On Doug's show he never mentioned land reform or even the use of publicly owned
lands. Instead, he seems to mean regulations that make it difficult to get
credit for that restrict the ability to get business licenses.
Jim Devine wrote:
> 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
> is a good thing). (Dave S., please correct me if my interpretation is wrong.)
>
> 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 and
> subsistence and thus undermines their status as proletarians. In simple
> terms, they don't have to work for the capitalists beyond the time
> necessary to produce their subsistence, so that the latter can't
> appropriate any surplus-value, accumulate capital, etc. That is, it's the
> opposite of "primitive accumulation" (the topic of Michael Perelman's
> recent -- and excellent -- book, also reviewed in the current issue of
> CHALLENGE). At best, the de Soto plan would create a class of petty landed
> producers who would work for capital only to supplement their production
> (for luxuries, etc.) and would pursue a "safety first" strategy of avoiding
> (as much as possible) being entangled in markets, except for product
> markets. Where possible, they'd avoid borrowing money, selling labor-time,
> buying inputs, etc. In labor markets, they'd likely have a "backward
> bending" supply curve of labor-power, where a rise in wages after a point
> would cause decreases in the quantity supplied (though not for the simple
> income-effect reason of textbooks). Even in product markets, they'd
> diversify production in order to avoid dependency. They might be more
> progressive technologically, but it wouldn't fit with the goals of the IMF,
> the World Bank, the US Treasury Department, the local ruling classes, etc.
> So this plan is unlikely to be put into action, except in ways that are
> specifically designed to help capitalism while avoiding the creation of an
> independent yeomanry (with de Soto-type rhetoric attached, of course).
>
> When it comes to property rights in this situation, to promote capitalism
> it's necessary to screw the poor -- though it's not sufficient.
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Segui il
> tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.)
> -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
