Chile vs. Haiti

[August1991]

It is estimated that over 200,000 people died in Haiti in a 7.0 scale earthquake a few weeks ago. In Chile, an 8.8 scale earthquake (about 500 times stronger than the Haiti earthquake) caused the deaths of some 700 people.

Why?

Clearly, Chile is a wealthier country that can afford to build better buildings, more likely to withstand earthquakes.

So, why is Chile wealthier than Haiti?

The two countries have different histories but for the past 40 years or more, Haiti has followed the usual statist advice of leftist well-meaning dogooders and a variety of other international charity organizations. Chile, OTOH, followed the advice of those evul "Chicago Boys" and Milton Friedman.

Milton Friedman has been dead for more than three years. But his spirit was surely hovering protectively over Chile in the early morning hours of Saturday. Thanks largely to him, the country has endured a tragedy that elsewhere would have been an apocalypse.

Earthquake magnitudes are measured on a logarithmic scale. The earthquake that hit Northridge in 1994 measured 6.7 on the Richter scale. But its seismic-energy yield was only half that of the 7.0 quake that hit Haiti in January, which was the equivalent of 2,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs exploding all at once.

By contrast, Saturday's earthquake in Chile measured 8.8. That's nearly 500 times more powerful than Haiti's, or about one million Hiroshimas. Yet Chile's reported death toll—711 as of this writing—was a tiny fraction of the 230,000 believed to have perished in Haiti.

WSJ

[M.Dancer]

Without knowing exactly the specifics of the quake, earthquakes differ in violence depending whether it is a deep or shallow quake. A deep quake measuring seven on the scale will be less severe tham a a shallow quake measuring 6.

[Guest American Woman]

It is estimated that over 200,000 people died in Haiti in a 7.0 scale earthquake a few weeks ago. In Chile, an 8.8 scale earthquake (about 500 times stronger than the Haiti earthquake) caused the deaths of some 700 people.

Why?

There are a couple of major reasons, other than Chile being more prepared as a result of past experiences and being a richer nation:

...the nature of the Chilean earthquake limited the amount of damage.

..."The earthquake in Haiti was much more shallow and was a direct hit on a very, very populated city."

"In Haiti the shaking was more intense because the epicentre was much nearer to the surface."

Though it affected a great deal of the country, the Chilean quake hit outside any populated centres.

Port-au-Prince, the Haitian capital, was crammed with three million human beings, and is one of the most densely populated areas in the western hemisphere.

link

Makes sense that a lot more people would have died in the Haiti earthquake.

Edited March 2, 2010 by American Woman

[Bonam]

Yeah the main difference was the location of the quake. An 8.8 magnitude quake is enough to destroy even very heavily reinforced and well constructed buildings, if they are right by the epicenter. Casualties would have been hundreds of thousands from such a quake if it hit under a heavily populated city even in a western country.

[August1991]

AW, from your Sky News link above:

He told Sky News Online: "The construction in Haiti is absolutely appalling - it wasn't recognised by the Haitians as an area at risk from earthquakes.

"So they didn't have any motivation to build safe buildings.

"And because the country is so poor they didn't have any resources to do so anyway."

Chile was able to deploy a well-trained and funded disaster relief force in the hours after the disaster hit.

In fact, Haiti is in an earthquake zone and has suffered earthquakes before. As to the location of the epicentre/depth, I agree that the Haiti earthquake was closer to population centres than in the case of Chili:

Chili earthquake details

Haiti earthquake details

But OTOH, the Chilean earthquake was much stronger. (The article in the WSJ states that it was 500x stronger.)

All things considered, there is still a large difference in death tolls. Why? Because Chile is a richer country.

(BTW, over 2% of Haiti's population perished in the earthquake.)

The point of the WSJ article is to note that countries become rich when they rely generally on free market principles. If they rely on foreign largesse or government planning, they usually remain poor.

Yeah the main difference was the location of the quake.

No, the main difference was that Chile is richer than Haiti.

-----

It seems appropriate to quote Milton Friedman here: "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

Edited March 2, 2010 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

The two countries have different histories but for the past 40 years or more, Haiti has followed the usual statist advice of leftist well-meaning dogooders and a variety of other international charity organizations. Chile, OTOH, followed the advice of those evul "Chicago Boys" and Milton Friedman.

Translation: I hate the Left so try to blame them for everything.

The history of Chile and Haiti are so incredibly different that only an idiot would try to do this kind of comparison. That they share the same hemisphere is a given. Beyond that...

Edited March 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Yeah the main difference was the location of the quake. An 8.8 magnitude quake is enough to destroy even very heavily reinforced and well constructed buildings, if they are right by the epicenter. Casualties would have been hundreds of thousands from such a quake if it hit under a heavily populated city even in a western country.

Indeed. Living in BC, we're all very keenly aware that if a major quake happened close to, say, Vancouver,t he results could be catastrophic.

[blueblood]

Wasn't the epicenter of the chile quake out to see, whereas the Haiti quake in a prime killing zone?

put that 8.8 epicenter in the same kill zone as the haiti quake and there would be a catastrophe in chile.

[August1991]

Translation: I hate the Left so try to blame them for everything.

The history of Chile and Haiti are so incredibly different that only an idiot would try to do this kind of comparison. That they share the same hemisphere is a given. Beyond that...

The histories of the two countries are "incredibly" different but there has been one constant fact for the past several decades (50 years or so): Haitians have received endless amounts of foreign advice, foreign money, foreign aid from many dogooder foreign agencies. Chileans, OTOH, have had to manage on their own.

The end result is that I can buy Chilean grapes in Provigo at 1.99/lb but I have never seen any product from Haiti in any store.

----

Toadbrother, you just don't get it. And the effect of many foreigners "not getting it" is that over 200,000 Haitians died in an earthquake.

Wasn't the epicenter of the chile quake out to see, whereas the Haiti quake in a prime killing zone?

put that 8.8 epicenter in the same kill zone as the haiti quake and there would be a catastrophe in chile.

The Haitian quake was 7.0. The Chilean quake was 8.8. The Richter scale is logarithmic meaning that each unit increase is an exponential increase.

Links above show the location and depth of the two earthquakes' origins. You can compare.

So far, it is estimated that less than 1,000 souls were lost in Chili. In Haiti, the death toll is over 200,000.

IMV, many Haitians died because they were in poorly built buildings. Many Chileans survived because their buildings were better built. It is as simple as that.

Indeed. Living in BC, we're all very keenly aware that if a major quake happened close to, say, Vancouver,t he results could be catastrophic.

It is unlikely that 200,000 people in Vancouver would die - even if the epicentre was 5 km away and 3000m in depth. Dunno.

-----

What many posters here fail to realize is that two recent earthquakes show that Haiti is a basket case while Chile is not. North Korea and South Korea are other examples. East and West Germany were once other examples.

The Leftist agenda to have governments organize our affairs may make for a more equal society, but it impoverishes everyone.

The case of Haiti is even more troubling. In Haiti, thousands of foreign social workers have attempted to help poor Haitians over the past few decades. All for nought. The social work/CIDA approach to poverty has been an utter failure. The social work/CIDA - dare I say, Obama approach - looks good on paper, but doesn't work in practice.

Toadbrother, AW, it is this practical view that you don't get.

Why is Chili rich and Haiti poor? I dunno. But someone has wasted alot of money over the past few decades in Haiti.

Edited March 3, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

The Haitian quake was 7.0. The Chilean quake was 8.8. The Richter scale is logarithmic meaning that each unit increase is an exponential increase.

Get with the times, we don't use the Richter Scale anymore.

[blueblood]

Get with the times, we don't use the Richter Scale anymore.

I think that if the epicentre of the chilean quake was in the same killzone as was the haiti quake, those well made buildings would have done diddly squat. The sheer magnitude of an 8.8 is unfathomable.

Haiti was bad partly due to the location of the epicentre, the shotty buildings didn't have a prayer.

[Smallc]

With slightly different circumstances, it would have been bad. It's a good thing it wasn't. Chile is 11,000 kms away from CFB Trenton, and a long way from much of the US too.

[August1991]

Get with the times, we don't use the Richter Scale anymore.

I'll stand corrected:

The Moment magnitude scale was developed in the 1970s to succeed the 1930s-era Richter magnitude scale (ML). Even though the formulae are different, the new scale retains the familiar continuum of magnitude values defined by the older one.

Wikipedia

Assuming that you accept wikipedia as a source. But Smallc, I'll use your response as the basis of a rant. ("Go for it," she says.)

-----

Smallc, you quibble about earthquake scales, as others quibble about the precise location of the epicentre, or the depth of the shifting tectonic plates.

More important, in a roughly similar earthquake: Over 700,000 Haitians lost their lives. About 1,000 Chileans died.

Why? Chile is a rich country. Haiti is poor.

Why is Chile rich and Haiti poor? Chile has followed principles of Milton Friedman while Haiti has not. Long ago, Adam Smith wrote a book entitled "The Wealth of Nations". Smith, ever a product of the Enlightenment, was curious to understand why some countries are rich and others are poor. With an open mind, he arrived at an answer.

If you have the patience to read his viewpoint, Smith's answer still makes sense.

Edited March 3, 2010 by August1991

[blueblood]

I'll stand corrected:Wikipedia

Assuming that you accept wikipedia as a source. But Smallc, I'll use your response as the basis of a rant. ("Go for it," she says.)

-----

Smallc, you quibble about earthquake scales, as others quibble about the precise location of the epicentre, or the depth of the shifting tectonic plates.

More important, in a roughly similar earthquake: Over 700,000 Haitians lost their lives. About 1,000 Chileans died.

Why? Chile is a rich country. Haiti is poor.

Why is Chile rich and Haiti poor? Chile has followed principles of Milton Friedman while Haiti has not. Long ago, Adam Smith wrote a book entitled "The Wealth of Nations". Smith, ever a product of the Enlightenment, was curious to understand why some countries are rich and others are poor. With an open mind, he arrived at an answer.

If you have the patience to read his viewpoint, Smith's answer still makes sense.

I think there is a general consensus that Haiti is poor because of X policy and Chile is not poor because of a pro business policy.

The problem is an 8.8 earthquake is many times magnitude more potent than a 7. Had both countries had a similar size quake with similar epicentres, I would be in full agreement with you.

It's like shooting a pork carcass with a 9mm at point blank range, and then shooting that same carcass covered in kevlar with a 30-06 at half a mile, and then saying what does more damage? Too many variables.

[Smallc]

Smallc, you quibble about earthquake scales, as others quibble about the precise location of the epicentre, or the depth of the shifting tectonic plates.

It's not quibbling, those are important facts...and there aren't 700k people dead. Oh, and Wikipedia isn't the only place you can find that the richter scale isn't used anymore.

[Bonam]

August, I agree with you on the problems of leftist foreign meddling, and it may certainly be a big factor as to why Chile is better off than Haiti economically. But in this particular case, it really was the Earthquake being way farther away from civilization that made it do so much less damage. There is a big difference, the Haiti quake was like 25km away from the capital, and very shallow (13km). The Chile quake was over 300 km away from Santiago, and still about 100 km away from the smaller population center of Chillan, as well as being 35 km deep. The fact is, the amount of surface shaking in the populated area was far higher in Haiti than in Chile.

If the 8.8 Earthquake had happened 25km outside of Santiago and was 13km deep, there would be hundreds of thousands dead too. For that matter, if it had been under New York there would probably be millions dead since just about every skyscraper would have collapsed. Modern construction techniques for earthquake proofness usually design around magnitude 7, so even a very rich country would be devastated by an 8.8 under a major city. Of course, there wouldn't be mass starvation and such afterwards, but the initial death due to building collapse would be very high.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Bonam

[blueblood]

August, I agree with you on the problems of leftist foreign meddling, and it may certainly be a big factor as to why Chile is better off than Haiti economically. But in this particular case, it really was the Earthquake being way farther away from civilization that made it do so much less damage. There is a big difference, the Haiti quake was like 25km away from the capital, and very shallow (13km). The Chile quake was over 300 km away from Santiago, and still about 100 km away from the smaller population center of Chillan, as well as being 35 km deep. The fact is, the amount of surface shaking in the populated area was far higher in Haiti than in Chile.

If the 8.8 Earthquake had happened 25km outside of Santiago and was 13km deep, there would be hundreds of thousands dead too. For that matter, if it under New York there would probably be millions dead since just about every skyscraper would have collapsed. Modern construction techniques for earthquake proofness usually design around magnitude 7, so even a very rich country would be devastated by an 8.8 under a major city. Of course, there wouldn't be mass starvation and such afterwards, but the initial death due to building collapse would be very high.

Well done sir. Thank you for articulating better than I could.

[August1991]

If the 8.8 Earthquake had happened 25km outside of Santiago and was 13km deep, there would be hundreds of thousands dead too.

Wrong.

Bonam, you don't understand what it means to be born into a rich family, or a rich country.

The difference between Chile and Haiti is not a question of epicentre.

For godsakes, some 200,000 Haitians lost their lives. Some 1,000 Chileans died.

Have you Leftists (Matt Damon, NYT, etc) no sense of numbers at all? Can you Leftists count?

Edited March 3, 2010 by August1991

[Guest TrueMetis]

Wrong.

Bonam, you don't understand what it means to be born into a rich family, or a rich country.

The difference between Chile and Haiti is not a question of epicentre.

For godsakes, some 200,000 Haitians lost their lives. Some 1,000 Chileans died.

Have you Leftists (Matt Damon, NYT, etc) no sense of numbers at all? Can you Leftists count?

Do you not know that an 8.8 magnitude earthquake would level anything?

If the epicenter of this quake had been in the centre of any large population zone it would have killed thousands if not millions.

And what the hell does political orientation have to do with earthquakes?

[bush_cheney2004]

....And what the hell does political orientation have to do with earthquakes?

Earthquakes are natural events that kill and injure thousands on a regular basis, and cause untold billions in damage. So should we spend more money on earthquake preparedness or "climate change"?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Earthquakes are natural events that kill and injure thousands on a regular basis, and cause untold billions in damage. So should we spend more money on earthquake preparedness or "climate change"?

There is not a damn thing we can do to prepare for an 8.8.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is not a damn thing we can do to prepare for an 8.8.

Not true...there are many personal and regulatory aspects of earthquake preparedness that transcend the Richter Scale. For instance, do you have a week or more supply of potable water and food on hand? I do....

[Bonam]

Wrong.

Bonam, you don't understand what it means to be born into a rich family, or a rich country.

The difference between Chile and Haiti is not a question of epicentre.

For godsakes, some 200,000 Haitians lost their lives. Some 1,000 Chileans died.

Have you Leftists (Matt Damon, NYT, etc) no sense of numbers at all? Can you Leftists count?

If you've been reading these forums lately at all you should know well that I am about as far from being a "leftist" as you can get. You seem to compare two sets of numbers, 200,000 casualties vs 1,000. But apparently you can't compare another set of numbers, 300+ kilometers vs 25.

[bloodyminded]

I'll stand corrected:Wikipedia

Assuming that you accept wikipedia as a source. But Smallc, I'll use your response as the basis of a rant. ("Go for it," she says.)

-----

Smallc, you quibble about earthquake scales, as others quibble about the precise location of the epicentre, or the depth of the shifting tectonic plates.

More important, in a roughly similar earthquake: Over 700,000 Haitians lost their lives. About 1,000 Chileans died.

Why? Chile is a rich country. Haiti is poor.

Why is Chile rich and Haiti poor? Chile has followed principles of Milton Friedman while Haiti has not. Long ago, Adam Smith wrote a book entitled "The Wealth of Nations". Smith, ever a product of the Enlightenment, was curious to understand why some countries are rich and others are poor. With an open mind, he arrived at an answer.

If you have the patience to read his viewpoint, Smith's answer still makes sense.

Haiti HAS followed Friedmanesque neoliberal policies....that's WHY so many of the rural poor were living in Port au Prince, stacked up one on top of another in ramshackle structures. BECAUSE Haiti followed the dictates of Western neoliberal demands, agriculture was replaced by other means...so that the rural folk migrated to the city.

There was no "liberal do-gooder" policy that coerced people to move into cities and begin haphazard construction.

As for Adam Smith...he has very little in common with Milton Friedman.

[Guest American Woman]

You seem to compare two sets of numbers, 200,000 casualties vs 1,000. But apparently you can't compare another set of numbers, 300+ kilometers vs 25.

There's another set of numbers he apparently can't compare, either: 6 miles below the surface vs. 22.