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
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 produc
>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 presum
>
> >
> 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).
Giv
> 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._
amp;lr=&safe
> =off
> Michael Pugliese
> -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
>
&safe
=off
Michael Pugliese
-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 Ladejin
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
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 t
AIL 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
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 is
ic form of dignity that 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:
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 gi
. . . 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'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 t
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 rights
I apologize but I don't have time to read it right now. He did a very
nice interview on Doug Henwood's radio show. He is correct that many
rules and regulations make it difficult for poor people to become
entrepreneurs -- for example, merchants in this country commonly take
measures against stre
there's a critique in the book review by Chase in the current issue of
CHALLENGE. Chase also reviews Perelman's book.
as I understand de Soto, he's arguing that if we give property rights (in
their currently-occupied land) to all the third world squatters, it will
unleash capitalism. I say "go
18 matches
Mail list logo
