon pursue it than malign their ideologues.

Also, I think some of what happened in Chile is overly associated with Friedman. He wasn't Pinochet himself. I don't think he was "disappearing" women himself. While it was a horrible blemish on human history, it's hard to say what exactly his involvement was.

....for anyone unfamiliar with Chile 1973.

In 1973 he collaborated with brutal Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to force 'free market' reforms on the country by way of a coup. The coup used murder and torture to terrify opponents into silence. Business owners sympathetic to the coup allowed their warehouses to be used as impromptu torture centers to torture union members that had previously been employees. The national futbol stadium was transferred into a massive torture/rape/prison/execution complex where tens of thousands of Chilean citizens died. Milton said his coordinated economic plan for the coup would require some 'shock therapy'.

For more on this, read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. It details this incident and dozens of similar ones to impose 'free market' capitalism on the people by way of fear, torture, force, bribery and blackmail. http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

related sifting:

http://videosift.com/video/Sept-11-The-start-of-a-dark-era-for-Chile
http://videosift.com/video/USA-commits-911-attrocities-on-Chile
http://videosift.com/video/The-War-On-Democracy-by-John-Pilger

>> ^renatojj:

@.


Np, glad you liked them. I'm not saying there is only one account of what went down, I'm saying that it is fact that America was most prosperous when taxes were the highest. You don't need to be a historian or theorizer to use Google and check that for yourself.

Your quick Google search brung up an article that deals only in theory, and the argument they use is that people that are taxed 0% are more motivated than people that are taxed 100% - so that the imperitive becomes to cover Govt. expenses while keeping the taxes as low as possible to maintain motivation. That makes perfect logical sense and doesn't disagree with the facts I bought to the table, that America has been most prosperous during periods of high taxation, it simply proves that low is subjective. Taxing someone who earns $10,000 50% of their income means they take home a tiny amount of money, the same tax rate on a billionaire means they still take home five hundred million dollars, more than enough don't you think? If all income was related to productivity then my argument would be different, but quite simply it's not. Look at derivatives trading or inheritence funds as a couple of examples.

Fixing tax rates is also just the beginning, there needs to be a complete overhaul of your taxation system, there is plenty of information out there that details how dozens of your fortune 500 companies are paying no tax at all (e.g. GE and Boeing), Pepco Holdings Inc had a negative 57.6% tax rate for 2010 according to this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C20111103

So not only are the tax rates poorly thought out, the tax system allows companies that rake in billions in profits ways by which to avoid paying any tax at all (and even get refunds).

The same goes for individuals as well, Mitt Romney, who made over twenty million in 2010, and has at least thirty million stashed in over 138 investment funds in the Caimans paid close to 15% tax in that same year. That's the same tax rate that someone earning $10,000 would have to pay.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-parks-millions-offshore-tax-haven/story?id=15378566#.Tx-lKm_9PUd

Is he using this additional money he's making from not paying his taxes for productive purposes? It would appear not... His motive is profit, and to that end he's closed plants, cut employee wages, laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries, all while he and his partners have made tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, while the companies he's invested in have often ended up going bankrupt:
http://www.romneygekko.com/mitt/

So my point is that it's a pipedream to think that lower taxes on the rich has only one effect, to make them more productive, it also carries with it a myriad of negative consequences as I've illustrated, the worst one being lobbying, which is rampant in your country. In terms of Chile, you say that all education there is state funded? Have a look at this report and you will see that the total investment in tertiary education Chile makes is probably close to about half a percent of their GDP, which is indeed lower than any other country surveyed, they are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to actual dollars invested in public education. Meanwhile the cost of education for students is the highest of any OECD country.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/48/37864432.pdf

The reasons for that come full circle back to your economic theories. Have you heard of Augusto Pinochet? America installed him as the dictator of Chile after the CIA organised a successful air strike on the palace of the existing democratically elected leader - Allende, which resulted in his death. It's well known that Pinochet relied on the Chicago boys for economic policy, who in turn were trained by Milton Friedman. Friedman was ... the major free-market economist of his time, and it's these exact same policies that still linger around today in the education system thanks to Patricio Aylwin and others. It's clear evidence that your model has flaws, and it's also clear who benefits the most from it.

This is the guy who said in the debates, that we should model our economic policy after Pinochet: murder the opposition, terrify everyone else, then impose brutal plutocratic economic policies written by American corporatists. *fear

This guy is creepy. Between this and saying we should run our country like Pinochet ran Chile, I'm thinking there are worse things in the world than Rick Perry.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^rougy:
Because capitalism just isn't the same without a little friendly torture.

Not just "not the same." You can't do it...you have to "Shock" the system. According to the "Shock Doctrine" at least...good read.


It's on my list.

Saw a documentary a while ago about how Friedman and the Chicago school of economics influenced Pinochet and the atrocities in post-Allende Chili. Made my blood boil.

Hardcore capitalists have some kind of fundamental resentment toward the working class and any gains that they may make, however modest.

@blankfist, I think my libertarian answers were actually better defenses of libertarianism.

And some of my answers were humorously echoed.

The Great Depression:

>> ^NetRunner:

The Great Depression was caused by government interference in the market, an no amount of historical or economic facts will ever convince me otherwise.
>> ^blankfist:

The great depression was prolonged by government. In fact, our recession has lasted longer already than the great depression. Thanks Bush and Obama.

Incidentally, you're citing Friedman the inflationist there, who said that the Great Depression was prolonged by government refusing to restore confidence to the markets by bailing out failing banks, and by trying in vain to hold to the gold standard when what it needed to do was print shitloads of money to counteract the drop in the money supply caused by people stuffing cash into their mattresses. Seriously, go look it up.

On Monopolies:

>> ^NetRunner:

Natural monopolies, where the cost of entering a sector of the market outweighs the expected return, are just part of market economics, and should be tolerated. Market leaders that become a de facto monopoly, but do not actually enjoy 100% market share (such as Microsoft Windows), are not monopolies, and also a natural result of the free market, so government must not interfere.

Government sponsored monopolies, like the USPS, are evil in ways the others are not because their existence is based on violent coercion, not natural market choice.
>> ^blankfist:
And monopolies? How about government monopolies on the postal system? Public utilities and railroads used to be public, but recent years have been privatized. Government runs monopolies on alcoholic and controlled substance distribution in a lot of states. And don't get me started on government granted monopolies.

On deregulation's benefits:
>> ^NetRunner:
Deregulation in Chile is a huge success story.
>> ^blankfist:

[A]ccording to wikipedia, today "Chile is ranked 3rd out of 29 countries in the Americas and has been a regional leader for over a decade. Chile's annual GDP growth was 3.2% in 2008 and has averaged 4.8% from 2004 to 2008." Not too shabby, though people like Neomi Klein may disagree.

Though technically that last was offered as a defense of violently implementing deregulation, even though you cited growth numbers from an era after they'd shifted from the Randian wet dream of Pinochet's rule to a more regulated and democratic system.

Oh, and on the aforementioned violent implementation of libertarianism:

>> ^NetRunner:

Only governments do those things! Wealthy businessmen would never go along with that, because they're all paragons of moral virtue. They'd never let a thing like considerable personal gain motivate them to call for these things in the first place...
>> ^blankfist:
The only group that tends to use violence to coerce people into doing what they want is government. Only a statist can conflate freedom with violence.

Lulz.

There aren't enough downvotes. My own country suffered a dictatorship not too long ago and sooner or later there are always people who show up saying:

"There were some minor problems but we were better with glorious leader."

"Then what about all the tortured people, the wars, the misery of so many, barely with enough to eat, no health, no education, no future?"

"Well, I was all good with it, so fuck you and your well documented suffering."

War On Democracy is great at exposing the kind of people that approve of this kind of regime. Entitled rich vampires that think the world was made for them and their family to shit on and distant armchair general intellectuals that imagine the whole world to be some kind of thought experiment made just to test their ridiculous ideas on.

Also, blankfist, I find it enormously hilarious that you think it's right and proper for the US to stay the fuck out but then conveniently forget that if not for interventionism, there would be no Pinochet to obey the dictates of the States, no so called "miracle". Chile would be Socialist and on Allende's path to provide jobs, health and education to the masses.

Don't worry guys. Friedman made up for it by saying he didn't care if Pinochet would be upset to lose his dictatorship around min 3:18. We're cool.

Oh and @blankfist
Like @peggedbea implied, I could never support this type of free market dogma considering all the bloodshed it's linked to.

I watched this video with my mother who didn't get a chance to leave Chile until '76.
Her mother, my uncles and her all had to flee after Pinochet's gestapo raided their house looking for my grandfather.

She was telling me how she remembered the food shortages & the awful unemployment.

So to watch Friedman accept that Peace Prize with the smug look on his face was more than a little bit insulting.

Sorry Blankie, but fuck the power elite.

This is a horrible glorification of Pinochet and dictatorship in general. Mthrfckr

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chile, 911, Milton Friedman, coup, cia, Richard Nixion, Pinochet, John Pilger, Kissinger' to 'chile, 911, coup, cia, Richard Nixion, Pinochet, John Pilger, Kissinger' - edited by blankfist