Old Issue: We Don't Use money

Okay, I get it now... reading "Maverisms" last post tone (where he continues to denigrate the other perspective and insult and so forth... much more openly now that C.C. has recruited the "Neutral Zone crowd" to come in and start targeting...

You guys can have this thread. You've silenced the opposition. Now, if you guys follow true to form, you'll start following me from thread to thread, trying to "troll" an argument every time. And then get one of your buds, like "M'Sharak," to issue "warnings" if I respond.

Seen it before. Been used on lots of folks here, over and over. Driven away some mods, and plenty of members.

I've seen myself attacked personally, and people try to get under my skin by criticizing my design work. (By the way, that whole "dustbuster" thing is also from that same "neutral zone" thread.) And the next step, a tried-and-true one (and the real point of the "neutral zone" thread, really, isn't it?) is to try to pick fights and get a hostile response, so that one of the mods in question can take the one-sided response and get a "ban" into place.

And then the "acolytes" will all feel joy for having driven away someone they personally don't like.

It's pathetic.

Maverisms, you at least have been trying to have a conversation. Up until your last post, I was enjoying the discussion, even though we were both being critical of each other's positions.

But with the "backup" arriving, it seems that's done. So, I guess so is this thread, huh?

 

Apparently all one has to do with you is say you've won the argument and you'll flounce. How novel.

 

That's what most of us have been saying all along, though.

The issue we've been debating is whether a "no money" society (meaning "pure communism" with no personal earnings, no personal property, etc) is what was meant by the "we don't use money" lines.

That has been the debate.

Maverisms was very critical of other positions, but failed to provide an alternative. It's easy to be decry a negative, but a lot harder to actually explain a POSITIVE.

That's where he and I started into our interchange. To date, he has not provided an alternative explanation... about how a "truly money-less" society (as opposed to a "cashless" one) would work, but he does seem to be saying that's what we have to accept will be the case in the future.

I'd really love to see an actual explanation from one of those who believes that "money-less" in Trek terms means "no personal ownership of any kind" explain how that would work.

 

So...are the replies going to be short enough to be readable again? And not the satire on FDR that's oh-so cutting edge...he's still president right?

EDIT: Never mind...

 

This is the sort of tone which makes it clear that you're angry, Mav...

 

By that rationale I was angry when I told Forbin I like his USS Claymore.

It is entirely possible that I just like the word "dude."

 

The word "dude" wasn't the point. You used an over-the-top, ludicrous example which has nothing to do with what we're actually discussing, as far as I can tell... or at the very least, in no way is in disagreement with my own points.

The best I can tell, you are trying to illustrate that "money" is worthless in that situation. Which is true. Because, as has been said repeatedly, all "money" is, is a "store of value." It has no intrinsic value of its own.

The existence of the concept of "money" is what allows trade in any other form other than barter-in-kind.

Your "example" refers to "physical currency." Of course, in that situation, any such physical currency would have no value except perhaps to serve as tinder for starting a fire.

Since that is in 100% agreement with my own points, I fail to see what point you think you're making by raising it.

And the TONE of that post was pretty hostile. Your "hostility level" has gone up by an order of magnitude since C.C. brought the neutral zone gang in...

 

Those terms were not a judgement on this discussion. I was simply pointing out that I've been in more...vigorous...debates.

I suppose some of them do apply, as I've used them more generally, like "twist." But what word would would prefer I use? As I mentioned, you use words like "Pathetic" to describe the opposition. I didn't say you couldn't, I was just premptively countering this complaint. You can't expect everyone else to stick to the nice words while you play rough.

I have no objections to your tone. I simply anticipated that your would object to mine. On the other hand, lest I seem to be claiming I saw this coming, I did not anticipate this set of objections. That is, some elements you are objecting to weren't even directed at you or this discussion.

Finally, I use prejudice to mean prejudgment, not to imply racism. Maybe I shouldn't, but I'm black and no one has ever accused me of playing the race card on that word face to face unless the discussion was racism.

To be clear, when I use "prejudice" and the discussion is not race I mean it in the sense of "That information is excluded from trial due to the prejudicial effect it will have on the jury," not, "Stay away from that dude, he's prejudiced."

 

I would disagree. It doesn't matter if the currency is physical or not, the dollar has not value in and of itself. That's my point. We have fundamental disagreement it seems, as You think currency can store value where as I think it is a representation, and abstraction.

It is sort of like your use of my words to signify my "level of hostility." Believe me, if were hostile, you'd know it. And I'd probably get banned.

Then again, I may be misreading your use of the word hostile. After all, I do oppose your general position, and that is a form of hostility. But that is the form one would expect in all forms of disagreement, so I don't see how that's worth commenting on. I read your allusions to hostility and anger on my part (again with the reading my mind over the internet), to imply a more personal level of hostility. I assure you, nothing of the sort exists.

One of the lessons I learned way back in 1996 is that it is easy to read the tone you want to hear into what others write. As much as 55% of meaning is conveyed through body language, so this isn't surprising. Most people who debate with me in person find me maddeningly detached. I tend to sound like Spock. Which is not to imply I am like Spock. It is just a referent that I assume everyone is familiar with.

I get angry and I lose my temper, but I haven't yet. I can be a manipulative debate opponent, which is what I was doing when I declined to respond to what I call the flood of text. Trying to deal with those points would require another flood of text and that would tend to add weight to your POV simply by dint of obfuscating my objections with in their own frame work.

As I said, I'll happily deal with any point raised one at a time. I figure that's fair. Nothing gents hidden, everything stays open.

 

But we know this is absolutely not the case in Star Trek, since gold-pressed latinum is a object of desire in itself, like gold in our society.

 

Fair enough... see, as I said before, I was ENJOYING our interchange.

Open exchange of ideas is a good thing. It need not be "all nicey-nicey," but the criticisms should be targeted on the ideas being discussed, not on the persons making them.

"Pathetic" and "Nonsense" and "Silly" and so forth are all terms used to describe the ideas... and as such, are entirely acceptable (as long as they're not thrown out as ad-hominems, but are reinforced by a supporting argument).

That's how I use that term as well. Racism, as a rule, involves one form of prejudice, but the two are not synonyms.

"Prejudice" essentially means "pre-judgement" which means "making a judgement before having all the facts."

Thus, it is "prejudice" to assume that a black guy is likely going to mug you if you're walking down the street, merely because he's black. And that particular "prejudice" is based upon two things... (a) lack of information about the person in question, and (b) unsupported assumptions about the person based upon the one fact which IS known, his race. So, racism is a factor in prejudice in that case. A cause, not a synonym.

I did not take your comment in those terms. I saw no issue of race, and honestly I couldn't care less what color your skin happens to be, or if you're bald or have a huge head of hair, or if you're tall or short. None of those things are within your personal ability to choose, and thus none of them have any relevance whatsoever as far as I'm concerned.

I have no problem with judging people based upon a preponderance of information, of course... and upon matters which are really at their core. For instance, I know of several folks (who shall remain nameless, since naming them is grounds for punishment according to BBS rules) who have criminal pasts of the sort that get you targeted even in prison... and I have no issue with judging them on that basis. Because that's something the parties in question DESERVE to be "judged" over.

That would not be "prejudice," but it is "judgment." And at the very least, on this point, I think you and I are likely in agreement, aren't we?

 

Earlier examples in the thread mentioned the miners in "Mudd's women," the trading post on K7 with Cyrano Jones, Kirk mentioning to Scotty that he'd "earned his pay," McCoy attempting to buy transit to Genesis ("ship you got, money I got!"), Scotty buying a boat, Kirk buying a cabin, Bashir buying lunch for Garak, and so on and so on.

Lots of examples of trade. Just evidently "electronic trade."

Now, the Ferengi still use physical currency... in the form of "gold pressed latinum." (And evidently the gold is mostly useless and worthless and is only there to protect the latinum... whatever that is... inside.) A few other cultures were shown to use physical currency. But it's true that the Federation does not seem to use physical currency.

It's simply not true that they don't have "money" (as I've described it).

Seems you and I agree on this point.

 

Interesting point, and I agree with that. Latinum is not a Federation currency, but that does bring up an interesting point WRT Ferengi economics. Why is latinum valuable and how does the reflect on the UFP? If the value of latinum is in the stuff itself, (that is, it is valueable like art is valuable) then old saw about UFP citizens being beyond greed comes into play. If however latinum has a use, this changes.

I don't think the cases are mutually exclusive. Gold is seen as desirable and is useful. So is diamond. I know there was a canon explanation for what the Ferengi adore latinum, but has anything else been said about it?

 

As far as I was able to determine, from watching DS9, the key point about "latinum" is that it cannot be replicated... thus, it is naturally scarce.

This makes it ideal for a "hard currency," as it is essentially immune to inflation... the only way to increase the amount of latinum in the economy is to discover some and mine it.

Much like the scarcity of gold and diamonds and the like, long before their industrial uses, made them the basis for our own economies.

 

The it would seem, Cary, outside the points of the disagreement, we have nothing to disagree one. If that sounds tautological, stick with me, I'll make it clear. From my point of view prejudice is something you do, not something you are. If you steal my wallet, I'm not concerned with whether you see yourself as thief or a victim of hard circumstances and abuse. I just want my wallet back.

If I describe an action as being done to suit one's prejudices, I mean that from where I stand, important information is being dismissed because it doesn't fit the patter that one is trying to create. That's an attack against the argument, not the man. What you did vs. what you are.

One of the reasons I made that claim was your leap from central resource management to tyranny. That is prejudice. There's nothing inherent in communism that demands tyranny. I agree that tyranny is likely if we try it now. We have enough to make everyone comfortable but not enough to make everyone rich. Greed comes into play.

But how does this change exploitable resources far exceed the population? Is Tyranny then inevitable? I say it is not. A fundamental assumption that leads communism down the dark path has been removed. How can say in what way it will play out?

I understood the spirit of your objection previous to this. The issue I have here, and reason I see prejudice is that the Net result of the transaction is the same whether it done with money or adjudicated by some kind of arbiter. One person wins the house, the other does not. The situation doesn't get more fair because money was involved.

From where I stand (which is not where you've been assuming. That I can conceive of this does not mean I think it is best. Even if the idea is good, it likely has pitfalls I can't see. It wasn't challenged on its merit, it was challenged on ideology) your challenge was extreme, ideological and had nothing to do with merit of the idea.

That said, your tyranny complaint is was not the straw that lead to my labeling the argument prejudicial. It was an accumulation of T'Girl's comments combined with the tyranny argument that lead there.

At this point I don't think my "resource Management" or "super abstraction layer" arguments have been adequately addressed. If you think I've failed to respond appropriately to something you were saying--outside the ideology disagreement, i'm happy to revisit it. I know were are still in disagreement over the term "money" but my super abstraction layer argument is my response to that disagreement.

EDIT: Thanks for explaining the Latinum. I did not know that.

 

So you're saying you're choosing to personally ignore all of my previous posts in this thread?

I've seen you make the same argument over and over, and I've quoted you and replied numerous times, and you have refused to comment on my idea.

The point is, the writer's are flawed. Money was introduced into the scripts the same way humans came up with concept of God thousands of years ago.

 

Re: Latinum, here's another interesting 'net discussion of that topic.

This particular issue will be discussed, relating to Trek, for as long as anyone knows what Trek is/was, most likely... over and over and over.

http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/5337/why-can-latinum-not-be-replicated

 

That assumes that humans came up with the concept. That may be true, or may not be true, but it's an unproven and unprovable concept.

I've read your points, but unless I've missed something, all you've said is that "It can work, we just don't know how yet, but just because we don't know how yet doesn't mean it can't happen." Which is true, but is not really helpful to the discussion at hand.

You say that here:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=5334766&postcount=64

And you just say "I still think that" here:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=5335499&postcount=73

And that's IT. Not really "numerous times," nor a detailed treatment, was it?

This is your point:

Which is "sort of" true...

But then again, DaVinci didn't propose anything inherently impossible in that case (despite the fact that some people thought it was impossible).

Some things really are impossible. Others are impractical. And others are simply "problems we haven't solved yet."

Is there some way that this could be done? Maybe... but it will take someone like a DaVinci to put an idea forward (even if it doesn't work initially) to move this beyond the realm of pure wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

That's part of why I've asked people to propose their ideas... on how this might work. They need not be "final concepts" but just general ideas.

Human nature isn't going to change in the next couple of hundred years... it hasn't changed in any real way in the past few thousand, has it? So, while we may not be able to discuss techological breakthroughs, we CAN discuss human nature, which for the sake of this conversation can be treated as a "constant" (that is, it is the same in "trek" as it is in our own time, and likely will be the same in four hundred REAL years as it is in our time, barring some "metamorphosis" of the entire species, say into a "borg-like" form of life).

So, it's entirely practical to discuss economic systems in terms of human nature, even if there are some technical details we can't resolve yet. Which, I believe, is what we've been doing here.

 

I want to add, that I don't disagree with there is some form of currency exchange in the UFP. But the evidence seems to suggest that the currency is not something people pay a lot of attention to.

This interests me, because as the linked provide points out, right now one of currency's defining characteristics is scarcity. The UFP seems to be post scarcity. Seems.

My contention is that "money" as we see it now is not capable of doing the job. So, in a sense you are correct and we don't disagree that "money" exists. I really don't think anyone here does disagree. the contention is is this thing like money enough to call it money?

I think one of the points in play here is that if scarcity has been eliminated, is money even necessary? If it isn't, why keep it just for the special cases when you are dealing with something that is scarce because of its uniqueness (the tony stark house in Malibu)? That is, does the market for "tony stark houses" justify the application of the concepts of currency in an otherwise post scarcity economy?

 

Well, that's why I was careful to define the terms as I was using them.

I made it clear that "money" in the sense I was using it did not refer to a physical item (bills, coins, etc) but was only the "unit of stored value." We know the term for this in Trek terms... it's the "Federation Credit."

I also have pointedly used the term "physical currency" to define the other thing... bills, coins, etc... and have made it quite clear that there is no such thing indicated in Trek's future, and furthermore that I fully expect to see this happen during my own lifetime, at least mostly so (in fact, it has "mostly" already happened, hasn't it?)

The problem here is, primarily, one of semantics, then. Most people seem to draw no distinction between physical currency and "accounting units." I'm trying to draw a clear differentiation between the two things.

That's a new term in this discussion, but is the concept I've been using all along when I use the term "money." It is an "accounting unit." You've used the term "abstract" to define the same thing. So... I propose "monetary accounting unit" as an acceptable (and "clearer") compromise term.

It seems that it's been the WORD "money" (which people are not accustomed to defining, just to using) which is causing the confusion, isn't it? I can tell you what I mean when I use the term "money" but it doesn't matter, because you still hear "folded paper and coins" even if I make it clear that's not what I mean.

The term "money" as I use it has not meant physical currency, it has meant "monetary accounting unit." Which, more and more, is ceasing to be represented by anything physical, even today.