Real interest rates are not a requirement. Taylor wrote his Rule in 1993. This means that before 1993, no one was saying that real interest rates were a requirement. For those ready for an epistemological break, Taylor's Rule is just one of many interest rate theories. Its formula includes the output gap and the neutral interest rate. The output gap is the difference between potential GDP and actual GDP. Interestingly, potential GDP and the neutral interest rate cannot be observed in the economy, but can be assumed. Therefore, believing in a rule-based formula built on assumptions, and then claiming in the market, "Real interest rates are a requirement, this is the rule of economics, science demands it," actually reveals a knowledge gap in the economy.

While Keynes wrote in his 1930 book that deposits are created when credit is given, and central banks wrote that money is created when banks lend, and Mises wrote "Epistemological Problems of Economics" in 1933, there are many more such rote notions in the mainstream neoclassical orthodox economic discourse. When you point this out, some might say, "But these are exceptions, not rules." For example, regarding real interest rates, the Neo-Fisher approach predicts that interest rates should be lowered to stimulate the economy in near-zero inflation, but this isn't always the case. That's a valid point. However, the Gibson Paradox, Keynesian Antithesis, the Wicksell Process, Modern Monetary Theory, and the Post-Keynesian view all suggest that interest rates can be inflationary. If all of these were considered exceptions, it would only be an exceptional case for the mainstream.

SpaceX broke records with its IPO and made history. It's clear that the trillion-dollar space market will see more such examples in the coming years. The space economy needs to be divided into two: the activities undertaken today to go up and stay there, and in the future, space mining and space tourism, including trade between colonies and galaxies. The concept of commercial space is debatable. The word "commercial" is controversial in academic literature. In short, it's possible to say that the private sector is dominant and directive in space-related matters, with private capital bearing the risk outside of the public sector. There's also an accounting and financing aspect to this. When SpaceX goes public, they discount future cash flows to the present, but for now, relativity isn't yet in place. Standards are still being established in environmental accounting. So what about space?