m Signing comment by 198.103.221.52 - "" |
|||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
* I disagee. I think they should be kept separate. "Miracle of Chile" is more philosphical and academic, with an economist's viewpoint. This article discusses the more practical aspects of the economy. They have different audiences. Combining them will diminsh both. [[User:Andrew8|Andrew8]] 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
* I disagee. I think they should be kept separate. "Miracle of Chile" is more philosphical and academic, with an economist's viewpoint. This article discusses the more practical aspects of the economy. They have different audiences. Combining them will diminsh both. [[User:Andrew8|Andrew8]] 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
* Keep separate. This is an historical event, rather than a analysis of a state's economy. Merging will only dilute this article. Merging this article would be similar to merging articles like "The great depression" into "Economy of the USA", or merging "Keneysian economics" into "Economy of the USA".--[[User:RichSatan|RichSatan]] 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* Keep seperate. As others have mentioned, this is a historical event with a LOT of academic debate associated with it. It deserves to remain as a seperate subject in Wikipedia, not a part of a discussion of the current economy of Chile. This should remain a seperate page. [[User:Dissembly|Dissembly]] ([[User talk:Dissembly|talk]]) 05:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
* Keep seperate. As others have mentioned, this is a historical event with a LOT of academic debate associated with it. It deserves to remain as a seperate subject in Wikipedia, not a part of a discussion of the current economy of Chile. This should remain a seperate page. [[User:Dissembly|Dissembly]] ([[User talk:Dissembly|talk]]) 05:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
* Keep separate. "Miracle of Chile" is notable event and also it is too big to be merged. --[[User:Doopdoop|Doopdoop]] ([[User talk:Doopdoop|talk]]) 22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
* Keep separate. "Miracle of Chile" is notable event and also it is too big to be merged. --[[User:Doopdoop|Doopdoop]] ([[User talk:Doopdoop|talk]]) 22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 40: | Line 39: | ||
Keep separate. "Miracle of Chile" is a specific phenomena arising from the Chicago economic school's influence. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/198.103.221.52|198.103.221.52]] ([[User talk:198.103.221.52|talk]]) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Keep separate. "Miracle of Chile" is a specific phenomena arising from the Chicago economic school's influence. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/198.103.221.52|198.103.221.52]] ([[User talk:198.103.221.52|talk]]) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Gini == |
== Gini == |
Revision as of 01:35, 20 February 2008
![]() | Chile Unassessed Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
Please explain UTM
Can someone please explain the concept of "UTM" (Unidad Tributaria Mensual) in the article? Something I read explained it as "a currency unit, expressed in Chilean pesos, adjusted monthly in line with CPI". But I don't know if it is adjusted up or down, why it is adjusted or its use.
I don't read Spanish, so can not research it myself. Andrew8 13:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
NAFTA; debt level
If Chile already has free trade agreements with the US, Canada and Mexico, why doesn't it belong to the NAFTA, as it was the original proposal almost 10 years ago?
Also, the phrase: The combined public and private foreign debt was roughly 50% of GDP at the end of 2000, low by Latin American standards. seems incorrect. It might be low compared to Argentina and Brazil, but not to Mexico and Costa Rica.
FTA
Chile tried to sign the Nafta in 97 but US Congress was against during the last 90's Having seen that, Chile began to sign trade agreements with(Mex and Canada) And only when the 'fast track'(a tool to sign FTA's quickly by US) was approved in 2002 (expires in 2007) Chile could sign a bilateral FTA with the US. Due to that, Chile has free trade with NAFTA but is not a member.
The debt in 2005 is 39%/GDP (private 80% + public 20%) debt svce: 12%
- The public debt of Chile is currently slightly above 9 billion of dollars, if you compare this with the current GDP of 115 Billion dollars (2005), its not even 10%.
Economy in the Pinochet (post 1973 - late 1980s) era missing
The article doesn't talk about the period 1973-late 80s (called "Miracle of Chile"). It should either mention that in the body or incorporate elements into the main article. Perhaps one paragraph together with a "see main article" would be appropriate. Or merging the two articles. Kingsindian (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
MERGE with "Miracle"?
I'm proposing that the Miracle of Chile article merge into Economy of Chile. You can see my comments on that talk page, and comment here or there.--Dylanfly 21:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- See Talk:Miracle of Chile#MERGE with Economy of Chile. Tazmaniacs 14:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I disagee. I think they should be kept separate. "Miracle of Chile" is more philosphical and academic, with an economist's viewpoint. This article discusses the more practical aspects of the economy. They have different audiences. Combining them will diminsh both. Andrew8 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep seperate. As others have mentioned, this is a historical event with a LOT of academic debate associated with it. It deserves to remain as a seperate subject in Wikipedia, not a part of a discussion of the current economy of Chile. This should remain a seperate page. Dissembly (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep separate. "Miracle of Chile" is notable event and also it is too big to be merged. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagee. Keep separate. "Miracle of Chile" is notable in itself and deserves to be kept separate. --Mel Romero (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep separate. "Miracle of Chile" is a specific phenomena arising from the Chicago economic school's influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.52 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Gini
The article list a number calling it the Gini Coefficient, but I think it should really read "Gini index." The coefficient has a value between 0 and 1, multiplying by 100 gives the index. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.222.20 (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)