If we always wait for absolutely everything to be ready, we will never get started - Ivan Turgenev
When I was sitting on the plane hopelessly, the AA flight attendants, who were quite old, brought all kinds of crudely prepared food one after another. I seemed to be too lazy to even look at it, and just stuffed it into my mouth without thinking. In order to find some excitement and proof of my existence, I also ordered a bottle of Coke, which I would never even consider. This scene reminds me of the piglets in the pig farm waiting to be fed. The breeders deliver various growth-promoting feeds on time. The piglets in the pen do not have to do anything. The only thing they need to do is to eat on time, just like The difference for me now is that I have an extra safety belt to tie myself to the stool.
Today, when high-speed rail has changed China, a train of more than ten hours can take you to most places in China; As far away as the United States, a plane of thirteen or four hours can also take you to your destination. It’s hard to imagine that it would take more than 24 hours to go anywhere now, but South America is such a magical existence. This is probably the farthest place from mainland China. There is no direct flight to one, one requires thirty hours of flight, and one requires flying to a place as far as the end of the world.
South America was never on my list of destinations, and I never planned to go here. This place is similar to the moon to me. It only exists in legends and is not an accessible place. If I hadn’t agreed to the knowledgeable classmate Z in a moment of enthusiasm but was unable to break the contract, when I found out the time it would take and the outrageous fare, I really doubted whether I would have done the same thing when I was sober. Decide. But in retrospect, if we have been waiting for the best time to do some things, the possible result is that we have been waiting. I don’t have enough wisdom to distinguish between things that need to be fully prepared and things that are almost actionable, but what if it’s something as trivial as traveling? I’ve been here before, and I don’t know if I’ll be here again. Life is unpredictable. Once in a while, some people may not meet again next time. Some things may be the only time in this life, so maybe I should be happy. Sometimes reckless and impulsive (forgive me for being a pessimist).
After booking the flight tickets, I read a few travel notes, and my general impression was that "Chile is the richest country in South America, and it is also a country with relatively good security in South America." So about Chile, the first thing I am curious about is how good is Chile compared with the famous South American countries Brazil and Argentina? After doing some research, I finally got an idea. If we only look at Chile, Argentina and Brazil, Chile and Argentina are relatively close in terms of economic scale and population size. Brazil is obviously not on the same level as them.
(The first picture is GDP, the second picture is GDP per capita)
1) In 2018, Chile’s GDP was about 300 billion, Argentina’s was 520 billion, and Brazil’s size far exceeded these two countries, reaching 1.9 trillion, which was more than six times that of Chile (for a more intuitive comparison, the United States was about 20.5 trillion, China’s is 13.6 trillion).
2) If you look at GDP per capita, Chile’s is about 16,000, Argentina’s is 11,000, and Brazil’s is about 9,000. What surprises me is that China’s per capita GDP is not as high as Argentina’s. China’s is almost 10,000, which is slightly higher than Brazil. I always thought that China's per capita GDP was far higher than that of Brazil and Argentina. I didn't expect that it was about the same as Brazil and not as high as Argentina. It seems that I was blinded by the overall prosperity.
3) In terms of population size, Chile has about 19 million people, Argentina has 44 million people, and Brazil has 200 million people. I have always thought that Argentina is a big country, but it turns out that it is not that big; The overall feeling is that Brazil is somewhat similar to China, with a large economy and a large population, but average per capita level.
The above information roughly gave me an understanding of Chile's economic status and relative level in South America.
Regarding Chile, my second curiosity is how much revenue the cherries, which are so out of my reach, have brought to Chile? How did Chile, a country with strange terrain, get rich?
1) I thought that we imported a large amount of cherries from Chile, which must bring a lot of revenue to it, but in fact agricultural income only accounts for 4.2% of its GDP, and its most exported fruit is grapes, not cherries. , cherries account for less than 1% of the entire export volume. Who would have thought that the country that produces the most cherries in the world is Turkey (600,000 tons), followed by the United States (290,000 tons), followed by Iran (220,000 tons), and then Chile (120,000 tons). Turkey ranks first The third place with Iran is really surprising. Although Chilean production accounts for about 5% of global production, its exports account for about 40% of global exports. Mainland China plus Hong Kong import about 60% of the cherries in the global market.
2) So what exactly does Chile export that dwarfs even cherries?
As someone who has lost money on FCX, this issue should be very clear. Chile’s largest export, which brings huge revenue to it, is undoubtedly copper. Copper’s exports account for about half of its exports. “The country is the undisputed heavyweight champion of copper production in the world – a top producer it has held for more than 30 years and is home to seven of the world’s top fourteen largest copper mines. The largest mine, Escondida, Producing more than one million tons of copper per year, equivalent to 5% of global annual copper supply " Although I think the risk of a single product accounting for half of its total exports is already very high, considering the previous proportion. It has even reached 80%. In the past few years, when commodity prices were high, Chile used the income from selling copper to vigorously develop other industries. In addition, Chile's open policy towards the market and trade made it one of the countries with the highest degree of economic openness. It has promoted the development of other industries, so in South America, where the export of resources is the main source of income, Chile has been regarded as a breath of fresh air. I wonder if it has got rid of the "resource curse"?
When I saw that Middle Eastern countries were making a lot of money from selling oil, I couldn't help but worry about what these countries would do if they ran out of oil. But when I discovered that this situation will never happen in my lifetime, I feel like I will never be able to see the answer to this question. I am actually curious about these countries that rely on a single resource for their livelihood. What will they do if the resource is gone or the resource is no longer valuable? It seems that there is a term for this phenomenon called "Dutch Disease". And I finally found the answer to this kind of question in the tortuous history of many Latin American countries, such as Peru, which used to sell guano and saltpeter, and the Caribbean countries that sold cane sugar, cocoa, rubber, etc., when they relied on The goods sold were either unsustainable due to depletion of resources, or prices plummeted due to competition or substitutes. Without exception, these countries immediately fell into poverty, and the nouveau riche became paupers overnight. So, whether having abundant resources can bring you an advantage depends on how you use these resources. Some resources look like opportunities, but if used improperly, they may be pitfalls. Some problems may look like pitfalls, but they may look like pitfalls if you look at them from another angle. It's an opportunity.
3) If you look carefully at the composition of Chile's GDP, it seems that there is no need to worry about its dependence on copper. Net exports account for less than 2% of GDP (exports were about 28% and imports were about 27% in 2018), household consumption plus government consumption is about 80%, and investment is 20%. Looking at the industrial structure, agriculture accounts for 4%, industry accounts for 32%, and the service industry accounts for more than 60%. Based on these two calibers, I estimate that the revenue brought by copper accounts for about 15% to 20% of GDP. In addition to copper, there are a large number of service industries that generate revenue for it. Based on my limited knowledge, I feel that this structure is relatively safe and healthy. It is very different from our structure that relies heavily on exports and investment. The economy has strong endogenous growth and limited external dependence. Strong stability.
My third curiosity about Chile is:How did Chile under Pinochet achieve rapid growth in a free market economy under a "dictatorship"? The perfect integration of dictatorship and market economy? Is this similar to our market economy with Chinese characteristics? And how did Chile transform from Pinochet’s rule to a democratic country so easily? I don’t necessarily want an answer to this, I just feel that all roads lead to Rome, and every country is different. I personally feel that even though Pinochet was guilty during his lifetime, with his strong support and relying on the policy recommendations of the Chicago School such as free market, deregulation, privatization, and stable inflation, the Chilean economy has achieved rapid growth for more than 20 years. , even today, in terms of economic policy, Chile seems to have continued the framework and propositions of the Pinochet period. Later, Pinochet also lost the election and withdrew from the stage of history, and Chile also embarked on democracy. path of. Pinochet’s dictatorship brought disaster to his opponents, but it also resisted the penetration of communism to the greatest extent. Pinochet’s toughness suppressed the voices of opponents, but also ensured its implementation of economic policy propositions. Looking back at this process, this is the best ending I can think of. Why ask for perfection in history? There are always people who are destined to become stepping stones and make sacrifices on the way forward. (But I later read an article saying that Chile’s rapid economic development has no necessary connection with the economic policies of Pinochet’s period. It is caused by the normal fluctuations of the economic cycle and the subsequent government’s government investment in education and medical care. , it was Keynes, not Friedman, who saved Chile. The existence of the Miracle of Chile is doubtful. Looking for causes from the results always has the blindness and unfalsifiable flaw of hindsight, and the predictive causal analysis beforehand. Too idealistic to be verified, social science feels so confused)
The first country in the world to make that momentous break with the past—away from socialism and extreme state capitalism toward more market-oriented structures and policies—was not Deng Xiaoping's China or Margaret Thatcher's Britain in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan's United States in 1981, or any other country in Latin America or elsewhere. It was Pinochet's Chile in 1975.— Robert Packenham & William Ratliff
Then let’s talk briefly about my trip to Chile. Excluding the desperate 60-hour round trip flight time, I spent about seven or eight days in Chile. The Atacama Desert in the north takes about 4 days, Santiago 3 days, and Valparaiso, Santiago’s neighbor city, 1 day. The most famous attractions in Chile are Easter Island, which is a five-hour flight from Santiago, and Torres del Paine National Park in the south. I gave up on Easter Island because I really didn’t want to take such a long flight (plus I personally have a lot of concerns about various lack of interest in the island), because it is winter in the southern hemisphere and it is not a good time to go to Torres del Paine (although I really want to go hiking in Torres del Paine, I don’t know if I can achieve it in my lifetime), this is simply the worst Travel time, and there is not enough time to go to the Sky City in Bolivia or Machu Picchu in Peru next door, heaven
The landscape of the Atacama Desert is quite good, but I feel that the landscape of Tibet is not necessarily inferior (although I have not been to Tibet yet). To be surprised, it may be that I saw the sky hanging in the best stargazing location in the world. The splendid Milky Way, so full of stars, was the first time in my life that I experienced it. The first time I looked up, I was really amazed; Then the meteors that repeatedly streaked across the sky also satisfied a little girl's desire to a certain extent. A bit of romantic fantasy. Santiago is a typical capital city. It has both the landscape of a modern city and the remains of historical districts, but overall, it is lackluster. Valparaíso and Viña del Mar. Because I signed up for a bad tour group, I had a bad impression of Valparaíso; Viña del Mar, as a person who rarely sees the sea, Inland people can give it a good review for the time being when they see the rough waves crashing on the shore at high tide.
To be continued, please allow me to create slowly.
