Talk:Economic history of Chile

Chile 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
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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Economics Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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

Untitled

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

[1]
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)

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)

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)

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)

He represents a very tiny spectrum of the historical analyse, probably a fringe theory. --Keysanger (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

So contemporary presidient Anibal Pinto, Chilean National History Award winner Gabriel Salazar and Yale University Ph.D. Julio Pinto are all fringe theorists? Don't think so.

Also after a rather brief search found more of what you would call "fringe theory" this time published in the Journal of Latin American Studies . There one can read the following:

the declaration of war alone initiated an economic period entirely different from that preceding it, immediately relegating the crisis into oblivion'.[21] Opinions such as this have led some historians to focus their attention on the economic factors that preceded and formed the background to the conflict of the Pacific

The grounds you have en trying to remove material since February are not valid. You do have some points in that the origins of the war can not be reduced to economic factors. Because of this I have done some changes so that the reader of the article can be aware of alternative explanations, but because this article is about the economic history of Chile and not about the origins of the war the economic aspects of the war are discussed more in depth. Dentren | ^Talk 17:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

I looked at the third opinion request. I personally find the discussion to be too long for Third Opinion, which is a very light-weight process. I would suggest moderated dispute resolution, in which a moderator can ask detailed questions to determine what the issues are. I am leaving the request listed in case someone else does respond to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Second attempt

Hi Dentren,

You may agree this solution if you stick with the WP rules:

WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
WP:NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
WP:POVFORK: Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article

You said that your guide was "Being concise", "Avoid duplication of things already discussed in depth elsewhere", or "Mention of complexity is redundant as long as no simplistic view is presented", "Mention of historiographical debates/differences should not obstruct flow or prose", "Anything about the War of the Pacific that is not related to the economics of Chile should be kept to a minimum and discussed elsewhere", etc. I think these considerations may belong to the "Manual of style" but they are not the pilars of Wikipedia or reasons why a complex events should be not explained.

I propose to replace following wording of the current version:

Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated.[55] Chilean wheat exports were outcompeted by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain.[50][56] Chile's silver mining income also dropped.[50] In the mid-1870s, Peru nationalized its nitrate industry, affecting both British and Chilean interests.[55] Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile.[55] Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation".[55] In 1878, then-President Anibal Pinto expressed his concern through the following statement:[50][55]

If a new mining discovery or some novelty of that sort does not come to improve the actual situation, the crisis that has long been felt will worsen

—Anibal Pinto, president of Chile, 1878.

It was during this context of economic crisis that Chile became involved the costly Saltpetre War (1879–1883) wrestling control of mineral-rich provinces of Peru and Bolivia. The notion that Chile entered the war to obtain economical gains has been a topic of debate among historians. The crisis in has also been considered by Jorge Pinto Rodríguez a force behind the new pulse of conquest of indigenous lands that took place in Araucanía in the 1870s.

through the new version:

Regarding the economic causes of the War of the Pacific, in the 1870s, Bolivia, Chile and Peru economies suffered under an exceptionally strong economic downturn triggered by the global financial crisis and internal turmoil. In 1873, Chilean wheat exports were outcompeted by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain. Chile's silver mining income also dropped. In 1872 Peru faced bankruptcy, guano exports fell from 575,000 tons in 1869 to 350,000 tons in 1873 (Greenhill, 108). In 1877 the Exchequer was empty and the external debt was in default (Greenhill, 124). Historian Querejazu describes the situation in Bolivia as plagued by three riders of the apocalypse: the hunger crisis, the pest, and the the death (Querejazu, III, Cap XII, 195). So, as marxist historian V.G.Kiernan says, "All three countries were hard up, and run by oligarchies which disliked paying taxes and looked to revenue from these fertilizers [guano and nitrate] as a substitute (Kiernan, 14)

The causes of the War of the Pacific were manifold and complex: not only economic but also territorial, geopolitical, and domestic political issues combined to produce an impasse that lead to war and it is disputed which was the main cause of the war as there are mutual recriminations about the origin on the war. Bolivia broke flagrantly the 1874 Boundary treaty imposing a new tax on Chilean capital, Peru wanted to improve the guano and nitrate revenues through a monopoly but needed for this purpose the control over the Bolivian salitreras and Chile sought to protect the business of the nitrate in Chilean hands.

As you can see, I dropped primary sources (Pinto, etc) and I added the situation in Peru and Bolivia, that the three countries looked to nitrate as tax income. Also a mention of the other possible causes of the war wasn't in your proposal.

--Keysanger (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The current version focus on Chiles economy, what you are proposing is to water down content on Chile's economy with content on Bolivia and Peru and the political development that led to war. I also notice you attempt removed references to Salazar who you originally regard as fringe and "Marxist". There is no reason to delete citation of Pinto.

The section need to discuss: a) the economy of Chile in the 1870s, b) economic aspects of the entrance to war, the war itself, and the post war period all focused on Chile without any attempt to shift focus to Bolivia and Peru. Dentren | ^Talk 13:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)