Could the Soviet Union have survived?

[ScorchedLight]

Originally Posted by Killer300

1. PLANNED, not Command economics. There's a difference, and you should know that.

2. If we're referring to the usual metric for measuring economic success, namely things like GDP growth, China wins.

3. The ecological damage is horrible, however they're at least trying to address it with massive investment into things like alternative energy.

With that in mind, yes China is horrible, however it did gain massive economic growth. By comparison, Neo-Liberalism just resulted in countries wrecked without economic growth.

Besides, that does nothing to disprove either Japan or South Korea, both of whom had to use massive amounts of planning themselves in order to get where they are today.

Citation seriously needed. Say what you want about Neoliberalism (by which I'll understand a wide variety of economic experiences that tended towards an opening in the world markets and a reduction in the Public Sector's participation of the economy), it does cause deregulation, income inequality and wealth concentration, but it does result in increased growth. If you need to see examples, look at Peru in the 2000s or Chile in the 1990s.

Besides, growth per se isn't an indicator of "economic success". Growth comes at the price of present consumption, and neglecting present consumption for the sake of growth will result in reduced living standards.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by ScorchedLight

Citation seriously needed. Say what you want about Neoliberalism (by which I'll understand a wide variety of economic experiences that tended towards an opening in the world markets and a reduction in the Public Sector's participation of the economy), it does cause deregulation, income inequality and wealth concentration, but it does result in increased growth. If you need to see examples, look at Peru in the 2000s or Chile in the 1990s.

Besides, growth per se isn't an indicator of "economic success". Growth comes at the price of present consumption, and neglecting present consumption for the sake of growth will result in reduced living standards.

For Chile, wrong. Chile had to use various programs, including welfare, that aren't accepted within the Neo-Liberal framework.

If you want other examples, the disastrous experiments with it in the 1980s shows how wrecked a policy set Neo-Liberalism truly is.

Finally, for the growth versus consumption, perhaps, except China to have too much of a growth in consumption would cause massive ecological damage of the type currently. But yes, China does need to increase consumption, but again, China isn't perfect, it's just doing far better at adapting to the current global economic climate than the West has so far.

[ScorchedLight]

Originally Posted by Killer300

For Chile, wrong. Chile had to use various programs, including welfare, that aren't accepted within the Neo-Liberal framework.

If you want other examples, the disastrous experiments with it in the 1980s shows how wrecked a policy set Neo-Liberalism truly is.

Finally, for the growth versus consumption, perhaps, except China to have too much of a growth in consumption would cause massive ecological damage of the type currently. But yes, China does need to increase consumption, but again, China isn't perfect, it's just doing far better at adapting to the current global economic climate than the West has so far.

Neoliberalism =/= Ron Paul's masturbatory fantasy. It advocates a reduction in the participation of the State, yet it doesn't say that the State is useless. Welfare programs have always existed because they provide positive externalities and are hence productive. Not providing them would result in a reduction of living standards.
You may have noticed that two Christian Democrats and two Socialist President continued the 1980s trend of reducing the participation of the State in roles that could be filled by private enterprises, didn't implement new taxes in the mining industry, and signed several FTAs. Doesn't that sound like a liberal economy to you?
You want to use the "disastrous" experiments of the 1980s, fine. Use them, but be honest enough to use them through the whole time where that model was in use, not only during its initial, awkward period.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by ScorchedLight

Neoliberalism =/= Ron Paul's masturbatory fantasy. It advocates a reduction in the participation of the State, yet it doesn't say that the State is useless. Welfare programs have always existed because they provide positive externalities and are hence productive. Not providing them would result in a reduction of living standards.
You may have noticed that two Christian Democrats and two Socialist President continued the 1980s trend of reducing the participation of the State in roles that could be filled by private enterprises, didn't implement new taxes in the mining industry, and signed several FTAs. Doesn't that sound like a liberal economy to you?
You want to use the "disastrous" experiments of the 1980s, fine. Use them, but be honest enough to use them through the whole time where that model was in use, not only during its initial, awkward period.

Okay, something to note here, and after that, I'll let others continue this if they want to.

Namely, free trade and/or protectionism isn't really left or right. To bring this into context, I'm not surprised at all that social democrats made free trade deals because free/protectionism debate doesn't have as much of an obvious left/right divide compared to other types of politics. After all, protectionism was actually once mainly a conservative position.

Also, the part I highlighted conflicts with part of the definition on wikipedia,
"Neoliberalism supports privatization of state-owned enterprises, deregulation of markets, and promotion of the private sector's role in society."

Welfare is explicitly the state intervening in the economy. Besides that, during the years immediately post Pinochet, the party in power put in Chinese style regulations on how investments were carried out, restricting investor's abilities to rapidly pull out of the economy. This too clashes with the definition heavily, and hence, is no longer Neo-Liberalism. The latter of which especially clashes because it's a regulation of how the market functions, hence, no longer Neo-Liberalism.

[ScorchedLight]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Okay, something to note here, and after that, I'll let others continue this if they want to.

Namely, free trade and/or protectionism isn't really left or right(1). To bring this into context, I'm not surprised at all that social democrats made free trade deals because free/protectionism debate doesn't have as much of an obvious left/right divide compared to other types of politics. After all, protectionism was actually once mainly a conservative position.

Also, the part I highlighted conflicts with part of the definition on wikipedia, (2)
"Neoliberalism supports privatization of state-owned enterprises, deregulation of markets, and promotion of the private sector's role in society."

Welfare is explicitly the state intervening in the economy. Besides that, during the years immediately post Pinochet, the party in power put in Chinese style regulations on how investments were carried out, restricting investor's abilities to rapidly pull out of the economy.(3) This too clashes with the definition heavily, and hence, is no longer Neo-Liberalism. The latter of which especially clashes because it's a regulation of how the market functions, hence, no longer Neo-Liberalism.(4)

1.- So what's if it's on the right or the left? Trade liberalization is a Liberal policy, whereas protectionism isn't. The former advocates of the ISI model were supportive of this part of the Neoliberal reforms in Chile.

2.- You will notice that the part you have highlighted isn't contradicting what Wikipedia has to say on the matter. Advocating for a reduction of the State isn't the same as eliminating the State altogether. An anarchist of all people should know this.
The State during the 1980s reforms shifted from a policy of welfare to more pragmatic policy of only intervening where externalities were present. I can recall a lecture on the subject by Ernesto Fontaine, a former minister of Pinochet and friend and disciple of Friedman, where he launched a program of nutritional assistance for children of low income families, justifying it with the academic improvement that would result in later stages of life.

3.- Did your Anarchist F.A.Q. told you that the Encaje was put in place in part to control Government expenditure deficits? Or that the Central Bank established other policies to liberate financial inflows and outflows during that time? Or that pretty much all restrictions ended in 2001? http://www.bcentral.cl/eng/studies/w...df/dtbc203.pdf

4.- You're the one who insists on calling Catalonia a successful Anarchist experience, despite the fact that it constituted a government not soon after its appearance, yet you say that Chile's Neoliberal experience ended as soon as a an 8% effective financial tax was enacted? That's doublethink at its finest.

[Killer300]

The fourth? Wrong. Mainly because while it was a successful experiment, I won't deny it was quickly ended by external factors.

The rest... just wrong or irrelevant.

For the second, the problem is this either means,

A. Specifically regulating how investors can interact with your economy is against Neo-Liberalism. That you fail to realize this shows how much you're invested in what is a lie.

B. With the latter, the entire problem with your claim is that it is already invalidated. So what if they loosened some regulations? They still put in others, including ones that your paper obviously doesn't take into account in regards to investment that invalidate Neo-Liberalism.

Besides, my argument has already been served, which is that Pinochet, and with it, the Neo-Liberalism he tried to accomplish failed. Utterly. His successors, while perhaps giving lip service to the idea, joined the rest of South America in abandoning it.

You will notice that the part you have highlighted isn't contradicting what Wikipedia has to say on the matter. Advocating for a reduction of the State isn't the same as eliminating the State altogether. An anarchist of all people should know this.
The State during the 1980s reforms shifted from a policy of welfare to more pragmatic policy of only intervening where externalities were present. I can recall a lecture on the subject by Ernesto Fontaine, a former minister of Pinochet and friend and disciple of Friedman, where he launched a program of nutritional assistance for children of low income families, justifying it with the academic improvement that would result in later stages of life.

The problem is that during the 1980s, Neo-Liberalism had failed on such a level, that they had to re-nationalize industries constantly, and do the welfare you speak of. Nationalization is definitely against Neo-Liberalism, hence the proof that Pinochet's policies failed, along with the lack of real economic growth.

Between 1982 and 1983, GDP contracted by 19%. By 1986, per capita consumption was actually 11% lower than the 1970 level. Between 1980 and 1988, the real value of wages grew only 1.2 percent while the real value of the minimum wage declined by 28.5 percent. During this period, urban unemployment averaged 15.3 percent per year. [Silvia Bortzutzky, Op. Cit., p. 96] In other words, after nearly 15 years of free market capitalism, real wages had still not exceeded their 1970 levels.

That isn't improving on Allende.

[ScorchedLight]

Originally Posted by Killer300

The fourth? Wrong. Mainly because while it was a successful experiment, I won't deny it was quickly ended by external factors.(1)

The rest... just wrong or irrelevant.(2)

For the second, the problem is this either means,

A. Specifically regulating how investors can interact with your economy is against Neo-Liberalism. That you fail to realize this shows how much you're invested in what is a lie.(3)

B. With the latter, the entire problem with your claim is that it is already invalidated. So what if they loosened some regulations? They still put in others, including ones that your paper obviously doesn't take into account in regards to investment that invalidate Neo-Liberalism. (8)

Besides, my argument has already been served, which is that Pinochet, and with it, the Neo-Liberalism he tried to accomplish failed. Utterly. His successors, while perhaps giving lip service to the idea,(4) joined the rest of South America in abandoning it.(5)



The problem is that during the 1980s, Neo-Liberalism had failed on such a level, that they had to re-nationalize industries constantly, and do the welfare you speak of. Nationalization is definitely against Neo-Liberalism, hence the proof that Pinochet's policies failed, along with the lack of real economic growth.(6)



That isn't improving on Allende.(7)

1.- Oh, and Chile's economic reforms occured in a vacuum? Only Catalonia was affected by external factors?

2.- Care to explain why?

3.- You see, you're the one who constantly makes spite threads against capitalism. I just say that free markets, responsibly regulated, are more conductive to economic prosperity than "command" economies.
I'm not invested in neoliberalism, and I have mentioned them on several occasions, but I can see that it was the engine of Chile's economic performance during the 1990s.

4.- As a Chilean, I can say that former socialist exiles paying "lip service" to Neoliberalism and Pinochet's model is an Argumentum ex Culo. The system worked well enough to mantain it and expand it.

5.- Is Ollanta Humala doing away with the system? Reforming it, perhaps. But not "doing away wit"h it as you put it.Argentina is an economic mess, and the ALBA countries are mostly sustained by Venezuela's oil.

6.- As I've stated previously, Pinochet's reforms, which destroyed the ISI system and instaured a Market system were responsible for Chile's growth and economic stability. The Concertacion governments didn't return to the former economic model, did they?
Even newspapers like Le Monde Diplomatique call Chile's model neoliberal.

7.- Perhaps you should do a comparison between 1970 and 1973?

8.- The "paper" (actually a report) that you didn't read was done by the Central Bank, which isn't run by partisan or ideological hacks.

[Killer300]

Okay, lets end this, as we're derailing the thread.

To bring this back on topic, I'm going to bring it from a quote of yours.

You see, you're the one who constantly makes spite threads against capitalism. I just say that free markets, responsibly regulated, are more conductive to economic prosperity than "command" economies.
I'm not invested in neoliberalism, and I have mentioned them on several occasions, but I can see that it was the engine of Chile's economic performance during the 1990s.

For one, how are you defining Neo-Liberalism then?

by which I'll understand a wide variety of economic experiences that tended towards an opening in the world markets and a reduction in the Public Sector's participation of the economy

. Right now, you have far too loose of a definition that lets you make it mean whatever you want. Hence, it's pointless to argue, because you'll just shift goalposts on what is and what isn't Neo-Liberalism until it can mean what you want it to in the current economic climate.

Besides that, I'm not arguing for command economics in these contexts. China isn't a command economy, as I've repeated numerous times, yet this has either flown over your head, or you're ignoring it for other reasons. It's an example of a planned economy, and one that does quite well through taking advantage of global economic trends. Other examples of this are South Korea, and Japan, both economic giants in their own right.

Now, does it abuse its populace? Yes, it uses its manpower like a resource, and in the process, hurts its populace. But, that's to be expected in the economic system we have, which encourages a race to the bottom in wages. China is inherently at an advantage here, as such a large populace allows quite low wages. What they're doing is leveraging this advantage as much as possible with the economic system they currently have, allowing them to do things like have a budget surplus, unlike either the US or the UK. It's flawed, yes, and currently, they do need to raise consumption.

But it has worked better in regards to economic growth and has allowed China to gain the economic resources with which to get to where it's right now. By comparison, what has Chile done? It wasted an entire decade before gaining real growth, and right now, is going to have to move towards more public spending in healthcare and education, with protests for both pushing for that.

[ScorchedLight]

Originally Posted by Killer300

But it has worked better in regards to economic growth and has allowed China to gain the economic resources with which to get to where it's right now(1). By comparison, what has Chile done? It wasted an entire decade before gaining real growth(2), and right now, is going to have to move towards more public spending in healthcare and education, with protests for both pushing for that.(3)

1.- Heading towards a demographic, ecological and monetary disaster, you mean? Their One Child Per Family has left the country with an imbalance between men and women that will result in a contraction of its population. China has depleted its resources and wasted its environment, kept its currency artificially low (which will hurt them in the long run), and turned itself into a booming economy that produces... what? Quality products? Would you purchase a Chinese car? China produces crap. Cheap crap, and capturing that niche isn't the best way to improve living conditions, especially if your growth is fueled by the "commodity" of cheap labor.
You see all tat growth that China is experimenting? That's brought to you by foreign corporations that will leave as soon as another country bents over for cheaper. My guess is that Africa could provide the next source of cheap labour.

2.- I'd hardly call it "wasted". It was a decade of shocks that imbalances the economy (something predicted by the Chicago Boys, BTW), but it resulted in a sustained growth in the period 1986-1998, with a decceleration in the rate of growth from that period onwards.
But, what has Chile done? Not treated its labourers as automatons, for starters. Grow at higher rates than the rest of LA for quite a while, while curbing inflation. It has survived earthquakes with relatively minor damages and loss of life that would devastate cheaply built Chinese cities, thanks to strong regulations. It has provided safe jobs for its workers (you may recall that the 33 miners had s refuge).
If you knew about Chile's economic history, perhaps you'll understand that the modern economic system has provided growth and monetary stability, whereas the preceding period, 1930-1973, was one of economic stagnation and inflation. But the AFAQ doesn't say much about it, so...

3.- Yeah, there's a problem in Chile's educational and health systems, and the State should participate more in these areas. That doesn't mean the end of the economic model, simply an end of your strawman version of it. Ad I've said, Neoliberalism isn't capitalistic anarchism.
And those protests? Chileans have the right to organize protests, something their Chinese peers lack. I guess that you'd see more Chinese demanding improvements if they weren't afraid of being crushed by tanks.

Also, didn't China liberalizated its economy in the 1980s? As in going from a Centrally Planned economy to one that resembled (or parodied) markets economies?

[Killer300]

Also, didn't China liberalizated its economy in the 1980s? As in going from a Centrally Planned economy to one that resembled (or parodied) markets economies?

Let us answer this one point at a time.

For this one, yes, but it's still planned.

1.- Heading towards a demographic, ecological and monetary disaster, you mean? Their One Child Per Family has left the country with an imbalance between men and women that will result in a contraction of its population. China has depleted its resources and wasted its environment, kept its currency artificially low (which will hurt them in the long run), and turned itself into a booming economy that produces... what? Quality products? Would you purchase a Chinese car? China produces crap. Cheap crap, and capturing that niche isn't the best way to improve living conditions, especially if your growth is fueled by the "commodity" of cheap labor.
You see all tat growth that China is experimenting? That's brought to you by foreign corporations that will leave as soon as another country bents over for cheaper. My guess is that Africa could provide the next source of cheap labour.

With the last, one of the regulations is something to prevent rapid withdrawal of capital. Not saying it prevents corporate flight, but China could actually adapt to to it.

The rest? Sure, although I'd point to two things.

A. China actually has been pumping resources into things like alternative energy, beginning its path towards fighting ecological damage.

B. For the cheap labor, Neo-Liberalism doesn't provide better. Capital Flight can't be prevented through market freedom, it requires statist intervention to create better investment for it. One of the reasons Africa, for example, hasn't had the cheap labor flux is infrastructure spending.

I'd note however you haven't touched on either South Korea or Japan, both of which extensively used economic planning to get where they're today.


I'd hardly call it "wasted". It was a decade of shocks that imbalances the economy (something predicted by the Chicago Boys, BTW), but it resulted in a sustained growth in the period 1986-1998, with a decceleration in the rate of growth from that period onwards.
But, what has Chile done? Not treated its labourers as automatons, for starters. Grow at higher rates than the rest of LA for quite a while, while curbing inflation. It has survived earthquakes with relatively minor damages and loss of life that would devastate cheaply built Chinese cities, thanks to strong regulations. It has provided safe jobs for its workers (you may recall that the 33 miners had s refuge).
If you knew about Chile's economic history, perhaps you'll understand that the modern economic system has provided growth and monetary stability, whereas the preceding period, 1930-1973, was one of economic stagnation and inflation. But the AFAQ doesn't say much about it, so...

Okay, that shock theory? Disproven by the 90s experiments with Russia and Eastern Europe, so I would really suggest staying away from it, as it's junk. What happened in the 1990s was that chunks of Neo-Liberalism was abandoned in favor of investment regulations in the style of China to allow economic growth. The current success of Chile owes itself to regulations on investment, not to Neo-Liberalism or to Friedman's style of economics.

For the 2nd part, this actually separates it from Neo-Liberalism, unless you're going to prove my earlier point by showing how you'll twist the definition to suit whatever you want it to mean, or that Neo-Liberalism isn't what allowed Chile the economic growth it has currently.

For the third, I do. I know that the recovery in the 90s came from abandoning large sections of Neo-Liberalism, and that the 1980s is called a Lost Decade for a reason. You're the one that has consistently warped statistics to support your claims, as the inflation didn't go down from Neo-Liberalism, it went down from statist intervention, along with the numerous other improvements Chile has experienced.

[ScorchedLight]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Let us answer this one point at a time.

For this one, yes, but it's still planned.



With the last, one of the regulations is something to prevent rapid withdrawal of capital. Not saying it prevents corporate flight, but China could actually adapt to to it.

The rest? Sure, although I'd point to two things.

A. China actually has been pumping resources into things like alternative energy, beginning its path towards fighting ecological damage. (1)

B. For the cheap labor, Neo-Liberalism doesn't provide better. Capital Flight can't be prevented through market freedom, it requires statist intervention to create better investment for it. One of the reasons Africa, for example, hasn't had the cheap labor flux is infrastructure spending. (2)

I'd note however you haven't touched on either South Korea or Japan, both of which extensively used economic planning to get where they're today.(3)


I'd hardly call it "wasted". It was a decade of shocks that imbalances the economy (something predicted by the Chicago Boys, BTW), but it resulted in a sustained growth in the period 1986-1998, with a decceleration in the rate of growth from that period onwards.
But, what has Chile done? Not treated its labourers as automatons, for starters. Grow at higher rates than the rest of LA for quite a while, while curbing inflation. It has survived earthquakes with relatively minor damages and loss of life that would devastate cheaply built Chinese cities, thanks to strong regulations. It has provided safe jobs for its workers (you may recall that the 33 miners had s refuge).
If you knew about Chile's economic history, perhaps you'll understand that the modern economic system has provided growth and monetary stability, whereas the preceding period, 1930-1973, was one of economic stagnation and inflation. But the AFAQ doesn't say much about it, so...

Okay, that shock theory?(4) Disproven by the 90s experiments with Russia and Eastern Europe, so I would really suggest staying away from it, as it's junk. What happened in the 1990s was that chunks of Neo-Liberalism was abandoned in favor of investment regulations in the style of China to allow economic growth. The current success of Chile owes itself to regulations on investment, not to Neo-Liberalism or to Friedman's style of economics.

For the 2nd part, this actually separates it from Neo-Liberalism, unless you're going to prove my earlier point by showing how you'll twist the definition to suit whatever you want it to mean(5), or that Neo-Liberalism isn't what allowed Chile the economic growth it has currently.

For the third, I do. I know that the recovery in the 90s came from abandoning large sections of Neo-Liberalism, and that the 1980s is called a Lost Decade for a reason. You're the one that has consistently warped statistics to support your claims, as the inflation didn't go down from Neo-Liberalism, it went down from statist intervention, along with the numerous other improvements Chile has experienced(6).

1.- Good for them. As it is, the country relies heavily on coal.

2.- This summer I've seen per-kilo wages for fruit pickers go from 100 to 300 pesos, while last season was around 130. This was done in order to attract more pickers, which were in limited supply. You see, workers have negotiating power, and reducing wages (as you assure Capitalist do) is a sure way to lose workers. In a country with a floating currency, like Chile, their work is paid at its "real" value.
China has provided artificially cheap labour (by devaluating their money), which is more in line with your argument.

3.- That "Lost Decade" you keep talking about? Japanese, not Chilean. And neither Korea nor Japan are sweatshop countries like China.

4.- No. Economic shocks: big, quick changes that affect an economy. Natural disasters, wars, radically different economic policies are all shocks. You should know this if you are talking about Economics.

5.- I have provided a clear definition of Neoliberalism, whereas you continue to equate it to anarchocapitalism, and incorrectly using Wikipedia's definition to discredit it whenever something in the model is slightly different of its Wikipedia definition. Who's being dishonest?
And, as I have stated several times before, Chilean policies post-Pinochet had more in common with its Pinochet ones than with that ones from the ISI period. The ISI period was one of chronic economic stagnation and inflation, whereas the Pinochet and Post-Pinochet ones are ones of sustained growth. Do you want to dispute that? Provide figures, please.

6.- You are the one providing 1970's statistics as if that was the year when Pinochet took over, forgetting to mention Allende's role in the stellar decade that was the 1970s.
Inflation was inherent in the ISI model, because there was always a fiscal deficit that was paid by printing more money. Neoliberalism, with a Central Bank independent from the Government, isn't in a constant state of deficit needed to be paid with more paper. The CB is tasked with maintaining inflation under control by adjusting ("Market Manipulation!" "Not Neoliberalism!" "Communism!") interest rates, not funding the Government. Hence, reduced inflation.

EDIT: I'm done hijacking this thread.

[Killer300]

Lost Decade applies to South America. As for Japan, the lost decade in the 90s had jack to deal with the planning it had done in the past.

Also, for post 1970.

The initial effects of introducing free market policies was a shock-induced depression which resulted in GDP dropping by 12.9% year "shock treatment" was imposed saw the GDP fall by 12.9% (Latin America saw a 3.8% rise), real wages fell to 64.9% of their 1970 level and unemployment rising to 20 percent.

This is during Neo-Liberal policy time, you can't blame it on Allende.

By taking 1975, a recession year in which the Chilean economy declined by 13 percent, as the starting point of their analysis, the Chicago Boys obscured the fact that their 'boom' was more a recovery from the deep recession than a new economic expansion. From 1974 to 1981, the Chilean economy grew at a modest 1.4 percent a year on average. Even at the height of the 'boom' in 1980, effective unemployment was so high -- 17 percent -- that 5 percent of the workforce were in government make-work programs, a confession of failure for neoliberals who believe in the market as self-correcting and who abhor government welfare programs. Nor did the Chicago Boys call attention to the extreme concentration of capital, precipitous fall in real wages and negative redistribution of income that their policies promoted, or their disincentives to productive investment." [Peter Winn, "The Pinochet Era", Op. Cit., pp. 28-9]

This disproves the later growth. This also isn't even touching the numerous small businesses killed by the dropping of tariffs, or the societal impacts like the massive rise in alcoholism.

I'm posting this because Pinochet's Chile needs to be understood for what it was, a train wreck that killed hundreds of thousands of people, and failed to even carry out Neo-Liberalism.

I have provided a clear definition of Neoliberalism,

No, you didn't. All you provided was basically that any economy which liberalized practically could be considered Neo-Liberalism. This is not only ridiculous, but shows that you're moving goalposts.

[Killer300]

To bring this discussion back on topic, I think we should examine what really killed the Soviet Union.

Namely? It couldn't adapt, and was still restrained, in a way, by what the Tsars preceding it were, which is internal conflict preventing reforms necessary to the state's survival. Hence, any Soviet Union that survives has to find a way to overcome this, if not outright remove the problem.

[ScorchedLight]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Lost Decade applies to South America. As for Japan, the lost decade in the 90s had jack to deal with the planning it had done in the past.

Also, for post 1970.

The initial effects of introducing free market policies was a shock-induced depression which resulted in GDP dropping by 12.9% year "shock treatment" was imposed saw the GDP fall by 12.9% (Latin America saw a 3.8% rise), real wages fell to 64.9% of their 1970 level and unemployment rising to 20 percent.

This is during Neo-Liberal policy time, you can't blame it on Allende(1).



This disproves the later growth. This also isn't even touching the numerous small businesses killed by the dropping of tariffs(2), or the societal impacts like the massive rise in alcoholism(3).

I'm posting this because Pinochet's Chile needs to be understood for what it was, a train wreck that killed hundreds of thousands of people, and failed to even carry out Neo-Liberalism(4).

I have provided a clear definition of Neoliberalism,(5)

No, you didn't. All you provided was basically that any economy which liberalized practically could be considered Neo-Liberalism. This is not only ridiculous, but shows that you're moving goalposts.(6)

1.- 1975? When Chile was still struggling with the problems inherited during Allende's regime? I certainly can blame it in part to Allende's economic legacy.

2.- You are going to defend tariffs? Really? Has it occurred to you that these examples of protectionism were maintaining prices artificially high to the consumers ("Workers and Peasants") in order to maintain inefficient industries ("Capital Owners") that couldn't compete on the international markets?

3.- Ah, yes, the Anarchist FAQ (the only source you ever post) claim about alcoholism rising during Pinochet's era. Searching through the INE, I can't find the statistics supporting this claims. But, it seems legit...

4.- Hundreds of thousands? No. It is believed that 4000-5000 people were killed during Pinochet's regime. Don't make shit up when making an argument. Don't make shit up especially when you are talking to someone who lives in the country where that shit happened. Deaths that in no way are justified by the Economic reforms carried on during that era, I might add.
If you're going to set the record straight, the set the fucking record straight, do not invent lies to suit your needs.

5.- You've copypasted Wikipedia's definition, and then stretched that definition in such manner that it suited your arguments.

6.- I haven't moved the goalposts, nor have I changed the definition of Neoliberalism at any point in time. What I've said is that You, on the other hand, have taken an example of economic liberalization, China, and claimed it was its command economy the one that had performed a "miracle".
And it is you the one that makes a strawman argument ("Taxation proves that it wasn't Neoliberal", "A neoliberal state is Anarchocapitalist", so on, so forth) which shows that you have little idea what Neoliberalism is. As I've said before, it's not Ron Paul's fantasyland.
Me? I've said that, despite the introduction of much needed social programs, the model remained Neoliberal during the Concertacion years.

Here, read these:

http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/mkurt...revolution.pdf

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/doc...%20Summary.pdf