Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year(economist.com) |
Uruguay is the Economist's Country of the Year(economist.com) |
Funny, that. You have to be very careful with the Economist because they nearly always seem to have utterly transparent motiviations for the nonsense they peddle. In this case it seems like it benefits them to prop up the city of london and UK with a nice secure oil supply, and they have to perform weird intellectual handstands to justify why Scotland would be a basketcase while Ireland is inspirational.
The UK has a whole has already become a net importer rather than exporter.
There are strong arguments in favour of scottish independence but largely they're down to cultural rather than economic reasons.
I live in an oil city and the number of Scottish workers or companies that have regional headquarters or major locations in Aberdeen is huge.
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.
This Ireland? http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/eu-chief-barro...
> Europe did not cause of the problems for Ireland; Ireland caused a problem for Europe, the head of the EU government said.
> Following the bailout exit, the Government's bid to get backdated funding for the banking sector was dealt a spectacular blow as the head of the European Commission blamed the Irish banks, regulators and government for the difficulties in the country.
> Categorically rejecting suggestions Ireland should now be helped by Europe, at least in the short to medium term, European Commission President Jose-Manuel Barroso cut loose on Ireland.
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.
That's not quite "resilient example to us all." I know that the Economist supports the kind of destruction that's been visited on the Irish economy, but they're not mentioning it here.
What interest rate they would have to pay on that debt is a different question...
"This is a change so obviously sensible [...] that no other country has made it."
The Economist doesn't normally bust loose like that. (Edit: or so I thought.)
Actually, it does. You just have to be aware of their style of humor to catch it.
Some neighbourhoods are really safe, I used to live in Punta Carretas for a while, and it's equivalent to an European city, but many others aren't - never ever go downtown after dark, and some other neighbourhoods are like the Brazilian favelas - police doesn't enter there.
Housing is in a bubble right now, it used to be affordable a few years ago but it's not right now (I had to move to a cheaper neighbourhood because I was priced out of my rent, went up 20% yearly). Food is a little more expensive than in Europe.
Education is universal, everyone has access. The country is doing consistently bad on worldwide tests (the PISA score) and that's being made a big deal.
We do have our fair share of issues like any other country on the world, but overall we are doing pretty good and life here is good.
For people that aren't aware, we do have our fair share of problems, Uruguay is being being given a too romantic view by the international media IMO.
The main ones being IMO (no particular order, and many related):
- Cases of extreme poverty and "slums" where a lot of people grow up in very negative environments.
- Lack of security! Lots of problems with violence and violent robberies.
- In many cases, not good enough education for the non wealthy, same for the public health system.
- A big problem with drug abuse, specially with drugs like "pasta base", similar to crack.
Definitely gay marriage and cannabis legalization are steps in the right direction but we have a long way to go.
I agree with the OP though, life is pretty good over Uruguay, I've been living abroad for a year now and miss the hell out of my country :) It's a very unique little county, no place like home.
No it isn't for me, I'm young, I want to progress, do things that matter. I don't know if I want to change the world but I certainly want to change some things around but all the time you want to do it you get that calm voice that says "Oh but life is pretty good here, there are no much ups and downs".
I don't think a US person can stay here for more than a month were the realization of a human being is to buy a house, a car have kids and that's it.
We need to stop boast ourselves with this kind of oversized look we are getting from outside and start fixing our crap. Low the taxes, educate better our childs and provide money for the doers and not by political friendship anymore, we can start there.
Did they writer want to get out of the office early for christmas treats or something?
But really, if you think about it most Western first-world leaders have most likely supported some form of unjustified military invasion or covert op designed to support their economic interests. That is not necessarily any better; hell I might prefer the people who got down and dirty to defend their ideals, however wrong they were, rather than the suits who signed the orders while they sat back and let soldiers kill for far less worthy causes.
You can say a lot of things about him now, you might disagree with every single one of his political decisions, but you can't say he didn't got rid of his violent ways, in fact, for someone who used to be and extreme leftist, he is pretty centered now, and definitely not violent.
Luis Suárez has really pulled this one out of the bag.
We tend to compare new developments with the status quo. "Sensible" is not used here as an absolute, but to congratulate a step in the right direction.
The sad part here is that the majority of current big parties appear to lean towards criminalizing drugs entirely again, rather than follow Uruguay's lead and regulate or nationalize marihuana production.
But if I understand correctly, it's 'tolerated' meaning, they won't bother enforcing the prohibition
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.
* 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.
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.
But we do have a lot of people working in IT (about 15.000), we export 2% our GDP in Software, and Indian companies like Tata Consultancy Services have offices here, serving the US market.
I hope it will grow even more. One positive for uruguayans but negative for exports is that salaries are much higher than in India or some parts of Eastern Europe (but a LOT lower than in the U.S.), so we are not so competitive in the "lowest bidder outsourcing", we should aim to be a high-end and niche provider, but don't have the culture yet.
Graduates from both public and private universities are very capable but we need some more training to match U.S. expectations.
I've heard Google doesn't recruit much here because of the lack of PhDs in computer science (which is a definite lack), and there's a lot of emphasis on Java and .NET which doesn't help if the market is looking for iOS or Android or Ruby developers (the Java and .NET outsourcing market being cornered by indians?).
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!
Thanks.
Compared to the rest of latin america or the US, Uruguayans are much more like Europeans in terms of being very secular. That said, Uruguay is culturally catholic.
The link you provided shows that %40 of the population claims no religion at all, the highest numbers of any country in the americas. Then on top of that, looking at church attendance, most 'Catholics' in Uruguay haven't attended mass in years, and then only for christmas and easter.
Declaring them opposed to Scottish independence for being a conservative publication in a post regarding their seeming love for a left wing country doesn't cognitively mesh well.
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 fanciful tax evasion schemes used by both European and US corporations.
But it hasn't just been shell companies and tax evasion that has made Ireland rich. There's also genuine success that wouldn't have been possible if Ireland hadn't become a gateway into the EU for US corporations like Google.
So before choosing a path that was possible for tiny Iceland, Ireland did have to ask itself whether a move that could have destabilized the global financial system and threatened the existence of the EU was consistent with the solidarity it owes to those who have supported it in the past.
Ireland made the right choice at the time, but I also think that as things stabalize, it would be a good idea to renegotiate some of the bailout terms. After all, some of the foreign counter parties that were effectively bailed out by the Irish government benefitted greatly from the Irish housing boom while it lasted.
Anyway, so was India or Ireland or the USA, that argument justifies any abuse.
Fact check: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990
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."
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?)?
... right, it was irony?? ;-)
Anyway, if you want examples, get a subscription..
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).
I actually am anti-science, in the sense of “science-as-religion”. The comment I originally replied to is a good example of what I'm talking about: being anti-science is blasphemous, it's heretical. I'm against this kind of nonsense. Not that I think it necessarily is, but so what if being anti-GMOs is anti-science? What's the problem with that? We should be able to have a frank discussion about the merits of GMOs and indeed of science, but we can't, because science is a religion, and you get denounced as a heretic if you criticise its underlying assumptions.
My own position on genetic engineering is that I'm not inherently against it in an abstract way, but I'm against almost all of “actually existing” genetic engineering. Most of the debates about genetic engineering focus on whether or not genetically engineered crops are safe, or whether they provide better nutrition, but I think these are distractions from the real issue. The issue is about control: whether farmers save and choose their own seeds, or whether they must get them every year from a corporation.
Nothern Ireland is a part of the UK. So it definitely did not seceed from the UK.
The Republic of Ireland, is a seperate country with completely different government and currency, that used to be part of the UK but isn't any more, so it has definitely seceeded.
That county in Iowa, it is actually still part of the USA and has not managed to separate itself either legally, economically, or through force of arms. It is clearly not a separate sovereign nation. It has not seceeded from the USA.
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.
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, the free laptops for all policy has been tried elsewhere and has always been a big and costly failure.
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 to produce their own seeds, so the nation's food supply becomes dependent on a handful of multinationals. No doubt South and Central Americans are particularly aware of the political implications of putting themselves in a position like that - see the Copper mines in Chile, or the banana plantations in Honduras and Guatemala.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#Firs...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
If you expect individual consumers to make their purchasing decisions on long-term foreign policy, you are, to put it mildly, setting yourself up for disappointment. They are well within their rights to make decisions that affect everyone within democratic decision making processes.
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.
You don't have to smoke pot, but you have to eat.
Ah, I see. What else can you tell me about myself, generalizing from a selection of opinions? You should extend your logic to education policy, you could provide me with a devastating refutation of all of my new-found ideas.
I'm afraid you're not even wrong. Firstly, I don't want to ban GMO's, secondly, I'm not a 'leftist', thirdly, if you're going to widen the debate to drugs, leftists are overwhelmingly the driving force behind legalization and decriminalization.