1.economic support is still support. if he truly belived dicatorship were bad he would not have helped in any way, recognizing that liberty is required for progress.
And again I ask: what would not assisting have accomplished? How would the Chilean people been helped had Friedman not advised them?
Machiavelli wrote:
2. according to the link above, the health of the country was destroyed despite of friedman.
First of all, Allende had essentially destroyed the entire Chilean economy with business expropriation, price and wage controls, and hyperinflation by the time he was overthrown. The reforms of the "Chicago Boys" went along way in correcting the devastation the socialists brought about, but they weren't all positive. For instance, the decision to adopt a fixed exchange rate had devastating consequences. However, that was done despite Friedman's protests. Also, when one dismantles a socialist system, things generally get worse for a time before they get better, as the inefficient producers are liquidated and those resources are reallocated to more efficient enterprises. Finally, the proof is in the pudding. Chile today is the wealthiest and freest country in South America, and has the lowest rate of abject poverty. So triumphant has the free market been in Chile that even the current socialist president is pushing for increased liberalization. Of course, that's hardly surprising, as
there isn't a single example in the entirety of human history that contradicts the statement that, comparing like with like, the freer the economy, the more prosperous the country.
Indeed he was; I'm not defending Pinochet, or any government for that matter. Do try and stick to the topic.
Machiavelli wrote:
4. fuck your kind of economics
Fuck "my kind" of economics, eh? Yes, reality does have a very nasty way of utterly annihilating your socialist fantasy world.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:14 pm
offsprng46 wrote:
And again I ask: what would not assisting have accomplished? How would the Chilean people been helped had Friedman not advised them?
yes, what would depriving a dictatorship of your support do?
since, according to the essay sited, people actually got poorer he might have been doing them a service
offsprng46 wrote:
First of all, Allende had essentially destroyed the entire Chilean economy with business expropriation, price and wage controls, and hyperinflation by the time he was overthrown. The reforms of the "Chicago Boys" went along way in correcting the devastation the socialists brought about, but they weren't all positive. For instance, the decision to adopt a fixed exchange rate had devastating consequences. However, that was done despite Friedman's protests. Also, when one dismantles a socialist system, things generally get worse for a time before they get better, as the inefficient producers are liquidated and those resources are reallocated to more efficient enterprises. Finally, the proof is in the pudding. Chile today is the wealthiest and freest country in South America, and has the lowest rate of abject poverty. So triumphant has the free market been in Chile that even the current socialist president is pushing for increased liberalization. Of course, that's hardly surprising, as [b]there isn't a single example in the entirety of human history that contradicts the statement that, comparing like with like, the freer the economy, the more prosperous the country.
how about the US during the 1950's/ 60's ?
also a chunk of the economic turbulance was wrought by the CIA to provoke a crisis where the military would intervene.
every industialized first world nation was built on tarrifs and large public works programs
offsprng46 wrote:
Yes, reality does have a very nasty way of utterly annihilating your socialist fantasy world.
thats right, it's all the other cars who are going the wrong way
And again I ask: what would not assisting have accomplished? How would the Chilean people been helped had Friedman not advised them?
Machiavelli wrote:
yes, what would depriving a dictatorship of your support do?
Made life worse for the Chilean people.
Machiavelli wrote:
since, according to the essay sited, people actually got poorer he might have been doing them a service
The "essay" is simply wrong. Chile is the Richest country in Latin America today, you cretin.
offsprng46 wrote:
First of all, Allende had essentially destroyed the entire Chilean economy with business expropriation, price and wage controls, and hyperinflation by the time he was overthrown. The reforms of the "Chicago Boys" went along way in correcting the devastation the socialists brought about, but they weren't all positive. For instance, the decision to adopt a fixed exchange rate had devastating consequences. However, that was done despite Friedman's protests. Also, when one dismantles a socialist system, things generally get worse for a time before they get better, as the inefficient producers are liquidated and those resources are reallocated to more efficient enterprises. Finally, the proof is in the pudding. Chile today is the wealthiest and freest country in South America, and has the lowest rate of abject poverty. So triumphant has the free market been in Chile that even the current socialist president is pushing for increased liberalization. Of course, that's hardly surprising, as [b]there isn't a single example in the entirety of human history that contradicts the statement that, comparing like with like, the freer the economy, the more prosperous the country.
Machiavelli wrote:
how about the US during the 1950's/ 60's ?
What about it?
Machiavelli wrote:
also a chunk of the economic turbulance was wrought by the CIA to provoke a crisis where the military would intervene.
So the CIA was responsible for Allende printing massive amounts of currency to pay for his welfare initiatives and hair-brained central planning schemes?
Machiavelli wrote:
every industialized first world nation was built on tarrifs and large public works programs
On the contrary, they prospered because of the relatively few - though still present - interventions. Your statement here is another post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and it's just as asinine as saying "well, Sweden has a big welfare state, therefore Sweden is prosperous because of the welfare state," while ignoring that the Swedish economy is - despite the welfare state - one of the freest in the world. Furthermore, what is the theoretical rationale behind the protectionism you advocate?
offsprng46 wrote:
Yes, reality does have a very nasty way of utterly annihilating your socialist fantasy world.
Machiavelli wrote:
thats right, it's all the other cars who are going the wrong way
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:11 pm
how much worse can life get than living under a dictator?
The article itself says there was no clear motive for the protests.
Machiavelli wrote:
the US during the 50s/60s was highly protectionist at yet very prosperous.
The US was unquestionably the freest market in the world during that time. Way to shoot yourself in the foot. You know, I think I've made it abundantly clear that you need to show more than correlation to prove your point.
And it seems your ignorance isn't limited to economic theory, as the US had been liberalizing trade since the 30's. The Kennedy round in particular cut tariffs in half during this time.
Machiavelli wrote:
the US cut off al ecomomic ties to chile
That should be a good thing, according to the Dependency theory you support.
Machiavelli wrote:
as well as all aid
Good. I don't like been stolen from in order to fund Marxist dictators.
Machiavelli wrote:
its like you said during an economic tranistiob there is bound to be some turbulance.
So the US was responsible for the hyperinflation? For the shortages and unemployment brought about by wage and price controls?
Machiavelli wrote:
thats exactly what im saying the interventions are what made the countries prosperous
And the evidence is?
transientangent Grand Poster
Joined: Apr 26, 2005
Posts: 1138
Posted:
Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:06 am
materialguy wrote:
"Underlying most arguments against a free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself"
We can change a few words and get an equally meaningful statement. "Underlying most arguments against goodness is a lack of belief in God Himself."
Unlike the cleric, Milton's priority may not have been making people believe in his fetish object. Belief in the virtue of believing in freedom is taken as a given. Of course, he intends to deride arguments against "a free market" by saying that such arguements usually come from unbelievers in freedom.
The rhetoric's simple.
Except Friedman backed up his quote. The claim that economic and political freedom are closely linked is much more tenable than the claim that good or happiness is closely linked with an imaginary entity.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file