Well, he does say he purchased a horga'hn. So the question would be if 'purchase' implies paying money (or credits in any form) for it.
Last edited:
Here is how I think the federation works without needing money.
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
Well, he does say he purchased a horga'hn. So the question would be if 'purchase' implies paying money (or credits in any form) for it.
That purchase is the one I was thinking of.
If you write down all the mentions and examples of money use in one collumn, and all the don't use money in a second collumn, the examples of money use inside the Federation by people from inside the Federation far out number the small number of don't use money mentions.
For Tuvok to pretended to pay twice as money to another Vulcan for a meditation lamp, just doesn't make sense (at least to me). Why would two Vulcans do something like that?
Why would James Kirk say he sold his house if all he was doing was giving it to someone (or surrendering it to a government agency)?
Why would a piano player on a Federation member planet even want tips?
If you write down all the mentions and examples of money use in one collumn, and all the don't use money in a second collumn, the examples of money use inside the Federation by people from inside the Federation far out number the small number of don't use money mentions.
For Tuvok to pretended to pay twice as money to another Vulcan for a meditation lamp, just doesn't make sense (at least to me). Why would two Vulcans do something like that?
Why would James Kirk say he sold his house if all he was doing was giving it to someone (or surrendering it to a government agency)?
Why would a piano player on a Federation member planet even want tips?
Last edited:
In a society that doesn't use currency, the term 'purchase' would likely be colloquially synonymous with the word 'acquire'.
The meditation lamp was implied to be something that was negotiated between two private parties. A 'price' does not inherently imply that currency was involved. It just implies that Tuvok would need to offer something in exchange in order to acquire the meditation lamp.
I could go on, but in summary, there are numerous explicit mentions that the Federation does not use currency based economics within its own borders. Off-hand mentions that might imply the use of money can be easily explained away with colloquialisms that would arise in a society that does not use money.
The meditation lamp was implied to be something that was negotiated between two private parties. A 'price' does not inherently imply that currency was involved. It just implies that Tuvok would need to offer something in exchange in order to acquire the meditation lamp.
I could go on, but in summary, there are numerous explicit mentions that the Federation does not use currency based economics within its own borders. Off-hand mentions that might imply the use of money can be easily explained away with colloquialisms that would arise in a society that does not use money.
So, in your opinion, Federation Citizens rely on barter to make deals with each other?
So if I want to go have a meal at Sisko's, how does that work? Do I have negotiate my barter price before hand or do I just show up with a couple of home grown tomatoes and hope for the best?
Why do the waiters work? (for Sisko, I can understand it. He loves to cook). Where's he getting his ingredients? Are farmers and fisherman just giving it to him, without payment?
If the meals at Sisko's are free, then why aren't there a thousand people lined up around the block at all times?
And let's not forget the Picard family vineyard. Robert refused to allow replicators on his property, so the vineyard must have done without them. How do you think THEY managed?
(I suppose Sisko's could have used replicators, but neither Joseph NOR Ben seemed like the type who would allow it. They may eat from replicators aboard DS9, but not in their own restaurant.)
And let's not forget the Picard family vineyard. Robert refused to allow replicators on his property, so the vineyard must have done without them. How do you think THEY managed?
(I suppose Sisko's could have used replicators, but neither Joseph NOR Ben seemed like the type who would allow it. They may eat from replicators aboard DS9, but not in their own restaurant.)
Last edited:
So for Robert's Vineyard, if money isn't a driving force on Earth, it's POSSIBLE that he trades his end product, bottles of wine for everything. So he "pays" his workers (who love the wine) in wine. He "pays" people to fix his equipment in wine and he "pays" for food for his family in wine.
It's also POSSIBLE that Sisko is trading his services for products to run his restaurant. His staff gets paid in a home cooked organically grown meal. His certainly had no problem putting his family to work.
It's technically possible that the entirety of Earth is ran of the exchange of favors. "You come repair my stove and stay for a my made from scratch Gumbo Stew".
It just seems terribly inefficient over having a monetary system thats based on some form of digital currency.
It's also POSSIBLE that Sisko is trading his services for products to run his restaurant. His staff gets paid in a home cooked organically grown meal. His certainly had no problem putting his family to work.
It's technically possible that the entirety of Earth is ran of the exchange of favors. "You come repair my stove and stay for a my made from scratch Gumbo Stew".
It just seems terribly inefficient over having a monetary system thats based on some form of digital currency.
Indeed. And people would likely go to Sisko's for the service, not necessarily the food. You could have some gumbo at home for free, or you could have gumbo at Sisko's for free. The key variable would be whether or not you wanted the social component of the meal, or if you preferred solitude while you enjoyed your dinner. It's really basically the same as in life today, except that the monetary component is removed.
True, but enough people do that there's got to be some way to control the crowds. When something is free, everyone who wants it can (theoretically) get it, and how do you deal with that?
I mean, it's for DAMN sure that if even a halfway decent real life restaurant just started giving its food away for free, all the time, the throngs of people trying to get in would be off the scale.
And therein lines the problem. What if nobody wants what you have, or nobody has what you want? That's why barter is never an efficient system.
And that's another thing that Sisko would never do: franchising.
No... nobody is paid anything. Material needs are not the driving force in peoples' lives. People work to better themselves and their community. If someone feels that his or her time can be best spent working in a vineyard, or in a restaurant, then that is the occupation they will choose for themselves.
Robert Picard does not produce wine so that he can exchange it for any sort of material good. He does it because he loves it. Material needs are met for every citizen of the Federation. When he gives his wine to another individual, he gives it because he wants that other person to enjoy the wine. Not because he wants something in return for it.
Now I'm imaging that out of the 9 billion people on Earth (as of first contact) the far majority prefer to sit in the apartment and play video games, watch videos and read, having little actual interaction with the rest of the world.
The people we see are the small minority that don't want to be couch potatoes eating replicated food until they die from heart attacks in their apartments at the age of 150.
The people we see are the small minority that don't want to be couch potatoes eating replicated food until they die from heart attacks in their apartments at the age of 150.
Money, of course, isn't the issue. It's the attachment to money.
Any society that does away with money but doesn't away with that deeper desire, only rids itself of a very efficient medium of exchange and hence, shoots itself in the foot.
Any society that can truly rid itself of its attachment to money, it's desire to accumulate wealth, no longer needs to do away with money. It's still there, but it's only an instrument to facilitate transactions in an honest manner, nothing more.
So in both cases, I can think of no good reason why they would actually abolish money.
Any society that does away with money but doesn't away with that deeper desire, only rids itself of a very efficient medium of exchange and hence, shoots itself in the foot.
Any society that can truly rid itself of its attachment to money, it's desire to accumulate wealth, no longer needs to do away with money. It's still there, but it's only an instrument to facilitate transactions in an honest manner, nothing more.
So in both cases, I can think of no good reason why they would actually abolish money.
Picard said that the acquisition of wealth "is no longer a driving force". He didn't say it was no longer ANY force... 
Thats why I had it as "Paid" not paid. People trade their services, "I'll work this backbreaking job if you give me some wine."
