A country without Money how it's work?

[TheGoodNews]

Well hux, I guess if you're imagining a future where the undesirable jobs have been automated then you're point might hold. BTW, have you seen this recent episode of 60 Minutes? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3I-teuk_B8
Maybe in a few decades it'll be a moot point, anyway.

[TheGoodNews]

in a society like the federation, however, there is no incentive to take part in any kind of shared society (not unless the federation withholds technology) the cleaner/waiter gains nothing from working individually or collectively that he wouldn't still gain by not working - so while you're hoovering the ship (cos you believe in the mutual benefit of such an agreement)....i would be using transporter technology to explore the world, replicating lobster and learning French cos i have the time and freedom to do so, safe in the knowledge that i do not have to do any hoovering whatsoever

Hmm...

The task of the workers councils will thus be not the self-management of the existing world, but its unceasing qualitative transformation: the concrete supersession of the commodity...
This supersession naturally implies the abolition of work and its replacement by a new type of free activity, thereby eliminating one of the fundamental splits of modern society: that between an increasingly reified labor and a passively consumed leisure...Far from being 'utopian,' the abolition of work is the first condition for the effective supersession of commodity society, for the elimination within each person's life of the separation between 'free time' and 'work time'...Only when this opposition is overcome will people be able to make their vital activity subject to their will and consciousness and see themselves in a world that they themselves have created." -- On the poverty of student life.

The abolition of work also means the abolition of free time as a distinctly separate concept. The sublation of the two. Okay, if people don't need to work then they won't. I agree with you. But if there are still a few menial or even undesirable tasks who will do them in the moneyless Star Trek federation? How would that be resolved in an equitable way short of automation? Or is automation the only solution?

[TheGoodNews]

Well, just like what Picard said in the Star Trek "First Contact", that we don't have money in 24th century. But, is it possible in real life in a very advanced civilization like we are today or beyond? Ok, maybe there is no money, but no currency system at all? Is it possible?

I suppose Dr. Michio Kaku's answer might be RIBOSOMES.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzgVWpa4fzU



"In New Babylon, all useful yet repetitive activity underwent automation; and technology, mobilized at the mass level, would release people from the daily drudge of necessity, guaranteeing a healthy dose of free time. There'd be big institutional transformations, too, like collective ownership of land and the means of production, together with the rationalization of the manufacturing of consumer goods, making scarcity old hat." Guy Debord by Andy Merrifield

[T'Girl]

TheGoodNews wrote:

---

Dr. Michio Kaku's ...

Given that it is one of his favorite episodes, Doctor Kaku doesn't seem to remember "The Neutral Zone" very well. In that episode no one was mystified by money, the no money thing was in First Contact eight and a half years later. There wasn't a single mention of a non-existence of money in that particular episode.

The same with the existence of banks, we know that the Bolians (debatably a Federation Member) have banking institutions.

[TheGoodNews]

the no money thing was in First Contact eight and a half years later.

The no money thing was first mentioned in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home back in 1986, though.

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

Kirk(shrugging): "Well, we don't."

Or Kirk and Spock getting off the bus in 20th century San Francisco:

Spock: "What does it mean 'exact change?'"

They seemed pretty mystified to me (at least in that film).

[Lt. Cheka Wey]

I guess they never read a history book.

[shivkala]

How many history (or economics books, for that matter) mention needing exact change on buses?

[Lance]

One thing about Star Trek's universe without money: it's worth remembering that the old european navies used to establish contact with other countries without currency. They didn't set out with money to convince natives to side with the interests of their home empires, they used trade. This is how the coffee bean (and tobacco) were first introduced to Europe. It wasn't a case of "allow us to use our money which is worthless to you to buy a stake in your country", it was more like "Here are some precious beads from Spain, howsabout we trade them for land in the Mississippi?". Of course, where this all falls down is that old navies usually ended up using guns rather than diplomacy in order to prosper in a new land. But hey-ho.

Anyway, I assume the "moneyless" Federation exists in a similar bubble. Starship crews establish first contact with races whom they can trade with. It isn't about money. Even if a planet has got money and Starfleet crews don't, they do have other resources they can trade. It's through this method that ties are made and treaties signed. Member planets who join the Federation can then give up money, because anything they need can be provided via other means. This is something that the Federation has got good at by the time TNG rolls around. They neither need money, nor do they need to use brute force like the navies of old. * I mention TNG specifically, because it's clear TOS operated on a more 'old school' footing. Kirk mentions salaries for his crew multiple times in TOS, and episodes like "Requiem for Methuselah" show us that, like the navy captains of old, Captain Kirk isn't above using the Enterprise's firepower to force somebody to give him what he needs, albeit he does so apologetically.

I can imagine that the Ferengi, a culture steeped in commerce, are incredibly difficult for Starfleet to deal with, simply because they don't trade. If something hasn't got a moneytary value, the Ferengi aren't interested in it.

[Star Wolf]

Lance wrote:

---

I can imagine that the Ferengi, a culture steeped in commerce, are incredibly difficult for Starfleet to deal with, simply because they don't trade. If something hasn't got a moneytary value, the Ferengi aren't interested in it.

Assuming the Ferengi economy runs on the latinum standard has there ever been any explanation of what it is worth? Like say dilithtium crystals. And is the "gold pressed" part for human consumption, at least in colonies without replicators or nearby gold filled asteroids.

[Lt. Cheka Wey]

shivkala wrote:

---

How many history (or economics books, for that matter) mention needing exact change on buses?

I assume they mentioned that money wa used in the 20th century. It seems to be a logical conclusion.

[T'Girl]

shivkala wrote:

---

How many history (or economics books, for that matter) mention needing exact change on buses?

Or mentions the term/phrase "exact change" at all? If the bus driver (or signage) had said "precise coinage for fare" Kirk and Spock might not have been confused.

Even if you stipulate (which I don't) that there is no money in the Federation, Kirk and his officers must have explored worlds (Gangster, Nazi, Roman, other) where there was a money system. It's fairly ridiculous to assume that they would have absolutely no experience using physical money. Or be unable to do the simply math of breaking down large denominations of currency, into smaller units.

Lance wrote:

---

I can imagine that the Ferengi, a culture steeped in commerce, are incredibly difficult for Starfleet to deal with, simply because they don't trade.

We've seen the 24th century Federation engage in trade, remember the wormhole they were bidding on?

If something hasn't got a moneytary value, the Ferengi aren't interested in it.

Quark was able to sell his damaged shuttle for scrap in the Earth system. And had to pay for passage back to DS9 from Earth. If he could have traveled for free, I'm sure Quark would have laughed all the way back to the station.

It isn't just the Ferengi who are interested in monetary value.

... it's worth remembering that the old european navies used to establish contact with other countries without currency. They didn't set out with money to convince natives to side with the interests of their home empires, they used trade.

It has to do with exchange rates, and what your customer will accept. It wasn't that long ago in the United States that paper money from one State wouldn't be accepted in another State at face value. The farther you got from home, the less your money was worth. Some small businesses wouldn't take it at all.

So, not just Europeans in the new world.

It wasn't a case of "allow us to use our money which is worthless to you to buy a stake in your country", it was more like "Here are some precious beads from Spain, howsabout we trade them for land in the Mississippi?"

Again it has to do with exchange rates, your money to theirs, you have to remember that particular types of beads (especially blue beads) weren't valueless junk, they were the money of that area of the world (the currency of the realm), because they possessed worth.

If a European trader were to show up with just any kind of beads, the natives would send them on their way with empty hands.

For centuries, Arabs used cowry shells for money. This wasn't because the Arabs were stupid or bad businessmen, it's because these particular shells were the equivalent of gold or jems, they were rare and beautiful.

The Hawaiians used puka shell for money, not because they were laying around everywhere, but because the real ones were rare and valuable. A today a real puka shell can be the equivalent of a five dollar bill.



Beads and shells are a form of money. This is the shell of a ocean scallop known as Langford's Pecten, it's the size of a American ten cent coin, and is today worth over two hundred dollars.

[hux]

TheGoodNews wrote:

---

I agree with you. But if there are still a few menial or even undesirable tasks who will do them in the moneyless Star Trek federation? How would that be resolved in an equitable way short of automation? Or is automation the only solution?

Firstly, i see no solution other than a reward system - doesn't have to be money but if i'm cleaning out the shit while you're flying around the galaxy sexing it up with the hot green ladies then quite frankly, i want something for my trouble

secondly, we're talking about menial work from a contemporary perspective and assuming that this perspective would remain the same in the future but surely in a society where one can do anything they want, virtually all work becomes menial to a degree - even careers such as doctor, engineer, lawyer, etc....i mean in a society where i can just travel the planet without worrying about food, shelter, clothing or anything else and do whatever i want with life, being a doctor would seem pretty menial to me by comparison (especially if it's just being the dull local GP) - i can understand others not necessarily feeling that way but that's the point; it only takes one lazy fucker like me to come along to ruin the utopia for everyone else - the fact is, i would not be willing to do any kind of work (menial or otherwise) and would only do so if......

1 - i wanted to (poet, porn star, starship captain)

2 - i benefited from it (and i don't mean in a crappy spiritual way.....i mean give me some green ladies and a mansion to play with them in)

3 - i was being forced to (which might be anything from an oppressive state to the federation withholding technology from me unless i play ball)

4 - the federation employs Vulcans to mind meld with every federation citizen and instill a profound sense of communal pride and responsibility in us all

5 - the federation portrays everyone who doesn't play along as malcontents, terrorists, or just plain old bad uns and we exist in an underground society that has yet to be seen in any Trek thus far

[sonak]

hux wrote:

---

Firstly, i see no solution other than a reward system - doesn't have to be money but if i'm cleaning out the shit while you're flying around the galaxy sexing it up with the hot green ladies then quite frankly, i want something for my trouble

secondly, we're talking about menial work from a contemporary perspective and assuming that this perspective would remain the same in the future but surely in a society where one can do anything they want, virtually all work becomes menial to a degree - even careers such as doctor, engineer, lawyer, etc....i mean in a society where i can just travel the planet without worrying about food, shelter, clothing or anything else and do whatever i want with life, being a doctor would seem pretty menial to me by comparison (especially if it's just being the dull local GP) - i can understand others not necessarily feeling that way but that's the point; it only takes one lazy fucker like me to come along to ruin the utopia for everyone else - the fact is, i would not be willing to do any kind of work (menial or otherwise) and would only do so if......

1 - i wanted to (poet, porn star, starship captain)

2 - i benefited from it (and i don't mean in a crappy spiritual way.....i mean give me some green ladies and a mansion to play with them in)

3 - i was being forced to (which might be anything from an oppressive state to the federation withholding technology from me unless i play ball)

4 - the federation employs Vulcans to mind meld with every federation citizen and instill a profound sense of communal pride and responsibility in us all

5 - the federation portrays everyone who doesn't play along as malcontents, terrorists, or just plain old bad uns and we exist in an underground society that has yet to be seen in any Trek thus far

your perspective is shaped by the ideology and culture you grew up in. You can't just take your attitudes and transplant them whole into a different time and society. Had you been raised from birth in a post-scarcity society that preached to you every day about the communal good and the importance of contributing to society, you'd probably not feel the way you do now.

[hux]

sonak wrote:

---

your perspective is shaped by the ideology and culture you grew up in. You can't just take your attitudes and transplant them whole into a different time and society. Had you been raised from birth in a post-scarcity society that preached to you every day about the communal good and the importance of contributing to society, you'd probably not feel the way you do now.

I'm sure that culture would affect many but i'm equally confident that layabout sex fiends such as myself would still exist in that society and spoil it for the rest of you

ask a common man from the 13th century to look at contemporary western society and to him it's a utopia compared to his surroundings and culture and no doubt he would find it just as hard to comprehend why, in such an affluent society, their are people who choose to opt out, rebel against or demand a change to that society.....and yet they do

you cannot make us all fall in line.....that is the problem (and virtue) of every society throughout history.....i don't care how fantastic it is....there will always be those who think it's shit and don't want to engage with it

that's why i liked the idea of the maquis ((the first time trek ever asked the question....is this society as great as we think).....though personally i would have gone further with them and made them even more questioning of the so called federation utopia

[yousirname]

I'm not seeing why a few layabouts would 'ruin everything'. Any more than a small number of welfare-dependent lazyboneses 'ruins everything' today.

I'm not trying to imply that everyone on welfare, even on long-term welfare, is lazy or undeserving of it or what-have-you. I suspect only a very small minority are - lazy people do exist, after all, and where there is a system there will be people who try to exploit that system. The existence of that small minority doesn't even undermine the welfare system, never mind society as a whole, is what I'm saying.