>This article comes across as a narrative in search of a justifying story: it could just have easily used a 1980s example of corporate raiding instead
I don't understand your point. The 1980s were over 40 years ago, this just happened. In fact, it's ongoing.
>"just so" story about our feckless and greedy rulers
Oh, that's your point. Yeah, your leaders trading stocks on insider info, politicians selling influence to foreign governments..it's always happened, so who cares?
My point concerns the end of the article: the author applies their three phases to the last 35 or so years of American society, conveniently ignoring the rot that came with their childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, &c.
So no, the point isn’t defeatism. It’s to observe that so many of these types of polemics come with a healthy dose of rose colored glass.
I agree with this overall sentiment. When the author speaks of "crappy institutions and leaders" I understand he mean something along the lines of "we shouldn't accept this level of performance from things we can change" or some other call for more effective government/infrastructure/etc.
It's when the author drops into 'overwhelming debt ending in failure' that he drops the mask enough to show that he doesn't want any sort of government or public infrastructure. It's a libertarian, leaning anarcho-capitalist, viewpoint that explains the discontinuity in tone that permeates many of the articles I sampled from this author.
I don't understand your point. The 1980s were over 40 years ago, this just happened. In fact, it's ongoing.
>"just so" story about our feckless and greedy rulers
Oh, that's your point. Yeah, your leaders trading stocks on insider info, politicians selling influence to foreign governments..it's always happened, so who cares?