“with public transportation and with public housing”
This was your moonbat alert.
Every survivor of the Soviet Union that I have met is happy that America has private transportation and private housing.
The author is not saying that these are better systems, only that they are resiliant in a crash.
Wikipedia informs "In the 1970-90s, the cost of a single journey was 5 kopecks (1/20 of Soviet ruble)". I don't have the 1990 exchange rate handy, but in 2000 it was about 25 rubles to the dollar. So a ruble was worth 4 cents, and a ride on the subway was 1/20th of that. Or 1/5th of a cent.
And the trains kept running through the entire period of upheavel. Now compare with, say gasoline at $10 a gallon, or, odd-even gas rationing ala Carter era, or generalized unavailability of gas in some areas (like we just had in the SW for Natural Gas)...
Now, as far as housing goes, I don't agree. Under any generalized collapse housing forclosures (and especially) evictions would cease. It is local sherrifs who have to evict people, and at some point they won't be willing to, so possession will become de-facto ownership. That's becasue the USA isn't Russia, and the governnmet isn't nearly as top down, and the serfs are armed.
All of which means at some point peeople in Bullwinkle, Idaho will tell the agents of JP Morgan, Obama and Freddie Mac to go F themselves (in a SHTF scenario).
Again, author doesn't quite get a lot of American nuances, but still I think has interesting insights.
The PH sorta made sense, but the PT didn't (though I'd be happy to drive the bus on the gov't's diesel to go where I want to go and take along those who want to go where I want too.). It was a Win The Future passage.
““with public transportation and with public housing””
Nice catch - I saw that too, but it didn’t quite register. Especially “public housing”, what the hell does that have to do with anything...especially given that we have more empty houses today than we have any idea what to do with.