who are you?

[univofchicago]

This thread gets my vote for thread of the week!

So I guess that makes me the villain of the week...or the a*shole of the week...

[paulcooper4]

So I guess that makes me the villain of the week...or the a*shole of the week...

biscan of the week goes to..............
UNIVOFCHICAGO!!!!!!

[univofchicago]

biscan of the week goes to..............
UNIVOFCHICAGO!!!!!!

biscan of the week?

[disco]

biscan of the week?

He's comparing you to MattBiscan's Eugenics thread, which seems a bit harsh

[enema of the state]

So I guess that makes me the villain of the week...or the a*shole of the week...

no mate...but sometimes the more educated you get yourself about one field, the less time you have to know about others.

the political background of the 1970's and 80's, lfc heyday, cannot be ignored. it helps to make the club and people what they are - good or bad. It shaped the response to hilsborough, maybe even the cause.

eulogising the economic principles (mis)used by our government at that time is not a sensibile thing to do in the company of liverpool supporters.

I think youve grasped that

[paulcooper4]

no mate...but sometimes the more educated you get yourself about one field, the less time you have to know about others.

the political background of the 1970's and 80's, lfc heyday, cannot be ignored. it helps to make the club and people what they are - good or bad. It shaped the response to hilsborough, maybe even the cause.

eulogising the economic principles (mis)used by our government at that time is not a sensibile thing to do in the company of liverpool supporters.

I think youve grasped that

wish I was as clever with my answers sometimes
mine just tend to come out as SHUT IT YA ****

[univofchicago]

eulogising the economic principles (mis)used by our government at that time is not a sensibile thing to do in the company of liverpool supporters.

I think youve grasped that

Yes, I acknowledge that and apologised for it.

[Tom]

Univofchic ugh!!!

Tom, urgh!!!



What happened was that Allende was thrown out in Chile and a new government came in that was headed by Pinochet.

Say what it was, a right wing Coup d'état supported by CIA that, by force, removed a democratically elected government. Nixon ordered the CIA to develop plans to impede Allende's election, known as "Track I" and "Track II"; Track I. Recently declassified US documents show that the United States government and the CIA had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970 immediately before he took office ("Project FUBELT").

"Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty." — Edward M. Korry, U.S. Ambassador to Chile, upon hearing of Allende's election.

The soviets had already dumped allende as a possible ally as they considered him not worth the effort.

When Milton Friedman visited Chile to give a talk at the Catholic University of Chile, he was there as a guest of a private organization and NOT the guest of the government. Furthermore, the University of Chicago already had an arrangement FOR YEARS with the Catholic University of Chile, whereby the Catholic University would send students to Chicago and Chicago would send people down to Chile to reorganize the Catholic University’s economics department.

Naive - or something else you decide. It is nevertheless hugely symbolic that the instigator of the economic policies that pinochet was pursuing (after illegally removing the democratically elected president) comes to visit - even if "unofficial".

Friedman actually met with Pinochet during his visit to Chile. Why did he do that do you think? It is a defacto act of support for the regime whichever way you cut it.

As for his visits to yugoslavia and china - I condemn them too. The fact that he was "wrong" for visiting those countries isn't a very strong argument for apologising for his visit to Chile. Two (three) wrongs don't make a right.

In the 1970s, Friedman argued against embargoes that many Western nations had imposed on the South Africa aclaiming that the embargoes played into the hands of anti-Western, Communist insurgencies in those countries. Same nonsense he claimed about Chile in his apologia for his visit. Of course we all know what happened in South Africa.......

The talk was titled “The Fragility of Freedom” and the essence of the talk was to explain that freedom was a very fragile thing and that what destroyed it more than anything else was central control; that in order to maintain freedom, you had to have free markets.

Free markets have absolutely no "natural connection" to democratic process. This is a right-wing myth. See china. See russia (which is incidentally going through it's own friedman inspired nightmare).

At that time, the communists were determined to overthrow Pinochet. This was very important to them because they believed that Allende’s regime was going to bring a communist state in through regular political channels and not by a revolution (and Pinochet OVERTHREW the political channels).

That's a right-wing myth. Allende was a democratic socialist NOT a communist, there is a huge difference. There was a faked document called "plan z" that tried to make out that allende was moving toward a communist regime - it has been hugely discredited - even by the CIA.

Pinochet didn't "overthrow" political channels, he took a leaf out of Hitler's book by murdering political opponents. "Politicide".

They were determined to discredit Pinochet and went on a campaign to discredit ANYBODY who had ANYTHING to do with him.

Yes, and why not. He was a brutal dictator who tortured and murdered thousands after forcibly removing the democratically installed government. He is currently being prosecuted by the Chilean government for murder. It's not just "communists" who discredited Pinochet - anyone with a democratic bone in there body was doing the same.


The worst violence occurred in the first days of the coup's aftermath, with the number of suspected leftists killed or "disappeared" soon reaching into the thousands. (Charles Horman, a US citizen who was killed during the coup itself and Chilean songwriter Víctor Jara were some of the most famous case of "desaparecidos"). As soon as October 1973, at least 70 persons were killed by the Caravan of Death (Caravana de la Muerte). The National Stadium was used as a concentration camp holding 40 000 prisoners. Approximately 130,000 individuals were arrested in a three-year period, with the number of dead and "disappeared" reaching into the thousands within the first few months.

Following Pinochet's defeat in the 1989 plebiscite, the 1991 Rettig Report, which listed a number of torture and detention centers (such as Colonia Dignidad, Esmeralda ship or Víctor Jara Stadium), found that at least 3000 people were killed or disappeared by the regime; later, the 2004 Valech Report would count 29 000 more being imprisoned and/or tortured (more than 35 000 were heard by the Valech Commission, and 400 000 persons in total can be said torture victims, following the UN definition of torture). According to the Latin American Institute on Mental Health and Human Rights (ILAS), "situations of extreme trauma" affected about 200,000 persons; this figure includes individuals killed, tortured or exiled, and their immediate families. While more radical groups such as the Movement of the Revolutionary Left were staunch advocates of violent Marxist revolution, it is universally accepted that the junta deliberately targeted nonviolent political opponents as well, making it an archetype of state terrorism.

It’s ironic that you bring up Chile because it is a fine example of how Chicago theory worked in practice. In the end, Chilean economy did very well, but more important, the central government and the military junta were replaced by a democratic society. So the really important thing about the Chilean business is that free markets did work their way in bringing about a free society.

Nonsense, huge loans underpinned the chilean economy.
Under Pinochet, funding of military and internal defence spending rose 120% from 1974 to 1979. Due to the reduction in public spending, tens of thousands of employees were fired from other state-sector jobs. [Remmer, 1989]

The economic policies espoused by the Chicago Boys and implemented by the junta initially caused severe damage to the poorest sectors of Chilean society. Between 1970 and 1989, there were large cuts to incomes and social services. Wages decreased by 8%. Family allowances in 1989 were 28% of what they had been in 1970 and the budgets for education, health and housing had dropped by over 20% on average [Sznajder, 1996]. The massive increases in military spending and cuts in funding to public services coincided with falling wages and steady rises in unemployment, which averaged 26% in the years 1982–1985 [Petras and Vieux, 1990] and eventually peaked at 30%.

The junta relied on the army, the police, the oligarchy, huge foreign corporations, and foreign loans to maintain itself. As a whole, the armed services received large salary increases and new equipment.

The Chicago Boys recommended dramatic cuts in social services. The junta put the group's recommendations into effect, and cumulative cuts in health funding totaled 60% between 1973 and 1988. The cuts indirectly caused a significant rise in many preventable diseases and mental health problems. These included rises in typhoid (121%,) viral hepatitis, and an increase in the frequency and seriousness of mental ailments among the unemployed. [Contreras, 1986]. Exchange rate depreciations and cutbacks in government spending produced a depression. Industrial and agricultural production declined. Massive unemployment, estimated at 25% in 1977 (it was only 3% in 1972), and inflation eroded the living standard of workers and many members of the middle class to subsistence levels. The underemployed informal sector also mushroomed in size.

The economy grew rapidly from 1976 to 1981, fueled by the influx of private foreign loans until the debt crisis of the early 1980s. But despite high growth in the late 1970s, income distribution became more regressive. While the upper 5% of the population received 25% of the total national income in 1972, it received 50% in 1975. Wage and salary earners got 64% of the national income in 1972 but only 38% at the beginning of 1977. Malnutrition affected half of the nation's children, and 60% of the population could not afford the minimum protein and food energy per day. Infant mortality increased sharply.

Ultimately there was a reduction in inflation, that was underpinned by HUGE loans and the brutal suppression of the population. Hardly a successful model on which to argue Friedman economic theory don't you think?

Monetary Policy: What you are describing there is supply side economics (part of Monetary Policy). As I explained to Disco and others MANY TIMES ALREADY, Milton Friedman’s proposal included the implementation of the NEGATIVE INCOME TAX system, something that Margaret Thatcher failed to do. This system is a crucial part of the proposal to fix the social effects of the policies. So from the “moral and social” viewpoint, Friedman is VERY DIFFERENT from Thatcher. Just bear this in mind.

Not even reagan instigated a flat rate tax. It does not materially alter my criticism of Friedman and his theories which in the round were largely implemented by Thatcher. There were experiments with NIT in the US in the 60s - they were a disaster. The "HEW" experiment revealed that many of the low-income population's problems are not readily addressed by its implementation. Indeed, recent revisionist social welfare thinking has questioned the central premise of the NIT planners.

[paulcooper4]

Univofchic ugh!!!





Say what it was, a right wing Coup d'état supported by CIA that, by force, removed a democratically elected government. Nixon ordered the CIA to develop plans to impede Allende's election, known as "Track I" and "Track II"; Track I. Recently declassified US documents show that the United States government and the CIA had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970 immediately before he took office ("Project FUBELT").

"Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty." — Edward M. Korry, U.S. Ambassador to Chile, upon hearing of Allende's election.

The soviets had already dumped allende as a possible ally as they considered him not worth the effort.




Naive - or something else you decide. It is nevertheless hugely symbolic that the instigator of the economic policies that pinochet was pursuing (after illegally removing the democratically elected president) comes to visit - even if "unofficial".

Friedman actually met with Pinochet during his visit to Chile. Why did he do that do you think? It is a defacto act of support for the regime whichever way you cut it.

As for his visits to yugoslavia and china - I condemn them too. The fact that he was "wrong" for visiting those countries isn't a very strong argument for apologising for his visit to Chile. Two (three) wrongs don't make a right.

In the 1970s, Friedman argued against embargoes that many Western nations had imposed on the South Africa aclaiming that the embargoes played into the hands of anti-Western, Communist insurgencies in those countries. Same nonsense he claimed about Chile in his apologia for his visit. Of course we all know what happened in South Africa.......




Free markets have absolutely no "natural connection" to democratic process. This is a right-wing myth. See china. See russia (which is incidentally going through it's own friedman inspired nightmare).



That's a right-wing myth. Allende was a democratic socialist NOT a communist, there is a huge difference. There was a faked document called "plan z" that tried to make out that allende was moving toward a communist regime - it has been hugely discredited - even by the CIA.

Pinochet didn't "overthrow" political channels, he took a leaf out of Hitler's book by murdering political opponents. "Politicide".



Yes, and why not. He was a brutal dictator who tortured and murdered thousands after forcibly removing the democratically installed government. He is currently being prosecuted by the Chilean government for murder. It's not just "communists" who discredited Pinochet - anyone with a democratic bone in there body was doing the same.


The worst violence occurred in the first days of the coup's aftermath, with the number of suspected leftists killed or "disappeared" soon reaching into the thousands. (Charles Horman, a US citizen who was killed during the coup itself and Chilean songwriter Víctor Jara were some of the most famous case of "desaparecidos"). As soon as October 1973, at least 70 persons were killed by the Caravan of Death (Caravana de la Muerte). The National Stadium was used as a concentration camp holding 40 000 prisoners. Approximately 130,000 individuals were arrested in a three-year period, with the number of dead and "disappeared" reaching into the thousands within the first few months.

Following Pinochet's defeat in the 1989 plebiscite, the 1991 Rettig Report, which listed a number of torture and detention centers (such as Colonia Dignidad, Esmeralda ship or Víctor Jara Stadium), found that at least 3000 people were killed or disappeared by the regime; later, the 2004 Valech Report would count 29 000 more being imprisoned and/or tortured (more than 35 000 were heard by the Valech Commission, and 400 000 persons in total can be said torture victims, following the UN definition of torture). According to the Latin American Institute on Mental Health and Human Rights (ILAS), "situations of extreme trauma" affected about 200,000 persons; this figure includes individuals killed, tortured or exiled, and their immediate families. While more radical groups such as the Movement of the Revolutionary Left were staunch advocates of violent Marxist revolution, it is universally accepted that the junta deliberately targeted nonviolent political opponents as well, making it an archetype of state terrorism.




Nonsense, huge loans underpinned the chilean economy.
Under Pinochet, funding of military and internal defence spending rose 120% from 1974 to 1979. Due to the reduction in public spending, tens of thousands of employees were fired from other state-sector jobs. [Remmer, 1989]

The economic policies espoused by the Chicago Boys and implemented by the junta initially caused severe damage to the poorest sectors of Chilean society. Between 1970 and 1989, there were large cuts to incomes and social services. Wages decreased by 8%. Family allowances in 1989 were 28% of what they had been in 1970 and the budgets for education, health and housing had dropped by over 20% on average [Sznajder, 1996]. The massive increases in military spending and cuts in funding to public services coincided with falling wages and steady rises in unemployment, which averaged 26% in the years 1982–1985 [Petras and Vieux, 1990] and eventually peaked at 30%.

The junta relied on the army, the police, the oligarchy, huge foreign corporations, and foreign loans to maintain itself. As a whole, the armed services received large salary increases and new equipment.

The Chicago Boys recommended dramatic cuts in social services. The junta put the group's recommendations into effect, and cumulative cuts in health funding totaled 60% between 1973 and 1988. The cuts indirectly caused a significant rise in many preventable diseases and mental health problems. These included rises in typhoid (121%,) viral hepatitis, and an increase in the frequency and seriousness of mental ailments among the unemployed. [Contreras, 1986]. Exchange rate depreciations and cutbacks in government spending produced a depression. Industrial and agricultural production declined. Massive unemployment, estimated at 25% in 1977 (it was only 3% in 1972), and inflation eroded the living standard of workers and many members of the middle class to subsistence levels. The underemployed informal sector also mushroomed in size.

The economy grew rapidly from 1976 to 1981, fueled by the influx of private foreign loans until the debt crisis of the early 1980s. But despite high growth in the late 1970s, income distribution became more regressive. While the upper 5% of the population received 25% of the total national income in 1972, it received 50% in 1975. Wage and salary earners got 64% of the national income in 1972 but only 38% at the beginning of 1977. Malnutrition affected half of the nation's children, and 60% of the population could not afford the minimum protein and food energy per day. Infant mortality increased sharply.

Ultimately there was a reduction in inflation, that was underpinned by HUGE loans and the brutal suppression of the population. Hardly a successful model on which to argue Friedman economic theory don't you think?




Not even reagan instigated a flat rate tax. It does not materially alter my criticism of Friedman and his theories which in the round were largely implemented by Thatcher. There were experiments with NIT in the US in the 60s - they were a disaster. The "HEW" experiment revealed that many of the low-income population's problems are not readily addressed by its implementation. Indeed, recent revisionist social welfare thinking has questioned the central premise of the NIT planners.

wow, thats one big arsed post. wish I could be arsed reading it, would take me a ****in month to type that many words

[alunevans]

Tom, urgh!!!

I promised myself yesterday not to write another post on this thread, but that post of yours HAS be answered. Hope you read this post IN FULL and not just dismiss it from the start.

What happened was that Allende was thrown out in Chile and a new government came in that was headed by Pinochet. For AN ACCIDENTAL REASON, the only economists in Chile who were not tainted with the connection to Allende were a group that had been trained at the University of Chicago or better known as “Chicago Boys”.

TAINTED by Allende? Did you really just say that?

So Allende's elected government is something you're tainted by, but a murderous dictator is someone you can happily advise.

It's like saying that the only economists not tainted by association with Rosa Luxembourg were these guys, so thats how they got involved in helping Adolf.

At that time, the communists were determined to overthrow Pinochet.

The cheeky ****ers eh

This was very important to them because they believed that Allende’s regime was going to bring a communist state in through regular political channels and not by a revolution (and Pinochet OVERTHREW the political channels). They were determined to discredit Pinochet and went on a campaign to discredit ANYBODY who had ANYTHING to do with him.

So poor Pinochet was a victim of a smear campaign by these loonie commies who were only out to discredit the poor mite because he was overthrowing the political channels that these hideous evil doers were trying to use.

Who'd have thought that anyone could be so crafty and conniving to win the support of the people and get elected. Thats the thing with communists, sneaky *******s.

And it was through that connection that Friedman was subject to abuse in the sense that there were large demonstrations at the Nobel Prizes – it was a concerted effort by the communists to tar and feather Milton Friedman in their quest to overthrow Pinochet.

The double standard in all the “Friedman advocates dictatorship” or “Friedman advocated the Pinochet regime” nonsense is that Friedman had spent time in Yugoslavia, which was a communist country and in communist China. He gave EXACTLY the same lectures in China and in Yugoslavia arguing for free markets and political freedom yet NOBODY made an objection to what he said there. How come?

Probably because if a socialist government is overthrown through a bloody coup, to pay a visit commending free market economics is hardly a huge challenge to what has happened is it.

It appears to give tacit support to at least part of the project.

It’s ironic that you bring up Chile because it is a fine example of how Chicago theory worked in practice. In the end, Chilean economy did very well, but more important, the central government and the military junta were replaced by a democratic society. So the really important thing about the Chilean business is that free markets did work their way in bringing about a free society.

So free market economics is the reason why there is a democratic society in Chile? When there was anyhow before the USA and Pinochet destroyed it.

What a load of old tosh.

Allende WAS a democratically elected leader. What you on about?

No doubt, like anywhere else on the planet, whether it be Chile, Palestine, Venezuela, or wherever, the democracy that is claimed to be so sacrosanct will be overthrown the moment the people choose the "wrong" option.

Then the people can have the same free market bollocks stuffed down their throat that we had to suffer here in Liverpool, only backed up with military force, and then when it reverts back to democracy, good old free market economics can somehow take the credit.

Incroyable!

[paulcooper4]

TAINTED by Allende? Did you really just say that?

So Allende's elected government is something you're tainted by, but a murderous dictator is someone you can happily advise.

It's like saying that the only economists not tainted by association with Rosa Luxembourg were these guys, so thats how they got involved in helping Adolf.



The cheeky ****ers eh



So poor Pinochet was a victim of a smear campaign by these loonie commies who were only out to discredit the poor mite because he was overthrowing the political channels that these hideous evil doers were trying to use.

Who'd have thought that anyone could be so crafty and conniving to win the support of the people and get elected. Thats the thing with communists, sneaky *******s.



Probably because if a socialist government is overthrown through a bloody coup, to pay a visit commending free market economics is hardly a huge challenge to what has happened is it.

It appears to give tacit support to at least part of the project.





So free market economics is the reason why there is a democratic society in Chile? When there was anyhow before the USA and Pinochet destroyed it.

What a load of old tosh.

Allende WAS a democratically elected leader. What you on about?

No doubt, like anywhere else on the planet, whether it be Chile, Palestine, Venezuela, or wherever, the democracy that is claimed to be so sacrosanct will be overthrown the moment the people choose the "wrong" option.

Then the people can have the same free market bollocks stuffed down their throat that we had to suffer here in Liverpool, only backed up with military force, and then when it reverts back to democracy, good old free market economics can somehow take the credit.

Incroyable!

big, but not big enough. Im sure toms had more words

[enema of the state]

wow, thats one big arsed post. wish I could be arsed reading it, would take me a ****in month to type that many words

only takes a minute to cut and paste if youve written a thesis/book/article on the subject already!

[alunevans]

No! No more Economics talk from now on...

I still want to visit Liverpool and Anfield without getting beaten up...

Too late

[paulcooper4]

only takes a minute to cut and paste if youve written a thesis/book/article on the subject already!

I`ll start writing one

[Tom]

I'd just like to point out at this point, that I don't have a big arse. It's very pert in fact.