Talk:Economic history of Chile

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Chile C‑class High‑importance

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Economics

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Library of Congress Country Studies

This article contains information from WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies, an attempt to incorporate useful information, text, and images from the Library of Congress Country Studies and the related Country Profiles. These are public domain documents with extensive information on many countries. You may see what other Chile-related contributions have been made by looking at the project's subpage for Chile, which tracks progress for articles on Chile, and look for what contributions you can make, including updates to this article.Library of Congress Country StudiesWikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress Country StudiesTemplate:WikiProject Library of Congress Country StudiesLibrary of Congress Country Studies articles

Untitled

POOOPPMNNJJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.150.64 (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very large sections of this article seem to be have been lifted wholesale from a book. Exhibit A - the almost complete lack on in-text citations. Exhibit B - the presence of "(see Glossary)" in the text, an obvious clue that the poster didn't even edit the stolen material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.124.25 (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The period during and after Pinochet's coup is referred to as "benign neglect" of the economy. So, not only was this lifted from a book, but one clearly in favor of the Monetarist shock therapy that followed. J1.grammar natz (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text is from the Country Studies Program and appears to be in the public domain. GetsEclectic (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1972 section

This section has a lot of unverified and speculative information. It also fails to fully discuss the negative impact that the U.S. had on the Chilean economy during this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.104.81 (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of the War of the Pacific

Hi Dentren, I never deleted Salazar's view as you wrote in the summary. They were and are again there. I added three other reasons given by historians and the rebuke of Salazar's also given by other historians. Why did you delete the other three reasons of the war?. Why did you delete the rebuke of S's allegations? . Why do you want the reader doesn't learn about it?--Keysanger (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: No material has been deleted. Material has been added by me and deleted by you. Please explain it why. --Keysanger (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have re-writen the whole section in the same style as War of the Pacific. These are very different articles. This one is about economics and need to remain so. There is no need or space to detail the exact causes of the War of the Pacific. What is needed here is compact acount on the events and interpretations around Chile's transition toward a saltpetre economy. Clearly this edit fails to do so and as so need to be either reversed or completely rewriten. Moreeover it is replicate of War of the Pacific. I don't want to be overly negative but the edit suffers from another problem: it has destroyed the prose and flow in the article and presents things in a list of points. Well sumarizing, until that edit the article was quite balanced in its content and its depth (I'm happy the article has so far not become a battlefield for right-wing and left-wing economic "truths"). Dentren | ^Talk 14:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I celebrate that you are ready to discuss your proposals in the talk page before making controversial changes. We agree that this is an article about the economy of Chile and should remain so.

What we don't agree is your view of the causes of the War of the Pacific. You present only one, economic determinism biased, of the supposed causes of the war. There are two books in English language that deals exclusively with the war: "Andean Tragedy" by Sater and "Ten Cents War" by Farcau. Both authors, and many others, dismissed the economic deterministic cause as the only one. Farcau means that the internal politics was the main cause of the war. W.Sater sees at least 4 possible causes: 1)Chilean economic interest, 2)Peruvian economic interest, 3)Geopolitical interests of Chile and Peru and 4)Internal politics in Chile and Peru. You deleted three causes that don't fit in your agenda and mention only one of four, the economic deterministic. That isn't a NPOV.

When you say "needed here is compact account on the events and interpretations around Chile's transition toward a saltpeter economy" you are pushing a theory of conscious, premeditated aggression Chile's against Peru and Bolivia. This theory is not supported by the majority of the historians.

I would suggest that you reduce the wording in order to fit better in the article. I prefer the enumeration, but if you are confused, I have no problem to use prose instead of numbers.

Best regards, --Keysanger (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keysanger, you are missinterpreting my point. Causes of war are seldom clear and subject to frequent academic debate. I'm not endorsing a any specific cause of the War of the Pacific, what I'm telling you is that the economic aspects of the war, including its prelude, should be the focus on this article. Dentren | ^Talk 22:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dentren, your last text was very clear and it was impossible to misunderstand it. You mentioned only one cause of the war, only one country where the economy deteriorated, only one country's products outcompeted, only one country with a year of mass business liquidation, only one president looking for "solution" whereby you mean conquest. That is pure POV.

Fact is that

there were three countries in economic trouble, Chile, Peru and Bolivia. Chile's economy was weak but better than of Peru or Bolivia. Your text don't mention it
Peru's guano delivered every year less profit. Your text don't mention it
Peru had defaulted 1877. Your text don't mention it
Peru was looking for a nitrate monopoly. Your text don't mention it
Salazar's economic determinism has been rebuked by mainstream historians. Your text don't mention it

Any mention of the causes of the war must contain all causes given by the mainstream historians or it will be a biased mention. As I proposed, you can shorten the reasons, reduce it and write it in prose.

I propose you following text:

When Chile found herself in command of the province of Tarapaca during the War of the Pacific (see Tarapacá Campaign) and being subjected to pressure from Peru's creditors, who threatened Chile's credit in Europa if their claims were not met, the Chilean government essentially had two options: to nationalize the industry for Chile (that is to pay the Peruvian debt certificates), or to recognize the holders of the Peruvian debt certificates (which John Thomas North hurried to purchase at knock-down prices) as the owner of the assets. On June 11, 1881 Chile issued a decree in favor of the second option and to enact an export tax upon the export of saltpeter. The Chilean war debts, the impossibility to assume the financial obligations of nitrate certificates and the will to deflate European opposition to the annexation were the reasons to the decree that was criticized in Chile after the war.^[1]

References

^ John L. Rector (29 November 2005). The History of Chile. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 102–. ISBN 978-1-4039-6257-7.

--Keysanger (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC) (signed two days later)[reply]

Addressed your concern about various possible causes. Now focus must remain in the economy of Chile not on a elaborate argument regarding the origin of the war. From an economic point of view the war happened at a particular situation that was new for independent Chile (Long depression). There is no way to get around that. Dentren | ^Talk 08:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: you have a POV of the causes of the war (Chile was the bad boy) that isn't supported by most of the historians. I have given many references and I give you today another:

https://books.google.de/books?id=cnoiCofaj4oC James G. Blaine and Latin America von David Healy:

Moreover, they [Blaine and part of the Garfield administration] believed that Chile had acted thus with the aid and encouragement of Great Britain. Once out of office, Blaine made the accusation in its baldest form:

"It is a perfect mistake to speak of this as a Chilean war on Peru. It is a English war on Peru, with Chile as the instrument. ... Chile would never have gone into this war one inch but for her backing by English capital, there was never anything played out so boldly in the world as when they came to divide the loot and the spoils.

However widely held, this belief was simply wrong. While it was true that British capital was flowing into the nitrate industry and British merchants and shippers played a dominant role in Chile's trade, British interests were equally involved in Peru, including the nitrate fields of Tarapacá. British investors were among the major holders of Perú's government debt, and British attempts at mediation had not supported Chile's territorial expansion. Thus British economic interests were much more diverse than Blaine recognized, while the British government's attempts to end the war reflected its view that any major conflict jeopardized economic activity and damaged trade and property.

The perception of Chile as a calculated aggressor carrying out a preconceived plan of conquest was equally false. Both Chile and Peru had slashed their military and naval establishments during the economic depression of the 1870s; Chile's army had been little more ready for was than Peru's. Early commentators had predicted an allied victory, for the combined population of Peru and Bolivia was twice that of Chile, while at the start of hostilities the allied armies outnumbered Chile's two or three to one. Far from pursuing plans of conquest, the government of Chile had shown an agonized indecision in the face of the war crisis of 1879, since Chilean leaders still feared conflict with a different neighbor."

That should be enough for today. Best regards, --Keysanger (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about war. It is about the economics in the context of war. You are discarding the thesis of a recent Chilean National History Award winner from the article because he base his work on primary sources? That is madness. Dentren | ^Talk 14:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Rector2005-1] John L. Rector (29 November 2005). The History of Chile. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 102–. ISBN 978-1-4039-6257-7.

[1]