@7 that's kinda the point right, we don't want to give you cheap energy if you treat us as a pariah
if any country is well positioned for autarky it's Russia, I'd argue it's only a dirty word if you need to conquer other countries in order to provide for that autarky
fate has a sense of irony, no doubt
@7 tbf America is still perfectly capable of peacefully autarky, wild really
@skells I would love it, if it were at all possible. But the problem with autarky isn’t that it’s a bad word – it’s that it doesn’t work. BRICS certainly gives Russia a place to start, for example, but there’s just as much an embedded growth obligation in states as there are in corporations, and that obligation only gets more costly with time.
@skells Slap 7 years ago-me with this statement, but autarky is a terrible solution to already-existing economic problems, regardless of who does it.
@7 how do you define autarky? I'm might be throwing that word around too loosely
@7 I'm thinking the geopolitical equivalent of fuck you money, not a stated position of being self sufficient and not trading on principle
@skells I’m probably being really pedantic, referring to autarky as it’s been implemented prior to expected wartimes – wherein self-sufficiency is often seen on the ground as meeting ration-level needs for the people and innovation-level and resupply needs for the military. But I do agree with you that, if there was a means for any major trade-dependent nation to withdraw into its shell for a couple decades and focus on its own population, that could not only be possible but preferable even to the elites who need to resecure their foundations (both figuratively and literally)
@7 your last describes a lot of countries today
@skells There’s a reason I don’t complain about Argentina as much as people think I should. At least they’re making their corruption work.
