If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latinum?

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^On the contrary, Sci. I am all too aware of the problems of unemployment. My family struggles with lack of work, as yours did. I just think in the long-term.

In a society where cleaning, and construction, etc, is automated, it results in advances from which everyone benefits.

And as for your question on the problems of a high unemployment rate--yes, that is a problem. Nonetheless, history has shown that a free market results in a low unemployment rate.

In the Roaring 20's (before the stock market got messed up with the Fed's inflationary policy), the unemployment rate was at a record low, hovering between 1% and 2%. Calvin Coolidge ensured this by ensuring that the market was free.

BTW...a free market encourages businesses to come here, rather than run off overseas. They go "over there" because there's less of a burden "over there". Removal of such burdens removes the problem of outsourcing.

In the same way, in a free enterprise system, there will be mass creation of jobs--regardless of automation--in the sectors which require a "human touch" (forgive the "speciesist" term). Again, such as the arts, and designs, and science, etc.

 

[Sci]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^On the contrary, Sci. I am all too aware of the problems of unemployment. My family struggles with lack of work, as yours did. I just think in the long-term.

My hometown's been waiting for that long-term for about 30 years now. Forgive my skepticism, but when you consider how high unemployment tends to become in so-called "free" markets, I rather doubt your claims.

 

[Xerxes1979]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

This is absolutely true. The energy is only free in that no one owns it at the outset; civilizations still have to capture it, and it will still be finite, even if it seems unlimited compared to 21st century Earth. The supposition of magical charge/spin for antimatter production, which some people make, comes across to me bafflingly obtuse. A world totally devoid of scarcity is not only magic, but also likely to be uninteresting.

And of course there's a somewhat limited amount of real estate, although less so than Lex Luthor's father believed, since they are making land anymore. To try to determine how real property works in the Fed would require huge, wanking intellectual exercise.

Really the amount of energy availbe is also vast by standards of the 24th century as well. Any source of hydrogen easily enables the Trek energy infrastructure.



"As used aboard the USS Enterprise, antimatter is first generated at major Starleet fueling facilities by combined solar-fusion charge reversal devices, which process proton and neutron beams into antideuterons, and are joined by a positron bream accelerator to produce antihydrogen. Even with the added solar input there is a net energy loss of 24%"

TNG Techmanual page 67




Steak for every meal plus unlimited hot showers simply is not a problem. Waste is completely recyclable negating the need for any storage. Everyday things that a person might consume are no problem. It truly would be post scarcity save realestate as you mentioned.

How much energy does replication require? We don't know however it is a safe bet to guess it is at least an order of magnitude less than generating warp fields, the most intensive consumer of power in the 24th century.

The exocomps seemed to be able to function several hours and replicate hand tool sized implements on interal power. The total energy reserves of modern starfleet vessels appear adequate for several years of extended operations so I don't know why certain assumptions could not be made for the needs of planetary populations of millions or billions.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^On the contrary, Sci. I am all too aware of the problems of unemployment. My family struggles with lack of work, as yours did. I just think in the long-term.

My hometown's been waiting for that long-term for about 30 years now. Forgive my skepticism, but when you consider how high unemployment tends to become in so-called "free" markets, I rather doubt your claims.

Well, let's look at the facts:

As of now, Texas is probably the "freest" state, economy-wise, in the country, today. California, OTOH, is a highly "liberal-progressive" state, with massive government spending, welfare programs, environmental regs, etc.

These two states are the most populous in the Union.

And...despite the economic turmoil, Texas is prospering, while California is crumbling.

 

[Sci]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^On the contrary, Sci. I am all too aware of the problems of unemployment. My family struggles with lack of work, as yours did. I just think in the long-term.

My hometown's been waiting for that long-term for about 30 years now. Forgive my skepticism, but when you consider how high unemployment tends to become in so-called "free" markets, I rather doubt your claims.

Well, let's look at the facts:

As of now, Texas is probably the "freest" state, economy-wise, in the country, today. California, OTOH, is a highly "liberal-progressive" state, with massive government spending, welfare programs, environmental regs, etc.

These two states are the most populous in the Union.

And...despite the economic turmoil, Texas is prospering, while California is crumbling.

On the other hand, you have highly conservative, free-market states like Alabama that are perennially doing poorly economically, and highly liberal, progressive states like Massachusetts that are doing just fine.

Your example is unpersuasive.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Massachusetts's relatively good state is due directly to the fiscally responsible attitude Mitt Romney brought to the state. He was a businessman, who ran the state like a business. Before he came in, the state had a serious deficit. When he left office, it had a surplus.

As for Alabama...quite frankly, the policies of the Alabama state government are not identical to those of Texas, "conservative" or not.

Texas has no state income tax. They had tort refrorm, etc.--and as a result, health care is far less "broken" than the average state system.

But I'm curious...what do you think is the explanation for the prosperity of Texas?

 

[Theodore Jay Miller]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

My real-world situation: I don't care about fancy-shmancy status symbol stuff: big house, fancy car, designer clothes, gold Rolex, gourmet restaurants, etc. With my current income, I have my one bedroom apartment that I like, I read my books, watch shows I like, play computer games, go to conventions and vacations, etc. The only thing I want more money for is to be able to retire, so I can keep doing the things I like without having to go to work.

So if I lived in the Federation, and had a reasonable lifestyle provided, with a place to live that I liked, okay food and clothes, access to computer entertainment, and occasional use of a transporter to travel, I'd be satisfied with that, and wouldn't care about wealth to have fancier stuff. I would find projects to do for other reasons, though, the equivalent of fanfic writing that I have done just because I like doing it.

 

[Penta]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

I think that would make you fairly common for the citizens of Earth.

I always got the feeling of Earth citizens as being for the most part very...ossified, I guess? Almost too stable, too secure. "Fat, dumb, and happy" would be the pejorative way of putting it.

Maybe a fraction of a percent are going to join Starfleet, head out to the colonies, join a merchant ship, or whatever. The rest? Very...stable. Very secure.

Very boring.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

My real-world situation: I don't care about fancy-shmancy status symbol stuff: big house, fancy car, designer clothes, gold Rolex, gourmet restaurants, etc. With my current income, I have my one bedroom apartment that I like, I read my books, watch shows I like, play computer games, go to conventions and vacations, etc. The only thing I want more money for is to be able to retire, so I can keep doing the things I like without having to go to work.

Frankly, the same goes for me. Personally--I could care less about yachts.

I'm just saying...I'm not convinced that the State can somehow provide me with all my needs that effectively--much less give me a comfortable living. As a free market advocate, I'm a firm believer that the marketplace is the most efficient means of the provisions of my needs--with the highest possible quality.

I know--not everyone will get everything. There's always a ladder--and every ladder has a bottom. Nonetheless, if prosperity means the least amount possible at the bottom end, and the most amount possible at the higher rungs...than the free marketplace of true, meritocracy capitalism works for me.

(Apparently...it works for the Trill, too. )

 

[Sci]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

I know--not everyone will get everything. There's always a ladder--and every ladder has a bottom. Nonetheless, if prosperity means the least amount possible at the bottom end, and the most amount possible at the higher rungs...than the free marketplace of true, meritocracy capitalism works for me.

This is my problem:

"The least amount possible at the bottom end." That means, in essence, poverty.

Secondly -- the idea that capitalism will ever constitute a true meritocracy is absurd. How can it when it's starting from an unequal economic basis? How can anyone reasonably call capitalism a meritocracy when some children are raised constantly hungry (which can cause life-long cognitive problems) and some children are elevated to the status of corporate executive simply because daddy runs the company?

 

[Penta]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

I'm not sure that's what Rush meant, Sci. Well, at least, I hope that isn't what he meant.

It's a trait of any society that in order for there to be a top rung, there must be a bottom rung. And there's usually a top and bottom rung to any society yet devised - true equality would probably require something like the short story (I forget from whom...) of "The United States Handicapper General". And even then..

Spoiler: The ending to that story

It was all a fraud.

I think what Rush meant is that if there had to be a stratification, he'd prefer one decided by the market. Not by, say, influence or nomenklatura or corruption or what-have-you. It's not perfect, but it's (in his opinion) the least-bad of all of the means of distribution we've found.

I could be wrong, though.

The way I look at the question, I do see the Federation as providing a pretty-extensive social safety net. So extensive that places like Earth, where the safety net is in full operation, are practically paradise.

However, what's provided is...basic. Not like things are rationed, but they aren't of the highest quality. They're very...institutional. It's a consequence of needing to provide for millions, billions of beings.

To get better stuff, you need money, more money than the social safety net provides. (You can either have a huge social safety net, or no money system. To have both is to have a massive freakin' free-rider problem on every single issue, and that's a good way to have a society rip itself apart.)

Without money, you're stuck with the same stuff every other person on the safety-net gets.

(One other thing: I've never once seen it explained how the Federation could pull off no money, a massive social safety net, and not have incredibly bored people rioting regularly. I've been unemployed, before I went back to school. 2 long freakin' years where I was unemployed, hunting for work. (I've never, except for college, not lived with my parents. Believe me, it sucks worse than you can imagine.)

Short of when I was hospitalized for depression as a teenager, and shortly before then, there has been no darker period in my entire freaking life than before I went back to school. Being unemployed long-term sucks, especially for a guy. You don't grasp how much your identity is defined by what you do, by the fact that you work, until you don't anymore. Even if the job sucks, it's a job. It provides something to do. More importantly, it provides a scrap of an identity.

If the Federation was somehow post-scarcity, mark my words:

99% of people would not find it an enriching thing. They wouldn't follow their passions day in and day out. You simply cannot occupy your day like that, day in and day out. I have tried that, it does not work like that.

After a while, they would get bored. They would get depressed. Maybe it's unique to human males, but they'd wonder why the hell they existed.

And that is when suicide rates would begin to skyrocket. It'd be way past an epidemic of suicide. It'd be way past a bloodbath. You'd drown in the bloodshed.)

 

[Xerxes1979]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^Penta mass suicide is not the inevitable consequence of a non-materialist lifestyle. If so numerous monastic orders would have gone extinct long ago. In any case it is not like paradise is forced on any one.

In the United States children screw off the entire summer during their K-12 years and yet these are described as the best years of our lives.

I don't know why adult males are so unhappy, it might be breadwinner guilt. I don't deny it isn't a serious problem especially during this "mancession".

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

I'm not sure that's what Rush meant, Sci. Well, at least, I hope that isn't what he meant.

It's a trait of any society that in order for there to be a top rung, there must be a bottom rung. And there's usually a top and bottom rung to any society yet devised - true equality would probably require something like the short story (I forget from whom...) of "The United States Handicapper General". And even then..

Spoiler: The ending to that story

It was all a fraud.

I think what Rush meant is that if there had to be a stratification, he'd prefer one decided by the market. Not by, say, influence or nomenklatura or corruption or what-have-you. It's not perfect, but it's (in his opinion) the least-bad of all of the means of distribution we've found.

I could be wrong, though.

Oh, no, you're not wrong at all--you're dead-on right, Penta.

We classical economists have a saying:

"Capitalism is the unequal 'distribution' of wealth.
Statism is the equal distribution of...poverty."

Is the free market absolutely perfect? No. Sentient beings are mortal, their not all-powrful and all-knowing--and therefore, no system they can possibly concieve of will ever be 100% perfect, foolproof, and trouble-free.

Frankly, though, that is proof, more than anything else, that you can't give a group of "smart people" the power to supply people's needs via the state--for the simple reason that there is no way at all for people to honestly "know" what other people's needs are.

It is far better, frankly, to allow the individual to determine his/her own needs--and work to the best of his/her ability, to obtain the financial means necessary to supply those needs. Need, quite frankly, is an incentive to work for the supplying of said needs.

"But Rush, but Rush--what about those who honestly can't work their own way?"

Well...that's what private charities are for. Quite frankly, The Red Cross and The Salvation Army are far more efficient and far more succesful than anything the state can come up with--precisely because private charities, unlike the government, are bound by the market forces. As private charities have a limited, non-guaranteed supply of income, they have to make sure that every dollar counts, and that nothing is wasted on red tape. They also have to make sure that the people they help are legit, and not mooching "welfare queens/kings" who are just trying to exploit the compassion of the people--again, because they don't have an unlimited, guaranteed supply of income.

(For an Star Trek example of what happens when the government takes full control of the needs of the unemployed...I refer you to "Past Tense, Part I and II".)

The way I look at the question, I do see the Federation as providing a pretty-extensive social safety net. So extensive that places like Earth, where the safety net is in full operation, are practically paradise.

However, what's provided is...basic. Not like things are rationed, but they aren't of the highest quality. They're very...institutional. It's a consequence of needing to provide for millions, billions of beings.

To get better stuff, you need money, more money than the social safety net provides. (You can either have a huge social safety net, or no money system. To have both is to have a massive freakin' free-rider problem on every single issue, and that's a good way to have a society rip itself apart.)

Without money, you're stuck with the same stuff every other person on the safety-net gets.

(One other thing: I've never once seen it explained how the Federation could pull off no money, a massive social safety net, and not have incredibly bored people rioting regularly. I've been unemployed, before I went back to school. 2 long freakin' years where I was unemployed, hunting for work. (I've never, except for college, not lived with my parents. Believe me, it sucks worse than you can imagine.)

Short of when I was hospitalized for depression as a teenager, and shortly before then, there has been no darker period in my entire freaking life than before I went back to school. Being unemployed long-term sucks, especially for a guy. You don't grasp how much your identity is defined by what you do, by the fact that you work, until you don't anymore. Even if the job sucks, it's a job. It provides something to do. More importantly, it provides a scrap of an identity.

If the Federation was somehow post-scarcity, mark my words:

99% of people would not find it an enriching thing. They wouldn't follow their passions day in and day out. You simply cannot occupy your day like that, day in and day out. I have tried that, it does not work like that.

After a while, they would get bored. They would get depressed. Maybe it's unique to human males, but they'd wonder why the hell they existed.

And that is when suicide rates would begin to skyrocket. It'd be way past an epidemic of suicide. It'd be way past a bloodbath. You'd drown in the bloodshed.)

Disturbing...but logical and valid, I'm sad to say.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^Penta mass suicide is not the inevitable consequence of a non-materialist lifestyle. If so numerous monastic orders would have gone extinct long ago. In any case it is not like paradise is forced on any one.

In the United States children screw off the entire summer during their K-12 years and yet these are described as the best years of our lives.

But it's only three months--it's recreation. The situation would be a whole lot different if it were year-round.

Personally, I tended to work with my dad's business during the summer break--good hard work--but that's just me.

I don't know why adult males are so unhappy, it might be breadwinner guilt. I don't deny it isn't a serious problem especially during this "mancession".

It's called ambition. Discontent gives one an incentive to make one's life better.

As Quark said,

Without ambition--without, dare I say it, greed--people would lie around all day, doing nothing.

They wouldn't work...they wouldn't bathe...they wouldn't even eat. They'd starve to death.

Or, as his predecessor, Gordon Gekko, said:

The point is, ladies and gentlemen...that "greed"...for lack of a better word...is good.

"Greed" is right. "Greed" works.

"Greed" clarifies--cuts through--and captures...the essence...of the evolutionary spirit.

"Greed", in all of it's forms: Greed for life...for money...for love--knowledge...has marked the upward surge of mankind--

--And "greed"...you mark my words...will not only save the Ferengi Alliance--but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UFP.

Thank you very much.

 

[USS KG5]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Also...even the girl knew that the state couldn't ensure that everyone has a yacht--even assuming that it could supply all the "needs" of the people. So...how would one obtain a yacht? For that matter, what would be the reason for a Federation citizen to make yachts for others?

Thats so....American

The whole argument is a total straw man approach, there is no reason whatsoever why you cannot have a state infrastructure that redistributes wealth to the extent that all citizens have what they NEED (shelter, water, food, medical care, education, culture) and anything else on top people dream about having (yachts, sports cars, hookers) is paid for by enterprise and wealth creation.

There is nothing to suggest the Federation does not have this kind of "social democracy".

The questions like "Why would you want a yacht" and "Would it be preferable for you to have a yacht or to feed 20,000 people for a week" are pertinent but left un-asked in the debate you quote.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Also...even the girl knew that the state couldn't ensure that everyone has a yacht--even assuming that it could supply all the "needs" of the people. So...how would one obtain a yacht? For that matter, what would be the reason for a Federation citizen to make yachts for others?

Thats so....American

The whole argument is a total straw man approach, there is no reason whatsoever why you cannot have a state infrastructure that redistributes wealth to the extent that all citizens have what they NEED (shelter, water, food, medical care, education, culture) and anything else on top people dream about having (yachts, sports cars, hookers) is paid for by enterprise and wealth creation.

Straw man? Hardly.

You did not answer the question. If the state cannot possibly enure that everyone has a yacht--if, as you say, that is best left to free enterprise--how can it legitimately assert its ability to provide everyone with basic needs--much less, better than the market?

 

[Theodore Jay Miller]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

You did not answer the question. If the state cannot possibly enure that everyone has a yacht--if, as you say, that is best left to free enterprise--how can it legitimately assert its ability to provide everyone with basic needs--much less, better than the market?

For an expensive-to produce item like a yacht, neither the state nor free enterprise can provide them for everyone. In that case, it might be preferable to use a free enterprise system to assign the limited number of yachts rather than a governmental system.

But for the less-expensive basic needs areas, the goal is to provide them to everyone. A purely free enterprise system will fail to provide them to some individuals whenever that turns out to be more efficient or profitable. A state mechanism is thus more likely to guarantee that everyone has them.

 

[USS KG5]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

You did not answer the question. If the state cannot possibly enure that everyone has a yacht--if, as you say, that is best left to free enterprise--how can it legitimately assert its ability to provide everyone with basic needs--much less, better than the market?

Straw man - a yacht is not a BASIC NEED in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

If an individual decides a luxury item like a yacht is something they NEED to survive, apart from being deluded all you can say is "you go earn the money and buy your yacht".

That is hardly the same as providing the basic needs I quoted, the two concepts are inextricably linked and its all basically politics 101.

The objection to "big government" is based in being wedded to individualism, and therefore the right of the individual to decide what they NEED, though in this case it is the same a a thre year old who decides they NEED everything that they WANT.

A desire to have the state provide all basic needs as part of a "big" governement infrastructure is more closely linked to collectivism, and there of course you have no right to say "I NEED a yacht".

The reason I described your post as so "American" is that the debate in this thread is so totally polarised. I'm not necessarily saying the British way, where we currently have two "middle way" parties it is very hard to tell apart, is necessarily more constructive, but the debate here is between two polar opposite positions.

 

[Theodore Jay Miller]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

It's called ambition. Discontent gives one an incentive to make one's life better.

But I've never understood why people keep having ambition when it will NOT make their lives better. I went to school, got a Master's degree in computer science, and got a job as a computer programmer. It pays well, is interesting enough, I like my co-workers, and this month is my 25th anniversary at the job. I don't want to become a manager or an executive or have my own business or anything, because it WOULDN'T make my life better.

I have a one-bedroom apartment I like; why would I need more bedrooms, or a house? Just to show off? I have cable TV and a DVR connected to a 13-inch TV, so I can watch the shows I like; they wouldn't be any better on a 50-inch screen, just bigger. I read my books and watch my DVDs, and already don't have time for all of them as I buy them. I don't need or want more or fancier clothes, or more or fancier food. What would ambition get me?

I've always been like that. Back 35 or 40 years ago, we listened to song in school about "If I Had a Million Dollars", and had to write what we'd do with the money. My answer: I'd put it in the bank at 6% interest, providing an annual income of $60,000.

I re-watched the TNG episode "Tapestry" recently, and I don't really see what's wrong with the alternate Picard's life. He performs a useful job, he gets to be on the Enterprise and travel around the galaxy; I'd rather be him than Captain Picard.

I want a comfortable, quiet life. The movie Parenthood had a quote about some people liking the excitement of the roller coaster, while others liked the merry-go-round. Me, I not only avoided the roller coaster and rode the merry-go-round, I rode the BENCHES on the merry-go-round.

 

[Penta]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

And among humans, sir, that makes you odd. Not too odd, but still odd.

For most humans, ambition (for prestige, for having the most stuff, for power, it varies) is pretty fundamental to who they are. It's why monks and others who "give up the world" are so admired when they pull it off - because only a small proportion of people can even hope to have a realistic chance to do that. And most people admit that - it's why, for Christians, things/activities/habits are given up for Lent. Because that is a sacrifice for people. It focuses the mind, at least a little. (In no small part because (and anyone who's tried to faithfully observe Lent can probably name off examples, let's try not to) as soon as you give up whatever, you get tempted by it really badly. Without fail, it's like a law of nature. If you give up swearing, your life goes such that you are tempted to swear. A lot. Give up chocolate, you're surrounded by the temptation of chocolate. Makes the 40-odd days of Lent either edifying or maddening, depending upon your disposition.)

If you don't have ambition, it is (generally) very difficult to understand why someone else might hunger like that for stuff, or for power, or for prestige, or whatnot.

It doesn't mean you're a bad person for being comfortable with what your situation is.

Just that your comfort would not be shared by the overwhelming majority of people.

GR's idea of a society without money...Did not take into account the fact that humans are, by and large, ambitious. We see it in real life with space exploration - humanity is pretty unlikely to go out and try to explore the stars unless it can somehow satisfy our ambition. Exploration for the sake of it goes, in part, against our instincts.