Star Trek Economy

[Nerys Myk]

even Quark has moments where he puts aside his greed for the greater good.

He's a flawed hero.

So's Scrooge McDuck.

So about, DS9's explanation of Federation economics....

 

[AdmiralBruno]

They explore it more when he visits their homeworld to see his mother and such.


MOOGIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

PLus he has numerous business deals etc.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They explore it more when he visits their homeworld to see his mother and such.


MOOGIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

PLus he has numerous business deals etc.

Why would they explore Federation economics on the Ferengi homeworld?

 

[T'Girl]

The answer to your question is that you build a society where people who have choose give it to those who do not.

More likely some will and some won't

 

[eyeresist]

The Federation's human citizens have an evolved sensibility. They work to better themselves and the rest of humanity, not to escape poverty or gain wealth.

Except in the cases where this does not apply.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The Federation's human citizens have an evolved sensibility. They work to better themselves and the rest of humanity, not to escape poverty or gain wealth.

Except in the cases where this does not apply.

Star Trek canon/continuity in a nutshell.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

I wish this was the world we live in today. I think some of this might have to do with the fact that there is no scarcity for things like food because of replicators.

 

[Autistoid]

seems like there should be a full subforum to deal with this single issue.

 

[Greg Cox]

One of the things I believe about the Federation, is that it has a dizzying number of different types of economic system, governing styles, cultures and societies, what I would reject is the Federation having in some fashion simply one type of economic system from one end to the other.

Each of the Federation's member worlds would have their own internal system, Federation members would have everything from oppressive dysfunctional central planning, all the way through to laissez faire and caveat emptor capitalism.

That's my take on it, too. It would be a mistake to think of the Federation as one big monoculture. Lord knows Earth and Vulcan have very different mating customs, so I imagine various different planets have different economic systems, too.

And once you get out into the "final frontier" . . . well, who knows what kind of system they use on some remote colony or alien world, light-years away from Earth? And we know from TOS that you still have prospectors, mail-order brides, merchants, smugglers, con artists, and others out to make a profit . . ..

 

[robau]

seems like there should be a full subforum to deal with this single issue.

I really would like one that focuses on future earth society.

 

[Nerys Myk]

seems like there should be a full subforum to deal with this single issue.

I really would like one that focuses on future earth society.

In the real world or Star Trek?

 

[Taylirious]

So how exactly do they set things up so that everyone is equal economically? I mean do you seize mansions and such from the uber wealthy and divy it up? This is never really explained.

I don't know where that is supposed to be stated, but I think that that extreme would be inappropriate. Downward-redistributive taxation would be more appropriate, especially if it leaves rich people with plenty of wealth left over, so they don't have very much to whine over.

A high universal basic income would be more appropriate. Everybody would have enough to have what we would consider an upper-middle-class lifestyle. That would require technology advanced enough so that one does not have to work very much to have that standard of living. I say upper-middle-class because some studies show that it should be enough to satiate most people. (Study: Money Buys Happiness When Income Is $75,000 - TIME

People say money doesn't buy happiness. Except, according to a new study from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, it sort of does — up to about $75,000 a year. The lower a person's annual income falls below that benchmark, the unhappier he or she feels. But no matter how much more than $75,000 people make, they don't report any greater degree of happiness.

Here is an alternative to a UBI, or an alternative way of implementing it. Isaac Asimov wrote "The Naked Sun", a novel about the colonists of a planet named Solaria. The Solarians lived in physical isolation from each other, preferring to "view" each other with two-way TV (nobody anticipated generalized data networks like the Internet). Every Solarian lives on a big estate that is tended by robots who provide a comfortable lifestyle for them.

One can do that in a virtual way, by having everybody own stock in manufacturing companies and the like.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnve...will-make-you-happy-hint-its-less-than-75000/

Good news! Apparently, happiness is on sale for the new, low price of $50,000.

So it seems the sweet spot is somewhere between $50,000 and $75,000.

 

[Deleted 69012]

The answer to your question is that you build a society where people who have choose give it to those who do not.

More likely some will and some won't

Cynical assumptions about human morality aside, the culture of Earth in Star Trek is such that most will, and those who do not are fringe elements that can be counted on a few fingers.

There's no reason for someone to sit cloistered in a mansion on a hill while others go homeless. The humans of Star Trek realize this and that realization creates a world free of poverty and want by choice of the masses instead of demanded at gunpoint by a central authority.

It's literally Madison's government by men who are angels; that's Star Trek. It's wide-eyed, it's optimistic, and it's damned challenging to those of us who live in the world today. That's the point of it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The answer to your question is that you build a society where people who have choose give it to those who do not.

More likely some will and some won't

Cynical assumptions about human morality aside, the culture of Earth in Star Trek is such that most will, and those who do not are fringe elements that can be counted on a few fingers.

There's no reason for someone to sit cloistered in a mansion on a hill while others go homeless. The humans of Star Trek realize this and that realization creates a world free of poverty and want by choice of the masses instead of demanded at gunpoint by a central authority.

It's literally Madison's government by men who are angels; that's Star Trek. It's wide-eyed, it's optimistic, and it's damned challenging to those of us who live in the world today. That's the point of it.

There still seems to be war, death and dissatisfaction though. Maybe the angels aren't doing a good job.

 

[Deleted 69012]

Any response would be "No true Scotsman," tbh. I could write an essay on the contrivances necessary to make The Dominion War happen.

Even if we discard external influences, the humans from "Starship Mine," Vash, and...*counts on fingers* every Starfleet Admiral are strong counterpoints to the humanity of the future being the sort of good folks who make a utopia work.

The core flaw of Star Trek is the xenopohbia inherent in the assumption that humans have surpassed our flaws and become better people on a whole; that only leaves aliens to cause problems.

So yeah, the humans of Star Trek are generally good, but they're no angels.

 

[Nerys Myk]

or Boy Scouts.

 

[T'Girl]

Cynical assumptions about human morality aside, the culture of Earth in Star Trek is such that most will, and those who do not are fringe elements that can be counted on a few fingers.

While the show does focus on Starfleet, we have seen examples of people who live in Humanity's civilian society.

I can immediately remember only one adult man who spoke of being unemployed and Picard responded to this information with a small degree of shock and disapproval. We see civilians with jobs of one sort or another, spouses and children might not work, but if the subject is addressed in the dialog, there is a employed "bread winner."

A portion of the "optimistic future" could include a society of near universal employment. This would account for a lack of homelessness and poverty. It's a society where people have the ability to take care of themselves and therefor don't require the guy in the mansion (or the government) to do it for them.

There's no reason for someone to sit cloistered in a mansion on a hill while others go homeless.

Why a "mansion on a hill" as opposed to a humble apartment in the valley, wouldn't the principals be the same? If you were somehow directly responsible for a individual being homeless that might confer upon you a personal obligation for their shelter, but not generally for everyone.

When this subject has come up in the past on the board, I've suggested that a future Earth society could have community shelters as part of a social safety net. But that would not translate to a homeless person being able to walk into any private home of their choosing and taking up residence.

The humans of Star Trek realize this and that realization creates a world free of poverty and want by choice of the masses

Where was the "homeless dude" who lived in Robert Picard's rather large country manor?

instead of demanded at gunpoint by a central authority.

Another good reason to keep people in positions of authority on short leashes.

It's literally Madison's government by men who are angels; that's Star Trek.

But they do have government, so by extension the "men" in the Star Trek universe are in fact not angels.

James Madison: " ... if men were angels, no government would be necessary."

.

 

[eyeresist]

James Madison: " ... if men were angels, no government would be necessary."

A dubious and ill-thought out proposition! Angels are essentially God's slaves...

 

[woodstock]

Perhaps Earth and a few other Federation worlds have a moneyless economy, everyone's basic needs are met through replicators and equitable distribution of land, but the Federation at large uses a monied economy to deal with non-Federation worlds and those Federation worlds that can't or won't go moneyless.

The literature gets into this more, just don't ask me for specific examples.

 

[lpetrich]

I tried to see how Star Trek compares with other SF franchises, so I consulted Sci-Fi franchises - WikiSciFi to get a list of them. It is rather incomplete, however.

Money - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki, New World Economy - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki
Currency - Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki -- lots of them, commonly used
Money - Tardis Data Core, the Doctor Who Wiki -- lots of them, commonly used
Currency - The Firefly and Serenity Database - Joss Whedon -- commonly used
Andromeda Wiki - The New Systems Commonwealth -- several references, no article
Farscape Encyclopedia Project - Peacekeeper Wars, Sci Fi -- several references, no article
Main Page - Battlestar Wiki -- (Battlestar Galactica) several references, no article
Credit - Halo Nation — The Halo encyclopedia - Halo 1, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 4, Halo Wars, ODST, Reach, Anniversary, and much more! -- commonly used
Currency - Discworld & Terry Pratchett Wiki -- commonly used
Pern Wiki -- some references, no article -- commonly used

Print-media science fiction often features various sorts of money (Fictional currency - Wikipedia, List of fictional currencies - Wikipedia), including for Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, the Vorkosigan series, and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series.

So is there any big visual-media or print-media science-fiction series or franchise that lacks money? I couldn't find much on money and Dune, so the Dune series might possibly be one.

Finally, I wish to close with UFO-contactee stories, which I will treat as science-fiction stories with author insertions. The best-known ones are likely those of George Adamski and Billy Meier, and from what I've been able to gather, their 'verses don't have money in them.