09-12-2019, 04:06 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Economic Rate of Return [Space]
One of the common economic arguments for relativistic STL travel is the compounding effect of interest. The original arguments proposed a 8% rate of return and, if a individual traveled from and to the Earth at 99.9% c for 200 years, they would only age ten years but benefit from 200 years of interest (multiplying their original investment by 4,000,000x). The idea was that a group of millionaires would invest together and then own the world when they got back. Similar arguments have been made for STL sleeper ships.
Recent events, like negative interest rates from European bonds, suggest that high interest rates are a cyclical phenomenon, and that a return of 2% is more normal. In that case, the hopeful millionaires would come back to find their fortunes only increased by 64x, probably not worth missing out on the previous 200 years. My question is the following: other than spreading the human species to prevent extinction, is there an economic justification for STL space travel? Last edited by AlexanderHowl; 09-12-2019 at 04:13 PM. |
09-12-2019, 04:19 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Mar 2016
|
Re: Economic Rate of Return [Space]
Space travel, yes. Interstellar travel, probably not. The asteroid belt is full of valuable metals, and iirc, one of Jupiter's moons has oceans containing more hydrocarbon fuel than has ever existed on earth.
|
09-12-2019, 04:24 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Jun 2016
|
Re: Economic Rate of Return [Space]
There could be an economic collapse, a computer failure that wipes out your account history, or just some problem that cropped up migrating your account over 200 years of operating systems. Although I have a feeling banks will find a way to prevent this as soon as it is possible.
On another note, would you be able to convince a crew to leave everything they know for a world 200 years in the future? |
09-12-2019, 08:03 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Economic Rate of Return [Space]
Note that no single family, trust fund, or investment bank has managed to own the world through continual investment over the past century or two. Firstly, there's competition - this plan assumes that the sleeper's investment vehicles will be better than everyone else's. Secondly, there are economic disasters, and avoiding them consistently for 200 years again assumes perfect investment skills. Thirdly, there's government action - if a single trust fund like this started owning too much of the world economy it's almost certainly going to be broken up and pillaged by various governments. Fourthly, there are the heirs of the sleepers who are likely to try, at some point, to gain control of the fund for their own benefit by various legal manoeuvres.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
09-12-2019, 08:17 PM | #5 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Economic Rate of Return [Space]
200 years is a long time for no one to successfully embezzle or crash investments by sheer chance.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
09-12-2019, 08:33 PM | #6 | |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: Economic Rate of Return [Space]
Quote:
We're all quite wealthy by the standards of 1820. But none of us (AFAIK) really feels all that wealthy compared to our peers, as opposed to our ancestors, because their wealth grew just as much as ours did. You don't come back from the trip rich. You come back from the trip in the same relative standard of living you were at all along -- if everything goes right. It's just that the numbers got bigger, and the definition of "standard of living" changed. The travellers might be well pleased with their new standard of living, but they won't become rich enough to own the world merely through investment. There's much more to own, and everyone owning it wants a lot more to give anything up. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|