By this point in our visit to Chile, we had heard a great deal of testimony about the human rights abuses perpetrated by the military dictatorship and the social and political ramifications of that era on Chile today. However, the information we had gathered - largely anecdotal/qualitative - was quite similar in nature. That made our visit with Alvaro Ramis of the economically-focused ATTAC all the more enlightening. His presentation, built strictly around quantitative data, painted a very different portrait of the post-Pinochet transition than we had seen up to that point.

Defenders of Pinochet argue that, while his human rights record is deplorable (OK, some will excuse those abuses, but they are irrational), his authoritarian rule served Chile well in the long run, because he oversaw an economic transformation away from Allende's disastrous policies and towards an internationally-oriented market capitalism. This view has been roundly challenged, most recently by Heraldo Munoz. Pinochet's critics have, in some cases, though, swung too far in the opposite direction, arguing that Pinochet trashed the Chilean economy but that the post-dictatorship governments have overseen a dramatic recovery.

Alvaro challenged the party lines on both sides. The first statistic he presented, tracking poverty rates in Chile, indicated that poverty dropped between 1987 and 2003 from 45% to 18.8%; recent studies show that the decline continued in 2006, to 13.7%. However, he quickly explained, that is highly misleading. If one accepts this information, along with information compiled in similar studies in Europe, then one must also accept that there were more people living in poverty in Europe in 2006 (15%) than in Chile. The problem stems from how poverty is defined. Chile has used a relative poverty metric which considers those living in poverty to be those making less than 50% of the average pre-tax income. But, the markets are so distinctive, this sort of measurement is problematic, as it sets up a European making 1050 euros/month and a Chilean making $100/month (US) as equals. While the cost of living is certainly much lower in Chile, it hardly bridges the gap.

If one makes a modest adjustment to the poverty definition, raising the poverty line from 43,712 pesos/month to 66,388 pesos, the percentage of those impoverished in Chile jumps from 18.7% to 36.4%.

But, Alvaro explained, looking at Chile in such sweeping terms is misleading. Instead, an analyst must focus on the connections behind the inequality and specifically the massive gap that exists between the rich and poor. Utilizing a metric that measures national economic disparity, Alvaro showed that Chile has the 10th worst distribution of the economy in the world. More shocking, there was a greater distribution of wealth during the dictatorship than has existed after it. Since Pinochet fell, the poorest Chileans have seen their annual income increase by 53 pesos, while the wealthiest have seen theirs jump by 418,000.

Part of the problem is the tax burden. The poor in chile spend 48% of their income on taxes, while the wealthy only pay 3.6% of their income. Impoverishment is not simply a function of an unemployment; in fact, 50% of Chile's poor are employed. The poorest documented workers make only 604 pesos/hour and the pay range among the lowest 90% of Chilean employees is not great.

Alvaro and ATTAC promote the establishment of a living wage (currently, they set this at 140,000 pesos/month) that will afford all Chileans a chance to keep their heads above water. Chile also needs to diversify its manufacturing sector. As he notes, "We have apples, but not apple juice." Finally, he expressed concern about the loss of small businesses to giant mega-corporations, including Walmart-owned Lider.

While he acknowledged that quality of life has improved since Pinochet left office - and actually states that it is impossible to argue that it has not improved - Alvaro warned that many of the perceived improvements are illusory.