Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rabble 4563 days ago
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.

5 comments

Sounds like Canada more than it doesn't.
Advice on where to live in Uruguay as a tech worker?
Sounds a lot Luke Austria ( the good and the bad) ... a little bit more tech startup friendly maybe.
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?? ;-)

Is it really controversial to enjoy a socially cohesive society?
Yes, unfortunately.
Also, add Switzerland.
GMOs are bad? When did HN become anti-science?
GMOs aren't bad in principle, but they are risky; there may be Black Swan-type threats that are lingering.

It also doesn't help that Monsanto's poor image casts a shadow over GMOs.

> 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, the free laptops for all policy has been tried elsewhere and has always been a big and costly failure.

> 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 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.

> 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.

> This is why you want to ban GMO, to force people to care about the same stuff as you do...Leftists are just like conservatives, always want to tell people what they can or cannot do with their own body.

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.

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...
Everything that remotely relates to health is risky. The problem is simply the lack of regulation.
Haha, good troll. GMOs = science. Anti-GMOs = anti-science.
Haha, good troll. Pretending that Anti-GMO != Anti-science.
Could you explain to my why being “anti-GMO” necessarily implies being “anti-science”? What definitions of “GMO” and “science” are you using to make that proposition true?

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.

You're wrong. The majority of Uruguay is religious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Uruguay

Not like the US, Uruguayans never say they're celebrating easter, they call it tourism week. People say 'christmas' but the government calls it 'family day'!!!

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.

Depends on what you mean by religious. Most Uruguayans are from Catholic backgrounds but they (at least the ones in Montevideo) behave in a secular way: No church on Sunday, and instead of having Carnival followed by Lent like all the other Latin American countries, they have Carnival that lasts for 40 days.
"Religious" means different things to different people. It doesn't have to be US-style anti-gay anti-science fundamentalism.