A few decades ago I heard a conservative politician with a naive and at the same time cynical tone regarding the loans of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and the neoliberal economic policy say: “these banks lend you money and at the same time they propose neoliberal measures to be able to pay the bonds. You decide whether you are indebted or paid.”
This is the practice of many Latin American countries so far. They are indebted and, in order to be able to pay, they save on some expenses, and always on those for the benefit of ordinary people. For example, they delete or reduce expenditure, among other things, in the health sector, for education, in the social sector. It has been proven that this practice has been a total fiasco and – as has already been said – it goes to the detriment of the poor majority of our countries. Let’s look at the neoliberal experiences of some Latin American countries and some data.
Colombia: privatisation of health care. Ten years of implementation of this neoliberal measure show that the objectives of universal protection and equal access to medical care have not been achieved. Costs and Public Expenditure have increased, while 40 per cent of the population have no access to the health care system; disease control programmes have deteriorated significantly.
In the field of education, the effects of the neoliberal model are negative, on the one hand due to the theoretical inequality of the preconditions, on the other hand due to the incorrect application of the model in practice and a lack of identification with the specific characteristics of the Colombian economy.
Ecuador: Ecuador’s neoliberal policy is a set of immediate economic measures in favour of corporations, such as major privatization and far-reaching cuts in social spending.
Bank deposits were frozen in Ecuador in 2000. This led to the so-called” feriado bancario " (bank holiday), as a result thousands of Ecuadorians lost all their money. After a 25-year neoliberal phase in Ecuador, the need for an alternative model was stressed in the face of the imminent failure of the neoliberal model, with its negative effects and consequently the duty to meet the social demands that have accumulated over the years.
Brazil: at the end of 2018, gross public debt in Brazil was 5.3 trillion Reais (1.43 trillion dollars). This corresponds to 76.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The trend is rising. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), this rate will be 90 percent in 2020 and over 100 percent in 2022. How can you pay these debts? How’s that going?
To achieve this, state property is sold and public expenditure is cut. In reality, it becomes a choke – iron for the economy, and as always, it hits the workers in general and the poorest most dramatically-bviewed by Bolsonaro’s neoliberal policy, which has contributed to exacerbating the crisis in this country.
Peru: as Julián Lacacta says: “let them all leave!“This is the solution of the people’s movement due to dissatisfaction with the politically ruling class in Peru. The Peruvian crisis is a product of the neoliberal model, which aims to reduce the participation of the state as the most important pillar of production and distribution of wealth, leading to a liberalization of the employment situation of workers. Millions of young people are overexploited and young workers become slaves of the 21st century. Neither the new president, Martin Vizcarra, nor the new ministers of various political orientations, will be able to lead Peru out of this deep structural crisis.
Chile: the neoliberal logic in Chile is extremely harmful to the population, as can be seen in the education system, where a considerable percentage of the population receives education with insufficient academic achievement. This is, on the one hand, the result of the state’s abandonment of public institutions for ‘savings’ and, on the other hand, the subsidisation of private institutions, which – if one approaches with entrepreneurial logic – reduces the expenditure that would be necessary to improve the quality of Education. While a very small proportion (a total of seven percent of students) has access to education with good academic performance because it can pay for it.
In health care, the same thing happens: those who can pay enough money can be treated in a clinic, those who do not have this money must be treated in a public hospital. The differences between the two institutions are as significant as between private educational institutions to be paid and public secondary schools.
In the case of the pension system, the individualistic logic is also a disadvantage for the majority of the population, which for socio-economic reasons was not able to pay accordingly for 30 years and could not create large savings deposits, since their wage just Times corresponds to the average monthly income in Chile, which is about 340,000 Pesos (about 429 euros). Let us recall that Chile is a model for the successful implementation of neoliberal measures.
Latest news: “one of the most revealing data, in November 2018, the poverty level in monthly income in Chile for an average Four-person household in 430.763 Chilean Pesos (€544) was. If we consider only employees in the private sector are employed full-time, then 50 percent earn less than 421.516 Pesos (532 Euro). This means that these families cannot get beyond the poverty line, and it is also essential that two persons of these families work”.
Argentina: The neoliberal government of Mauricio Macri promotes the same model as it was implemented in Brazil by the Finance capital, privatisation, de-industrialisation, re-privatization, deregulation, casualisation of the labour market with a consequent impoverishment of the majority of the population. With these measures, Argentina becomes a pure exporter of primary products, and the population share of the excluded grows. Economists say that the crisis in Argentina contributes to a deficit in trade balance by reducing purchasing power. They are unable to admit that the crisis situation is the same, just as its causes are the same, no matter where the neoliberal model is implemented.
And they are not only unable to concede the wrong path of the neoliberal model, but they insist on its deepening in this new phase of the dictatorship of unity thought imposed by the world’s financial capital.
Latest news: According to Cristina Orgaz, by the BBC, the deterioration of the Argentine economy is shown (on the basis of IMF bonds and the neoliberal measures) as follows: collapse of the international dollar reserves of the Argentine Central Bank; devaluation of the Peso, and the “Blue dollar”; IMF loans.
Costa Rica: neoliberalism in Costa Rica, obviously, if indiscriminate foreign investment supports and the national investment support will be withdrawn. If the neoliberal government does the same with the companies: supporting foreign companies and withdrawing them for national companies. If the neo-liberal government defended unfair competition and trade opening to foreign and private companies, and against our own companies and state-owned enterprises. If the neoliberal government, through COMEX, also defends the free trade agreements which favour transnational companies and favour imports over exports. When the neoliberal government defends the neoliberal economic policy, which protects and frees those who cause and trigger the crises, but asks the workers and employees to pay for and attack, even though they are the ones who are the first to get the economy going and moving.
Conclusion: one must forget the unbridled application of the neoliberal model if countries are to move forward and develop internally, if the gap between poverty, exclusion and inequality in countries implementing it is not to grow further.
Meanwhile, in countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia and other alternative models to the neoliberal model are being tried and tested, which is why these countries are being subjected to coercive measures, economic wars and social and economic terrorism. We are committed to implementing alternative models to the neoliberal model, which have in many cases been successful in the countries where they are implemented, despite their mistakes.