A country without Money how it's work?

[Edit_XYZ]

All moneyless societies presented here (and elsewhere) are socialist - the state//ruling elite/etc has control over the means of production (and distributes the products 'fairly' or not - depending on the political ideology).

And, as history shows, socialism works well until you run out of other people's money (produced resources/whatever).
Socialism is ALWAYS a poor manager, failing to create wealth efficiently - again, as history has shown every single time. Principally, due to failure to motivate the workforce (on all levels) to competitively produce, manage, innovate, etc.

[R. Star]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

The Federation has an virtually unlimited energy supply because they mainly use very efficient energy sources. And then they have the ability to turn energy into matter and the other way round.

That's why there's no need for money at all.

The idea that people won't work if there's no money, and that people are somehow "better" if they work more and make more money, is a very capitalist one. People will simply do what they want, that's cool, isn't it? And with the right education, inspiration and motivation, you're not just jerking off to your WoW avatar. There would be a lot more artists, a lot more researchers, and a lot more service jobs.

Let's just concede that unlimited energy can produce unlimited food, clothes and the such however absurd that notion is given Voyager was rationing things out in the Delta Quadrant so there are limits.

Things like land, transportation, intellectual property all still dictate the need for some sort of monetary value system if society is going to continue functioning.

Unless you're really defending something like say... Cuba's system of housing and transportation?

[TheGoodNews]

What you described is hardly socialist. More like State Capitalist. Including the Soviet Union. Remember, Lenin's NEP (New Economic Policy) of 1920? Also any system, including our neo-liberal economy works fine until the economy falters.

"In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia.

[TheGoodNews]

Present-day Argentina seems to offer a longer-lasting and succesful example of workers' self-management, social and economic self-organizing with the worker occupied factories, neighborhood assemblies and barter-exchange co-ops (which don't use money) set-up throughout the country. This has been going on since the IMF collapsed the Argentine economy over a decade ago. From what I understand, the worker occupied factories even won a concession from the Argentine gov't in 2011. Not as dramatic as Spain, perhaps, but longer lasting.

[Sci]

There are a lot of different kinds of Socialism, just as there are a lot of different kinds of Capitalism. Perhaps we should more strictly define our terms?

[Temis the Vorta]

What's with all these mile-long posts? The answer is simple:

The replicators provide everything anyone wants. Then people get bored and start doing stuff. Take money out of the equation, and people will still do stuff, money or no money. They may still be greedy but express it in other ways, such as competitiveness.

Proof is right here: nobody is being paid to post here. Why do we do it?

[paudemge]

Would there be private property?
And if there was how would you exchange it?

[Star Wolf]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

What's with all these mile-long posts? The answer is simple:

The replicators provide everything anyone wants. Then people get bored and start doing stuff. Take money out of the equation, and people will still do stuff, money or no money. They may still be greedy but express it in other ways, such as competitiveness.

Proof is right here: nobody is being paid to post here. Why do we do it?

When I see these discussions I think that even with replicators you can't give everybody prime real estate. Someone will have to be locked out of that ocean or mountain view. With the Picard's locking up the land with their vineyard the excess people have to be shunted off somewhere else by some mechanism. Maybe they can sit in a holosuite all day but that is not the same.

[Nightdiamond]

Replicators are pretty much the answer.

It would still be hard to understand people like Kassidy Yates, who works as a freighter captain.

She appears to work to get paid, appeared frustrated with her job at times, and even risked going to prison to deliver something.

Sometimes I think they throw stuff like that in to make humans seem more interesting or relatable.

[TheGoodNews]

Remember that replicators didn't exist in the 23rd century, yet Kirk in ST 4 mentions that money isn't used in the 23rd century.

Gillian: "Don't tell me, they don't use money in the 23rd century?"

Kirk: "Well, they don't."

[Unicron]

And yet in TSFS, McCoy was clearly familiar with the concept of money when he was trying to buy passage to Genesis. When it comes to money and economics, Trek wound up with a system that's more complicated than it needs to be.

[T'Girl]

paudemge wrote:

---

Would there be private property?

Captain Kirk (in ST: GEN): "Come on in. It's all right, it's my house."

And if there was how would you exchange it?

Captain Kirk (in ST: GEN): "At least it used to be, I sold it years ago."

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

nobody is being paid to post here. Why do we do it?

Wait, you're not being paid on a per word basis like the rest of us?

[robau]

Star Wolf wrote:

---

Someone will have to be locked out of that ocean or mountain view.

I imagine a view in space sounds awesome to a lot of people.

Unicron wrote:

---

And yet in TSFS, McCoy was clearly familiar with the concept of money when he was trying to buy passage to Genesis. When it comes to money and economics, Trek wound up with a system that's more complicated than it needs to be.

An underground economy. A small number of people will always want to do illegal things.

[Star Wolf]

robau wrote:

---

I imagine a view in space sounds awesome to a lot of people.

.

No doubt, but the scarcity exist in access to the Picard vineyard when a Kirk also wants to live on a vineyard in France with a nighttime view of just one large moon. Soon you will run out of room there and some mechanism has to be developed which lets the small number of Picard's stay there while the Sisko's must settle for a restaurant in a city, and the O'Brien's are left with a dormitory room in a San Francisco overrun with potential Starfleet officers

[USS Einstein]

In terms of Star Trek, credits seem to only be used for non-essentials.

Accommodation, education, healthcare, food, access to literature, and all the other things a healthy being needs to develop in a wholesome way, are all free, in their post-scarcity economy.

But, things that require more resources in terms of energy, or land use, require Federation credits (perhaps a form of energy credit) - so Kirk's house, being an inefficient building using a lot of land, would be an example.



Some companies, that make luxury/niche goods, like clock-makers, wineries, brewers, etc, may still exist, but without any profit motive - with full democratic control handed over to workers - no wage slavery - no charge for what they produce, other than energy credits - no reason to work for them except out of love for the craft, and perhaps more energy credits - no malign need to advertise or propagandize their product.

Perhaps in order to prevent people inheriting material posessions and becoming covetous, you can't pass things down to children - Kirk's cabin would go to someone else upon his death - or perhaps greed is simply prevented by people being more enlightened about what makes a human life worth living.

Other than that, I doubt Star Trek uses anything like monetary economics (either capitalist or socialist) - rather, it seems to be closer to what Marxists call 'pure communism', or to an anarchist society of collectives without coercion or compulsion, or to a green resource-based economy.

The most important thing is, it is post-scarcity. Most of our economics deal with a world in which money exists or resources are limited.