The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   General Trek Discussion (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Theory on money in the 24th century (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=201493)

hxclespaulplayer January 25 2013 06:19 PM

Theory on money in the 24th century
 
An interesting read: http://vanparecon.resist.ca/StarTrekEcon/

Temis the Vorta January 25 2013 06:32 PM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
I still say: the replicator did it. Remove scarcity, and you change the economic system completely.

Note that the 23rd C had a different economic system than the 24th. Kirk was downright frantic to get mining operations re-started in Devil in the Dark, despite the obvious risk to the workers of whatever was killing them. Not very enlightened of him. Same Federation, same Starfleet, the difference is, no replicators in the 23rd C.

T'Girl January 25 2013 07:15 PM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
Temis, that bring up the old question, how much does it cost to operate a replicator? And it is not just a matter of eliminating scarcity, in America we're up to our knees in food, but it still cost money to buy at the store, because it cost money to produce and transport.

If it cost money to operate a replicator, then what it produces might be more conveniant, but it wouldn't be "free."

CorporalClegg January 25 2013 08:10 PM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
It doesn't cost money to do any of that. It requires energy, of which they have a limitless supply.

Mr. Laser Beam January 25 2013 11:01 PM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
^ But replicators still need to be maintained. What happens when a replicator breaks down? You have engineers who go to work on them.

Also, some people refuse to allow replicators in their homes. Picard's brother, for example. These must also be considered.

Lance January 26 2013 05:11 AM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
Quote:

Temis the Vorta wrote: (Post 7590037)
Note that the 23rd C had a different economic system than the 24th. Kirk was downright frantic to get mining operations re-started in Devil in the Dark, despite the obvious risk to the workers of whatever was killing them. Not very enlightened of him. Same Federation, same Starfleet, the difference is, no replicators in the 23rd C.

I support this theory. Despite TVH making a plot point about Kirk not understanding 'correct change' in 1986, the evidence in TOS that some sort of money does exist in the 23rd century far outweighs it. Simply the number of times Kirk refers to his officers "earning their pay" is enough evidence for me (though we might charitably say that it's just an expression...)

The 24th century certainly has forms of currency... but, crucially, Latinum can't be replicated, therefore it retains a monetary value (whereas plain old gold is completely worthless).

C.E. Evans January 26 2013 05:13 AM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
I think there should be a sticky regarding the issue of money in Star Trek.

Lance January 26 2013 05:14 AM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
I think there should be sticky money in Star Trek. They should use some sort of globular currency. It'd give a whole new meaning to the phrase "liquidating your assets". ;)

R. Star January 26 2013 05:29 AM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
I dunno, Sisko, Riker, O'brien and Eddington always went on about how "real food" tasted better. Would real car parts work better? Would real lightbulbs last longer? So on...

R. Star January 26 2013 05:30 AM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
Quote:

Lance wrote: (Post 7592812)
I think there should be sticky money in Star Trek. They should use some sort of globular currency. It'd give a whole new meaning to the phrase "liquidating your assets". ;)

Latinum is liquid naturally... they just put it in gold for ease of use.

Photonic January 26 2013 06:52 PM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
It costs not only energy but time. Even if you have energy, it must be allocated to produce your raw materials. This is a service and means less energy elsewhere which means some type of compensation is needed to the energy producer to provide this service.

You also have man hours and time. These must also be compensated. If you read the article (good post btw. I stumbled across it a couple years ago), and further study parecon it is a planned economy.

Even for people without replicators its fine. Community centers and local governments would all host periods to discuss resource requirements ,projects, population needs, consumable goods etc annually or bi annually or quarterly. As a citizen you submit the resources you will require or desire, for which you will be allocated so much work. On the other side the governments coordinate to manage production in anticipation for the requested consumables.

Sadly we do not see the economics of startrek. its a military lifestyle so "whatever" currency they get, or w/e they are allocated into their "bank accounts" or "resource pools" is irrelevant since like on current naval vessels, all your food, lodging, recreation is provided for and you basicly live for free off the energy and supplies of the ship.

Photonic January 26 2013 06:55 PM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
Quote:

R. Star wrote: (Post 7592851)
I dunno, Sisko, Riker, O'brien and Eddington always went on about how "real food" tasted better. Would real car parts work better? Would real lightbulbs last longer? So on...

Good question. Study technology more. The answer with "real lightbulbs" and "car parts" is no. Why would "current manufacturing tech" be better?

When it comes to TECH objects the specifications are much more readily quantifiable and easier to manipulate with say ..a replicator. Which is basicly nano technology. Even if a laser cut a flange from a raw piece of aluminum to mount a turbo charger onto my exhaust manifold there are still microscopic imperfections but these are correctable with gaskets which we use to create proper seals. Replicator technology allows you to create precise molecular and atomic structure.s

But food is not the same. As are all things "human". Smell, sound, taste, touch. It is the IMPERFECTIONS ....that make them appeal to our senses. Sometimes a perfect steak (which a replicator can provide) wont suit your taste buds ..but that is subjective , its a perfect steak by all means but it lacks artistic flare ...tech is not the same boat.

T'Girl January 26 2013 07:17 PM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
Quote:

Photonic wrote: (Post 7594702)
It costs not only energy but time. Even if you have energy, it must be allocated to produce your raw materials.

Under our current system, and possibly the future system of Star Trek, this allocation is by way of money.

Quote:

As a citizen you submit the resources you will require or desire, for which you will be allocated so much work.
This (translation) means everyone would basically work for the allocators

Quote:

On the other side the governments coordinate to manage production in anticipation for the requested consumables.
Or, market forces and customer need would control this.

Quote:

... since like on current naval vessels, all your food [snip] is provided for and you basicly live for free off the energy and supplies of the ship.
On current naval vessels, officers pay for their food, just like they do on shore. Only the enlist eat for free, it's part of their enlistment contract.

When we see the officer's in ten forward, I've always figured that they are paying (payroll deduction/personal account) for the items they order.

Quote:

Sometimes a perfect steak (which a replicator can provide)
Maybe it can't. Think about it, the replicator has been show/spoken of as having problems with organic materials. It plain can't produce certain drugs. And it can't produce actual internal organs, a replacement heart for Picard, the defective part of LaForge's vision. So if it can't make a Human heart, what makes you believe it can make cow muscle?

Your steak is perhaps a facsimile of cow muscle. A steak, a pork chop, a chicken breast, are all the same material. Different coloring, and artificial flavoring, but the same physical substance and structure.

Nightdiamond January 26 2013 10:33 PM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
A replicator has to be able to replicate foods that tastes like the original.

It is said that replicator technology is based off transporter technology, which can transport all types of things that is said can't be replicated or copied reliably.

It should be able to make a perfect copy of something as simple as eggs, let alone steaks, wine etc.

Edit_XYZ January 27 2013 07:07 AM

Re: Theory on money in the 24th century
 
Quote:

Nightdiamond wrote: (Post 7595779)
A replicator has to be able to replicate foods that tastes like the original.

It is said that replicator technology is based off transporter technology, which can transport all types of things that is said can't be replicated or copied reliably.

It should be able to make a perfect copy of something as simple as eggs, let alone steaks, wine etc.

There's nothing simple about the cellular structure of an egg, of meat, etc.
The replicator might be able to mix together the components making up such food - but its fine tunning is lacking. As is redundantly mentioned throughout star trek (how replicated food lacks flavor, etc).
Transporting something!=creating something. Not even close.


And that's the least of the problems the replicator has as a tool for 'unlimited' wealth:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...&postcount=130


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.