I think Ezri's company was outside of Fed space.
Money in the Federation - let's try and settle this!!
- Thread starter Lazarus
- Start date
And then Scotty bought a boat...
Pretty much. A more accurate statement is that nearly infinite supply drives value so low that attempting to collect payment, and to account for payments/profit, for many items is more of a hassle than its worth. It's like asking a restaurant for a glass of water, they generally aren't going to bother starting a tab. Once you stop charging for 99% of products, it's less of a stretch for people to stop charging for things altogether.
If scarcity is the defining issue for the existence of money, it's logical that everything that can be produced without cost (i.e. replicated) will be for free, as well as public services, education, healthcare...
But wouldn't that make those things that cannot be replicated extremely valuable and therefore expensive? I don't mean that it has to be technically impossible to replicate, only that people would be willing to pay for something unique, something original. I can buy a van Gogh calendar for 20 €, but that's not the same as having a real van Gogh hanging on my wall.
So, meat from real animals, as well as any "real" food with the unique taste and texture it got from being raised or grown in a certain environment, in a certain climate and season, would be rare and therefore valuable. The same goes for works of art, or or anything handmade.
And what about intellectual property? If I invent something, or come up with a better way to do something, or if I come up with a new design for something, am I expected to "donate" it or can I demand money for it?
But wouldn't that make those things that cannot be replicated extremely valuable and therefore expensive? I don't mean that it has to be technically impossible to replicate, only that people would be willing to pay for something unique, something original. I can buy a van Gogh calendar for 20 €, but that's not the same as having a real van Gogh hanging on my wall.
So, meat from real animals, as well as any "real" food with the unique taste and texture it got from being raised or grown in a certain environment, in a certain climate and season, would be rare and therefore valuable. The same goes for works of art, or or anything handmade.
And what about intellectual property? If I invent something, or come up with a better way to do something, or if I come up with a new design for something, am I expected to "donate" it or can I demand money for it?
Crusher had the bolt credited to her account because even among people who use physical currency (like us today) have a credit system.
Maybe a way of looking at money in the Federation is voting rights. Here in the US, everyone has them, they're inalienable, and they're fundamental to our system of governance whether you use them or not, or for every election (presidential on down to your local municipal courts).
A dollar is an accounting unit, and some areas of life may still need accounting units, but to think money is anything like what we use at the local convenience store is misunderstanding the future economy. Anymore than you could use a million shares of Microsoft to bribe Grob, the alpha male of your local cave 30,000 BC. Now if you had a peach and a burning branch with which to defend your ability to keep it from him...
Maybe a way of looking at money in the Federation is voting rights. Here in the US, everyone has them, they're inalienable, and they're fundamental to our system of governance whether you use them or not, or for every election (presidential on down to your local municipal courts).
A dollar is an accounting unit, and some areas of life may still need accounting units, but to think money is anything like what we use at the local convenience store is misunderstanding the future economy. Anymore than you could use a million shares of Microsoft to bribe Grob, the alpha male of your local cave 30,000 BC. Now if you had a peach and a burning branch with which to defend your ability to keep it from him...
Why should you have a van Gogh painting on your wall? That isn't a very efficient use of a finite resource (van Goghs), as you and your friends are the only ones that get to enjoy it. Cost and money is used to justify absurd selfishness, but it is not a desirable outcome of any economy.
However, you do raise the excellent question of how does one go about providing a scarce resource without money. The answer can be found in the numerous situations where demand outstrips supply regardless of pricepoint. The most simple solution has therefore already been invented: the line, or its fancier cousin the waitlist. That will take care of any supply shortages for nonessential, but renewable items like microbrew beer, or free range beef. If you don't like to wait, get the replicated material, it's physically the same, only your perception is different and that has a premium that will cost you time instead of money.
For critical or strategic resources, those will have to be doled out communist style. No way around it. You want trilithium for your experiment Dr. Soran? Write a proposal on why you need it more than the next guy. This, arguably, is not the most efficient way of spreading rare resources. However, no system will be perfectly efficient. Even today, rare commodities goes to those that have the most money, with the not always correct assumption that they need it the most. Nevermind commodity speculators, which only recently drove gas up to $4 a gallon when actual supply and consumption justified no more than $3.
Strategic resource management would require a massive bureaucracy (and considerable oversight and rotation of staff to prevent favoritism), and no doubt would be the most pervasive arm of the Federation for civilians. Then again, most private citizens would rarely, if ever, need to submit a request to them. Compare that to filing IRS forms every year or quarter. Not perfect, no system really is, but it's workable.
Getting back to the van Gogh, wanting the original on your wall is exactly the same kind of vanity that would be frowned upon by society. (See Post #14 for more) It's shameless materialism for its own sake. If you like van Gogh, and want to wake up every morning and study his technique, get a replica.
You could try and get money for your idea, but it wouldn't get you anything. Recall that money is, at its most basic, the realization of the abstract idea of status. High status today means you get a greater share of the populations resources, which for medium of exchange purposes is a wad of cash. Conversely, people at the bottom of the ladder get a minuscule piece of the pie, pretty much in the form of food for subsitance. Given infinite supply, even a hobo's tiny proportion has grown into excessive potential.
However, status still exists. You invent to gain recognition, and perhaps the ability to get a ration of the few scarce resources in existence to further your studies. What you go home to is irrelavent, since your status doesn't mean that Hobo Joe across the street has enough resources to live in a house as nice as yours.
Yeah. I mean, are you going to argue that it shouldn't be legal for someone to own a work of art in their own home? On what basis could you make a legal distinction between a painting by van Gogh and a painting by your toddler if you start banning private ownership of van Gogh?
And if you're dolling things out or deciding who can or cannot own what works of art, all in the name of "equality," at exactly what point does the desire for economic equality ceased to be balanced by the need to preserve individual liberty? 'Cause that kind of system is no longer preserving liberty; it's deeply tyrannical.
Not true. Janeway once spoke of a time she went to buy something from a Vulcan merchant, who upped the price (can't remember of what) from X credits to Y credits when he found out she was Starfleet.
It's art - it's useless by definition.
That's exactly the point - exclusiveness. Why do you think all those Russian billionaires buy all the art they can get?
That's a very rational way to look at it, and while I agree (and don't yearn for an original van Gogh), I really, really doubt that human nature can ever change, let alone in only 300 years.
People are concerned with their status, because we are social animals and when animals are organised in a group, you always have a hierarchy, because otherwise the group can't function. And since resouces have been scarce since the dawn of time, access to and possession of material things are a means of expressing your status. I think that's hard-wired into us, and nothing Picard said will convince me otherwise. And I don't think the personal items in our heroes' quarters were replicated.
(Come to think of it, in Kirk's time they didn't have replicators at all; weren't they transporting grain in the Tribbles episode? And in Devil in the Dark the Horta attacked miners. So at least in the 23rd century you had to produce or dig for raw material the old fashioned way. And they had a credit system... so this "we don't have any money at all" seems to be a rather new experiment).
Infinite supply only means that you can't use replicated mass product as status symbols. But rare, hand-crafted or otherwise unique items can still function as such. And voila, you have demand!
So if I invent something, I get privileges? Privileges that the plumber won't get? So we're assigning more value to the invention of the new transwarp than the fixing of the plumbing? How do you quantify the difference? With money?
[
Nope. My arguement is that you wouldn't need to. Nobody would want one because it's shamefully materialistic. Firthermore, you aren't considering other aspects of Trek Tech. Like the ability to create perfect forgeries. If you try to sell or even donate your legit van Gogh, there is no guarantee that it's the real deal. All anyone has is your word that it is. Therefore your "valuable" painting has much less worth than you thought it did. Then again, how would you know your painting is the original one when you acquire it.
As for the question of how does one exchange rare, irreplacable, and unessential artifacts like a painting, I have no good answer. The most efficent owner of a rare van Gogh is a museum, that way you maximize the number of people that get to experience it. An individual collector is not efficient, so I have no problem with the Trekonomy making his effort much more difficult. As for the technical question of who has right to a piece of art, the original artist owns his painting and can give or trade it to anyone. As for who owns the hypothetical van Gogh, it would be whoever did whenever money was abolished (more accurately, disregarded). This individual can either keep it, give it away, trade it for another item or piece of art, or will it away upon his death.
Nope. My arguement is that you wouldn't need to. Nobody would want one because it's shamefully materialistic. Firthermore, you aren't considering other aspects of Trek Tech. Like the ability to create perfect forgeries. If you try to sell or even donate your legit van Gogh, there is no guarantee that it's the real deal. All anyone has is your word that it is. Therefore your "valuable" painting has much less worth than you thought it did. Then again, how would you know your painting is the original one when you acquire it.
As for the question of how does one exchange rare, irreplacable, and unessential artifacts like a painting, I have no good answer. The most efficent owner of a rare van Gogh is a museum, that way you maximize the number of people that get to experience it. An individual collector is not efficient, so I have no problem with the Trekonomy making his effort much more difficult. As for the technical question of who has right to a piece of art, the original artist owns his painting and can give or trade it to anyone. As for who owns the hypothetical van Gogh, it would be whoever did whenever money was abolished (more accurately, disregarded). This individual can either keep it, give it away, trade it for another item or piece of art, or will it away upon his death.
We could make perfect forgeries of many unique-thus-valuable objects today. How do the fine folk who paid large amounts of money for Trek props in the Christie's auction really know they got the real deal? Also, are they 'shamefully materialistic' for buying them?
And remember, people have the right to be materialistic. I'm not saying they *should* be, but you can't take away their right to own art.
Speaking of rare items, in that one episode, Picard receives an artifact from his mentor. It's interesting that the archeologist owned it and was able to do with it as he pleased.
Well, on the one hand you seem to think humanity will be so evolved that materialism will be frowned upon,
on the other hand, you write in # 66:
so you think people won't be above such base character traits.
Communism was based on the premise that materialism is the source of inequality. It tried to spread resources justly, utilizing the methods you mentioned, waiting in (endless) lines, or being on a waiting list (for forever). It had that massive bureaucracy, and it was infested with favoritism.
In short, it didn't work - not because it was technically impossible, but because it didn't take into account human nature.
on the other hand, you write in # 66:
so you think people won't be above such base character traits.
Communism was based on the premise that materialism is the source of inequality. It tried to spread resources justly, utilizing the methods you mentioned, waiting in (endless) lines, or being on a waiting list (for forever). It had that massive bureaucracy, and it was infested with favoritism.
In short, it didn't work - not because it was technically impossible, but because it didn't take into account human nature.
Right, because it's completely plausible that people will ever hold a uniformity of opinion on an issue that harms no one.
Replicators can't even get basic foods to taste right. I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that they'd be able to make perfect forgeries of artistic masterpieces.
Actually, that would just drive up the price for any painting that could be verified to be the real deal. After all, everyone and their uncle in Brazil has a replicator copy -- but a painting that can be verified as legit would be inherently rarer and therefore more valuable to the people who care about such things.
There is a such thing as a chain of custody, y'know.
Incorrect.
The direct quote is the following:
'Ah, Tuvok's meditation lamp. I was with him when he got it. Of course, he doubled the price once he saw we were SF officers'.
The 'doubling of price' may refer to doubling the amount of resources they had to exchange during a trade agreement ... not the currency or money itself.
Again, she could have merely used this as an antiquated expression for trade. The Vulcan master decided to double the value of the lamp, and then request 4 rare books that Tuvok had in his collection, in exchange for just 2 (I'm only providing an example how 'value' can be added to a simple trade without having to utilize money in any capacity).
Furthemore, the merchant in question could have decided to do his 'business' completely apart from the Federation and create a currency based system because it seemed logical to him since numerous other cultures outside the UFP were operating in this capacity, and he preferred living outside of the UFP system.
Quite a simple explanation.
Janeway also mentioned in one of the episodes (where Torres was prosecuted for creating a fleeting violent thought that was extracted from a telepath for the purpose of distribution in the black market that ultimately resulted in deaths of others) that she was distracted while buying something from another merchant because she's not used to coins or dealing with currency of any kind.
Money or currency based system/economy not existing within the UFP is plausible, and has been explained as such on numerous occasions openly by multiple characters.
SF officers would have to resort to capitalist based system when dealing with those outside the UFP ... but not internally.
And individuals of races already in UFP exist outside the UFP itself and live in a completely different way.
What you think that ALL Vulcans and ALL Humans would live in the UFP?
We know this is not the case.
You know that money was invented because barter like you described was clumsy and impractical. Now we are to believe that the oh-so-progressive 24th century UFP returned to this primitive system - why? Because materialism is the new sin?
Unconvincing.
It has been stated that they don't use money, but not how this is supposed to work on a practical, day-to-day level. And I still don't see how it could work, at least not universally. And why it should be plausible, just because the characters say it is so.
And how can those two systems coexist within the same organisation?
By itself saying "We don't use money" doesn't mean much. Money is just a tool to facilitate trade or exchange of goods. Does it mean trade or exchange of goods is done another way or does it mean they don't do any kind of exhange at all?
It's like if I say "We don't use sails to power ships anymore", does that mean another method of powering ships is used or does it mean we don't use ships at all?
Robert
It's like if I say "We don't use sails to power ships anymore", does that mean another method of powering ships is used or does it mean we don't use ships at all?
Robert
Could a race from outside the federation, a race that still uses a monetary systen, stop at federation world and load their ship up with "free" trade goods, travel to a planet outside the federation and sell these items? This would give them a substantial advantage over a race that possesed no access to a federation world and all that no-cost stuff.
How far does it go, if you (or anyone) wants a large mansion on a cliff overlooking the ocean, do you just get one?
No, you don't need it, just want it. At least you want it this week.
Who decides which person get what property? Those big towers we see in San Fransisco, do I live in the penthouse, or do you?
This statement is wrong on so many levels. Art is useless?
Similar threads
