> stability wins
Stability sucks. Instability sucks even more when you are in the middle of it, but it is transient. Stability is forever, until it suddenly isn't.
Stability sucks. Instability sucks even more when you are in the middle of it, but it is transient. Stability is forever, until it suddenly isn't.
This is absolutely not the case. It's more than likely that whatever rises out of the *hellscape* of a societal collapse will be worse than what was there before.
The collapse of Rome did not lead to a better Rome. It was hundreds of years of suffering and death. In fact, the stability of Rome is what allowed for it to reach its peak over hundreds of years - something that was undeniably good for its citizens.
Rome was unstable far longer than it was stable.
> undeniably good for its citizens.
Maybe for some very small percentage of citizens, especially when citizenship was extended to everyone in the empire.
When you look at data around economics what you find instead is that good times create good times.
you want stability, but not stasis. you hella do not want punctuated equilibriums