Sorry, not my question. And I prefer the mountains.
Trekonomics - soon to be released
- Thread starter TheGoodNews
- Start date
But where do we ever see no need to work? The civilians we see have employment, couples have one (or both) employed.
The option to not do anything doesn't seem to exist in the future.
In my opinion the econ of Trek is different from ours in two respects. Concerning output supply, replicators have made ordinary goods like food and clothing virtually costless. But luxury items and starships are still anything but scarce. This is solved via building spaceships collectively and on the demand side most people simply do not yearn for luxury items anymore.
So it is a mixture of technological and social progress.
Concerning labour supply, from our perspective it does indeed not make sense to work in the world of Trek. But as Aristoteles said: "The happy life is thought to be one of excellence; now an excellent life requires exertion, and does not consist in amusement."
We all have hobbies that require intellectual or physical effort. Suppose you like cooking. In the world of Trek you'd simply end up as Joseph Sisko.
So it is a mixture of technological and social progress.
Concerning labour supply, from our perspective it does indeed not make sense to work in the world of Trek. But as Aristoteles said: "The happy life is thought to be one of excellence; now an excellent life requires exertion, and does not consist in amusement."
We all have hobbies that require intellectual or physical effort. Suppose you like cooking. In the world of Trek you'd simply end up as Joseph Sisko.
In theory, we are talking about an economic system that is more advanced than we know. Its concepts could be so alien to us that we cannot fully comprehend them with our present knowledge of economics. It makes for discussions on the socio-political economic system very difficult, since we don't know how it works, what it is based on, nor how wide spread it is within even Federation Space.
All we have are dialogue points given by various writers over the course of 18 years that don't always line up, combined with fragmentary bits that may or may not be related from material from the 1960s and the new films and comics. And some of the dialogue point contradict each other when not focused on the themes of the economic and social developments of the 24th century. Most of the heaviest contradictions are lines in passing dealing with the purchase of items or dealings with non-Federation worlds. That other times the notions are brought back up with emphasis as it matters to the plot points or social message of the day.
The book might weave though all that. It might not.
All we have are dialogue points given by various writers over the course of 18 years that don't always line up, combined with fragmentary bits that may or may not be related from material from the 1960s and the new films and comics. And some of the dialogue point contradict each other when not focused on the themes of the economic and social developments of the 24th century. Most of the heaviest contradictions are lines in passing dealing with the purchase of items or dealings with non-Federation worlds. That other times the notions are brought back up with emphasis as it matters to the plot points or social message of the day.
The book might weave though all that. It might not.
The writer's name is Manu Saadia (at least according to the cover and the WaPo article) not Manu Saadi as TT mistakenly writes it.
https://files.producthunt.com/d22a8c29-443a-4e35-8c3e-f27dca53c958?x=280&y=420 <--- Cover
https://files.producthunt.com/d22a8c29-443a-4e35-8c3e-f27dca53c958?x=280&y=420 <--- Cover
Indeed. So what happens when people try it?
As for the need to work: It will always exist. Whether one works to make money and support their family, or just to keep from being bored to death, the need is still there.
So will the proposed book be funded by 24th century economics or 21st century economics? 
Off to the dilithium mines with them.
^ Perhaps anyone who refuses to work will have their replicator priviliges revoked.
Societal ostracism?
If you got no job, you got no paycheck. Power company kills your power and the bank repossesses your replicator, landlord throw you intp the street.
Down to the shelter you go.
How can we be so sure, though? We really have no idea of who, actually, gets to use a replicator (can literally anybody who wants one, get one? And if so, how do they do that?), what conditions they must satisfy to continue to be allowed to use one, who ultimately controls replicator access, etc.
About the only thing we've really heard on this point is those who refuse to use replicators, such as Picard's family. Robert Picard would not allow replicators in his home and on his property. So it would seem that people are free to NOT use replicators, but we don't know who is free TO use them.
And following on from that, it is theoretically possible that the Federation government really does control replicator privileges, and could set conditions which would be required for their use.
Just spitballin'.
About the only thing we've really heard on this point is those who refuse to use replicators, such as Picard's family. Robert Picard would not allow replicators in his home and on his property. So it would seem that people are free to NOT use replicators, but we don't know who is free TO use them.
And following on from that, it is theoretically possible that the Federation government really does control replicator privileges, and could set conditions which would be required for their use.
Just spitballin'.
Mark Knopfler knows what he did.
The operative word is "need" as opposed to choosing to engage in meaningful, constructive activity which is what people like to do. Think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs if you want a simple illustration. Or the idea that the dramatic separation between work and leisure that exist in our world might be transcended in a different paradigm where poverty no longer exist and people are no longer forced to sell their labor or become wage/debt slaves just to get by.
As for who gets to use the replicator? Suppose it was part of the open commons.
In my opinion it is not necessary to regulate replicators because people do not desire luxury items anymore so they will not abuse their replicator privileges. It is a world without conspicuous consumption.
But even if replicator usage were regulated, the end result would be identical. All basic needs are provided for at relatively cheap costs.
The feedback effects upon labour are identical in both scenarios as well: people do the work they want to do. It is no coincidence that the two non-Starfleet professions (did I miss any?=) we see in Trek are food-related, cook and vine-grower. It means that replicators are great machines but they cannot substitute good food and good wine and humankind still cares about that.
If peoples no longer desire luxury items then why do tailors exist?
In which case, there are those who get to enjoy succulent, delicious real food while the proles have to make do with their replicated goop. Would this not cause resentment?
Besides, I thought you said people no longer desire luxury items.
Point?
The only tailor we saw was a Cardassian exile that was working on a Bajorian owned station outside Federation space on what Starfleet called the "wild" Frontier.
As for food and wine. Either those are things the replicator can't handle, or some people just like doing those things still by the 24th century, so there will also people that will enjoy consuming said items. But are they a luxury or a hobby? They way the individuals we see that work vineyards or cooks seem to truly enjoy what they do, so I'd say these are hobbies.
The only tailor we saw was a Cardassian exile that was working on a Bajorian owned station outside Federation space on what Starfleet called the "wild" Frontier.
As for food and wine. Either those are things the replicator can't handle, or some people just like doing those things still by the 24th century, so there will also people that will enjoy consuming said items. But are they a luxury or a hobby? They way the individuals we see that work vineyards or cooks seem to truly enjoy what they do, so I'd say these are hobbies.
A tailor who has human and Federation customers. So why are people who are apparently content with replicated clothing also getting tailored clothes?
Why bother with such luxury?
So why are one group of Federation people (the Picards) spending their lives making wine for fun while other Federation people (Ezri's family) are spending their lives running a mining plant for profit?
Does the Federation only allow Earth citizens to enjoy doing things for fun?
That's my point.
Well that is something that wasn't actually addressed. It is Federation economic or Earth's economics that has no currency by the mid-24th century?
We are trying to imagine an gigantic mix of economic systems from dozens to hundreds of worlds and cram them into the United Federation of Planets. The scale of it should and probably is out of our grasp to comprehend in economic theories. Not only would some other cultures have come up with completely different systems of economics, but several of them would use different base mathematics than Earth. Not Base 10 Decimal systems even.
We are trying to imagine an gigantic mix of economic systems from dozens to hundreds of worlds and cram them into the United Federation of Planets. The scale of it should and probably is out of our grasp to comprehend in economic theories. Not only would some other cultures have come up with completely different systems of economics, but several of them would use different base mathematics than Earth. Not Base 10 Decimal systems even.
Similar threads
