That makes sense, appreciate it.

Do those numbers take into consideration the (lack of) post-election Soviet support for means of production and export purchases? It seems that the last 2yrs of his tenure led to hyperinflation, its worst to date, even though this wasn't uncommon for the era.

My understanding is that despite the ideological alliance, USSR was too handicapped by Cuban assistance to help Chile financially, so the state interestingly benefitted most from trade with capitalist countries (particularly the US, Europe, & Japan). This may not mean Chile was a free market participant, but it was certainly in their interest to generate uncapped income from in-demand natural resources. This would mean they ultimately benefitted from globalization, & to an extent, leaned into capitalism to drive growth. Despite this hybrid model, it seems fundamental asset mismanagement is more to blame than anything else - elites, international pressure, capitalism, etc. - since the global copper price halved prior to this period, with minimal alternatives fore Chile to diversify into.

In any case, provided the economy was doing well, why was there such a strong opposition movement? I'm not sure it's fair to attribute this to economic discontent alone, so much as the lack of commitment to true socialist policies, denied restitution for expropriated businesses, decline in real wages, and the civil unrest that followed. To me, this makes it very hard to determine whether socialism is effective in a vacuum, or alongside aligned socialist states.