28713: Clerie (reply): Re: 28708: (reply) 28694: Math Jay on the Latifundista question ( a comment) (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Philippe Clerie <philippe@gcal.net>

Points well well taken.

Which is why the only way forward is to develop the cities. One eventual
consequence will be less pressure on the land. In turn this will allow the
real possibility of reforestation and through better use of what's left of
arable land, more and better agricultural production. But then again I tend
to be a reluctant optimist.

As for the _land owning_ classes, I am not sure there _is_ such a thing. At
least not in the way it is usually meant. A large percentage of peasants
actually own their land, either directly or via the system of _indivision_
(Now there's another problem!!). On the other hand, large landholders are few
and far between, excepting the State and the Catholic Church. It all depends,
I guess, on the numbers you use to define large. HASCO (now owned by the Mevs
family) has around 4000 carreaux in the Cul-de-Sac. They'd be the single
largest (I think! I don't _know_ so) land owners in the country. And they
don't even own it in one single block. That would be the upper limit of large
and they very much alone up there.

What I am trying to say really is that there is not that much land to
redistribute. Any land reform policy will have to concentrate on moving
people off the land to make it useful again to those that remain. The only
way to do that (to repeat myself) is to develop the cities, provide new
opportunities there, welcome the migration and help it along.

--

Philippe