Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 143 posts

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#71

Post by Theodores »

yodsanklai wrote: post #38
glesica wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is actually wrong with it? Nothing you mentioned sounds bad at all (and the translation of that article seemed pretty poor, so hard to draw conclusions). I would LOVE to live in a more "socialist" country. I'd much rather be poorer in a place where my basic needs are met and I don't have to fear starvation or freezing to death if I catch an unlucky break. Instead of a rising tide lifting all boats, I'd rather…

I live in a more socialist country where health care and education are free, and where we have have a good balance between work and personal time and I hope it'll stay the same despite the international pressure. I don't know why "socialism" is such a bad word in the US. Probably propaganda from the rich to keep their privileges. I had the chance to live in the US for a couple of years (it was a child dream of mine t…

The frame of debate provided by Anglo Saxon media/politics does not allow one to think that such ideals exist or are worth striving for. We are wage slaves.

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#72

Post by Natsu »

mistermumble wrote: post #59
Natsu wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article he is a former bank robber who had shootouts with the police. I hope he's changed since then, but robbing banks tends to lead to long prison sentences in any country I know of (unless you're a banker, but that's another story...). Now, I'm not claiming to know anything specifically wrong with him, though an endorsement from the Daily Mail generally has the opposite effect for me.

So are you saying that 14 years is not a long prison sentence? By the way, that is about 10% longer than the average prison sentence for bank robbery in the US. See http://www.popcenter.org/problems/robbery_banks/4

Quite the opposite, I'm saying that it is long, but such sentences are normal for people convicted of bank robbery.

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#73

Post by mikeash »

grecy wrote: post #36
bpodgursky wrote: post #11

Uruguay's population is 3.3 million, which is a bit smaller than Oklahoma, for comparison. It's not shocking to me that a head of state of a small country like that doesn't have all the trappings and security a of a country of 100mm / 300mm / a billion people.

These size comparisons always seem strange to me. Uruguay has 3.3 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The US has 310 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The fact that the US has more people to collect taxes from means it's spendings pot is obviously much big…

The size of your surplus will depend on the size of your country.

Let's say that a country can afford 0.01% of GDP (number pulled out of nether regions) for Presidential luxuries. That would mean that the US can spend about $1.5 billion/year on Presidential motorcades and airplanes and housing and so forth, while Uruguay could spend about $4.9 million. It's a vast difference.

While scale doesn't really matter for stuff like schools, firemen, and health care, it does matter here, because the President doesn't scale. It's one guy no matter how big and rich the country is, and if it's bigger and richer, then there's more to spend on that one guy.

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#74

Post by mikeash »

macspoofing wrote: post #28
tcdent wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article states there is a palace, but he has repurposed it as a shelter for the homeless. This is is a deliberate decision, not becasue of a lack of resources.

Such a meaningless populist gesture. I suppose the symbolism is...something.

A homeless shelter is "meaningless"? Wow. I could understand downplaying its significance (e.g. the leader of a country could do more good with policy that improves his country's economy) but giving people shelter is not "meaningless" no matter how you slice it.

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#77

Post by sokoloff »

ojii wrote: post #27
bpodgursky wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I'm sure they COULD if they really wanted one, you just don't generally have the same security concerns you have with a large country. It's just not as surprising to me that they decided they didn't need one.

how is security of the head of state, or anyone for that matter, related to the size/population of the country?

The security should scale in some relation to the threat.

The more resources a country has, the higher the profile a target that head of state will be. Would a politically motivated group want to make a name for themselves or make a statement, they're more likely to attack a first world leader than a third world leader.

Domestic threats also likely scale at least linearly, and possibly more quickly, with population.

I think we overdo it with our post-9/11 security theater, seemingly more interested in full employment than meaningful improvements in the life of Americans, but I'm quite sure that large, rich nations' heads of state face greater threats than smaller, less wealthy nations.

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#78

Post by [deleted] »

iterationx wrote: post #68
ilamont wrote: post #7

Pope Francis has also rejected some of the traditional trappings of the Papacy (1): For his unveiling as pope Wednesday to the throng in St. Peter's Square, he shunned a special fur-trimmed red half-cloak and golden cross in favor of plain white vestments and his usual iron cross. To go pray at a church in central Rome on Thursday, he hopped into a regular Vatican sedan, not the papal limousine. He prefers a simple m…

Minute 7:42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn9t0m6eG4Q

[deleted]

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#79

Post by macspoofing »

mikeash wrote: post #74
macspoofing wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a meaningless populist gesture. I suppose the symbolism is...something.

A homeless shelter is "meaningless"? Wow. I could understand downplaying its significance (e.g. the leader of a country could do more good with policy that improves his country's economy) but giving people shelter is not "meaningless" no matter how you slice it.

Nothing wrong with a shelter. However the the act of designating the presidential palace as a homeless shelter is meaningless because it a) doesn't actually fix anything (one shelter does not a social policy make and has no wider impact - and that's what national governments concern themselves with) b) there is no good reason to re-purpose that particular building, as opposed to another building or spending a few extra bucks and building another. I may be showing my cynical side, but it seems the only reason this was done was to score some cheap PR points with the voters.

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#80

Post by malandrew »

macspoofing wrote: post #28
tcdent wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article states there is a palace, but he has repurposed it as a shelter for the homeless. This is is a deliberate decision, not becasue of a lack of resources.

Such a meaningless populist gesture. I suppose the symbolism is...something.

The man spent two years in solitary confinement at the bottom of a well. He has a much greater appreciation for simple living than the typical head of state and how even small gestures can mean a lot to people. Using the palace for himself and his family provides far less marginal utility than using it to house many homeless people.
Post reply on HN