Though I haven't read his book, I've thinking about Hernan de Soto
(or whatever his name is exactly). His proposal, as I understand it,
is to create property rights for the poor (using publicly-owned
lands?), which he sees as a way to promote the development of
capitalism (which he presumes
I wrote:
Anyway, my thought is this: it sounds like a way to fight poverty (and I
believe it's been done before, perhaps in Puerto Rico), but not a way to
promote capitalism. The problem from the point of view of capitalism is
that it gives workers direct access to the means of production
Jim D. says:
it's true that we see the result of small farmers being destroyed by
market competition, but this destruction is a result, not something
that was anticipated when primitive accumulation was organized. The
primitive accumulators -- the big landlords -- would prefer it if
the
David Shemano wrote:
--
Let me rephrase it this way. De Soto wants to the poor to become
"capitalists."
The poor aren't capitalists because they have no employees. Schemes for
popular entrepeneurship, microcredit, worker-ownership etc. have been
used by states
What would be the
difference if the poor were given deeds to their home and business licenses
for their black market businesses?
I forgot to add that black markets have evolved to _evade_ business
licences, deeds and so on (see Patriots and Profiteers by R.T. Naylor).
Giving
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sunday, February 04, 2001 12:12 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7745] Re: RE: Hernando de Soto
David wrote:
In response to Jim Devine:
I haven't read his book either and can go only on the reviews I have read.
I think you are misinterpreting him
At 01:09 PM 2/5/01 -0500, you wrote:
It should be remembered that one reason why
land reform was easier to impose in both Taiwan
and South Korea was that many of the landlords
were either Japanese or had been very close to
the by-then-deposed Japanese overlords.
exactly -- and the US
The key figure in the Land Reform was Wolf Ladejinsky, an anti-communist
socialist. sorry. have to go.
Jim Devine wrote:
At 01:09 PM 2/5/01 -0500, you wrote:
It should be remembered that one reason why
land reform was easier to impose in both Taiwan
and South Korea was that many of
--Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:18 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7781] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Hernando de Soto
The key figure in the Land Reform was Wolf Ladejinsky, an anti-communist
socialist. sorry.
al Message-
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:18 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7781] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Hernando de Soto
The key figure in the Land Reform was Wolf Ladejinsky, an anti-communist
socialist. sorry.
Any details on Roy Prosterman? AIFLD land reform advisor in S. Vietnam
in
the 60's.
Developer of and leading apologist for the counterinsurgent land reform
in El Salvador in the early 1980s.
For more:
Philip Wheaton. 1980. _Agrarian Reform in El Salvador: A Program of
Rural Pacification._
. . . De Soto, in other words,
emphasizes the lack of a rational and functioning legal system of contract
and property rights as the impediment to the poor. David Shemano
JD's precis makes DeSoto sound very much worth
reading, a developing world form of populism.
mbs
David wrote:
In response to Jim Devine:
I haven't read his book either and can go only on the reviews I have read.
I think you are misinterpreting him. To be pithy, his point is not that the
poor in the Third World should be given property rights in public lands, but
that they should be given
hat many of their constituents
possess.
But maybe there's lots more to it?
From: "Max Sawicky" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:7743] RE: RE: Hernando de Soto
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:58:40 -0500
Importance:Normal
Reply-to:
Jim wrote:
--
Okay, that fits with my reading (of reviews), too. (I don't think we're
wrong, BTW, since all the reviews indicate how simple de Soto's point
is.) I had moved on to the _interpretation_ of his views, looking at the
problems that can arise. The key problem
In response to Jim Devine:
I haven't read his book either and can go only on the reviews I have read.
I think you are misinterpreting him. To be pithy, his point is not that the
poor in the Third World should be given property rights in public lands, but
that they should be given property
David's reading squares with mine.
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 08:44:17PM -0800, David Shemano wrote:
In response to Jim Devine:
I haven't read his book either and can go only on the reviews I have read.
I think you are misinterpreting him. To be pithy, his point is not that the
poor in the
The following is an interview with Hernando de Soto, the author of "The
Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere
Else": http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2001/001/6.24.html
Any general or specific critique would be appreciated.
David Shemano
interview with Hernando de Soto, the author of "The
Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere
Else": http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2001/001/6.24.html
Any general or specific critique would be appreciated.
David Shemano
Jim Devine [EMA
street vendors. I don't see how he can move from this
observation to suggesting that removing such restrictions could eliminate
poverty.
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 12:47:57PM -0800, David Shemano wrote:
The following is an interview with Hernando de Soto, the author of "The
Mystery of Capital
20 matches
Mail list logo
