Luke Skywalker is a terrible economist and should feel bad

[Darren Dirt]

because he did bad.

Apparently violent revolution is violent... especially in terms of cascading consequences on the money system of thousands of inter-dependent planets!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Y3dlTDAxw

^ [just] a Film Theory work of brilliance (as usual)

[Lazybones]

I figure he under measures the impact of destroying planets like alderaan.... It like what happened to the ewoks? Did their planets orbit change? Did massive climate change kill them?

Same for planets that can be seen destroyed in the sky, if they are visible their mass must impact the orbit of the planet you are on.

[Darren Dirt]

I figure he under measures the impact of destroying planets like alderaan.... It like what happened to the ewoks? Did their planets orbit change? Did massive climate change kill them?

Same for planets that can be seen destroyed in the sky, if they are visible their mass must impact the orbit of the planet you are on.

Sure planets disappearing can mess up gravitation orbital systems etc.

But "money makes the world go 'round" and therefore Dolla trumps Gaia, in terms of what's really gonna impact the lives of the entire galaxy.

[Mr. Analog]

Sometimes the theories are better sometimes not, I find the ones that don't jive usually start with some bad assumptions and then keep escalating.

The amount of "steel" the "cost" that whole first half of the video could have been excluded because we just don't know exactly what the material cost was or the effort, with the Empire in control there were a lot of big projects done strictly by droids and/or slaves, it really depends on what is or isn't accepted as canon (which I don't know anymore since they've basically nullified the expanded universe)

Then there is the concept of the stability of the galaxy, which MatPat assumes is "fairly stable" but he forgets the very reason why Grand Moff Tarken wanted a MOBILE oppression battle station in the first place. The universe was "unruly" to the point that something had to be done because the sizable military of the Empire was already stretched thin and incapable of dealing with the civil war. For asserting authority in a single system, you had Star Destroyers, literally one Star Destroyer had enough resources to lock down most planets on their own, even then they could be clumped together into squadrons if needed (as seen in Empire Strikes Back). The Death Star was designed to pacify whole regions of space with the threat of total annihilation. To put it in contemporary terms, it's the difference between parking an aircraft carrier as a show of force in a region and having an arsenal ICBMs (and the will to use it offensively)

So taking the basic concept of the above comparison further the Death Star was to promote stability through intimidation, to quote Tarkin explaining the situation to General Tagge in A New Hope:

Governor Tarkin: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away forever.
General Tagge: But that's impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
Governor Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.

*emphasis mine

No matter what Luke (or the rebels) did two things would have created panic in the Empire and by extension the galactic economy:
1. The surprise dissolution of the Senate
2. News of the first "demonstration" of this new superweapon

That the Empire's most terrifying weapon possible was destroyed within days of being revealed to the public, so at best the Rebels added to the flames of an already ongoing civil war (to quote the scroll from ANH: "IT IS A PERIOD OF CIVIL WAR...")

So the second half that talks about the economic fallout of this one event fails to understand that bad things were already well in progress.

I figure he under measures the impact of destroying planets like alderaan.... It like what happened to the ewoks? Did their planets orbit change? Did massive climate change kill them?

Same for planets that can be seen destroyed in the sky, if they are visible their mass must impact the orbit of the planet you are on.

It's a tricky thing to quantify the loss of a few planets in the Star Wars universe because of a few factors, according to previously accepted-as-canon-materials any planet sized gravity well is considered a navigational hazard, so a planet being destroyed might open a new path in hyperspace. Since we have little information about Alderaan or the system it was in we can only assume that the impact would have been mainly social/political/economic. Also there is the question of planetary debris, we know that an asteroid field is the result of the superlaser but we don't know how dense it is or whether or not it would form a belt in the orbit of the former planet or if it forms a massive field... all we know is that when the Millennium Falcon drops out of hyperspace near where Alderaan should have been proximity alarms go off immediately.

The forest moon of Endor being destroyed (which I don't think was ever part of the plan as it was the location of the shield generator for the Death Star II) would have had an impact on the storms of the gas giant it orbited, given the scale between those worlds it's questionable what impact it would have had. Oddly enough, Yavin IV which was the Rebel base in ANH, and certainly a target, was also a moon orbiting a gas giant. The impact of destroying it would have been mostly related to the Jedi culture, the temple used as a base was an ancient Jedi temple (again, contested because I don't know what is accepted canon anymore.)

So yeh, either way I question MatPat's theory on this one

[Darren Dirt]

Touch?!

[Thorin]

Finally watched this this morning, Mr. A, I think you're bang on with your response.

Applying 21st century Earth economics to a system that is completely, wholly different is the problem with this theory.  But hey, lots of flashy-flashy on the screen and a fast-talking voice-over makes it so cool, right?

[Mr. Analog]

Finally watched this this morning, Mr. A, I think you're bang on with your response.

Applying 21st century Earth economics to a system that is completely, wholly different is the problem with this theory.  But hey, lots of flashy-flashy on the screen and a fast-talking voice-over makes it so cool, right?

I actually unsubbed from the main GameTheory channel (mostly because they were constantly filling my YouTube queue with livestream stuff even though they said they were creating a separate channel for it) but also because it seems like recently the theories have had to make some pretty large stretches and/or were becoming super click-bait-y.

I'm finding a lot of channels are resorting to this kind of click-bait style thing to draw eyeballs and its really off-putting.