(1) A very misleading analysis & argument (and the abstract is even worse). A case of seeing what you want to & ignoring the rest. Starmer got a smaller vote share & a fewer number of votes than Corbyn in the 2017 election, and barely beat Corbyn's 2019 performance (Corbyn 32.2 % vs. Starmer 33.7%). (2) In 2019, UKIP ate into the Labor vote. In 2024, Reform split the Conservative vote. (3) I could say more but I'm tired.

Galbraith is both right & wrong, and ultimately misleading.
(1) He is right that Larry Summers. Jason Furman, etc. have been far too hawkish about inflation.
(2) He is wrong with his claims about heterodox economists getting it right. Heterodox economist like Randall Wray rejected raising interest rates at all, and Wray has called for permanently parking the federal funds rate at zero.
(3) The counter-factual is what if the Fed had left interest rates at near-zero? In my view, we would have had a massive asset price bubble accompanied by much higher inflation, which would have forced another "Volcker moment" that would have ended in deep recession or even depression.
(4) When it comes to monetary policy, both the right (Neoliberals) and the left (progressives) have got it wrong. It is almost impossible to get sensible alternatives into the mix.

I welcome Professor Edwards’ condemnation of Pinochet's human rights abuses but, in my view, his economic narrative is deeply misleading. Here are some counterarguments to consider.
(1) President Allende's economic program was subject to economic sabotage, sponsored by Chile's elites and the USA. The 1972 trucker strike (sponsored by the CIA) paralyzed the economy & caused inflation to soar; US multinational corporations went on an investment strike (also with US government support); and there was a stop on buying Chilean copper which crushed Chile's foreign exchange earnings. Allende's program might have failed anyway, but let's be honest about the economic sabotage that we do know about. It is doubtful any developing economy could survive such an assault, especially when coupled with an elite intent on sabotaging success.

(2) Chile was subject to two rounds of "Chicago Boys" shock therapy. The first round (1975-1982) ended in a catastrophic economic crisis. That was followed by a second round which proved more macroeconomically successful. That success was based on inserting Chile into the emerging Neoliberal globalized economy by making Chile a haven for international capital. It involved suppressing domestic politics, suppressing the wage share, and raising the capital share. During this "successful" period, income inequality & poverty soared.

(3) There has been some reduction of inequality since 2010 (i.e., after the 15 year-long post-Pinochet constitutional transition arrangement ended). However, I would argue Chile's better situation is because its economic model fits with Neoliberal globalization & not because the model is good.

(4) In sum, Pinochet is the posterchild for the evils of dictatorship. The Chilean economy is the posterchild for the economic contradictions of Neoliberalism, in which the "best" perform badly & their only claim to merit is that some perform worse. And the coup against Allende provides a window on the realities of US foreign policy, which remains relevant today given developments in Ukraine.

Two neoliberal economists holding forth. The oldest trick in the Latin American neoliberal playbook is loot the country via borrowed dollars, create a boom - bust cycle, and then poison attempts to clean up the mess in the hope of coming back for another bite at the cherry.

Agreed!