Yes... such things have already been discussed, I remember clearly a thread about this somewhere, but I couldn't find it again. The fact is, I'm studying Gregory Mankiw's "Principles of Economics" for the Political Economy exam I have on monday. In the last days my life has basically been: studying, watching Star Trek, eating and sleeping. Nerdish to some extent. And in times like these things happen to mix and blend, so when I'm seeing economic issues dealt with in the show I think of Mankiw's book and the other way around. Let's cut this short now... I will cite some of Mankiw's "10 principles of economics" that are of interest to us in commenting the 24th century economy:
1 - People respond to incentives.
2 - The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
3 - Trade can make everyone better off.
4 - Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
Now let us apply these four principles to the trek-verse and let's see how they work.
1 - People respond to incentives. The most relevant point. I won't beat about the bush, I'll rather put forward a simple example. Tom Paris gets back to Earth from the Delta Quadrant and goes visiting Marseille. Let's hypothesize he has no friends there to host him, so he goes to that inn he simulated on the holodeck. He stays there three nights, eats food and drinks beer while playing pool. The hosts clean his room, make his bed, cook food, serve beer and provide him with a pool table. In exchange for ... what? A smile and a "thank you"? Federation Credits? If so what would they be? They're not money since 24th century humans claim to be no longer driven by profit. So what are they? Something like bonds on the stock market? No, "no-profit". They entitle you to the possession of something? No, "no-profit". So how does Tom pay for his stay? Ah, now I see it, how primitive and savage I am. Humans work to better themselves so all they do, they do it for free. Hm, okay. In such a society thus how many would want to work in sewers only for passion? How many would like to be dustmen when they could be engineers, cooks, florists and whatnot? I have all the respect for dustmen and people who work in sewers, they help our towns to be clean. But they don't do it for passion, they do it for money. And as much advanced as 24th century people can be, I can't imagine so many people (because for such basic tasks many people are needed, not only a handful) having such moral integrity as to deliberately choose such a job only because society needs it. They would need a further incentive, and I cannot imagine Earth Government telling people what job they have to do; in the Federation everyone is free to choose, and this leads to a problem. Leisurable jobs would fill up pretty soon, and the worse ones would still be available but in that case ... who needs a job when everything else is provided for for free? If I can't do what I like and life has kicked me in the back, I'll find some lazy desk job and be idle all the time, marry someone and have some children who hopefully will be luckier than me. It makes sense. I guess however that in the future trek-society being without occupation or doing almost nothing just because one is lazy would simply make you be much frowned upon by others. People would think you have anti-social behaviours, so you better work hard if you don't want to become a pariah avoided by all those wonderful human beings we see in the show.
Still, to me it doesn't explain how dustmen and innkeepers wake up and smile when they have to break their backs in two just for a "thank you" while other people fly on starships and have jobs which make life worthy to be lived.
2 - The cost of something is what you give up to get it. See point 1. What is the difference between a beer and a dermal regenerator in the 24th century? The former is a (probably replicated) glass of ale. The latter is a sophisticated medical equipment which required years of research to be invented and perfected and an impressive amount of technical knowledge to be constructed. If you're thirsty, you go to a bar and order an ale paying back with our usual "thank you". If you need a medikit in your house, you go to a pharmacy and get a dermal regenerator. And say "thank you" again - same "price" therefore for two very different goods which in a traditional economy would have very different prices. Besides, what stops people from getting two beers (or ten) rather than one, or two dermal regenerators? Or, being there on the "market" two dermal regenerators of different quality, what would move people to get the worse one? After all they are all for free, so let's get the top one.
3 - Trade can make everyone better off. In a liberal economy people specialize in what they do better. This specialization makes sure that society allocates its resources in the best way. In the trek-economy, I suppose people are rather free to do what they mostly feel inclined to do. Actually, they're free to pursue their aspirations much more than we are. Studies are for free, education is top notch everywhere and you are encouraged to do what you want. Yet again, without incentives, most would focus on the best jobs, leaving the worst ones in shortage of workers. Who will fill them then? Arguably, people who were NOT good enough for the best jobs (engineer, starfleet officer, professor etc) and had to do something else. A society in which the less brilliant individuals do an entire category of jobs (deemed unpleasant but equally necessary) is a society which allocates its resources poorly. Very poorly.
4 - Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity. Just look at point 3, everything is there. I have included this principle just to enforce the statement that "a society reaches its peak efficiency when everyone specializes in what he/she does best". It fulfills its potential to the best.
My two cents? Authors were too eager to lecture 20th century humans on how greedy they were. Why could money not be handled in a mature way in the trek-verse? They'd be used as a means of exchange and a reward for your hard work: the more you work, the more money you get (no matter what your job is) and the more goods and services you can afford. Yet, no need to amass money just for pleasure. No speculation, stock exchanges, sub-prime loans and Wall Street sharks. And people don't look up to those with more money as it sadly happens today, because people are mature. They simply look at who you are, money is just a means to ensure that there is a tangible reward for your efforts and a further incentive, not an end. After all, for how mature and advanced people are, they are still humans and completely getting rid of such well established traits in 300 years seems unlikely. People need incentives, intangible ones like moral and personal satisfaction as well as more tangible ones such as the ability to use goods and services in exchange for something else. Money would be an incentive but still secondary to the pursuit of happiness, knowledge and so forth, the prime movers of the trek-society. Plus, a cost on things would limitate the chance to use them: it wouldn't allow people to overindulge in free pleasures such as holosuits and food. A replicator with free energy at home would make one tempted to overeat and overdrink. A free holosuit would tempt people to spend weeks in an alternate reality such as Reginald Barclay (or O'Brien and Bashir, and how did they pay Quark? Mistery).
A virtuous society with money, but not obsessed by it would have worked much better in my opinion.
A final point: interstellar trade. How do two different and incompatible economies trade between themselves? And how does Federation manage not to get ripped off when trading with more expert and cunning races? I remember Janeway in episode 4x10 "Random Thoughts" handling clumsily some coins at a market, apologizing for not being used to currency. Now, imagine this scene taking place in a Ferengi market. Can you possibly conceive the delighted look on the face of bystanders? The pleasurable anticipation of sure ultraprofits at the expense of such a naive "federation humon"? Janeway would have got back home in her underwear (Hmmmm...).
The way interstellar trade is portrayed is acceptable anyway. Federation adapts to dealing with other cultures and peoples, and at the occasion is able to speak their language of profit, mutual gain and costs. But within its boundaries? How do the four principles apply? Let's hear your thoughts!
1 - People respond to incentives.
2 - The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
3 - Trade can make everyone better off.
4 - Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
Now let us apply these four principles to the trek-verse and let's see how they work.
1 - People respond to incentives. The most relevant point. I won't beat about the bush, I'll rather put forward a simple example. Tom Paris gets back to Earth from the Delta Quadrant and goes visiting Marseille. Let's hypothesize he has no friends there to host him, so he goes to that inn he simulated on the holodeck. He stays there three nights, eats food and drinks beer while playing pool. The hosts clean his room, make his bed, cook food, serve beer and provide him with a pool table. In exchange for ... what? A smile and a "thank you"? Federation Credits? If so what would they be? They're not money since 24th century humans claim to be no longer driven by profit. So what are they? Something like bonds on the stock market? No, "no-profit". They entitle you to the possession of something? No, "no-profit". So how does Tom pay for his stay? Ah, now I see it, how primitive and savage I am. Humans work to better themselves so all they do, they do it for free. Hm, okay. In such a society thus how many would want to work in sewers only for passion? How many would like to be dustmen when they could be engineers, cooks, florists and whatnot? I have all the respect for dustmen and people who work in sewers, they help our towns to be clean. But they don't do it for passion, they do it for money. And as much advanced as 24th century people can be, I can't imagine so many people (because for such basic tasks many people are needed, not only a handful) having such moral integrity as to deliberately choose such a job only because society needs it. They would need a further incentive, and I cannot imagine Earth Government telling people what job they have to do; in the Federation everyone is free to choose, and this leads to a problem. Leisurable jobs would fill up pretty soon, and the worse ones would still be available but in that case ... who needs a job when everything else is provided for for free? If I can't do what I like and life has kicked me in the back, I'll find some lazy desk job and be idle all the time, marry someone and have some children who hopefully will be luckier than me. It makes sense. I guess however that in the future trek-society being without occupation or doing almost nothing just because one is lazy would simply make you be much frowned upon by others. People would think you have anti-social behaviours, so you better work hard if you don't want to become a pariah avoided by all those wonderful human beings we see in the show.
Still, to me it doesn't explain how dustmen and innkeepers wake up and smile when they have to break their backs in two just for a "thank you" while other people fly on starships and have jobs which make life worthy to be lived.
2 - The cost of something is what you give up to get it. See point 1. What is the difference between a beer and a dermal regenerator in the 24th century? The former is a (probably replicated) glass of ale. The latter is a sophisticated medical equipment which required years of research to be invented and perfected and an impressive amount of technical knowledge to be constructed. If you're thirsty, you go to a bar and order an ale paying back with our usual "thank you". If you need a medikit in your house, you go to a pharmacy and get a dermal regenerator. And say "thank you" again - same "price" therefore for two very different goods which in a traditional economy would have very different prices. Besides, what stops people from getting two beers (or ten) rather than one, or two dermal regenerators? Or, being there on the "market" two dermal regenerators of different quality, what would move people to get the worse one? After all they are all for free, so let's get the top one.
3 - Trade can make everyone better off. In a liberal economy people specialize in what they do better. This specialization makes sure that society allocates its resources in the best way. In the trek-economy, I suppose people are rather free to do what they mostly feel inclined to do. Actually, they're free to pursue their aspirations much more than we are. Studies are for free, education is top notch everywhere and you are encouraged to do what you want. Yet again, without incentives, most would focus on the best jobs, leaving the worst ones in shortage of workers. Who will fill them then? Arguably, people who were NOT good enough for the best jobs (engineer, starfleet officer, professor etc) and had to do something else. A society in which the less brilliant individuals do an entire category of jobs (deemed unpleasant but equally necessary) is a society which allocates its resources poorly. Very poorly.
4 - Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity. Just look at point 3, everything is there. I have included this principle just to enforce the statement that "a society reaches its peak efficiency when everyone specializes in what he/she does best". It fulfills its potential to the best.
My two cents? Authors were too eager to lecture 20th century humans on how greedy they were. Why could money not be handled in a mature way in the trek-verse? They'd be used as a means of exchange and a reward for your hard work: the more you work, the more money you get (no matter what your job is) and the more goods and services you can afford. Yet, no need to amass money just for pleasure. No speculation, stock exchanges, sub-prime loans and Wall Street sharks. And people don't look up to those with more money as it sadly happens today, because people are mature. They simply look at who you are, money is just a means to ensure that there is a tangible reward for your efforts and a further incentive, not an end. After all, for how mature and advanced people are, they are still humans and completely getting rid of such well established traits in 300 years seems unlikely. People need incentives, intangible ones like moral and personal satisfaction as well as more tangible ones such as the ability to use goods and services in exchange for something else. Money would be an incentive but still secondary to the pursuit of happiness, knowledge and so forth, the prime movers of the trek-society. Plus, a cost on things would limitate the chance to use them: it wouldn't allow people to overindulge in free pleasures such as holosuits and food. A replicator with free energy at home would make one tempted to overeat and overdrink. A free holosuit would tempt people to spend weeks in an alternate reality such as Reginald Barclay (or O'Brien and Bashir, and how did they pay Quark? Mistery).
A virtuous society with money, but not obsessed by it would have worked much better in my opinion.
A final point: interstellar trade. How do two different and incompatible economies trade between themselves? And how does Federation manage not to get ripped off when trading with more expert and cunning races? I remember Janeway in episode 4x10 "Random Thoughts" handling clumsily some coins at a market, apologizing for not being used to currency. Now, imagine this scene taking place in a Ferengi market. Can you possibly conceive the delighted look on the face of bystanders? The pleasurable anticipation of sure ultraprofits at the expense of such a naive "federation humon"? Janeway would have got back home in her underwear (Hmmmm...).
The way interstellar trade is portrayed is acceptable anyway. Federation adapts to dealing with other cultures and peoples, and at the occasion is able to speak their language of profit, mutual gain and costs. But within its boundaries? How do the four principles apply? Let's hear your thoughts!
Last edited:
