www.CostaRicaTicas.com

The cell phone issue is a very good point, I feel this was a huge mistake in the negotiations on the part of Costa Ricans.

Other than that, I am not sure the comparisons are valid. Costa Rica has a better educated work force than any other country in Central America, also a higher cost of doing business. The types of jobs created here most likely to be of higher quality than those in the other countries that have ratified CAFTA.

With the success of Intel here, we will probably see more IT type jobs vs the low wage manufacturing jobs.

We're going way off topic here, but let me clarify this much. I'm not promoting a socialist style redistribution of wealth. I'm saying a redistribution of wealth is already going on - from the poor to the rich. Numbers bear it out, whether you look at the lorenz curve of the US over time, the Gini coefficient or whatever. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is more than an academic observation. You speculated what lay behind the explosive growth of the US economy during the previous century. You lay it completely at the hand of private interests rather than government intervention even though this period also saw a tremendous increase of government involvement in the economy from the laissez-faire policies of the century before that. Even on the private sector side Henry Ford wa wise enough to know to pay his employees enough so that they could afford the products they produced. A growing middle class, rather than just rich and poor, was essential for the development of a consumerist society that made all that economic growth possible. What happens to the economy as that middle class shrinks remains to be seen.

What about wealth distribution worldwide? It is inevitable and even desireable that the LDC's get a fairer slice of the economic pie. But in a finite world with finite resources, eventually that will mean a smaller slice for us. If everyone in the world lived the way we currently do in the US, we'd quickly run out of oil, water, power and global warming and other forms of pollution would have grave economic effects. It can't go on forever. So, yes, some LDC's are becoming more prosperous but even in those countries, the distribution of wealth is still pretty bad and the vast bulk of the population of those countries still don't share in the newly generated wealth that flows mainly to their ruling elites.

And the reason you see this whether in the US itself, in LDC's or in ther terms of trade is quite simple - the Golden Rule - he that has the gold rules. The rules of the game are made up by those in power and designed for their continued enrichment. And that is where this comes back to FTA's like CAFTA, it is written by and designed to promote the interests of the MNC's and their shareholders. Before the voters, who are basically just sheep who will vote for whichever side runs more 30 second TV spots (again those with the most gold), before they vote to approve a complex document like a FTA, they need to carefully analysis what parts of these new rules are or are not in their own best interests. And I just don't see that happening.

as an aside, what is the percentage of illegal immingrants/persons in CR in relation to the total population?

_________________
The difference between a Sea Story and a Fairy Tale is that a Fairy Tale starts out 'Once Upon a Time..' and a Sea Story starts out 'This is no Shit...'

(export version only, some restrictions may apply, some assembly required, not valid where the sun don't shine...

if you live in the states of Poverty, Darkness or anywhere outside of The Blessings of Civilization Trust, Inc...other rules may apply)

That's an interesting question. I did a quick web search to see if I could quickly find the answer. At first all I could come up with was this one blog entry which purports that there are over 1 million Nicaraguans alone. that is an astounding number for a country with a population of little more than 4 million ticos themselves. http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/20283.html. And that doesn't even include all the colombiana prostitutes at the HDR/BM or gringo expat tourist visa abusers (aka "perpetual tourists") like so many of our good friends here. But, I found that number a little hard to believe. So I went back and found another article that said this: (FYI, FLACSO stands for Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales) That would put CR's nicaragua population at just under 250K. Finally there is this article http://mondediplo.com/2007/01/12nicaragua, which among other things has this to say: "Half a million Nicaraguans are thought to be living on the other side of the San Juan, the river that marks the frontier, and another 300,000 are scattered elsewhere, in total some 14% of the population." (they mean 14% of Nicaragua's population). That comes out to 800K which gets you pretty close to that original 1M amount so maybe it wasn't that far off.

Concerning the Nicaraguense in CR, You need to go back and check the history. Several years ago, right after the hurricane hit Nicaragua and it was in a civil war, the US told Costa Rica (didn't ask) "you will let 1 million Nicaraguense refuges into CR" Most of the Nicas are in CR legally. But they are concidered 2nd class and in most cases can only find the lowest paying jobs-house keeping, hotel maids, etc.

_________________
Old and retired but still bang, and bang, and bang!!!

I have always read that there are 1 million Nicas in CR. I don't doubt that number.

Bang Why would the USA demand that CR take in 1 milllion Nicas?????

And why would CR agree to that??? Never heard that one.

I think most Nicas in CR are here illegally. And the costa ricans really look down on them.

Many parallels with mexicans in the USA.

You should read that last article I cited as it has lots of interesting info including this comment:

And the 2nd article also said this: I wonder to what degree this CAFTA just addresses relations between the US and the respective countries and how much it will effect relations between them. Already there is a free flow of citizens between the C4 countries. Will CR become part of this and will that mean even more illegal immigration from the central american countries to the north the same way that NAFTA contributed to illegal immigration between Mexico and the US?

hiccough

Pro, I will be brief and on point.

I didn't say you were promoting a socialist redistribution. What I said was your definition of “relative poverty” was only valid if that is your intent.

The term "relative poverty" means you are comparing it to something else. To my way of thinking there only 3 ways to measure what it means to be "relatively" poor. In other words, 3 things you can compare “poverty” to:

1) Compare against those that are rich
2) Compare against historical measurements of what it means to be poor
3) Compare against what it means to be poor in other countries

I submit that the first measure is only relevant if you are promoting a redistribution of wealth. Otherwise it is meaningless.

I feel that the second two comparisons are much more meaningful if you want to assess the cost/benefit of enacting policies like NAFTA and CAFTA.

If you were to measure “relative poverty” by using the second two comparisons, the idea that the "poor are getting poorer" in the US is simply not accurate by any measurement standard you want to employ.

ZMAN---to answer your guestions:

Why on the part of the USA?--Cheap way of helping those "poor" Nicaraguenses escape Ortega and the devestation of the hurricane.

Why on the part of Costa Rica?--MONEY or should I say the lack of money from the USA if they had refused.

Many ARE illegal especially the younger ones that have only been here a short time (working chicas that we enjoy spending time with)

If anyone has any doubts about the #s; drive by the Nic. embassy just about any day of the week-Hundreds, sometimes1000s waiting for appointments.

And, YES, Ticos look down on them como Americans /Mexicans in the USA

_________________
Old and retired but still bang, and bang, and bang!!!

KC, you seem to really get into these semantic games dissecting each others posts time after time. It must bore other members to tears, I know it does me so I don't know why I let myself get dragged into it. Why are you so hung up on the expression "relative poverty"? I went back and checked this thread and you're the only one that keeps bringing that up (7 instances). The only place the term "relatively poor" appeared in any of my posts in this thread was in a definition I quoted from wikipedia. My guess would be that THEY didn't mean any of the interpretations you provided by rather against the median or the mean, but you'll have to ask them exactly what THEY meant. As for the widening gap between rich and poor in this country, that has been widely documented not only in that article but in many other places. If you want to dispute that too, I suggest you write into the op-ed page of your local newspaper. As for my part, I'm giving trying to prove to you what seems to me to be the obvious.

Pro, look who is talking about boring other members to tears..... I will be the first to admit that I can be guilty of belaboring a point. But I don't think I am even close to being in your category in that regard. We can let the others be the final judge of that.

Its all good, I made my point about the wikipea definition. If you think that definition leads you to a valid conclusion you are welcome to that conclusion.

I have made my point that I believe that in this case that definition leads to a false conclusion. I will just say that we have the richest, most well off poor people in the history of the world (excluding some socialist countries of course). That is why we have so many Mexicans coming here. To me, that is obvious.

Let the members decide for themselves which conclusion makes more sense.

by the way .....



I do believe the notion of "relative poverty" was introduced into the dialog with your wikipedia definition that you are so fond of quoting. In fact, it is the critical element of that definition brother!!!!

You posted a 2 page diatribe and I made several comments about statements that you made that just weren't accurate in my opinion. So I am not sure how it was that I drug you into it. (Although I will admit to egging you on for a response)

I think you and I differ in that I don't have an emotional investment in debating opinions. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am just exchanging ideas. If it that is troublesome for you, I am not quite sure what to say. I think you try to overwhelm the conversation with a lot of detail and minutia and you get frustrated when that doesn't work for.

It is not necessary for either of us to have the final word. I am only trying to to cut through all the detail in your point and get to the essential points. In this case, you were trying to argue a conclusion that was based on what I believe was a false premise. Others are free to determine if the premise you are promoting is valid or not.

I believe your premise promotes a socialist point of view. My premise promotes a capitolistic point of view. Let others decide which premise they want to accept.

THe nature of these discussions lends them to big generalizations based on presuppositions that there is not time or space to go into. Definitions and clarifications could go on ad infinitum if we are to discuss and respond to every point of difference.

What I am seeing here is a general discussion between two or three macro philosophies on economics, politics and globalization. Hell, they have huge institutes like Cato, Hoover, Heritage Foundation and others who spend millions each year researching and analyzing these issues. Most of them still have a problem selling the world on any "absolutes"...so why should we be surprised at lack of concensus here?

At the same time, I think it valuable for every person to study and analyze based on their own life experiences what is going on and try to influence and share ideas based on their ideas and experiences. Its all part of the science of living I think. I think everyone here is making valid observations and comments even if none of us are 100% correct.

Prolijo likes to break down macros and examine micros...which is a helpful exercise sometimes in questioning or creating pause regarding over generalizations. At the same time, we can sometimes miss the forest for the trees...and if I ere...it tends in being focused on the trees instead of the details. But I so think all debates start with some neccessary presuppositions that help one understand the direction ideas are going.

Alot of this dialogue has been defining aspects of poverty, relative poverty, and macro economic theories. I think we all have agreed that globalization is changing everything...sometimes for good, sometimes not. We also I think are agreeing that some are being helped and others hurt in this upsetting of the proverbial applecart. How we fix or adjust things is what creates most of the adversity of ideas. Some people want governments to solve everything. Others of us want government out of it and let individuals and business entities pursue the answers.

One example based on a Prolijo response...we discuss Libertarian free market against aspects of governement environmental protections. This is a good example in my mind of deliniating roles of government versus roles of business or individuals. FREE trade can be exercised with certain limits if the world would let it be tried. The role of governments and societies would be protecting their natural resources...and obviously their sovereign borders...whether that be national or individual property rights. THAT is the role of government. But as to setting prices and trade guidelines...or price fixing...that should never be left to governments...or anyone for that matter. Laws should protect free and fair trade. THere is no such thing as trade and competition where everyone always wins. Its called COMPETITION folks. Its called learning and paying the price for your mistakes...not having some societal or government backing that insulates you from your mistakes or losses. Government bailouts of airlines, banks, et al...in the long run...just continues the process of unfair and protectionistic trade practices. So...there is room in my worldview for quality governments with defined roles...and free and fair trade on a global basis. In time I hope the large trade blocks that are being established morph towards this type of model...for the good of all...even the poor.

_________________
All that a man achieves and all that he fails to achieve is the direct result of his own thoughts...

Can you substantiate this at all? First of all, which hurricane you talking about? Second of all, I assume you're aware that the civil war in Nicaragua ended in 1979.

There have been a maybe half a dozen named tropical storms and class 1-2 hurricanes that have hit Nicaragua over the last 10-20 years and the class 5 Hurricane Felix that hit last month. But I'm guessing he is referring to Hurricane Mitch which hit in 1998. It was only a class 1 and never actually passed directly over Nicaragua but it caused massive destruction there primarily due to rainfall and mudslides. According to wiki:
Sounds pretty bad. No reports of the US making CR take in Nicaragua refugees though it wouldn't surprise me if the displacement of Nicaraguans spilled over into CR.

As for your 2nd question, again I can't speak towards whether the US leaned on CR to take in Nicaraguans, but he does have his dates straight. The civil war includes the period leading up to the time that Jimmy Carter withdrew US support for the dictator Anastasio Somoza and his eventual flight to the US on July 17th 1979. But the period of greatest US involvement actually did occur during the 1980's under Ronald Reagan when he supported the Contras against the newly in power Sandinistas under Daniel Ortega (who is now back in power after a 16 yeat hiatus). At that time a lot of the operations against the Sandanistas were run out of Honduras and also Costa Rica. In fact to this day, you can still see one of the transport planes that was used on the road to Manuel Antonio (it has been turned into a restaurant). Remember Eugene Hassenfus, Oliver North, the Iran-Contra arms for hostages scandal?