Across the lot of preppers who you notice in the real world, in movies as well as on TV shows like Doomsday Preppers, you notice different areas of focus.
Survival economics and the Realistic Man
In the field of economics, there is a concept that was created to make human psychology go away in the lengthy conversation about different aspects in a market. To streamline things, there was one particular presumption: people might try to get the most results given their choices. The set up that symbolized this list of ideals was homo economicus, or the economic man.
Although humanitarians may try to argue that people behave altruistically or in accordance with a state of morals, this assumption has been the floor for economics, game theory as well as several other fields. If there was any degree of truth to people acting out of their own self-interest, a post-apocalyptic earth with very few resources would easily weed people out. In regards to resources, individuals will act in ways to maximize their own benefits.
Think about any movie that involves a heated deal. The two teams arrive, each having a band of thugs with machine guns, and even if things might get heated, almost everything turns out fine. This is economics at work. Let us call the price of whatever is being transacted X. In a film that I saw recently, The Departed, X would be the missile guidance chips to the Chinese, and the money for the Irish mafia. Let's call the alternative the deal Y. In this case, both sides will have deadly weapons and at close range, Y would mean extreme harm to each party.
The deal is able to continue since both sides are performing in their own individual self interest. The price of Y (death and injury) is higher than the worth of X (items being traded). So to choose the lowest price, the two groups choose X. If the power was asymmetrical the dynamic would be altered. Say the mafia was armed with knives. The price of Y would be lower to the Chinese, and they would opt for killing them in cold blood to take the chips and keep their cash. Basic self interest is the reason for the basic a deal gone south.
What does this mean for you?
To prevent trouble, you need to make sure that Y is always greater than X. To do this, your amount of protection should increase as the value of your goods increases. If you are not ready for this you are playing custodian to someone else's cache until they decide to run you over. Someone such as Kathy Harrison will be in a bad position, having a high X (her supply of honey and food items) and a really low possibility of Y (no guns). Being at the mercy of someone's altruism after the a difficult time is a bad situation. In case your X and Y are not going to come close, it's preferable to err on the part of more being intensely equipped.
Survival economics and the Realistic Man
In the field of economics, there is a concept that was created to make human psychology go away in the lengthy conversation about different aspects in a market. To streamline things, there was one particular presumption: people might try to get the most results given their choices. The set up that symbolized this list of ideals was homo economicus, or the economic man.
Although humanitarians may try to argue that people behave altruistically or in accordance with a state of morals, this assumption has been the floor for economics, game theory as well as several other fields. If there was any degree of truth to people acting out of their own self-interest, a post-apocalyptic earth with very few resources would easily weed people out. In regards to resources, individuals will act in ways to maximize their own benefits.
Think about any movie that involves a heated deal. The two teams arrive, each having a band of thugs with machine guns, and even if things might get heated, almost everything turns out fine. This is economics at work. Let us call the price of whatever is being transacted X. In a film that I saw recently, The Departed, X would be the missile guidance chips to the Chinese, and the money for the Irish mafia. Let's call the alternative the deal Y. In this case, both sides will have deadly weapons and at close range, Y would mean extreme harm to each party.
The deal is able to continue since both sides are performing in their own individual self interest. The price of Y (death and injury) is higher than the worth of X (items being traded). So to choose the lowest price, the two groups choose X. If the power was asymmetrical the dynamic would be altered. Say the mafia was armed with knives. The price of Y would be lower to the Chinese, and they would opt for killing them in cold blood to take the chips and keep their cash. Basic self interest is the reason for the basic a deal gone south.
What does this mean for you?
To prevent trouble, you need to make sure that Y is always greater than X. To do this, your amount of protection should increase as the value of your goods increases. If you are not ready for this you are playing custodian to someone else's cache until they decide to run you over. Someone such as Kathy Harrison will be in a bad position, having a high X (her supply of honey and food items) and a really low possibility of Y (no guns). Being at the mercy of someone's altruism after the a difficult time is a bad situation. In case your X and Y are not going to come close, it's preferable to err on the part of more being intensely equipped.
About the Author:
Thank you so much for reading! Terrance Franklin writes about survival and nutrition on a number of sites on the web. For more information on emergency supplies, be sure to check out http://emergencysupplieshq.wordpress.com/. And for even deeper reading, follow the link at emergency supplies
No comments:
Post a Comment