Interstellar Economics

Paul Krugman is now a famour economist, but many years ago, he was "an oppressed assistant professor, caught up in the academic rat race." So, he did what any good academic would do in that situation: he wrote a silly paper to cheer himself up. In this case, a paper discussing the issues that arise in interstellar trade because of realtivistic effects.

It's a brilliant bit of silliness. It's hard to pick a favorite bit, but this is pretty good:

To conclude this section, we should say something about the assumption that the trading planets lie in the same inertial frame. This will turn out to be a useful simplification, permitting us to limit ourselves to consideration of special relativity. It is also a reasonable approximation for those planets with which we are likely to trade. Readers may, however, wish to use general relativity to extend the analysis to trade between planets with large relative motion. This extension is left as an exercise for interested readers because the author does not understand the theory of general relativity, and therefore cannot do it himself.

The whole thing is worth a read.

More like this

Paul Krugman proves that not only is a bad ass economist, but that he is also a pretty cool guy: Thirty years ago I was an oppressed assistant professor, caught up in the academic rat race. To cheer myself up I wrote -- well, see for yourself. Joshua Gans of the University of Melbourne scanned a…
Isaac Newton was a total nutjob. Did you know that he tried to pop his own eyeball out with a knitting needle as a part of an experiment? That he nearly blinded himself staring into the sun? That he was an avid alchemist? Why do we pay so much respect to a person who was clearly mentally…
I was reading an article on Slashdot the other day about a recent discovery of what might be a MECO. A [MECO][wiki-meco] is a "magnetospheric eternally collapsing object"; if this were true, it would be a big deal because according to relativity, either black holes exist and MECOs don't, or MECOs…
A reader sent me a really wonderfully wacko link. It's a fundamentalist islamic site, which tries to use relativity to argue for the divinity of the Koran. It's remarkably silly. (I also recently got a link to something similar, but from a Jewish perspective - claiming that the Torah disproves…

From the paper:

I will assume that investors, human or otherwise, are able to make perfect forecasts of prices over indefinite periods.

Doesn't this violate a fundamental law of finance? If one could know prices at all future times, wouldn't that imply that the future supply and demand are also known? And it's that uncertainty that makes a market in the first place?

In such a market, one could achieve arbitrage at will. Prices would have to change in order to eliminate the arbitrage.

So the state of having prices fixed results in a case where prices would have to change. Paradox.

Yes, I'm aware that economics != finance, but it seems like a pretty bold assumption to make. Then again, I wasted five minutes on a Saturday scanning this paper, so maybe the joke's on me.

And it's that uncertainty that makes a market in the first place?

Not if there's any kind of comparative advantage in the production of goods.

I'm surprised you didn't comment on Krugman's misconception that General Relativity is needed when planets have large relative motion. That's what Special Relativity is all about!

GR only comes into play in highly curved spaces.

Ah, cut him some slack -- he's an economist!

James, perhaps that comment about perfect forecasts was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek?

Asad

Note that one of his references -- Light than faster -- was "published" years *after* this paper was written. Really makes this all the funnier.

I also enjoyed this parenthetical remark:

(Readers who find Figure II puzzling should recall that a diagram of an imaginary axis must, of course, itself be imaginary.)

Which explains exactly why Figure II looks the way it does.

By Eric Lund (not verified) on 16 Mar 2008 #permalink