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.
The problem isn't the negotiating, it's the unilateral modifications afterwards.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Seriously. It's a Death Moon. Ya, I know I/we heard someone say it wasn't a moon, but it is. Though I'm sure that if the International Astronomical Union (IAU) had there way, it would be called the Death Dwarf Planet or Death Asteroid. I'm going with Death Moon. Not nearly as sexy as "Death Star" or "AT&T" though.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .