The Economics of Death Star Planet Destruction

Questions of logic don't apply to Hollywood movies, but science fiction fans like their stories to make some kind of sense. So the discussion turned to the logic of using a Death Star to blow up a planet.

What’s the economic calculus behind the Empire’s tactic of A) building a Death Star, B) intimidating planets into submission with the threat of destruction, and C) actually carrying through with said destruction if the planet doesn’t comply?

Doesn’t the Empire take a huge economic loss from the lost productivity of an entire planet? They were presumably paying taxes and providing resources to the rest of the Empire. Presumably the loss of that planet’s output would have to be made up by increased output from other planets that were either slacking in productivity due to rebellion or threatening to rebel and withdraw from the Empire altogether. It doesn’t seem to make good economic sense.

What follows is a cost-benefit analysis from various members of the Think Tank. Read the rest at (where else?) Overthinking It. Link -via Metafilter