I'm quite sympathetic to this view, and the perhaps stronger view that it was oil vol specifically that did the most damage. Chernobyl is not part of the story?
My read of Chernobyl is similar to my read on nationalism. Alone it was not fatal. Even in combination it might have been survivable. But the debt obligations and increasing fiscal disaster made it so much more profitable for people to defect it became an accelerant.
Well the same nuclear scare stopped the USA from developing the most advanced energy production source known, it would of also given us a hedge against the oil instability and reliance of the middle east.
Therefore acting as a geopolitical defense.
Any sane mind would of thought that deterrence would be better then satisfying hippies and the populace.
This sounds quite similar to the arguments made by Anders Aslund in "Russia's Capitalist Revolution." He further emphasized that in the late 80s state enterprise managers used their influence to redirect all attempts at economic reform in order to maximize their opportunities to rent-seek. The real, worthwhile economic reform mostly took place in a window of a few months after the August '91 coup, when Soviet conservatives were temporarily unable to resist. Afterwards those factions regained the upper hand, and reforms didn't resume until the early Putin years. Lesson: don't expect the US political system to deal with the debt issue until and unless it causes an acute crisis.
This is the fiscal version of a broader civilizational failure mode: legitimacy becomes an obligation stack.
Military commitments, imperial subsidies, welfare promises, domestic consumption, debt service, each begins as a tool of stability, then hardens into a non-negotiable claim on future execution capacity.
Collapse begins when the regime can no longer fund the legitimacy layer without degrading the machinery that makes it credible.
I'm quite sympathetic to this view, and the perhaps stronger view that it was oil vol specifically that did the most damage. Chernobyl is not part of the story?
My read of Chernobyl is similar to my read on nationalism. Alone it was not fatal. Even in combination it might have been survivable. But the debt obligations and increasing fiscal disaster made it so much more profitable for people to defect it became an accelerant.
Well the same nuclear scare stopped the USA from developing the most advanced energy production source known, it would of also given us a hedge against the oil instability and reliance of the middle east.
Therefore acting as a geopolitical defense.
Any sane mind would of thought that deterrence would be better then satisfying hippies and the populace.
This sounds quite similar to the arguments made by Anders Aslund in "Russia's Capitalist Revolution." He further emphasized that in the late 80s state enterprise managers used their influence to redirect all attempts at economic reform in order to maximize their opportunities to rent-seek. The real, worthwhile economic reform mostly took place in a window of a few months after the August '91 coup, when Soviet conservatives were temporarily unable to resist. Afterwards those factions regained the upper hand, and reforms didn't resume until the early Putin years. Lesson: don't expect the US political system to deal with the debt issue until and unless it causes an acute crisis.
This is the fiscal version of a broader civilizational failure mode: legitimacy becomes an obligation stack.
Military commitments, imperial subsidies, welfare promises, domestic consumption, debt service, each begins as a tool of stability, then hardens into a non-negotiable claim on future execution capacity.
Collapse begins when the regime can no longer fund the legitimacy layer without degrading the machinery that makes it credible.