Capitalist states are like drunken thugs in fancy clothes, sipping fancy wine, going around smashing windows and causing crisis after crisis. After each crisis, they extort their way out by attacking other states based on a lie. Welfare states on the other hand, are like gentle people who try to be as equitable as possible when it comes to their own people. But that means every penny in their systems has a name on it. This is probably why in welfare states, we do not see a guy wearing fluorescent green Louis Vuitton head-to-toe, leaning against his fluorescent green Lamborghini.

Such extravagance inevitably means someone in the capitalist state is wearing very little throughout the year. And this is why welfare states are always more vulnerable against the capitalist ones. Capitalist states, by virtue of their system, have access to more capital, and thereby more dispensable wealth. This is because they simply accumulate more capital, and steal from others when they loose it in a crisis. As an exmaple, this is what Trump said in an interview with FOX News:

"I left troops [in Iraq] to take the oil; I took the oil; the only troops I have, are taking the oil; they're protecting the oil; I took over the oil".

The consequence of this is that the sober side of the capitalist state gets to invest zillions in research and development, so it can invent things that generate more wealth; while its hoodlum side engages in speculations and hedging against the risk of a hedged risk of a hedged risk of a dreaming middle class, guilty of aspiring to have a house. In plain English, this means the following:

Through adds, social construct, peer pressure, etc, the banking industry persuades a middle class citizen to take a mortgage to buy a house. When the deal is done, the bank puts a bunch of these deals together in one basket, and goes around to find who is willing to bet higher against the risk of the debtors defaulting, based on some mathematical formula that allegedly measures the risk precisely. Then the first hedge fund who bets against the debt default, goes to ather institutions to find those who are willing to bet against the first hedge fund defaulting. The same situation happens among insurance companies. They insure a consumer against a disastor, or a problem, and in turn seek insurance by another re-insurer, who insures them against a similar or a different disaster.

This can go on and on, until one of two things happen: that the loan is paid off, or that the debtor defaults. In both of these cases, there is money to be made by those who were heavily involved in the gambling against the middle class pursuing his/her dream. But a third scenario is also likely, especially because the system is flawed. For one thing, people who use the mathematical formula can cheat. This happens more often than you and I like to believe. Besides, for mathematical formula to be conceivable, they need to be founded on simplifying assumptions about the reality. This is precisely why they only work in simplified situations, namely when all involved agents are rational and responsible, and the economy is working like a Swiss clock. None of these conditions are realistic. This is why the entire system is crisis prone as soon as one of the mentioned factors digress from their expected path, rendering the system volnerable to collapse. And in such a situation, the state has to bail all of the gamblers up to, but not including, the middle class citizen who was paying the interests. In other words, when disaster strikes, asses of the creditor bank (or the original insurance company) and all hedge funds (or re-insurance companies) are bailed out by tax payers money, which includes the tax the very middle class person has been paying on top of his mortgage installments. So, the question is whether it makes more sense to keep part of tax payers' money as an insurance premium, and to have the government act as the insurer from the start? I am in no way suggesting this is an ideal solution, because there are much better alternatives, but that is essentially what is happening anyway. Whether this makes more sense or not, it is not the case in the current so-called capitalist states, which is why richer people in such societies have huge amounts of dispensable surplus, while the lower levels of society are dispensable themselves. And this is the attribute that gives them an upper hand against welfare systems. With no obligation to invest in public welfare, and with huge volumes of capital accumulated in the hands of the state and a few others, the capitalist state can, and does, invest in unnecessary technology, or even worse, damaging luxuries.

This is also why the capitalist state can take advantage of the Madman Strategy in international stage. This is a strategy often associated with Richard Nixon, and his attempt to solve the problem of the Vietnam War. By looking unstable and irrational, Nixon was trying to distort Russia's perception of the conflict's payoffs, making them believe he is seconds away from pulling the nuclear trigger. This he hoped, would motivate Russia to pressure Vietnam to capitualate. I am not approving or disproving any aspect of the strategy here, but I think an integral and necessary element in its utilization, is for the threat to be somewhat credible. In other words, no one would believe Nixon's instability to lead to an all-out nuclear war, if the US did not have a nuclear bomb in the first place.

In the aftermath of his success, and in one of his standup shows, Ricky Gervais once said, "I could have this place [the venue] burnt down for a laugh", to convey how rich he has become. And although I find this a rather tasteless joke, I believe him, because he does seem like a guy having that much money. This is precisely what capitalist states can do; they can just have places burnt down for a laugh, because they have the means, and using them has very little impact on the lives of their filthy rich and filthy poor, even if the plan backfires. But the same thing in welfare states will have a dislocating consequence; it will shift people downwardly on the social hierarchy, and significantly disrpts their welfare systems. So, they can't even produce a credible bluff in game-theoretic settings.