Did you read the article? It is explicitly anti-foreign aid and instead argues that within countries, freeing entrepreneurs from a host of government regulations and predatory bureaucrats, and giving them clear title to their own property and capital, are the ways to go for impoverished areas to develop. In other words, unchain the entrepreneurs and let capitalism flourish, not throw more US money at the problem. That money rarely benefits the poor, and usually either ends up in local kleptocrats' or their cronies' pockets or funds stupid, wasterful development projects, as the author argues.

F4all - WTF!?!

Did you read the article? It doesn't advocate, or even mention, large US banks. It instead argues that poor people have their own capital, but cannot access it because of regulations and lack of property rights. That was the capital Peruvians used to propell their economy, once it had been freed up from the state. They were not roped into debt slavery, they were merely allowed to use their own capital. What debt that was used came from informal, local sources. Capitalism does require capital, but it doesn't have to come from banks and the big multinationals have no interest in lending to poor but aspiring entrepreneurs in poorer countries. If later they reach their "vampire squid's tentacles" into Peru, that attests to the success of de Soto's program--average Peruvians having enough money for banks to want to lend to them.