Your English is fine Matias and I can understand you very well. However, I can't agree with your interpretation of the facts.
I am afraid you are very wrong about this. The military dictatorships in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay adopted very similar economic models, that were VERY different than the one adopted by Pinochet. The model our countries adopted was based on centralized, interventionist, protectionist, corporatist/statist principles. It was NOT the small state free market model adopted by Chile. Think about it: How many state companies were privatized in Argentina between 1976 and 1983? did Argentina operate with a budget deficit or surplus during that time? How easy was it was to import goods into Argentina between 1976 and 1983? How were taxes and labor laws between 1976 and 1983?
I am sorry, but your claims that Argentina adopted a model similar to Chile's is completely off base. Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay implemented a model that was OPPOSITE of that adopted by Chile. The consequence of those choices reverberate to this day. Unfortunately for Argentina, it seems that you guys are the ones having the hardest time moving always from the managed economy/protectionist model and that is why you are floundering.
Really? You completely dismiss the data I presented and right after makes a series of claims without presenting anything to back it up? You make those claims based on what? Did the ghost of CheGuevara visit you at night to tell you that the Chilean society "is more violent and with great distances between classes"?
Again, you make those statements based on what? Again Matias:
Chileans live longer than Argentinians
Chilean children have higher odds of survival than Argentinian children.
And to top it off, an Argentinian child is FIVE TIMES more likely to suffer from malnutrition than a Chilean child. Who has no access to health care Matias? The Chileans? I think not.
One funny thing about Argentinians (K supporters in particular) is that they suffer from this kind of political Stockholm syndrome towards their rulers, and when presented with facts and data, they fall into a spiral of denial and create this parallel universe, where Chile becomes the prolletariat hell, something out of a Charles Dickens novel. The problem is that reality is very different. When compared with Chile, the prolletariat hell is here, where the workers are told they can live with 6 pesos a day.
Wake up Matias, your government is lying to you. It always has. So were your teachers at UBA. I know. I went to a public university in Brazil too. Like here, it is all a
gramscian fraud. Snap out of it man.
Again, youre putting in my mouth words I didnt say. I never EVER said I support this goverment so please stop doing that.
Look, someone who really knows a little of Argentine history wont argue this with me. There are tons of books that support what Im going to say, but I dont know even one who says what you said.
Since Peronismo, in Argentina, were formed two very clear and defined economic models: one, that stands for a strong internal demand, a big internal market, industrializing, power to the unions with the interventionism of the state (remember, we are talking about decades osf 50s, 60s and seventies were Keynes was the king). This model was supported politically by peronism, but not only them. Since the power that unions had, every goverment had to deal with that, even UCR. Gullermo O Donnel, the most famous and prestigious political scientist of this country, who studied and lived in the US till his death last year BTW, speaks about Alianza Defensiva. It was the pymes, the very most of Argentine society who supports this model, because the consume and demand of this model was the people, the huge middle class and the low classes too. Thats why we had pleno empleo, almost no poverty... if you think about it internal demand means people with money. Thats good from my point of view, a dynamic internal market, that provides you most of the goods and wich we had to protect, because the competitive sector in this country was and always be the agro and not the industry.
On the other side, we have the model of recessive cycles. By chance, it coincides that the economic model of a restricted economy, low salaries, deindustrializing-agro-export economy, which means unemployment and poverty, represented politically by the Transnationals and the agrarian bourgeoisie, who historically had the power in this country, fits exactly with the military goverment not elected by people in 1955, 1962, 1966 and 1976. By chance PERONISM WAS PROHIBITED.
The exact same model of apertura comercial and deindustrialization implanted by the menemismo had its first steps in the worst dictatorship this country had. Just google it. Everyone knows that the neoliberalismo of the nineties is the continuation of the neoliberalism of the dictatorship in the seventies. They may have not privatized the public enterprises, because the unions still had some power, but they DID go in the same direction. The tablita del dolar, the bicilceta financiera that ended with the external debt that Cavallo implanted by force to argentine people in 1981, and the speculation funds (who were originaI from the petroleum crisis), I repeat, the HUGE apertura comercial that destroyed our industry, elimination of protectionism.... google it, or go to a Library. It was the same direction, and although the menemismo did almost everything, the model of the dictatorship tried to do the same. Remember the slogan "achicar el Estado es agrandar la nacion"? It was, btw, the first financial crisis.
The dictatorships of the seventies werent the same that the ones of the sixties. In the sixties they support industry, with the Alliance for progress. They were lighter than the seventies ones, it didnt exist the school of the americas, and the "doctrina de seguridad nacional". They stood for development. The main change in that was the misrule of the people in the seventies. After the Cordobazo they probably decided that the line of the next dictatorship would have to be bloody.
The model that Chile started with Pinochet was the same model that Videla tried to start here. With the "Chicago boys" commanding the economy.
About life expectancy... look, I dont think there are very big differences between Argentina and Chile. It does really mean something? To me not. I knew Chile has better indicators, but they are practically the same.
What is important and you MUST see, and you did not say anything, is what I said, INEQUALITY, in which the differences between Argentina and Chile are in fact VERY BIG, and with Brazil too.
Inequality is the main reason of a lot of other social problems, like urban violence.
