Many have worked out in the USA’s favor. Not necessarily the favor of the people there. Such as Chile, the US got a pro-US puppet in there, even though he was a mass murdering fascist.
The US also sanctions countries it doesn’t control, which note that sanctions does not just mean “we won’t trade with you” but also “we won’t trade with everyone who trades with you,” meaning every country has to pick between US market or that country’s market and since the US is the biggest economy in the world they all obviously pick the US, so it practically has the effect as an economic blockade on the country. General Electric for example was fined millions for selling water purifiers to Cuba to help them get clean drinking water.
Hence, sometimes the economies do indeed do better after the coup and some people use this as “proof” the totalitarian fascists were better, such as in Chile the economy did improve when Pinochet took power, but Pinochet actually kept in place a lot of the nationalizations that occurred under Allende, including the nationalization of the copper mines. It’s obvious that they did better economically because the US restored normal economic relations.
But it’s always a convenient excuse and it works on a lot of people. Just sanction country into poverty then blame the government for the poverty then use that as an excuse to install your own government then lift the sanctions and claim that the economic improvement is because of the new government.
The US nationalists who decry the poverty in these countries and use it to call for regime change will never never never never agree to lift the sanctions first to check if that will help them get out of poverty before intervening. They will always come up with a million and one excuses as to why we can’t do that and we must try invading them first right now.
That’s my thought as well but I thought to poll if any of these “interventions” actually worked out in their favor.
Many have worked out in the USA’s favor. Not necessarily the favor of the people there. Such as Chile, the US got a pro-US puppet in there, even though he was a mass murdering fascist.
The US also sanctions countries it doesn’t control, which note that sanctions does not just mean “we won’t trade with you” but also “we won’t trade with everyone who trades with you,” meaning every country has to pick between US market or that country’s market and since the US is the biggest economy in the world they all obviously pick the US, so it practically has the effect as an economic blockade on the country. General Electric for example was fined millions for selling water purifiers to Cuba to help them get clean drinking water.
Hence, sometimes the economies do indeed do better after the coup and some people use this as “proof” the totalitarian fascists were better, such as in Chile the economy did improve when Pinochet took power, but Pinochet actually kept in place a lot of the nationalizations that occurred under Allende, including the nationalization of the copper mines. It’s obvious that they did better economically because the US restored normal economic relations.
But it’s always a convenient excuse and it works on a lot of people. Just sanction country into poverty then blame the government for the poverty then use that as an excuse to install your own government then lift the sanctions and claim that the economic improvement is because of the new government.
The US nationalists who decry the poverty in these countries and use it to call for regime change will never never never never agree to lift the sanctions first to check if that will help them get out of poverty before intervening. They will always come up with a million and one excuses as to why we can’t do that and we must try invading them first right now.