Chile, which has just elected a marxist-socialist for its president, carries on its books a very conventional antitrust law,' in the best traditions of such capitalist economic systems as the United States and the European Common Market. Chile's law, enacted in 1959, is not likely to be repealed by the new regime; it fell rapidly into disuse after its promulgation and was recently an almost-defunct piece of legislation moldering in the back offices of the Chilean bureacracy. An analysis of antitrust's rise and fall in Chile may explain much about the legal environment in which the economy functions in that country and peripherally shed some light on why so many of the Latin American countries have antitrust laws2 and do not apply them. Until the 1930's, Chile and other Latin American governments maintained a strict hands-off policy in matters economic, consistent with the Liberal thought which had characterized the era after 1850. Tensions began building early in the 20th Century, but little change occurred until after the catalyst of the Great Depression. Chile's economy, so dependent on foreign trade, was perhaps harder hit by the world's commercial slowdown than any other. Then, the country's economic legislation began to change rapidly. By 1940, Chile had a dirigiste state, emphasizing government controls and participation in almost all sectors of the economy.3 The years from 1930 to 1950 were atypical, however, and while many Chileans felt they were forging a new permanent public economic order, others significantly felt that they were only enduring a jerry-rigged regime to help the nation through the special problems of depression and wartime. Thus, for example, did extensive price controls enter into the Chilean economic scheme, advocated by some, suffered by others.