History of Star Trek having no "money"

[Lance]

That's a double-edged sword. When the minimum wage gets raised a lot of companies are known to cut the hours of their staff so they won't lose money on paying the new minimum wage. Also, a lot of the time if minimum wage has gone up, so have the prices of everything.

As somebody who lives in a country where the minimum wage is relatively high, certainly when compared to the united states, I can confirm this is the case. Cost of living goes up in accordance with the minimum wage, so the truth is when everything here costs so much more than it does in the USA, then the fact that our minimum wage is higher doesn't really make any difference at all.

But I digress.

 

[WebLurker]

Picard seems to exist in his own little bubble of complacency when it comes to things like money. Any time he wants something, all he has to do is tell the computer, and he gets it. The computer never tells him that he's used up his monthly allotment of cups of tea and he'll have to make do with water, unless someone else uses up part of their replicator allotment to "buy" him a cup of tea.

This is where Voyager's "ship economy" makes more sense. They don't have unlimited amounts of energy available to run the replicators, so everyone is rationed - including Janeway. Anyone "overspending" their rations or gambling it away is left with the basics, plus whatever leola root-based muck Neelix has cooked up that day.

Apples and oranges. The Enterprise D and E operated in and near home space, so they could restock when needed and would be reasonably be expected to have plenty on hand. So, its reasonable that we wouldn't see the crew use up their allotted replicator uses (or over-order, or whatever) or reach the red lines.

Voyager had no home base and was only stocked with what they had with them and anything they could barter for along the way. In those cases, it would make sense to limit replicator use (esp. for non-essentials), that they would have far less supplies on hand than the Enterprises would, and that reaching the limits would be more common.

(Also, for what it's worth, ever since the idea that humans, at least, use a money-less economy was introduced to the franchise, it's been faithfully followed -- and the few instances that don't mesh can either be chalked up to figures of speech, humans choosing to earn actual money wages outside of United Earth's economy, humans interacting with cultures that do use money, or just minor discrepancies that can be considered retcons and be glossed over.)

 

[Arpy]

Picard seems to exist in his own little bubble of complacency when it comes to things like money.

So when a character explicitly says something you don't like, they're living in their own little world? That opens up half of Trek to be reinterpreted by anybody to anything. Whatever thoughts you may have, I can now discredit.

This also doesn't hold water as it's not just Picard but as mentioned, also Jake, Paris, and everyone in the room who didn't disagree -- Jake was talking to Nog I think, Paris to half the VOY command crew, etc.

As somebody who lives in a country where the minimum wage is relatively high, certainly when compared to the united states, I can confirm this is the case. Cost of living goes up in accordance with the minimum wage, so the truth is when everything here costs so much more than it does in the USA, then the fact that our minimum wage is higher doesn't really make any difference at all.

See, this is interesting. What's the min wage in your country and what's the living wage? In the US, the min wage is $7.25, and the living wage is about $15.

Rather than merely being ideological about this, I'd love to see a nonpartisan economist research what the numbers were in other years the min wage was increased and the economic reactions after. Productivity, inflation, welfare, crime, etc. It's easy to be nihilistic about these things, but not helpful.

 

[The Wormhole]

But not as far up as to make the increase unhelpful.

In my experience, it usually is.

 

[Lance]

See, this is interesting. What's the min wage in your country and what's the living wage? In the US, the min wage is $7.25, and the living wage is about $15.

Australia. The minimum hourly wage here is 17.70 per hour, which is about $13 dollars US.

By comparison, you guys make what is equivalent to about $10 an hour in our money.

There's a list on how various Western countries compare to the Australian wage here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-31/minimum-wage-how-does-australia-compare/7461794

I'm not sure what the 'living wage' is here, but I do know anecdotally (and by my own observation in both countries) that there's about a 15-20% difference between the cost of items in the US and the cost of those same items in Australia, once things like the Goods and Services Tax are added to the final price.

Long story short is that while we make more money, it also costs us more to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table. The cost of living keeps pace with the minimum wage, rather than the minimum being raised allowing people to live better.

EDIT: found a 'cost of living' comparison here:

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livi...jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Australia

Again bare in mind those percentages are before the further addition of our 10% goods and services tax. Most everything on that list costs more than the US.

 

[Tenacity]

And why only better Humanity?

Because that's what she knows.

Then why did Jake use the exact same word while talking to Nog?

vulcan and earth for sure do not use currency

A Vulcan preist charged Tuvok money for a meditation lamp. Vulcans have money.

So when a character explicitly says something you don't like, they're living in their own little world?

When numorious characters make multiple statements that money exists and is used inside the Federation during the 24th century, how would you catagorise the very small number of people stating that money doesn't exist?

1) They don't understand what happening around themselves?
2) They're lying.
3) They're giving a incomplete description of the Federations economic structure.
4) They're "bubble boys."

 

[Spot261]

So when a character explicitly says something you don't like, they're living in their own little world? That opens up half of Trek to be reinterpreted by anybody to anything. Whatever thoughts you may have, I can now discredit.

Which is fine, you are stating that statements explicitly made on screen should be taken at face value, regardless of whether they fit with someone's view of how the franchise should work....

It just isnt so easy to reconcile that with much of your earlier inout in the thread, such as:

You as a fan can make the dialogue work by working to make it work, but what they're presenting to you is not something that works at face value.

If you want to choose to ignore reality so that the show can fall ass-backwards to making sense, that is your choice, but it's not fully "logical," commander.

Same issue. We can interpret Khan to mean something other than he does, but that is not his intent. In-universe he's saying, "I saw you [on the bridge, with the rest of those assholes] betraying me," minus the brackets. That's the way it was delivered by the character and presented to us by God (the director).

All cases of you insisting that what we are given at face value is invalid because it doesn't fit with your own perceptions.

You are prepared to accept Picards statement literally as read without giving credence to the overwhelming evidence that some form of currency does in fact exist within the federation, yet Scotty's line about "simple impulse" in reference to a FTL ship is to be disregarded because it doesn't fit with YOUR interpretation of the context and the fictional technologies he is written as an expert in.

You are taking one literal onscreen statement as trumping a positive "there is money - we've seen it many times", but rejecting another in favour of a negative "we've not seen imulse power used to refer to FTL before", which is simply poor debating.

You are trying to shift the weighting of evidence to suit your case as suits and thus arguing yourself into a corner in ways that the majority seem to be grasping better than you do yourself. Hence the rearguard agianst a consensus of people trying to explain this.

 

[soornge]

So when a character explicitly says something you don't like, they're living in their own little world? That opens up half of Trek to be reinterpreted by anybody to anything. Whatever thoughts you may have, I can now discredit.

This also doesn't hold water as it's not just Picard but as mentioned, also Jake, Paris, and everyone in the room who didn't disagree -- Jake was talking to Nog I think, Paris to half the VOY command crew, etc.

See, this is interesting. What's the min wage in your country and what's the living wage? In the US, the min wage is $7.25, and the living wage is about $15.

Rather than merely being ideological about this, I'd love to see a nonpartisan economist research what the numbers were in other years the min wage was increased and the economic reactions after. Productivity, inflation, welfare, crime, etc. It's easy to be nihilistic about these things, but not helpful.

there are many piblications from thenus governments and ngo whats the worst part is minimum wage is based on a calculation of food from pre depression era when the cost of food was something 65 percent of busget . alsi minimum wage doesnt include things like mandatory auto insurance or even a car since both ate luxury items even though all employers tequire u to have transportation to work and public transportation is for ot in any city under 175000 i live in a place with barely 185000 and it lierally takes you 3 hours to go five miles by bus : minimum wage is gunk and the idea that increasing it would hirt small business is a joke because any one with less than so many employees is even tequired to pay it. not only that but most states have a high min than the federal wage because the minimum wage is not enough to live on but enough to keep you from getting federal benefit so its better to be unemployed it has always been a rule that the law does no apply to the rich or the poor only the middle class that even as far back as the romans you need a strong middle class to secure growth , its the inly peopme that have skin in the game :

 

[Arpy]

Then why did Jake use the exact same word while talking to Nog?

2 reasons:

1. Because that was the DS9 writers mocking Trek’s utopianism. They also mocked Picard’s “The line must be drawn here,” line memorably with Quark. Also Sisko’s “it’s easy to be a saint in paradise” speech. (It isn’t; that’s the point.) Jake used near verbatim Picard’s words so the Ferengi could laugh at the Federation economy. Thing is though, right from the start with Crusher’s credit account, Federation citizens should have money accounts for just those kinds of situations. How did the DS9 crew buy anything at Quark’s without money? Did they moonlight as dishwashers when they weren’t conducting research?
2. Trek is human-o-centric. They’ll often refer to one’s humanity when they’re actually referring to personhood or sentience. Again, lazy writing. DS9 didn’t try to figure out a way to refer to all Federation citizens any better.

So when a character explicitly says something you don't like, they're living in their own little world?

When numorious characters make multiple statements that money exists and is used inside the Federation during the 24th century, how would you catagorise the very small number of people stating that money doesn't exist?

Because the weight of evidence isn’t that lopsided. The evidence against money is explicit and clear. The evidence for is suggestive of complexities, some of which are necessary (foreign commerce, charge accounts) but don’t negate the against.

1) They don't understand what happening around themselves?

Ridiculous. Paris was committed to a prison, not an asylum.

2) They're lying.

THEY’RE NOT LYING YOURE LYING, YOU LYING LIAR!!!111!1! Again, he's clearly not.

3) They're giving a incomplete description of the Federations economic structure.

Correct: they didn’t mention the foreign credit accounts. Because there’s little time to explain it to Lily in a den of Borg, and everyone one DS9 and Voyager already know about them.

4) They're "bubble boys."

What’s more likely: “bubble boys” are commanding the Federation flagship, and Voyager, and on DS9, or this is a piss poor attempt to discredit the reality around you?


EDIT: Spot261, I’m sorry that we are unable to understand each other eye-to-eye re Khan or impulse, but I’m not going to go over them again with you.

There are clear reasons for no money and explanations for references to. The only reasons against money are character attacks, against *explicit* dialogue from *three* television series and one to two *movies,* as well as difficulty allowing for a difference future economic system than ones we are familiar with. That there are three or four of you being loud about your opinions in this thread against my and others’ positions means little. And I think I’ve done a pretty good job with some of my replies, YMMV.

 

[eyeresist]

The point of the DS9 conversation, though, is that a Starfleet career doesn't mesh with Ferengi ethics. If officers were paid, the problem wouldn't exist.

I think we'd need to finesse this by talking about the Ferengi concept of "profit". I think this word refers specifically to money made by buying and selling goods. Quark makes a profit, but I'd say Rom, his employee, doesn't, at least not in a way that a Ferengi would think dignified the word. Nog will be merely an employee of Starfleet, and he won't even be able to say he is receiving a share of any profits received by the enterprise.

In FC, when Lily asked Picard if people got paid, Picard never said yes or no, he changed the subject. That "the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives," doesn't mean Picard himself doesn't receive a salary every month.

You are right, he evades the question, which means the only direct evidence for "no money" that one DS9 ep in which Nog says "...your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favour of some philosophy of self-enhancement." I think that's a blip. I mean, how do Starfleet officers buy drinks at Quark's? If there's no money, then the only answer I can think of is Starfleet says "You can run your bar here [does that mean they claim "ownership" of DS9?], and we all drink for free."

I think that, as has been said elsewhere, Earth has a genuine post-scarcity economy, which has led to a radically different way of looking at money.

 

[Tenacity]

How did the DS9 crew buy anything at Quark’s without money?

One of the set decorations on the sound stage where the "Quark's Bar" was, was a mock ATM machine. It got moved around a lot. One of the buttons was labeled credits.

If the system I suspect is in place, the the food and drink served at Quarks to Starfleet and their dependent is charged to people's financial accounts, Quark would likely have a business account the funds would be transferred to. I think it reasonable that Quark would need to have a way of making long distant payments without having to physically ship GPL to suppliers.

Or, Starfleet eats and drinks for free, this is in exchange for Quark not paying rent. Which means that Quark from a certain way of looking at it is in fact paying rent.

3) They're giving a incomplete description of the Federations economic structure.

Correct: they didn’t mention the foreign credit accounts. Because there’s little time to explain it to Lily in a den of Borg, and everyone one DS9 and Voyager already know about them.

But what you said doesn't go far enough, because it doesn't account for the observed use of money within the Federation, by people whose planets are Federation members.

That's the trick, both Picard (and others) statements that the money is gone has to exist side by side with money still being there. This is where the "incomplete description of the Federations economic structure" comes in. Because if both are equally true, then something is going on beyond simply "there's no money," or "they only use it with outsiders."

Paris said money disappeared in the late 22nd century, he clearly use the word/term money. Then in the mid 23rd century money use is repeatedly referred to. One possibility is that the non-existence of money wasn't working the way society theorized it would and money was reintroduced.

Another possibility is that Paris's use of the word money had a special meaning that wasn't all inclusive.

If Paris solely meant money in the physical sense disappeared, this would establish a particular meaning of the word "money" that other 24th century Star Trek characters could also be employing.

This would allow Picard to make a purchase while on vacation, and still honestly being able to state money no longer exists.

Monetary value that exists solely as electronic financial record-keeping in the Star Trek universe is not thought of as "money."

When Riker encountered the piano player he could have had money in his financial account, but not "money" on his person.

I'll admit that this theory isn't perfect, but it will work with the majority of the cases of money being mentioned.

 

[Spot261]

EDIT: Spot261, I’m sorry that we are unable to understand each other eye-to-eye re Khan or impulse, but I’m not going to go over them again with you.

The point isnt about the khan or impulse questions per se, but about the terms of debate being inconsistent.

My case here is that you seem to be shifting the weighting of evidence frequently to suit whatever point you are currently making.

However, my previous post was somewhat unnecessarily scathing in tone and I do apologise and applaud your measured response. I considered deleting it but i'd rather people have a clear idea what you had responded to.

Back to the money...

From a literal stance, Picards statement does not stand up at all. He states in the 24th century money does not exist. This is simply untrue, as "money" is regularly used in dealings external to the federation and in dealings between the fed, it's citizens and outside parties. Thus we already have to modify his statement to something like "money does not get used between federation citizens". However even this does not really reflect what I feel the balance of evidence shows.

I prefer to put this "no money" theory in with the "starfleet is not a military" box, in that it clearly does not work unless we adjust our perceptions of the terms used. Starfleet is almost perfectly analogous to the Hornblower era Royal Navy in its ethos and practise, it was based on it in point of fact. No one would rerasonably question whether the Royal Navy was a military organisation unless the definition of the term "military" was drastically tightened almost beyond modern recognition. If starfleet were to exist in modern times, there should be little doubt it would be classed as a military based on exactly the sort of activities portrayed onscreen. Thus when various characters say "starfleet is not the military" they mean something rather different to our modern interpretation.

The same applies here, money as a loose term for "exchange medium" as we know it has clearly become an antiquated concept. My case would be similar to tenacity's in that we must consider that what Picard means by money may be a very specific concept, much as his concept of military does not apply to organisations where ours almost certainly would. His concept of money need not tally all that neatly with ours.

This is far from an unreasonable tenet given the time frames involved. The meaning and usage of words can change almost beyond recognition in a matter of a few decades, several centuries males some semantic shifts almost inevitable.

We now find ourselves shifting the goalposts further from the original statement:

"money does not exist in the 24th century"

became

"money does not get used between federation citizens"

which in turn becomes

"money as you understand the word does not get used between federation citizens"

A noticeable jump but it sits far more comfortably with what we see on screen and allows for the fact Picard did not have time to give Lily an extensive history or economics lesson. He gave her a vastly abridged version for expediency.

 

[Nyotarules]

'Picard- Money does not exist.'
Did he steal that sex toy on Risa or what? Maybe they are free?
Vash - she wanted to sell the Tox Utot for profit. Picard never did ask her how that was going to happen since money does not exist. Or he was too busy figuring out a new Picard maneuver to get her knickers off.

 

[Nyotarules]

I know the novels are not canon but in the novel 'Prime Directive' - Kirk works his way across the galaxy for credits to get to a certain planet. At least some writers realise the 'no money/everything is free' Federation does not hold up

 

[The Wormhole]

At least some writers realise the 'no money/everything is free' Federation does not hold up

According to Ron Moore, everyone on TNG's writing staff realized this, but were required to adhere to it anyway because Gene said so.

 

[Tenacity]

Did he steal that sex toy on Risa

He said he purchased it, but what the hell does Picard mean when he uses the word purchase?

 

[The Wormhole]

He said he purchased it, but what the hell does Picard mean when he uses the word purchase?

He signed a form which said "this Hor'gahn now belongs to Jean-Luc Picard."

 

[WebLurker]

He said he purchased it, but what the hell does Picard mean when he uses the word purchase?

I think the money "problem" can be broken down into three questions (and note that I'm using money to refer to both physical currency and digital banking; trying to argue that there's a difference is splitting hairs):

1. Do humans (or at least the United Earth gov.)use money?
2. Does Starfleet use money/pay their officers/crew members/other employees with money?
3. Does the Federation use money of any kind?

In answers, I think we get this:

1. No, we have had repeated references to money no longer being needed to live and that Earth has adopted a money-less economy. (That doesn't bar specific humans from earning money or using it, though. I'd even argue that individuals living on Earth could make personal transactions involving money, if they wished.)

2. First Contact specifically implies that it doesn't, although there clearly are ways for Starfleet officers to access funds when needed

3. Unknown. There are references to specific Federation worlds still using money (like the Risa case here), but we have no information if the Federation has an official currency.

(Note: The show has evolved over the years, so there are some inconsistencies, but, looking at the big picture, what makes the most sense and has been the most consistently followed?)

 

[Tallguy]

(Note: The show has evolved over the years, so there are some inconsistencies, but, looking at the big picture, what makes the most sense and has been the most consistently followed?)

All of the inconsistencies and evolution are post TOS.

Somewhere in the 24th century they abandoned money and adopted a new warp scale.

 

[WebLurker]

All of the inconsistencies and evolution are post TOS.

Somewhere in the 24th century they abandoned money and adopted a new warp scale.

Warp scale yes ("First Flight" [ENT] even specifically establishes that the TOS scale was used during the show), but the money was established to be pre-TOS, maybe even pre-ENT. Of all the money references in TOS, only one or two I can recall can't be reconciled with this set-up, so I don't see the problem in glossing over them.