How was Pinochet different from Castro?

Chile was already one of the wealthiest nations in South America before him, totally different situation to somewhere like Cuba which grew from slave plantation culture, Chile grew via emigration of European farmers and then a very significant nature resource economy.

A lot of its ups and downs have been due to those changing resources, the bottom dropping out of the phosphate market in the early 20th century and then the changing price of copper since then.

You're wrong about Cuba. It was a wealthy nation pre-Castro. "Prior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba ranked fifth in the hemisphere in per capita income, third in life expectancy, second in per capita ownership of automobiles and telephones, first in the number of television sets per inhabitant. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina."
 
I think we can take this as a basis for agreement.

However, although the Chicago Boys tried to introduce market reforms, it was my impression that large parts of the Chilean economy, particularly in areas like mining, were nationalized under Pinochet.

Government owned a few mining companies but that was it, that didnt caused the crisis, the crisis was caused by speculation and shitty monetary policy.
 
You're wrong about Cuba. It was a wealthy nation pre-Castro. "Prior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba ranked fifth in the hemisphere in per capita income, third in life expectancy, second in per capita ownership of automobiles and telephones, first in the number of television sets per inhabitant. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina."

It was still a plantation economy though with very uneven distribution of wealth which was ultimately why Castro got the support he did.

The big hit it took was when the USSR collapsed of course in the early 90's leaving it far more isolated and vulnerable to US sanctions.

GDP-Caribbean.png
 
Last edited:
It was still a plantation economy though with very uneven distribution of wealth which was ultimately why Castro got the support he did.

The big hit it took was when the USSR collapsed of course in the early 90's leaving it far more isolated and vulnerable to US sanctions.

GDP-Caribbean.png

Most of Latin America were commodity economies already.

Also Cuba is back into recession.
 
From the little I know of each, both were detestable men.

But saving people from capitalism ultimately saves people from prosperity, while saving people from communism is saving people from destitution.

So while Pinochet can rot in hell, Chile is the wealthiest nation in South America in terms of GDP per capita.
Chile is the wealthiest nation in South America indeed, but all of that growth was made during the democratic era, not the Pinochet era.

Ultimately the reason why Pinochet was "less evil" in my mind is because his term was quite short.
Also Chile has one of the largest proven copper reserves and the nationalization of copper was so popular it was kept even under Pinochet.
 
It was still a plantation economy though with very uneven distribution of wealth which was ultimately why Castro got the support he did.

The big hit it took was when the USSR collapsed of course in the early 90's leaving it far more isolated and vulnerable to US sanctions.

GDP-Caribbean.png


Thank goodness Haiti and Honduras are capitalist. Otherwise they'd be poor.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index

Venezuela - 188
Haiti - 181
Honduras - 115
Cuba - N/A

Its almost as if there is a correlation between economic and political freedom and the well-being of a nation.

More democracy and freer markets are directly correlated to a well run country.

It's also like there's no correlation between the well-being of a nation and whether it's capitalist.
 
It's also like there's no correlation between the well-being of a nation and whether it's capitalist.

Nope, but there is a strong correlation between economic and political freedom and well-being.
 
It's also like there's no correlation between the well-being of a nation and whether it's capitalist.
You have to wonder sometimes if we learned any lessons from all those decades of installing/propping up brutal dictatorships in the name of "fighting communism"
 
You have to wonder sometimes if we learned any lessons from all those decades of installing/propping up brutal dictatorships in the name of "fighting communism"

Clearly they did, considering that the Honduran coup was promptly condemned by the US and overall the US has made clear that it wont recognize coups that topple legitimate governments.

That being said, Venezuela government stopped being legitimate the moment they sacked Congress.
 
You have to wonder sometimes if we learned any lessons from all those decades of installing/propping up brutal dictatorships in the name of "fighting communism"

We certainly did.

The lesson was: as long as the dictator is friendly to US business and political interests, he's great. Absolutely nothing else matters.
 
We certainly did.

The lesson was: as long as the dictator is friendly to US business and political interests, he's great. Absolutely nothing else matters.

Soon after the coup, U.S. President Barack Obama stated: "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there."[41] He stated: "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections."[41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#Zelaya's_detention_and_exile
 
Clearly they did, considering that the Honduran coup was promptly condemned by the US and overall the US has made clear that it wont recognize coups that topple legitimate governments.

That being said, Venezuela government stopped being legitimate the moment they sacked Congress.
I have my doubts lol
 
I have my doubts lol

I think the US has realized that its better to let millions starve than to make a martyr out of a communist leader.

You now hear all over social media Venezuelans complaining that nobody is helping them while government is starving them but the same people would be talking about how Chavez was a martyr if the 2003 coup had been succesful.
 
Soon after the coup, U.S. President Barack Obama stated: "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there."[41] He stated: "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections."[41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#Zelaya's_detention_and_exile

<{outtahere}><{outtahere}>


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...bsequent-violence_us_5766c7ebe4b0092652d7a138

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29...etnt-center-hemispheric-defense-studies-chds/

 
Back
Top