Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Mark Mercer
4,774 followers -
Fuzzy Wanderer, Corporatism Critic, Former Corporate Tool. Uruguay Immigrant rather than US Expat.
Fuzzy Wanderer, Corporatism Critic, Former Corporate Tool. Uruguay Immigrant rather than US Expat.

4,774 followers
About
Mark's posts

Post has attachment
Social media and marketing experts know that United totally blew it. <=> Regardless of "the rules". If you are involved in any company's marketing, social media, or customer relations, you need to learn from this giant mistake United made.

I'm amazed that United still hasn't come out and said, "we were wrong", even though they did a self-pumping "Leggings are welcome on United" (for paid ticket customers.) And United's unofficial defenders on social media, are worse than the official United communications. People legalistically bleating about "Contract of Carriage" and "pass rider regulations" are clueless, even if "correct" - playing "inside baseball" instead of understanding that the ticket-buying public has no idea what you're talking about. And even if they do, still think your airline is dead wrong.

The public just knows that United sexualized a 10-year-old girl, has a "Handmaid's Tale" American Talibanesque perspective on women's wear, and once again proved it's the nastiest, most customer-hostile airline from the US. And when you defenders try to justify it, you make it (and yourselves) appear even more out-of-touch with modern life, and with fair consumer practices.

But sure, you're absolutely right, on paper. United's Contract of Carriage allows it to turn away passengers, and the employee-benefit of "pass riding" which they can use or grant to friends/family, has an old-fashioned dress code. Now, especially if you are a United Continental Holdings stakeholder (employee, loyal customer with benefits built up in Mileage Plus, management, vendor, travel partner, or indeed, shareholder - all are "stakeholders"), tell me this:

What can hurt United's reputation, brand equity, future and current revenue, and profitability more? A 10-year-old girl in normal 10-year-old girl clothing like leggings? Whom nobody would even know is a "pass rider" if a power-mad Denver gate agent didn't yell at her, and then the United Social Media Team didn't make it worse on Twitter? Will people shun United because a little girl is dressed like a normal little girl?

Or this huge and ongoing public relations debacle, that intersects United's typically bad reputation, with sexism and antiquated culture? And with your company for hours, and its defenders for days, "corporate-tool-splaining" how they are right?

But sure, you're right. "It's against the rules." Except even though you're right, you're dead wrong. Wrong in the marketplace of reasonable people who are your customers, prospective customers, and influencers of customer behavior. This is an object lesson for anyone in any business. Common sense, proper judgement, and avoiding doubling-down on defending an obvious mistake, is what keeps customers and wins more.

By the way, I'm not a United hater. In fact, I've flown hundreds of thousands of paid miles on original United, original Continental, and the combined United that is now the airline run by the merged United Continental Holdings. Used to have quite high "status" with them. At times, they've almost seemed to have turned a corner, but as this article by a significant social marketer notes, they keep creating toxic customer service self-inflicted wounds. 

Post has attachment
Entirely missing from this "What should the US do with the ISS?" piece: <=> It's not up to us. Russia gets to decide. Technical, not political.

Technical now, due to "political then". Due to long-ago political decisions, that gave Russia the responsibility to design, build, and launch the core backbone support module of the made-international ISS. Rather than building Reagan's original Space Station Freedom, as an "All-American" design. I happen to think going international, and for most purposes bilateral US-Russia, was the right decision. For many reasons, not just the end-of-Cold-War political ones.

But that created the technical reality that the Russian modules can survive and be usable in-orbit as a smaller, entirely Russian station, or as part of a new, larger all-Russian station. While the US modules are not usable without the Russian core, and thus have to be sent to burn up in the atmosphere just like our first throwaway station, Skylab.

Sure, US Congress. Hold hearings. But unless you find magic budget to build replacement core service modules, the US-owned parts of ISS are just future junk.

Surprised that usually good on space reporting PopSci ignored that.

Post has attachment
The two most-used American English stylebooks finally recognize English doesn't have a singular gender-neutral pronoun but needs one. <=> Not "one".

How long ago did Second-wave feminism happen?

At this rate, someday they'll even realize that the punctuation belongs outside of the quote if the punctuation isn't part of what is being quoted (or "scare-quoted"). Same for parentheses. If you are being logical rather than following lead-type physical constraints.

A writer should use what helps them communicate clearly, not what is in some manual.

Post has attachment
Wow! Google just killed trusted green-bar status of every HTTPS site on Symantec SSL certificates. <=> It gets worse!

https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/03/google-takes-symantec-to-the-woodshed-for-mis-issuing-30000-https-certs/

How much worse, other than maybe it's already downgrading your business' site? Much worse. The greenbar downgrade to just "domain validated with no statement of trust in business real-world identity" happened already. But sites affected are still valid "HTTPS secure browsing" with the downgraded-biz-trust but still full-tech-trust of "SSL". (It's not really SSL, SSL has been broken and hacked for years, it's really TLS. If your site is still truly "SSL" fire your tech team. A year ago if you have a TARDIS.) The real bad news starts in a few more weeks, on a rolling schedule.

Google is going to invalidate your "SSL" (TLS/HTTPS) certificate entirely, if it came from Symantec/VeriSign (yes, among the many mergers and deals of our new Gilded Age was Symantec buying the "SSL" business of domain registry VeriSign). That "full-tech-trust" will be replaced by a warning that your site is insecure and broken, and possibly a scam.

Google controls *everything*. Even if you are an "I don't use Google" person. (Bwahahaha! Yes you do.) Google Chrome is overwhelmingly the most-used web browser. Chrome technology is inside nearly all of the remaining competing browsers. The ones not built on the same code, mostly only the near-disappeared Mozilla Firefox, do use Google services inside them, including Google Location Services and of immediate relevance here, the Google Safe Browsing list.

Not to mention that "tiny little search engine" they run, you may have heard of it? Which uses HTTPS/"SSL" as a ranking signal. You really think your "SSL" will continue to help your Google page position if Google has decided your certificate provider should never be trusted? Your competitor with a cheap or free cert will look better to Google, and will be presented as such by them to your prospective customers.

So even if you just paid many hundreds of $$ (more like thousands given overall tech & biz validation time and a fair profit to your tech consultants) for a 2-year cert that's now only as good as a $20-50 buck one (more like $150-400 all-in for nontechnical clients who need full handholding and all the pre- and post- tech work beyond just ordering the cert), soon you won't have valid "secure browsing" at all. Google will mark all Symantec-issued certificates as totally invalid.

Nice, huh?

Better get your tech people to create a new private keys, do a new CSR (Certificate Signing Request), order new certificates from a totally non-Symantec-owned certification authority, and get them installed into every web server (and if relevant, mail server, reverse proxy, FTPS server) your online branding and storefront depends upon every minute. Don't understand what those terms are? That's ok, there are pros who do. Hopefully you pay yours fairly and respect them. Did you notice what I suggested are my and others' "all-in" costs to you for those lower wholesale-to-us bare cert purchase prices are? Yep, that's because we do understand that.

Note to my clients: You're not affected by this; Southern Cross Web never uses Symantec certificates. (We never use Symantec anything! Nor personally. I need our computers to work.) We rarely see a client with a use case that even needs a full EV Green Bar cert, and we certainly wouldn't buy the cert from Symantec if we did.

Increasingly, for non-full-ecommerce sites, the technically-equivalent just-as-secure free "Let's Encrypt" certificates work fine, and save our clients money and us time/hassle. For small business sites with ecommerce but passing off payment services to trusted third-parties like Stripe, Square, or PayPal, a regular domain-validated commercially-issued cert with some moderate level of financial guarantee is all most need. We usually use Comodo certificates for that, purchased from one of our trusted Comodo wholesale resellers.

You may note that for most of their services and sites, even Google doesn't use a "green bar" certificate. But the certificate needs to work, and it needs to keep carrying the level of assurance for which you paid serious money. If it's from Symantec, it won't. Not per Google, which essentially controls the entire web and all web browsers, even the parts from its competitors.

Post has attachment
Win for us sane folks who think reasonably priced universally available healthcare is a good thing. <=> Small win.

Small, because to be at all honest if you're a supporter of reasonably priced universally available health care, "ObamaCare" pretty much sucks at any or all of that. It just sucks less than pre-Obamacare did. Barely. And for some it sucks more. Just ask either Bill Clinton (who called it "the craziest thing") or Bernie Sanders, if you want to know why it's bad.

But it's still better than this heap of hot steaming groat clusters that the fractured fragments of the three-to-five separate movements that call themselves "Republicans" were trying to foist on the USA.

It's dead for now, and Trump won't fight for this crappy RyanCare. If you called it TrumpCare you were never paying attention.

But don't get complacent. And do work to get more decent Democrats, not sold-out CorporateCrats, into the House and Senate in 2018. Start now. Make sure none of them are from "Democrat dynasties" or you'll never get decent modern universal healthcare of either type, "Single Payer" (like UK, Canada) or "Subsidized provider choice" (like Uruguay, Germany). 

Post has attachment
Brilliant response! <=> Arab and Middle-eastern airlines suffering stupid-evil bans, are marketing with ridicule!

The other day I pointed out that banning laptops and tablets on specific airlines, not just flight-origination cities, is clearly corrupt payback to the continually-whining Delta, United, and American Airlines. Thoughout the Obama era and into the Trump administration, they repeatedly whined, cajoled, donated, and lobbied (using your fare dollars) to somehow ban the excellent Middle East-based airlines from flying to the USA.

The idea of competing on quality apparently escapes "our" multiply-bankrupt (larger than any Trump company), multiply-taxpayer bailed-out, "Big Three" US international airlines.

Qatar, Emirates, Ethiad, Royal Jordanian, and no doubt also Turkish Airlines, are fighting back with ads that point out how good their service is, and how they have excellent on-board entertainment that doesn't require having your tablet or laptop to use it.

For those of you who are not regular international travelers (something that sadly describes the majority of US citizens, who do not even have passports), you might not realize that security at international airports is basically set up by the company running the airport, and the government of that country. Which means, if you are flying from Istanbul, or Amman, or Dubai, or Abu Dhabi, or any of the other "banned electronics" airports, you are going through the same security checkpoints and processes when flying one of the banned airlines, as you are if you are about to get on a US-owned or Western-Europe or Canadian partner/revenue-sharing airline to connect to a US airline.

Thus, the idea that these particular Muslim-majority-country based airlines are more risky with worse security, than for example United (or Air Canada or Germany's Lufthansa, who share every single US-connecting trip's revenue with United), or American (or British Airways or same-owner Spain's Iberia, who share the same way with American), or Delta (or AirFrance/KLM same-owner or Italy's Alitalia, which share $ the exact same way with Delta).

And further, on flights then going to the USA, there is always US TSA-regulated security processing, usually at the US-flight's departure gate, even after you have gone through security at that airport or at your originating airport on connections. Thus, whether you arrive at Munich from Istanbul on Lufthansa to connect to United or Lufthansa (paying part of the fare to United anyway) to the US, or got there on Turkish airlines, or are on Turkish nonstop Istanbul-to-USA, the same TSA-demanded security checks are performed.

So why is it more risky to let laptops/tablets on these "Muslim country" airlines than on the US and US-partner airlines, when the same security rules are in place? It's not. It's utter nonsense. And the only rationale, other than being a further part of Trump's "Muslim ban" (which it would do nothing for; Muslims can buy a Delta or United ticket too!), is to reward Delta, American, and United Airlines.

I don't know what Trump gets out of his big favor to Delta, United Continental Holdings, and American. But that's all that this ban is really about. Probably part of his "American First" badly-thought-out ideas, to help "American companies".

Meanwhile, "Americans", as well as the many Europeans, Asians, Aussies, Kiwis, and other global travelers and businesspeople, some of whom I know, are being pushed off their far-preferred and often more-convenient airlines, Ethiad, Emirates and some others, if they want to be able to do any meaningful work while onboard a long flight. Pushed onto the wildly substandard US-based airlines, substandard both in "hard product" (behind the times seating, at-seat amenities and comfort, onboard internet, entertainment) and especially "soft product" (onboard food, drink, fees or lack thereof, good vs crappy "I'm only here for your safety, how dare you ask me for another drink just because I haven't come through the cabin in 2 hours and am loudly chatting in the galley" gawdwful service.)

I am thrilled that the Middle Eastern region's quality carriers are fighting back with brilliant marketing and biting satire against this stupid ban. But I think they also have to fight back with lawsuits and treaty violation cases for violating fair-trade, fair-competition, open-skies agreements.

And I'm concerned about what that "down-the-road" payoff back to the Trump Administration will be from American, Delta, and United. Can't figure that one out yet, can you? 

Post has attachment
TL;DR version: Democrats still can't self-reflect, admit Clinton cheated. <=> It was Russians! Hunt them down!

And now, the rest of the story:

Of course, that's not the official NYT spin in this article. Instead, it's how the Republicans in the House and Senate "Election hacks" investigations are not letting the Democrats (who have zero-to-trivial power because, the American People rejected Democrats by the boatloads over all the last many election cycles, except for 3 counties in California and NYS that gave Clinton a "participation trophy") focus on how "Russia hacked the election."

(I will back off on posting these counter-the-"Official Narrative" truth-bomb rants, when your "team" stops being so unrealistic about why the Democrats, of which I still am one*, lost the Presidency and kept losing everything else.)

I will remind all of you that even IF "Russian hackers" got into Podesta's and DNC's stupidly-weak-password email accounts, the only "interfere with election" bit is that Wikileaks release of the emails PROVED that Clinton cheated Sanders. PROVED that the Democrat power-base threatened independent-thinking Democrats like.

Proved that now-disgraced DNC Chair (after the first-disgraced DNC chair resigned for cheating and was same-day hired directly by Hillary) helped Hillary cheat at her debates with Bernie, because she gave Clinton the "test questions" - the questions that the CNN moderators planned to ask.

None of that was "Russian Hackers" nor "Putin" nor any "attempt to rig the election" - what it was, was showing to the American People that the Democratic Party Leadership itself was rigging the primary elections.

(Almost nobody serious in information security, as opposed to in partisan politics, thinks it took a "state actor" to do those trivial hacks. Nor that IP addresses in Russia and nearby countries means that the government is doing it. All my sites get attacked by IP addresses in Russia, Moldova, and Ukraine hundreds of times daily. Everyone's sites do. Yours too if you have a business or personal website. "Russians are in your website" right now - but some of us know how to protect from that. Obviously not the DNC or Podesta. That doesn't mean the Russian Government is doing it.)

Russia didn't do a damn thing to our vote totals nor election machines. There is far more evidence that the Clinton campaign and their agents and loyalists, whether under orders or as "self-radicalized lone-wolf electoral terrorists", did indeed "rig vote totals" and rig voter registrations and caucus admissions, than there is that Putin's Russia rigged anything - except possibly helping the truth about Clinton get out.

Let's not even get deeply into all the stolen voter registrations and mysterious changes to disqualify Sanders voters in both NY and Nevada. The outright lies about "chairs thrown by Bernie supporters" repeated by many top Democratic politicians, and repeated right here on social media by way too many of you, my friends and extended circles. But before any of you even DARE to repeat "Russia hacked the election" yet again, or believe your beloved mainstream media (inner-circle, "access journalism and government-compromised"media like the modern NYT and modern arms-contractor-owned WaPo), if you have any intellectual honesty you will look at the many verified (but not by WaPo and NYT et al) reports of the establishment/Clinton Democrats rigging the primary process.

This isn't "Russia" - and I will repeat also, that if Russia was in fact behind getting the truth over to WikiLeaks, which then informed the American Voters that Clinton and her arrogant corporate-tool corrupt neoliberal-economics and warmongering neoconservative conflict-creators, were even worse than we thoughtful, deeply-researching Democrats, progressives, and Democrat-leaning independents, even thought.

It wasn't Putin. It was Clinton who lost the election for Clinton and the Democrats. And until you* Democrats recognize that the terrible warmongering and corporate-favors corruption of the Clinton/Obama-with-Clinton years is not what your party is supposed to be about, you will keep losing. No Russians needed.

Guys, gals - Stop, just stop with the "Russians", you're embarrassing yourselves. Clinton BLEW the election. Clinton as a candidate was awful. We all knew that. We the non-brainwashed non-hyperpartisan Democratic-leaning independents and others who would have voted for a good Democratic candidate. Not only was she an awful campaigner, Clinton was by no means the "most experienced ever to run" as Obama kept saying and many reading this kept parroting. Are you kidding me?

Yes, she was a lot more experienced than 1/3-term back-bencher Senator Obama was. As usual, maybe Obama compares everything to himself. But she was not nearly as overall experienced in governing and business and general success in leadership, as, just to name Presidents good or bad but experienced over the past half-century:

John F. Kennedy (war hero and Senator). Lyndon Johnson (multiple offices and an amazing "get opponents in Congress to do things", Obama's biggest weakness.) Richard Nixon (Vice President, then governor of the most politically influential state.) Ronald Reagan (had led a major union and also governor of that same influential state in politics.) George H.W. Bush - war hero and multiple elected and appointed offices, including head of CIA and Vice President. Bill Clinton (had been a 2-term governor and reasonably good at it.) And that's just counting the candidates who won election on their own (even if initially advanced to POTUS after a tragic vacancy like LBJ). Arguably many of the losing candidates over the last 5 or 6 decades also had experience as good or better than Hillary Clinton.

Finally, Clinton basically slept through the General Election campaign. Off the trail for days at a time, while her opponent made multiple stops and rallies near-daily, often several per day. Actually acted like he wanted the job (though I wonder if he still does now!) while she acted like she expected it handed to her. When she finally did or said anything, it was mostly attacking Trump rather than promoting real reasons why she would be better. When she talked policy at all, it was policy plagiarized from Sanders, and we all knew that she was lying and would never do a damn thing that he wanted. Or she ridiculed the millions of Americans suffering from the bipartisan-establishment neoliberal "privatize everything, outsource everything, offshore everything" last 20-25 years going back to the first, and if there is any justice, the ONLY Clinton Administration that will ever occur.

Of course independents abandoned her. Of course progressives whether registered Democrats or non-affiliated abandoned her. Stayed home, voted 3rd-party or independent candidates, some even voting for rich and personally corrupt but anti-offshoring/outsourcing Trump. And if you don't think that some Democrats voted for Trump, that is another part of the delusion that will keep Democrats ongoing losers at all levels for decades more. Figure out what you did wrong, don't do it again, and banish to the outer darkness those who did it. Then maybe you'll / we'll start winning again. For the right reasons. As actual Democrats, not as Clinton-like center-right Republicans but even more corrupt that those of old. Which is what the Establishment Democrats are right now - "Republicans".

Do better next time, Democrats. And stop blaming anybody but your own party and your own candidates. It's stupid, foolish, childish, and embarrassing. Plus it makes you* keep losing.

--

* (I'm technically one myself. Still a Democrat, but about to remove it and return to No Party Affiliation until I see which party's Florida primary I want to influence next time around. Such as if a saner and more centrist GOP candidate "primaries" my Congresscritter that yahoo Ted Yoho, in a gerrymandered district where a Democrat can never win the general, I want to be able to oppose Yoho in the Republican primary. Or if the Democrats insist on cheating-in another Clintonista next time or heaven-help-us, Hillary herself, I will have no interest in your party and will try to help the least-bad Republican.)


I chose an MSN share of this NYT piece to possibly pierce paywall for you: https://a.msn.com/r/2/BByDfcx?m=en-us

Post has attachment
Another reason not to book with Expedia (or Expedia-owned Travelocity & Orbitz) <=> Clinton cronyism. Chelsea gets another position with no valid experience qualifying her for it.

Just as she got given a fake-journalist position by Comcast's NBC (it might have still been Military-Industrial Complex GE's NBC at the time.) A high-level finance job. And more gifts of Corporatocracy power positions to ensure access to expected continued political power of the Clinton Dynasty.

Chelsea being gifted this perk and money by the company that has a near-monopoly* on travel bookings, is the clearest sign yet that the Clintons are pushing to buy Chelsea a high political office. Or that those who already invested millions in getting "access" and were thwarted by Hillary Clinton's utter incompetence as a candidate, twice, are demanding a "New Clinton" to provide their payback.

Seriously. What has Chelsea Clinton actually accomplished that makes her qualified for this, or any of her other positions? There are many young women in their thirties with far better real-world business, global affairs, and/or military experience than her, that don't waltz in at the top. And I don't only mean Ivanka Trump nor Army Guard Major / Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. But yes, both of them (#YesEvenIvanka) are more qualified. (Obligatory #Tulsi2020 here.)

This is purely buying access to Senator Chelsea Clinton. Once she, like her mother before her, decides which state to carpetbag into as "home" where she can safely run and win without doing the legit lower-offices hard work of politics and governance to earn that upper-chamber seat. Can't be New York since Schumer is never going away and Gillibrand is a friend of Hillary who took over her seat. Unless Gillibrand decides to run for President in 2020 and also chooses to not run for Senate reelection in 2018.

Though there are rumors of "House District Shopping", I doubt "Crown Princess" Chelsea would deign to run for anything as lowly as "the lower house", the House of Representatives. Like her mother, she thinks simply being immediate family to an actually good politician, Bill Clinton, qualifies her to start near the top.

So expect Chelsea to go "Senate State Shopping" soon. And please try to stop that, if you are a voter in that "lucky state". The one unquestionably good outcome of the terrible 2016 election process is that it broke both the Bush Dynasty and the Clinton Dynasty. The latter before it fully formed. Please keep it broken. US politics should not have dynasties and noble families. We got rid of that back in 1776.

--
* (Expedia bought / was allowed by Obama-era Democrat antitrust so-called "regulators" to buy, almost all the companies you think compete with Expedia - many more than I mentioned. Priceline was allowed to buy all the rest, in a classic anti-consumer oligarchic duopoly move.)

Post has attachment
You still can't buy pot here, years after "legalized sales." <=> One of ex-President Mujica's badly-thought-out ideas. One of many.

Good man. Important ethical voice. Grand story of survival, and of redemption from believing in and committing violence for change, to peaceful yet non-traditional political action.

But increasingly seen as a poor leader of a real-world government, as a detached and often incompetent manager, while scandals and losses abounded during his term. While he flourished in the limelight of the "World's poorest president' hype machine. Basically running for a Nobel Peace Prize rather than properly running the country.

Scandals and mismanagement losses that we the people of Uruguay (I am a permanent legal resident and via our high VAT and government-owned utilities, a taxpayer) are now paying for in many ways.

Although on a "track to citizenship", I won't be a voting citizen in time for the 2019 elections, because Uruguay's constitution requires naturalized citizens to have held citizenship for three years before being able to exercise the special rights and obligations thereof: voting and jury service primarily.

But were I such, I would not vote for now-Senator Mujica to have a new term as President. I would vote for him for a re-election as a Senator. Sen. Mujica has recently announced that if his health allows, he plans to tun in 2019. I hope he reconsiders that, and at most runs to retain his leadership in the Senate.

I fear that if he runs for president again, the Frente Amplio party-of-parties will lose the presidency entirely to the once far-right, now Clinton-style center-right neoliberal, "Blancos", the Partido Nacional. Whereas if a center-left, competent-leader, and non-elderly voice of a more mainstream FA party gets the FA presidential nomination, the FA may continue Uruguayan progress.

Meanwhile, Mujica's signature marijuana law is a debacle on so many levels. As this good analysis article from Canada's leading new and commentary journals accurately reports. Looked good in the global press, though.

Post has attachment
I already mentioned this, but buried in a reply to another member, in a long comment thread. Posting here to surface it for others. Deal on a "CD" in the "indexed" currency here, the UI. Triple the normal interest for time deposits, on this already inflation-indexed "currency".

BROU, the bank we all love to hate but have to deal with at least when dealing with other people and businesses here, has a "triple-interest" offer, this month only, on Plazo Fijo deposits (the UY term for what US folks call a "CD - Certificate of Deposit") - those denominated in the psuedo-currency called Unidad Indexada (U.I.) The UI is basically a "Cost of Living" or "Consumer Price Index" tracking psuedo-currency. Where Uruguay is somewhat of a "managed economy" with a lot of "democratic socialism" ("somewhat"??), the amount the UI goes up is published a few months in advance, rather than more logically being a "Hey, how much did prices go up?" observation.

Nonetheless, unlike the Uruguayan Peso, or the unofficial second currency, the US Dollar ("unofficial"??), the UI is the only consumer-available "bank deposit currency" that track the real increase in cost of living here, más-o-menos. And it is closely related to, though not identical to, the Unidad Reajustable used to price various government services and forms, and the Unidad Reajustable de Alquileres (the Rental Cost adjustable unit, the URA). The URA in turn is what the government uses to determine the URA Coefficient, which is the published amount by which landlords are allowed to raise your rent during each year of a multi-year contract. (Maximum contracts/leases here being 2 years with a 3rd year option, with increase by the URA coefficient each year's anniversary.)

The UI isn't the URA. But it's the closest thing you can do a guaranteed bank deposit in. Which if you're a renter (like me) or if you are saving for something that you know may well vary with the inflation rate, may make sense for keeping up with Uruguay prices with an in-Uruguay indexed "currency".

Basically, X amount in UI, at the peso cost today, should be worth about the same buying power in pesos (which will be a bigger number) a year from now. Plus normally a small amount of interest on UI time deposits. BROU, however, has this "triple the interest" short-term deal on the UI "CD".

But only if you open it online. Which means that you have to already have a BROU account (at least a basic caja de ahorros - no-interest savings), and a BROU online profile that is of a higher level than the sometimes-default "Consultas". I won't go into all the "fun" I had upgrading my profile a few months ago to one that now can do online payments, transfers to other banks, and in theory open new accounts. But it involved a lot of password-re-typing, weirdly-buried menu structures where options aren't where you think they would be, and a trip to a BROU ATM/Autoservismo in order to confirm, in "person" to the machine, the changes I requested online.

However, if you have all that, or can get it going, you might be interested.


https://www.portal.brou.com.uy/personas/inversiones/plazo-fijo/unidades-indexadas


Wait while more posts are being loaded