Capitalism is a failu-

>It's not real capitalism

It is the most widely accepted and scientific way to measure economic output and living standards over time

Let's talk about EMH.

Surely the market is neither 100% perfectly efficient or completely random, I don't think neoclassical economics ever said so anywhere. Why do I always hear people saying "tee hee keynes made an amazing discovery that the market is not 100% perfectly efficient".

So would you say that Qatar, a country that, quite literally, allows slavery, is better to live in than Germany?

Lemme guess Venezuela is not true socialism™

So you're not refuting my point?

Interesting.

>Apparently capitalism is more efficient at making countries prosperous than communism.
This is a given. See ECP (economic calculation problem for you socialists)

Go open any economics 101 textbook look for "Economic accounts" and read about their strengths and weaknesses.

Also you insufferable mongoloid Qatar is a rent seeking petro state it's not comparable with Germany

There is no point to refute.Qatar is an oil rich country and all the Qatari nationals who are entitled to this wealth have cushy state jobs and live very comfortably.

National economic accounts are widely accepted by all mainstream economists as the best measure of economic output. Even the Soviet Union used economic accounts.

It's a tendency, so obviously it will never be 100% accurate. I had an elective course in econophysics last year, and my professor used this metaphor:

Imagine that you are watching twitch plays pokemon. The basic mecanism is to open randon ports, like a lottery, and some randon guy pressing a button, in the list of every randon guy playing buttons, got his action selected and the character in the game makes the action. Now, if we pick all the buttons pressed at the same time by all of those people playing the game and make a median based off in the most "played" buttons, we will >>> PROBABLY

But don't they both have terrible economic freedom?

The point is that there is a strong correlation between extrict poverty decay and freeing the markets

South Asia maintains a stable growth path while China heads towards a precarious bubble.
You know what they say, slow and steady wins the race.

Aye, but at what cost.
Don't they have terrible unemployment rates which they hide

>Venezuela
>nothing really works
>everything depends on the oil price
>and the oil price is dictated by the market
splendid example how socialism can only exist in an economic bubble.

Unemployment rate means nothing if looked alone. Intensity of job circulation is much more important, and in China is gigantic.

Imagine an airport with 1000 people in the main hall. Some flight has delayed so it created big waiting lines. It's a terrible situation.

Now imagine that you are in an airpoirt so functional and efficient, that so many flights take off, that you still get the same 1000 people waiting in the hall, but individually, each person stays at most 30 minutes in the line, and the great number is due the fact that tere are a lot of people landing and taking off.
The "rate" is equal, but the situation is the opposite.

This is the worst commentary about venezuela economy that i ever read on the internet.
Oil prices is rigidly controlled by governamental indexation.

>india
>uncontrolled capitalism

>Oil prices is rigidly controlled by governamental indexation.
Source on that one please. What governmental indexation would that be please?
Because last time I checked prices where set by the spot market.

Also, Venezuelan economy is down the drain, they have to import pretty much everything because the economic policies of the Chavistas killed their own economy.

>Oil prices is rigidly controlled by governamental indexation.

Pinkovskiy, Maxim and Sala-i-Martin, Xavier (2009) "Parametric Estimations of the World Distribution of Income": " At the regional level we observe that poverty rates and GDP per
capita behave as “mirror images” of one another: whenever GDP grows, poverty tends to decline and whenever poverty declines, GDP tends not grow"
nber.org/papers/w15433.pdf

Dollar, David and Kraay, Aart (2001) "Growth is Good for the Poor": "When average incomes (measured as real per capita GDP at purchasing power parity) rise, the average incomes of the
poorest fifth of society rise proportionately"
library1.nida.ac.th/worldbankf/fulltext/wps02587.pdf

Not him, but yes, I would.

>Conveniently ignores Venezuela's expropriation, nationalisation, and price controls

They are part of the socialist program and the main reason why nothing really works.

Have you found your governmental oil price control board yet? No? Ok, keep on looking then.

Capitalism isn't a government. South Asia is mostly democratic countries. China is autocratic/oligarchy one party country with grand ambitions.

>China is autocratic/oligarchy one party country with grand ambitions.
The irony is, that said oligarchy party calls itself communist.

Sorry, i'm working right now, my time worth more then my desire to dispprove you

uk.practicallaw.com/1-529-6958?source=relatedcontent

"The construction, modification, expansion, demolition or dismantling of premises, facilities or equipment used for domestic trade of hydrocarbon derivatives also requires prior authorisation from MENPET.
The National Executive, through MENPET, may fix the prices of hydrocarbon derivatives."

"extraordinary prices (when the monthly average price of the "Venezuelan Basket" of crude oil in the international market is greater than the price fixed in the Annual Budget Law for the relevant fiscal year, but equal or lower than US$80 per barrel); and
exorbitant prices (when the monthly average price of the Venezuelan Basket of crude oil in the international market is greater than US$80 per barrel)."

WSJ preddicting the consequences of oil prices indexation in 2001:

nytimes.com/2001/12/04/world/venezuela-s-new-oil-law-is-seen-as-a-risk-to-growth.html

Just try harder.

Oh, I thought you were arguing against venezuela being socialist

Read again, the oil price is fixed by the spot market and the spot market alone. OPEC might try to limit supplies but that is it.

There is no governmental entity that fixes prices for the crude market. Other than that you are free to show me the governmental entity that does that and what current prices.

>claims shit

>gets called out on his bullshit

>gets all salty, changes subject, brings up some crude links not proving his point in any way but discretely changing the subject

Yes, socialist at work.
Reminder, the price of commodities is set by the market, and not by some governmental control board. Welcome to the free market economy.

You don't even need GDP to compare how capitalism and commism divided East and West Germany or Czechoslovakia and Austria.

The calculation problem is not about commodities, but decisions over capital structure and costs. Commodities are the small and cheapeast part of this.
Nice try consuming crude oil.

All the hydrocarbonets derivateds are fixed by government. Do you really think that what matters for the price is the price of only the first order good? All the manufacturing process and most important, the supply chain, is insignificant?

So you sell your commodities at a price that you can't estimate because there's no private ownership of the capital to extract this oil, and that's capitalism blame. Ok.

>>It's not real capitalism
I never said it wasn't. I am talking about geographical differences.

Sitting on billions of barrels of oil is going to seriously skew your country's statistics.

...

>The calculation problem
nobody is talking about the calculation problem, we are talking about a faggot who claimed that crude oil prices are set by governments instead of the market.

...

to be fair the OPEC cartel can influence oil prices, however it is not like the evil ol' USA is driving down oil prices just to fuck with Venezuela

))0)0)

"Welcome to the free market economy". My point is: where's the free market when there's no private means of putting capital to work a commodity? People don't consumate commodities, enterprises consumes commodites and sell to people. Your "welcome to the free market" graps a part of the supply chain that's not even close to the final consumer. How can you define something as a "fre market" if there's the essential half part of the market, ie. the part that expens money on goods? Seriously, once "market", in economics, are literally the tradeplace where a supplier provide a good in exchange for something that a consumer have, you have a contradiction in terms.

>if there isn't

Sorry, i'm typing on my phone.

No they just drink Venezuela's milkshake

>All the hydrocarbonets derivateds are fixed by government.
No, gasoline prices etc. are fixed by the market. And the crude oil price is the deciding factor for those derivatives. Oil goes up, gasoline gets more expensive. Simple as that.

>Explain the massive unprecedented decrease in poverty in China after the capitalist reforms

Again - basic development isn't exclusive to capitalism.

However, basic development wasn't really going on as long as China adhered to communist principles. For some odd reasons it only started when China changed its economic principles.

sorry, got the wrong post. was directed at

Venezuela can fix the oil/gas prices for its domestic consumption, which it does.
However, Venezuela's entire economy is depending on selling oil for the international market. And here they cannot fix a price, the market does that and Venezuela can only sell at market prices.

If by that you mean driven themselves into bankruptcy.

saudigazette.com.sa/opinion/local-viewpoint/saudi-arabia-going-declare-bankruptcy/

4 out of 5 PIIGS can't be wrong.

I agree with you OP, that capitalism isn't a failure.

But the argument from the Left isn't that it is a failure, it's that it's unfair and in some cases authoritarian, which is hard to argue against.

How is capitalism unfair?

People can inherit their father's billionaire business for example, while Ravi is a tea-selling chaiwalla in downtown Mumbai, making 12 dollars a week.

capitalism is about fairness of chances, not about fairness of results.
Ravi could have become Tata style industrialists, but then he decided to sell tea in Mumbai.

The fact that inheritance is unfair doesn't mean that capitalism is unfair. Inheritance is not a defining feature of capitalism.

Explain the four tigers then. They did great under authoritarian-capitalism.

See this Capitalism is the greatest cure for poverty

>capitalism is about fairness of chances, not about fairness of results.

I understand that, but not everyone even has a fairness of chance.

You have to make money to eat food, so in many cases it's not like you have a choice in choosing a career. If someone is a tea-seller in Mumbai, chances are it's because they had no choice, because they had to eat, or because they had to take care of their family, or many other reasons.

I just think there's a difference between saying that yes, capitalism is efficient at what it does, and saying therefore it is a morally just system. One is a statement of fact about how resources are distributed, the other is a value-judgement and is ideological.

Blaming Venezuela's collapse on oil is only a piece of the puzzle. Nationalisation, expropriation, and price controls have all played their part in destroying local economy and driving away fdi