Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Thanks, MJG. Without yet watching the vids, I shook my head at the phrase, "integrated wealth of the poor." I bet that is supposed to actually MEAN something. Perhaps you'll tell us? Thanks. This thread was posted at the get-go as "Off-topic." If some others are prone to hyperbole, so am I, too. And I suppose I've learned to come here to MFO remembering to bring my sense of humor. It doesn't always work, but I find it helps a lot. The thread morphed along the way, and I find a bit of conversation about films is never an inherently bad thing. It can even be fun. Maybe I'm growing a thicker skin. I'm glad for your own contributions. And I remain convinced that with regard to deeply-held convictions, even about one's own stake in an economic system or systems, it is almost always the case that rational attempts to convince people about X or Y or Z won't work. It's not hard to discuss and learn from each other about facts and figures and theories. Convictions--- such as are in evidence throughout this thread, are another matter. I'm convinced that a leopard can only change his spots by being surprised and shocked into it, often via a particularly influential person who shows up in one's life. Yes, this is all off-topic. It all seems properly filed and categorized--- as was my original thread with the Wolff presentation. Nor did I miss the use of the word, "underworld." It was, in and of itself, very telling. But as long as we're all ready to do it, we can certainly move on from here.
Hey, @BenWP! This was a lark for me, including and going back to my original thread, addressing the Wolff video. It's fun when others engage. And it's OK when the threads transmogriphy. Nevertheless, I'm thinking, along with Arlo, that I should remind myself: "Remember Alice? It's a SONG about ALICE." Grin. ... I'm still more interested in Alice and Mutual Funds, and that's reason enough to come here to MFO. It's Tuesday, and domestic markets are down, I see. Let's all put on our rally-caps, eh?
You questioned my terms “integrated wealth of the poor” and “underworld” in my last submittal. You requested some clarification.
I did not originate these descriptions myself. Rather I lifted them from the writings of Hernando De Soto and Robert L. Heilbroner, respectively, using mostly my memory. I’ll address them now in reverse order.
Heilbroner’s “The Worldly Philosophers” book is a simple and far ranging explanation of Economists’ concepts. It provides an inroad into the history of economics. He considered the works of economists like Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus as mainliners.
His Chapter 7 is titled “The Victorian World and the Underworld of Economics”. The guys in that chapter were considered the outlier economic thinkers during their periods. They were the non-mainliners, the underworld or underground group. Surely Wolff belongs in that classification these days. I’m sure his economics perspective is not standard teaching curriculum at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, the schools that Wolff attended.
The complete sentence of my last post is “Some of De Soto’s field research with respect to the integrated wealth of the poor will surely amaze you.” It is my imperfect one-line summary interpretation of his highest priority idea.
De Soto and team members did the hard work and actually visited about 5 countries to collect data. Country dependent, he concluded that 50% to 80% of the population belonged in what he called the informal economy. They were not exactly legal nor exactly illegal. He labeled them extralegal.
They were certainly the poor class. However, when you multiplied their huge numbers by their scanty wealth (mostly not properly registered real estate), and then integrated (summed) all together, the total was staggering. It often even exceeded the wealth of the rich minority.
There is a fly in this ointment; a government imposed roadblock. This integrated poor man’s wealth is not readily accessible to exploit in terms of potential loan collateral. It is extralegal according to De Soto; it is not exploitable wealth; it is “dead capital”.
Again, according to De Soto, this Dead Capital in the Third World is caused by government regulation complexity and deeply unreliable property rights. De Soto documented that government regulations in Third World nations defeat potential small business entrepreneurs with long, convoluted registration periods (in some countries exceeding a year) and costly fees. Simplification and legalization of the extralegal class would provide the necessary ladder to climb out of poverty.
This is my limited understanding of De Soto’s insights. Please, please visit the originating source. Make time to view the two excellent video Links that I referenced.
..........And I just went to look at the videos. As with just about everything else, the presentations come out of a particular place, perspective. It offers stuff to chew on. I'm still chewing. I have no trouble at all believing DeSoto when he concludes the first video by emphasizing that TWO-THIRDS of the world's people live in that exta-legal way, in poverty. "Rule of Law." Repeated over and over. "You're trying to get there in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you're not getting there..." He doesn't offer to say why. I want to ask why. And I want to ask how it can be that world leaders allow such poverty to continue. Going back since..... a VERY long time.
Comments
Maybe I'm growing a thicker skin. I'm glad for your own contributions. And I remain convinced that with regard to deeply-held convictions, even about one's own stake in an economic system or systems, it is almost always the case that rational attempts to convince people about X or Y or Z won't work. It's not hard to discuss and learn from each other about facts and figures and theories. Convictions--- such as are in evidence throughout this thread, are another matter. I'm convinced that a leopard can only change his spots by being surprised and shocked into it, often via a particularly influential person who shows up in one's life. Yes, this is all off-topic. It all seems properly filed and categorized--- as was my original thread with the Wolff presentation. Nor did I miss the use of the word, "underworld." It was, in and of itself, very telling. But as long as we're all ready to do it, we can certainly move on from here.
Regards,
Ted
This was a lark for me, including and going back to my original thread, addressing the Wolff video. It's fun when others engage. And it's OK when the threads transmogriphy. Nevertheless, I'm thinking, along with Arlo, that I should remind myself: "Remember Alice? It's a SONG about ALICE." Grin. ... I'm still more interested in Alice and Mutual Funds, and that's reason enough to come here to MFO. It's Tuesday, and domestic markets are down, I see. Let's all put on our rally-caps, eh?
You questioned my terms “integrated wealth of the poor” and “underworld” in my last submittal. You requested some clarification.
I did not originate these descriptions myself. Rather I lifted them from the writings of Hernando De Soto and Robert L. Heilbroner, respectively, using mostly my memory. I’ll address them now in reverse order.
Heilbroner’s “The Worldly Philosophers” book is a simple and far ranging explanation of Economists’ concepts. It provides an inroad into the history of economics. He considered the works of economists like Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus as mainliners.
His Chapter 7 is titled “The Victorian World and the Underworld of Economics”. The guys in that chapter were considered the outlier economic thinkers during their periods. They were the non-mainliners, the underworld or underground group. Surely Wolff belongs in that classification these days. I’m sure his economics perspective is not standard teaching curriculum at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, the schools that Wolff attended.
The complete sentence of my last post is “Some of De Soto’s field research with respect to the integrated wealth of the poor will surely amaze you.” It is my imperfect one-line summary interpretation of his highest priority idea.
De Soto and team members did the hard work and actually visited about 5 countries to collect data. Country dependent, he concluded that 50% to 80% of the population belonged in what he called the informal economy. They were not exactly legal nor exactly illegal. He labeled them extralegal.
They were certainly the poor class. However, when you multiplied their huge numbers by their scanty wealth (mostly not properly registered real estate), and then integrated (summed) all together, the total was staggering. It often even exceeded the wealth of the rich minority.
There is a fly in this ointment; a government imposed roadblock. This integrated poor man’s wealth is not readily accessible to exploit in terms of potential loan collateral. It is extralegal according to De Soto; it is not exploitable wealth; it is “dead capital”.
Again, according to De Soto, this Dead Capital in the Third World is caused by government regulation complexity and deeply unreliable property rights. De Soto documented that government regulations in Third World nations defeat potential small business entrepreneurs with long, convoluted registration periods (in some countries exceeding a year) and costly fees. Simplification and legalization of the extralegal class would provide the necessary ladder to climb out of poverty.
This is my limited understanding of De Soto’s insights. Please, please visit the originating source. Make time to view the two excellent video Links that I referenced.
Thank you for asking.
Best Wishes.