www.CostaRicaTicas.com

You can single out Hugo Chavez, but the economic blackmail/incentive game hardly started with him. There were plenty of 'sticks' along with the carrots attached to the CAFTA/TLC treaty. And let's not forget CR abandoning it's (formerly) dear friend Taiwan for China.

It would take a major effort by a bunch of objective and intelligent people to pin down what exactly is wrong in CR, but I just got back from a trip to Lima, Peru. Peru has a lower Per Capita Income than Costa Rica, yet public services actually worked. The streets were clean and safe. The roads were wide and not totally clogged. The city WORKS, unlike San Jose. I went for a doctor's appointment and paid less than 7 dollars. I think it was actually 7 Soles, which is less than 3 dollars.

My own, uninformed guess is that it's all about corruption and the unwillingness of the ruling elite here to pay their fair share. Property taxes here are outrageously low, and sales taxes are outrageously high. The word is 'regressive taxation.' The ruling families treat government as their personal golden goose, to be looted as they see fit for their own benefit. It helps to have a passive, badly educated population who steal from each other rather than kick out the bums who keep them poor. Peru has the added expense of a military, which is kept rather busy with the Shining Path people. And they still manage to run a clean, efficient modern city on less Per Capita Income than Costa Rica. The Costa Rican aristocracy is fortunate in that most of their serfs don't realize that similar or even poorer countries such as Panama and Peru actually have functioning infrastructures. Hell, they might even arrange a parade against potholes!

_________________
"The only normal people are those you don't know very well." Joe Ancis

My friend Bilko, and I hope you are my friend even though we’ve not met, you are a smart guy, I like your posts, and your observations are very astute.

I understand that economic blackmail is not a phenomenon restricted to Hugo and his pot of oil. Economic black mail is as ancient as history itself and the US is one of the greatest strategists in the use of the tactic. Heck, I’ve used the tactic myself, well maybe not really black mail but certainly hard core leverage, on several occasions.

Corruption and manipulation by the haves to exclude the have not’s and keep them without is the history of third world countries. It is compounded by ignorance and lack of education. While it is fascinating to see it in real life and in action my compassion for the have not’s can make it compelling and disturbing.

A very interesting book on Central America, including Costa Rica, is titled Coffee and Power: Revolution and the Rise of Democracy in Central America by Jeffrey Paige, Harvard University Press. It appeals to “egg heads” (academics) but is very readable nevertheless.

Thank you for the tip, Diego, I will see if I can find that book. I enjoy your posts too. It's going to be interesting (if not totally enjoyable) to see how the current economic 'woes' play out here in Costa Rica, and for we gringos who live and visit here.

_________________
"The only normal people are those you don't know very well." Joe Ancis

He said that if there were major bank failures and/or if the Fed. hadn't set in place $100B grants (er I mean loans) to several major banks which I don't think had happened yet we would enter Great Depression II.

Looks like it is time to...

SELL, SELL, SELL!

R U Ready skeedaddy??

Sorry for my phucked up un-edited post which should now be corrected. Has been a hellish weekend (really) trip planning for Peru. I have never spent so much time planning for a trip and as I recently learned there is a major Asian-Latin Economic conference in town again so I may have to completely scuttle this trip and try again latter. The APEC schedule is on www.go2peru.com. They meet very regularly and hog up all the good spots.

Does Florida have ANOTHER handle.....

other than Squidface

Jester, I know Cramer is your Hero (Boo-yah), but does anyone else take that guy seriously any more. Sure he's good entertainment but in real terms his track record is questionable at best.

On Friday, he was predicting more sell-off carnage today, but as of now the market is actually up 400 points. Of course, with the volatility of the market lately that was really a 50-50 bet that could easily have gone either way but Cramer GUESSED wrong.

He likes to point out the times when he's gotten it right, but even a broken clock is right twice per day. If you look at his track record of recommendations against the overall market at various times he's run either just even (which any ape with a dartboard could do) or significantly worse.

Some other examples:

He was saying to hold Bear Stearns 2 days before they became toast.

He was saying "inflation was 'mort', longlive deflation" back in August just days before it was announced inflation was the worst its been in 27 years.

A few months before that he said the falling market had bottomed out.

Granted he did very well when he was a hedge fund manager back in the 90's, but how hard was that in an era when there was an internet bubble and you were making heavily leveraged investments in the tech sector. The real key to realizing gains in an investment bubble is realizing it is a bubble and knowing when it is about to burst. In February 2000, proclaimed that Internet-related companies "are the only ones worth owning right now." These "winners of the new world," as he called them, "are the only ones that are going higher consistently in good days and bad".

In 2007, he gave similarly bad advice to buy around the market peak and now the market is down by fully 1/3 from when he said that.

Some students at the Kellog School of Management (Northwestern University’s business school) did a study of Cramer's trading picks and found "that the aggregate losers in our event study are the Mad Money viewers who decide to buy the recommended securities when the markets open the following day, and that the winners are the market makers and arbitraguers who sell the overpriced recommended stocks on day 1, as well as the traders who sell the recommended stocks on days 2 through 12."

The Mad Money Machine, a blog that reviews Mr. Cramer’s stock recommendations, calculated that Mr. Cramer’s stock picks returned 0.2 percent in 2006, as compared with that year’s 22.5 percent from a portfolio of passive index funds.

Writing in a column for Slate, a former Internet analyst (who admittedly has a pretty poor track record of advice of his own), calls Mr. Cramer “perhaps the worst thing to happen to the financial security of average Americans since the crumbling of the Social Security system”. And that’s before he really gets going. He goes on to say "But the more I thought about Cramer, the more I realized that pointing out that he gives terrible investment advice would be like pointing out that the sun rises. Worse, I would be dismissed as a wet blanket who didn't get that the point of Mad Money was just to have a bit of ironic fun. I mean, of course Jim Cramer gives terrible investment advice—we all know that, right?—and we only watch the show because, well, because he does possess a certain bizarre type of market and entertainment genius—if there's a pundit out there with more opinions about more stocks, I've never seen him—and he's irreverent, madcap, and, yes, even brilliant, in an idiot-savant, freak-show sort of way. (Moreover, Cramer is mesmerizing reality TV. Admit it: You watch because you wonder if this is the night he finally has a heart attack, kills someone, or explodes in a tirade of expletive-laced slander.)"

That really says it all. Watch the show for entertainment if you like, but puhleeze don't take it seriously. You'd be better to take what he says and do the exact opposite.

Yeah I know about Jimmie's track record (marginal at best) and wouldn't take too much of what he says as gospel. He did have some good gouge in general last week though about hedging losses when everything was going to hell.

Currently I only own/trade one stock other than mutuals and only go to Jimmie as one source when making a decision.

It's up nice today. Hopefully the rally will continue.

For the last week or so intraday trading hasn't meant a dookie--the last hour has been the only one that's counted and that's when the big slides occur.
On Sr. Prolijo's post, his last line is the crucial one--on Jim Cramer, be a contrarian and you'll do at least OK.

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

I must admit that I masturbated to Sarah Palin ( the face and not the politics.)

_________________
I believe in moderation in everything except excess.
I phuck 'em just to see the look on their face.
Klatu, berata, nicto.

I agree with Pro's post. Cramer is fabulous entertainment, other than that don't take it too seriously.

Yeah, I think Palin is hot too. And she's my age. My last reunion I didn't see anything that looked that good.

Up over 900 points Let's see what tomorrow brings. Speaking of entertainment, the stock market is very entertaining. Keep in mind the stock market isn't a great barometer of the overall economic health. The credit market (bonds) is the real deal. Let's see what happens tomorrow when the banks and treasury are open. Frankly, I sold out of some things today to catch at least this rally. One day rally or the start of something big? One thing is almost certain, above average inflation is on the way. Pumping all of this newly created "money" just can't be good long term. I hate to always sound so negative but I think the dope addict just got another fix and can function for yet another day.

dapanz1

BTW...this just in from my Forex news source: The Treasury will take stakes in 9 banks. They are Citi, Wells, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, State Street & Bank of NY Mellon. So, now we have government run banking institutions. Fun.

Nationalizing Banks?

The debate over whether or not the United States should own the banks goes back to some of the most significant ideological conflicts during the founding of the United States. the idea has cropped up over and over again in American history.

Alexander Hamilton, who was the Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington, was an advocate for a strong central government where the wealthy, better educated, and elitist large-landowners controlled the government.

Hamilton was the primary advocate for a national bank, the bank owned by the government. Hamilton understood the Golden Rule (he who has the gold rules). What better way to rule than to control money including the use of credit which is critical for commerce.

It is absolutely amazing, the politicians who have claimed to be the most anti-socialist ideologs have done perhaps the most socialist thing ever in American history since the founding of the (first) Bank of the United States, essentially nationalizing the banks through the act of buying them out.

It is clear that such a major systemic change is going to have repercussions. I just hope they are not too damaging.

Here's a good summary of what it took to get the banks to buy into that banking deal, some of them (the well-capitalized) very reluctantly. It includes a good precis of the deal's provisions as a sidebar ("The Government's Rescue Plan, in Detail") And BTW it's not a $700Billion deal--when costed out fully it's more like $2.25Trillion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/busin ... ref=slogin

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

Remember in this thread when i asked about the amero? Kinda like the eruo. well looks like they might skip it all together and go for a global currency.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFs99zBTRO0

Kinda crazy /shrug