Milton Friedman - Pinochet And Chile

[MetaphysicsOfSavages]

As Johan Norberg points out, nobody seems to care that Milton Friedman also visited extremely repressive socialist countries like China. But when it comes to visiting Chile, suddenly he's a monster.

[carlosfdz]

"Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system... They would be better if they got rid of the Junta and to be able to have a free democratic system."

-Milton Friedman in 1980 "Free to choose"

[charliebrown]

Shame Milton isn't around to give similar advice to Venezuela. Boy do they need help right now.

[rmanzanog]

Thank you Mr. Friedman for helping my country. Inflation under Allende was more than 500% and some years later it was only one digit. With much the same free market economy implemented by Pinochet, Chile now has one of the highest personal incomes in Latin America. Friedman´s ideas are not theories, they are reality.

[VukMedia]

He didn't support the dictatorship in fact when he was invited to speak in Chile he made one stipulation that he was allowed to say whatever he wanted, when asked why he replied because he wanted to talk about free markets and the need for a democratic government to support those freedoms.

Pinochet as monstrous as he was took over after a Communist president all but destroyed the country, inflation was at around 1000%, they had food shortages mass poverty etc.

He privatised a lot of the industry, opened the country to free trade and deregulated quite a bit. There was a global economic crisis in the early 80's that led to the Latin American debt crisis and many other effects, critiques of Pinochet point to the poverty levels and inflation of that time as to why free markets don't work, without referring to the economic crisis that caused it.

The ground work was laid and when the two successive socialist presidents took power after him they kept his economic reforms in place and only furthered democratic reforms, upped some taxes and paid for some social programs.

Under Pinochet they had a large amount of stabilisation and economic growth (I think around 50%), which continued under the next two presidents (GDP has tripled since those troubled years), the highest growth in any Latin American country, reduced poverty, high access to private water etc.

Today it's ranked I think 7th on economic freedom and even rose under the last few governments. Only last month is Michelle Bachelet back in power so we'll see what happens from now on.

Her policies from what I've read are largely the same, some education and political reform, slightly upped taxes and perhaps a change to public education. So we'll see what happens.

[TheoTigerLE]

I read an article about the development of the economy under Pinochet today, which says there were 20% of the people below poverty line in 1973 and 44% in 1990. (Source: German news magazine Der Spiegel).

What kind of freedom there was in Chile after the coup? Freedom for capitalists. Everybody else had no rights.

[EnEvighet]

Milton Friedman did the same thing for China.

[ShamanMcLamie]

What I find rather funny when discussing Pinochet on the Internet is that all the denouncers are not Chilean themselves. While the majority of Pinochet's defenders are Chilean. They seem to really like him. I find it funny considering how much his denouncers say he ruined the country. While you have Chileans themselves saying the opposite. Since most data suggests Poverty has greatly declined and living standards have risen during and since his reign I'm more inclined to believe his defenders.

[DendrilopisXaggro]

Im chilean and i am ashamed of my own people. Almost everyone here is socialist to a certain degree, there is no place for austrian school-liberalism, not anymore, friedman its a genius but many ignorants like to call him "fascist" when he was exactly the oppose.

[KayamaTakeru]

What gets me is that his trip to Chile is still being used as an argument against him. See "Shock Doctrine", it's (intellectual) dishonesty at its worst.

[dicitencellovoyais]

I will summarize the Chilean economic trajectory, come on!

The early years of Pinochet's government followed the nationalist developmental primer with a focus on protectionism, import substitution, and clumsy monetary policy. Something very similar to the economy during the years of the Brazilian military government. Thanks to this policy, inflation continued to rise - reaching an updated value of 700% in 1975 - and goods became increasingly scarce, prompting widespread protests and strikes. The formula did not work ...Seeing that the country was still in a problematic situation, Pinochet decided to seek help from economists who did not profess the nationalist primer and who were not linked to the economic policy of the Allende years. So he chose as advisors a group of Chilean economists who had been trained by the University of Chicago or the Universidad Católica de Chile, which became known as the Chicago Boys. Something diametrically opposed to Allende's measures and those defended by the military in government. The measures that would underpin this program would initially be painful - leading to short-term unemployment and economic contraction - but would create the basis for sustainable growth and an improvement in the population's living conditions.
It is worth remembering that this ideological line of economists contrasted not only with Chilean reality, but with all the economic policy of Latin America. During the 1960s to 1990s, several governments implemented strong policies of economic centralization, as in the case of Brazil - something repeated by the Dilma Rousseff government - Argentina Peronista and Videla, or Peru by the military.


The Chilean economy has grown again as a result of the policies of austerity, of fighting inflation, of opening up the market, valuing private property and respecting contracts. This created planning capacity for the population and allowed the emergence of a new business environment in the country. Foreign investments returned as properties were privatized and returned to their original owners or auctioned off the market. Thus, poverty was reduced, social mobility increased and the foundations of the current Chilean society were built

End: With economic evolution and the expansion of freedom of voluntary exchange, the population began to cry out for more civil and political freedoms -
Pinochet called a plebiscite for 1988 that would decide if he would continue as governor until 1997 - a vote that was already provided for in the 1980 constitution.
The population voted for the departure of the general and, thus, the democratic transition was carried out. In 1990, Chile had its first democratically elected civilian president in 20 years. The Christian Democrat Patricio Aylwin ! I need a pinochet

[AlvaroMalloUy]

As a latinamerican I wish you, americans (from the USA) to never suffer a dictatorship like the Pinochet one... He didn't killed "commies", he killed everybody who was against him.

[SlipClipRip]

Your criticism is misplaced. Those atrocities you mentioned happened both before and after Friedman went to Chile, so your fabricating a causal relationship when one doesn't exist. As a dictator, Pinochet would be in power as long as he wanted, so Friedman didn't do anything to "keep a murderous torturer in power". Don't create a false dichotomy; Pinochet was a constant. So the choice was Pinochet and free market reforms or Pinochet and complete gov't control of the economy.

[krillin]

I dont know why people would hold that against Friedman. Like he said in this video ( 1991) Chile is the most productive country in Latin American and it still is today in 2013.

[frocco]

How the frick does privatization and plutocratic ownership of the economy lead to democracy exactly?

[FC-]

Read Imperium by Francis Parker Yockey

[XLRmusic]

I'm not an expert on the Chilean people, their history or their economy. I am aware that the economists are split on this issue. Many, such as Friedman, continue to praise the reforms, and others have been sharply critical.

How you read the various points of history here depends on your economic perspectives. The way you connect the dots is a function of your broader political convictions.

I certainly lean towards a Marxian analysis of things, although I once held the free-market view.

[Needus]

Milton's real talent is dressing half-truths with simplistic logic.

[there]

"Was willing to let" such a euphemism...

[firstal]

A giant intellect, great public speaker and a honest man.