Why Economics?
Our personal beliefs and understanding of economic systems often influence our writing. However, it's important to remember that we have the ability to create entirely new economic systems in our fictional worlds.
The economy of a story's setting can add needed conflict and dictate the direction of the plot in a story. For example, if I were a character in my own story, my personal beliefs in universal healthcare and Rawlsian capitalism1 would make me a rebel in a story set on an island run by a laissez-faire capitalist cult. On the other hand, in a story set during a communist revolution, my status as a well-educated landowner of faith with upper-middle-class net worth would make me a target of the revolutionaries. Your economic setting greatly affects what stories can be told and how they will unfold.
*** Soapbox mode on. ***
As writers, I believe it should be one of our goals to explore new economic systems beyond the name-calling caricatures of capitalism, socialism, and communism we find on social media. My hot take is that these economic systems, at least in their purest theoretical forms, are largely outdated ideologies in need of updating. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, could not have foreseen the impact of the internet, air freight, and the growth of powerful global psuedo-monopolies. Similarly, the founders of Marxism could not have anticipated access to low-interest credit, app-based capital deployment in $25 increments for the working class, 60% owner-occupied land or hundreds of billionaires in communist China and socialist India. I see a huge disconnect between the textbook theoretical “isms” and the observed pragmatic reality. I believe humanity will eventually find a better, more nuanced economic framework, and, as comic creators, we can lead the way with our speculative worlds.
Phew. Got that off my chest.
*** Soapbox mode off. ***
The Foundation
Whether your goal is to create a utopian or dystopian economy for your world, start by considering the basic economic problem - the scarcity of resources in relation to the unlimited wants and needs of a society.
Some people reading this may balk at the notion of unlimited “wants and needs,” but when you are old as dirt, you get to witness this in action over a lifetime. My dad recalls how getting a single orange in his Christmas stocking as a treat. Now I am more likely to hear complaints about the price of limes and avocados. On a global scale, in 1800, 81% of the world lived in extreme poverty; by 2015, that had dropped to 10 percent. Yet, in spite of seeing quantifiable improvements the world over during my lifetime, I would argue anecdotally that Gen-Z, in particular, generally does not feel satisfied by their current economic circumstances.
This phenomenon is a result of what is called “the hedonic treadmill.” In summary, humans have a desire, they achieve that target and are temporarily happier, but then the new state quickly becomes the norm, and the happiness level returns to the norm, and the cycle starts over again with a new desire. So if you grew up at a certain level of economic security and your prospects of advancing or even staying at the same level seem distant or impossible, you are going to feel dissatisfied, even though you are miles ahead of where people were even 50 years earlier.
But even in a potential fictional world where your characters are somehow immune to this tendency toward hedonic discontent, the basic economic problem would still exist, even in one where there are unlimited physical and capital resources. This is because some things are simply not replaceable by another identical item. The NFT guy blurts out excitedly, “They are non-fungible!”
Consider the Star Trek universe. You might think that with replicators and the ability to extract raw materials from all over the explored universe, scarcity would be a non-issue, but the concept still applies. Have you ever asked yourself why Star Fleet Command is on prime real estate in San Francisco? For that to happen, a decision had to be made that this was a better use of the land than, for example, a retirement home or hospital with an ocean view. Or a forest. Who made that decision? Why? What does it tell you about the values of that fictional society?
If we concede that the basic economic problem is ultimately intractable, it leads us to a different set of questions and decisions for our society. Namely:
What should be produced?
How should it be produced?
Who should it be produced for?
Note that produced and built are synonyms in this context.
The varied possible answers to these questions are at the core of our current set of economic “isms.” (For an excellent overview of this, watch "Are the "Extreme" Economic Systems Totally Pointless?”) When creating your own world, have these questions in the back of your mind.
What follows are just a few questions you can ask yourself when you create the economy or economies of your world.
The notion of “unlimited wants and needs” is at the core. What does your character or society want? “More and better” what? What do they actually need?
What does the economic system hope to “optimize?” Happiness? Health? Safety? Uninterrupted operation?
Some things cannot be shared. How is that handled? Who/what decides who gets what if there are conflicting interests?
Which mindset is more common for your characters and the society: Zero-sum thinking (“Their gain/success is my loss”) or rising-tide thinking (“Their success will pull me up.”)?
Consider opportunity cost. What is my society/character giving up in order to pursue a goal? What are they compromising in the future to have this thing now?
Brainstorm items and experiences with subjective value in your world. What things does your protagonist’s society value that cannot be viewed through objective value? (In TLSS, one example is the tail cover/parasol worn by each Lightsider. These are fashion pieces, not just pragmatic protection from the sun.)
Does your society use a currency? A barter system? Or?
Is there a concept of personal property? At what scale? Is the concept of theft even possible?
Is intellectual property protected by law or the cultural norm? (This may seem like a tangent, but billionaires like Rihanna, and especially JZ, are billionaires in part because of IP rights.) Who can retell stories?
If people in your world work, why? If they don’t work, how does society function?
Assuming there are jobs, how are they acquired or assigned?
Who does the “dirty jobs?” Why?
Not everyone can be a comic writer.Is there a system of taking turns with important items? Tasks? Jobs? If so, how is this coordinated?
How are the elderly and disabled communities treated? Who, if anyone, takes care of them and why?
What happens if someone doesn’t play along with the rules of the economy?
Do people try to “cheat the system?” What happens when they are caught?
Is there a black market? Why? What is sold there?
Who are the risk-takers in your society? Who starts new projects that involve the allocation of resources?
What happens when those who influence the economy make poor decisions? For example:
The Great Depression
The Holodomore in Ukraine
The Sparrow Famine in China
These are just a few questions to get you started. This category tends to bleed into the cultural universal of “government,” but try to brainstorm for each of these two categories as separately as possible, at least to start.
Before we finish here, I want to leave you with a challenge. Instead of creating yet another dystopian, allegorical world based on existing economic systems, I encourage you to imagine an incrementally "better" world and use that in your comic. I believe, from time to time, it's our responsibility to provide readers with the opportunity to envision a new future where every person is provided for, and Earl Grey tea is simply a voice command away. As creators, we have the unique opportunity to give our readers a glimpse of what that might look like and how that would work. Writing a story with a fair and equitable world as a backdrop might not be the easiest setting for creating conflict in your story, but if it were easy, it wouldn’t be a challenge now, would it? 😉
Vastly oversimplifying, philosopher John Rawls (A Theory of Justice) held that unequal wealth is morally acceptable as long as it ultimately helps the underprivileged, but admittedly even that interpretation of his work would be vigorously debated. However, the fact that his work gets attacked by people on both ends of the economic spectrum, and he is claimed under the banner by both ends as well, tells me he was probably on to something. Ha!