[um_ya]

Actually, in a capitalist country it might be easier to survive such an attack. If there is demand for a product or service, people and businesses will find a way to meet that demand. Millions of people working independently to satisfy their local market demand. It would probably hurt centralized socialist or communist countries more since it severs their control, surveillance, and communication mechanisms.

[steego]

I agree that markets tend to buffer the effects significantly.

The problem is in times of crisis, the appreciation of market dynamics and rule of law tend to wane. Even if those things are intact, the flow of goods and services can be undermined by well-intentioned but misguided politicians.

My point was simple. Despite the systems of trade, a catastrophic shock in trade or production systems could literally kill millions in a way that is more brutal and horrific than instant obliteration.

[bambataa]

I’m intrigued - how does that play out in your head? There’s a disaster causing social collapse but a free market for food remains. Demand outstrips supply so it becomes too expensive for many to buy. What do people do before they can go back to the land and sow their own food? What about areas with a lack of suitable available land (as referenced in a sister post by the potato famine)?

[steego]

I honestly didn't invest too much time playing out scenarios out in my head, rather I was mentally recalling events in modern history where we've simply allowed millions of people to starve. From a BBC article:

The scarcity, Mukherjee writes, was caused by large-scale exports of food from India for use in the war theatres and consumption in Britain - India exported more than 70,000 tonnes of rice between January and July 1943, even as the famine set in. This would have kept nearly 400,000 people alive for a full year. Mr Churchill turned down fervent pleas to export food to India citing a shortage of ships - this when shiploads of Australian wheat, for example, would pass by India to be stored for future consumption in Europe. As imports dropped, prices shot up and hoarders made a killing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10...

I guess if I was to assume a scenario that could lead to the starvation of millions, I'd imagine a poorer country making the mistake of relying too much on some sort of electronic platform to trade and save their money. Let's say this country/region also relied too much on exporting some agricultural commodity that was being affect by a change in climate.

A catastrophic attack on their banking platform could theoretically destroy the local populations confidence in the trading currency as well as scare away foreign lenders. It may create incentives where it's more advantageous to hoard food and sell it on the international markets rather than distribute it to local customers who can't pay.

Free markets tend to create the most value in the long run. In some situations, hoarding can create incentives to distribute to underserved areas. In scenarios where the underserved areas do not have a means of payment (monetary, barter, indentured servitude, etc.), free markets and hoarding can simply be horrifyingly cruel.

What are your thoughts?

[bambataa]

Should there be some catastrophic collapse in society, I would far prefer that the government requisitioned food and rationed it out. While it’s definitely open to abuse, I think it would do a better job in the short term of keeping people alive. A free market response to a national emergency sounds dreadful to me

[steego]

I don't disagree. Most times, I would prefer the decisions of how people get the things they need are made by a network of people with incentives to provide and profit rather than central planning. However, if the situation is dire and the incentives create a deadlock, I think thought-out, extraordinary measures to help people are warranted.

[Lionsion]

> My point was simple. Despite the systems of trade, a catastrophic shock in trade or production systems could literally kill millions in a way that is more brutal and horrific than instant obliteration.

Systems have trade have made the market economy of the US more vulnerable to many kinds of "a catastrophic shock[s] in trade or production systems." IIRC, there are only a few days of slack in the US food supply chain. That's down from a month or two during the cold war (where I think there were mandates for reserves).

[xfitm3]

Supply will be lower than what’s currently available. Prices could go up. If so, lower income households may not survive.

[mFixman]

So what happened during the Irish Potato Famine?

[petemc_]

The British.

[bambataa]

Laissez-faire in practice doesn’t seem so desirable

[vertexFarm]

Capitalist countries still centralize their control, surveillance, and communication into few hands with little diversity. The market forces you describe only apply to the early days of capitalism. Most capitalist societies are long past that, at a stage where the strong early players have re-written the rules and formed quasi-state monopolies.

Just look at how many communications companies the US has. And the government had to step in and break that up because there used to be just one. Even now they are quietly conglomerating back together, and there are no significantly different options available. It's still very vulnerable to an attack or flaw due to lack of diversity.

[_jal]

Not sure how much that really buffers anything. In a lot of mature markets, the fact that the whip-hand is held by another corporation doesn't make much practical difference - what happens if someone finds an attack that bricks every Caterpillar tractor and hauler?

It doesn't matter if C&C is corporate or state, they break the same way.