He applied his myth deconstruction against an economic collapse only. And localized ones at that.
His historical examples are true. But they aren't even close to being the only versions of things going drastically sideways. War and social turmoil can erupt separately from (or in concert with) economic collapse. None of his examples were nation states at risk of physical dissolution. Ultimately, all had functional governments that maintained control over their societies.
On the other hand, I can think of dozens of places where things were as bad or much worse:
Rwanda, 1990's Kurdistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Revolutionary Vietnam, Algeria, Cambodia, most of WWII Europe and East Asia, Korea 1950, Sudan, Congo, Rhodesia, Laos, Liberia, Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Philippines, Yugoslavia, Greece, Yemen, modern Syria, 1950's Oman, 1930's Manchuria, 1950's Malaysia, Burma, Indonesia, modern Mexico, Civil War USA, 1980's Columbia, Germany 1945, Revolutionary Russia, Revolutionary China, 21st Century Iraq, etc. Just a few of many recent places where everything went totally to crap... simply from human conflict.
All experienced various flavors of oppression, conflict, civil war, dictatorship, WROL, pogroms, enslavement, starvation, military invasion, famine, water wars, ethnic persecution, genocide, pandemic, refugee populations, or other internecine conflict. Many of these places experienced localized "Golden Hordes" (if only for a finite period of time). If you lived in the path of a specific refugee stream, you'd take small comfort from knowing that such migration was not occurring elsewhere.
The author ignores other disasters significant enough to bring to fruition all the things he discounts. Massive tectonic shifts, rapid onset ice age, vulcanism, solar CME, or impacts by cosmic objects could all turn the world upside down. So could nuclear or biological warfare.
Argentina's or Zimbabwe's economic disasters are instructive examples of how things might go. But they're not ironclad models of how things must go. Every situation is unique.
Economic collapse does not necessarily equal societal collapse. He's right about that. Just wrong about discounting other possible visions (and scales) of disaster.
I found the author's arguments interesting and logical, but a bit shortsighted. Never say never.