well, i was born in ussr and i've seen it collapsing.
i have to say that the author is full of it. the main sources of troubles in collapsing ussr were, in no particular order:
* dying agriculture sector and massive dependence on imported food (doesn't appear to be a problem in u.s.),
* non-existent property structure: nobody owns anything, so nobody has the incentive to maintain things or use things to turn profit, etc (doesn't appear to be a huge problem in u.s.)
* no preexisting contracts, markets, distribution channels, etc; almost no preexisting social network of business relationships, since all operations were run by the state (not a problem in u.s.)
* the main issue: it was 3rd or 4th generation of people raised in the world where "business", "profit", "property", etc were all synonyms for "crime". "doing something people want/need" was unthinkable. the only people who dared to think about it were criminals [and that's how we got the country we have now] (and no, i can't imagine that being a problem in u.s.)
so there. if [quite an "if", huh] your empire goes down, i think you'll be okay :) [and some redneck farmers might not even notice much].
dying agriculture sector and massive dependence on imported food (doesn't appear to be a problem in u.s.)
Only 1% of our population knows anything about how to farm, and if you substitute "oil" in for "food", you have the American problem. Our food production and transportation are highly dependent upon oil, and we don't have enough domestic oil to sustain the system in place.
non-existent property structure: nobody owns anything, so nobody has the incentive to maintain things or use things to turn profit, etc (doesn't appear to be a huge problem in u.s.)
I agree that we don't have this problem in the US. Our housing infrastructure is decaying because of poor, unsustainable design (sprawl) and because people lack the time and money to maintain it, not because they lack incentive.
no preexisting contracts, markets, distribution channels, etc; almost no preexisting social network of business relationships, since all operations were run by the state (not a problem in u.s.)
The "preexisting social network" of people who actually run American society is small, exclusive, and unambiguously an enemy. These people won't be relevant in an economic collapse, but I can't see them doing anything to help out average people. They'll fly off in their private jets. As for the suburbanized hoipolloi, they're already culturally and emotionally alienated, and they'll be physically dispersed once gas is expensive/unreliable.
the main issue: it was 3rd or 4th generation of people raised in the world where "business", "profit", "property", etc were all synonyms for "crime". "doing something people want/need" was unthinkable. the only people who dared to think about it were criminals [and that's how we got the country we have now] (and no, i can't imagine that being a problem in u.s.)
This is one crucial difference, and the US will be served well by the difference in attitude. Although the corporate elite are rightly viewed as a parasitic, criminal class, people harbor positive views of small business, and are largely comfortable with markets, capitalism, and profit. This might enable us to recover well.
The things they fight over in public are generally symbolic little tokens of social policy, chosen for ease of public posturing. The Communist party offered just one bitter pill. The two Capitalist parties offer a choice of two placebos. The latest innovation is the photo finish election, where each party buys 50% of the vote, and the result is pulled out of statistical noise, like a rabbit out of a hat.
Ok, I'm pretty sure this was a joke/satire/etc but I really liked this bit. Reminds me of Douglas Adams and the lizards...
This doesn't seem so much to be 'What if the US Collapses' as 'How the US is like the USSR and why that will lead to a similar collapse'.
However, the USSR was not a free-market system, and there was very little incentive it seemed for citizens of the USSR to band together and solve problems.
Are there similarities between the US and pre-collapse USSR, sure. But the human mind is great at finding similarities and patterns. Postulating that the US will collapse JUST as the USSR did is a stretch.
The US may fall from it's height of power relative to other nations of the world, but a full collapse in the near term I think is unlikely.
Of course, every empire falls at some point, and I suspect we have seen the height of American power, but the American way of life is far from over.
> However, the USSR was not a free-market system, and there was very little incentive it seemed for citizens of the USSR to band together and solve problems.
I don't think the freedom of the market matters much when you're trying to survive: you will want to solve this particular problem as soon as possible.
That said, I think the author underestimates the American people and their resourcefulness.
Starting with slide 9, the US is compared on "specifics". It points to our energy and transportation infrastructure leading to a bigger crisis for the US.
I think the latter slides are interesting, and energy/transportation is by far our biggest vulnerability, but not necessarily accurate, and even leaning towards trying to scare. My opinion was reinforced by slide 19:
" the Soviet union was much better prepared for economic collapse than the US is". I wasn't there, but I guess because it didn't have as far to fall. The US may have to get used to less - but I believe that a free society eventually leads education and change. Because we are a democracy, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
the main shock for an average soviet citizen quickly becoming a russian citizen probably wasn't the abrupt drop in the quality of life [though there sure was quite a drop]. it was more about how to live when nobody tells you what to do every minute and when you're on your own.
people who came up with a dead simple idea to 1) borrow some cash, 2) visit europe, buy some Snickers (tm) [i kid you not, it really was Snickers for some reason], 3) sell it in russia from a makeshift tent -- those people were turning hundreds percents of profit, doubling their operations weekly and making huge fortunes [by local standards anyway] in months.
and, well, one in a thousand had the mindset to pull that off. others were living in poverty in spite of the whole world of available opportunities.
Yeah, that was actually his entire point - Soviet Union was well prepared because soviet economy was crap to start with for average citizen, so collpase wasn't much worse and many survival skills acquired under soviet rule came out surprisingly handy in the chaos of the nineties.
I understand that this is satire but lets get something straight: a "jubilee" wouldn't work because debt "creates" money and to erase it all would vaporize tons of actual money!
* dying agriculture sector and massive dependence on imported food (doesn't appear to be a problem in u.s.),
* non-existent property structure: nobody owns anything, so nobody has the incentive to maintain things or use things to turn profit, etc (doesn't appear to be a huge problem in u.s.)
* no preexisting contracts, markets, distribution channels, etc; almost no preexisting social network of business relationships, since all operations were run by the state (not a problem in u.s.)
* the main issue: it was 3rd or 4th generation of people raised in the world where "business", "profit", "property", etc were all synonyms for "crime". "doing something people want/need" was unthinkable. the only people who dared to think about it were criminals [and that's how we got the country we have now] (and no, i can't imagine that being a problem in u.s.)
so there. if [quite an "if", huh] your empire goes down, i think you'll be okay :) [and some redneck farmers might not even notice much].