Yeah, something like "I scratch your back, if you scratch mine". They had some sort of currency in TOS, despite constantly saying they don't. Otherwise, there would be no market for Tribbles and no glasses to be bought as presents. I always assumed there was no currency within Starfleet, not within Federation as a whole. Or if there isn't then UFP is a communist organization. After all Leningrad is still called like that.
My own problem with the "no money" pronouncement was that as grandiose as is sounds, it really doesn't carry a lot of specific meaning. Although we could talk about the existence of media of exchanges since the use of shells by hunter-gatherers to get goods from early towns and cities, the nature of money is far from consistent. It has a history that shows money, both as a measure and as a commodity in and of itself, changes over time. No banks, no currency speculation, no investments, no payments between governments: these things developed only recently. Indeed, a fundamental problem for much of human history was the insufficient supply of coinage for anything but the largest transactions. That's why Roman coins would still be in circulations as late as the 19th century. I would find it difficult to expect that money would play the same role today that it will in the future, and I certainly would not want to return to the financial world my father grew up in. If there is any sense to be made of "no money," it has to come from Picard's takedown of Ralph Offenhouse, when Offenhouse expected that his wealth (if it still existed) would have empowered him above Picard. I don't remember that Picard says there is no money, but instead, he suggests that money doesn't carry the import it once had. I think he says that there is no need to accumulate things. That is removed from having or wanting things in particular, and Picard doesn't deny their existence. And although he doesn't say it, Picard suggests that he is more powerful because of his position, and money wouldn't change that.
Actually, Picard also mentions that they have no use of money to Lily in First Contact, when she asks how much the ship cost. The look on Lily's face is priceless... "You don't get paid?"
Except Picard never really answers the question if he gets paid in any form. His next sentence is an explanation that wealth is not in and of itself a human goal. It is not an explanation of how his labors and contributions are rewarded and whether he is able to purchase things at will or if it is limited by the aforementioned contributions.
The answer is silly. Humans work for the betterment of themselves and humankind ? Who's insane idea was that ? Sounds more like an ideology or sales pitch than what really goes on in the Trek universe.
Isn't that what Picard was trying to do, to sell Lilly on his not being her enemy? What he said may seem contrived and artificial, but he didn't have time to go into detail about how much humanity had changed between Lilly's time and his. --Sran
It's probably no more contrived than the reasons elementary school kids learn for the Revolutionary War.
How does that response anwser Lily's fairly direct inquiry of does Picard get paid? And separately, what about the majority of the Federation that isn't "the rest of Humanity?" What do they have going on? Ummm ... a disagreement over the way in which Great Britain treated the colonies versus the way the colonies felt they should be treated. The physical distance of the colonies from the British Parliment created a disconnect, the growth of a separate American culture over time, , the existence of legislatures in the individual colonies that largely took care of most governmental needs, growing interest in the intellectual concepts of "the enlightenment" as it pertain to governing. That's what I remember getting in early primary school. Basic and a bit fundamental, but contrived?
Contrived is not the right word. Canned is better. And in spite of some detail and nuance being taught, most children come out of elementary school seeing the war being fought for "liberty," even though "sovereignty," after "autonomy," is far more precise. That is the sort of historical knowledge that most students leave school with, where complex processes are reduced to simple explanations that hold at least some truth. Within the context of the Star Trek universe, "no money" would be such a reduction, where there is never any real explanation given to how economics works, only that things are different. Moreover, it's so vague that many different ideas can be read into the meaning of "no money." Ultimately, it was a stupid idea because it had no explanation behind it.
OR it was a good idea. It doesn't handcuff future writers and it invites fan speculation, which keeps fans interested.
this isn't because of propaganda or a failure of the education system, it's because no one gives complex, nuanced explanations of historical events to elementary school students.
Holy Crap! Nog was winning that argument completely and utterly: if you don't need money, then you don't need mine. End of story. And I would add, if your father is only out to better himself, to gain nothing but self-improvement, then he doesn't need a baseball card. But the writers set aside all credibility and had Nog surrender his life savings to a manipulative parasite. Nog should never have revealed how much money he has to that pathetic mooch, to say nothing of handing it over.
Jesus. But since Picard is an atheist, then the other way around is probably the right answer. He's a communist. Maybe we'll have book that describes this attempt as a great experiment during the 24th century abandoned due to the need to actually trade with other empires like Ferengi. Or maybe, humans simply do not use currency with one another. You can get a beer (ok, earth ale) free, but the replicator stinks or you can get an imported andorian ale, but you need to pay for it. The betterment of themselves stops at the first bar that serves non-human drinks.
One may wonder if the Chateau Picard is made primarily for the export market. Nonetheless. even in the contemporary world, where almost all currency has a symbolic value, transactions between individuals requires that their respective governments have adequate financial relationships: balance of payments, currency reserves, etc. In the ST world, larger business dealings may not be so problematic, as the Federation could easily keep a reserve of gold pressed latinum to satisfy the Ferengi government. A small businessman, like Quark, operating an auction between peoples of numerous cultures would likely be less willing to rely on symbolic values and prefers to be paid with something that has an intrinsic worth.
No, it was an intriguing idea that didn't receive the adroit or clever handling it needed. At least the late Iain Banks remained consistent and interesting on this subject. It's strange but not surprising that there are a few on this forum who accept just about everything from warp drive and tele-transportation to green ladies and tribbles, but can't seem to wrap their untalented little minds around the no money concept because it makes them feel queasy for some jingoistic reason. They find it an affront to their petty idol god of capital. Never mind that under the money system they remain alienated wage-slaves and debt-slaves. Yet, in their chronic absurdity they accept and defend this condition vigorously if clumsily and become only outraged at any suggestion of an improved state of affairs for them. "If they had asked, Ledje told her, I might even have told them; I was running away to the Culture because I heard they'd escaped the tyranny of money and individual power, and that all people were equal here, men and women alike, with no riches or poverty to put one person above or beneath another." Surface Detail by Iain Banks.
I think the difference is thus: when you're watching a work of fiction, you can only identify with stuff that is familiar, and you assume that the basic stuff is the same e.g. gravity, air, chemistry, etc. unless specifically noted. In almost all cases, I expect human psyche to be the same or very similar. The elimination of money -- or any equivalent -- only works if people are radically different from what we are today, or have been for as long as we can look back in time. Such a change would make us something else than humans, presumably, so it's hard to suspend disbelief in this case because A) That's not how people act and B) We cannot identify with people who are so radically different. Now, I have no problem imagining a future society where money is gone. Perhaps it's very, very far in the future, or some major event changed the game, or it has been replaced by something else that provides and incentive to work. But to say that people can't accept it "for some reason" as if that reason was, on the face of it and without even knowing that reason, ridiculous, is jumping to conclusions without proper evidence or proper discourse.