Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
For his unveiling as pope Wednesday to the throng in St. Peter's Square, he shunned a special fur-trimmed red half-cloak and golden cross in favor of plain white vestments and his usual iron cross. To go pray at a church in central Rome on Thursday, he hopped into a regular Vatican sedan, not the papal limousine. He prefers a simple miter to more elaborate, richly decorated headgear.
He reportedly has more simple living arrangements than his predecessor.(2)
Not as frugal or simple as Mujica, but a big shift from his predecessor, Benedict, who "loved the pomp and circumstance." (1)
1. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/15/world/la-fg-pope-tra...
2. http://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/pope-of-the-people-pope-...
See picture of the apartment here: http://estaticos03.elmundo.es/suplementos/imagenes/2006/05/0...
Original article in Spanish newspaper El Mundo: http://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2006/549/
Translated version here: http://www.ibaibarriaga.com/reportages-detalle.php?id=11
Anyway, thanks for posting, it was hilarious.
About the populist act: the presidential palace itself was not used as a homeless shelter, just the barbecue (has a roof) (that is kind of "luxurious" for the poor standards of living down here)
If you're planning to move, please note that we have a state that charges you 23% of taxes on ALL products and services, plus a 20% to 35% of taxes over your earnings. And what you get for free if you're middle class? nothing, you just pay for lower class benefits. Also real state is crazy, properties on the nicest neighborhoods (nice for the standards here obviously) cost more than an apartment in Manhattan.
Everything has a ton of taxes because upper class must support lower class. The problem with that wonderful idea is that lower class gets now a lot of benefits for free, and they don't want to work more to get out of lower class and start paying to help other lower class citizens obviously.
Since Mujica is the president more and more stuff is getting taxes to help his social help strategies, making worker class people flee the country.
I won't be worried about working and paying taxes if some of that is reflected around in the country, but all the money goes to pay state employees or health care to unemployed people (health care system which is about to collapse) or the state retirement system (since there's lower and lower workforce this one will collapse in a few years too). If you want to buy anything imported, you got a huge tax over that too. For example cars have 100% of taxes, if you buy a car for 10k in other places here it costs 20.
Public spaces are dirty as hell, and the level of security is very low (you can get mugged because somebody wants your sneakers).
Mujica may have good ideas, but the execution is very poor and the outcome is terrible. He is the kind of guy who fixes the world chatting on a bar, not a president.
my 2 cents
"The President is so austere!". With his own money. This is who he is: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=ht...
"Weed!" That only the State can grow and sell (Smoking it was always legal, and buying/selling has always been and will continue to be illegal).
If you think Uruguay is a "liberal dreamboat", as one Gawker article said, then please, move in. We can even exchange citizenships. If misery is your thing, then by all means, do whatever country you live in a favor, and move to Uruguay. It's not like this continent can get any worse.
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 lower all the boats but make sure that none of them sink.
Keep pushing your propaganda though.
So I'm curious how you came up with "most Americans".
I had the chance to live in the US for a couple of years (it was a child dream of mine to do so) and now I have much more mixed feelings about its ideology. Overall, I think I have a better life in Europe.
Not probably. It's exactly that.
2) "Middle class", do you mean working classes?
3) Why do so many people think its a choice between the two, socialism and capitalism? What people want is a sensible compromise where both systems work to service all of society's needs, instead of a single system which can only benefit one part of society. No one serious thinks pure, exclusive socialism is the answer to anything? Its not. Neither is pure exclusive capitalism. Simply, capitalism raises the money to pay for socialism to provide a useful work force and services for capitalism. We need a balance.
Since healthcare in _my_ "socialist" (from a USA point of view) country certainly isn't generally paid for by taxes but by insurance fees. (Exception: the unemployed are covered by social security, which is an insurance system partially backed from the tax pool)
The only "socialist" part here is that they make it hard to avoid the system (that is, leech off from others when you eventually get sick and end up in the ER, incurring costs higher than your net worth)
"the higher level of services is paid for by the higher level of overall taxation"
Not necessarily. You can also try to reduce the cost of the service. Healthcare in most European countries costs less than in the US for the same service (for instance medical acts prices can be largely controlled by the state).
Honestly, I don't know much about economics. However I think it's fair to say that in that particular field, what may be great on paper may not work in practice. The theoretical models are so remote from real life that I'm not sure they provide much value. So it essentially boils down to ideology.
If one has to be dogmatic, I would privilege "free" healthcare and education to private property and free market.
Now, I'm not claiming to know anything specifically wrong with him, though an endorsement from the Daily Mail generally has the opposite effect for me.
By the way, that is about 10% longer than the average prison sentence for bank robbery in the US. See http://www.popcenter.org/problems/robbery_banks/4
This attempt to paint a picture of left-wing governments as condemning citizens to a "median life" and "bread and sausage" is also used by the right-wing in Brazil, and bears no relation to reality. The nobody is going to get rich line means that nobody will profit in excess from your work, not that you will be prevented from getting richer if you really want to. E.g. nordic countries, switzerland...
Having said that I do hope his example of leading a simple life even at the highest level will be replicated.
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.
As an Uruguayan myself, I think this:
>> the economic elite tend to have very weak influence on political decision making, including tax reforms.
IS a good thing.
Actually, Uruguay seems like a cool place to hang out... will add to bucket list.
First of all, not everyone gets a free computer. Only those kids who go to public schools. That is the "poorer" that can't pay a private school, and the relatively rich that live in richer neighborhoods where the public school doesn't suck.
The teachers really don't understand almost nothing about computers and can't teach how to use them properly (from a techie point of view).
Also, as another commenter correctly states, Uruguay isn't a very entrepeneurial country and it is very bureacratic.
I suspect they might have a culture similar to Spain, in the respect that it's much less common for people to move around. Young adults often live at home well into their twenties, and go to university in their home town, and friend and family groups are usually in the local area. If almost everyone you know lives in one place, to move away is a much greater step, even if you are wealthy.
When I left Uruguay 2.5 years ago, applying for residency was changing a bit. Apparently, nowadays, you need to show you have "enough income to support yourself". The people I know say that's usually around $1500/month. Also, expect it to take at least 18 months to finally complete your residency. It took over 2 years for some people I knew. However, you can still live there while your application is in process (no visa runs needed).
If you've been reading anything that says it's "cheap" to live in Uruguay, it's probably several years out of date. Inflation seemed to be around 15% a year. Personally, I was spending about $2000-2500/month to live there by myself, and I wasn't living extravagantly (other than living in a decent neighborhood).
Uruguay doesn't manufacture much of anything, and imported goods have a 60% duty, along with the standard 21% IVA (Value Added Tax). So, electronics are about twice the price of what you'd pay in the US.
It's also not a very entrepreneurial place. There is some software development there, which can have some tax advantages. But prepare yourself for a very bureaucratic place, where things don't move quickly, and taxes/fees are high.
Uruguay may be a place you'd end up loving, but if you base your views about it on what you've read from International Living's website, you're going to be in for a big shock.
Cars are the most expensive in the world (at least 100% over US list price, often 200%, so a Honda Civic is a rich man's car and I'm not joking).
Salaries are South American standard, U$ 2000 / month is a HUGE salary, yet it doesn't get you that far !
Electronics are also expensive.
Housing is really expensive, rent is higher than anywhere in the U.S. excepting New York or San Francisco, unless you go to REALLY bad neighbourhoods.
And as scott says, it's really bureaucratic.
The only really big pro is that healthcare is good - basic stuff for free and really good coverage for what an American would consider incredibly cheap prices (U$ 70/month gets you coverage that includes house visits and emergency services which I've heard are impossible at any cost in the US, and U$ 100/month gets you into the very best hospital in the country.
The country is nice, we have nice beaches, I believe the people are friendly, etc. but that's true in several places :)
I saw lots of Uruguyans upset on Reddit, and I have some Uruguyan roommates that explained to me why they hate Mujica.
A couple recurring points:
1. Education worsened. 2. Crime skyrocketed, one of my roommates was a cop in Uruguay and said when he was a cop there was about 350 arrests per year, now there is that number in one month and only in the capital, and for more violent crimes, like murder, where the most serious crime he usually arrested someone was stealing without using force. 3. Although the president is populist and socialist, somehow people now are starving, my roommates are here in Brazil to earn money to ship to their families, and they said this was not necessary before Mujica, one claims that the government took 150000 USD that his mother left in a savings account. 4. Mujica openly bribed voters. Several expat Uruguyans repeated the story that Mujica paid airfare to anyone willing to go back to Uruguay during elections and vote for him. 5. Mujica is fake poor. Although he gives away his salary, the population believes he gets a cut from Brazilian and Argentinean gold laundered there. 6. Marijuana was made legal only to increase government revenue, not in form.of taxes, but by having a law mandated monopoly. There are lots of other complaints, these are the common ones.
So what? It's better for the money to end up in state hands than in the hands of a multi-national mafiya network. Hey, I bet the US budget crisis could be solved by properly taxing drugs and shutting down law enforcement/DoC institutions not needed for a "War On Drugs" any more...
Sure, I am all for supporting the homeless and needy, but come on, re-purposing the presidential residence as a homeless shelter? That is the epitome of a populist gesture!
If he is the president, he should act like a president, dress like a president and live like a president. I, at least, would want my country be represented among equals.
Inviting over other heads of states to your two bedroom apartment in the suburbs might be cute if you are pandering to certain segments of the voting population. But unless he wants to become the Mother Teresa of international politics this is just a joke.
"Infected with these ideas", really? Is it not you who has a fossilized thinking in regard to what other people should do? "he should act like a president, dress like a president and live like a president". Why, because you say so? I believe that if he is the president then he should act respectfully to his citizens, of which a lot still live in poverty. Dressing up in the most expensive clothes, living in luxury houses and eating only the finest food is a slap in the face of every person in that country who was not lucky enough to be born in a position that would grant them a good life.
With the talk of the pope's scaled down lifestyle, it's funny to read about how weirded out American catholic representatives were at the first vatican council way back in 1869. The pomp was strange, and a lot of the ideas about social hierarchy were strange.
Yeah sure: if you are the president of Austria you may waste the money if your people living like a king of the middle ages, but that's not the case of Uruguay.
"Let's keep the status quo because...ummm...it's the status quo?"
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.
In the US Congress (& even Presidents) view elected office as a stepping stone to a better paid corporate retirement. Look at how much Clinton gets paid to speak at Goldman Sachs' events.
Also, you're conflating head of state and head of government. Mujica and Putin are heads of state, Rutte is head of government. The Dutch head of state is the king, and he has a couple of palaces at his disposal.
I'd go further and say the whole model of a gleaming capital city with ornate temples of governance is well out of date. Most representative government could be handled over conference calls and the internet. You could rent out a convention center somewhere a few times a year to hold sessions.
I spent over 2 years in Central and South America, many months in a few countries. I didn't get to spend very long in Uruguay, but it seemed great to me.
For my first-hand experience, and why I left, read my comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6886261 , especially my second one.
AMURICA?
More like A Mujica? Am I right?
>1972 Imprisoned again. Remains in jail for more than a decade, including two years' solitary confinement at the bottom of a well, where he speaks to frogs and insects to maintain his sanity.
There's something amazing about politicians who spend decades in prison but still have the drive to go into politics afterwards (e.g. Mandela).
"The president is a former member of the Tupamaros guerrilla group, which was notorious in the early 1970s for bank robberies, kidnappings and distributing stolen food and money among the poor. He was shot by police six times and spent 14 years in a military prison, much of it in dungeon-like conditions."
Is t-word applicable here ? :)
Superficial lists aside, I lived in Uruguay for some months and I loved it. Uruguay and the uruguayans are great!
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 as the bills passed by Mujica may be, the notion that the president has to be some sort of Robin Hood, Batman of the poor, is problematic, as it inflates the State, turns the legislative power useless, and has a tendency to pass popular policies, as opposed to good policies.
EDIT: Brazil is falling prey to that ideology, as many other countries around here, where the approval of the president is at an all time high, despite the government's failure in addressing all the systemic issues (education, crime, public health, infra-structure, foreign investment). There's an awful cognitive dissonance between what the population perceives and what results are, mainly because the poor are misinformed and cannot judge (the government will always blame an external force: the opposition, capitalism, USA, whatever), and the middle-class prefers to ignore reality (for them, it's better to have an incompetent, but left-wing government than to forfeit their ideologies).
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.
No, the point of democracy is reaching compromises.
This is is a deliberate decision, not becasue of a lack of resources.
The more resources a country has, the higher the profile a target that head of state will be. Would a politically motivated group want to make a name for themselves or make a statement, they're more likely to attack a first world leader than a third world leader.
Domestic threats also likely scale at least linearly, and possibly more quickly, with population.
I think we overdo it with our post-9/11 security theater, seemingly more interested in full employment than meaningful improvements in the life of Americans, but I'm quite sure that large, rich nations' heads of state face greater threats than smaller, less wealthy nations.
Some (English) history of the parliamentary building is here, should you be interested: http://www.riigikogu.ee/index.php?id=37659
Uruguay has 3.3 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare.
The US has 310 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare.
The fact that the US has more people to collect taxes from means it's spendings pot is obviously much bigger, but that absolutely does not mean it can be wasted on "trappings" for the leaders. Each and every person still needs all the basic services, so at the end of the day, there is the same basic amount per person to spend.
Why do you think that a country with more taxpayers has more money for "trappings"?
It's like saying, "why does the mayor of my town not need the same number of secret service as the president?" There are just far fewer things they feel the need to defend from.
You know, many developed countries don't even have a security force for their leaders, and for example, the ex-Prime Minister of Australia went jogging all the time by himself, in whatever city he happens to be in.
Here's why people try to assassinate politicians:
#1 They're nuts (Hinkley, Czolgosz, Squeaky Fromme).
#2 They have some reason for doing so (Gavrilo Princip, Booth, probably Oswald).
There. Figured it out. As it happens, there are probably 100x as many nuts in the US as Uruguay, and probably 10,000,000 times more possible motives to kill the head of state/head of government/commander in chief/international celebrity who holds the US's highest office. Now you try and fix those two things.
You mean with care for the mentally ill, etc. like in developed countries?
I want to treat them, give them access to professional help - you know, care for them.
Why do you think that a country with more taxpayers has more money for "trappings"?
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, you can figure out the annual cost -- $12mm/year in this example. So in a country with only 3.3 million people, that's $3.60/citizen/year for the ruling family to have their trappings. In a country with 310 million people, that would only be $0.038/citizen/year.
Even if you need more security, or a bigger motorcade, or a more expensive plane, you're still on the magnitude of pennies/person/year instead of dollars/person/year.
Anyway, you're missing the point. He doesn't have all of this by choice, not because Uruguay can't pay for it.
Let's say that a country can afford 0.01% of GDP (number pulled out of nether regions) for Presidential luxuries. That would mean that the US can spend about $1.5 billion/year on Presidential motorcades and airplanes and housing and so forth, while Uruguay could spend about $4.9 million. It's a vast difference.
While scale doesn't really matter for stuff like schools, firemen, and health care, it does matter here, because the President doesn't scale. It's one guy no matter how big and rich the country is, and if it's bigger and richer, then there's more to spend on that one guy.
The downside of "liberating" countries by invading them (or funding revolutions) and installing puppet governments is that some part of the population gets really annoyed with that.
I'd love to live in a world where every president could live without a human shield around them, not because they would be more accessible to their people (which would be a nice plus) but because it would be a symptom the world has become a safe place.
Also, I've just came from Buenos Aires, Argentina yesterday, me and my friends feel way more safe in Buenos Aires' streets than in Montevideo. We are really far from perfect.
I do agree security has gone down the drain and is now the #1 problem here (I was robbed twice this year).
And I also agree we're far from perfect. We do get some things right at least :)
The first question that comes to mind is... Is the palace his property to turn it (or just part of it) into a shelter? Because being president does not turn you into the owner of the palace.
What is the former presidential driver working at?
Etc.
But stop the worshipping please.