[stfu]

This is what I mean by worked:

It leads Latin American nations in human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption. It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, democratic development and state of peace. However, it has a high economic inequality, as measured by the Gini index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile

[funkaster]

That doesn't mean at all that it worked. All that information means is that Chile, now is in a good position relative to the rest of Latin America. Taking conclusions and saying that the reason Chile is the way it is now is due to the US intervention is naive and simplistic. There are so many factors involved in that fact, that it makes little sense to make that argument.

Using the same co-relation you're trying to use, I could say that the intervention was a bad thing, because while Chile is not bad, we could be doing a lot better if it weren't because of the problems we had to face. That is also not the case, and again, too many variables involved that you're freely taking away.

[stfu]

I absolutely agree that certain key numbers are always simplifying the complexity inherent in an economy. But it appears to the outside, that fundamentally there are no particular reasons that would make Chile any different to other Latin American countries (e.g. historic trade positions, natural resources, etc).

[onetwothreefour]

You don't know what you're talking about.

[guylhem]

You seem biased. He offered a valid argument.