The conquest of bread

So why is there always inflation? Maybe we're living off the future?

Politicians and CEOs all have the inflation fetish. Simple
The federal reserve giving money to banks to give out as loans is why inflation is skyrocketing
An inflation rate of around 2% is healthy. It forces people to invest in stuff. If there wasn’t inflation, people would just hide their cash under their mattress, no loans would be given to anyone, it would be bad.
- So because of infinite growth? But we know that's not sustainable.
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com
- No thanks. There are enough proer explanations without engaging in lolbertarian/goldbug conspiracies.

Locking post because some conversation threads have become unproductively rude.

So is the meme about the U.S. switching to the USSR because the U.S. ran out of food to provide to people like what literally happened in the USSR?

Conquest of bread predates the USSR but I suspect Kropotkin wouldn’t be a fan
There was food stability in the USSR, just like any developing country it became more food secure as it developed. The only way the US would become less food secure if it collectivized agriculture would be if it also destroyed all of its infrastructure.
Plus, the title refers to an Anarchist title. This is a meme that aligns more with Anarchism than Marxism-Leninism.

Yes, why starve to death by not being able to afford bread when we can starve to death by not being able to buy bread cuz there is none

Communism is when no bread. Americans Can Now Expect to Live Three Years Less than Cubans
- Bro we’re living shorter lives because of TOO MUCH bread. Heart disease and diabetes is wrecking the shit out of Americans
Is there an ending that doesn’t involve people starving? Maybe a post-food-scarcity one?
- In the eyes of reactionaries, tools have their own opinions and refuse to work if collectively owned. They believe in mysticism and the almighty power of the Invisible Hand to guide seeds to bear fruit, not the swear and toil of Workers.
There was food stability in the USSR, just like any developing country it became more food secure as it developed. The only way the US would become less food secure if it collectivized agriculture would be if it also destroyed all of its infrastructure.
Plus, the title refers to an Anarchist title. This is a meme that aligns more with Anarchism than Marxism-Leninism.

There is no equivalent data for the second image, because "communism has never been tried."

It's very funny to me that leftists can explain the same simple concept numerous times, and reactionaries will make the same misunderstanding about what was explained.
Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society that is to be achieved after Socialism (or directly after Capitalism if you're an Anarcho-Communist, like Kropotkin, author of the book mentioned in the title). Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
Following this, we can see that, for example, the USSR was a genuine attempt at Socialism along the lines of the Marxist-Leninist strategy, that never reached Communism. Communism was the goal, but it never got there. Reactionaries like yourself will take this as a dismissal of any attempts at achieving Socialism purely as a lack of understanding.
Similarly, reactionaries will take clearly fascist, far-right Capitalist regimes like Nazi Germany, do exactly no thinking, then assume it was actually Socialist and that it's yet another example of leftists denying Socialist projects.
There's more nuance, Anarchists may believe that the USSR created a new class of beaurocrats and thus wasn't true Worker Ownership, but even as someone with Anarchist leanings I acknowledge that the USSR was still directed at achieving Communism, but those are arguments from people that genuinely understand leftism, not reactionaries who make the same mistakes as each other.
- Zero time between bolded assertions of misrepresentation... and 'I bet you also mean Nazis.'
  Nah. I'm describing conversations that pivot like it's just a word game. 'We should do a communism.' 'That super didn't work in several example countries.' 'They don't count! That wasn't true communism.'
  Okay... but they were trying.
  They tried to try communism.
  They had your stated goals... and often your planned methods... and it went a certain way. Why else would an example count? Is this not exactly the criticism y'all do for capitalism, when you say it inevitably tends toward the worst outcomes? You'd never respect some asshole insisting 'capitalism is only when perfectly informed consumers make rational choices between unlimited options,' and therefore 'capitalism has never been tried.' That inane hair-splitting wouldn't dispel condemnation of observable problems. They know which countries and systems you're talking about, when you talk shit about them.
  Y'all know which countries people are talking about, and why. There's a flag in this image. Picking nits about word choice is not a meaningful defense of what they fucked up, and why.
- ... under which religious empire?