Slashdot Mirror
Economists Discuss the Financial Repercussions of the Destruction of the Death Stars (hackaday.com)
szczys writes: What would the Galactic Economy look like following the destruction of two Death Stars? This is the informed Star Wars debate taking shape between to people who know their economics. Elliot Williams, a Ph.D. in Econometrics, has just debunked the work of Zachary Feinstein who claimed that the Rebel Alliance would have been off had they not destroyed the two Death Stars because what they're left with is a Galactic Economy in ruin. Feinstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, published a scholarly paper early this month saying it was financial suicide to destroy both of the giant construction projects. Williams' take on things is that the project was a sunk cost; destroyed or whole the Death Star expenditures already made are gone and not likely to further cost or benefit the new government. Perhaps most interesting in the discussion is how you estimate the cost of the Death Star projects and the GGP — the Galactic Gross Product of the fictional universe.
"News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
This is the first topic in a long time that's firing on all 8 cylinders, baby!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Work on real problems, and if you can't see any and you're an economist, you're also fired.
Well, it does illustrate a basic economic concept: If you buy guns instead of butter, you cannot later change your mind and transmogrify the guns into butter. It is surprising how many people don't understand the principle of sunk costs.
You can if there's someone else with butter and no guns.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Wouldn't it be quicker to just blow up the lenders?
But even for that you do not need a Death Star. Even with our primitive technology, we could easily wipe out a planetary civilization with a few thousand tonnes of lithium deuteride and a plutonium trigger. The total cost would be less than $1B. The Death Star likely costs at least a few quadrillion dollars. The Death Star was a great plot device, but from the viewpoint of an economist, it made very little sense.
I thought this was the whole point of the first destruction at least, to not be annihilated by it. But I guess economics can't comprehend the value of survival?
for things as trivial as trying to get a prisoner to talk is going to have a larger impact on the galactic economy than the destruction of the death star.
An empire has an emperor. Communism has no government.
The Empire had a dictator. Communist USSR had a dictator. Communist China had a dictator. Communist Cuba had a dictator. Was there ever a Communist country that didn't have a dictator?
You want to hire someone to fix your space station? Though luck, everyone remotely competent is dead.
Nah, the population of the Empire was vast compared to the Death Star, and further the Empire was racist and (at least on screen) only employed humans on their flagship.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.