3 ms·

What happened to the Soviets in the end?

• jbay808 6y ago
  What kind of logic is that? I'm not trying to defend the USSR here, just understand how infrastructure spending works. But if that's how you conduct your reasoning, wouldn't you also believe that Abraham Lincoln must have been wrong about everything, seeing as how things ended for him? The Roman Empire isn't around either, but I don't blame their infrastructure projects for that. More likely that those helped them last as long as they did.
  • konjin 6y ago
    The USSR collapsed because it overspend on pointless projects. Bridges to nowhere or military bases in Afghanistan add nothing for the economy. Just because it's infrastructure doesn't mean it's good.
    • jbay808 6y ago
      So this seems like a roundabout way of answering the GGP's (my) question by saying that the post-Soviet countries are only declining to pay for maintaining those bridges that happen to go nowhere, which is presumably fine, because nobody needs them. The Soviet-era bridges that do see frequent use, they can afford to maintain/rebuild just fine? Are you answering this from an epistemic position of particular knowledge and experience about Eastern European economics and infrastructure, or are you just speculating that this is the way it probably is, based on your opinions of how the world works?