Post Apocalyptic Economics

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

@ Curmudgeon

Interesting analysis. I think if I was one of the survivors in that situation I would be dreading the day chocolate starts going stale.

Me, too, which is why I didn't mention it. No need to start a panic. Incidentally, while it lasts, chocolate might make a workable currency.

Originally Posted by tshiggins

Within a year or two, some areas will start to grow their own food, too, and that brings up a fun issue with modern agronomy, which I've discussed, before.

A lot of the high-yield crops grown in the modern world spring from genetically engineered seeds that don't reproduce true (and may not reproduce, at all).

That said, there are areas that focus on "traditional" or "organic" farming. Those may have legacy seed lines that cannot match the yields of GMO seeds, and are more subject to blight and infestation. They also require better growing conditions.

However, they do reproduce true, and provide a basis for an ongoing agricultural economy. So, oddly enough, the areas that form the nuclei of sustainable agricultural production are the very poorest, where everybody uses legacy seeds because nobody can afford higher-yielding GMOs; or the very richest, where granola types avoid GMOs for irrational reasons, and grow their own produce with legacy seeds.

True, but it depends on how much warning there was about the apocalypse. If it can be seen coming from a distance, GMO corporations may try altering their products to reproduce and breed true. Better to have something to sell long-term on the day after than to be dead broke.

Come to that sneaky governments with experimental farm systems and a dislike of GMO corporations, may have been attempting the same thing, with a view to breaking GMO control of their nation's farmers. It's far from guaranteed but there could be viable GMO seed crops, which would change the complexion of the economy further.


One minor aspect of the economy may be a greater presence of sourdough bread, where bread is available at all [and removes most of the utility of hoarding yeast], provided the apocalypse wasn't of the sort where no sane person exposes anything he's going to put in his mouth to any open environment.

[Boomerang]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Me, too, which is why I didn't mention it. No need to start a panic. Incidentally, while it lasts, chocolate might make a workable currency.

You sir are a scholar and a gentleman.

[dcarson]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Incidentally, while it lasts, chocolate might make a workable currency.

In a Aftermath game the PCs came across a warehouse with Coke syrup. There were still survivors from pre-collapse and they tended to be well off and powerful. We made a bundle selling the syrup we brought back and a map to the warehouse.

[jason taylor]

I still say you can' t answer this question independently of the political and social systems. How is land distributed? How is security provided? How do people organize themselves?

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

I still say you can' t answer this question independently of the political and social systems. How is land distributed? How is security provided? How do people organize themselves?

These are, in fact, the key questions. The fact is, no meaningful social organization of any sort can take place unless a sufficiently large group of people figure out a way to trust one another, and that requires (at its most basic) a shared code of at least simple ethics.

Moreover, the best ethical code will be the one that allows the maximum number of people to create mutually-beneficial relationships. Not necessarily close and loving relationships, but at the very least relationships that allow them to engage in peaceful exchanges of goods and services.

Essentially, at least some social organization is a necessary precondition for anything more than the most primitive of barter exchanges. Additionally, before people can accumulate any meaningful surpluses, they must trust that enough security will exist to protect that surplus from theft.

Human history and anthropology has provided numerous examples of human social organizations, and I think the survivors would most likely adapt those to which they have the most familiarity. It also depends on the nucleus of the survival group and the circumstances in which they find themselves when the ball drops.

For instance, a group of right-wing survivalist gun-nuts will have a much different social organization than a Unitarian church group on an annual retreat to a well-stocked camp in the mountains, and both would differ substantially from what happens with a group of German soldiers who happened to be on training maneuvers on an island in the Mediterranean, and none of those would match what social structure emerges in small farm community such as Jericho, Kansas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_(2006_TV_series)

I think the GM must decide those basic questions, up front:

1. Who formed the nucleus of this particular group of survivors?
2. What were they doing, when the apocalypse occurred?
3. What resources did they have available to them?
4. What immediate challenges did they face, and how did they choose to resolve them?
5. What were the longer-term issues, and how were those addressed?
6. More specifically, did they have neighbors? If so, what sort of relationship did they have with those fellow survivors, in the early days?

Once the GM makes decisions about those questions, then I think he or she has a solid framework from which to extrapolate the social structure -- and by extension, the economic structure -- of any post-apocalyptic community.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by tshiggins

These are, in fact, the key questions. The fact is, no meaningful social organization of any sort can take place unless a sufficiently large group of people figure out a way to trust one another, and that requires (at its most basic) a shared code of at least simple ethics.

Not really. The big things that are required are a meaningful benefit to cooperation, and a stable reputation system -- you trust that someone will cooperate because he's done so in the past, and if he does betray you he'll suffer consequences.

Note that this is a problem for typical PCs, because they tend to be drifters, which means (a) they don't have a reputation, and (b) they can skip out on obligations at fairly low personal cost.

[Boomerang]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Not really. The big things that are required are a meaningful benefit to cooperation, and a stable reputation system -- you trust that someone will cooperate because he's done so in the past, and if he does betray you he'll suffer consequences.

Note that this is a problem for typical PCs, because they tend to be drifters, which means (a) they don't have a reputation, and (b) they can skip out on obligations at fairly low personal cost.

So what should loner PCs carry to exchange with semi-established communities?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

So what should loner PCs carry to exchange with semi-established communities?

Lightweight items of high inherent utility.

Also ones where hidden flaws are a relatively minor concern. You don't have to trust the seller(trader) so much if inspecting the entire barter item is practical.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Lightweight items of high inherent utility.

Decorative or luxury items (including such traditional things as gold and jewelry) are viable when dealing with wealthier communities.

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Not really. The big things that are required are a meaningful benefit to cooperation, and a stable reputation system -- you trust that someone will cooperate because he's done so in the past, and if he does betray you he'll suffer consequences.

Note that this is a problem for typical PCs, because they tend to be drifters, which means (a) they don't have a reputation, and (b) they can skip out on obligations at fairly low personal cost.

Um, no.

For a market to exist, at all, those who participate must trust that their mere presence will not trigger an attack on them by those who see this as just an opportunity to kill them and take their stuff. Once the market can be established, at all, then issues such as reputation and recognition of long-term mutual advantage can take place.

The creation of at least minimal social order is required for market activity. Traditionally, that has happened either because a strong leader and his or her (usually his) lieutenants threaten to punish anybody who breaks the peace, or because a society has strict taboos about violence, or because they have developed an ethical code (which can include such taboos).

At least a modicum of trust must exist, first. After that, reputation and such can build upon that foundation.