TOS -- mo money, mo money, mo money.

[Potemkin_Prod]

I don't think so. I'm not the one who thought he was entitled to pontificated about "the sort of people who aren't successful in real life".

and...

I don't take it personally. I don't have to be personally slighted to think it's inappropriate to disparage an entire category of people based on their earning.

No, I haven't. You just keep saying I have.

I expect of myself to be awesome. Luckily, I don't disappoint myself often. But I've found that booze and blowjobs help too.

How nice for you!

What part of "you don't need the money to buy stuff" escapes you?

You need CREDITS to purchase stuff on Star Trek. I just pointed out an example where Dr. Crusher purchased cloth.

On the contrary, it's perfectly workable. In fact, it worked for thousands of years. It was only abandoned when Europeans thought it was cool to bring smallpox and gunpowder and take care of that.

As I stated in my previous post, technology makes this sort of communal sharing unworkable.

I would argue that sharing knowledge is just as inherent in mankind as sharing stuff.

Are you suggesting that sharing stuff "worked for thousands of years" yet you also point out there is much hunger in the world. Interestingly enough, that hunger is prevalent in those places which are not technologically advanced.

In fact, there are much less people who produce open-source knowledge than there people are who donate to charitable organizations or do some kind of volunteer activity.

Not sure where you're going there since I've already established my family's charitable contributions.

Too bad, because it's exactly the type of economy I see working on Star Trek, with monetary wealth replaced with social standing and reputation.

I don't see any such thing on Star Trek. Period. I see people giving lip service to an ideal that just isn't substantiated.

What this has to do with the issue that poor and hungry people are the ones who are more concerned with money and food?

Just pointing out a fact for you. The places where hunger exists are those places which are not as technologically advanced.

Fair enough. Care to address the point now?

Which point? That in TOS there's a credit based financial system in place? That this credit system is basically a substitution for hard currency? That even in Modern Trek, there's for more evidence that that system is in still in place despite the protestations of a few?

Plenty of evidence has been presented here for it. But frankly, I think this thread is now far off topic.

 

[iguana_tonante]

You need CREDITS to purchase stuff on Star Trek. I just pointed out an example where Dr. Crusher purchased cloth.

I agree with that. We disagree how credits are earned, tho. Also, Doctor Chrusher was purchasing from a non-Federal shop. Hardly the same.

As I stated in my previous post, technology makes this sort of communal sharing unworkable.

Only if you consider genocide and conquest "technology". If someone would come to your house and steal all your hard-earned money, would you argue that Capitalism is unworkable?

Are you suggesting that sharing stuff "worked for thousands of years" yet you also point out there is much hunger in the world.

It worked until people with a bigger stick come a stole their stuff leaving them in hunger. Hardly their fault. Or are you arguing that conquerors' societies were inherently superior to the conquered, and not just an accident of geographical positions and resources?

Interestingly enough, that hunger is prevalent in those places which are not technologically advanced.

It's not "interesting", no more than noticing that small boys are more likely to be bullied in school.

In fact, there are much less people who produce open-source knowledge than there are people who donate to charitable organizations or do some kind of volunteer activity.

Not sure where you're going there since I've already established my family's charitable contributions.

You argued that sharing knowledge is human nature while sharing stuff is not. I demonstrated that it's not the case. Your family's charities has no bearing on the discussion.

I don't see any such thing on Star Trek. Period. I see people giving lip service to an ideal that just isn't substantiated.

And I see people operating a different economic system which is not fully explained. Star Trek also pay "lip service" to science when talking about its technological marvels, but it doesn't explain how they works. I always find it funny that people readily accept warp drive, transporters, alien lifeforms and space amoebae but God forbids if anyone mention an economic system that it's not unlimited capitalism.

What this has to do with the issue that poor and hungry people are the ones who are more concerned with money and food?

Just pointing out a fact for you. The places where hunger exists are those places which are not as technologically advanced.

Which, again, has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Fair enough. Care to address the point now?

Which point?

You claimed that hungry think about food less than those who are well-fed. I argued it was clearly ridiculous. Really, you have an habit of throwing around weird claims and then forgetting what you were talking about.

That in TOS there's a credit based financial system in place? That this credit system is basically a substitution for hard currency?

I agree with that. The transition was obviously still in place.

That even in Modern Trek, there's for more evidence that that system is in still in place despite the protestations of a few?

There are just as much evidences of the contrary. The issue is that you accept the ones that point to a monetary economy at face value, while claiming that evidences of the contrary are just "lips services". I am more interested in conjuring a system that would make both sides correct. There are some interesting ideas around. But it seems you are more interested in having your own vision enshrined in stone.

 

[Destructor]

I always find it funny that people readily accept warp drive, transporters, alien lifeforms and space amoebae but God forbids if anyone mention an economic system that it's not unlimited capitalism.

This thread could go for a thousand more entries and the issue will never be put more succinctly than this. We can't explain what Star Trek's monetary system is anymore than we can explain how the warp drive works. But it is a moneyless society. Gene was not the first person to think that "The love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10). The original Star Trek bible, before the pilot was even filmed, mentioned the lack of money. There is no money in the Star Trek universe. No amount of back-and-forthing will change this.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But it is a moneyless society. Gene was not the first person to think that "The love of money is the root of all evil"

Explain what a Federation credit is, then.

Also: The LOVE of money may be the root of all evil, true. But not the EXISTENCE of it.

 

[scotpens]

. . . The LOVE of money may be the root of all evil, true. But not the EXISTENCE of it.

Tell that to Francisco d'Anconia.

 

[Destructor]

The LOVE of money may be the root of all evil, true. But not the EXISTENCE of it.

Agreed. I think money serves a useful purpose is society. But I can imagine a moneyless society. I'm doing it right now!

 

[InklingStar]

The LOVE of money may be the root of all evil, true. But not the EXISTENCE of it.

Agreed. I think money serves a useful purpose is society. But I can imagine a moneyless society. I'm doing it right now!

To do so though you must fundamentally alter human nature. People just don't do things for nothing. Folks have tried to create utopias in the past but they have never succeeded.

 

[T'Girl]

I have a water faucet in my home, but I pay for the water.

But you wouldn't if you had a replicator.

We've seen people order a glass of water from a replicator true, but in the beginning of First Contact we also saw Picard walk into his bathroom, open a faucet and splash the running water on his face. While I do believe that a replicator could create eight ounces of water from say hydrogen gas, I don't believe on a day to day basic that would be how it's done. A glass of water contains some 3 x 10^25 water molecules (H2O).

I think it goes like this, you order a glass of water. The replicator (using a transporter like device) would reach into a container of glass powder or glass beads and grabs a pound, which it forms into a drinking glass, this materializes in the delivery slot. Simultaneously the replicator reaches into a regular old water container/tank and dematerializes eight ounces of fluid, this is materialized inside the new formed glass. Finished.

Reforming existing glass (it's seems to me) would be easier and consume less power, than creating a glass compound from single atoms. Moving water from a tank to a glass in your delivery slot, again less power.

Or just pull a glass out of the cabinet and use a water tap like the one in Picard quarters.

That is an assumption on your part, an assumption rooted in your inability to imagine a world without money.

It isn't that I can not imagine a fictional or fantasy world without money, I can. It's that I can not see how it could be made to actual function once you move it into the real world and examine it as a real world system.

Since it's canonically established that there is no money, you need to let that assumption go.

It's also canonically established that money and exchanges of value exist and are taking place and there are far more example of that than there are of "no money." In one 24th century episode the Federation was attempting to purchase a wormhole using valuable materials and technology exchanges. Not all "money" is currency.

"When the New World Economy took shape in the late 22nd century and money went the way of the dinosaur, Fort Knox was turned into a museum." - Tom Paris
Again, canon reference- money does not exist in the 23rd century.

The Gift
JANEWAY: Tuvok's meditation lamp. I was with him when he got it six years ago from a Vulcan master, at double the price when he saw our Starfleet insignias.

An event that actual happen to Janeway, not just something that Paris half-remembers from a history lesson. Problem with your example is that money was shown in canon to exist after the late 22nd century, both through the dialog quote I used in the OP and in The Trouble with Tribbles.

Nog said that Humans had abandoned a currency-based economy.

Gillian Taylor: "Don't tell me they don't use money in the 23rd century,"
Kirk: "Well, we don't."

Exactly, Kirk possessed no physical currency. Kirk might have had many thousands in his account in the future, but he had no way of accessing it. All he had was the residual amount left after selling his glasses, dividing the money and already making some purchases.

No, Star Trek has never shown power being derived from a replicator.

No, but we do see the replicator consuming items and then producing items, and Picard does state that in his century matter and energy are interchangeable. When a replicator eats up your dirty dishes, where does the energy go?

It seem to me that the replicator would consume power to "recycle" items placed in the delivery slot.

If replicators can make replicators (which they can), then how long do you think it would take for everyone to have a replicator? I'd make `em for my neighbours, for free.

The impression I have is that each replicator is larger that just the panel and the small delivery slot that you see (based somewhat on the overall size of the personnel transporters), so if the replicator in your apartment is the size of a medium size bathroom or a half dozen refrigerators making each new replicator might take you some time.

Given the size of the delivery slot some assembly will be required too. And if the replicator needs materials to work from (as I believe) you're going to have to obtain more than what it take to make a sandwich. Going to be using lots of power too.

I'd make `em for my neighbours, for free.

Have you though about intellectual property law in the future?

You might not be able to just "make 'em."

We know that there are criminal courts and penal colonies in the 24th century. Your simply reproducing replicators in your apartment could result in your being introduced to both.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

Doctor Chrusher was purchasing from a non-Federal shop. Hardly the same.

You have no evidence that the shop was "non-Federal" -- none whatsoever, much like many of your other points. You're simply making supposition after supposition which you are cherry picking in an attempt to justify your positions.

Only if you consider genocide and conquest "technology". If someone would come to your house and steal all your hard-earned money, would you argue that Capitalism is unworkable?

LOL Not even close to being parallel. That's quite a stretch there. However, you yourself brought up firearms -- hence, technology. But the technology I refer to are things like tractors, backhoes, adequate plumbing, roads, aquaducts, and other little things that are needed to boost the output of farmland.

It worked until people with a bigger stick come a stole their stuff leaving them in hunger. Hardly their fault. Or are you arguing that conquerors' societies were inherently superior to the conquered, and not just an accident of geographical positions and resources?

Not arguing anything, except no one "stole their stuff" in most of the world where hunger runs rampant. They simply don't have the aforementioned technology needed to increase food output.

It's not "interesting", no more than noticing that small boys are more likely to be bullied in school.

Ah, so you think of yourself as a defender of the oppressed... To you, capitalism must be inherently evil.

You argued that sharing knowledge is human nature while sharing stuff is not. I demonstrated that it's not the case.

Uh, no, you haven't. You claim it's not, but sharing knowledge is in human nature because it increases your stature in the community with whom you are sharing. Your own casual dismissal of my family's charities clearly demonstrates that sharing goods does nothing to increase one's stature with you.

And I see people operating a different economic system which is not fully explained.

Because it's made up.

Star Trek also pay "lip service" to science when talking about its technological marvels, but it doesn't explain how they works.

As a matter of fact, Modern Trek which has TWO instances where there's a suggestion that there's no "currency" (big difference between no currency and no credits) has gone to great lengths to explain everything from how the warp drive works to how the transporters operate. Yet two throwaway lines in Modern Trek are the grounds folks use to justify the "there is no money" nonsense. Sorry, plenty of other examples where it's clear there is a banking system. Upthread, someone reminded us of the Bolian banks. They're clearly Federation members, and they have banks.

I always find it funny that people readily accept warp drive, transporters, alien lifeforms and space amoebae but God forbids if anyone mention an economic system that it's not unlimited capitalism.

Willing suspension of disbelief is a tricky thing, but your assault on "unlimited capitalism" is old news.

Which, again, has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Which issue? We're discussing the existence of Money in TOS.

You claimed that hungry think about food less than those who are well-fed.

No, I didn't. You really need to read more carefully. I have found that people who are OVER-FED (i.e. those guilt of Gluttony) are generally overly obsessed with food. They think about it constantly, and sooner or later, they die from their overindulgence in gorging themselves. I lost my uncle to this very condition--he was a glutton from the day he got out of the service. I even saw him one time dip a stick of butter into confectionary sugar and eat it like some sort of lollypop. He was obsessed with food, eating constantly. We all know people like this, so obsessed with food and eating that they are no longer productive members of society. It killed him, and it will kill them. I put it to you that folks like these are far more obsessed with food than those afflicted by hunger. If you can't accept that, then that's your opinion.

I argued it was clearly ridiculous.

No, you CLAIMED it was clearly ridiculous. You've offered no scientific study, no proof of your claim. You've come nowhere near to dismissing my point above.

Really, you have an habit of throwing around weird claims and then forgetting what you were talking about.

Oh, please, if you can't keep up, hop off the trolley.

That even in Modern Trek, there's for more evidence that that system is in still in place despite the protestations of a few?

There are just as much evidences of the contrary. The issue is that you accept the ones that point to a monetary economy at face value, while claiming that evidences of the contrary are just "lips services". I am more interested in conjuring a system that would make both sides correct. There are some interesting ideas around. But it seems you are more interested in having your own vision enshrined in stone.

Right... Where did I come out and claim "ENSHRINE MY WORDS IN STONE" you silly, silly person? This snide remark just serves to deflate any respect your argumentation might engender. You're not here to debate; you're here to ridicule, and that's not worth my time or effort.

 

[T'Bonz]

Don't get personal. What the hell is going on in here lately?

 

[Harvey]

But it is a moneyless society. Gene was not the first person to think that "The love of money is the root of all evil"

Explain what a Federation credit is, then.

The same explanation behind diamond being the hardest substance in the known universe in "Arena" and rodinium the hardest substance in the known universe in "Balance of Terror." Both facts stated by Spock, I might add. It's an inconsistency--the result of several hundred all-too-human writers behind over 700 episodes and 11 movies.

Mostly, Star Trek is about a money-less society (which makes sense given the presence of self-replicating replicator technology...I don't know why people are having trouble with that point). But sometimes it isn't. It's not entirely consistent, but it's not usually the point of an episode, so it's not a big deal.

It is fun to quibble about, though.

 

[blssdwlf]

The same explanation behind diamond being the hardest substance in the known universe in "Arena" and rodinium the hardest substance in the known universe in "Balance of Terror." Both facts stated by Spock, I might add.

Spock specifically said in "The Balance of Terror":
"Cast rodinium. This is the hardest substance known to our science."

and in "Arena"
"..diamonds on the surface. Perhaps the hardest substance known in the the universe."

Note the "perhaps". Funny that in the later episode "Arena" he isn't sure that it is the hardest substance. Perhaps after "The Balance Of Terror" he was re-evaluating whether "cast rodinium" was the hardest?

Not saying that there are no inconsistencies in Star Trek, just that this one might not have been.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Or cast rodinium is an artificial substance and diamond is the hardest naturally occurring substance.

 

[Harvey]

"Diamonds-- the hardest known substance," is the Spock line that I see. The line you're quoting is Kirk, on the planet.

 

[Vurok]

I always find it funny that people readily accept warp drive, transporters, alien lifeforms and space amoebae but God forbids if anyone mention an economic system that it's not unlimited capitalism.

All those things are at least theoretically possible and could exist in the real world, unlike naive utopian socialism

 

[InklingStar]

Replicators are not magic - they cannot create matter. They simply rearrange existing matter, from non-edible atoms and molecules into edible food. Acquiring the raw materials incurs a cost. The energy used to transform those materials incurs a cost. Maintaining and upgrading the replicator unit incurs a cost.

These costs may be much less than what we pay for our food and basic needs today, but they are still nonzero.

 

[scotpens]

^^ In simpler terms: THERE AIN’T NO FREE LUNCH.

 

[blssdwlf]

"Diamonds-- the hardest known substance," is the Spock line that I see. The line you're quoting is Kirk, on the planet.

D'oh. Good catch

Although now looking at it, there might be reason after "Balance of Terror" for Spock to consider diamonds to be the hardest known substance. Maybe they don't fall to pieces like cast rodinium does after being hit by a romulan plasma torpedo?

 

[paudemge]

I think it is fairly clear that in TOS there was money, even in the TOS movies there is no hard evidence they don't use some kind of monetary system, just that they don't carry cash around.
TNG and beyond there is contradictory evidence for and against. But I think they do, simply for the the fact that I believe a money less society where individuals simply got whatever they wanted, would result in a society and in individuals that would be vastly different than what we have today, and to me people and society in Trek appear to be pretty similar to people today.

 

[iguana_tonante]

It isn't that I can not imagine a fictional or fantasy world without money, I can. It's that I can not see how it could be made to actual function once you move it into the real world and examine it as a real world system.

I thought we were discussing the Federation's economic system, not the real world?

Doctor Chrusher was purchasing from a non-Federal shop. Hardly the same.

You have no evidence that the shop was "non-Federal" -- none whatsoever, much like many of your other points.

Deneb IV is said to be on the fringe of explored space, and the Bandii built the Farpoint Station to gain favour with Starfleet. I think it's reasonable to assume it's not a Federation world.

You're simply making supposition after supposition which you are cherry picking in an attempt to justify your positions.

Same as everybody here, mate.

But the technology I refer to are things like tractors, backhoes, adequate plumbing, roads, aquaducts, and other little things that are needed to boost the output of farmland.

Boost the farmland output to support the increase in population. If the human population is dynamically coupled with natural resources (as with all animal species), there is no need for such technology, except when competing with equally technologically advanced cultures.

Not arguing anything, except no one "stole their stuff" in most of the world where hunger runs rampant. They simply don't have the aforementioned technology needed to increase food output.

If you really think that the Third World isn't experiencing rampant hunger because colonial powers "stole their stuff", I respectfully suggest you read about European colonialism and how they decimated the population of local dwellers, destroyed social structures, and stripped the land of resources. Then you will have a more informed view of why now a large part of the world suffer from famine and economic hardships instead of "because they are primitives".

Ah, so you think of yourself as a defender of the oppressed... To you, capitalism must be inherently evil.

Non sequitur.

Uh, no, you haven't. You claim it's not, but sharing knowledge is in human nature because it increases your stature in the community with whom you are sharing.

Exactly. Just like sharing stuff. Which is kinda my point.

Your own casual dismissal of my family's charities clearly demonstrates that sharing goods does nothing to increase one's stature with you.

Not at all. I highly commend you for your generosity. What I dismiss is the attempt to gain sympathy in the argument using the goodwill and kindness of your famility.

And I see people operating a different economic system which is not fully explained.

Because it's made up.

O RLY? And I thought Star Trek was real! Will you tell me that warp drive and transporters are made up too?

Sorry, plenty of other examples where it's clear there is a banking system. Upthread, someone reminded us of the Bolian banks. They're clearly Federation members, and they have banks.

"Bank" means many things. Or do sperm banks pay interests on deposits?

Willing suspension of disbelief is a tricky thing, but your assault on "unlimited capitalism" is old news.

So because you have no argument over it, you attack the poster instead of the post. Good to know.

No, I didn't. You really need to read more carefully. I have found that people who are OVER-FED (i.e. those guilt of Gluttony) are generally overly obsessed with food.

And you said that in reply to my point that hungry people are more concerned with food than well-fed people. It was you that mentioned overfed people first, trying to duck the comparison. And now you are going off the deep end to justify your inconsequential reply.

We all know people like this, so obsessed with food and eating that they are no longer productive members of society.

Not really. I don't know anyone like that.

I put it to you that folks like these are far more obsessed with food than those afflicted by hunger. If you can't accept that, then that's your opinion.

Emotional appeals to dead uncles aside, you are not offering any counterargument that you own opinion, too.

No, you CLAIMED it was clearly ridiculous. You've offered no scientific study, no proof of your claim. You've come nowhere near to dismissing my point above.

So let me get this straight: you want a scientific study about if people suffering from famine think about food more or less than people with eating disorders? Good luck finding it. And since you didn't present any "scientific proof" of that either, guess what your claim is? Yeah, your opinion.

Oh, please, if you can't keep up, hop off the trolley.

What? It's you constantly asking "what issue?"

Right... Where did I come out and claim "ENSHRINE MY WORDS IN STONE" you silly, silly person? This snide remark just serves to deflate any respect your argumentation might engender. You're not here to debate; you're here to ridicule, and that's not worth my time or effort.

I didn't ridicule anyone (you, on the other hand, did: go back and read your statements). I have a different opinion. Is that so difficult to accept? We disagree. Deal with it.

Don't get personal. What the hell is going on in here lately?

Some people don't deal well with disagreement, apparently.