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

81–90 of 143 posts

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

#81

Post by rodgerd »

S4M wrote: post #60

It's very nice to read about a political leader who renounces to the ostentation people in power usually have. However I am a bit concerned for the man's security. Since he can't be corrupted, assassination would be an option for a powerful group that sees him as an obstacle. For example, it's very plausible that a mafia would see its revenues drop from the sales of cannabis, and so would have strong interests to hav…

> However I am a bit concerned for the man's security. Since he can't be corrupted, assassination would be an option for a powerful group that sees him as an obstacle.

The biggest risk to South American leaders has tended to be agents of the US government. No security detail is going to achieve much against another illegally-financed Contra campaign, a Grenada invasion, or a replay of Chile.

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

#82

Post by swamp40 »

smtddr wrote: post #44
yodsanklai wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> Probably propaganda from the rich to keep their privileges. Not probably. It's exactly that.

I can't believe no one has challenged you on this remark for 5+ hours.

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

#83

Post by SamReidHughes »

macspoofing wrote: post #79
mikeash wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ext…

It sets the tone.

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

#84

Post by skrebbel »

This is really nice to read, but it's not that special. For example, the Dutch prime minister earns €144.000 euros a year. It's a high salary, but nothing at all that affords a palace. A good senior programmer earns the same in the valley, and the taxes here are higher.

I find this whole idea that presidents should be posh and it's super-special if they're not, well, a bit odd and basically thr wrong approach.

We should be amazed, instead, when presidents build ridiculous palaces for themselves, like the White House or Putin's Palace [0]. I don't understand why people can look at the White House with any sense of awe. To me (and I'm about as politically centred as they get), it's a giant show off of the haves towards the have-nots. Nya-nya, look at my fancy big white palace with lots of armed guards and hundreds of expensive paintings.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin's_Palace

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

#86

Post by claudius »

ricardobeat wrote: post #47
mikeyouse wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that a country with more taxpayers has more money for "trappings"? "The trappings" are essentially a fixed cost at any scale of country. Let's say you need a palace, a security detail, a motorcade, and a jet to have all of "the trappings" for the ruling family. If you assign some costs to these things, say $500k/yr for the palace, $1mm/yr for security, $500k/yr for motorcade, and $10mm/yr for the jet…

The size of the government is proportional to the population. Those costs are not fixed at all. Anyway, you're missing the point. He doesn't have all of this by choice, not because Uruguay can't pay for it.

The size of the head of state is rather constant, and that is the only size discussed here – of course the underlying bureaucracy grows larger in larger countries, but that doesn’t mean the president can suddenly be in two jets at the same time.

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

#87

Post by DominikR »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #18
xweb wrote: post #2

Immediately searched for "moving to Uruguay" after reading this. The thought of a sane politician is so refreshing.

Not so fast. South america is a weird place (disclaimer: I live in Brazil). The overall vision is that the coming of democracy, after a history filled colonization, monarchies and military dictatorships in most countries, has been a net win; but at the same time, the presidential figure gets a disproportionate amount of worshiping in all of those, which is a sign that the democracy has not fully matured. As positive…

> has a tendency to pass popular policies, as opposed to good policies

Isn't that the point of a democracy?

What do you think how many wars, regime changes and dictatorships (all sponsored by the US) South America would have seen in the last 50 years if every single one of those aggressions had to pass a popular democratic vote in the first place?

I do not think that there ever has been a majority in any country (where the basic needs of everyone is met) that would consistently vote pro war.

I my view the real problem is that we only get those "good policies" and never the chance to choose or at least vote for policies we actually like.

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

#88

Post by vasilipupkin »

smtddr wrote: post #39
notanidiot5 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because we see news reports of poor American citizens dying everyday because of starvation. Keep pushing your propaganda though.

Don't forget, for most Americans... one unexpected hospital bill is all that stands between them and financial ruin. USA can be an okay place to be as long as you don't get sick...

Most Americans have insurance so your assertion is dubious

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

#89

Post by vasilipupkin »

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…

healthcare and education in your country aren't free - they are paid for by high taxes on the middle class

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

#90

Post by vasilipupkin »

smtddr wrote: post #44
yodsanklai wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> Probably propaganda from the rich to keep their privileges. Not probably. It's exactly that.

Not at all - a "socialist" system involves doubling taxes On the middle class - that's really tough to sell to....the middle class, shockingly
Post reply on HN