How milton friedman saved Chile

#1

droski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
21,914
Likes
3
#1
It's not by chance that Chileans were living in houses of brick—and Haitians in houses of straw—when the wolf arrived to try to blow them down. In 1973, the year the proto-Chavista government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by Gen. Augusto Pinochet, Chile was an economic shambles. Inflation topped out at an annual rate of 1000%, foreign-currency reserves were totally depleted, and per capita GDP was roughly that of Peru and well below Argentina's.

What Chile did have was intellectual capital, thanks to an exchange program between its Catholic University and the economics department of the University of Chicago, then Friedman's academic home. Even before the 1973 coup, several of Chile's "Chicago Boys" had drafted a set of policy proposals which amounted to an off-the-shelf recipe for economic liberalization: sharp reductions to government spending and the money supply; privatization of state-owned companies; the elimination of obstacles to free enterprise and foreign investment, and so on.

In left-wing mythology—notably Naomi Klein's tedious 2007 screed "The Shock Doctrine"—the Chicago Boys weren't just strange bedfellows to Pinochet's dictatorship. They were complicit in its crimes. "If the pure Chicago economic theory can be carried out in Chile only at the price of repression, should its authors feel some responsibility?" wrote New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis in October 1975. In fact, Pinochet had been mostly indifferent to the Chicago Boys' advice until the continuing economic crisis forced him to look for some policy alternatives. In March 1975, he had a 45-minute meeting with Friedman and asked him to write a letter proposing some remedies. Friedman responded a month later with an eight-point proposal that largely mirrored the themes of the Chicago Boys.

It's not by chance that Chileans were living in houses of brick—and Haitians in houses of straw—when the wolf arrived to try to blow them down. In 1973, the year the proto-Chavista government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by Gen. Augusto Pinochet, Chile was an economic shambles. Inflation topped out at an annual rate of 1000%, foreign-currency reserves were totally depleted, and per capita GDP was roughly that of Peru and well below Argentina's.

What Chile did have was intellectual capital, thanks to an exchange program between its Catholic University and the economics department of the University of Chicago, then Friedman's academic home. Even before the 1973 coup, several of Chile's "Chicago Boys" had drafted a set of policy proposals which amounted to an off-the-shelf recipe for economic liberalization: sharp reductions to government spending and the money supply; privatization of state-owned companies; the elimination of obstacles to free enterprise and foreign investment, and so on.

By 1990, the year he ceded power, per capita GDP had risen by 40% (in 2005 dollars) even as Peru and Argentina stagnated. Pinochet's democratic successors—all of them nominally left-of-center—only deepened the liberalization drive. Result: Chileans have become South America's richest people. They have the continent's lowest level of corruption, the lowest infant-mortality rate, and the lowest number of people living below the poverty line.

Bret Stephens: How Milton Friedman Saved Chile - WSJ.com
 
#2
#2
Does the article mention the turmoil that Chile went through in the late 70's and early 80's? Namely, people not being able afford milk or even a bus ticket to work, if they were lucky enough to have work? And how much of the welath that was available was controlled by offshore interests and a select few in the government? The civil rights under the Friedimite policies was an absurd joke. Friedman was not a supporter of the atrocities, of course, but he was willing to look the other way so his economic experiment could take hold. This is reminiscent of Von Braun and the whole Nazi thing so he could conduct his rocket research. Friedman wasn't a bad man, he just had no principles.

The experiment with Friedman economics in its purest form was a complete disaster for the country. It was only the left-of-center policies that moderated the ultra-Freidimite policies that brought stability and wealth. I'm not saying the leftist policies are better, obviously they aren't from the early 70's. It is moderation between the two that brought the real prosperity.

Either economic theory in its purest form is destined to fail. That is the only real thing Chile shows.
 
#4
#4
Does the article mention the turmoil that Chile went through in the late 70's and early 80's? Namely, people not being able afford milk or even a bus ticket to work, if they were lucky enough to have work? And how much of the welath that was available was controlled by offshore interests and a select few in the government? The civil rights under the Friedimite policies was an absurd joke. Friedman was not a supporter of the atrocities, of course, but he was willing to look the other way so his economic experiment could take hold. This is reminiscent of Von Braun and the whole Nazi thing so he could conduct his rocket research. Friedman wasn't a bad man, he just had no principles.

The experiment with Friedman economics in its purest form was a complete disaster for the country. It was only the left-of-center policies that moderated the ultra-Freidimite policies that brought stability and wealth. I'm not saying the leftist policies are better, obviously they aren't from the early 70's. It is moderation between the two that brought the real prosperity.

Either economic theory in its purest form is destined to fail. That is the only real thing Chile shows.

Is this all based on Shock Doctrine? If so, I would thing a more balanced approach to judging Friedman is called for before the above is claimed as fact.
 
#5
#5
Look at the history of Chile. Life under Friedimite economics wasn't exactly the utopia Friedman thought it was going to be.

Have you read Shock Doctrine btw? It isn't all anti-capitalism, pro-socialist propoganda. It is mainly about the rise of disaster capitalism which is completely different. Klein has even been on record as saying this stimulus stuff is the same concept, it is just in reverse..."disaster socialism" without actually saying it. The entire premise of the book is about instituting radical economic change in the face of disaster. She just chose to address the capitalistic nature of it given Chile...and recently Katrina and Iraq...have provided good case studies.
 
#6
#6
I haven't read it but have read some rebuttals and her responses to those rebuttals.

From what I saw there I'm skeptical about statements such "Friedman had no principles".

It appears her ideology and theory bias her telling of the story. I'm sure there are pro-Friedman accounts that are equally biased. I'm betting the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
 
#7
#7
All I meant with the principles statement was that Friedman, like Von Braun, looked the other way in the face of atrocity so their research and academic interests could be pursued.

I'm not going to lie, there is a definite left wing slant to the book, but her overarching thesis is right on. It would have been better if she could have included what is going on in Washington right now with all the reforms in the face of a deep recession. However, we had 6 of the last 8 years in Republican control and Katrina and Iraq are perfect case studies and are recent and relatable to most. The Chile stuff was background to show the concept isn't new.

Radical social and economic change in the face of disaster; sung to a chorus of supporters blinded by fear is a very real phenonmenon.

...and sorry, I'm skeptical of statements such as "Friedman saved the day".
 
#8
#8
All I meant with the principles statement was that Friedman, like Von Braun, looked the other way in the face of atrocity so their research and academic interests could be pursued.

...and sorry, I'm skeptical of statements such as "Friedman saved the day".

I think either view is too simplistic. I doubt Friedman simply ignored atrocities because he wanted to let his experiment run.

Likewise, I don't think all credit for Chile's position can be given to Friedman.
 
#9
#9
I think either view is too simplistic. I doubt Friedman simply ignored atrocities because he wanted to let his experiment run.

Likewise, I don't think all credit for Chile's position can be given to Friedman.

I also think it's easy to decry the interim problems associated with the death throes of state run economies. Every transition toward privatization has been long and painful. Even the successful ones are hideous.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
exactly. just getting rid of the populace's sense of entitlement takes at least a generation.
 
#11
#11
exactly. just getting rid of the populace's sense of entitlement takes at least a generation.

That and entrepreneurialism doesn't really appear completely innate. There is something to immersion in it for bringing independence out of people.

Singapore, HK and Poland are good examples if reasonable success. We've learned tha incrementalism works here, which, in my mind makes little sense. Human resistance to responsibility seems to be the major problem. Those accustomed to having it do fine. Those who have never had it just don't know how to respond.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#12
#12
I have a few friends that travel for business to Singapore regularly. It runs very smoothly and is very friendly to capitalism but the ACLU would hate it.
 

VN Store



Back
Top