movies matter | criticism by maryann johanson
Tue Jan 12 2016, 07:34pm | 3 comments
flawed analysis. for example, destroying the death star would not have plunged the galaxy into an economic depression as the empire had already sunk the costs and incurred debt to build a non-producing asset.
But what is that debt is not repaid?
economics 101 – feinstein is only looking at the impact on the financial markets of the loss of the death star, but an economy is more that just the banks. there is a tax system, infrastructure, and a favorable business environment to take into account.
to pay for the emperor’s vanity project, the empire incurred debt, plus a lot of crushing taxes to pay for it. constructing the death star consumed a lot of resources that could have been put to more productive use. and a terror weapon does not exactly encourage economic development. indeed, the damage to the galactic economy occurred when the death star was financed and built. it’s destruction, and the fall of the wasteful imperial dictatorship would likely have a positive impact on the galactic economy. really? quintillions to chase down a rebel insurrection? surely the empire could have better spent its resources on building infrastructure after the deprivations of the clone wars and stimulating the economy of the outer rim.
all regions (where available):
based on the Aggregate theme by Elegant Themes | powered by WordPress