Would the Neutral Zone have better without the 20th century characters

[horatio83]

Trannie~sylvania wrote:

---

Countries come and go, money is forever.

One hyperinflation and it becomes cheaper than toilet paper.
I understand why libertarians perceive economics as being set on some kind of meta-level below which all other political and social games are played but alas, such a view is wrong.

[T'Girl]

horatio83 wrote:

---

I understand why libertarians ...

No, you really don't.

[Dream]

People need to realize the story with the 20th century characters was the A plot, while the story with the Romulans were the B plot.

Think of it as we got a cool sidestory with the Romulans added, instead of thinking they should have been in the entire episode and you'll like it better.

[Gary Mitchell]

One little thing that bugs me about this episode is the scene where Picard orders security to remove Offenhouse from the bridge. The security guards stand there gawking at the viewscreen. They would be working in waste extraction the next day if I were in command.

[Dream]

Festering Esper wrote:

---

One little thing that bugs me about this episode is the scene where Picard orders security to remove Offenhouse from the bridge. The security guards stand there gawking at the viewscreen. They would be working in waste extraction the next day if I were in command.

The guards were in awe or something.

Blame Worf for not training them better! Of course, he was just starting out as Security Chief...

[horatio83]

Trannie~sylvania wrote:

---

No, you really don't.

Knowledge and fetishization rarely go hand in hand. Another libertarian error. We could really continue this ad infinitum, libertarianism is after all just another word for economic incompetence.

[T'Girl]

horatio83 wrote:

---

libertarianism is after all just another word for economic incompetence.

No, that would be socialism (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal).

[horatio83]

You just proved my point. Spain's public debt to GDP ratio was extremely low before the financial crisis. It was basically a fiscal conservative's wet dream. Public debt increased like in any other country because of the bail-outs.
Here you can see Germany's (blue) vs Spain's (red) debt to GDP ratios.

Involuntarily you are partly right, what has happened with the bail-outs and quantitative easing is some kind of socialization of debt and as debtors gain from it it is socialism for the rich ... although I have to add that there were not in principle any other options. Fischer's old paper about debt and deflation as well as Koo's recent work on balance sheet recession has shown that getting rid of public debt is paramount in such recessions.

Anyway, let's not derail this thread anymore and spare you from further embarrassing yourself with your simple-minded libertarian propaganda nonsense that has little to do with real-world economics.

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

horatio83 wrote:

---

<snip>
Anyway, let's not derail this thread anymore and spare you from further embarrassing yourself with your simple-minded libertarian propaganda nonsense that has little to do with real-world economics.

This final paragraph earns you a Trolling citation. I asked you earlier to drop your baiting and attacking posture on this.

[Distorted Humor]

Is it reasonable to expect a company to survive 100s of years? Not really

Is it reasonable to expect a TRUST to survive 100s of years? Sure

The character in question had a trust set up. This is made clear by the dialog, as he is tying to find his trustee. Barring fraud by the trustee, or overspending by the benefactor, well capitalized trusts will last basically forever unless you have truly massive economic upheavals and/or government seizure of assets)

In fact, it such a issue, that English Common law there is a " rule against perpetuities" that limits the lifespan of non-charitable trusts as it thought of as unwise to allow dead men or women control capital 100s of years after their death. Historically it was 21 years after the death of the last living person named in the trust, (with some modification of persons in the womb). However in many juristictions they have gone with a 90 year rule (trusts need to be liquidated in 90 years) or extending them. For example, Florida seeking trust business allows 360 years. A classic example is many trusts where set up of native land in hawaii, and in the last few years the non-charitable trusts have started to hit this limit, causing farmland to be sold that has not been open for sale in 100+ years.

as a note, the "living persons" can be anyone who is traceable. so for example, you could set up a trust saying 21 years after the last current living decedent of queen Victoria dies and that will be upheld.

So if the person set up a trust that included land and other diverse assets, and in a area without the rule against perpetuities, it quite reasonable to assume that there would be some sort of asset in the trust in 200 years.

[horatio83]

True, England had a fairly stable history with its slow democratic evolution instead of a sudden revolutions like in France.
But in the fictional history of Trek even this stability ceased: Eugenic Wars, WWIII, arrival of aliens, United Earth, establishment of the Federation, a lot of stuff happened in two centuries.

[Anwar]

None of which that businessman could have predicted...

[CorporalCaptain]

The Overlord wrote:

---

Would the Neutral Zone have better without the 20th century characters? There were a lot of interesting plot threads in that episode, the Federation meeting with the Romulans for the first time in decades and a mysterious new threat that was attacking Romulan and Federation outposts in the Neutral Zone. But all of that got sidelined by some silly plot where the Enterprise crew interacts with and lecture some characters from the 20th century. Frankly the stuff with the Romulans and the missing outposts seemed far more interesting then the stuff with the 20th century characters.

My opinion of TNG's first season overall is that it was a very rocky ride. On balance, TNG season one is no better than TOS season three, and probably worse.

In my view, all things considered, The Neutral Zone is an above average TNG season one episode.

T'Girl wrote:

---

The 20th century people are the meat and potatoes of the episode. The Romulans were the insignificant portion of the story that could have been easily deleted, any vague threat could have been inserted, with no impact on the A story.

Absolutely.

I just love the way the 20th century "art of the deal" businessman sized up the Romulans within seconds, while 24th century "urbane" Picard sat in his captain chair absolutely clueless.

Offenhouse correctly sizing up the Romulans is my favorite part of the episode. That scene tells us a couple of things. First, that Offenhouse is going to be alright. He may be a man out of time, but he can adapt to the future. Second, the scene is a refreshing addendum to the evident thesis advanced throughout the rest of the first season (and even within the episode itself, unfortunately, as pointed out by Jonas Grumby), which is the notion that the smugly superior humanity generally exemplified by the main cast is in every way an improvement over present day humanity. Offenhouse surely has a thing or two to teach 24th century mankind. The idea that people out of time can still bring something to the table, to make worthwhile contributions, is a positive theme, and one returned to later, in far superior episodes such as Relics and even Half a Life.

Anyway, to answer the OP's question: no, The Neutral Zone would not have been better without the 20th century characters. As I rate the episode above average for the first season as is, it likely would have been worse.