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

Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year

#101

Post by philprx »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #92
MatthiasP wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the socially progressive part...

I don't identify as conservative, but I really like the extremely high social cohesion found in Austria. It feels wonderful. Everything works as it should, everyone acts as they should, everything seems quite wonderful in fact. Plus you can drink beer in public in Austria. That's pretty "progressive" right? And doesn't Austria have legal prostitution (or am I thinking of Germany?)?

Ahahah... i love your irony!

... right, it was irony?? ;-)

Re: Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year

#102

Post by atmosx »

gruseom wrote: post #83
cgh wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly aren't a regular reader. The Economist is known for its dry wit, particularly with image captions. Anyway, if you want examples, get a subscription..

I'm not a subscriber, but I read quite a few of their articles and I'm pretty sure I never noticed a sentence like "This is a change so obviously sensible that no other country has made it."

I was a subscriber, but got sick of their war-propaganda against everyone and everywhere.

Also, I noticed that you can trust the Economist on foreign policy articles that don't have to do with UK, US (always pro), Russia - China - Iran/q (always against)[2].

That said, it's still two rounds ahead of other major publications I have subscribed over the years:

* Newsweek: Shameful, really. I think most of their articles are either written to upset your stomach or directly sponsored.[1]

* Time: Just thinking about their person of the year story with Assange make me wanna vomit.

[1] Search for an article called: "In defense of Goldman Sachs". It the article that made me the stop subscription and get some money back. Their Apple (tech) commentary was awful also.

[2] See http://www.economist.com/node/12009678 - Everyone in Europe knows that what happened was: Giorgia's PM invaded S. Ossetia overnight, having the blessing of the US because (I assume) the USA thought that Russia will start the talks about S. Ossetia, in order to restore peace. Russia invaded S. Ossetia and kick Georgia's ass (never was a match really), which was left out crying to USA for help (which of course, never came).

Re: Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year

#103

Post by aluhut »

lmm wrote: post #98
aluhut wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with GMOs are the unknown long time risks and the fact that you may lose the ability to decide because you don't even know that it is an GMO or you don't have a choice at all. You don't have to smoke pot, but you have to eat.

Food labelling laws are a good thing and can solve that.

This theory has already proven to be wrong. Contaminated non-GMO fields, additives, processing aids, flavours, or meat/milk/eggs from animals fed by GMOs, etc. Strict food labelling laws would have been great before the product reached the market...

Re: Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year

#104

Post by bencollier49 »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #81
snowwindwaves wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Scotland receives money from the uk which they would not if they separate. A similar situation for Quebec and Canada.

Scotland receives money from the UK government in the form of a block grant. Scottish companies and residents also pay taxes to the UK government. At this point in time, Scotland contributes more in taxes than it receives through the block grant.

Incorrect, or at least misleading, depending on your terms of reference.

Fact check: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990

Re: Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year

#105

Post by patrickaljord »

Brakenshire wrote: post #79
patrickaljord wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GMOs aren't bad in principle, but they are risky Yeah, but how can someone praise the legalization of marijuana and the prohibition of GMO at the same time? GMO and marijuana are not always bad, but it's important to let people make their own decisions about them. It's like he doesn't even know why he's pro-marijuana legalization, isn't it about individual freedom to put what you want in your body? Thought so. Also…

> it's important to let people make their own decisions about them You must be strongly opposed to the system of regulation in the US, where GMO products are not fully labelled, so individuals do not have a choice. This is also (to be blunt) a nonsense, because many of the potential threats that people are worried about are social, and not individual. For instance, they are worried about farmers losing their ability…

> You must be strongly opposed to the system of regulation in the US, where GMO products are not fully labelled, so individuals do not have a choice.

Of course they have a choice. They could only buy products that are fully labelled and guarantied to be 100% GMO free. Problem is for you, most people don't care about GMO so they buy GMO products anyway. This is why you want to ban GMO, to force people to care about the same stuff as you do. Don't want GMO? Buy GMO free products or grow your own food. Don't care enough to do so? Welcome to the rest of us.

> For instance, they are worried about farmers losing their ability to produce their own seeds, so the nation's food supply becomes dependent on a handful of multinationals.

Any examples please?

> see the Copper mines in Chile, or the banana plantations in Honduras and Guatemala.

This has nothing to do with GMO. I've lived for 5 years in Peru so I know a bit about South America. People don't care about GMO.

> They are well within their rights to make decisions that affect everyone within democratic decision making processes.

That's a fancy way to say "they are well within their rights to impose their opinion on what we should be allowed to eat on everybody else". Leftists are just like conservatives, always want to tell people what they can or cannot do with their own body. No thanks.

Re: Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year

#106

Post by xmaspresent32 »

rabble wrote: post #58

Let's see, Uruguay. I'm from California but i've spent a few years living in Uruguay and started and ran a tech business in Uruguay. The country is a special unique place, but it's far from perfect. Let's start with the good things: Good Tech Policies * Laptops for every public school child (over 1 million distributed) * Free basic (64k 1 gb per month) internet on every phone line * Good 3G/4G coverage over the count…

GMOs are not banned. Corn and soy export hit record export due to the fact that they allowed introduction of GMOs varieties some years ago. Most local produced food uses some of this corn/soy. Also, animal GMOs are very much present, leaded by the work being done by INIA (http://www.inia.org.uy) and other private/public institutions.

Bureaucracy to open bank accounts for foreigns are in place to avoid money laundry operations. High taxes are to fund public enterprises, pay external debt and invest in social care. You most of all should know, since you hired programmers in an illegal manner, forcing a dependent relation of your workers being filled as freelancers to avoid paying taxes and denying some legitimate rights. For example the right to get a compensation in case of getting fired, something you tried to avoid at least once. Gladly Uruguay's justice put your company in place and made you pay what you own.

I would say Uruguay is being very good to you, and you could never become a wealthy person if not established here where you could find qualified personnel at very low cost, considering your clients where all USA and Europe based, and your revenues quite high.

From what I read, it looks like you're trying to avoid other companies to establish here, as is Neo, the company that bought yours and now hires you, probably as a partner.

Are we scared of a little competition?

Re: Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year

#107

Post by mathattack »

You have to take this from the point of view of the source - the Economist is the most Classically liberal (libertarian) source out there. As such they are pro-personal freedom and market freedom. So Uruguay gets it largely on the back of allowing gay marriage and legalized drug use. It also helps that the current leader is neither corrupt, nor a strongman.

Their comment about gay marriage was great - that it's a free way to increase mass happiness. Very profound economics on what I perceived to be a moral issue!

Re: Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year

#108

Post by alexeisadeski3 »

philprx wrote: post #101
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't identify as conservative, but I really like the extremely high social cohesion found in Austria. It feels wonderful. Everything works as it should, everyone acts as they should, everything seems quite wonderful in fact. Plus you can drink beer in public in Austria. That's pretty "progressive" right? And doesn't Austria have legal prostitution (or am I thinking of Germany?)?

Ahahah... i love your irony! ... right, it was irony?? ;-)

Is it really controversial to enjoy a socially cohesive society?

Re: Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year

#110

Post by matthewmacleod »

bencollier49 wrote: post #104
matthewmacleod wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scotland receives money from the UK government in the form of a block grant. Scottish companies and residents also pay taxes to the UK government. At this point in time, Scotland contributes more in taxes than it receives through the block grant.

Incorrect, or at least misleading, depending on your terms of reference. Fact check: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990

No, it's not. From your linked article:

The basic facts are that Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues - but 9.2% of total UK public spending.

In other words, "if you ignore one of Scotland's major economic outputs."

Post reply on HN