Is Hatred of the Poor Getting to be as Boring as the Poor Themselves?

Nah. I mean, it'd be pure hubris to think that debunking Chile's white-washers is a rote task. With every new article that comes along to touch up this white picket fence, this dazzling 'Dubai Down South', come stupifying disconnects like The Economist's:

The fact that alternative ways of measuring poverty are now being discussed is a sign of how far Chile has come in the past two decades.

...of 'Democracy'. Patronizing and self-contradictory, these articles insult intelligence, my kindest conclusion is that they're promo-pieces for foreign investment. As if investment really needed some sort of moral justification: a sign that reads "Open" on Chile's front door would suffice. Jingle jingle.

(Not that I have anything against jingling, it would just be nice if that sound was within earshot of the majority of economically oppressed Chileans).

Anyway, at least the concision of the Economist's face plant brought the unstomachable into human proportions, but unfortunately Maclean's sprawling illumination of Chile's gilded street pavement sheds light on the author's own hideous defense of Pinochet's brand of fascism via some pretty puzzling contradictions and half truths.

Shred by shred:

poverty is rapidly becoming an anachronism in Chile...poverty fell from 18.7 per cent in 2003 to 13.7 per cent in 2006

Even the Economist pointed out the UN figure that by European standards Chile's poverty is 27%, not 13%. Would it also be splitting hairs to mention that the official poverty line in Chile is 90 bucks a month?

Pinochet also returned companies nationalized under his predecessor, the Marxist leader Salvador Allende, to their original owners.

But exactly how much was given to previous owners, and how much re-appropriated to Pinochet's cronies? And what about private lands? I actually haven't crunched the numbers but the author doesn't use the word "all" when describing the return. Pay attention.

Why does the author neglect to mention that Pinochet somehow never got around to privatizing that negligible, insignificant little Chilean natural resource called copper. Noam Chomsky, like him or not, made the obvious point that Chile's economic boom can't be ascribed entirely to a Free Market when the biggest export is state-owned.

What many of the politicians fail to acknowledge is the economic legacy of the Pinochet years

And for Christ's sake let's not all jump up at once to condemn a ruthless killer and thief already.

That Milton Friedman's economic shock treatment took billions of dollars out of wages, and put it into profits. Or did I miss something?

...But the grave human rights record of Pinochet's rule dogged the fiercely anti-Communist general until his death last year

Human rights, that nagging fly.

The General, who 'saved' Chile by plunging it into abysmal poverty via an economic policy of cronyism and corruption for nearly his entire reign reversed Chile's 150-year trend of democracy and political involvement, and fine-tuned this country's darker, centuries-old current of pillaging and whorish exportation - a Latin American Tragedy. Today Chile is ranked by the World Bank as among of the world's most unequal countries - Nambia, Swazilandia and worse than Bolivia.

The author goes on to throw pie in socialist face (for all the wrong reasons):

"It has nothing to do with Pinochet," says Heine, referring to Pinochet's effect on the recent poverty statistics. "In those years, poverty and inequality increased considerably." And there was almost no social safety net set up for the poor, many of whom were faced with unemployment after Pinochet's government slashed government bureaucracies and privatized companies.

Where to start. So there's false premise is that the socialist is foolish for thinking social reform works in a vacuum, when (based on the author's build-up in previous paragraphs) it was "demonstrated" that Pinochet is at the root of this Tree of Life called the Chilean Economy.

False premise #2: that social policy is anything but contemptible in Chile. Sure, it's 'better than Pinochet'. Who wouldn't aspire to that?

It gets worse:

When centre-left politicians took over after the general's resignation in 1990, they might have had Pinochet's capitalist experiment in mind...

Might have had? As if it weren't overwhelmingly obvious that the so-called Socialists made a pact with the Devil. The most recent "socialist" presidents preceded by Christian Democrat Alwyn and Frei, whose party had conspired to oust Allende, back in the day.

...when they focused a great deal of their efforts on programs that offered small loans to Chile's most impoverished residents, allowing them to open small businesses in urban shantytowns and impoverished rural areas -- effectively turning Chile into a nation of entrepreneurs, as per Pinochet's original plan.

And with absolute military, political and economic control of his country what on earth could have made Pinochet's oh-so-noble 'Original Plan' so hard to enact, and so late in coming?

The real point:

Effectively a 'nation of entrepreneurs? What does effectively mean?

How do you effectively effect a worthless slogan? Via Special FX? ...a la getting all vague all of a sudden. Indeed, following 15 precise numerical citations the author suddenly becomes too good for numbers. Or perhaps it's her habit of not questioning the General, his reference to "A nation" can remain non-numerical.

Every last Chilean is an entrepreneur, it would seem. Chile's phoenix-like emergence from destitution can be squarely attributed to the fact that a city block might be home to as many as three corner stores and a couple kiosks, desperately scraping by to make ends meet selling trinkets and trifles, millions of non-unionized service and factory workers be damned - they're not worthy of the author's mention.

Thanks to Tom for pointing out the article.