Talk:Miracle of Chile/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nobody noticed this ideological piece by Lir

Nobody noticed this ideological piece by Lir 27 March 2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It's quite biased if you ask me. Despite occuing under a despicable dictator, the "Miracle of Chile" was a very significant economic boom, and deserves more than some quick pot-shots. 7 July 2003 user:J.J.
J.J., the actuall 'meaning' of the boom is actually quite heavily debated. The "Miracle of Chile" has been described with a number of different economic indicagors - yes, the country experienced growth, but economists like Jacobo Schatan have pointed out massive problems with the "Miracle of Chile". Having said that, the article should be scholarly and sober. I've seem some trashy writing on the right-wing side of the fence here, too. Dissembly (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Cantus got rid of a reference to the atrocities of Pinochet; I have put back this sentence in the following form: an era also known for its brutality toward its political dissidents.

Samboy 18:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


This article is full of partisan innuendo and "original research," along with some useful information. I recommend that someone do a search on Jastor for "Chilean miracle" (you will be able to find a wealth of journal articles), and use the more promising portions of the existing text as a basis for a rewrite. I could do this, but I wouldn't get around to it for quite some time. 172 23:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's convenient that only the 1973-83 period is mentioned in terms of a critique, considering Chile went into a recession during the early '80s J. Parker Stone 02:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The recession is relevant; it was directly related to the reforms! One of the key criticisms made of the so-called "Miracle" is the economic instability that it created, and the recession is just a part of that. - Dissembly (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Contracts and State

I dont see how the fact that Pinochet was a terrorist can be ommitted from any discussion of economics at the time. Economics depends on courts to enforce contracts. If the courts are under the thumb of a dictator, the economy is an illusion. In addition to Greg Palast, there is the testimony of Marc Cooper, the US citizen who was a translator for Allende, whose thoughts in "Pinochet and Me" seem to support Palast's views. How one can talk of an economic success is beyond me since it was simultaneously a disaster for such a large portion of the people. IMO

I think this a strained argument. It is conceptually true but in practise the rule of the courts was honoured, business knew this to be so and operated accordingly. Toby Douglass 13:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment made by - "Marc Cooper is a leftist"

Marc Cooper is a leftist as well, check out his blog and his pathetic book "Move Over Che Guevara". Why is he supposed to be a neutral source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Excuse me? Are you saying we should eliminate contributions because of people's political beleifs? I think you need to re-read the guidelines of Wikipedia, my friend. If we were to eliminate all sources that have a political bias, there wouldn't be any way to explain who coined the phrase "Miracle of Chile" in the first place. I think you should take a bit of a step back, and make yourself more familiar with how Wikipedia works, "".
- Dissembly (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

rescinded trade union rights

Can we get a source for this claim? Were "trade union rights" recinded? What exactly were those rights? RJII 01:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Biased article

This article is really bad. Very left biased. And why does it talk about the economy declining in 1973 and blaming it on the Chicago Boys, when that was before the reforms even happened? The changes were not made until like 1976 I think. Working Poor 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it would be nice if someone with more accurate information could rewrite the whole article. --Lost Goblin 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please explain exactly what you mean by "very bad". I'm afraid you need a little longer description of your objections in order to dispute the neutrality and factual accuracy of an article. -- Nikodemos 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
He already gave some details, and if you look at the rest of the talk page, there have been many complaints about bias in this article. It is clear this article is controversial and the current version makes many unsourced and POV claims and as far as I know is in serious disagreement with the view of most economists and historians. Still it would be nice if someone with more knowledge of the details and who could provide good sources would rewrite the whole thing. --Lost Goblin 15:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I support that disputed Tags on the article. It doesn't look like this article has ever been NPOV, but it was less POV than it is now. Here is the latest edit that made it so POV: [1] I reverted it twice I think but a user keeps reverting back. One important thing that I see was deleted was the fact that all of Latin America had a recession. But it looks like somebody is trying to make it look like liberalization in Chile caused the recession, which is wrong. MumboJumbo 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The claim that all of Latin America had a recession was no more supported with evidence than the claim that the recession was confined to Chile. As far as I can see, the old version that you point to was at least as bad as the current one - with the added drawback that the old introduction was all garbled and the article seemed to contradict itself (if the term Miracle of Chile refers to political reforms and not economic ones, why did the article talk about economics?) -- Nikodemos 04:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes it was. It was supported by economist Arnold Harberger. This was deleted: "However, the economic downturn was not confined to Chile although it started there,[citation needed] as a widespread recession also struck several other Latin American countries. Economist Arnold C. Harberger said in an interview with Jeffrey Sachs that "Chile led the continent in climbing out of this recession. It was the only debt-crisis country that got back to the pre-crisis levels of GDP before the end of the decade of the '80s." [2] " (The claim that it started with Chile should be taken out though, since that's unsupported.) MumboJumbo 05:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, we clearly need at least one book on the economics of Latin America in the 1980s if we are to resolve this issue. I might decide to take up the task of sorting out this article in the near future. But, in any case, the thing I dislike the most about the version you quoted is that it contradicts itself with regards to the meaning of the phrase "Miracle of Chile". -- Nikodemos 05:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
During the 1980s, most countries in Latin America went through very difficult times. There is certain amount of consensus that the crisis started in 1982 [3], when the so-called debt crisis forced many Latin American governments to implement difficult economic reforms [4] [5]. Unfortunately, most countries went on to implement a series of policies that made the crisis even worse--most of them inspired by the UN's Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean [6]. Examples of those reforms were absurd price controls and increasing government regulations. The effects of those policies were economic stagnation and social unrest [7] [8]. Ultimately, most of the region's military regimes failed to address the main issues created by this crisis, facilitating the transition to democracy [9]. The only regime that did not experiment with command and control reforms was Pinochet's. Regardless of its brutality, Pinochet's regime created an economic framework that allowed emerging Chilean democracy to prosper the way it is doing today [10]. Concerning the crisis, I'll recommend The economic experience of the last fifteen years. Latin America and the Caribbean, 1980-1995 [11]. To conclude, I think there is enough evidence to confirm that--though perhaps not all--at least most of Latin America went through a recession during most of the 1980s. I agree the article is very biased. There is an exaggerated emphasis on criticism and a lot of unsubstantiated claims. -- samuelsotillo 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)]
You seem to have a very good grasp of the subject and plenty of references, maybe you want to rework or totally rewrite the article? It would be very nice if someone that understands the details and the context like you could do it. --Lost Goblin 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
My first me-too comment on Wiki. Lost.goblin is right. This article needs serious restructuring and Samuelsotillo seems like a great person to do it.Jamesofengland 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


"Chile had a strong economic recession in 1982-1983"

How many months exactly? Because that's a relatively short recession, right? Fephisto 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Still npov?

While there's some problems with the article - minor and medium sized inaccuracies and inconsistencies in several places - it doesn't seem that NPOV anymore? Should the tag be removed? radek 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while reading the article, I assumed that the NPOV complaint was by anti-Pinochet editors against the extremely pro-Pinochet voice that the article is now written in. I was shocked, upon visiting the talk page, to find that the complaint was originally that the article was too *leftist*. In my opinion, the pendulum has swung the other way.

When it becomes difficult to discover to which side an article is biased, maybe it is not biased at all... 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that's hardly the point. An article that may have a leftist cant can be overedited by rightists to have another one. Man The Wise (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


In the beginning of the article, it is correctly stated that "only 13.3 percent of the population lives below the poverty line". This figure is well sourced and is consistent with the latest rankings and UN data. However, just below, someone added a more critical paragraph that includes inconsistencies such as a claimed 40% figure of people in "absolute poverty" remaining constant to this day, which sounds strange. Sources? Thoughts?

The 40% figure is unlikely to be accurate. Here's a sample cite for the tremendous success in poverty reduction up until 95, when the paper was published.[[12]] The later "socialist" governments under Lagos and Blachelet appear to have continued this success. The government has been successful on a broad front of Millenium Development Goals, with HIV-AIDS being the only success that needed. [[13]]. The 40% figure for 1990, however, does have some basis in real world numbers. Here is the EU's summary: During fourteen years of the democratic governments of the Concertación (1990-2003) Chile succeeded in reducing the poverty level from 38.6% to 18.8% and the level of extreme poverty from 12.9% to 4.7%, clearly outranking the average Latin American indices for the period indicated and achieving 10 years ahead of schedule the UN millennium development goal of cutting poverty by half (see annex 4).[[14]] The 2003-2007 was also pretty good. The answer to the question from the 1995 paper above was apparently "yes, the miracle can totally continue", although perhaps only for 12 years more. Jamesofengland 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Point of View needs balance

I understand that a lot of conservatives, neoliberals, and libertarians like to trumpet Chile as a "miracle" and all of that, but it's hardly a neutral term. Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has offered some strong critiques (for a quick sample: [15]). Another nobel laureate, Paul Krugman, has also questioned the Chilean economy and the way it's been represented (cf. "Buying Into Failure," December 17, 2004, NYTimes). I think it's irresponsible to have this page in the first place. I think the Economy of Chile should have a debate about the miracle or lack thereof. It's a very ideological thing to have this article. Imagine having a "miracle of Cuba" article. Anyway, let's get this thing merged away, or at least balance it out. --Dylanfly 15:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

MERGE with Economy of Chile

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was keep separate, see also Talk:Economy_of_Chile#MERGE with "Miracle"?. -- Debate 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I've looked around and can't see much like this page on WP. It's very POV-ish. I'll give you a close example. The "Reagan Revolution" was a phrase often put forth about the Reagan presidency. But this idea is contained on the Ronald Reagan page. Some people think Reagan ushered in a "Reagan Revolution," some don't, but it doesn't get its own WP page. This page could thus be merged into the Economy of Chile, and it would add to that discussion. --Dylanfly 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur, though, alas, you'll find the ideological balance tilted to one side in the study of economics, for the most part. MarcelLionheart 07:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be more in favour of renaming the page Economic history of Chile (1973-1990), which is a more NPOV title (see Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Tazmaniacs 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tazmaniacs. This entry has strong historical significance that merits its own separate treatment. jncohen 13:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Tazmaniacs & jncohen. Mel Romero 02:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
While I can see the argument for the main page being renamed (with a redirect from Chilean Miracle), it should be noted that there are other examples of this sort of thing. Kerala model, for instance, is less about Kerala per se than about the lessons that can be learned from Kerala, so it's not called Kerala politics or Kerala history 1957-present. Jamesofengland 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think by the very naming, the article is pretty POV and I'd support merging it with Economy of Chile. Also see my comments below on the Two Miracles section. Kingsindian (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have voted against merger in the "Economy of Chile" Discussion section; i'd just like to reemphasize my opposition to merger here. This is a historical event and it deserves it's own dedicated page - it would be EXTREMELY cumbersome to move this entire block of text into another article, and ultimately pointless. - Dissembly (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote to keep the article separate and not bury it in some general article about Chile. The real purpose of the article is to shed light upon whether you can take a poor backward country and make it into a prosperous one by following Milton Friedman's economic theories. This article is more about Milton Friedman and free markets than about Chile per se. Freedom Fan (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already made my point for merging the articles in the "Economy of Chile" Discussion section. I'd just like to point out here why I am so strongly for merging the articles. There are already far too many articles dealing with this highly controversial topic (Economic history of Chile, Economy of Chile, History of Chile, Chile under Pinochet, Chile pension system, Chicago Boys and many more). Nobody can cope with such a mess and it increases the danger of propaganda escaping scrutiny because articles are not watched closely any more. However I concede that there might be other probably more dispensable articles about this topic.-- (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed the article according to an NPOV title which allows for a more diverse approach. Tazmaniacs (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no need for more diverse approach. Articles on Economy of Chile and on Chile under Pinochet already exist, so if you feel the need to explore this subject further you can do it there. -- Vision Thing -- 19:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Vision Thing, as much as I agree that this article documents a notable historical event and deserves its own article, I cannot in good conscience accept that the most NPOV title imaginable is "Miracle of Chile". Whether or not the Chilean pro-market reforms ushered in a miracle or not is an irrelevant question, simply because there is (as far as I know), no objective definition of what constitutes a miracle in economics. Are Messrs Pinochet and Friedman to be canonized for their holy work? Should the Catholic Church dedicate churches to them? Or maybe, just maybe, what the article itself admits is a contentious issue (Miracle of Chile#Chile as a model economy) might need a slightly reworked title. Man The Wise (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the current title is the most appropriate one according to Wikipedia rules. -- Vision Thing -- 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I agree with you. As much as I dislike the name, it is more or less what the event/period is referred to as, and that is what we should go for. Consider my objections withdrawn. Man The Wise (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Delete references to neoliberalism

Neoliberalismis is a pejorative term. The people it is directed at tend to either (1) refer to themselves as classical liberals and identify with the line of thought as classical liberals of two centuries ago or (2) be without actual deep philosophical ideas but enjoy identifying with a word that upsets some people. It's also misleading - in this case it's trying to combine monetarism (from Friedman - a branch of Keynsian economics) and the Chicago School (at the time identified with the Austrian School and therefore a bastion of classical economics). I propose removing references to it from the article. And I'd be interested to see if there is anyone who can make a substantive definition of 'neoliberalism' that doesn't end up with it becoming a synonym for an older, non-pejorative term. --User:cratuki 18:00, 17 September 2007 (GMT)


does reference Chicago Boys; but, the Chicago School reference is not a wikilink. Naomi Klein is not mentioned.

In the quote "However, during this time, per capita income decreased as did the percentage of people living in poverty.", could it be[??]:

"However, during this time, per capita income decreased as the percentage of people living in poverty had increased."??

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 16:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Two Miracles

The first three paragraphs of this section are almost wholly vague and unsubstantiated statements. There are almost no citations (apart from the last two statements). Also, its misleading to talk about poverty figures today when the period we're talking about is 1973-late 80s maybe. If the period can't be precisely defined, it's hardly appropriate to talk about "miracles" or "disasters" or anything else.

I think it would be helpful if we can talk about specific periods and leave it up to the reader to decide whether it's a "miracle" or not. I'm making some efforts on this front, but I'm not very good at editing, so any feedback/corrections would be appreciated. Kingsindian (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Performance of various economic indicators

I'm adding a section on various economic indicators during the period 1970-85. Most of the material I have is from Amartya Sen , Hunger and Public Action. Kingsindian (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Deletions by "Vision Thing"

Vision Thing, i disagree with your deletion of references on the grounds that they are "unreliable sources" - you cannot call something "unreliable" simply because you disagree with it or don't like what it has to say. I have restored the relevant references as they provide informed commentary on the subject and are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopeadia article. - Dissembly (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the deletion of the section on wages. The request for citation was put there by me in January 2008; unfortunately i got the year wrong and wrote "2007", in reality the "citation needed" tag had only been there for a couple of days when you removed in for being unsourced. I think it should remain for a bit longer before being deleted wholesale. I will try to find a reference in the existing sources. - Dissembly (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

graph has no scale

is they ordinate dollars, yen pounds or dong? without a scale it is meaningless. suggest it is amended or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

consider them 'arbitrary units', but i agree a scale would be better —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


This article is too heavily biased in favour of the view that the "Miracle of Chile" was real and it was good i.e. supporters of either Pinochet or Friedman (quite a wide range of people but still). Where are the criticisms of this viewpoint? Surely people like Paul Krugman or other Keynesian economists or liberal political commentators or someone like Naomi Klein might have something negative to say about this Miracle. Just to note: I am not saying the viewpoint of Friedman is wrong here, merely that I would like to see some opposing views. Certainly, he is not the be-all and end-all of economics as far as the current crisis is concerned. (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of this article anyway? Isn't there an aritcle Economy of Chile? Oops, yes there is! (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me - One's on the economy overall, the other is on "the claim of a miracle". Who claimed this? Does any evidence support the existence of such an "improvement"? Who (if any) opposes this description as a "miracle"? Was the "miracle" really (objectively) an economic success? Was this all a fraud based on false statistics? Was this a purely economic success, with some other hidden costs (economic success measured by a purely fiscal measure but based on some broader non-economic harm isn't unknown)?
Overall, there seems to be scope here for a separate article going into more detail and more analysis (avoiding WP:OR, naturally) than would be possible in an article with wider overall scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Much of the article is unreferenced and there are citation needed tags as old as 2007. The article must be cleaned up.Luis Napoles (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more Luis. First line, and there's no referencing to even support the use of the term "Miracle" by Milton Friedman. By your own logic, there's no clear citation for the name, therefore the concept can't exist either. Clearly we must delete the entire article! Right now!! Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis Napoles "clean up"

Here is parts of what Luis added here and why it was mostly an unhelpful addition.

  • Someone[who?] says 39% ...
    • Introduced poor style; the sentence made sense before it was edited.

I will go back and restore the changes that are alright. Grsz11 04:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

1.It's exactly what the source says: "Country in shambles", "Inflation + 340%", "No foreign reserves", "Falling GDP" 2.The sentence has no source (the link does not work) so we don't know who has said that. Actually, the sentence should be removed until a source is provided.Luis Napoles (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete all the citations? Luis Napoles (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

1973 was a complex year in Chilean political history. Any comment related to this date needs to clarify itself as to just which part of 1973 is in discussion, as the interpretation of "1973" is so highly at risk of highly POV interpretations as either, "Under Allende's glorious rule", "Under Allende's incompetence" or "After Allende's murder by American Fascists" (and no doubt many others). For neutrality, we have to make the precise date clear (and its relation to the first failed coup attempt as well as the second) and to strongly reference any claims made about it, ideally with hard numbers more than just a vague "shambles". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Friedman and the coup

This line "Friedman's name has been strongly linked to the coup by Orlando Letelier, a KGB agent and Allende's Defense and Foreign Affairs Minister.[28]" is highly dubious. 'Linked to' should be considered a word to avoid because, per WTA, it is ambiguous, uninformative, or non-specific. The editorial that acts as its citation claims that Friedman is 'the intellectual architect of' the Chilean economic system, which we have said several times in this article already. I am going to remove this line as redundant and uninformative. Bonewah (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OR in the lede?

This line strikes me as a bit OR

In spite of this perceived national prosperity, Chile's GDP per capita is only on a par with Mexico, and the country still suffers from many problems common in the developing world, ranking higher than most African and Latin American countries in terms of economic inequality.[3][4][5]

We first talk about national prosperity, then compare Chile's GDP per capita with Mexico and then switch to economic inequality, all of which are different concepts. Further, the citations given do not support claims that Chile's GDP per capita is on par with Mexico and none of the citations makes the connections between the three concepts that we do. I am removing this line as I feel it is improper synthesis Bonewah (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This link Inequality remains in Chile is worth saving as it talks about income inequality, which should be in this article somewhere. Bonewah (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Economic disparity

This line

Starting in 1985, the focus of economic policies shifted toward financial solvency and economic growth. Exports grew rapidly and unemployment went down. People living below the poverty line represented 45 percent of the population in 1987.[9]

cherry picks data from its source. Why do we only cite 1987's figures here when the citation talks about an extended period of time that happens to include 1987? Bonewah (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


The new chart compares economic growth of Chile and average growth of South America. This fits better than the old chart that compared GDP per capita since GDP per capita is manipulated by population growth. (Especially since population growth in chile is significantly lower than the average South American growth). -- (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

GDP per capita is much better measure of level of prosperity than rate of GDP growth. -- Vision Thing -- 10:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The "Miracle of Chile" is about "... a term used by free market economist Milton Friedman to describe liberal and free market reorientation of the economy of Chile in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, and the purported benefits of his style of economic liberalism." The article is not about the advantages of having little growth of population but about economic growth. This is exactly what the chart should display: economic growth and nothing else. Therefore I added the new chart.
The chart GDP per capita is mostly influenced by the exceptionally slow growth of the chilean population compared to much faster growth in average South America. That leads to a bigger wealth per capita too but this is certainly not the miracle Milton Friedman had in mind.
I could agree to put the GDP per capita chart into the chapter "Performance on social indicators". But even then it´s not really the "miracle of chile". -- (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Long term results

The Long term results section is supported only by a dubious editorial, not a wp:rs in my opinion. The section itself tells us very little, saying that Chile "influenced" other countries is vague and borders on weasel words. I am removing this section pending a rewrite and refactoring. Bonewah (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV section

I've tagged the "Nobel laureate Milton Friedman" section as NPOV. For starters, the title itself seems to be purely a form of credential-puffery with a very tenuous connection to the content of the section. Second, the content of the section is entirely a defense of Friedman's role in vis-a-vis the Pinochet regime. In reality, this is a highly contested point. There is considerable debate as to when Friedman and the Chicago Boys became involved with Pinochet, but Naomi Klein, and at least one other valid source [16] (written well before Klein's "Shock Doctrine") argue that Chilean neo-liberals were involved in groups plotting Allende's demise well before the 1973 coup, and, after a brief period of initial period of internal conflict with fascist-leaning corporatists who emulated an economic model along the lines of Spain under Franco, came to predominance as early as 6 months after the coup. This section needs to be revised to include both views of the role of Friedman and his followers, and with a more neutral and descriptive title.

It seems that concerns over POV in this article have come up before, and that originally the tone was a Friedman-bashing one. However, at least in the case of this section, and possibly other content as well, attempts to balance out such content with a more pro-Friedman one have overshot their mark. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the title, I think your logic in that regard is correct. However, with regard to Friedman's supposed role in the Pinochet regime, I believe that the article reflects the extent of Friedman's involvement, he visited Chile after the coup, he met with Pinochet for 45 min, and wrote him a letter. The book you site only mentions Friedman twice, [17](three times if you count the index) and neither mention implicates him in the coup or anything beyond what I mentioned above.
I have not read Shock Doctrine, but my understanding of it is that it never explicitly ties Friedman to Pinochet's coup, but again, I have not read it so if you have a copy perhaps you can provide some page numbers for such claims and we can go from there. I should say at this juncture, that I do not view Klein's work as actual scholarship, popularity notwithstanding, and as such I would not consider it a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. However, if Klein sites a source, we might be able to use that. Bonewah (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not just talking about Friedman himself, but about Friedman's followers, the "Chicago Boy" economists and their political backers. There is definitely a controversy surrounding the point at which they became involved with, and ultimately backed by, the Pinochet regime. One side claims that they did not become involved with shaping the Chilean economy until several years after the coup (and, by implication, are spared association with the bloody seizure of power). Others state that they were involved practically from the beginning, even if there was an early internal struggle with Chilean corporatists over which economic direction Chile would take. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The third paragraph in the "background" section talks about some of that, i.e. El Ladrillo (the brick), the plan to reform the Chilean economy and so on. Did you have some specific change in mind for that section, or maybe some kind of reorganization of the article? Im not opposed to reporting the so called Chicago Boys role in the Pinochet regime, but everything ive read says that Friedman himself had almost no role in anything Chile, and the only reason he even has a section here is because people often try and link him to Pinochet. Bonewah (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On mentioning the brutality in the first paragraph

User:Cantus got rid of the sentence again without discussing it here on the talk page; two people support the inclusion of the sentence; Cantus is the only one who opposes. I have reverted Cantus' revert because the rough consensus seems to be going against him right now; I will, however, accept the removal of this clause if a non-sock-puppet user also feels the final clause of the first paragraph an era also known for its brutality toward its political dissidents should not be there. Samboy 09:53, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I support User:Cantus on this. This is article on economic policy and brutality is not directly related to it. The article on Five Year Plans does not mention Great Purges and I suggest we follow the same pattern here and remove the sentence. Andris 10:41, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I said I'll accept it if one other person agrees. Removing the sentence. Thanks for your contribution. Samboy 09:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I restored the counter-criticism part and the two external links that were removed by the anon Their removal made the article an anti-Pinochet POV it was before I've added them, where only criticism of the regime and its economic policies are allowed, and were *no* consensus at all, to any strait of imagination. How can anyone realize some consensus where only one side may speak out? After all, wikipedia articles should be NPOV, and if they can't, at least we should present the views of *both* sides. Critto
And besides, I find Greg Palast's works to be *very very* POV by their nature. I don't think that he would claim otherwise; after all, "Greg Palast is a journalist for the British Observer (a newspaper) and a self-proclaimed expert on corporate power; who works with labor groups and consumer groups." (from an article on Greg Palast). So, the anon permitted his source to stay, while removing other ones, which contained the serious economic analises, in order to make "consensus" ?? Funny ... :)
Editors on the left should not to go off topic with normative criticisms of 'human rights abuses.' By its very nature, this article is one on political economy and the commentary on "brutality" is off topic. Authoritarianism is only relevant when it comes to discussing the importance of the suppression of labor and the peasant movement in carrying out the military regime's development policies. 172 23:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This debate does not make any sense to me. Friedman himself said repeatedly that economic and political liberty have to go hand in hand. Why wouldn't brutal political repression be relevant? I would ask the same question about the article about the Five Year Plans -- Stalin's purges were essential to carrying out his economic program, so that anyone who challenged the program (or might conceivably challenge it) would be neutralized. How many victim's of Pinochet's regime were protestors of his economic policies?Jrcchicago 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you kind of have it back to front Jrcchicago. Pinochet was the 'protester' with a gun. He opposed the economic policies of the Allende government and persecuted those who supported them. Therefore the brutality is relevant because people who initially, through democratic rule, were leading Chile in one way economically were also victims of brutality after the next government led it the other way. If for example, Pinochet had chosen ethnic groups or religious groups to persecute the brutality would be irrelevant but instead he was choosing to kill the people who would've dissented against his economic policies if his regime wasn't so authoratarian this was not possible. Additionally, many of these people also fled Chile during this period. This might also be worth mentioning.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Social Inequity" Reference

While enacting certain changes, the four successive civilian administrations that followed Pinochet, including that of current Socialist president Michelle Bachelet, have not tried to dismantle the Chicago Boys' policies, but they have been making several efforts to reduce the social inequity produced by this model.

"social inequality" is a subjective value. In any economy there is a disparity between rich and poor, the haves and have-nots, the right side of the tracks, the wrong side of the tracks. The degree thereof and whether the government should resort to force to do something about it is a political argument. What would be "social equality"? Where everyone is poor? The remark should be struck from the article.

And can we attempt to decrease the occurance of fatuous remarks like "the economy is an illusion"?

Killoggs 15:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Social inequality" is a well-understood term in the economic literature. What exactly is your issue with using it?
-Dissembly (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the reversal of the social inequality entry into the "Current Chilean Economy" section. The entry had misspellings (ie. "countries" instead of "country's") and was unsourced. Inequality is already addressed under the heading "Social Inequality and Poverty Rates". The author's wording was intended to disparage the success of Chile's economic experiment, and to undermine the credibility the "Index of Economic Freedom" published annually by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation.

Furthermore, the purpose of this article is to answer whether a country can prosper economically by following the free market policies of Milton Friedman. All the evidence says free enterprise works; Chile is one of the most dramatic examples since it began as a typical poor and backward socialist country.

Leftists have a problem with inequality of outcomes; Friedman did not: "A society that puts equality...ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom." Friedman was aware that capitalism produces inequality of outcomes. The separate question might be whether the relatively "poor" in wealth producing countries are better off than the average subjects in a socialist ones. Freedom Fan (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom, it sounds like you're trying to use this section of the discussion page to have a debate about the subject which is against the rules of Wikipedia. It would be more relevant to phrase your statement as a suggestion for an inclusion in the article with backing sources. For example I might say that economic success of a country is often relative to external forces. Chile may have been in a position, irrespective of government or policy to see an improvement in raw GDP etc. however during the Allende government covert and overt attempts were made by the USA to hinder their progress. During the same period attempts were made on the President and some high ranking military officers lives by assassins armed through the US embassy. Many observers point to these facts as evidence of an economic war waged by a powerful economy against a weak one and believe this is the main reason economic progress wasn't seen until after the USA 'ceased fired.'--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Is this article a joke? What about the Miracle of Zimbabwe or the Miracle of Antarctica. Seriously, there never was a Miracle of Chile. 0v3r533r 08:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You really should expose your arguments against the article instead of making a ridiculous acussation of "joke", the economic process that occurred in Chile is well known by any economist around the world and its description is an important piece of knoledge Agrofelipe 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What a miracle: devastate a democracy with 140 years to the ground, thousands of people assasinated and tortured, people working in slavery (no strikes allowed, no sindicates, very low payments), people starving by thousands. Yes, I think it's a joke talking of miracle. Same miracle ocurred in Spanish Imperium during its conquer of America, or English Imperium, or Roman one. By today, Chile continues with high rank of inequality, far from European values. By 1977 and before the values was very close to Europe (if not better). The 'Miracle of Chile' is unappliable to any country, as it's the 'Soviet Union Miracle' after War, unless you don't care about Human Rights: the source of the miracle is very similar in both cases. From 1979 to 1984 the unemployment raises to 27%!, with Allende it never was over 5%. Keep this miracle of big numbers (PIB, etc) out of me, please. I only want a job and a plate of soup. —Preceding comment was added at 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to check your sources, the political and economic crisis of Allende`s government was exclusively for his failed marxist reforms of statizations and massive intervention of the economy and the UP support for armed struggle and violent revolution [which makes sense since he supported the Shcneider Doctrine to keep the military out of civilian affairs], so blame them for breaking 140 years of democracy and the "thousand of dead people" were mostly violent socialists and marxist terrorists brought to justice for their crimes [like that marxist terrorist Victor Jara].

There was no slavery in Chile, Pinochet ended the [democratically elected] communist syndicates and the [US-supported] political strikes so the country could move forward, in fact Pinochet freed Chile from the [democratically elected] marxist regime, and there was not any "people starving" so I dont know were you get that.

Of course the "equality values" were better then because Chile had a very centralized and paternalist economy that restricted free trade and relied on the state, there were very little private entrepreneurs.

With free market reforms Chile became part of the world economy with a free trade and a whole new middle class of entrepreneurs, some benefited more than others of course.

The unemployment always stayed in 20% more or less because of the end of the masive state employment and the privatizations, Allende artificially lowered the prices and manipulated the economy causing food shortage, raise of the black market and 600% inflation, if you know economy you know that high inflation always tend to low the unemployment but there is no point in having a job if your money is worthless.

Thanks to Pinochet and Buchi`s economic reforms the chilean GDP has double since the 90`s and Chile is the more free and prosperous country in the region. (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys may as well be spitting at each other. I highly suggest neither of you be allowed to edit this article as you both hold views so strong and sarcastic its fairly clear neither of you would be able to edit the article without dropping in your own POV. Next time, I suggest using the discussion page to suggest how to improve the article rather then to throw personal attacks and rant about your own views.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Allende`s responsibility in the economic crisis

The article read:

"In 1973, due in part to a sustained US campaign against the elected government, the Chilean population were critically short on many food and consumer items. Chilean economist Jacobo Schatan writes, "It was clear that the scarcity had been manipulated for political reasons, to create a climate favourable to both the coup and, subsequently, the total change of the economic system."

We know that the primary responsible for the economic crisis and food shortage in Chile were Allende`s socialist reforms of massive statization of the industry and interventions in the chilean economy so I dont see how this single opinion of a chilean economist could prove otherwise. Agrofelipe (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

~According to declassified government documents former American President Richard Nixon instructed his CIA Chief Richard Helms to "Make the economy scream" after the voters of Chile elected Salvador Allende as President.

Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Source 1 and 2 beat Agrofelipe's POV which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Use sources and suggest improvements to the article with them. This is not a forum.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is painful to read

Honestly, it reads more like an economic debate than an informational piece. It's extremely obvious where a different editor had taken control and written a paragraph or two, usually attempting to negate the claims made in the previous paragraph. A reader will leave this page utterly confused, with little information about the reality of Chile's economy during this period.

The article on Pinochet himself has the same problem, but I can deal with that for a biographical article. Of course this is a controversial and extremely complicated issue, but maybe the information could be presented better, more professionally, here.

tl;dr, organization? (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of page

Miracle of Chile is a POV term used by supporters of Chile's free market policies. It's a highly subjective public relations term, and I can see no reason for there to be a page on it in wikipedia. On what basis is it here? Either the page's name should be in quotes - "Miracle of Chile" - or it should be removed.

I'm opening this for discussion and if there's no objections I will remove the page.

If I was a carpenter (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I object. The term is used in the academic literature (do a Google Scholar search). Whether you like it or not, indeed whether it's a real phenomenon or not, the concept exists and to censor it is also to propagandize. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 14:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your contribution. I wanted to flag the proposal - let's see if there's any more responses.

If I was a carpenter (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose delete it. This is nothing but neoliberal propaganda. There is no criticism section despite the overwhelming amount of counter-arguments —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I object to this page's deletion. The 'miracle of chile' is mentioned by name in the PBS citation we have and many other reliable sources. Further, the arguments offered by IP above do not support deletion, if there are counter-arguments and criticisms, then the term is wide spread enough to have detractors as well as supporters. Bonewah (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not support deletion. I support a re-write drawing from both sides of the political/economic spectrum with a his view her view kind of approach rather then the current blanket "this is the way it is" but "this economic didn't think so". There are many prominent intellectuals who argue there was no miracle at all and that in fact, any economic growth was merely a result of a demonstrative example by US foreign policy just as much if not more so then there is people who use this term to describe the effect of Pinochets dictatorship and it seems that discussion in this article is being sidelined by strongly POV supporters of the latter camp in the majority.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete this propaganda. Just becuase Bin Laden called 9-11 a "miracle" should we rename 9-11 to the "miracle of 9-11". This is POV term and has no place in a NPOV encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I support deletion. The article, as it stands, is highly POV. The term itself is highly biased. The aricle doesn't even mention consentration camps that were necessary to deal with mass civil unrest. I lived through this time as a youngster, it was no miracle for anyone but the oligarchs. This article is insulting to the victims of Milton's economic doctrine. (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Really? This article strikes me as being far more biased to the left-wing point of view. Much more space is devoted to criticism of the policies, even in the lede, rather than actually describing the policies and the philosophies behind them. In fact, neo-liberal economics is provably the best system of economic organisation. You see, governmental economic reform always takes a long long time to bear fruit. That's why the criticism in this article that the reforms didn't have IMMEDIATE effect is ridiculous. But you look at history, and the three countries that pursued the most neo-liberal economic reforms in the 1980's (Australia, New Zealand, and Chile) are the three developed economies which survived the GFC most easily. It takes a long time to build a strong economic foundation based on economic freedom and neo-liberalist ideals, but once that foundation is strong, your economy will be strong for yearsto come.
Dickmojo (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to deletion, and propose a page that will actually discuss what happened, since there's no discussion of the structure of the economy, no discussion of how the poverty levels rose, no discussion of the increase of economic disparity, and no discussion of Pinochet's treatment of trade unions. Frankly, it reads like something written by a Friedman fanboy, and while opposing views are mentioned these references are mere tokens, as any detailed counterargument is left out in the cold.Eriol11 (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)eriol11

Amartya Sen's critique

I added the original critique of Amartya Sen on Chile's economic and social indicators. When I look now, the whole critique has been removed (except for a vague reference in the opening paragraph and a few scattered statistics with no context). I have seen no discussion about this on the talk page. Most of this removal came in late January according to the history. Perhaps someone removed Schatan's critique and removed Sen's critique in the process. I am adding it back, with context. The claims about infant mortality and GDP growth need to be put in context, otherwise they're meaningless.

Here are the main points of Sen's critique in case the original wasn't clear: a) GDP growth in the main period of the "pure monetarist" experiment (1970-85) was not good overall and was extremely volatile. Most of the growth came later. b) The reduction in infant mortality was entirely due to the active intervention of the state. Chile had special government programs regarding childcare with an active social movement defending it. c) The previous point is reinforced by the fact that improvement in life expectancy (which had no special features and no special government programs) was entirely due to the improvement in infant mortality, as shown by the lack of improvement in life expectancy at age 1. (Which adjusts for the infant mortality improvement). Kingsindian (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So if infant mortality had nothing to do with economics or the miracle of Chile, why are we even mentioning it? Bonewah (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear. Infant mortality is a very important social indicator. The "economics" of a country must include the performance on social indicators. Just GDP growth is not a valid indicator. We should include how the growth was used to benefit the population, distributional issues, poverty, unemployment, education, health etc. You can see all of these on the Economy of United States page. Amartya Sen's point about infant mortality is that it is not a result of the "free-market" orientation of the government, but the active intervention of the state which resulted in the improvement. This is because Chile had a long history of public activism regarding infant mortality. The intervention was specifically targeted at children, therefore it did not result in general improvement in living standards (for example life expectancy at age 1, unemployment, wage increase etc.). I have re-added the infant mortality figures and context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talkcontribs) 17:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
But you're proving that something wasent a result of the "miracle of Chile" which is the subject of this article. This isnt an article on the Economy of Chile generally, but on the Miracle of Chile specifically, and as such, picking out random stats about Chile and including them strikes me as OR. In fact, most of this article strikes me as OR, all this, "this person says it was good, that person thinks it was bad, this indicator is good, that one is bad" is cherry picking stats and quotes that fit each editor's POV. The bit about infant mortality goes even further, it isnt just a random indicator, but a random indicator that we go on to say isnt even an effect of free market reforms we claim is the subject in the lead. Bonewah (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Several comments. First, I don't believe this is OR. I am not making claims myself but only quoting Amartya Sen and citing the source. I believe this is RS. Second, infant mortality is not a "random indicator", it is one of the main indicators of social well-being (along with life expectancy). It is clearly a major part of the economy of a country, if we include the well-being of people as the part of the economy. Third, if someone claims that the economy of a country has performed very well ("miraculously"), it is only fair to examine his claims. This is just a critique of the concept "miracle of Chile". I believe there are enough different sources cited in the article (with a long section on Friedman himself) which makes it quite NPOV. Kingsindian (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I havent read the book you cited, so I cant say much about its reliability, but that is a secondary concern at this point. My main issue is that even if we accept this as both reliable and not OR (which im still not convinced) we are "proving" something isnt a result of the miracle of Chile. Why not prove that Aeronor Flight 304 was also not a result of the miracle of Chile? You claim that infant mortality is a main indicator and is clearly a major part of the economy of a country, says who? And what difference does that make anyway? This isnt an article about the economy of Chile generally, but about the miracle of Chile specifically, which is kind of an ill defined thing in the first place. Again, this is where the OR comes in, if someone claims that Chile has performed miraculously, then that is their claim. Unless they go on to define it, we cant without performing OR, which is exactly the problem here. Bonewah (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
First, are you questioning whether the article should exist or not? I don't know the answer to the question. I think there was a proposal in the past of merging this with Economy of Chile. I did not create this article, only tried to make it more balanced. I'll answer your points in order of importance. (i) As I understand from the opening paragraph in the article, the "miracle of Chile" is about the free-market reforms undergone in Chile starting roughly about 1973 and the purported benefits of the liberalization. The whole article is about Friedman's claim that the Chilean economy performed very well. I do not know if this article should exist - I did not create the article - but if it does, it should include scholarly opinions critiquing the performance of the economy. I am not claiming that something didn't happen because of miracle of Chile. I'm quoting a scholarly source which questions the "miracle" itself. It questions whether the economy did perform well or not. And it question the relevance of free-market liberalization in the areas which did improve. (ii) Relevance of infant mortality generally - You can check out the UN Human Development Index. One of the components of the index is life expectancy at birth which implicitly includes both life expectancy and infant mortality (see second paragraph of Life Expectancy). (I have also mentioned this in my previous comment). See also the Infant mortality page. (iii) I don't understand your comment about the Aeronor Flight 304. It clearly has nothing to do with the economy. But infant mortality does (I don't know if you're convinced about that or not, but I hope you are). In an article about someone (Friedman) claiming that the economy performed very well, is it not relevant to point out a very important economic and social indicator? (iv) About the book: It is co-written by Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze and published by Oxford University Press. Both of the co-authors are renowned economists (Amartya Sen is a winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics and Jean Dreze is a well-known economist in India and an expert on hunger). I think it's RS. Kingsindian (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
But here is the thing, infant mortality is not the only component of the HDI, nor is HDI or infant mortality the only way to measure economic 'success', yet we cite it (hey why not just cite Chile's HDI?). This is what I mean when I say 'random indicators', we have a chart that shows 'GDP growth rates', in the article itself we talk sometimes about GDP, sometimes not. Sometimes unemployment, sometimes not. We mention the poverty line at one point, then switch up to per-capita GDP, real wages, back to unemployment then on to your infant mortality stat (which we take great pains to point out that Sen believes this was not the result of free market reforms) So why do we even mention it? Is Sen refuting someone elses claim about the 'miracle of Chile'? If so, what are those claims and who made them? The real reason this stat is here is the same reason all the other stats are here, they are plucked out at random to either defend the vague claim that Chile did 'well' or to defend the equally vague term that Chile did 'poorly'...all OR. Dont get me wrong, Im not blaming you for this, you were just doing what everyone else has done, but the end result is a mess and Im not sure how to fix it. Bonewah (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe the main problem is with the title of the article itself. You can't have a page claiming a "miracle" and not being questioned by someone else. (i) Try to do one experiment: Look at the version before I added my content. The earlier section on economic and social indicators still contained the claim about infant mortality, but it had no context at all. See for yourself whether there's more or less balance now. (ii) About the use of stats: I don't think there are any problems with using these (not random at all - see below) stats to investigate the claim of "miracle of Chile". The economy is a complex thing so many people may have different opinions about it. That is not a bad thing. I am not disputing the claims. I'm just describing (one aspect) of the dispute which already exists. One side is the claims of Friedman and others who say the economy did well. Others say not so. We should just decribe each side's claims. I quote from the NPOV page: "Rather, the policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them." (iv) The use of infant mortality and HDI is not random. First of all, HDI was introduced in 1990, so it isn't possible to look at the rankings in 1970 and 1980 (I don't know if anyone has computed them retroactively). Let's look at the components of HDI. It contains: Literacy, GDP growth and Life expectancy at birth. GDP growth is already mentioned. Literacy isn't (presumably for the reason that Chile already has a good 96% literacy rate.). That leaves the third component, which I'm describing. (v) Use of other stats: See the use of stats for the period 1973-85 when the reforms took root. Clearly inflation was mentioned earlier (probably because it was gotten under control). Unemployment was not mentioned, for the period 1973-85. Real wages were also unmentioned. Health and poverty wasn't mentioned for the period before 1985. Even GDP growth isn't mentioned for the earlier period. All of these indicators are mentioned (favourably) after 1985 because they improved. I don't see this as any kind of balance. Kingsindian (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I have not been as clear as I could be. You say (correctly) that we should just decribe each side's claims. So who is claiming that what happened in Chile is "miraculous" and what is the basis for that claim? Have we actually described one 'side's' claim? Thats the reason I asked if Sen was addressing someone elses claims, because as it stands now, we seem to be inventing our own description of the 'miracle of Chile'. Moreover, is this really the sum totaly of Sen's criticism? That infant mortality improved but not for economic reasons? There has got to be more than that, heck we even mention that he claims that there was "little net economic growth", but we dont explore that in any way. Do you see what Im getting at now? Its not that HDI or infant mortality is random per se, but rather if we just drop it in without context it most certainly is. I hope that clears up my concerns here. Bonewah (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
(i) I still don't understand you. Isn't the whole article about the claim of "miracle" in Chilean economy? Aren't Friedman and others claiming that the Chilean economy did very well? The article gives plenty of descriptions about the favourable performance of the economy (in certain respects like inflation and in certain time periods for example growth after late 1980s)? Is this not the description of claims of "one side"? (ii) Sen's argument is not only about infant mortality. Fistly, it deals with the period 1973-85. There was no discussion at all about this period in the article. Sen's concern is as follows: How did Chile perform and did the free-market orientation of the government help in the performance? It looks at many things (three of which I mentioned in the very first paragraph in this section). First the GDP growth was not impressive and it was very volatile. Second, the unemployment rate and wage growth wasn't good. Third, general living standards didn't improve (life expectancy at age 1). Fourth, insofar as living standards did improve (infant mortality), it was due to continued state intervention and not because of the any re-orientation of the economy. (iii) The infant mortality of Chile was actually mentioned in the section even before I added Sen's arguments (as I noted earlier). The source cited for the infant mortality in the article is actually Ricardo Ffrench-Davis (he is also one of the sources cited by Sen, though he has others as well). But these figures were not put into context in the article and it did not give the reason for their improvement. I added Sen's arguments as to why it improved. Kingsindian (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

<- "Aren't Friedman and others claiming that the Chilean economy did very well?" As far as I know, that is all Friedman really said about the economy of Chile, is that it did very well. He went on to say that the real miracle is that Pinochet undertook market reforms in the first place. All the proof of Chile's economic success, that is all the product of Wikipedia OR, in my opinion (or, if Friedman proved it, I dont see it here). About Sen, I think we are getting somewhere now that you have spelled out the bulk of his criticisms. You must see that Sen's argument, as you have detailed here, isnt covered in any clear or concise manor in the article itself, which is why the infant mortality figure seemed (and still seems) out of place to me, because we never really spell out that this is part of Sen's overall criticism. Moreover, exactly who is Sen refuting here? We say in the article that the "so-called "monetarist experiment" which lasted until 1982 in its pure form" who called it that? We claim in the lead that the miracle of Chile was in "1980s, 1990s, and 2000s" not the '70s at all and we dont claim that this was some sort of monetarist experiment so what exactly are we refuting? Again, I want to emphasize here that the problem isnt Sen or your additions to this article, the problem is the article itself. There is no way you can add something to this article without it being OR because the whole thing is OR from the start. I guess the best way to clear this up would be to start a new discussion section on my OR concerns, because, as I have said, the problem isnt with your edits specifically. Bonewah (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are my concerns about this: (i) See the following section about the timing of the "miracle".(ii) The "monetarist experiment in the pure form" - The article itself says in the lead: "The first reforms were implemented in three rounds - 1974-1983, 1985, and 1990". According to Joseph Stiglitz in the PBS debate also referred to in the article: "But that experiment in real free market was not a success. They went from that to a much more regulated market economy. " - referring to the crisis in 1982-83. (iii) About the OR aspect: As I mentioned earlier, in my opinion, the name of the article itself is the root of the problem. I doubt if just a statement by Friedman saying that the economy did very well and it led to a democratization would merit and article by itself. It must say something else maybe examining his claim? Or giving context. I don't know if one can do this without OR concerns. Kingsindian (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Ill respond to (i) below, but it is related here. (ii) Stiglitz does not say that this is monetarism. In fact, according to Wikipedia Monetarism has almost nothing to do with free markets, but rather monetary policy. So who is saying this period is a pure monetarist experiment? Is it Sen? If you have access to his book can you cite that? Also, related to the timing aspect, if the 'miracle of Chile' starts in the '80s, then the period from 1974-1983 is only tangentially related. (iii) I agree that the title is the root of the problem, but I dont know what we could change it to that would solve the problem. There already are articles on the economy of Chile, and Chile under Pinochet, maybe a merge might be the best solution? Bonewah (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay getting back, been busy irl. I do have access to the book, will try to give you a direct quote as soon as possible, which might be a few days. Kingsindian (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Update: Actually you can read the whole portion on Chile on Google Books in an online preview. Just google "Hunger and public action Chile monetarist experiment" or see this link Book excerpt. From the context, I believe it's Sen's term. He says that this consisted of: "putting heavy emphasis on liberalizing the economy, drastically reducing the scope of governtment intervention in the economy, restoring macro-economic balance through fiscal restraint, greater competition, outward orientation, devaluation and other tenets of the Chicago school.", which I believe is the same thing the article is talking about and the same thing Stiglitz is talking about, even if they use somewhat different terms. Kingsindian (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Timing of the miracle

The first line in the article claims that Friedman claimed that the "miracle" really happenned in the 1980s, 90s and 2000s. There is no source which says this and none is cited. In fact, when I edited this article in 2007, the article said 1982. This is also supported by this Reason article. According to this article, Friedman made the claim in an column in Newsweek in 1982. I haven't seen the column myself and I can't find it on the net, so I can't say for sure, but I've seen other sources saying the same thing. If he said it in 1982, how can it refer to something later in the century? I have also found a lecture by Milton Friedman in 1991 which also talks about the miracle. This seems inconsistent with the statement in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, he also said Chile did quite well for itself in his PBS commanding heights interview in 2000:

INTERVIEWER: In the end, the Chilean [economy] did quite well, didn't it?

MILTON FRIEDMAN: Oh, very well. Extremely well. The Chilean economy did very well, but more important, in the end the central government, the military junta, was 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.

But again, he is emphasizing that political freedom was the really important part. Id say we again have OR and consistency problems here, the timing may go from the '80s to 2000s or it may be from 1973 on, depending on what part of the lead you believe. Bonewah (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
He may have been referring to the "miracle" for a long time. Maybe the sense in which he used the miracle in 1982 was different than the one he used in 1991 and 2000. It cannot really be decided unless we see the actual quote from 1982. But the timing at least suggests that the period 1973-85 is important and deserves mention in the article, especially because Friedman might have not foreseen the (worldwide) recession in 1983-85 and might have been too quick to label the performance a "miracle". This is also the same thing said in the Reason article mentioned above. Also, the article Chile under Pinochet has a link to the economic history of Chile (1973-90) and it redirects to "miracle of Chile". So I think this period is certainly important. Or maybe that link needs to be fixed.Kingsindian (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)