Old Issue: We Don't Use money

[Deks]

The "everyone is happy and never wants anything" is just NONSENSE. That is the "human nature" bit which is being talked about.

You can say "everyone has enough to survive," but how many (non-lobotomized) people do you know who feel this way?

Is there anything you don't have today which you'd like to have, and which you can't afford?

Is there anything which Donald Trump doesn't have today, which he can't afford?

It has NOTHING to do with "having enough." All people, by their nature, want more than they have.

Take that away, by the way, and you've taken away one of the most significant motivators for people to DO THINGS. Take that away, and you suddenly have a society in which the vast majority of people will end up choosing to live on their couch, watching Oprah-2368 (the holographic edition), and eating Andorian Cheetos.

And yes, that's "human nature" we're talking about. Deny it all you want, as certain real-world political/economic systems have tried, and you're only proving a total lack of grasp of human nature.

The only way to create the sort of "everyone has their needs taken care of" situation, in reality, is to institute absolute tyranny.

Is that what you're arguing in favor of?

I see nothing apart from generalizing in your post.

To answer some of your questions...
Let's see, do I have things in my life that I want?
Nothing of material value that I find useful.
I'm actually rather content with moderation or minimalist way of life, thank you very much.
And if you pulled your head out of the gutter, you would realize that a lot of people today don't really get things they don't actually need.
Your argument is essentially based on the premise that EVERYONE would like a property on the beach, or a villa, or a yacht, or something equally 'luxurious' (to use one of the most extreme examples there are).
I (and a WHOLE other bunch of people on this planet) DON'T need a yacht, nor do I want to live on the beach, nor a house or a villa.

Did it ever occur to you that a lot of humans behave in the manner you described because that's the way of life they were brought up in (or that it was droned into their skulls from a very young age)?
Or simply because they see there is no point in making an effort when the world is already severely messed up?

Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that EVERY human being on the face of this planet would choose to be a glorified 'couch-potato' simply because they have no monetary incentive to work?
Give me a break.

Plenty of people do volunteer work for example because they want to (and receiving nothing in return).
Granted, these individuals don't have financial issues to worry about, but it goes to show that people are willing to work without a monetary incentive.

Your argument that people all over the globe would stop working simply because they are LAZY... CANNOT be applied to EVERYONE.
A LOT of people would go crazy without doing something - myself included.
I had no problem working for others without getting or expecting anything in return.

"Narrow-minded?" Really? You DO realize we're talking about A TV SHOW, not reality, don't you?

Of course. I'm talking about narrow-mindedness in the sense that people like you have to find a way to bring the existence of money into it when it was repeatedly stated they don't use it.
And in the instances where it was seen used, it was with cultures that actually use it.

No, what's really going on is that socialists (which is a wide category including "National socialists," communists, and "religious socialism" types, among others) have chosen to "read-in" their unproven ideas into Star Trek, while others have chosen not to do so, and the left-side types are really annoyed that, just like in real life, lots of thinking people recognize the flaw in that argument.

'Unproven ideas into Star Trek?' Lol.
It was the maker of the show itself who laid out those ground rules - and the last time I checked, 'religion' had no part in it.
YOU and those who share your way of thinking are the ones ignoring it.

I reject the "la-la-la, everything is all perfect once we just get rid of those evil people who believe that we're not all children, being taken care of by "mommy and daddy State" idea utterly. I reject it in real life, and I reject it in fiction. I reject it for the same reason I reject the all other childish, silly, intellectually incoherent "wish-fulfillment" ideas.Um... there's canon evidence that people get paid, and spend their pay, in return for work all throughout Star Trek. And you're choosing to ignore that "canon evidence" as well, now, aren't you?

'La-la-la, everything is perfect, let's get rid of those 'evil' people who....'
Wow... you enjoy putting words into people's mouth and ignoring what was stated?
Go figure.

Canon evidence that people get paid in Trek? Only in instances with cultures that use monetary based economy, not the Federation or Humans.

Okay, explain to us all how such a system works, without establishing a TOTALITARIAN REGIME and suppressing the population.

Lol... does every money-less system has to have a 'totalitarian regime' along with a 'dictator' for you and those who think in your way?
Seriously... you are actually using THAT as your argument?
Don't make me laugh... and I won't even dignify that with a response because any answer I provided would probably be laughed off, or ridiculed of.

Every situation ever proposed to do what you suggest has, in the end, resulted in exactly what's been discussed. The Soviet Union only went partway, but it gave us exactly what we'd expect... the productivity of the society fell through the floor, alcoholism and other vices became rampant, food and goods shortages became commonplace ("bread lines" anyone?), and the "equal to everyone else" leaders lived in ABSOLUTE LUXURY while the average "equal" citizen lived in near-poverty.

And there, they still had money, by the way... because, once again, ALL MONEY IS, IS A UNIT OF STORED VALUE.

Since money existed, it cannot be considered actual 'communism'. And no, things were NOT equal.
Obviously people in power were still on a better standing than the populace.
'Equality' did not exist.
Hence, the system as it was CONCEIVED never existed in practical terms.
It was heavily dosed with capitalist aspects though.

How do you create value, and distribute that value, fairly and equitably? Do you give the same pay to someone who sits on their couch eating CHeetos as to someone who spends their life doing things to make things better for everyone?

Propose your alternative system. Let us see your "alternative," and moreover, let us PICK IT APART. If you really have a better system, that will come out. Fair, open discussion of ideas, not "the current system sucks, so if we only get a DICTATOR who can take care of all of us, it'll all be fine, so STOP QUESTIONING ME AND JUST OBEY!!!!!" argument isn't going to wash, though.

Ok... let's think of it like this.
We had the ability to break matter down into base elements and reassemble them into new objects (recycling technology) for DECADES NOW.
Simply speaking, had this technology been implemented on a global scale since the start and used mountains of trash that piled up over the planet surface as main source of raw matter and producing new things... we wouldn't have to touch new resources for a long while and pollution would likely be reduced in plenty of ways.

You can also recycle nuclear waste which in turn produces plutonium. Excellent, use THAT for powering something else.
But NO, instead, let's kill off lakes and environment with extremely toxic waste. Why?
Because we are afraid that Plutonium could be used to create new weapons. GASP...
MORONS !!! Wake up call!!! Humans will probably continue to make just as deadly or even deadlier weapons with or without extra Plutonium (which would LIKELY be heavily regulated anyway).

That's just one example.
And I would imagine that Trek humans at the very least created material abundance by heavily relying on recycling (which they do).

Can you show me any point in recorded human history that "human nature" has been changed through the sort of WISHFUL THINKING you've just demonstrated?

Off the top of my head? No. But wishful thinking I can tell you that it's probably not.
Realistically, having a money-less economy is possible.
It would take heavy amount of change most likely... not just in the economy but way of thinking as well.

And it's not "greed." It's FAIRNESS. Do you have a problem with, say, actors or or pop stars making a lot of money? You know, the sort who've been all behind the "Occupy" movements so far?

I'm not fond of many of those folks, but it's not because I think it's "unfair" for them to make money, just that it's MORONIC for those who are filthy rich to pretend to be "for the common man."

Fairness?
Lol... if 'fairness' existed, then EVERYONE would have an EQUAL chance of succeeding.
REALITY on the other hand is NOT like that.

As for actors... I get puzzled at the INSANE amounts of money they get paid.

The reality is, people do things. If what we do is considered of value by other people, those other people will exchange things they've done, which are considered of value, with the first people.

You can do that without money.

If you do nothing that I consider of value, why should I have to trade my own effort to support something which is of no value to me.

Depends. What the other person does COULD be seen of value to others.
Just because it doesn't seem like that to YOU doesn't mean it has no value.

That's the real issue here. Who does my labor belong to? Does it belong to me, or does it belong to "my rulers?"

Because all trade, when you get down to it, is about exchanging LABOR... transformed, as it is, into goods and/or services... between the owners of that labor.

And all MONEY is, is an intermediate form of storing that value, so that the entire economy need not be based upon "barter."

IF you have a real, better solution... one that does not require me to be, as a person, considered the "property of my rulers," I'd sure love to hear about it though!

Lol... at the moment, I cannot think of anything that comes to mind, but that doesn't mean a better system (one that doesn't involve money, and insane extremities you mentioned earlier) cannot exist.

In Trek, we have yet to see people or aliens that don't work.
Even those humans in the 24th century who exhibited capitalist qualities and left the Federation to work in cultures that use money, or they worked for money in general (because they found it preferable) obviously wanted to DO something with their lives that went beyond 'I'm gonna sit around all day doing nothing and munching on my K'Tarian chocolate puffs'.

 

[scotpens]

. . . As for actors... I get puzzled at the INSANE amounts of money they get paid.

Not puzzling at all. I assume you're familiar with the law of supply and demand?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

. . . As for actors... I get puzzled at the INSANE amounts of money they get paid.

Not puzzling at all. I assume you're familiar with the law of supply and demand?

That's another one of those "outmoded concepts" that are supposed to be "gotten past" (by virtue of us all being happy Orwellian drones, under the control of some supposedly "benevolent" uber-leadership).

I find the fact that society is currently structured to over-value certain things to be problematic... I don't think that actors or athletes or musicians or the like "ought to be paid" as much as they are, but I don't ever want "society" (which, inevitably, ends up meaning "the government" or rather, "the people who run the government" more accurately) to decide, via FIAT, just how much someone "is allowed to make."

Wage and price controls have never resulted in any result other than economic disaster. I "vote with my wallet" against certain things. I simply don't go to the theater as often as I used to, and only spend my hard-earned wealth on things which I consider worth the expenditure. That's "supply and demand" on a personal level. I will never begrudge others for spending ludicrous amounts to, say, pay Lady Gaga... as long as they don't force ME to pay her from my own earnings.

So, in the "utopian future" which some folks have TRANSLATED "Star Trek" to represent (a very Orwellian utopia if you take them at face value), would Lady Gaga have a claim on the products of my own efforts?

If society consists of its members, then every person owns a share of society's wealth, don't we? The only question is... how much is my share, and how much is your share? And does someone else have the right to take "your share" and spend it on something which you, personally, may not wish to spend it on?

To me, "my share" is proportionate to the value I provide to society, and "your share" is proportionate to the value you provide to society.

As a member of society, I owe a certain amount to the "common societal costs" (which includes, I'll agree, taking care of the few who are incapable of taking care of themselves, and which includes maintaining the common, shared infrastructure - roads, rails, etc). But, beyond that, what I have produced, as part of society, should be mine to choose to use how I see fit.

If you, or I, have no say in how the fruits of our efforts can be spent and/or consumed, then what this really means is that these have been confiscated and are being controlled by someone else. Not controlled "by society," but by "our rulers" (claiming to act on behalf of "society" naturally).

Which, again, is really a key element of the definition of "tyranny," isn't it?

Reading Deks' comments above is fascinating. He has lots of "negatives" to toss out, but you'll notice that he failed, utterly, to propose an alternative which we could analyze and critique. That's either by design (meaning, he has an idea but doesn't want to share it), or it's by necessity (meaning he has no idea what to replace it with other than some fairy-tale fantasy of "mommy and daddy Government will take care of everything."

 

[Saturn0660]

I will never begrudge others for spending ludicrous amounts to, say, pay Lady Gaga... as long as they don't force ME to pay her from my own earnings.

So, in the "utopian future" which some folks have TRANSLATED "Star Trek" to represent (a very Orwellian utopia if you take them at face value), would Lady Gaga have a claim on the products of my own efforts?

To be fair, Lady Gaga's music isn't bad. She's just really really ugly.

 

[TheBrew]

The reality is, people do things. If what we do is considered of value by other people, those other people will exchange things they've done, which are considered of value, with the first people.

Interesting because if we were a bit more socialist, people might actually appreciate the effort that goes into failed projects, like terrible starship designs.

Then again, maybe that's a good thing.

 

[Maverisms]

This argument is rather silly.

There is nothing essential about money. Money is an abstraction. It represents value. It isn't value in itself. A money based economy is resource based economy, with an abstraction layer attached to it.

Resource economies are scarcity economies. "Supply and demand." Lots of supply little demand leads to commodity pricing. Little supply and high demand lead to "you if have to ask..." pricing.

As a species, we're already past scarcity. I'm not even being utopian here. It's well known and seems to be generally accepted that people seek to create demand. They have a product. No one needs or wants it. So they manufacture something to incite desire. DeBeers, as an example. There was a time when it was okay to give an engagement ring that fit your (where "your refers to the couple) style. Then, through clever marketing, it became about diamonds. When that wasn't enough they started with their commercials suggesting that the only way to express your love and commitment to your wife was buying her more diamonds.

The key point, aside from the manufactured demand, in pointing at the diamond people is that the supply side is artificial too. There's lots more diamond out there than you'd think, the way it is priced. It just sits in the ground because most of the resource locations are owned by the diamond cartels. They don't want to increase the supply and hurt the prices. They have no reason to.

We have the resources to feed everyone. We have the resources to house everyone. We can meet everyone's needs and give everyone an exceptional life style. We don't do this for two reasons. First, we all dream that one day we'll be in the catbird seat, accumulating wealth while all the rest of the suckers scrape by. Second, we don't know how.

We can get over the first. Behaviorism is dead. We may be "greedy" naturally but we aren't slaves to our natures. Naturally we are memetically programmed self-replicating killing machines. Most of us aren't killing everything that moves, and some of us even choose not to breed.

The second one is harder, and this debate is proof of that. Still silly, but proof. Not many of us really understand the concept that money has no value. I've mentioned this in polite conversation and it makes people uncomfortable to think that the value of a dollar is a mass delusion. If they can't get past that, how does one expect them to figure out how to manage a resource economy without the abstraction layer?

Just because we don't know how to do a thing doesn't mean we never will. We didn't know how to fly until we did. We didn't even know it was possible to split atoms until we figured it out. That why they are called "atoms" from the Greek for indivisible.

We already live with a tech base that could potentially make every human alive fairly wealthy. Upper middle class at least. The main limit is energy. Right now we don't have enough of that. The Trek Universe doesn't have that problem.

There's enough fusionable material in Jupiter's atmosphere to send a probe to every star in the galaxy. (I assume that estimate is based on a lower value of "number of stars in the galaxy" but that is still over 100,000 probes.) The UFP has all of "jupiters" in its territory to work with and FTL transportation. There seems to a lot more gas giants than terrestrial planets, so one can assume that energy is not one of their major concerns. (Leaving aside access to solar power from all of those stars...)

The UFP has effectively unlimited supply but finite demand. Automation capable of delivering basic needs seems readily available TOS and is literally trivial TNG. The "law" of supply and demand should tell what things cost in that situation.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The argument is NOT "silly," though.

It may be true that "food, medicine and clothing" scarcity issues have been eliminated. But there will ALWAYS be "scarcity issues," nevertheless.

Imagine, for example, this (simplified) example.

Two Citizens of Earth are looking for a home. And there are two homes available.

One home is the "Tony Stark House" on the cliffs of Malibu. The other home is on stilts in the bayou of Louisiana.

Both citizens would prefer to have the house on Malibu. But this is a "scarce" item.

Yes, there may be enough housing for everyone, but some housing is more desirable than other housing. The most desirable housing is going to be "scarce."

Who gets that house, in the "Utopian" society you guys are talking about?

What about if someone wants an ORIGINAL EDITION copy of "A Tale of Two Cities" to give to an old friend on his birthday. Yes, you could replicate a reasonable facsimile, but the ORIGINAL 200+ YEAR OLD BOOK is going to be scarce.

Suppose that this book was in the private collection of a college professor. Should the person who owns the book be forced to give it up without some form of compensation, because "the needs of the Starship Captain outweigh the needs of the college professor?"

Basic needs may be met, to be sure, but this will NOT eliminate the concept of scarcity, will it?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The reality is, people do things. If what we do is considered of value by other people, those other people will exchange things they've done, which are considered of value, with the first people.

Interesting because if we were a bit more socialist, people might actually appreciate the effort that goes into failed projects, like terrible starship designs.

Then again, maybe that's a good thing.

How's that? What "terrible starship design" are you referring to? And how would being "more socialist" make anyone appreciate anything that they would not otherwise appreciate?

Your comment makes no sense, as you've provided no context for your comment.

 

[Deks]

I would argue that even energy isn't the issue in today's world.
People's mentality/approach to things (ie. 'financial costs' - which is directly tied to the limitation of money) is.
Majority of energy companies look at the financial prospect (profit).
If it's not cheap for them, then they won't do it... regardless if it CAN be done on a global scale (which it can) without creating other problems.

Supplement existing energy production with additional nuclear power plants, recycle the nuclear waste you get from them into plutonium and use it as a power source for other things.
Geothermal and wind power are decades old concepts/technologies that could have been applied since their inception.
Solar power panels implementation to the fullest (regardless of the relatively low efficiency ratio) would be enough to at least solve energy requirements for all homes, while other sources of power could be diverted into industry, experiments, etc.

The financial cost on the other hand is only 1 factor (among others) that's not putting forth those ideas in full-force.
From a resource/technological point of view, it CAN be done with some effort on a global scale (and we wouldn't 'suffer' in any way because of it), but 'money' is preventing it - because many see it as 'not affordable'.

And if we're going to look at it from another point of view, companies probably see no real benefit in it.
Since profit is the motivational factor here, why would they feel the need to provide everyone energy in abundance at low prices, when they can artificially inflame the prices of current energy production and pocket more cash for themselves?

We're CONSTANTLY coming back to the issue of 'money' and the limitation it imposes (a blockage that it 'costs too much' to implement something into practice -when in fact, we have more than enough material/resources and man power to do it all).

We've had the ability to solve most if not all problems on the planet decades ago, but it simply isn't done because of the 'financial cost' mentality, and the low interest in moving away from the status quo. There's a reason 'consumerism' as a term exists. It forces everyone to buy things that have a relatively short life-span, then buy replacements (even though things can be made to last a long time with no extra cost - but it's much more profitable for things to expire well ahead of schedule and then force you to buy again).

As we established already, resources are NOT the problem. We've already moved into post scarcity some time ago... but a lot of people keep saying that's not the case.
Ok then, shut down wasteful enterprises that serve no useful purpose and reduce expenditure of resources.
But then we are faced with the prospect: 'But people WANT IT'.
WHO CARES!!!!
I think that 'having enough resources' should be the primary goal here (if you are stupid enough to think it's the issue and complain about it in the first place - then get ready to make some compromises).

Furthermore, society is ALREADY for the most part being taken cared of by the state in some fashion.
I was proposing the idea that since the government is supposed to do the bidding of those who placed them in positions of power in the first place, then the populace should DEMAND that they implement things into practice and provide for everyone.
This can be done with companies and industry as well.
How?
Stop buying their products on a unified front, and demand of them to implement changes.

But this would require a massive effort and a level of 'awareness' that most people don't exhibit (they are capable of it, but probably don't want to do it because, a lot of people laugh off such ideas as 'naive and idealistic' - guess what, it's DOABLE, I just need YOUR help/support to implement it, because as a single person, I can do very little).
Furthermore, there's a pervasive perception of: 'why should someone else benefit from my work and them not doing anything that 'I' find to be 'of substance?'

This was most evident with the proposal of Universal Health Care in US.
Why would working people pay higher taxes and allow that EVERYONE are covered with medical care?
Such individuals mostly use the premise that 'lazy people' don't work in the first place, or refuse to pay taxes, or are 'leeching off others' (and would do so in the case of medical care).

Pathetic excuse... and what's even more pathetic is that it's exactly the mentality 'me first, who cares about others' is the problem.
Furthermore, people should be educated that they shouldn't go to the doctor for every single thing or that they DON'T have to use pharmaceuticals for EVERYTHING. You have your immune system for a reason. You have BRAINS, so use them and educate yourself in terms of proper nutrition, exercise, etc... that would probably stave of over 90% of 'problems' that people complain to.
But, consumerism also creates dependency. People are blinded by majority of what is coming from the 'officials'. Critical thinking is effectively a 'lost art' and they apply 'belief' and 'faith' in science (which effectively turns it into religion).

While I will agree that taking care of oneself is important, it doesn't have to be brought to the extremes where it completely ignores others.
Furthermore, if a person has all of their basic needs met so they are free to pursue their own goals in life, then they won't have to worry about having money for 'survival', and it's possible that this can create a much larger incentive for people to help others.

A lot of individuals are prevented from helping others because they barely survive as is, and society isn't actively encouraging it.
Charities are pathetic for the most part because it's questionable if majority of money actually goes into the things they represent.
The amount of money invested in such practices resulted in marginal improvements, whereas the results should have been far bigger.

 

[Maverisms]

I disagree. About it not being silly, that is.

"Money" is an economic abstraction layer. In the Trek future they don't have it. Nothing suggest they don't have some kind of abstraction layer. There's no indication of how it works, just that it isn't called "money."

You can posit that money by any other name is still money, but I say that is no more valid than suggesting that their abstraction has properties not found in money.

Like traveling at FTL velocities, the fact that we have no idea how to do it doesn't make it impossible. It just means we don't know how to do it. It may be impossible, but we don't know that.

That's why I see the dispute as quite silly. First, it is clearly possible to have a fair distribution system that meets basic needs. Scarcity isn't a major issue. Second, artificial scaricity--including that caused by coveting specific items--can be handled by an appropriate economic abstraction. The debate boils down to what one would label the abstraction. It is question that can't be answered. The arguments, pro-money or anti-money, boil down to personal preference.

For all we know, the Federation, with it's massive computing power, uses a master economic program to see to the distribution of wealth beyond basic needs. Perhaps if you want a book owned by another person, you have barter a deal. If you want a mansion, and John Q. Competition also wants it, the Resource Management System evaluates your petitions and decides. I have no idea how the abstraction is actually handled. I only know that "money" has no more support than my economic management software.

For all we know, accomplishment is akin to wealth in the UFP, explaining why everyone strives to better themselves. That system could be the seed of something workable. It combines the benefits of socially just system with the benefits of a purely capitalist system.

EDIT: Rather than adding a new post...

I would argue that even energy isn't the issue in today's world.
People's mentality/approach to things (ie. 'financial costs' - which is directly tied to the limitation of money) is.

I would agree with this. The energy problem is one of our own making. We lack the political will to do what needs doing on the energy front.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think Trek Art is the only forum a "no money" thread hasn't appeared in...

 

[tighr]

You can also recycle nuclear waste which in turn produces plutonium. Excellent, use THAT for powering something else.
But NO, instead, let's kill off lakes and environment with extremely toxic waste. Why?
Because we are afraid that Plutonium could be used to create new weapons. GASP...
MORONS !!! Wake up call!!! Humans will probably continue to make just as deadly or even deadlier weapons with or without extra Plutonium (which would LIKELY be heavily regulated anyway)

I'm sure that in 1985 plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I disagree. About it not being silly, that is.

"Money" is an economic abstraction layer. In the Trek future they don't have it. Nothing suggest they don't have some kind of abstraction layer. There's no indication of how it works, just that it isn't called "money."

Ah, fair enough... except that, at least as far as I'm concerned, I've made it quite clear that "money" is not the same thing as "currency."

"Money" is used to describe a store of value. Physical items (printed paper bills, coined metal, etc) are considered "currency." But even in that case, the term "currency" has, in recent years, been "expanded" to mean much the same as "money" does.

I HATE it when words get redefined so that they no longer serve a useful purpose and you have to explain further. But in this case, the term HAS been "spoiled" in that fashion, it seems... so I've used the term "physical currency" in my own side of the conversation.

I think we agree, in other words... but I think that the terms being used are, unfortunately, less useful than they could be.

As I said earlier, I fully expect to live in an essentially "currency-less" society within the next decade or so. Hell, most of use live that way most of the time today, don't we? We pay our bills, buy our groceries, fill our gas tanks, all without ever having to hand over a single bill.

We still use physical currency for certain things, of course, but the pressure to go "digital" has been increasing over the past five or six years, in particular, to the point where utility companies are starting to penalize you for NOT going "direct billing" with them. (I remember when they charged extra for electronic transactions, today they charge extra for non-electronics ones!)

I don't really see this as being a good thing, but I do see it as being an inevitable thing. And I think that this is what they've got in Trek's fictional future.

Mr. Scott really does "earn his pay for the week" as Kirk says. Dr. Bashir really does "buy lunch" for Garak. The Enterprise really does buy replacement crystals from wife-hunting miners.

They just don't do it with bills and with coins and so forth.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I disagree. About it not being silly, that is.

"Money" is an economic abstraction layer. In the Trek future they don't have it. Nothing suggest they don't have some kind of abstraction layer. There's no indication of how it works, just that it isn't called "money."

You can posit that money by any other name is still money, but I say that is no more valid than suggesting that their abstraction has properties not found in money.

Like traveling at FTL velocities, the fact that we have no idea how to do it doesn't make it impossible. It just means we don't know how to do it. It may be impossible, but we don't know that.

That's why I see the dispute as quite silly. First, it is clearly possible to have a fair distribution system that meets basic needs. Scarcity isn't a major issue. Second, artificial scaricity--including that caused by coveting specific items--can be handled by an appropriate economic abstraction. The debate boils down to what one would label the abstraction. It is question that can't be answered. The arguments, pro-money or anti-money, boil down to personal preference.

For all we know, the Federation, with it's massive computing power, uses a master economic program to see to the distribution of wealth beyond basic needs. Perhaps if you want a book owned by another person, you have barter a deal. If you want a mansion, and John Q. Competition also wants it, the Resource Management System evaluates your petitions and decides. I have no idea how the abstraction is actually handled. I only know that "money" has no more support than my economic management software.

For all we know, accomplishment is akin to wealth in the UFP, explaining why everyone strives to better themselves. That system could be the seed of something workable. It combines the benefits of socially just system with the benefits of a purely capitalist system.

EDIT: Rather than adding a new post...

I would argue that even energy isn't the issue in today's world.
People's mentality/approach to things (ie. 'financial costs' - which is directly tied to the limitation of money) is.

I would agree with this. The energy problem is one of our own making. We lack the political will to do what needs doing on the energy front.

This is the most intelligent post on the subject I've read on the board yet, but not that some others haven't made valid points too.

Perhaps in the future, progressive economists will regard money as the primitive and oversimplifying instrument of trade that it is, and more advanced economic procedures will allocate what people need. A simple, clear, and completely plausible idea.

 

[T'Girl]

I think Trek Art is the only forum a "no money" thread hasn't appeared in...

Not true.

About two years ago I design twenty-third century money. Based on McCoy's dialog in TUC, I called it "Real Money." More formally, Earth Real Money.

While most money would be Federation Credit data transfer, I believe that each member world be able to maintain their own "indigenous" currency if they choose too.

And while I am a advocate of the cash-less society, I believe physical currency will still find some limited use in the Federation and the member worlds economies. It symbolically provide for the "recordless exchange," not that you're doing anything illegal of course. It makes possible the buying of goods without the semi-sexual necessity of pushing my padd up against yours.

I chalk it up as the ramblings of a senile old man.

Ron Moore said that at one point the writers went to Roddenberry and asked him to explain how the "No Money" thing was supposed to work, because none of them understood it, and also so they could incorporate it into stories. Problem was Roddenberry couldn't describe it, he didn't understand it either.

And the whole thing was his idea in the first place.

Because the writers lived in 20th century America, money gradually crept into the 24th century stories, and those stories would not have make sense, unless there is some form of "value exchange thingy" in the Federation itself.

Such a narrow-minded perception is exactly why people are constantly looking for explanations that warrant the existence of money as far as Humans and the Federation

But again, there are only a very few direct references to a "no money" future. There are a couple of dozen (non-Ferengi) references to there being money in the Federation, not just money but value, credits, paying, buying, selling, trading rations, commerce, capitalism, businesses, property ... in both the 23rd and the 24th centuries.

You don't need to look too hard.

elimination of poverty/disease/wars in the next 50 years

You forgot hunger, which we saw in episodes of TOS on Human colonies. Lot's of diseases, up through the last movie (how did Sulu get the helm again Deks?). There were wars and rumors of wars. All these things involved "Humans and the Federation."

And as far as eliminating poverty, have you considered the possibility that people are working for a living? That the populace is educated, lack of educated is the road to poverty. That their teenage girls aren't making babies, another road to poverty. When did we see a teenage mother in canon?

and not touch new resources

It's not like we saw mining in every single series, Oh that's right we did, in canon.

material wealth stopped being the driving force for those people shortly after FC with the Vulcans

Spock: "A man of Flint's obvious wealth and impeccable taste scarcely needs to hang fakes."

Uhura: "The planet was purchased thirty years ago by a Mister Brack (Flint), a wealthy financier ..."

A financier is a expert in large-scale monetary and financial affairs. The episode Requiem For Methuselah is set approximately two centuries after first contact with the Vulcans.

And Flint is "wealthy."

continuously ignoring canon evidence

Deks, you've wrapped your theory around a couple of lines out of over seven hundred hours Star Trek. Admit it, the vast preponderance of canon evidence is on the yes-money side of the discussion.

or that a moneyless one (implemented properly) cannot work.

And what if it isn't "implemented properly," what if something goes wrong? The beauty of consumerism, capitalism, merchant/shopkeeping, is that it has been shown to work, to continue to work, even when things go all wrong. Even when a part of the system collapses, the whole system doesn't.

Let's see, do I have things in my life that I want?
Nothing of material value that I find useful.

So you're naked, live outdoors and have no toiletries.

It was the maker of the show itself who laid out those ground rules - and the last time I checked, 'religion' had no part in it.

Religion is all through Star Trek, even the Borg had religion, the quest for perfection.

Only in instances with cultures that use monetary based economy, not the Federation or Humans.

From Errand of Mercy.
Kirk: "The Federation has invested a great deal of money in our training. They're about due for a small return."

Let me guess Deks,
when Kirk used the word money, he was employing a euphemism.
Or wait, Kirk's and Spock's training took place "outside" the Federation.
Or maybe, the term "invest" is one of those words that has "changed meaning" through the years.
Or perhaps, by Federation, Kirk meant Ferengi.

What's you explanation for this precedent setting sentence?

I won't even dignify that with a response because ...

Because you don't have one?

Perhaps if you want a book owned by another person, you have barter a deal.

But it would save time if you simply purchased it from it's current owner with money. I mean, what if you don't possess any items the current owner wants in exchange. With money, the former owner of the book can just buy what he wanted.

If you want a mansion, and John Q. Competition also wants it, the Resource Management System evaluates your petitions and decides.

Or you and competition can both bid money for the property and save time. "Resource Management System" is a good euphemism for money.

The energy problem is one of our own making. We lack the political will to do what needs doing on the energy front.

Stop waiting for the political system to build the power source, there's an idea.

Or you can employ the "won't someone do this for me" system.

 

[Birdog]

If you want a mansion, and John Q. Competition also wants it, the Resource Management System evaluates your petitions and decides.

Or you and competition can both bid money for the property and save time. "Resource Management System" is a good euphemism for money.

A better euphemism is the government chooses who gets it. Tyranny in it's finest form.

Typical socialist. Can't face the reality that it's a failed system. Always uses the excuse that it only failed because the right people weren't in charge.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

 

[T'Girl]

A better euphemism is the government chooses who gets it. Tyranny in it's finest form.

An excellent reason to keep as much money as possible out of the control and hands of the government.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, looks like this thread has been hijacked now.

Moving in the direction of getting back on topic: Keeping money from the government would be irrelevant if the government didn't use money to begin with. For all we know, Federation citizens pay zero taxes.

 

[Birdog]

Well, looks like this thread has been hijacked now.

Moving in the direction of getting back on topic: Keeping money from the government would be irrelevant if the government didn't use money to begin with. For all we know, Federation citizens pay zero taxes.

Then how do they acquire starships?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, looks like this thread has been hijacked now.

Moving in the direction of getting back on topic: Keeping money from the government would be irrelevant if the government didn't use money to begin with. For all we know, Federation citizens pay zero taxes.

Then how do they acquire starships?

Can you be more specific please about what you mean by acquire?

We know they are manufactured, and we know that the places they are manufactured have been characterized using grammatical constructions that suggest fairly clearly that the Federation owns the shipyards.

But how can I answer something about a fictitious universe that that hasn't been explained on screen, without pulling something out of my ass? How can any of us?

Anyway, the big revolution seems to be replicator technology. If you have a replicator with an indefinite power supply, then you're covered for a lot of things. Using my imagination, I'd think that the Federation would be wise to focus more directly on keeping energy flowing, rather than focusing on the flow of money. Owning the means of producing energy would therefore seem essential. This would keep the replicators operating without needing to trade outside the Federation.

Fact is, it's supposed to seem incomprehensible to us. Star Trek has pretty much come out and said that we of this time are primitive.