May 13th marked the final broadcast of Star Trek: Enterprise. This was a good thing as the show was awful. It was not just awful, it was aggressively awful. It was not just aggressively awful; it was passionately, creatively and aggressively awful. Where awful was concerned, Enterprise had a terrific, almost Protestant work ethic. I’ve been a fan of science fiction both good and bad – I will freely admit that I sat through entire episodes of Babylon 5 without so much as twitching. I watched it on purpose and cackled with glee whenever Bruce Boxleitner – my personal Lord and Savior – would strain himself by looking concerned. This was a man whose singular achievement as a thespian was growing a full beard.
But still, I watched so I will not blame Boxleitner’s beard. I’m tempted to capitalize that.
Boxleitner’s Beard.
So while it was truly awful to watch, I was a little sad to see Enterprise go.
As most TV commentators with access to a window were able to discover, this will mark the first time since about 1979 that someone, somewhere is not in some stage of producing Star Trek for either television or a theatrical release.
In about 26 years, they produced 10 movies, or maybe eleven. There were three complete series that each ran for 7 years and then there were the sad four years of Enterprise. That works out to about 660 hours of Star Trek, or about 28 seasons of the average hour long drama. In that time a lot happened – some things blew up, the female crew got really, really attractive, many people got older and fatter and the special effects (and I’m including Jeri Ryan in this) got progressively better.
I’ve watched most, if not all of the Star Trek that got produced and I have one piece of blasphemy I’d like to propose.
Gene Roddenberry was an idiot.
For the week prior to and after the end of this last wretched turd of Trek, everyone and their washed up second cousin was praising the vision of Gene Roddenberry, how it was revolutionary and ground-breaking and…uh, well, really, really groundbreaking.
I’m sure that this was true – in 1967.
The truth is that is was a good and wise message. You will get no argument out of me that we should have fewer racists and less poverty. The Great Bird of the Galaxy was an atheist and adhered to an economic system that was half a ruble away from communism. I have no trouble with either of these really, I’m an atheist myself but not one who sees organized religion as an inherent evil. I like the appeal of universal human solidarity but to be fair, applied communism has otherwise been the bloodiest and most expensive experiment in human history.
The world is less racist than it was in 1967 – at very least it is less appeasing of it. We have less poverty, we have largely moved beyond the threat of nuclear apocalypse and we have generally raised the quality of life.
But it happened the wrong way for the Roddenberry vision.
The world has more capitalists now and not less. There are more people who claim to be adherents of a religion now. The country that produced Star Trek is more conservative today, not less. So we appear to be going in the right direction, but through different means.
Like most people who dreamt about the future, Roddenberry had the right idea but had no clue as to the means. He also wasn’t very good at doing TV and movies, if you think about it.
Roddenberry came up with a pretty lame idea for a TV show that happened to pan out in spite of him. It panned out because of other writers and not because of his work. When the TV show ended, he made a movie – and it was awful. So Paramount handed it over to someone else and they made some okay popcorn flicks. Then he came back to TV and that was awful until Roddenberry got sick and could no longer work each episode.
It eventually became awful again, but the best part of Star Trek was never Gene Roddenberry. People say that Roddenberry’s message will always be relevant; I would argue that it was almost instantly irrelevant. It was not philosophy that made Star Trek work and it was not fatigue that killed it. It was writers that made it work and it was the inability of writers to keep the stories compelling that made it go away.
Sadly, the most important real-world effect of Star Trek; the real exploration of space (the Space Shuttle Enterprise) has been lost in public ennui, conservative budgets and the fibers of Boxleitner’s Beard.
11 May , 2007 at 4:13 pm
It is now 37 years after the moon landing. TOS went off the air before the moon landing. The cars don’t really do much that they didn’t do before the moon landing.
I notice all of the dummies that complain about Communism in Star Trek don’t talk about planned obsolescence of automobiles. How much have American consumers lost on depreciation of automobiles since 1968. It is real curious how a turbine car almost won the Indy 500 that year and was banned from the race.
Now we practically have computers coming out of our ears and our “Capitalist” economists can’t tell us what we lose on depreciation of automotive junk each and every year. It can’t be because of lack of computing power. But then they don’t talk about planned obsolescence of computers either.
Did you ever think what replicator technology would do to an economic system?
GlobaLIES
If you read good SF novels, Asimov, Clarke & Heinlein, you will see that Star Trek ain’t that great, but by the standards of all of the other crap on television it was better than average most of the time.
We killed how many Vietnamese so our economists could ignore depreciation while Star Trek was on the air?
psik
12 May , 2007 at 7:45 am
I’m not complaining about the communism in Star Trek, I’m just pointing out that the free, capitalist market - even with all its flaws - is still the only socio-economic arrangement to generate wealth and consistently raise the standard of living.
For most idealists like Roddenberry, this is the reverse of how things were supposed to go.
Also, I’m pretty sure that naming depreciation as the cause of the Vietnam war requires some serious proof to back it up. Otherwise, it just sounds like you’re rattling off another narrow-field conspiracy that is not proofed out by the evidence. Further, I’m not sure what point that even would make, since communism killed an unprecedented number of people in the name of its ideology.
I have thought about what replicator technology, or something similarly amazing would do for society; it would completely negate the need for conventional systems of economy. I’m also pretty sure that it will be the free market that fuels the innovation that eventually invents such a thing.
Communism is a dead end. Thanks for your comment.
14 July , 2007 at 3:08 pm
Saying depreciation was the cause and saying “so economists could ignore depreciation” are not the same thing.
There were 230,000,000 cars in the US in 2003. At $1,500 depreciation per car per year that is $345,000,000,000 per year. Of course there weren’t that many cars in 1945 but how much has the total amounted to in Y2K dollars since then. The point is we fought the Vietnam War to defend a system that keeps our heads in an economic noose that the economics profession is bullsh!tting us about.
psik
14 July , 2007 at 10:40 pm
Your association between depreciation and global conspiracy, like all conspiracy theories, stands on a painfully thin film of presumption.
The real point is that depreciation is, like most economic measures, real but imperfect. The emphasis there should be on real - to deny depreciation is to deny entropy; parts age, value declines as a result. A new product having endured less use is of greater value by no means less obvious that its own material end. To alter that requires extra care, time, material and maintenance, all of which invoke extra cost; this is the very real phenomenon that depreciation measures.
You might have an argument for planned obsolescence somewhere in all of this, but you don’t seem to get that far.
I’d be interested to hear what operable, global economimc model you’d pose as an alternative, and what kind of track record you might be able to point to.
Thanks for the comments.
15 July , 2007 at 3:12 am
I already pointed out the track record of economists not saying anything about depreciation of durable consumer goods.
You may notice that they don’t spend much time talking about the Net Worth of the average American either.
It is amusing how often that people bring up “conspiracy theories” as though it is like saying “when did you stop beating your wife? Planned obsolescence would amount to planned depreciation therefore economists not talking about depreciation of durable consumer goods amounts to their covering up PO.
They don’t recommend mandatory accounting in the schools either. Double entry accounting is 700 years old. How hard can it be? It should be a piece of cake with today’s computers.
http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-11714,00.html
psik
15 July , 2007 at 1:50 pm
Your reasoning is specious on top of specious.
You have pointed out the track record of economists tracking depreciation, the rest is speculative and leaning to the Vietnam war, some sort of global oppression or perhaps the conspiracy of manufacturers to artificially extend the market.
None of this is proven and none of this answers my challenge; show me a better system.
Your association between you being a conspiracy theorist and the fallacy of a loaded question is also specious since I have not implied an action that you have not already demonstrated. The link you provivded to global lies is the very example of conspiracy theorist argumentation.
Also, your last link only serves to demonstrate that even fifth graders know that accountants are mind numbingly dull.
Show me the verifiable harm and then present me with a solution. Don’t prattle for its own sake - prattle to resolve.
15 July , 2007 at 7:20 pm
“You have pointed out the track record of economists tracking depreciation,”
You got it backwards. I said the are NOT TRACKING depreciation of durable consumer goods. That means we don’t know what it has been for the last SIXTY YEARS.
You don’t find it peculiar that people with PhDs from Harvard and the University of Chicago could make such a mistake for that long?
psik
15 July , 2007 at 9:02 pm
Depreciation is accounted for in the value of items as they age with an index for replacement, maintenance and repair - an aggregate of that would ‘account for it’. You managed to do it, so you’d need to prove that no one else has done it.
What you’re saying doesn’t make much sense.
Also, you’ve not answered my challenge.
16 July , 2007 at 11:55 am
You managed to do it, so you’d need to prove that no one else has done it.
What you’re saying doesn’t make much sense.
It isn’t a matter of what other individuals have done it.
The entire economics profession should have been doing it for decades. On the public level they hardly ever mention NDP and the economics books don’t point out that they ignore depreciation of durable consumer goods.
I don’t give a damn about your challenge. I am pointing out that economists are doing their algebra wrong and no one knows what the effect of their doing it right for the last 60 years would have been. The economists aren’t suggesting mandatory accounting either. But neither are the socialists.
http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-11714,00.html
http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html
psik
16 July , 2007 at 1:01 pm
“I don’t give a damn about your challenge.”
A more skeptical person than I might suggest that you simply cannot answer it.
By saying this, you are removing yourself from the proper conclusion of the issue; what is the solution? Your premise that depreciation is being masked is tenuous to begin with since it is tracked in a half a dozen different ways. To then further take the complaint and do nothing with it just removes your further from making a substantial argument.
Incidentally, you say that economists are doing it wrong; in your own words, what precisely are they doing wrong?
18 July , 2007 at 12:08 am
I more skeptical person than I might suggest that you simply cannot answer it.
Are you skeptical about cars purchased by consumers depreciating?
Have ever you heard an economist discuss how much consumers lose on depreciation of those cars?
If your answer to each of those questions is NO, then what is your problem with me? Go bother an economist. If they can accidentally forget to mention a loss of $300,000,000,000 per year then they need to be bothered.
psik
18 July , 2007 at 6:29 am
See this is where you sound like a global order loon.
If the amount of depreciated value in a year for all automobiles is three hundred billion dollars, it is not like the money exists somewhere and disappears — the consumer doesn’t actually lose anything except the comparative values to the same durable good purchased a year later — the money lost if the used good is returned to the market. That makes sense, I’m not particularly skeptical about it and you refuse to tell me why that shouldn’t be. You claim it is like with Phariseean certainty, but you never actually explain it. Also, I have heard economists talk about depreciation - I seem to recall it happened when I took the subject in university. Good stuff, that Econ 101. I don;t know if you pay much in the way of taxes, but I’m required to calculate depreciation on some of the things that I own; again its being measured.
As I’ve already mentioned, this depreciation stuff is is not a distortion; its factual, it measures an effect and it is measured in about a half-dozen different ways. Macro and micro economics both make use of depreciation to measure specific market effects.
You cannot explain the problem properly, and you will not answer my questions - on top of that, it sounds like you don’t actually know what depreciation is. Do you know what negative depreciation is, when relative value actually goes up? That gets measured too.
I’m going to repeat my last question because if you can’t or won’t answer it, you’re either belligerent, lazy or a dilettante who doesn’t understand his own gripe - and while I appreciate the extra hits, I don’t need you cluttering up my page with talking points from a book it seems you didn’t finish;
“Incidentally, you say that economists are doing it wrong; in your own words, what precisely are they doing wrong?”
Either fish or cut bait.
18 July , 2007 at 8:22 pm
If the amount of depreciated value in a year for all automobiles is three hundred billion dollars, it is not like the money exists somewhere and disappears — the consumer doesn’t actually lose anything except the comparative values to the same durable good purchased a year later — the money lost if the used good is returned to the market. That makes sense, I’m not particularly skeptical about it and you refuse to tell me why that shouldn’t be.
It is occasionally amusing how economists think money is more important than reality. It has been getting less amusing as I get older. What does that depreciation mean in relation to reality?
One form of depreciation is the result of physical deterioration. This physical deterioration has consequences. Suppose a man drives 30 miles to work each morning and makes $20 an hour. There is wear and tear on that car every day so over time that car is becoming less reliable. The car breaks down on the way to work one day and he has to spend $50 for the tow and $250 for the repair and since he didn’t get to work he failed to make his $160. So he is $460 behind where he expected to be when he got out of bed. But this is [b]good for GDP[/b] because it was greater cash flow than he would have gotten by making it to work. LOL
Another form of depreciation is psychological. If cars last 12 years they should lose about 8% in value per year, but a new car can lose 20%. This is not because of physical deterioration it is merely the decline in people’s willingness to pay as much so the market value drops because the manufacturer has brought out a new model. Now this doesn’t matter if the buyer has no intention of selling the car anyway but it doesn’t change the number of hours he spent working to get that money. Those hours are gone forever. Now if he had purchased a used car then the money that was lost to psychological depreciation could have been spent on something more lasting, like accelerated payments on a mortgage. The Millionaire Next Door says that 36% of millionaires buy used cars. Now why would they do that? Could it be because they consider wasting wealth on depreciation to be stupid?
http://www.profitadvisors.com/millionaire.shtml
I am typing this on a used computer I got off eBay. A new, up to date CPU chip alone would cost much more. Modern video cards that won’t even plug into this machine would cost more. But I wouldn’t be able to type or read the screen any faster on a computer that would cost me a lot more money and cause me to lose more in depreciation in one year than I spent on this one. I merely put a new hard drive in it because that is the component that suffers significant physical deterioration.
Years ago I saw a program about the FAA that said insurance companies pay $2,500,000 for individuals killed in airline crashes and that was the figure the FAA used to do the cost benefit analysis on safety systems. So $300,000,000,000 is equivalent to 120,000 lives. I suppose economists wouldn’t consider that important either. You can compute it in lost man-hours if you like. Of course that is just for the automobiles. What about air conditioners and refrigerators and stoves and lawn mowers, etc., etc., etc.
And this still doesn’t bring up the issue of economists appearing to be technological morons who can’t figure out when planned obsolescence is going on. Some depreciation is unavoidable but what if that figure for cars could be cut in half? It is curious how the turbine car that almost won the Indy 500 in 1968 got banned. I have read that when the airlines switched from pistons to jet turbines they saved a lot of money on engine overhauls. The piston engines were overhauled every 400 hours but turbines went 10,000 hours before they needed overhaul. Turbines just spin, they don’t shake themselves apart like antiquated reciprocating junk. The Wankles should have been a lot better than pistons but they haven’t become common either.
I went to college for electrical engineering and have been dealing with technology hands on for 30+ years so my perspective isn’t the same as an economist’s. I’ve talked to auto mechanics and guys in HVAC and they complain about the junk manufactured these days too. I’ve seen a thread started by a woman complaining about her new Sears washing machine breaking down every few months while her old one lasted 20 years. ROFL But no, economists don’t need to talk about the depreciation of this garbage. People buying new garbage is good for the GDP.
“Phariseean certainty” sounds really cool but physics blows it away. Atoms in real spacetime are so unforgiving.
Also, I have heard economists talk about depreciation - I seem to recall it happened when I took the subject in university.
So they talked about it in university. BIG DEAL! How many Americans have never taken an economics course? Does that mean they are supposed to be kept in the dark? How often do you hear and see Gross Domestic Product mentioned in the media and some figure applied to it? When have you heard Net Domestic Product in the media? I have never heard a figure applied to that. I have only heard Net National Product mentioned 3 times on television since I started paying attention to it in 1976.
I read the book The Screwing of the Average Man in 1976. As a result of reading that book I concluded there had to be something wrong with what I was taught about economics at Illinois Institute of Technology. So I decided I was going to figure out what it was if I had to read Samuelson’s ECONOMICS cover to cover. That is when I noticed that depreciation of durable consumer goods was defined out of existence. That book had a graph of GNP inside the front cover but no figure for NNP was given in the entire book. I don’t recall any mention of NNP during the course I took but I remember the instructor picked out the chapters and we covered less than 1/3rd of the book and I got a B. The definition of depreciation in the economics books doesn’t emphasize that missing consumer depreciation, you have to notice its absence on your own. Economists may say something about depreciation among themselves but they don’t seem to be spreading their comments very far. Most of the time you encounter the term depreciation in the media they are talking about the depreciation of some currency.
To get back to Sci-Fi and economics you should check out the Babylon 5 episode By Any Means Necessary.
http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/cafe_3.xhtml
http://www.visi.com/~wildfoto/synopsis/114.html
It was very cool.
psik
20 July , 2007 at 4:01 pm
You answered my question directly (more or less), so thank you.
I think that you have obviously given this a lot of thought, and your fundamental premise that depreciation is a sucker’s wrap is true from a certain perspective. Certainly, if you don’t manage you purchases to minimize the impact of depreciation, you are wasting your money. Certainly, the ‘psychological’ form of depreciation is something to be avoided even though I’m not sure that psychological is the best term for it.
I am certainly not a millionaire, much to my chagrin, but I’d never buy a new car either.
But here, I think you really do yourself a disservice by launching yourself at a bunch of different things all at once.
Economists are generally academics, or dealing with abstract modeling of economic systems. I would not expect them to do public service announcements on depreciation of motor vehicles any more than I would expect the chemists who make vulcanized rubber to do public service announcements about worn out tires. It’s just not part of the job. Where you go from there really does sound like you have the economists in the pocket of race car manufacturers or something and your credibility just vanishes.
Consumer advocates, consumer journalists and consumer analysts report on things like depreciation and I’d also argue that most people now understand it intuitively. They still buy new cars (or new computers), but they are pursuing a perceived benefit. They are probably wrong, but they are following the stamp of prestige rather than best value.
Economics, incidentally, is not a hard science like physics but properly a social science. It makes it a bit squishy and not entirely precise. In that regard, my background in philosophy probably suits it as well as your background in tech. Physics may blow my rhetoric away, but only when physics applies – here, it really doesn’t.
If you narrowed your argument down a little and avoided the odd tangents, I might have agreed with your from the start…well, probably not, but it would have made for a more credible set of comments.
Again, thanks for posting.
23 July , 2007 at 8:26 am
You answered my question directly (more or less), so thank you.
The funny thing is I really don’t know what question I answered.
I think that you have obviously given this a lot of thought, and your fundamental premise that depreciation is a sucker’s wrap is true from a certain perspective. Certainly, if you don’t manage you purchases to minimize the impact of depreciation, you are wasting your money.
But here, I think you really do yourself a disservice by launching yourself at a bunch of different things all at once.
To me this brings up an issue of how our educational system works by compartmentalizing knowledge and essentially forcing people to think inside those compartments. I have had someone else tell me that Economic Wargames rambled but other people “got it” right away and thought it was great. I guess not everyone compartmentalizes to the same degree. Economics relates a lot of different subjects and economists have narrowed their thinking to the point that accountants complain about it. Someone sent me an email asking what accounting had to do with economics. I told this to a man from India who was trained as an accountant and read The Economist on a regular basis, he just broke out laughing.
Economists are generally academics, or dealing with abstract modeling of economic systems. I would not expect them to do public service announcements on depreciation of motor vehicles… It’s just not part of the job.
Consumer advocates, consumer journalists and consumer analysts report on things like depreciation
Economics, incidentally, is not a hard science like physics but properly a social science. It makes it a bit squishy and not entirely precise. Physics may blow my rhetoric away, but only when physics applies – here, it really doesn’t.
Doing their mathematics correctly in a way that corresponds to physical reality isn’t part of their jobs? Consumer’s automobiles depreciate as a result of physics but economists won’t subtract it because they have created a definition out of touch with reality. Like Europe being a continent even though there is no water separating it from Asia?
Where you go from there really does sound like you have the economists in the pocket of race car manufacturers or something and your credibility just vanishes…If you narrowed your argument down a little and avoided the odd tangents, I might have agreed with your from the start…well, probably not, but it would have made for a more credible set of comments.
Now this is a peculiar distortion. My point was turbine engines should not wear out as fast as piston designs and would therefore depreciate less.
The consumer advocacy is an interesting point though. Sylvia Porter in her 1975 MONEY BOOK had depreciation listed 5 times in the index. 4 of those listings were about depreciation of automobiles. But Suze Orman has a number of books, all smaller than Sylvia Porter’s. I checked 5 of them in a book store recently and none had depreciation mentioned in the index. I checked the documentation of Microsoft’s Money a few years ago. It talked about vacation homes but not depreciation.
So the social system seems to be geared to ignore certain things in its promotion of consumption and the economics profession is going along with it, but I would not accept such behavior is SCIENCE.
psik
23 July , 2007 at 11:23 am
I appreciate you post, and it covers a lot of ground. There’s one specific part that rather crystallizes the whole thing for me. I apologize if you think that this is not a fair point of emphasis;
”Doing their mathematics correctly in a way that corresponds to physical reality isn’t part of their jobs? Consumer’s automobiles depreciate as a result of physics but economists won’t subtract it because they have created a definition out of touch with reality. Like Europe being a continent even though there is no water separating it from Asia?”
When you say that the economic model doesn’t correspond to physical reality, it seems to me that what you’re actually getting at is that there is a measurable effect and you don’t think that they way its being interpreted is fair or accurate.
That’s a big difference, despite two identical cars physically being worn down in an identical fashion.
Consumer and commercial goods, as you of course know, are treated differently because of how they relate to the market. A consumer purchases a vehicle, that purchase contributes cash to the market and may do so again if it is resold. Commercially, that same vehicle can be termed as capital because it remains in the system not for private use, but for the use of generating more capital. It becomes and instrument of commerce rather than an instrument of personal use. As an instrument of commerce owned by a company, it is treated differently when taxed and depreciation is considered as it relates to the capacity of the vehicle to continue to add revenue to the market. Further, since the revenue is taxed, and the depreciation is a liability to revenue it can be used to offset that tax.
The depreciation of a purchased consumer vehicle is not accounted for annually, but is accounted for when it is resold. Technically, this is the next point of contact with the market – the next time that the vehicle puts new money back into the market. Repairs, maintenance and modifications would also count toward this, and some of it might increase the value such as after-manufacturer modifications by the owner. Because it only adds new revenue at these times, it does not make a great deal of sense to roll depreciation into the package the rest of the time.
The problem is not that it is not counted, but for you, that it is not counted in the same way. What you have a problem with is that economists are not just measuring depreciation, but depreciation and the relationship with that depreciation and the market. You are conflating the material state with the material purpose. Consumer and commercial economics are very different – the different application of depreciation reflects that. This is true in most associated areas as well. Taxes are different, so are regulatory standards, normal practices for financing, etc… They are not the same because they are not measuring the same thing functionally. That’s the key – the function is different and as such, it is so with the measurements. You are trying to apply a purely physical model that does not account for the function of the thing in the economy.
Again, physics doesn’t really apply.
The field of economics defines and analyzes the system of the market, it does not measure personal financial impact – further, it is not designed to. There are definitions and models used to described the system of the market and these are used as they apply.
In the same manner, the distinction between Europe and Asia as continents is based on agreed upon definitions and data that allow a meaningful distinction to be made. To carry the metaphor, what you are doing is akin to blaming the scientists who defined the continental lines (and the mapmakers who perpetuate them) for not being more proactive in explaining conflicts and issues along the Eurasian border.
1 October , 2007 at 2:13 pm
“Again, physics doesn’t really apply.”
Oh yeah! LOL
Linking Physical and Economic Depreciation:
A joint density Approach
http://www.ipeer.ca/papers/Tanguay,%20November25,%202004.pdf
psik
1 October , 2007 at 3:07 pm
Wow, that was so boring that my eyes hurt.
Having said that, the joint density approach would not apply to individual, consumer depreciation since the useful service life varies so dramatically. You would be substituting one set of imperfect calculations for another.
As the author writes in the conclusion, this is an application that would best serve to enhance the assessment of depreciation for intangible or biological assets or to help determine obsolescence or patent expiries.
Certainly, I can’t assume that you’re proposing this as a basis for how to price a used car. Ultimately, the value of a used object is determined by market tension and not an individual, empirical assessment without a current, contextual place in the market.
It would be hideously cumbersome, and just wouldn’t work.
On another note, thanks for the linkage — I’ve gotten a few hits from that.
To be fair, though, I think that you’ve misunderstood my premise. I liked Star Trek, and I still like some of it. I’m also generally a big fan of science fiction. My only point was that the future shows no sign of become more socialist or more communist as Roddenberry clearly suspected it would. Further it shows no sign of doing so - but of course, that could change too - but I doubt it.
1 October , 2007 at 11:29 pm
Wow, that was so boring that my eyes hurt.
You would be substituting one set of imperfect calculations for another.
To be fair, though, I think that you’ve misunderstood my premise. I liked Star Trek, and I still like some of it. I’m also generally a big fan of science fiction
I thought boredom was standard operating procedure for economics. LOL
Economics, even with reasonably computed depreciation, would never be as perfect as physics.
Science fiction is about presenting us with possibilities to help get us thinking outside of the box. I don’t expect anyone to predict the ultimate results of human stupidity. We all get to try to kick the box into a different shape. I haven’t encountered an SF story in which everyone in a society was expected to understand accounting. But the DS9 episode House of Quark certainly presented a good case for it.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/DS9/episode/68180.html
psik
3 October , 2007 at 10:12 am
Economics, even with reasonably computed depreciation, would never be as perfect as physics.
Of course it wouldn’t since physics generally lacks the variable forces of an open market. I have no doubt, that if it were possible for economics to be as exactingly precise as the empirical sciences, someone would have given it a comprehensive effort.
This is why I say that physics doesn’t really apply, that kind of science and the ’science’ of economics just don’t work in the same framework.
Nor, of course, could they.
15 October , 2007 at 11:42 am
Here is something your readers should enjoy about the science fiction of economics:
http://www.warsocialism.com/economic.htm
psik