In the movie Elysium, the 1%, set up a gated community in space to separate themselves from the proles. Why only one Elysium? On earth, there is still a teeming mass of humanity that needs goods and services. Fertile ground for another 1% arise to meet these needs and eventually build another Elysium. Perhaps there is no property rights regime on Earth that encourages investment etc. Not the case in the movie because there is a police force, legal and parole system apparently administered by Robots. Furthermore, the robots are controlled by the 1% off site. Why do the 1% need to maintain control of the denizens of Earth? Elysium appears to be completely self-sustaining. No resources are apparently needed by it from the Earth. The only visible operation run by Elysium on earth is a company that manufactures robots. The head man is an Elysium expatriate but everyone else working at the factory is a denizen of Earth. Is Earth a banana republic to which Elysium outsources production? No, contradicts the self-sustaining assumption earlier. In short, the economics of the world envisioned in the movie make no sense. It used to be that scientific plausibility was a constraint on science fiction (otherwise its fantasy or magical realism for snobs). I’d add another criteria, economic plausibility. Utopias (or dystopias) must be economically plausible. With these words, can I lay claim to have started to a new branch of literary criticism: the economic analysis of utopian/dystopian fiction?
Back to the subject of this post. Pay attention to the robots in the movie. They have the agility and dexterity of humans. They are stronger. They can even detect sarcasm. Given this, its unclear why human are needed to work in the robot factory. Robots could be used to repair robots and produce new ones. What should such a world look like? Well I need only one `universal’ robot to begin with to produce and maintain robots for other tasks: farming, medical care, construction etc. Trade would become unnecessary for most goods and services. The only scarce resource would be the materials needed to produce and maintain robots (metals, rare earths etc.). Profits would accrue to the individuals who owned these resources. These individuals might trade among themselves, but would have no reason to trade with anyone outside this group. So, a small group of individuals would maintain large armies of robots to meet their needs and maintain their property rights over the inputs to robot production. Everyone else is surplus to needs. Thats a movie I would go to the cinema to see!
The Leisure of the Theory Class 
4 comments
February 17, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Sean Palmer
Why would you assume Elysium is self-sustaining? The main character’s job is making products to be shipped up there. The “inputs for robot production” are not only materials, but the dangerous manufacturing processes that he gets injured in. Why do the 1% need to maintain control of the denizens of Earth? Simple: status! Heaven isn’t heaven if you don’t have a hell to compare to :)
February 17, 2014 at 3:35 pm
rvohra
Dear Sean
Ah, but nothing in the parts of the production process displayed could not have been done by a robot. One could argue that because the plant uses radiation, if there were an accident that would damage the environment. Thus, one would prefer to locate the plant on Earth. However, this still does not suggest one should use humans to operate the plant and protect the supply lines to the plant.
rakesh
February 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm
blink
I think that Robin Hanson beat you to the “economic analysis” genre with his critique of <a href="*Her*. Otherwise, very good points. I wonder, given the moralizing in the movie, whether audiences see the parallels with open borders.
February 17, 2014 at 10:55 pm
rvohra
Drat! But, like Cauchy-Schwarz, it must have been a good idea because someone else had it.Thanks for the pointer. Had no idea there was movie called `Her’. In fact, my first reaction was whether it was an update of `She’.
rakesh