Neoliberal policies were endemic in central and south America, especially during the 60s and 70s at the height of Cold War panic. Just look at the Argentine inflation crisis to see what that gets you.
Upvote for an intelligent and thoughtful comment. In some ways I disagree however. I’m no huge fan of neoliberalism. It isn’t without place or purpose in theory, but for most applications, the modifications to create a functioning system would have it rendered no longer classifiable as bro neo liberalism. However We can’t blame neo liberalism alone for the economic crisis in South America as a whole- it may have been the bus, but it was the people driving that ran the bus over those countries economies. Mexico, South and Central America were used as pawns and as experiments by large world powers, for idealist reasons, military reasons, and of course to exploit trade and labor. Mexico had already opened free trade before NAFTA, so many see the inclusion of Mexico into NAFTA as an “insurance policy” against future political leaders restricting trade. In the early years of NAFTA in Mexico, imports increased rapidly while exports shrank save for machinery and automobiles which boomed....
..... most of these companies however were foreign companies. Most were selling products in markets requiring a certain and large percentage of the products components and materials be from domestic sources to the sale market. So this huge jump in production of exports actually hurt the economy because the bulk of components being used needed to be imported, and local suppliers were now put in a position where they were forced out of the market. So more or less- regardless of the system being employed, foreign governments essentially helped set up pipelines for their domestic companies to siphon money straight out of Latin countries. The communists and capitalists were reaching into other countries and shaping them to essentially function as vassals which existed to supply “tribute.” The “neo liberalist policies” were only one of the methods used in this molding, a tool to create what was in essence a cheap labor farm. Economics is at its core war. A tangent of sorts:
Why did the allies win WW2? Britain wasn’t doing so hot. Without help- Nazis vs The brits could have gone either way. The Germans had some crappy gear, but they also had many toys way better than anything the allies had in common circulation. The primary factor was sheer numbers. The Sherman tank was a death trap. 4/5 would be lost for one kill on a Panzer. B51’s were used up like toilet paper. The soviets and US as examples though could produce huge amounts of shitty disposable materiel all day every day. Had huge numbers of troops to throw into hell and then do it again when the last batch was used up. It was basically Arian Evil elves vs orc hordes. The allies and all the other enemies buried the Nazis under sheer numbers and resources. We may as well have just smothered the whole of Germany in steel and bodies. And that’s how the economics of the 20th century and even now work. Weaponized numbers
That same doctrine, applied to economics more or less calls for a huge surplus of production and materiel, to saturate and overwhelm the “enemy” and gain superiority. There is a finite limit to what a single country can produce, and regimes that turn their own citizens and country into giant Dickinsion factories don’t tend to be popular. Even still- with the USSR and China attempting to do just about that in the 20th century- there’s still a limit. So enlisting more land and resources and people to the cause is required. However- conquest requires open warfare that especially after WW2, populations who bore witness were wary of, and especially amidst a potential looming confrontation with world super powers, other super powers were wary to over invest their forces. Failed actions by the US and USSR as well as other powers in places like Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Africa made direct military action less likely as the idea of “swift and decisive victory” against even...
... “poor” outgunned, and outmanned opponents had been shown easier said than done. However- military force is not the only power available to “world power” nations. So through use of economic subjugation a country could essentially be converted to function as a subservient nation economically. Largely this is the fate that befell much of Mexico and central/South America. A campaign of political and economic meddling, coupled with targeted small scale force, and careful manipulation through destabilization and revolution. Both the communists and capitalists cane with messages that they brought good for “the people” regardless of the means they used. This “good” however was less for the people of the targeted nation and more for the “good” of the people of the nations pulling the strings. Simukatniously preventing their emergence as competitors or thier use by competing nations while essentially creating satalite sources of cheap and “disposable” labor- where little or no social or...
... environmental impact would be seen or felt “back home.” As we moved into the 21st century it became more about the environmental side. As smug regulators and constituents congratulated themselves on eliminating “dirty” industry for the “good of the planet” while simply outsourcing it. So that people could point at places like China and criticize their high pollution of the planet and irresponsibility, while buying in bulk the very goods that largely contribute to and are made possible by that pollution. It’s just another example- an example of the outsourcing of the unpleasant and the use of “vassals” to do the dirty work. Many fear China and its “economic super power,” and its humorous in some ways. By and large they played the game well and figured out how to turn the tables so that by supplying cheap goods and labor they were actually building a dependency, and reinvesting that wealth so that they could position themselves as an economic super power. Mexico did not have all...
... the factors and resources that allowed China to do that- and as such has been much slower to figure out how to make an oppressive system work to their advantage on a government level, private industries and individuals have managed to do so in various legal and illicit ways however.
TL:DR- well said in general- my only contrary thought however is that the system used isn’t of key importance as it is just a tool used by world powers as an economic shackle to impose a sort of forced economic subservience. The effected economies may have done far better with NO outside intervention or actually good natured intervention, but so long as world powers were manipulating their governments with the intention of keeping economic control, the nations in question had little chance that any system would have seen much more success.
TL:DR- well said in general- my only contrary thought however is that the system used isn’t of key importance as it is just a tool used by world powers as an economic shackle to impose a sort of forced economic subservience. The effected economies may have done far better with NO outside intervention or actually good natured intervention, but so long as world powers were manipulating their governments with the intention of keeping economic control, the nations in question had little chance that any system would have seen much more success.