Talk:Space trade

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Umofomia in topic Krugman's Theory of Interstellar Trade

Untitled

edit

Who or what is Plaxco? And why is only Mars mentioned?

edit

The Zubrin link is broken. Would have made a nice read.. I'll try to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.80.231 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Space trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Krugman's Theory of Interstellar Trade

edit

I happened to come across this article but was surprised that it didn't mention Paul Krugman's paper on The Theory of Interstellar Trade, which was the first thing I thought of when encountering this article. I found that mention of it was actually removed here by @Altenmann with the comment, "interest rates and securities are the issue of finance, not trade". I'm not sure I understand this justification, especially since interest rates and security pricing are key considerations in determining whether trade is worth it in the first place, which the paper describes. The same contributor also added a paragraph on tax implications here, which I don't see should be very much different in treatment, and in which the cited paper actually cites Krugman's paper as inspiration. For these reasons, should the paragraph on Krugman's paper be reintroduced? Umofomia (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

  • interest rates and security pricing are key considerations in determining whether trade is worth it in the first place - this is your opinion. The trade is worth if you can buy cheap and sell high. But this is beside the point. The justification is simple: finance and trade are different subjects and in Wikipedia we keep different subjects in different pages, unless a particular issue from one area is connected to anothe area in reliable sources. Anyway, I figured out how to incorporate Krugman's inside joke here. --Altenmann >talk 19:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for the consideration! Regarding the opinion though, my confusion was why the same treatment wasn't held for the paragraph and cited article on tax implications that was added in lieu. In any case, I suppose the point is moot since you restored the content in an agreeable way. Umofomia (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply