Chicago Boys

Darla said:
Let's start with your great example of Chile. While the hyper-inflation which the intial impact of the world bank and imf policies forced on them, did lower, what happened? Can you tell me what the poverty levels were in Chile from 1970 through the 80's, and whether those levels represented a rise or a fall?

I have to go give a writing workshop (you know, to a couple of immigrent cabbbdrivers), but I will come back to this tonight, or early tomorrow at latest.

Let's take this a piece a time, and let's stipulate that the inflation levels went down, and let's move on to poverty levels as we attempt to discover what happened to, well heck, let's call him joe six-pack, in Chile.
Click to expand...

You are desperate.
Here:
Chile Inflation in 1973: 600% a year
Chile Inflation in 1981: under 10%

The end, your article is a joke, anyone who cannot understand the massive improvement in lifestyle to all classes from that one number alone, has no hope with economics whatsoever.
 
Obfuscate said:
No, because you don't understand Friedman at all, obviously. He was not against all regulation, he believed in regulations that protect 3rd parties, he believd in anti trust {although he didn't believe most anti trust cases were trully anti-trust} He believed the Government had roles in enforcing contract, prosecuting fraud, establishing copy rights, he believed in Monetarism {not a gold standard}. His ideas have worked very well in the real world, just because you are incapible of understanding his influence on theorys of Consumption and Monetary policy or Price Theory doesn't mean the havn't been major factors inpolic decisions during the greatest boom in prosperity in mans history.
Click to expand...

Well you have to admit, at least she is trying to find sources, unlike Watermark who thinks he already knows Friedman and is comfortable making confident slandering shit up about him on the fly.
 
Darla said:
Let's start with your great example of Chile. While the hyper-inflation which the intial impact of the world bank and imf policies forced on them, did lower, what happened? Can you tell me what the poverty levels were in Chile from 1970 through the 80's, and whether those levels represented a rise or a fall?
.
Click to expand...

Ridding hyperinflation will always bring higher unemployment, it did in the U.S. Anyone think Volcker made a mistake by ridding inflation because it created short term high unemployment? Plus, poverty levels in Chile were still below the rest of the region at that time. If they didn't rid inlation the poverty rate would have ended up close to 100%.

Also, Chile is still considered 7th in economic freedom index. It's been an huge success story.


From Wiki:
"The "Miracle of Chile" is a term coined by Milton Friedman to describe the Augusto Pinochet's support for liberal economic reforms in Chile drafted by the "Chicago Boys."

The implemented economic model had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. These market-oriented economic policies were continued and strengthened after Pinochet stepped down.[1] Successive governments have continued these policies for a quarter century.

Today, Chile is one of South America's most stable and prosperous nation"
 
c4.gif
 
Obfuscate said:
Ridding hyperinflation will always bring higher unemployment, it did in the U.S. Anyone think Volcker made a mistake by ridding inflation because it created short term high unemployment? Plus, poverty levels in Chile were still below the rest of the region at that time. If they didn't rid inlation the poverty rate would have ended up close to 100%.

Also, Chile is still considered 7th in economic freedom index. It's been an huge success story.


From Wiki:
"The "Miracle of Chile" is a term coined by Milton Friedman to describe the Augusto Pinochet's support for liberal economic reforms in Chile drafted by the "Chicago Boys."

The implemented economic model had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. These market-oriented economic policies were continued and strengthened after Pinochet stepped down.[1] Successive governments have continued these policies for a quarter century.

Today, Chile is one of South America's most stable and prosperous nation"
Click to expand...


Excellent, so you don't want to post the poverty levels...this assumes you will stipulate that from 1970 to the late 80's, Chile's poverty rate doubled, leaving well over 40% of the population below povery level.

Ok, that's a start.

Now, let's go back in time. Let's get to the nut of the matter.

What, in your opinion, led to the hyperinflation in Chile's economy in the early 70's?

I look forward to getting back to you, but you really have to give me till the morning (maybe late this afternoon), I have to be out of here by 11:30.
 
Darla said:
What, in your opinion, led to the hyperinflation in Chile's economy in the early 70's?
Click to expand...

LOL, ahh printing too much money that wasn't tied to real wealth.

Chile was better off than the rest of the region at that time and came out of it much faster than the rest of the region. Why were the Socialist countries at that time so much WORSE off and why did it take market reforms in those countries to get out of them? Why have most countries in the region adopt Chile policies?

Also, Friedman predicted the free market reforms would in turn lead to a democratic society, which he was also dead right on.
 
Obfuscate said:
Ridding hyperinflation will always bring higher unemployment, it did in the U.S. Anyone think Volcker made a mistake by ridding inflation because it created short term high unemployment? Plus, poverty levels in Chile were still below the rest of the region at that time. If they didn't rid inlation the poverty rate would have ended up close to 100%.

Also, Chile is still considered 7th in economic freedom index. It's been an huge success story.


From Wiki:
"The "Miracle of Chile" is a term coined by Milton Friedman to describe the Augusto Pinochet's support for liberal economic reforms in Chile drafted by the "Chicago Boys."

The implemented economic model had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. These market-oriented economic policies were continued and strengthened after Pinochet stepped down.[1] Successive governments have continued these policies for a quarter century.

Today, Chile is one of South America's most stable and prosperous nation"
Click to expand...

You can't trust Wikipedia as a source because it's dominated by libertarians.
 
I dont think that any of us here would disagree that free markets can help in turning a country more democratic.

What we dont agree on is that unregulated markets aid a democracy in stayihng democratic.

They leave too much power over the masses by too few uber wealthy.

They end up concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

Free markets are a good thing but they need to be policed.
 
I am beginning to realize that economics is a lot like religion in that it depends a lot on faith and is almost impossible to prove which way works because it will be butted and what iffed to death.
 
uscitizen said:
I am beginning to realize that economics is a lot like religion in that it depends a lot on faith and is almost impossible to prove which way works because it will be butted and what iffed to death.
Click to expand...

The social science, like economics and sociology, are the absolute lowest pits of science. It isn't really even science. It's just conjecture. It is like modern alchemy.
 
uscitizen said:
I am beginning to realize that economics is a lot like religion in that it depends a lot on faith and is almost impossible to prove which way works because it will be butted and what iffed to death.
Click to expand...

Economics has laws, there can certainly be plusses and minuses, but it doesn't depend on faith at all.

There's books out there if your interested.
51x8YUy8N0L._SL110_.jpg
 
There is not a bigger disparity of wealth between the poor and rich than there is in a Socialist economy. It's not a coincidence that the countries with the highest levels of economic freedom have the highest standards of living.

Also, again, whether it's Adam Smith or Milton Friedman, they agreed with some regulations and the importance of the rule of law and the court system. People that claim they are zero regulation anarchy types do not understand them or intentially misrepresent their ideas {ala Naomi Klien}.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Economics has laws, there can certainly be plusses and minuses, but it doesn't depend on faith at all.

There's books out there if your interested.
51x8YUy8N0L._SL110_.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah there are 30 or so differnet bibles out there too.

I am getting a glimmering of what it is really about not what someone wants to tell you what it is about in a book.
 
Oh hell ya.

There never has been an example in history where a market unrestrained resulted in anything but the concentration of wealth in a few hands.
 
Obfuscate said:
There is not a bigger disparity of wealth between the poor and rich than there is in a Socialist economy. It's not a coincidence that the countries with the highest levels of economic freedom have the highest standards of living.
Click to expand...

Obf, they deliberately manipulate those factors until countries that have high standards of living are at the top. Singapore is not a free economy, but those lists leave out the massive corporate subsidies and give them huge points for not having a minimum wage.
 
We do know the markets with the least amount of restraints create the greatest living standards for it's people.
 
Watermark, everyone here knows your a loud mouth that has no idea what you're talking about. That's why you're usually just ignored. Next year you'll probably be a Christian Conservative.
 
Desh said:
Oh hell ya.

There never has been an example in history where a market unrestrained resulted in anything but the concentration of wealth in a few hands.
Click to expand...
BS, for most of the 20th century Americans had more millionaires than anywhere else and the highest standard of living for the poor and middle class.

The robber barons made crazy amounts of money, yet where was people all over the world's choice to come and live and immigrate to? The same America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top