PDA

View Full Version : RIP pinochet



bruno
10-12-2006, 05:28 PM
car horns (of joy?) going off in the street outside my apartment. weeping old ladies outside the military hospital on tv. oh no, not this again.

a lot of hardcore supporters became disaffected with pinochet, not because of the mass killings or dissapearances but because of the bank accounts. peole like thieves less than communists.

to be fair the country was falling apart with sectarian politics and the dictatorship served as an opportunity for the left to get their act together regarding democracy, you either want it or you don't. he implemented a politically conservative and economically liberal project that was in the works long before he came to power. arguably without this shock process the country would be in a different place, not necessarily good. the problem is people had to live in fear, be exiled, tortured, disappeared for this to happen.

i think a crowd is gathering outside, i'll take a look.

anyway he's dead. good. i don't have time for this, i need to work.

bruno
10-12-2006, 05:41 PM
and in a twisted way i have him to thank for learning french and english.. :confused:

Guybrush
10-12-2006, 06:07 PM
Does one always say "RIP", even when the deceased is undeserving of it?

carlos do
10-12-2006, 06:24 PM
Is very surreal

Here in Los Leones street (near the Militar Hospital) is all very quiet.

I´m just waiting for the official notice...Vitar (president of PPD, one of the officialist parties ) just said that there wouldn´t be state funerals (there shouldn´t be!).

Pd:Sorry if my english is noit that good, but you get the idea. :)

bruno
10-12-2006, 06:33 PM
guybrush: i hope he does, he would be better off forgotten, 'in peace', than becoming a factor in chilean politics again, having to go through the same shit all over again. the coup was in 1973, the handover in 1989, it's history, i hope it stays that way.

carlos do: you get to see the old ladies! i'm overlooking plaza italia, a lot of people chanting here (so much for my concentration).

swears
10-12-2006, 06:47 PM
We'll miss you, big guy. :(

























j/k

carlos do
10-12-2006, 06:55 PM
Hi Bruno:

i can´t see the old ladies (Pinochet fans) from here , i´m near Carlos Antúnez street. But i have to go to the supermarket now in Providencia, so we´ll see.

Two weird coincidences: today is Human Rights day, and Pinochet´s wife´s birthdays.:slanted:

I´m seeing Plaza Italia in television now, holy shit!

craner
11-12-2006, 10:58 AM
With all this outstanding:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1565847644.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

What a pity.

mms
11-12-2006, 11:14 AM
good old maggie is still holding him up as an ally, but even the sun aren't really entering into any praise.

matt b
11-12-2006, 11:24 AM
lamont too. the cnut

craner
11-12-2006, 11:25 AM
At least she got rid of Galtieri. Something Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who also died a couple of days ago, did not want her to do.

bassnation
11-12-2006, 02:44 PM
i hope he rots in hell, and thatcher can join him anytime she likes.

polystyle desu
11-12-2006, 06:06 PM
Seconding that , the *ucker ...
Watch out for flying rocks and who knows what else Bruno & Carlos !

Canada J Soup
11-12-2006, 06:28 PM
Pinochet's death - and the reactions that have been reported - has gotten me wondering what the British public reaction is likely to be when Thatcher eventually passes. Will it even be possible for her to be interred in a public place or would she be likely to end up having the most desecrated grave in the UK?

bruno
11-12-2006, 06:42 PM
it was all chanting and moaning by day but but at night it was a battlefield! roughly ten carabineros against a little mob of lumpen/revolutionaries. no rocks but plenty of molotov cocktails, and tear gas came in through the elevator shaft and through the windows, it was hardcore. a lot of fun except for the fact i didn't get any work done.

regarding the celebrations and chanting i don't know, i thought it was kind of obscene. plus there is nothing to chant about, really, he got off scot free.

what people don't realise is that for one that falls another is bound to rise, and you never know what monster history has in store. here's to the future.

bruno
11-12-2006, 06:43 PM
i thought brits loved thatcher :p

swears
11-12-2006, 06:43 PM
Pinochet's death - and the reactions that have been reported - has gotten me wondering what the British public reaction is likely to be when Thatcher eventually passes. Will it even be possible for her to be interred in a public place or would she be likely to end up having the most desecrated grave in the UK?

Half the populace her think she was great, and the other half still despise her, but there probably won't be that much fuss made. She managed to win three elections, and the centre-right middle classes still have a soft spot for her. I'm too young to have experienced a lot of the negative effects of her rule like unemployment reaching 5 million, so while I understand how bad she was, it's hard for me to hate her as much as I hate Blair.
Snappy dresser, though.

polystyle desu
11-12-2006, 07:09 PM
Yea, Bruno here's to the future.

gek-opel
11-12-2006, 07:46 PM
The great thing about death? Every fucker dies eventually. Thatch will be a highlight! I need to meet up with my Chilean friend to toast the sad demise of another American state sponsored mass murderer tho...

polystyle desu
13-12-2006, 10:32 PM
P's death means no more legal proceedings against the ol bird -
means ye old connections with Bush 1 won't be brought out.
The Bush fam dodges one ...

hundredmillionlifetimes
14-12-2006, 12:34 AM
The great thing about death? Every fucker dies eventually. Thatch will be a highlight! I need to meet up with my Chilean friend to toast the sad demise of another American state sponsored mass murderer tho...

"The future is death. Long live the future!"

"It's not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true." --Henry Kissinger, principal sponsor of Pinochet's 1973 coup.


I'm reminded of one of the first feature films I saw about Chile, ironically a Hollywood one (from a time when it was still possible to make such exotica questioning US forpol) - Costa Gavras' Missing, featuring a politically innocent what-da-fuck indignant Jack Lemmon spouting "But I'm an AMERICAN! I've got RIGHTS you know!" during his search with daughter Spacek for his disappeared journalist son-in-law.

http://images.programme-tv.net/img/large/19/194044.jpg "Is that ... is that David Blaine?"


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39302000/jpg/_39302364_blaine_coffin203.jpg http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42341000/jpg/_42341515_afp_body_416credit.jpg

David Blaine in Undead Pinochet "buried alive" expose ...

"Then they talked about economic growth, the country’s modernization or its insertion in the world market, of Free Trade Agreements and macroeconomic indicators. And then the disappeared disappeared again, as did the assassinated, the tortured, and the prisoners. They disappeared between the interstices of an omnipresent market that pierces the soul of a wounded country. Like it was wounded on September 11th 1973 and every day and every night after by the dictatorship of a dictator that knew, that always knew (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15873.htm)."

Pinochet, just like David Blaine, performed magical deeds. Pinochet, for instance, was universally credited with the Miracle of Chile, the wildly successful experiment in free markets, privatization, de-regulation and union-free economic expansion whose laissez-faire seeds spread from Valparaiso to Virginia.

But Cinderella’s pumpkin did not really turn into a coach. The Miracle of Chile, too, was just another fairy tale. The claim that General Pinochet begat an economic powerhouse was one of those utterances whose truth rested entirely on its repetition.

Chile could boast some economic success. But that was the work of Salvador Allende - who saved his nation, miraculously, a decade after his death.

"So there we have it. Keynes and Marx, not Friedman, saved Chile."-----Greg Palast


But the myth of the free-market Miracle persists because it serves a quasi-religious function. Within the faith of the Reaganauts and Thatcherites, Chile provides the necessary genesis fable, the ersatz Eden from which laissez-faire dogma sprang successful and shining.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42337000/jpg/_42337051_thatcher_ap.jpg "Stop pointing your finger, dearest! It makes me very sad."

In 1973, the year General Pinochet brutally seized the government, Chile’s unemployment rate was 4.3%. In 1983, after ten years of free-market modernization, unemployment reached 22%. Real wages declined by 40% under military rule.

In 1970, 20% of Chile’s population lived in poverty. By 1990, the year “President” Pinochet left office, the number of destitute had doubled to 40%. Quite a miracle.

Pinochet did not destroy Chile’s economy all alone. It took nine years of hard work by the most brilliant minds in world academia, a gaggle of Milton Friedman’s trainees, the Chicago Boys. Under the spell of their theories, the General abolished the minimum wage, outlawed trade union bargaining rights, privatized the pension system, abolished all taxes on wealth and on business profits, slashed public employment, privatized 212 state industries and 66 banks and ran a fiscal surplus.

Freed of the dead hand of bureaucracy, taxes and union rules, the country took a giant leap forward … into bankruptcy and depression. After nine years of economics Chicago style, Chile’s industry keeled over and died. In 1982 and 1983, GDP dropped 19%. The free-market experiment was kaput, the test tubes shattered. Blood and glass littered the laboratory floor. Yet, with remarkable chutzpah, the mad scientists of Chicago declared success. In the US, President Ronald Reagan’s State Department issued a report concluding, “Chile is a casebook study in sound economic management.” Milton Friedman himself coined the phrase, “The Miracle of Chile.” Friedman’s sidekick, economist Art Laffer, preened that Pinochet’s Chile was, “a showcase of what supply-side economics can do.”

It certainly was. More exactly, Chile was a showcase of de-regulation gone berserk.

The Chicago Boys persuaded the junta that removing restrictions on the nation’s banks would free them to attract foreign capital to fund industrial expansion.

Pinochet sold off the state banks - at a 40% discount from book value - and they quickly fell into the hands of two conglomerate empires controlled by speculators Javier Vial and Manuel Cruzat. From their captive banks, Vial and Cruzat siphoned cash to buy up manufacturers - then leveraged these assets with loans from foreign investors panting to get their piece of the state giveaways.

The bank’s reserves filled with hollow securities from connected enterprises. Pinochet let the good times roll for the speculators. He was persuaded that Governments should not hinder the logic of the market.

By 1982, the pyramid finance game was up. The Vial and Cruzat “Grupos” defaulted. Industry shut down, private pensions were worthless, the currency swooned. Riots and strikes by a population too hungry and desperate to fear bullets forced Pinochet to reverse course. He booted his beloved Chicago experimentalists. Reluctantly, the General restored the minimum wage and unions’ collective bargaining rights. Pinochet, who had previously decimated government ranks, authorized a program to create 500,000 jobs. In other words, Chile was pulled from depression by dull old Keynesian remedies, all Franklin Roosevelt, zero Reagan/Thatcher. New Deal tactics rescued Chile from the Panic of 1983, but the nation’s long-term recovery and growth since then is the result of - cover the children’s ears - a large dose of socialism.

To save the nation’s pension system, Pinochet nationalized banks and industry on a scale unimagined by Communist Allende. The General expropriated at will, offering little or no compensation. While most of these businesses were eventually re-privatized, the state retained ownership of one industry: copper.

For nearly a century, copper has meant Chile and Chile copper. University of Montana metals expert Dr. Janet Finn notes, “Its absurd to describe a nation as a miracle of free enterprise when the engine of the economy remains in government hands.” Copper has provided 30% to 70% of the nation’s export earnings. This is the hard currency which has built today’s Chile, the proceeds from the mines seized from Anaconda and Kennecott in 1973 - Allende’s posthumous gift to his nation.

Agribusiness is the second locomotive of Chile’s economic growth. This also is a legacy of the Allende years. According to Professor Arturo Vasquez of Georgetown University, Washington DC, Allende’s land reform, the break-up of feudal estates (which Pinochet could not fully reverse), created a new class of productive tiller-owners, along with corporate and cooperative operators, who now bring in a stream of export earnings to rival copper. “In order to have an economic miracle,” says Dr. Vasquez, “maybe you need a socialist government first to commit agrarian reform.”

polystyle desu
14-12-2006, 02:38 AM
Yow, hear that hundred
The Blaine and Missing bits are a hoot tho'

Ya now, hundred I was just digging your Chalmers quotes in the Al Q misunderstood thread today, will get bk to that one

And Bruno, Carlos how are the streets by tonight ?

Canada J Soup
14-12-2006, 03:17 PM
Half the populace her think she was great, and the other half still despise her, but there probably won't be that much fuss made. She managed to win three elections, and the centre-right middle classes still have a soft spot for her. I'm too young to have experienced a lot of the negative effects of her rule like unemployment reaching 5 million, so while I understand how bad she was, it's hard for me to hate her as much as I hate Blair.
Snappy dresser, though.

You reckon? The only English person I've ever met who admitted that she liked Thatcher was my ex-girlfriend's mother. Of course, I don't tend to hang around with too many Tories. Growing up in Ireland Thatcher was universally despised, which might have coloured my persception of how hated she was. That and Ben Elton.

bruno
15-12-2006, 11:30 PM
all's quiet on the southern front, polystyle. all is back to normal.

vimothy
19-12-2006, 10:11 AM
Howdy folks, just been browsing the boards and thought I'd respond to this thread, because there seems to be some astonishing opinions being bandied about.

"So there we have it. Keynes and Marx, not Friedman, saved Chile."-----Greg Palast

LOL! The very idea that the two most useless economists in history, who have done more than any other thinkers to advance the cause of human impoverishment, could save any country...!

The "myth of the free market" (what do you mean myth?) persists because of developments in political economy - the austrian neo liberals were ignored for most of the last century by governments more intersted in Keynes and Marx, or Marxist's who claimed that they had solved the calculation problems inherent in Marxian economics. The golden age of demand management (and death of the business cycle) and the rise pf Communism. Hayek for instance ceased to be involved in economics, and was generally held to have lost the debate centred around the Socialist Calculation Problem which von Mises started in the '20s. That is, until a very strange thing happened - he was proved right by history. Hence the rise of neo liberal economics in the '80s: it's no more sinister than that. Hayek was in fact, like Friedman, a libertarian who believed in freedom, certainly not in military dictatorships.


But then something bizarre happened. The late 20th century decided to provide a reality check on the academic scribblers. The 1960s and '70s saw post-war prosperity ignite into an inflationary spiral in the very countries that had embraced Keynesianism (mainly the United States and the U.K.). Shocking to the peer-review process, which had rigorously proven otherwise on many occasions, full employment could not be maintained via off-the-shelf Keynesian bromides. The traditional therapy-stimulate consumption and penalize savings with a healthy infusion of government deficit spending-was now being refereed by the real world, and the results were found "nonrobust." The macro models of Cambridge, Harvard, Berkeley, and MIT fell apart, and by the 1980s the very solutions that Keynes had hustled were being painfully thwacked as precisely the root of our troubles. Suddenly the old classical medicine-savings, investment, balanced budgets, competition, and productivity growth-were popularly claimed to be the economic-policy goal of good government. Even the politicians, so bubbly to receive Keynes's prescription for government spending as the magical elixir with which to treat an ailing economy, had publicly abandoned Keynesianism.

And the possibility of rational economic planning under socialism? Yes, we ran that experiment as well. The Third World tried it and promptly dropped to income levels last recorded in the Pleistocene Epoch. The Second (Communist) World tried it in massive police-state doses and...well...dissolved.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/33304.html

There's a much better and more balanced examination of Pinochet at Samizdata:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2006/12/augusto_pinoche.html


After the economy recovered from the mass takeover of private property, both the official nationalizations, and the unofficial takeovers by armed mobs that Allende had organized, and from the hyper inflation, which was neither 'caused by the CIA' nor caused by 'Marxism' - Allende and his people just liked printing money like crazy, there is not a word anywhere in the writings of Karl Marx that urges such a policy,. Pinochet got a Constitution passed by the voters in (if my memory serves) 1981 so that he could point to popular support, but then the economy fell off a cliff again.

The reason for this is interesting. For a man who is supposed to have been close to Milton Friedman (in fact they only met once, and Friedman often openly said that he opposed military government) Pinochet ignored a central teaching of his - one must not rig exchange rates.

The truth is that Pinochet did not know much about economics. And the advisers that he had ('Chicago boys' or not) did not agree with Milton Friedman on this - they thought 'rigging' the exchange rate to the Dollar was a good way of getting rid of high inflation.

Actually the supply of fiat (government command) money is the only thing they should have been looking at. But they wanted to be clever and run an exchange rate scam.

I do not know why people do this. Nigel Lawson (to give one example) actually wrote against this practice when he was editor of the Spectator, but as Chancellor he himself rigged the exchange rate of the Pound (with the D-Mark) which led to the expansion of the money supply and a classic boom-bust cycle (which the economically illiterate blamed on tax cuts).

polystyle desu
19-12-2006, 02:21 PM
Thanks for coming out
first post Vimothy ? (and sorry if not!)

vimothy
19-12-2006, 02:39 PM
Yes it is! Thanks for the heads up and greetings all.

[I find that many people are needlessly mistrustful of free markets and capitalism - which is rather strange when it is in the process of eradicating extreme poverty in our lifetimes, and bringing to us unprecendented wealth. Right at the apex of history and economic development, the sort of society people are literally dying to enter, there seems to be endless numbers of people moaning and complaining. Oh well.

Globalisation = good
Greg Palast = gah

Sorry for the tangental rant.]

polystyle desu
20-12-2006, 09:43 PM
Pinochet to get a street named after 'em ...

hundredmillionlifetimes
21-12-2006, 06:34 AM
Howdy folks, just been browsing the boards and thought I'd respond to this thread, because there seems to be some astonishing opinions being bandied about.

Astonishing, yes - for Ayn Rand fanatics ...



There's a much better and more balanced examination of Pinochet at Samizdata:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2006/12/augusto_pinoche.html

From Samizdata site: "We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, libertarians, extropians, futurists, 'Porcupines', Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers ..."

Mmmm, please forgive the unfortunate and misleading comparison, but these neo-liberal fundamentalists make their Christian or Islamic equivalents look positively angelic.

Samizdata summary: "The best thing that can be said about Pinochet is that without him, things would have been much, MUCH worse."

Mein Fuhrer! I can walk!!

CIA in Chile (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/Chile%20Coup_USHand.html)

Brief Summary of Chile's History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chile)

vimothy
21-12-2006, 03:08 PM
From Samizdata site: "We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, libertarians, extropians, futurists, 'Porcupines', Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers ..."

Mmmm, please forgive the unfortunate and misleading comparison, but these neo-liberal fundamentalists make their Christian or Islamic equivalents look positively angelic.

Well, I would hope that you would have issue with the content of the post rather than any percieved notions of identity, but never mind. (Hardly free thinking rationalism though, is it)? As for fundamentalism, in what sense are they fundamentalists? Do they make Islamic fundamentalists look angelic because they are mass murderers on an even greater scale? Becaue they are more close minded? Is it simply by virtue of their not agreeing with Marxian or Keynesian economic programmes? Do you have an economic disagreement with (if we accept that the Samizdata writers are neo-liberals) neo-liberalism, or is it merely your own predjudices coming to the fore?



Samizdata summary: "The best thing that can be said about Pinochet is that without him, things would have been much, MUCH worse."

Doesn't seem that controversial really. The BEST thing that can be said, not the worst thing.

hundredmillionlifetimes
21-12-2006, 06:00 PM
Well, I would hope that you would have issue with the content of the post rather than any percieved notions of identity, but never mind.

It was too (depressingly) hilarious in its infantilist and gratuitous conflation of some of the the most twisted and irrational prejudices about political economy I've ever had the displeasure to read here since a tread many months ago on Rand/Objectivism, viz "LOL! The very idea that the two most useless economists in history, who have done more than any other thinkers to advance the cause of human impoverishment, could save any country...!" ----Such blanket ignorance indicates that you know absolutely nothing about political economy, just a hodge-podge of sociopathic snippings and dogma from the long-discredited right-wing Austrian ideologues (Hayek, Menger, Wieser, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises) brought on board the reactionary 1970s neo-liberal agenda to regressively peddle a parasitic socio-economic Darwinism from the fascist 1930s ... Nowhere in your post do you even begin to demonstrate or properly justify your announcement that Keynes and Marx are "the two most useless economists in history." It might indeed be distinctively productive for you to start thinking this through however simply and then further developing such analysis rather than continuing to broadcast inane pronouncements.

Samizdata summary: "The best thing that can be said about Pinochet is that without him, things would have been much, MUCH worse."


Doesn't seem that controversial really. The BEST thing that can be said, not the worst thing.

[sigh]


A study of the inter-American system published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London concluded that, while the US pays lip service to democracy, the real commitment is to "private, capitalist enterprise." When the rights of investors are threatened, democracy has to go; if these rights are safeguarded, killers and torturers will do just fine.

Parliamentary governments were barred or overthrown, with US support and sometimes direct intervention, in Iran in 1953, in Guatemala in 1954 (and in 1963, when Kennedy backed a military coup to prevent the threat of return to democracy), in the Dominican Republic in 1963 and 1965, in Brazil in 1964, in Chile in 1973 and often elsewhere. Our policies have been very much the same in El Salvador and in many other places across the globe.

The methods are not very pretty. What the US-run contra forces did in Nicaragua, or what our terrorist proxies do in El Salvador or Guatemala, isn't only ordinary killing. A major element is brutal, sadistic torture -- beating infants against rocks, hanging women by their feet with their breasts cut off and the skin of their face peeled back so that they'll bleed to death, chopping people's heads off and putting them on stakes. The point is to crush independent nationalism and popular forces that might bring about meaningful democracy.

If you want a global system that's subordinated to the needs of US investors, you can't let pieces of it wander off. It's striking how clearly this is stated in the documentary record -- even in the public record at times. Take Chile under Allende.

Chile is a fairly big place, with a lot of natural resources, but again, the United States wasn't going to collapse if Chile became independent. Why were we so concerned about it? According to Kissinger, Chile was a "virus" that would "infect" the region with effects all the way to Italy.

Despite 40 years of CIA subversion, Italy still has a labor movement. Seeing a social democratic government succeed in Chile would send the wrong message to Italian voters. Suppose they get funny ideas about taking control of their own country and revive the workers' movements the CIA undermined in the 1940s?

In other words, what the US wants is "stability," meaning security for the "upper classes and large foreign enterprises." If that can be achieved with formal democratic devices, OK. If not, the "threat to stability" posed by a good example has to be destroyed before the virus infects others.

That's why even the tiniest speck poses such a threat, and may have to be crushed. ===Chomsky

vimothy
21-12-2006, 06:31 PM
Ok, Marx: how many dead in Communist and Socialist states due to their impossibly bad economies?

Keynes: catastrophic result of Keynesian economics in the UK and US in the latter half of 20th Century?

As for classical liberalism being a throw back to the fascism of the 1930s... WTF? Fascism and Socialism are much closer in economic terms. (And in fact, right wing is neither here nor there - "Why I am not a Conservative" by Hayek good for this).

What exactly is your economic disagreement with liberalism?

And... Noam Chomsky?

[sigh]

vimothy
21-12-2006, 06:41 PM
Oh yeah, and re Pinochet: the BEST thing, NOT the worst.

gek-opel
21-12-2006, 06:59 PM
Keynes: catastrophic result of Keynesian economics in the UK and US in the latter half of 20th Century?

Neo-Keynesianism... Not quite the same as JMK himself... see here...
http://www.paecon.net/StrangeHistory.htm

hundredmillionlifetimes
21-12-2006, 10:29 PM
Ok, Marx: how many dead in Communist and Socialist states due to their impossibly bad economies?

In your all-encompassing, deterministic authorial trajectory, you'll also not forget to pass judgement on Adam Smith as the cause (célèbre perhaps?) of all the 20th century's capitalist killing machines - especially WWI and WWII (and the Crash and Depression in between), not to mention the present neolib/neocon killing fields in Iraq and so on. And then too we'll have to blame 2,000 years of bloody religious mayhem on Jesus; and God knows what consumerist bloodbaths Santa Claus is currently provoking ...


Keynes: catastrophic result of Keynesian economics in the UK and US in the latter half of 20th Century?

The catastrophic result of its abandonment in those countries ... [and scientistic mis-appropriation/mis-application, as Gek-Opel's "post-autistic economics" link argues].


As for classical liberalism being a throw back to the fascism of the 1930s... WTF?

What I said was that the 1970s neo-liberal agenda co-opted the 1930s Austrian economists [Hayek becoming an advisor to Thatcher, for instance] - whose origins were in "a parasitic socio-economic Darwinism from the fascist 1930s."


Fascism and Socialism are much closer in economic terms.

They couldn't be further apart in economic terms [do you like to imagine that the National Socialists had some connection with socialists? Well yes, they did: they systematically murdered them]. Fascism is a capitalist system - this was as true in Mussolini's Italy (Corporatist) and Franco's Spain (Patriarchal Catholic) as it was in Nazi Germany (the Nazi War Machine was funded entirely via the private Swiss banking system, the economy run by private corporate conglomerates, while Germany's population continued watching [largely] Hollywood movies and purchasing American consumer durables throughout the war). Contemporary America too, with its mass-populist combination of rampant neo-liberalism and expanding Christian fundamentalism is moving rapidly to this fascist-capitalist model.


What exactly is your economic disagreement with liberalism?

Uh - it sucks? Or exactly sucks [1 suck + 1 suck = suck suck]?


And... Noam Chomsky?

[sigh]

Your replication here of my earlier response suggests that you wish to equate Pinochet with Chomsky?

vimothy
08-01-2007, 04:07 PM
Neo-Keynesianism... Not quite the same as JMK himself... see here...
http://www.paecon.net/StrangeHistory.htm

Intersting link, especially this:


Neoclassical economics began as a project to fashion an economic model in the image of Newtonian mechanics, one in which economic agents could be treated as if they were particles obeying mechanical laws, and all of whose behaviour could, in principle, be described simultaneously by a solvable system of equations. This narrative required the treatment of human desires as fundamental data, which, like the masses of physical bodies in classical mechanics, are not affected by the relations being modelled.

I have just read an interview with Hayek where he discusses this very notion:


I believe that economics and the sciences of complex phenomena in general, which include biology, psychology, and so on, cannot be mod- eled after the sciences that deal with essentially simple phe- nomena like physics.

Don't be shocked when I call physics essentially simple phenomena. What I mean is that the theories which you need to explain physics need to contain very few variables. You can easily verify this if you look into the formula appendix to any textbook on phvsics, where you will find that none of the formulas which state the general laws of physics contain more than two or three variables.

You can't explain anything of social life with a theory which refers to only two or three variables. The result is that we can never achieve theories which we can use for effective prediction of particular phenomena, because you would have to insert into the blanks of the formula so many particular data that you never know them all. In that sense, our possibility both of explaining and predicting social phenomena is very much more limited than it is in physics.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/33304.html