Hacker News Reader

Comment by slurry | Hacker News Reader

Two points:

I still perceive India as a "shithole". Whereas China's elite has used its newfound wealth to finance widespread infrastructure and especially sanitation projects, India's has not, not on a mass countrywide scale. Fallen prey to coordination problems is the best gloss you can put on it but I still find it scandalous.

Second, South America's recent progress has mostly been under governments of the left, using more or less coercive statist means that neither the Gates Foundation nor the average HNer would endorse. But maybe it's worth considering.

View on HN

It's easy to overstate how leftist many of the governments there are. Outside of Venezuela (and Cuba), I wouldn't consider anything they have done surprisingly or inappropriately leftist. Photo-ops with Chavez or Castro are meant more for domestic PR than anything policy related.

Most are more authoritarian than leftist, but they are all way more leftist than the U.S. government.

Argentina, for example, has nationalized the oil companies (YPF), and price-fixes and subsidies most utilities, and has started price-fixing food.

Uruguay has also on a lower scale tried price fixing.

Both, plus Brazil, have extensive welfare programs (with the dual purpose of capturing vote for the ruling parties of course).

Such things are typically characterized as leftist.

Sources: I'm Uruguayan.

Right. And of course you have countries like Chile, which has the highest GDP per capita of any south american country and probably the most stable economy, all after adopting free market principals from Friedman. And some of these countries have grown, but to what extent? Where would Brazil be if it dropped it's insanely regulated state and bloated beauracracy and freed up its people? These countries are all still held back by their overbearing governments.

Chile is a terrible example of this; it has one of the higher levels of income inequality on that side of the continent and privatized education and health care. Private education in Chile is appalling; wealthy Chileans send their kids to study to the US or EU and the middle class that can't afford education sends them to Argentina or Brazil. Capital is concentrated on a few hands with a strong dependency on basic commodities exports with low added value. It's better than many places, but the GDP figures don't reflect the realities of a substantial amount of its population.

This "inequality" stuff is really getting annoying. The poor in Chile are far better off than other countries in the region, but because the rich are also richer somehow inequality is all that matters to some.

In fact, the wikipedia article "Poverty in South America" doesn't even mention Chile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_South_America

If the poor can't afford basic health care then there is something really wrong with an economy.

Are you just making stuff up? Chile has a public education system with voucher options, but almost all of the schools are publicly funded with voucher options, and even the private ones get government subisdies. And health care is a mix of public and private (like most countries) and free if you are over 60 or make a low income. So I think you are going to need to elaborate on those points a bit more

I'll give you Chile as a counterexample, although it's not as recent as the others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com