It doesn't have to be that way

When we examine the results of Venezuela's public policies over the past couple decades it seems ever so much more obvious that Pinochet put Chile on the correct economic course.

As my statists friends that jump to the defence of merciless dictators like Castro and Chavez (and his replacement Maduro) say, “but Pinochet was a brutal murderer”. That he was initially, but when he saw the economic light, he turned the economy around, stopped his brutal ways, allowed free elections and moved on.

Of course this is not to suggest that Pinochet’s brutality was a good thing but “Allende's own refusal to obey and/or enforce more than 7,000 Chilean Supreme Court and other legislative rulings (as detailed in the Resolution of August 22, 1973) was a sign of dictatorial style in defiance of Chile's democratic government institutions.”

But the red herring argument that Pinochet was worse than Allende is debatable anyway. The question posed is, which outcome is better today, Chile or Venezuela? And without a shadow of a doubt, Chile is far better off after Pinochet corrected the economic course in that country.

Chile seems to be sliding back but is still considered the economic miracle of Latin America.

On the other hand Venezuela has committed economic suicide.

Which path will you take Bahamas? Will you continue down the Socialist Venezuelan Road or seek the wisdom of the Chilean Economic Miracle during the 1980’s and 1990’s.

The important thing to note is there are choices in economic polices. Committing economic suicide does not seem like a good option.