Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: In world history, what economic system has lifted more people out of poverty?

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 6, 2012, 8:49 a.m. EST by wigger (-48)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Is that the economic system we should be looking for?

54 Comments

54 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by wigger (-48) 2 years ago

Well, I think we know how to shut up boring socialists at cocktail parties now. :)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

canals aqueducts

[-] 1 points by nachosrulz (63) from Eureka, CA 2 years ago

ughh ...ummm.... slavery war all the bad stuff....:(

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The answer, of course is captalism, a point which Marx made repeatedly not only in his magnum opus Capital, but in virtually all his other writings on the subject. It also, however, created more poverty than any other system, though not necessarilly at the same time.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

When this country was an industrial giant it progressed well even with idiot politicians.

[-] 1 points by wigger (-48) 2 years ago

So capitalism has freed more people from poverty?

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Yes but capitalists have to play by a fair set of rules of they will screw up a country like what we have now. In the 80's and 90's the homeless population in this country was really quite low in an area when compared to the population. I have witnessed in those times church organizations and others who were using their own time and money to aid the poor and disadvantaged because they were earning enough to make a decent life for themselves and practice their beliefs which in turn help improve this society for instance .

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

FDRs New Deal.

Poverty has been increasing ever since the (R)eplicans have started deconstructng it.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

Read the question carefully

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

OK, tightly regulated capitalism ala, FDRs New Deal.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

FDRs New Deal has fallen apart. poverty was so bad after the New Deal that LBJ declared a War on Poverty. nice try, tho.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That's according to CATO.

The actual numbers are easy to find.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

LBJs policies tried to ease the the bigotry that was still prevalent.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

Elizabeth Warren? you arent serious, are you?

when Social Security was founded, there were 11 workers supporting one retiree. now it is 3 supporting one, soon to be 2.5. completely utterly unsustainable. any young OWSer who supports SSI, is a complete fool. a sucker on the scale PT Barnum had in mind.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

CATO? Are you serious?

Or just scared silly to watch something not endorsed by Heritage Foundation?

This was recorded before she induced fear in those fools.

FDR would NEVER have endorsed GATT. neoliberals did.

Here's something you can read.

http://www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu/english/transcripts/Alan_Watt_Blurb_Sir_James_Goldsmith_US_Senate_Speech_Oct192007.html

It's from an avowed capitalist. He was correct.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22227) 2 years ago

Hunter-gatherers? They had no poverty. No one starved. All were cared for.

[-] 2 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

check your history.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22227) 2 years ago

Check yours.

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

I did. It's nothing as you describe.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22227) 2 years ago

Here's a reply I gave to someone else below:

No. Traditional hunter-gatherers in normal environmental conditions did not suffer from starvation. They also spent less time working than we do today. In Africa, in particular, very few starved, even after sedentarization until the European invasions when large swaths of land were used to grow particular crops for "trade" instead of growing what the people needed. Read the review of "The World and a Very Small Place in Africa" by Donald Wright.

http://www.amazon.com/World-Very-Small-Place-Africa/dp/0765610086

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

What's the point of comparing our modern times with those of hunter-gatheers? The problems are completely different.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22227) 2 years ago

Well, the question was regarding world history. For me, that stretches back to Neolithic time and prior and hunter-gatherers came to mind. They had no poverty. Maybe we can learn something from the way they organized their society. Also, there are still hunter-gatherers today, though they are dwindling in numbers due to industrialization and modernization. Honestly, I can't believe how serious everyone took that posting.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I didn't take your post seriously. That's why I was asking what was the point. You gave a good answer.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22227) 2 years ago

I think it is all true, though. I honestly can't think of another economic system that has had little to no poverty. Can you?

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I don't think it makes sense to compare economic systems from hunter gatherer societies with those of nations compromised of millions of people. A hunter gatherer society is essentially a small group of people that know each other. The logistics are entirely different than with a large nation.

I live in Indonesia which is a capitalist democratic republic and there are some people starving like in US. However, I have been to a few villages which are very communal and in which people are very close and help each other. In such villages, and there are many in Indonesia, you would never see someone starving. These are like mini-socities inside the bigger one which is the country of Indonesia.

It's a matter of how you group people. There are many of these mini-societies all over the world where people live a very communal life and help each other with things like food and shelter.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22227) 2 years ago

I don't know, but I think it is good to think outside the box. I really just threw this one out there, like I said. And, we can at least learn from people who do things differently from us instead of being filled with hubris all the time.

Thanks for sharing about Indonesia. Nice.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Thanks for you posts. It is indeed interesting to think about other societies and economic systems.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 2 years ago

You should check again then.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

i say we all go back into the womb

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 2 years ago

you would end up with one huge mother

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

That would make one big MAMA TROLL!

I'll take la Tierra Madre myself, if you don't mind...

No trolls around ME in the hereafter, thank you very much!!!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22227) 2 years ago

Too funny!!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22227) 2 years ago

LOL!

[-] 1 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

hunter gatherers died of starvation by the busload. where do you get this nonsense? you cannot possibly be this stupid but i may have to amend my thinking on the level of stupidity that exists. the Sioux were hunter gatherers and they starved to death when the bison were missing. native americans would slaughter other native americans to protect their food sources.

do you know anything about the advent of man, at all?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22227) 2 years ago

The question was in world history. He didn't say since the European conquest. Do you know anything about history? I'm talking about real hunter-gatherers around the world. They did not starve to death until European interference. Why did the Bison go missing on the Sioux, huh?

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

yes they did starve before european conquest. native americans did not have horses before the white man. they had to trail bison by foot. a simple snowstorm killed them off like flies because man could not possibly move as fast as the herd by walking.

why do you think agrarian cultures overwhelmed the hunter gatherers?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22227) 2 years ago

No. Traditional hunter-gatherers in normal environmental conditions did not suffer from starvation. They also spent less time working than we do today. In Africa, in particular, very few starved, even after sedentarization until the European invasions when large swaths of land were used to grow particular crops for "trade" instead of growing what the people needed. Read the review of "The World and a Very Small Place in Africa" by Donald Wright.

http://www.amazon.com/World-Very-Small-Place-Africa/dp/0765610086

[-] 1 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

you are quite free to become a hunter gatherer. i know some who do this. living in the american west, several of my friends eat only what they have shot and killed. elk, deer, pheasant, salmon, trout, antelope.

i will accept that there are very small niches in the world where simple h and g might work. hawaii for one. move to montana, plenty of game there. ever field dressed a downed elk? take a sharp knife, cut around its anus, then split it from anus to breastplate, reach in under its lungs and cut thru its esophagus and then by hand remove its intestines and liver, kidneys, stomachs quickly to avoid spoiling the meat.

you should try it. i dont like it and i am a sportsman, but you might. ever gut trout or salmon? ever downed a pheasant but only wound it and then have to crush its head with your boot? ever stampede a herd of bison over cliff so that they fall almost to their death, legs broken, necks broken, not dead mind you, and then your wife goes to the pit and bashes their heads with a rock or cuts their throats with a sharp rock while they bellow in pain and agony?

thats hunter gathering.

no, thank you, but you seem to like it, be my guest.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22227) 2 years ago

LOL! I never said hunter-gatherers had it easy. I said they didn't starve and no one starved in the group. They had a collective economy, so to speak.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

Before the middle of the 17th century, the Santee Sioux lived in the area around Lake Superior, where they gathered wild rice and other foods, hunted deer and buffalo, and speared fish from canoes. Prolonged and continual warfare with the Ojibwa to their east drove the Santee into what is now southern and western Minnesota, at that time the territory of the agricultural Teton and Yankton. In turn, the Santee forced these two groups from Minnesota into what are now North and South Dakota. Horses were becoming common on the Plains during this period, and the Teton and Yankton abandoned agriculture in favour of an economy centred on the nomadic hunting of bison.

Traditionally the Teton and Yankton shared many cultural characteristics with other nomadic Plains Indian societies. They lived in tepees, wore clothing made from leather, suede, or fur, and traded buffalo products for corn (maize) produced by the farming tribes of the Plains. The Sioux also raided those tribes frequently, particularly the Mandan, Arikara, Hidatsa, and Pawnee, actions that eventually drove the agriculturists to ally themselves with the U.S. military against the Sioux tribes.

Precontact Sioux culture Sioux men acquired status by performing brave deeds in warfare; horses and scalps obtained in a raid were evidence of valour. Sioux women were skilled at porcupine-quill and bead embroidery, favouring geometric designs; they also produced prodigious numbers of processed bison hides during the 19th century, when the trade value of these “buffalo robes” increased dramatically. Community policing was performed by men's military societies, the most significant duty of which was to oversee the buffalo hunt. Women's societies generally focused on fertility, healing, and the overall well-being of the group. Other societies focused on ritual dance and shamanism.

"continuous warfare" "raiding agricultural tribes for food" "scalping other indians"

sounds like a real fun time

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

there were horses in north america but they were eaten to extinction by those walking indians!

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

A snow storm wiped out the Sioux indians . . .

I had not heard that. In fact, I strongly suspect that were your assertion true, the Sioux Indian nation would have ceased to exist long before the arrival of the white man . . .

Indigenous peoples generally tend to know very well how to use the resources available to them, and to prepare for those annual changes of season.

It is and has been radical changes in their environment, whether caused by other indigenous tribes, extreme weather events, or the arrival of outsiders, that has given them the greatest difficulties.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Snow storms and various other types of accidents and diseases did indeed often wipe out big parts of tribes.

The inuit have a word in there language for this. It was very common for people to die at any age. Mortalities during birth, during adolescence, and early adulthood were very common.

Their life is actually much more stable now that they have hospitals and don't need to hunt and track animals for months on end. In fact, their biggest problem is boredom which leads them to heavy drinking and glue sniffing. They used to be occupied by activities necessary for their survival, now they spend their time playing Playstation and wondering what to do. It's quite a sad experience to visit an Inuit village. I suggest you go there if you ever have the chance.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

In world history was there ever a perfect economic system ?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

yes their was but i doubt you would believe it

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

That wasn't the question.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

you must consider technological developments along with the economic system. but if i had to choose which one of the two was responsible i would say technology has lifted more people out of poverty, not the economic system

[-] 0 points by wigger (-48) 2 years ago

What economic system were these technological advances made under?

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

communism and capitalism. trollface

[-] 1 points by wigger (-48) 2 years ago

What technological advances has communism been responsible for? Failed 5 year plans? Starving millions? Political oppression? Failed economies? Gulags? Lubyanka?

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

organ transplants, the first satellite, hydrogen bomb, etc...

[-] 1 points by wigger (-48) 2 years ago

Organ transplant: South Africa

Sputnik: German scientists from WW2

Hydrogen bomb: US

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Controlled capitalism like in Canada.

[-] -2 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

let me answer: Capitalism. its the most wonderful system ever evolved to reward the commom man for his hard work.

it should be heralded with golden trumpets for all the wonderful things it has done for mankind.

i will relate a just recent story. a friend of mine's daughter graduated 4 years ago with a degree in petroleum engineering from Colorado School of Mines. she is 26 and has worked in North Dakota on the Bakken Shale oil fields. an Australian company has offered her $300,000 per year to move to Australia and help develop shale discoveries in Australia. 26 and living a dream only capitalism can bestow.

capitalism is next to godliness as a wonder.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

you know as well as anyone else that capitalism has negative and positive sides. a balanced assessment of the system would reveal nightmares as well as dreams.