4 ms·

Conclusion: "In this case study we found that the Rebel Alliance would need to prepare a bailout of at least 15%, and likely at least 20%, of GGP in order to m

by tirant 11y ago

Conclusion: "In this case study we found that the Rebel Alliance would need to prepare a bailout of at least 15%, and likely at least 20%, of GGP in order to mitigate the systemic risks and the sudden and catastrophic economic collapse. Without such funds at the ready, it likely the Galactic economy would enter an economic depression of astronomical proportions."

LanceH 11y ago
The death star has no intrinsic economic value. It produces nothing, so it's destruction shouldn't really change anything. It could only ever be back by either taxation or the printing of money. This doesn't change whether it exists or not. The destruction of the death star may reduce the burden since it would no longer incur operational costs. On the other hand, it did establish the operators as a tax authority. I would expect lending banks to be covered by printed money followed by corresponding inflation. On the other hand, if the lenders are isolated among relatively few planets/systems, they could be overtaken by the government and those systems would bear the brunt of the losses. The most likely outcome wouldn't be galactic recession, but return to chaos and war as the grievances between systems would now be unchecked.
- pm90 11y ago
  It has as much economic value as Aircraft Carriers do. It might be an economy in itself, creating a demand for food and other necessities which must be procured from somewhere, generating demand. It must also be supplied by weapons, clothing etc (not sure how durable they are in that world). But you're right that it can act as an enforcement agency, a tax collector of sorts. Or maybe an extortionist: "Pay up or we destroy your planet!".
  - Renevith 11y ago
    Creating additional demand for other goods is not valuable; quite the opposite: it's a cost that needs to be balanced against whatever ongoing value is being provided.

by tirant 11y ago

LanceH 11y ago

The death star has no intrinsic economic value. It produces nothing, so it's destruction shouldn't really change anything. It could only ever be back by either taxation or the printing of money. This doesn't change whether it exists or not. The destruction of the death star may reduce the burden since it would no longer incur operational costs. On the other hand, it did establish the operators as a tax authority. I would expect lending banks to be covered by printed money followed by corresponding inflation. On the other hand, if the lenders are isolated among relatively few planets/systems, they could be overtaken by the government and those systems would bear the brunt of the losses. The most likely outcome wouldn't be galactic recession, but return to chaos and war as the grievances between systems would now be unchecked.

pm90 11y ago
It has as much economic value as Aircraft Carriers do. It might be an economy in itself, creating a demand for food and other necessities which must be procured from somewhere, generating demand. It must also be supplied by weapons, clothing etc (not sure how durable they are in that world). But you're right that it can act as an enforcement agency, a tax collector of sorts. Or maybe an extortionist: "Pay up or we destroy your planet!".
- Renevith 11y ago
  Creating additional demand for other goods is not valuable; quite the opposite: it's a cost that needs to be balanced against whatever ongoing value is being provided.