Not all countries with developing economies were forced into such damaging policies as those that had to be implemented by a number of Latin American countries, with their proximity to, and vulnerability to influence from, the United States, and their free market liberalism which worked for them as a developed country, but could not simply be exported wholesale to others with any expectation of success. India, for example, “opted for gradual and controlled liberalization and downplayed the stress on the speed of reforms emphasized by the Washington Consensus”; the result, the ‘Delhi Consensus’, led to a far more stable end result, with problems which were dramatically less severe, and fewer in number .The criticism that the Washington Consensus fails to benefit the countries forced to implement it seems hard to refute; across Latin America, wages fell as interest rates rose, the sole beneficiary being the rich western nations which had loaned money to them, and then received high interest payments, and whose companies then parked money in bank accounts in those countries, forcing them to keep interest rates high, the countries of which again benefited none; indeed, their economies contracted due to the interest rates, which they were left with no choice but to adopt. Not only did these economies fail to benefit from the Washington Consensus, they were actually harmed by attempting to implement it. Calling on Chile as evidence that it could work is meaningless, as Chile also suffered from the downturn in the 1990s, and when it implemented its market reforms in the 1970s, the concept of the ‘Washington Consensus’ was still decades away in the future. The Washington Consensus failed on every level; whether or not it was concerned with social events, it cannot be escaped that it forced people further into poverty and misery, as it fought against labour unions which kept inflation down. As it did so, it failed to improve their economies in any way, and worse, it damaged them by forcing artificially high rates of interest. The criticism was valid; the consensus was not.