Blowing Up the Death Stars Would Be Economic Disasters: Canadian Economist Sez

[ftg]

Maybe Alderan was destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass which will mean that people can make the Kessel run in 11 parsecs, thereby decreasing the costs of transporting dilithium crystals.

[Chronos]

You still need to figure out how to squeeze a Babylon 5 reference and a Battlestar Galactica reference in there. Maybe change that last part to “…of delivering dilithium crystals to the Vorlons before the Cylons can catch up to them.”.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

The Obama Administration, at least, will not be building a Death Star: The White House

And will no one think of the poor Ewoks?: STAR WARS: Endor Holocaust

[wolfpup]

@Miller

He’s arguing that the Death Star cost a similar percentage of the GDP as the Manhattan project, and also arguing that blowing up the Death Star would crater the economy?

Er, does he know what we did with the final products from the Manhattan project? 'Cause we blew them up, too, and as you noted, the economy did pretty good immediately after WWII.

Not sure that I agree with the article, but that’s not a good analogy. The cost of the Manhattan Project was relatively insignificant (less than 0.6%) of the total US cost of World War II, and even so the actual bombs that the project built were only about 10% of that. And they weren’t “blown up” in the sense of “destroyed” but rather in the sense of being put to the use for which they were intended, actions which brought the war to a rapid conclusion (this isn’t an attempt at a moral justification, just a statement of effect).

So a better analogy would be if the bombs built by the Manhattan Project along with all the technical data and other useful materials had all been buried at the bottom of a deep mine shaft and covered in concrete, never to be seen again, and all the associated manufacturing facilities blown up.

And yes, the economy did great after the war, but that was because of the stimulus momentum of war spending.

[Spiderman]

@Little_Nemo

I agree. Arguing otherwise seems to be ignoring economics.

If you spend 200 quintillion dollars building a Death Star and then it gets blown up, your economy just lost 200 quintillion dollars. But if you spend 200 quintillion dollars building a Death Star and it doesn’t get blown up, you’re not much better off. It’s not like a working Death Star is going to produce 200 quintillion dollars worth of value in your economy; all it does is blow up planets, which reduces your overall economy. Plus there’s the cost of operating the Death Star, even if you don’t use it. In economic terms, if you’re stupid enough to build a Death Star, the smartest thing you can do with it is blow it up.

Do you realize how much income Mafia Insurance Co makes from it’s customers not having fires?

[ftg]

Okay, here’s one way of thinking about the economics.

The rebellion is costing the Empire a certain amount of dough per year. And apparently no end in sight.

You build the Death Star. Lots of upfront costs plus keeping it running. But it might squash the rebellion after a few “nuisance” planets are taken out and everybody else starts thinking “Maybe this Empire thing isn’t such a bad thing after all.”

Are the amortized costs of the Death Star less than the projected annual costs of fighting the rebellion?

If so, then the Death Star is a net economic win. Until some little twerp comes along and blows it up. Then that becomes a major hit on the balance books.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@ftg

…If so, then the Death Star is a net economic win. Until some little twerp comes along and blows it up…

If only we could be in the room when the Emperor finds out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F1d3QWsyk0