The Economics of 'Under the Dome'

I have this love-hatred relationship to TV-Series. I _LOVE_ watching them, but once I do I sort of can't stop. Last, a few months ago, I experienced this with House of Cards. I got curious about it, thought I'd watch the first episode to check it out - and ended up spending the next 36hs rushing through both seasons.

So, most of the time I stay away. Freaking addiction.

But last night I got at it again. Under The Dome caught me by surprise, so I rushed through the first episodes. Woke up with one thing on my mind: Watch it. Simply Addictive.

What did strike me while watching it were the libertarian themes in it. Or rather, the economics of it. A small town is suddenly sealed off from the rest of the world. That means all production and consumption lines are disrupted, seeing as how we trade extensively with one another. Early on, a few things happen that really jumps out at me.

• One of the first anti-government quote from a main character is:
  
  • -"So you don't think the Government did this?"  
  • -"No"
  • -"Why not?"
  • -"'cause it's working"
• Scarcity becomes prevalent; things run out, such as water, insulin for diabetics, gasoline, propane etc. 
• One character, in the face of such scarcity alludes to the role Money plays in society beyond pieces of green paper, saying "I'll provide you with money. Or battery, or propane, or whatever counts as money these days". Brilliant!
• When property rights are no longer respected, things turn ugly. 

Most interesting, though, is what happens with society's wealth - and income. I realize that you could easily make different interpretations about this, seeing as how people turned violent in face of scarcity, how they started looting stores, hitting killing and even raping each other as the few Police Officers lose control ("See what happens without a law enforcement!", or "Look, stupid capitalists. We should all cooperate instead of competing!"). I see that. 

Nevertheless, the society is cut off; there's essentially no more production (apart from the weird farmer character, I suppose). Society starts consuming the resources it has, quickly running out of insulin, anti-biotics, water, propane. The value of things change dramatically. Capital-consumption is prevalent. Society at large becomes way poorer. Wealth is gradually reduced - while income essentially cease to exist. 

The most fascinating thing though, is how there's essentially no more production. Chester's Mill is no longer producing much but disagreement, violence and conflict - none of which are edible, quench your thirst or help diabetics stay alive. Loads of things have to be re-arranged, in terms of producing the most basic goods - and the palpable notion that the wealth in our current societies depend on division of labour, heavy specialization and extensive trade. But when "society" suddenly becomes a few hundred people, the wealth and income possibilities of all is dramatically reduced. 

Fascinating stuff!