Capitalism won because of the petrodollar and not because of its superior economic model

The world has been living under a military dictatorship since the Vietnam war, the military dictatorship of the U.S. Prove me wrong faggots.
Protip: You can't.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Capitalism won because the commies couldn't sway people they couldn't bully to join their poverty cult, and because people under communist rule quickly discovered it was just a regime change scam that was even gayer than living under the tsar.

Capitalism hasn't won until there is one fascist breating

There's a reason there was a petrodollar and not a petroruble. The communist economic system sucked donkeycock.

>Capitalism won because the commies couldn't sway people they couldn't bully to join their poverty cult,
So Capitalism won because they could bully people into feeding them and being poor in turn? Thanks for doing my job for me.

>Prove me wrong faggots.
okay. when you sell bread from your bakery you please both the buyer and the seller. the seller gets a return on the risk he took (opening the bakery taking the loan) and the buyer doesnt have to go to the trouble to bake his own bread, and can spend that time more efficiently
that's what capitalism is about, providing a service both sides gain on

shame on me for taking the bait

>There's a reason there was a petrodollar and not a petroruble.
Yeah, because commies had ethics. They didn't want to arm-twist Saudi Arabia and OPEC into selling oil for dollars by threatening nuclear holocaust via Israel and Iran.
>The communist economic system sucked donkeycock.
But the capitalist system that lives off the backs of other poorer countries is perfectly fine?

>when you sell bread from your bakery you please both the buyer and the seller.
Horrible premise, but ok, I'll bite.
>the seller gets a return on the risk he took (opening the bakery taking the loan)
So in order to promote capitalism, we'll ignore all the bakers who failed at their business because they took a risk. I mean, who cares about those losers since they make capitalism look bad.
>and the buyer doesnt have to go to the trouble to bake his own bread, and can spend that time more efficiently
Jacking off to pornhub like you?
>that's what capitalism is about
Taking risks so that people can jack off to pornhub?
>shame on me for taking the bait
Don't declare victory just yet you dutch faggot.

Capitalism won for many reasons.
Military might is one of them for sure.
Economic might as well.

Man has lived under the threat of violence forever.

Capitalism won because the average person is more comfortable under capitalism than under communism.

Not to mention, communism doesn't even real. The entire thing reaks like a regime change scheme. Blow sunshine up everyone's ass, have the revolution, and then begins the "transition period" that never ends. Surprise, surprise, the people in charge figure out it's pretty dope being in charge and don't want to give it up. Meanwhile "the people" get mostly equal amounts of scraps.

When people inevitably decide "fuck this" and get sour on communism, the commie scheme continues and the next set of wannabe revolutionaries insist "it wasn't true communism. true communism hasn't been tried yet"

>Yeah, because commies had ethics. They didn't want to arm-twist Saudi Arabia and OPEC into selling oil for dollars by threatening nuclear holocaust via Israel and Iran

What happened to "seize the means of production", comrade?

Real shame there were zero oil deposits in the USSR

too bad a "command economy" couldn't command something to compete with the petrodollar

I'm real sorry you still live in your parents basement. Make a start by tidying up then getting a job.

>But the capitalist system that lives off the backs of other poorer countries is perfectly fine?
at least it can survive over time, instead of just decomposing into just another autarchy

It was oil that let to capitalist superiority, not a superior system that existed independent of the petrodollar

signed: Russia, an oil-exporting nation that has deposits in the Caspian, Kazakhstan, the Urals, and Siberia

OP thinks real communism has never been tried. prove me wrong.

> Venezuela floats on a sea of petrodollars
> still can't afford toilet paper

Bam, done. See you next slide thread.

>be a giant semi-agrarian country with substantial oil resources
>sell oil for dollars to buy luxuries for top party members
>starve the workers of the dictatorship of the proletariat

>Horrible premise
Explain to me what was so ghastly about that premise.

>So in order to promote capitalism, we'll ignore all the bakers who failed at their business because they took a risk. I mean, who cares about those losers since they make capitalism look bad.
Capitalism at least has successful production of bread. Socialism, on the other hand...

>Jacking off to pornhub like you?
Not an argument.

>Taking risks so that people can jack off to pornhub?
Still not an argument.

>Don't declare victory just yet
Then present an actual fucking argument

>Military might is one of them for sure.
Military is the only reason capitalism has ever won. Even historical capitalist economies like England and U.S.A used military to obtain tea, sugar and tobacco. Haven't you heard of slave labor?

>Capitalism won because the average person is more comfortable under capitalism than under communism.
Yeah, because capitalist countries subjugate other nations. I'm pretty sure many people in the ME and SE Asia are not comfortable due to capitalism.
>Not to mention, communism doesn't even real.
Oh, how can I forget. The most popular counter on Sup Forums to communism.
>When people inevitably decide "fuck this" and get sour on communism
Of course you will ignore the fact that people are happy with capitalism because someone else is getting screwed over and not them.

>Real shame there were zero oil deposits in the USSR
But their oil deposits were never on par with OPEC's deposits.

>I'm real sorry you still live in your parents basement.
Weak.

I think Blyth hits the nail on the head.

During the Cold War the West had to compete with Communism. The way to do this was to pursue full employment as a matter of policy.
That's where we've seen the 50's the 60's etc. Wages were growing, economies were booming, life was good.

Nowadays there isn't an ideological drive to keep your population happy in part because our ruling class isn't responsible to us anymore but rather to the technocrats and globalists who are not part of any nation, and in part due to well Communism not being a thing.

Communism gave us all one thing in the west - capital was shit scared and it had to make sure we didn't want communism

>Explain to me what was so ghastly about that premise.
You please both buyer and seller. This happens only when both the buyer and seller are better off by trading with each other. In reality, it's almost always the case that the seller benefits from the ignorance of the buyer. Principal-Agent theory 101 you fag.
>Capitalism at least has successful production of bread. Socialism, on the other hand...
Oh here we go again.
>Not an argument.
Then how is this an argument?
>buyer doesnt have to go to the trouble to bake his own bread, and can spend that time more efficiently
You implicitly assumed that having more time is always a good thing. Learn to troll properly you stupid fuck.

lol are you a tard?

Capitalism didn't win. America is also communist, just with more competent management.

Just look at the difference between the Soviet military and the American military in WW2. Is one communist, and the other capitalist? Of course not, both are command structures, but there was genuine love and trust between soldier and officer in the American military, a strong tendency to promote people according to real competence, and respect for the value of flexible planning allowing subordinate units to act on their own initiative based on their immediate tactical awareness, whereas the Soviets were notable for officers simply driving soldiers toward the enemy at gunpoint. There was no fundamental ideological difference, but simply superior competence on most levels.

Now look at the industry, law, and property rights. In America, as in the Soviet Union, anything may be taken from anyone and given to anyone by a variety of legal actions: eminent domain, taxation, fees, fines, litigation, and "emergency measures". Likewise, anyone may be compelled to take or prohibited from taking any action, and face imprisonment or execution if they refuse (before you "muh constitution!", think about formal amendments and informal "interpretation" in the courts). In the Soviet Union, as in America, control and enjoyment of resources could be vested in a person and left there stably. The difference is restraint and wisdom in exercising these powers. However bad the abuses have been in America, they were far worse in the USSR.

Western Europeans are more prosocial and less prone to corruption than Mongol-tainted Eastern Europeans and most nonwhites (Japanese are a significant exception). It's genetics, not ideology.

>Communism gave us all one thing in the west - capital was shit scared and it had to make sure we didn't want communism
Absolutely. Most faggots on this board think capitalism won because it's inherently good. They don't realize how lucky capitalism was to win.
>lol are you a tard?
Are you?

Communist would have ended in WWII if not for Capitalism.

>Capitalism didn't win. America is also communist, just with more competent management.
True.
>Western Europeans are more prosocial and less prone to corruption than Mongol-tainted Eastern Europeans and most nonwhites (Japanese are a significant exception). It's genetics, not ideology.
Kek.

Maybe you should have tried living behind the Iron Curtain you moronic millenial communist.

Why is every single thread full of cringe lately?

You guys are obviously underage.

>Capitalism won
okay, thanks for admitting it and playing. Come over to the winning side now. Your side are losers forever.

>Maybe you should have tried living behind the Iron Curtain you moronic millenial communist.
My family is from South Vietnam you faggot. We left because American faggots didn't care much for ruining our land.

>"it wasn't true communism. true communism hasn't been tried yet"
That's not how most communist countries began.

>You please both buyer and seller. This happens only when both the buyer and seller are better off by trading with each other. In reality, it's almost always the case that the seller benefits from the ignorance of the buyer. Principal-Agent theory 101 you fag.
Sheer idiocy. The man with money wants the quanity of bread he receives more than he wants the quantity of money he pays for it, the man with bread wants the quantity of money he receives more than he wants the quantity of bread he provides for it. The buyer is better off than he would be were nobody selling bread, or he would not buy. The baker is better off than he would be were nobody buying bread, or he would not sell.

In most cases, the buyer would pay more for bread, and the baker would sell bread for less, if they had to. This is the surplus, which is fought over through shopping and sometimes haggling, or waiting for sales. What you're talking about is "who gets more of the surplus?", as if it's the same thing as "who benefits?", but the allocation of the surplus is a relatively minor detail.

To be so confused leads one to conclude that the man who finds the store shelves empty is better off than one who pays 15 minutes' worth of wages for a loaf of bread he could have got for 10 minutes' worth of wages if he had more information, and was therefore "cheated" and harmed. It's petty, jealous thinking which leads to poverty.

>Yeah, because commies had ethics.

Before or after they murdered tens of millions of their own citizens?

There are three powers in the world, Russia, China, and the “international community”, nominally led by the US

Captialism has given way to a manerial ruling class, communism is now structurally impossible. Hence the focus on race.

Communist countries can’t survive, they are inferior

> lives off the backs

Yeah I don’t think you realize how shit these places where, the introduction of outsourcing has led to a staggering increase in living standards, while they’re still shit compared to the first world due to IQ and other racial differences. Arguing that there is mo change for the better is sillu.

> power comes out of the barrel of a gun

Mao had similar opinions, no matter what govermental type you have, powrr ALWAYS comes before anything else

So communist countries are too stupid to realize military is important? Or too weak to compete militarily?

Capitalism won because America wasn't destroyed by WWII and the USSR was. It was a race where America started ahead, fell behind a bit, and then got its second wind and won.

>Sheer idiocy.
>Leaf
Checks out
>The man with money wants the quanity of bread he receives more than he wants the quantity of money he pays for it,
You sure? You're 100% confident the man doesn't want to buy ingredients to bake a cake himself?
>The buyer is better off than he would be were nobody selling bread, or he would not buy.
Or since he's not a leaf, he'd perhaps bake the bread himself.

>In most cases, the buyer would pay more for bread, and the baker would sell bread for less, if they had to.
So both the buyer and baker suffer losses? The fuck?

>This is the surplus, which is fought over through shopping and sometimes haggling, or waiting for sales.
Fucking moron. Surplus by definition is what's left after the demand is satisfied. It's supposed to be dirt cheap, and supposed to be haggled over.
>What you're talking about is "who gets more of the surplus?", as if it's the same thing as "who benefits?", but the allocation of the surplus is a relatively minor detail.
Fuck me. Surpluses can collapse an economy because people have spent their effort into producing goods and no one is there to buy it, which can potentially collapse the supplier side, but it's a minor detail. You really want to live up to the stupidity of leafs on this board, don't you?
>To be so confused leads one to conclude that the man who finds the store shelves empty is better off than one who pays 15 minutes' worth of wages for a loaf of bread
I have no idea what this analogy is even supposed to mean or how it's connected to what you said before.

>Venezuela has the most oil of any place in the world
>Somehow still ends up a 4th world country because of communism

Wow, how did this happen? They had the petrodollars and the superior communism

>Before or after they murdered tens of millions of their own citizens?
>Subjugation of a people is ok as long as they're not you.
>Gadsden flag
>Checks out

>Communist countries can’t survive, they are inferior
Just like Cucknada

USSR wasn’t destroyed either, they reached the height of their power after WW2 then collapsed because they couldn’t even sustain themselves

Only an idiot who never lived under communism can say something like that, sage.

Correct, glad you agree

>Yeah I don’t think you realize how shit these places where
>Subjugation of a people is ok as long as you think they're lower than you.
>the introduction of outsourcing has led to a staggering increase in living standards,
India? Or the Middle East?
>while they’re still shit compared to the first world due to IQ and other racial differences.
Dunno man. I'm from Vietnam, but you seem pretty dumb.

>Mao had similar opinions, no matter what govermental type you have, powrr ALWAYS comes before anything else
So capitalism = communism and the only difference as this user put it
>Capitalism didn't win. America is also communist, just with more competent management.

is just better management?

>So communist countries are too stupid to realize military is important? Or too weak to compete militarily?
>If communist countries subjugated other nations via military power, they would be equal to capitalists
>Leaf
Checks out.

>Venezuela has the most oil of any place in the world
>They had the petrodollars and the superior communism
You're kidding, right? The U.S controls the petrodollar and the oil trade.

The U.S has been actively sabotaging Venezuela since Hugo Chavez. The fact that U.S. controls oil trade and the petrodollar implied that once Venezuela went against, them, there was only one outcome - Venezuela's collapse.

Who said they would be equal to capitalist countries? Communist countries are so weak they can’t even sustain themselves

The Soviet's actually had a stronger military, but their economic system was horribly inefficient. They were unable to keep up with the USA in an arms race, and technology race, even while putting money into that instead of allowing their citizens to eat. There is a reason they were losing hundreds of thousands of people per day when the hungary border fence fell

Weak communist countries can’t even control their own oil and can’t sustain themselves

>Capitalism won because America wasn't destroyed by WWII and the USSR was.
>USSR wasn’t destroyed either
How bad is it in Canada these days for leafs to make comments like this. You fucking half-wit, the Bretton Woods system established the dollar as the reserve currency only because the U.S. had the only stable economy among developed nations. The fuck do they teach you in school these days?

>Communist countries are so weak they can’t even sustain themselves
>Capitalist countries are so weak that they can't even sustain themselves without enslaving another nation
FTFY

>Weak communist countries can’t even control their own oil and can’t sustain themselves
But who buys the oil from them you moron? Practically everyone bought oil from OPEC and not the Soviets. The soviets were practically bankrupted by OPEC you fucking half-wit. It's not about managing your oil resources, it's about forcing most of the world to buy oil with dollars that made the U.S. successful.

Jackass. That's why the E.U. sucks, because it's run by brainlets like you.

>>The man with money wants the quanity of bread he receives more than he wants the quantity of money he pays for it,
>You sure?
Normally it's proven by his voluntary action of paying that quantity of money for that quantity of bread. Exceptional cases where he's suffering from insanity aren't worth including in the discussion.

>You're 100% confident the man doesn't want to buy ingredients to bake a cake himself?
This is irrelevant. He bought bread. It doesn't have to be his ideal outcome, it only has to be one he prefers in the time and place he made the decision to buy.

>>In most cases, the buyer would pay more for bread, and the baker would sell bread for less, if they had to.
>So both the buyer and baker suffer losses? The fuck?
No, you chimp. They both get a better deal than the worst one they accept. Like when you go to the baker, and you need to buy bread badly enough that you'd pay $8 per loaf if you had to, but you see the price is $3, your consumer surplus is $5. If the baker would have lowered the price to $2, if nobody was buying at $3 (but would not have baked it if people would only pay $1.50), his producer surplus is $1.

>Surplus by definition is what's left after the demand is satisfied.
That's a different kind of surplus, you semiliterate. I was explaining another usage:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus

USSR continued to exist long after ww2 your moron

Yea so capitalist systems are better since they can continue their existence whereas communist ones can’t. Glad we agree

Yea another problem with communist countries, they can’t achieve autarky and can’t trade with anyone because no one likes them and they lack power

>Exceptional cases where he's suffering from insanity aren't worth including in the discussion.
High school problems on trades between a baker and a buyer are not worth including in the discussion either you faggot. People make decisions on what to consume based on their income and choices available. There were so many assumptions made in that example that I gave you multiple outs to stop being a retard, but since you insist, I guess I have to tear it apart one by one.

Buying bread from a baker doesn't necessarily imply that you need the bread more than the money you pay. It means that among the choices available to you, buying the bread is most feasible. So you can be anyone from welfare receipient to a high-income wall-street faggot just looking for bread because you want to connect with your roots.

>You're 100% confident the man doesn't want to buy ingredients to bake a cake himself?
>This is irrelevant.
Of course it's relevant you fuck. If the man had time and resources to make his own bread, he would. The fact that he doesn't have the time to make his bread, forces him to buy bread from the baker so that he can spend time on his worthless 8-5 job you fucking leaf faggot.

Wah wah wah other countries won’t trade with me!! It’s your fault!

Idiot communists

>Massive soviet union;s only export was oil

sounds like an incompetent country or system if they can't even into economics.

t.underage Chapotraphouse fag.

Please tell that to the millions of east European immigrants who fled their countries after the failure of collectivisation led to famines that killed ten's kg millions, a d which has never been seen in liberal western democracies. If communists can't be vent feed their nations, let alone compete with the west when it came to technology, than its clear that socialism is an inferior system.

>No, you chimp
>Leaf calls others chimp
Ok
>They both get a better deal than the worst one they accept.
Why? Because you assumed so?
>Like when you go to the baker, and you need to buy bread badly enough that you'd pay $8 per loaf if you had to
Capitalism
>but you see the price is $3, your consumer surplus is $5.
>Consumer surplus
Stop using words you don't understand. Consumer surplus is a make believe idea taught in high-school econ that is heavily influenced by market price, your perception of the market price, and what you actually pay.
It's easy to refute consumer surplus because the total currency units in an economy are not constant. They change depending on how the feds want to control it. Thus, you may always want to pay $8 for the bread, but due to inflation or deflation, you may end up paying anything but $8.

Most importantly, you stupid fag, the only reason consumer surplus can exist at all is because of the lack of price discrimination. The baker sells the bread at $3 to everyone from those who value it at $1 to those who value it at $25.

Fucking learn to differentiate between fundamental econ ideas from make believe marco economic bullshit fed to the masses to give everyone an illusion that things are great in the economy.

>That's a different kind of surplus, you semiliterate. I was explaining another usage:
See above.

>communist thinks he understands economics

Troll better. You bore me.

>Massive soviet union;s only export was oil
>Massive soviet union;s couldn't even sell oil because the U.S was arm twisting everyone to buy from OPEC
FTFY
>sounds like an incompetent country or system if they can't even into economics.
>sounds like an incompetent country since they can't militarily subjugate everyone like the U.S.
FTFY

Remember how you think USSR was destroyed during WW2. And how you forgot how the Cold War existed?

That was funny

Glad you agree communist countries are too weak to sustain themselves.

What system should people choose? One where they kill themselves with communism or kill others with capitalism?

One is clearly better

So somehow people not buying soviet oil made soviets incapable of having a diverse economy and succeeding outside of oil despite having myriad other natural resources, manpower, land, and their own military might?

damn, got me thinking.

communists are too weak they can't force others to trade with them. then they kill their own people and fall apart

Holy fuck this commie makes me kek hard. Please leave the internet my red dude

>So somehow people not buying soviet oil made soviets incapable of having a diverse economy
Could the U.S. have had a diverse economy without controlling the oil trade? Were you not around during the oil crises in the 1970s which practically sunk Jimmy Carter?

Of course you weren't, otherwise you would understand the U.S. doesn't have a diverse economy either. If it did, it would have easily sailed through the oil crisis instead of being in a crisis. Dumbfucking faggot.

>damn, got me thinking.
Must be hard for you. Thinking that is.

>They don't realize how lucky capitalism was to win.
But we do realize how lucky we were that capitalism won

>Buying bread from a baker doesn't necessarily imply that you need the bread more than the money you pay.
So, in your scenario, the buyer is saying to himself, "I need this money more than I need this bread." and then he voluntarily exchanges the money he needs more, for the bread he needs less? I thought we were excluding cases of insanity.

Anyway, it's not about "need", it's about preference. Clearly, he prefers to have the bread than the money. He makes that choice. He gets to choose between the money and the bread, and he chooses the bread. That he gets to choose is a benefit.

>If the man had time and resources to make his own bread, he would. The fact that he doesn't have the time to make his bread, forces him to buy bread from the baker
I hold the idiocy of this line to be self-evident.

>Please leave the internet my red dude
Or what? You'll stop supplying weed to the west?

I agree with you. The difference is that I understand that you're all equally totalitarian and horrible. There is only one path to true liberty and free society. The fascists, socialists and United States Federal Government are all equally brutal, totalitarian and abusive towards human rights. We are living Orwell's 1984. Resist at all costs.

and yet one continued to exist and remain a super power while the other killed its own people and fell apart. hmmmm which one is better

the strong survive.

Capitalism won because people are more productive when it's necessary for their survival.

you disgust me, staist bootlicker of the US Government, which has secretly and not-so-secretly tortured and killed tens of thousands of its own citizens and foreign civilians, both.

Ah, another '''asian ally'''. As a Korean who voted for trump, go fuck yourself no white girls gonna get with you just because you have a Bernie bumper sticker.

>So, in your scenario, the buyer is saying to himself, "I need this money more than I need this bread."
Hahaha. Fuck. I don't know man. Should I continue talking? I thought you weren't a troll based on your previous posts, but now I'm beginning to have my doubts.

Ok, I'll bite one more time.

No, the buyer isn't saying I need this money more than the bread. You said that the buyer thinks he needs the bread more than the money. I said, in reality, the buyer thinks of all the options available, spending money on bread is most efficient. Implying, that if the buyer had other options, he wouldn't buy bread.

The example is retarded because it sets up a premise to show the benefits of capitalism - both parties have a need and there's a coincidence of wants. However, the power of currency lies in suspending the coincidence of wants. Thus, the example between the baker and the buyer is horrible because it's practically illustrating bartering. Not the benefits of capitalism.

>I thought we were excluding cases of insanity.
But we didn't account for you being insane.

Having said that, I think you're a decent chap worthy of respect. So I'll stop with the diatribes from hereon. At least you're trying to think for yourself unlike the other faggots here.

>Anyway, it's not about "need", it's about preference.
Yes.
>Clearly, he prefers to have the bread than the money.
From the choices available to him.
>He gets to choose between the money and the bread, and he chooses the bread.
He gets to choose between money, bread, hoes, cars, ice cream, buying ingredients for bread, etc.

The point leaf, is that if you're selling capitalism over communism, then you must use an example that illustrates the benefits of private means of production as compared to an example that simply illustrates bartering.

Isn't it sort of obvious a system that requires you to work hard rather than one that makes it optional will work better? Both systems have the useless parasitic leeches at the top but capital's for all its faults does reward doing more and smarter work.

Russia and the former communist bloc have nearly as much oil as OPEC. Try west was, if anything hamstrung by OPEC and the Saudis.

Communism failed because it does not factor in one thing: humans want to be rewarded for their effort and are greedy no matter what

It really is that simple.

If communism made better use of game theory it could do the same but it doesn't.

Oh yeah and those countries were such a paradise before then. It's not like the jobs that were given finally got them better living conditions

Based Magaped.
MAMMON, GOD OF AMERICA! YEEEEAH

>The point leaf, is that if you're selling capitalism over communism, then you must use an example that illustrates the benefits of private means of production as compared to an example that simply illustrates bartering.
Spending money to buy bread by definition is not barter you fucking idiot.

>Capitalism won because people are more productive when it's necessary for their survival.
>Western workers are more "productive" than others.
Define productivity then. You faggot, your entire definition of productivity rests on America controlling the oil trade. Without the oil trade you would have no jobs and no "productivity"

Fucking sheep.

>no white girls gonna get with you just because you have a Bernie bumper sticker.
Stop projecting.

>if you're selling capitalism over communism, then you must use an example that illustrates the benefits of private means of production as compared to an example that simply illustrates bartering.
I'm refuting your idiotic position that a voluntary purchase doesn't normally benefit both parties. I'm selling economic competence over economic incompetence. I've already stated my position that America is also communist: Capitalism would provide real security of private property, not depend on the moment-to-moment restraint of a state which has the authority to seize whatever it wants, to take whatever share of each person's income and to charge people whatever rent they like on whatever they own (property tax). America is not capitalist, and hasn't been since before the Soviet Union was formed.

embarrassing

did you really just try to argue against capitalism by

>but u look at porn