Here we go again with your inability to understand the difference between "constant dollars" and "current dollars". Nowhere do you specify which was used. Considering your figures show Chile economy as being more than 5 times as big in 2007 as it was in 1973, and Brazil's economy being more than 8 times as big in 2007 as it was in 1973, I doubt very much you were using constant dollars. Your numbers are meaningless in showing how much Chile grew over 34 years. A 2007 dollar is worth less than half of a 1973 dollar.
You are making a straw man argument regarding Venezuela. Not once have I advocated for Chavez's policies, only that Pinochet's were a failure. By any objective measurement, they were. If Pinochet's policies were so great, how do you explain Brazil's economy growing 50% faster during the period you showed?
I never made any claims about Allende. For many people in Chile, the economy became even worse after Milton Friedman's policies were implemented by Pinochet.
I've never advocated anything Allende did. I don't support his policies. I've only said that Pinochet's policies, based on the Austrian School of Economics, were failures.
Chile had a population of approximately 10 million people at the time. That would be the equivalent of killing 90,000 Americans. In addition to the 3,000 killed, another 28,000 were tortured.
The people in Bolivia think they are.
The second oil shock was in 1977 or 1978.
As I said before, integrating East Germany into the German economy had a significant impact on economic growth. What do you think would happen if Mexico was integrated into the US economy? East Germany was even worse off than Mexico.
By many measurements, Germany is better off than the US. Their poverty rate is much lower, thanks to heavy social spending. They have much lower crime rates. All of their citizens have health coverage. They have longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate.
Britain was significantly weakened economically from having to fight two world wars. Regardless, I never advocated Labor policies. You keep making these straw man arguments. I'm not in favor of nationalizing industries. I have never advocated that. Because I don't go along with Milton Friedman's views doesn't automatically mean I'm a socialist.
Before FDR became President, we were having Depressions every 20-30 years. We haven't had one in more than 75 years since then. Do you think this is just a coincidence? The time period you're referring to, there was immense poverty in the US. It wasn't uncommon for seniors to go bankrupt after their life savings ran out, and end up living on the streets. Any rational person can see that Americans are much better off today than they were 100 years ago.
You have not demonstrated how government caused the Great Depression and neither has Melonie. There wasn't any single cause. If we had many of the laws and regulations passed since then at the time, it's unlikely it would have happened. As I said before, there hasn't been a depression in more than 75 years.
As bad as the economy was, there weren't any other countries that suffered as big as a downturn as Chile did.
That's just right-wing misinformation. Only a small percentage of bad loans were made under CRA provisions.
"No money down mortgages were made possible by the
Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982, signed into law by Reagan. It was deregulation such as this that lead to the financial crisis.
No, the percentage of loans being held by Fannie and Freddie decreased significantly in years preceding the crisis. The majority were going to private securities firms, such as Lehman Brothers.
No, it was deregulation that drove money into mortgages and related securities from 2005 to 2007. Many of the transactions that took place would not have been allowed 30-40 years ago. Canada never deregulated their banking industry and they never ran into the crisis we did.
The unfettered free-market policies imposed on Chile by Pinochet exacerbated the poverty problem. It was only after his policies were undone, such as eliminating the minimum wage, that the poverty rate went down.
I don't blame everything on the "Chicago Boys", but nobody can deny they had a great deal of influence on Chile's economic policies under Pinochet.
Again, I never advocated complete state control of the economy. To much state control is just as bad as too little. Having government completely controlling the economy doesn't work and neither does having no government control. Completely unregulated free markets do not work any more than economies completely controlled by the state.
Bookmarks