Show me the money!!!!

[rahullak]

The Federation in Star Trek has always been portrayed as a moneyless society. TPTB did not really clarify how Federation credits worked and how goods and services are exchanged. None of the previous shows explained this aspect. Sure, the Ferengis were shown as caricature capitalists, but there was no attempt to show how the Federation monetary system was better than the Ferengi or the capitalist systems of today's reality.

I think this aspect could be explored, or even turned around to not be moneyless in the new show. Perhaps a less than utopia home society.

Will the new show boldly go where no Trek has gone before?

 

[BillJ]

I really don't care if they have money or not.

 

[rahullak]

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Tim Thomason]

The Federation in Star Trek has always been portrayed as a moneyless society. TPTB did not really clarify how Federation credits worked and how goods and services are exchanged. None of the previous shows explained this aspect. Sure, the Ferengis were shown as caricature capitalists, but there was no attempt to show how the Federation monetary system was better than the Ferengi or the capitalist systems of today's reality.

I think this aspect could be explored, or even turned around to not be moneyless in the new show. Perhaps a less than utopia home society.

Will the new show boldly go where no Trek has gone before?

It would be interesting, and actually add something to the conversations about the 23rd and 24th century economies. I'm not sure if the world is ready for Star Trek: Bureau of Economic Affairs just yet, but a "realistic" take of Star Trek, a la DS9, where the characters do in fact alot of trading and spending would be interesting.

Of course, if it's set in the 25th and beyond, or in the alternate 23rd, or prior to the 23rd, it really won't refute any idea of how Picard's society worked.

I agree with BillJ, that they could get away with not commenting on money whatsoever as long as the storyline is good. It seems most likely that they'll avoid it, as they have in the past, with only some oblique references to "we don't have money" with no follow-up.

But I would love, love, love, some way (webisodes?) of showing us a day in the life that hints at how your average joe keeps the lights on or picks up milk or buys a boat or keeps himself from going stir crazy.

 

[Ryan8bit]

They'll never explain the economy for the same reason that they'll never explain exactly how the warp drive works. It's because both are fantasy. They'll skirt the issue just like they always have. I doubt they are going to get that deep into the world building.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

In "First Contact", Picard tells Lily that mankind is no longer driven by the pursuit of wealth. People don't care about money anymore which, in a time when they can get all they want/need instantly from a replicator, makes sense.

The UFP as a political and economic entity will use some for of currency when trading with other races, which takes the form of Federation Credits, which will have their own exchange rate against others (such as quatloos). Its just that the citizens don't need it so don't care about it, so long as the financial system works to keep trade and commerce running smoothly.

That's my take on it. But I'm with BillJ when he says, I don't really care about it either. It isn't that important, so just move on and enjoy stories in a setting where capitalism is dead and socialism rules

 

[Rahul]

Actually, I think the "no money" aspect is one of the most difficult and yet fascinating aspects of Star Trek.

That being said, a writer needs to bee extremely intelligent and sensitive to not f?!% it up! Because of that I rather prefer them don't mentioning it at all, than mentioning it in a bad way.

At it's core, "no money" is the extreme end result of a post-scarcity society. Imagine all the resources of the entire solar system at our disposal, and artificial machines at any point capable of faciliate or create everything that we today would view as luxurious. Imagine a 3d-printer fabric, producing anything you wanted. If you want to own a yacht? Fine. A few robots replicate and build your yacht.

Imagine a society where you can own everything of material wealth. If you want to eat an apple, you can go to a food market, talk to the people there, and just take one.

In a sense, that's a positive picture of humanity: that if we theoretically can own anything, the accumulation of wealth doesn't matter anymore, and we become more humble, and will take only what we really desire.

The relationship between "currency" and personal objects would change. You can own a mansion in the mountains with a few words to a computer, but nothing can replyce the picture your child once painted for you. Objects would need to have a new "value". If they are objects of art, hand created, or historical artifacts.

In this utopian society, the only real currency would be "time". How much of your "time" do you spend learning and improving yourself? You can change your "profession" every day. Or spend your time with family and friends. But to fullfill your dreams and become a Starfleet Captain, you have to "pay" in years of your life for learning and training. Is it worth for you? Or will you take one of the many creative "jobs", and find a usefull occupation. A "job" that is not necessary to "earn" your livings, but keeps you busy and makes you happy?

An economy that is so rich that material wealth is literally meaningless is one of the most outlandish things in Star Trek. But it might be one of the few acctually achievable things. It would be interesting how such an "economy" would actually work. How regularly people would still be employed, just because their "job" is their place in the society, and if you just disappeared without previously notify about your absence/"holiday", people might think of you as unreliable. How is life when everyone is the equivalent of a god-king to the ancient world.

I don't know how to tell a good 45 minute long episode about that, though.

 

[rahullak]

I'd like to think post-scarcity isn't something set in stone for Trek. Not that I'm looking for an exact mirror of today's reality, but I think the new show could benefit and be more gritty than handwave nearly everything through replicators. We've already seen a lot of that, as well as what happens when it breaks down many times.

Maybe they could bring in political pressures. I'm sure a 150 planet Federation would not have everyone thinking the same way. There could be those who would want a return to the wealth incentive. Someone spoke about exploring human condition in another thread. I think one of the most aspects of the human condition is the economy of human civilization and the incentives that make it go around. This could also form a commentary for contemporary real-life issues.

Some form of money could be used as a constraint in story-telling, either for a single-episode, or arc or even as part of the core of the new show.

 

[IndyMac]

The Federation in Star Trek has always been portrayed as a moneyless society. TPTB did not really clarify how Federation credits worked and how goods and services are exchanged. None of the previous shows explained this aspect.

DS9 sort of explained it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx5I7uEEEYo

 

[rahullak]

The Federation in Star Trek has always been portrayed as a moneyless society. TPTB did not really clarify how Federation credits worked and how goods and services are exchanged. None of the previous shows explained this aspect. Sure, the Ferengis were shown as caricature capitalists, but there was no attempt to show how the Federation monetary system was better than the Ferengi or the capitalist systems of today's reality.

I think this aspect could be explored, or even turned around to not be moneyless in the new show. Perhaps a less than utopia home society.

Will the new show boldly go where no Trek has gone before?

It would be interesting, and actually add something to the conversations about the 23rd and 24th century economies. I'm not sure if the world is ready for Star Trek: Bureau of Economic Affairs just yet, but a "realistic" take of Star Trek, a la DS9, where the characters do in fact alot of trading and spending would be interesting.

Of course, if it's set in the 25th and beyond, or in the alternate 23rd, or prior to the 23rd, it really won't refute any idea of how Picard's society worked.

I agree with BillJ, that they could get away with not commenting on money whatsoever as long as the storyline is good. It seems most likely that they'll avoid it, as they have in the past, with only some oblique references to "we don't have money" with no follow-up.

But I would love, love, love, some way (webisodes?) of showing us a day in the life that hints at how your average joe keeps the lights on or picks up milk or buys a boat or keeps himself from going stir crazy.

Well that's the thing isn't it? Your average joe in the current Trek doesn't need to pick up the milk, buy a boat, keep the lights on. Everything is done by replicator and voice command. Joe just has to get one and maybe an industrial one for the bigger stuff.

All the TNG+ shows presented to us the overarching theme that nothing is impossible, that there are almost no constraints in life, everything can be overcome; space, time, and even intransigent aliens.

I believe life makes sense, and stories make sense when there are realistic constraints. We've already seen the constraints of intransigent aliens with equal or superior tech, we've seen tech breakdown and go haywire, war, disease, politics, paranormal beings, omnipotent beings. I gather we haven't seen an episode that talks about a serious resource constraint in the Federation. Voy and Ent had some, but that's because they were far from home.

 

[T'Girl]

The Federation in Star Trek has always been portrayed as a moneyless society.

Always? No, occasionally yes. There have been far more references to money being used, than to there being no money. Take your pick.

I'm sure a 150 planet Federation would not have everyone thinking the same way.

Having the different planets in the Federation possessing different economic systems would be the way I'd like to see it.

In "First Contact", Picard tells Lily that mankind is no longer driven by the pursuit of wealth.

This is the same Picard we see talking to a girl on Risa about recently purchasing a small statue.

I doubt they are going to get that deep into the world building.

Personally, I like world building.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Personally, I like world building.

You and I can be friends then. I love world building. I think it adds something extra when writers go that extra mile to include that kind of thing.

However, I don't expect it. Even Star Trek, particularly TNG, had some great people that worked on this aspect, but it was ignored if it didn't serve the story.

I don't know too much about Kurtzman and how he will run things, but if the new show is anything like the new movies, then they don't really care about world building. It may just be the difference between movies and TV, or the difference between Kurtzman and Abrams/Orci/Lindelof, but I just don't see them getting that deep into things.

 

[rahullak]

The Federation in Star Trek has always been portrayed as a moneyless society.

Always? No, occasionally yes. There have been far more references to money being used, than to there being no money. Take your pick.

I can't recall.

I'm sure a 150 planet Federation would not have everyone thinking the same way.

Having the different planets in the Federation possessing different economic systems would be the way I'd like to see it.

Which would mean different kinds of currency.

In "First Contact", Picard tells Lily that mankind is no longer driven by the pursuit of wealth.

This is the same Picard we see talking to a girl on Risa about recently purchasing a small statue.

Perhaps those things that have religious and cultural associations don't have as much value if they are replicated. Sort of like the difference between real food and replicated fare.

We never were told whether Joseph Sisko got paid for his work at the Creole restaurant, were we?

 

[rahullak]

Personally, I like world building.

I don't know too much about Kurtzman and how he will run things, but if the new show is anything like the new movies, then they don't really care about world building. It may just be the difference between movies and TV, or the difference between Kurtzman and Abrams/Orci/Lindelof, but I just don't see them getting that deep into things.

Well, Star Trek would be the poorer for shallow world building. But there is a big difference between summer blockbuster movies and a TV show that is probably expected to run for a couple of seasons at least.

 

[Ryan8bit]

But how well-built was TOS? And TNG at least seemed like it had depth, but it would contradict itself if necessary to tell a story. Technical manuals or star charts mean nothing to them.

I can't see this being much different in the new show. They'll build enough for what they need, which probably doesn't include much about the economy. They're not going to go to great depths to explain something that's clearly fantasy and couldn't really work.

I think the best they can say in this series is that they have money, but it's not the driving factor in life. It's not something that makes or breaks you. That was the ultimate goal behind the concept anyways, was that it removed a reason for humans to have a lot of conflict. There doesn't need to be zero money for that to happen.

 

[rahullak]

But how well-built was TOS? And TNG at least seemed like it had depth, but it would contradict itself if necessary to tell a story. Technical manuals or star charts mean nothing to them.

I can't see this being much different in the new show. They'll build enough for what they need, which probably doesn't include much about the economy. They're not going to go to great depths to explain something that's clearly fantasy and couldn't really work.

I think the best they can say in this series is that they have money, but it's not the driving factor in life. It's not something that makes or breaks you. That was the ultimate goal behind the concept anyways, was that it removed a reason for humans to have a lot of conflict. There doesn't need to be zero money for that to happen.

It's not the 90s or the early 2000s. If the new show doesn't distinguish itself both from its own predecessors or from the many other sci-fi shows that've come out, viewers are just gonna say "Yet another sci-fi show in space, with aliens and sfx"

Without a unique sandbox and enough world-building to distinguish it, how long do you think it would last?

 

[Ryan8bit]

I don't think the world-building is going to make or break the show really, particularly as it pertains to the economy. There are plenty of successful shows that have basically zero world-building, like The Walking Dead.

Also, I don't know how much the show needs to distinguish itself from other space sci-fi given that there's not really a lot of it currently. Yet crime dramas pop up all the time with very little distinction and people still don't turn away if the characters and plots are good. That is mostly what Star Trek needs. The minutiae isn't important to most viewers.

They'll probably do the minimum amount necessary. For economy, there will be much hand waving. For how things work or why other science doesn't align, same thing. For any other inconsistencies in the world as it was presented before, they will also do that. They will build the things that they truly need, and make up the rest as they go.

 

[rahullak]

My larger point is: have some realistic constraints in the show, some that can't be broken easily, and some that can't be broken at all. So that it stays as sci-fi and doesn't subtly transform into fantasy.

 

[T'Girl]

Star Trek has always had a large measure of fantasy in it's composition.

 

[rahullak]

I hope TPTB target the segments that want more sci-fi, less fantasy.