Split off from the Bush thread.
That is an better argument, but it still isn't enough to justify the enormous differences in the distribution of wealth.Originally Posted by Dante Obscuri
And yet less people lived in poverty during Allende's rule. That proves that people could buy stuff for their wages.Originally Posted by Dante Obscuri
How do you figure that Pinochet's policies led to a better economy? As far as I've seen all the real economic growth has taken place after Pinochet was deposed.Originally Posted by Dante Obscuri
Are you suggesting that Pinochet used money for the welfare of people? The fact is that he basicallty only used money on the Army, much like any military dictator.Originally Posted by Dante Obscuri
As for Stalin, he used the money to build heavy industry, mines and railroads. In the long term this was good for the people as it created an stable economic base, but the main reason why he did it was to be able to throw money at the Army more efficiently.
Then your friend and those economists are wrong. During the early 90's poverty increased, life expectancy decreased sharply, there was a massive capital flight and inflation, and the purchasing power of the man on the streets went way down.Originally Posted by Dante Obscuri
I can't see any way how this would be a good thing, except for the deluded ultra-liberitarian fringe.
Yes, but it isn't thanks to Pinochet that the unemployment is going down, It's because the new rulers have started abandoning Pinochet's irrational policies for saner ones.Originally Posted by Dante Obscuri
Originally Posted by Dante Obscuri