Live data from Hacker News

Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year

economist.com

51–60 of 112 posts

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

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barroso is far from a neutral observer in all this. Personally I think it is extremely disengeneous of him to say Europe wasn't a problem for Ireland (and indeed there were major efforts to row back on the above comments subsequently). While there's no doubt lax regulation of the banking sector was the major cause of Ireland's problems initially, it is now widely accepted that the Irish Government was told in no unce…

I agree that it would have been better to put more of the burden of the housing bust on bondholders. However, Ireland has benefitted tremendously from Europe over the past decades. It has received tens of billions in direct financial aid (and I don't mean the loans that were part of the current bailout). Its European neighbors have tolerated Irish tax policies that have put Ireland squarely at the center of the most…

Oh sure, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I was just trying to point out that Barrosso's comments are somewhat one-eyed and far from the final word on the matter.

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

#52

Apparantly Scotland is "foolhardy" if it opts for "secession", but Ireland, which already did opt for secession (less pejoratively, secession is typically known as independence once it is acheived), is a resiliant example to us all, with its HDI and economy miles above that of Scotland, and that despite a total lack of oil, and despite a bad housing bust. Funny, that. You have to be very careful with the Economist be…

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

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

#53
post #6
post #2

About cannabis regulation: "This is a change so obviously sensible ... that no other country has made it."

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but.. The Netherlands? I thought it was regulated there (although I'd have to check on what the state is these days).

It's technically illegal here, we just choose, as a society, not to enforce it. It's called "gedoogbeleid", which google translates as "tolerance".

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

#56

Apparantly Scotland is "foolhardy" if it opts for "secession", but Ireland, which already did opt for secession (less pejoratively, secession is typically known as independence once it is acheived), is a resiliant example to us all, with its HDI and economy miles above that of Scotland, and that despite a total lack of oil, and despite a bad housing bust. Funny, that. You have to be very careful with the Economist be…

I'm not sure where to start where how wrongheaded this comment is.

First of all, as others have said, Ireland has been independent for 90 years. Secondly, Ireland had to go through 70 years of near-poverty, only briefly managing to getting close to digging itself out of its economic hole in the 1960s. Thirdly, with independence, Ireland lost most of its industrial homeland due to partition, as well has having to effectively buy itself back from the UK through the payment of land annuities, and the subsequent trade war that happened when the Irish state refused their payment, owing to the size of the amount demanded, utterly crippled the Irish economy.

Arguably, from an economic point of view, Irish secession from the UK was foolhardy. The fact that almost a century later The Economist now considers the Republic largely a positive example has zero relation to how they would consider and independent Scotland. Ireland was a basketcase for decades.

Also, 'secession' is the act of gaining independence. There's nothing pejorative about it.

Also, Ireland does have substantial oil and natural gas reserves off its coast. However, they're more difficult to tap than those in the North Sea, and were effectively sold out from under the Irish people by Ray McSharry.

Personally, I'd like to see Scotland give independence a chance. I just hope they stay withing the common travel area.

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

#57
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If OP was referring to Northern Ireland, then s/he should have said so, since "Ireland" generally refers to Ireland, and Ireland did secede, while NI did not.

Isn't this more complicated than that? Declaring you've 'Seceeded' doesn't mean a new state is created/recongnized; there's a county in Iowa that 'seceeded' but it didn't change anything. Just sayin, how many people on the street know about anything but their hometown much less than the internal politics of Ireland.

No. Northern Ireland didn't secede in any sense. It's the rump of the Kingdom of Ireland within the United Kingdom. The 26 Counties seceded from the UK to become the Free State, while NI stayed within. This is regarded as partition, not secession, and happened before the secession of the South. The partition was performed by an Act of the UK Parliament, and secession was performed by the Anglo-Irish Treaty.

All this is pretty well documented as it was of significant historical importance, much more so than the reorganisation of the borders within a US state.

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

#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 country
  * Fiber to the home finally provides good broadband
  * No taxes for tech companies profits (there are pay roll taxes)
  * Free education through university, no exams to get in.
  * Goal of %95 renewable electricity production by 2015
  * Lots of small startups / exits (about a dozen a year under $10 million USD)
  * Strong freedom of information laws
  * Good open source / open formats laws for all government data.
Other Positive things

  * Very little corruption (i never came across any, but people complain)
  * Legal Gay Marriage, Abortion, Marijuana, etc... Socially progressive
  * Walkable cities, sidewalk cafes, beaches
  * GMO's are banned, food is natural and unprocessed.
  * Good electoral system, proportional representation
  * Politicians care about building consensus and getting stuff done.
  * Fantastic & cheap health care system
  * Not consumerist, people care more about friends & family than things.
  * No traffic / pollution problems related to cars. 
  * Uruguayans trust their institutions (banks, government, union, church)
  * Atheist! Uruguayans are not religious and the state is officially atheist.
But Uruguay's not perfect. There's a lot wrong. The bureaucracy is complicated with more crazy rules than you can imagine. There's lots of paperwork. There's a lack of local credit and asset markets to get investment. You can get a new company easily, but opening a bank account is a real PITA. Credit card processing and things like that re very hard. Inflation has become a major problem in Uruguay and when combined with real productivity gains and a strong currency it means that real prices have risen a LOT. Pay roll taxes are high but salaries are low. That means many Uruguayans are broke. Car's are very expensive, gas is expensive, keeping traffic down, but it's a pain. The quality of things you buy in Uruguay are very very low. Things constantly break, the market is tiny and customs duties are high.

Uruguay's biggest problem, ironically enough given their being very socially liberal and open about good public policy, is that Uruguayans are very conservative. There's no desire to try something new or different. This makes Uruguay feel like it's living in the past. Stable families, sunday diners, stay at home housewives, summer vacations in the family beach house or camping in the same place every year, banks are open from 1 to 4pm, multigenerational house holds, etc... Uruguay feels like an alternate history version of the 1950's.

Uruguay's a great place to retire. It's not a place with people who want to change the world, or change their own country to keep up with the Joneses. It's got it's own path driven by good public policy and a desire not to rock the boat. It's definitely much better off than any of the other countries in the region. Few poor people, no rich people, decent quality of life for everybody.

PS, ignore then trolls. The right wing in Uruguay lost power because they mismanaged the country and are upset that things are getting better.

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

#59

Apparantly Scotland is "foolhardy" if it opts for "secession", but Ireland, which already did opt for secession (less pejoratively, secession is typically known as independence once it is acheived), is a resiliant example to us all, with its HDI and economy miles above that of Scotland, and that despite a total lack of oil, and despite a bad housing bust. Funny, that. You have to be very careful with the Economist be…

Irish independence has more in common with Indian independence than with Scottish. Scotland isn't run as a colonial possession to generate wealth for the English ruling class, the inhabitants be damned Scots get votes and civil rights and all those goodies, the situations aren't comparable.

Compare Scotland with another 5-million strong European country with similar oil reserves which retained independence - Norway - and try and say that with a straight face. Norway is far far richer, with a huge oil fund and more developed economy. Scotland's oil was used to fund thatcherism and inflict industrial damage upon Scotland.

And by the way - Ireland had home rule prior to its independence and also elected MPs and had the vote, on the same terms as the rest of the UK, prior to its independence.

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

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irish independence has more in common with Indian independence than with Scottish. Scotland isn't run as a colonial possession to generate wealth for the English ruling class, the inhabitants be damned Scots get votes and civil rights and all those goodies, the situations aren't comparable.

Compare Scotland with another 5-million strong European country with similar oil reserves which retained independence - Norway - and try and say that with a straight face. Norway is far far richer, with a huge oil fund and more developed economy. Scotland's oil was used to fund thatcherism and inflict industrial damage upon Scotland. And by the way - Ireland had home rule prior to its independence and also elected MP…

it is British -- not Scottish -- oil.
Post reply on HN