I don't recommend you to use that example again, because it would only make you look bad to anyone who knows what he's/she's arguing about

When Pinochet was forced to step down from power, Chile had a ~39% poverty rate, which if we were to use today's new poverty metric it would be around 70% poverty. [pg17]

https://www.undp.org/content/dam/chile/docs/pobreza/undp_cl_...

If you'd like it in graph form, here's a GINI/GDP graph of Chilean presidential administrations

https://imgur.com/k0s8tKe

X axis is GDP, rightmost is better, Y axis is GINI, highest GINI means stronger inequality

As you can easily see, all the advancements on Chile's development have come since Pinochet stepped down from power and his reforms removed one by one, the source of that data was from the Chilean Central Bank

Also, there was an interview around 8 years ago, where historians outlined that basically the only reason why Pinochet stepped down was because the CIA informed him that the US would not continue to prop up his regime, as Pinochet wanted to renege on the vote to step down from power, but the at the time General in charge of the Navy and the General in charge of the Airforce both of them disagreed with Pinochet, so had the CIA not done so, it could have ended on civil war.

And what's interesting of it all, is that the CIA had documents/assessments which stated that if Pinochet were to continue in power, the already rampant poverty and growing slums in Santiago would work as perfect spots for a hard Communist uprising along the MIR and FPMR, both groups communist guerrillas which had already tried to assassinate Pinochet. So the US stopping support of Pinochet was again, intended to advance their own interests in the country

But yeah, slowly things which were done while Pinochet was in power are being corrected

> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-...

> ...We show that the sale of state-owned firms in dictatorships can help political corporations to emerge and persist over time. Using new data, we characterize Pinochet’s privatizations in Chile and find that some firms were sold underpriced to politically connected buyers. These newly private firms benefited financially from the Pinochet regime. Once democracy arrived, they formed connections with the new government, financed political campaigns, and were more likely to appear in the Panama Papers. These findings reveal how dictatorships can influence young democracies using privatization reforms.