I don't understand why people keep thinking that a financial meltdown means societal meltdown. There's plenty of places where the economy is or has already melted down even right now -- Sri Lanka, Argentina, Venezuela, etc. We can observe what happens when political institutions completely and utterly collapse, because
it's happened multiple times already. What happens is
not immediate apocalypse where people riot and society breaks down; it's mass protests, shows of solidarity, people help each other out, etc. The prepper scenario of "I've gotta defend myself against mobs out to raid for food" really doesn't happen.
If we stretch it back a few decades we see things like the Wiemar republic, complete anarchy during the Russian civil wars when blacks, whites, reds, etc all marched across the countryside, Chinese civil war, or even just recently we have Yemen, ISIS, Ethiopia, and in none of these cases have a zombie apocalypse-style "have to defend myself with my gun and ammo" societal breakdown occured and people bartered with gold. It turns out that people organise very quickly, and a every-man-for-himself-style situation like in stories just doesn't happen.
Maybe a civil war breaks out, maybe there are food shortages, but for the most part if violence breaks out, it's organised, mainly in the form of civil wars or local power struggles. One guy with a gun is not gonna help. Food protests are common, but rarely end violently. People keep thinking that "this time is different", and they're wrong every time.