Old Issue: We Don't Use money

[Cary L. Brown]

I have exactly zero respect for libertarians. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. I've met too many of them. To be fair, I have no respect for Socialists and less for Free Market Conservatives. All of them live in a fantasy world based on the concept that everything would be fixed if everyone just did it their way.

If what you mean by that is that you have no respect for "unthinking partisans" (of ANY bent), then I'm inclined to agree with you. No one should ever have a position which is based upon emotional attachment to that position rather than upon a realistic evaluation of the various options.

But, there are certainly people of all bents... including but not limited to each of the perspectives above... who truly believe in what they believe because they've given it a great deal of thought and have concluded that their position is the right one.

Obviously, not all of them can be "right" so that means that at least SOME of them have to be wrong, in part or in whole. You simply cannot resolve inherently contradictory positions, can you?

But I hope you're not saying that you don't believe in ANYTHING. Unless you're fully lobotomized, I'd never be able to believe that (and your writing here has made it quite clear that this is not the case anyway).

So, perhaps you can spell out, more precisely, exactly what you DO "have respect for?"

The world is far messier than that, and anyone with sense would admit that we just don't understand it. My disrespect for these groups stems from the fact that few totally lack sense. What they do is shut sense down when faced with evidence that their pet philosophy doesn't cover all the bases.

Not necessarily. Your choice of terms, however, makes it quite clear that you, too, "shut down" things you disagree with. The very fact that you've used the term "Pet philosophy" is denigratory on its face, isn't it? Meaning... you've already drawn conclusions, with an EMOTIONAL attachment to your own conclusions.

So... on that basis... how are you different from those you're criticizing?

I know a few people who are the "mindless robots" you mention... and yes, they do exist in all areas of the political spectrum, not merely in one group. But the majority of people I've met do not fall into that classification. I'll bet that the majority of people you, personally, have met don't, either... and that you're applying the "mindless robot" label to the people you've never met, but may have seen portrayed by, say, Jon Stewart (whose audience, I hope you'll acknowledge, meets the definition of "mindless robots" at least as well as any other group out there!)

This is not a manifesto. There's a point to this.

You see, Star Trek is fantasy. It tries to be sciency about it, but the science is secondary to the story. Star Trek has a humanist philosophy and some aspects of its back story reflect that. This is what Star Trek is.

True. Nobody here is confused about this.

But we're talking about what is PORTRAYED (as an "ideal") in Star Trek as an intellectual exercise. "What if this was real?" We all know that the bits about "no money" really came from a late-in-life Gene Roddenberry, and reflected a great deal of emotionally-driven wishful thinking. We know that, when pressed on how it would work, he had no idea. And we know that, in large part, this edict from GR was either ignored or "glossed over," because it really made little if any practical sense, at least insofar as the writers, the producers, and the audience were concerned.

Of course, let's not make the mistake of associating "Humanist" with "anti-capitalist." These are not synonyms. There are plenty of humanists who are strong capitalists. And there have been and continue to be many anti-capitalists who have been adamantly anti-humanist. We only need to look at Mao, and his "cultural revolution" along with his other various pogroms in China, which altogether led to the deaths of approximately forty million people. I'd call that pretty "anti-humanist" but Mao HATED capitalism.

When you combine what Star Trek is and my disdain for economic fairy tales, you have all you need to understand why I call this discussion "silly."

Except, Mav, you haven't really proven in any meaningful way that any of those positions you object to are "fairy tales." You've simply made a declaration and expected that declaration to be accepted at its face.

Why should anyone else accept that declaration?

And, by the way, for one to declare one explanation for an observation to be untrue, you have to at least have an alternative explanation. So, what IS your own view? Please, put it down in detail.

All you've really done so far has been to make negative declarations... "this is wrong" and "that is a fairy tale" and "this other thing is silly" and so forth.

So... if all of these things are "wrong," you must have a yardstick to compare them to... some "truth" you know that the rest of those whom you criticize don't know.

Put it out there. Let the rest of us see what your own position is, and then we can criticize that position. Unless, of course, you're a mindless partisan who'S "living in a fantasy world based on the concept that everything would be fixed if everyone just did it your way."

This discussion is not about Star Trek.

Well, it is, sort of. It's about Star Trek because Star Trek intends to communicate something to modern audiences.

Similarly, we can talk about "Jonathan Swift" without necessarily believing that it's a true story. Or, we can talk about Sydney Carton and Charles Darnay and even the context of the story in which Dickens placed them, without necessarily believing that this is a purely accurate presentation of the French Revolution.

Discussion of what is presented in fiction, whether literary or visual in nature, is not invalid. In fact, GR fully intended for Star Trek to be allegorical in nature. And, at least early on, he managed to make it so in a very successful way, with only a few failures where we were beaten over the head with ideology a bit too severely.

Part of Trek's back story is that the UFP is a people's utopia. People's needs are taken care of, and the accumulation of wealth is not longer the prime drive of the Federations citizens. Everyone will admit that canon contradicts itself, and everyone knows that this occurs because canon is written by a horde of writers producers, managers, artists and even actors. These people are individuals and don't share a hive mind. Inconsistencies are inevitable.

All agreed. Of course, the majority of those contradiction on this particular issue, to me at least, can be explained through an overly propagandistic attitude on the part of some of those whom we've heard from.

I really did find Jean Luc Picard, in the first couple of seasons of TNG, to be an annoying "partisan tool."

I think that's largely why I, personally, liked "Q Who" so much. Q basically smacked Picard's "Federation Chauvinism" down, hard.

Interestingly, the "Picard as preacher for how awesome humanity has become" attitude went away pretty quickly once GR was no longer involved. And that's mainly when I started to actually enjoy the series.

Interesting discussion would be something along the lines of "how do we resolve this inconsistency within the boundaries set by the universe's vision?" Another interesting question would be, "What can we infer by combining these disparate bits of canon?"

Those ARE interesting. But other things are interesting, too.

Do you think you're in a position to tell other people what they're supposed to think, what they're supposed to care about, what they're supposed to enjoy discussing? Are you the person who gets to decide what other people can find "interesting" or not?

I hope that's not really what you're saying, though I have to say, it sure does sound that way.

These questions are not part of the discussion. This discussion is about trying to shoe horn pet philosophies into Star Trek.

No, it isn't.

This discussion is about reconciling Star Trek's fictional presentation with reality. "What if this were real? How would it work?"

You need not engage in the conversation if you don't personally find it useful, but I'd hope you'd know better than to tell other people what they're "allowed to discuss."

That's silly. Star Trek is what is. It is perfect reasonable to argue about what it is. It can be different things to different people. It is something else to try to make it into something it is not in order to fit your world view.

Yes, and that applies to everyone, yourself included. Be certain you're not doing the very thing you're accusing others of.

Star Trek was not an every man for himself, libertarian ideal.

Nobody ever said it was.

"Socialist" is probably the best description of it, but even that doesn't hold water because it is never explained.

That's something that, at a later point in GR's life, he attempted to "shoehorn" into Star Trek's philosophy. (And it didn't really fit very well, as it turned out!) So it's true that, depending on which part of Star Trek you follow most closely... mainly whether you accept GR as the sole source of "real" Star Trek and reject all the bits put in by others (Gene Coon, Harve Bennett, Rick Berman, etc, etc). As far as I can tell, ONLY G.R. actively promoted the "socialism" bit, and even that was only really for TNG, in the beginning.

Libertarian doesn't fit. Too many plots are based on government interference (Bashir's dark secret, Data's personhood, Lahl's rights, the Prime Directive).

Agreed. Which is actually an idea which could lead to some really intriguing storytelling...

What happens of a "powerhouse government" which has been run in a mostly benign fashion takes that final step into fascism (which, recall, was what the Italian National Socialists called their movement)? Remember, the main reason that the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany (aka the "Nazis") did some of the really bad thing it did was because it had unfettered power. Hitler, had he remained a painter, may still have hated Jews and felt all the other things he felt, but without the unrestricted power he eventually gained, he would have remained harmless.

Now, the Earth seen in Star Trek is really is on the fringe of "happy-face fascism." They ONLY reason that it hasn't gotten ugly is that the folks calling the shots have been "good people" and have chosen (usually) not to overstep their bounds. And the UFP, in TNG-era times, has become effectively a single government (rather than a federation of independent states), it seems.

So... what happens if the consolidate power ends up being used by someone who makes bad calls?

And, in particular, what if those calls are being made by someone who thinks that what they're doing is really for the best?

What if whoever (or whatever) is running things decides that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one? What if this leader decides that "replacing" a few key personnel will keep the general population safer and happier? What if that same leader... or shall we say RULER... decides that some form of mental conditioning might help people lead happier, more fulfilled lives.

At what point does the "or ELSE" implicit in that become significant?

Oh, yeah, I'm absolutely in agreement about how this could lead to some very, very interesting storytelling.

The government of the UFP meddles. It gets involved and it has dominant power. It can be challenged, but it is definitely large and in charge.

Yep. Sounds almost like you're quoting the opening of "Serenity," by the way. Which, lets be honest, is sort of the point that Whedon was making when he came up with his own "non-Trek" Federation.

That doesn't tell use what it is; only what it is not. It is not the libertarian ideal. Attempting to force libertarian dogma into it because Scotty bought a boat is asinine. Yes, Scotty bought a boat. Yes, Kirk owned something. Yes, Robert Picard inherited a vineyard. All this proves is that the UFP respects the right to property. It doesn't explain anything about how that mechanic works.

All we REALLY know is what the original topic was... "how does a moneyless society work in Trek?" The answer is... it doesn't. It's a CASHLESS society, not a "money-less" society. They have no physical paper or coin currency in the UFP, but they do have an economy with "credits" and people get paid, and spend their "credits" to do all variety of things, from buying lunch for a Cardassian taylor to trying to buy passage to Genesis to buying a house, or a boat, or a tribble, or some spican flame gems, or whatever else.

We know that the UFP has "money," just not PHYSICAL "cash money."

And while that does give an opportunity for abuse which a "cash" society would not face, it is not, in itself, abuse.

I've derived a couple of ideas how it might work, but I didn't get them from this discussion. Nothing is being added here. It is just "You suck!" followed by "No, you!" No insights, nothing to build on.

There have been PLENTY of insights here. Merely ones which you, personally, are predisposed to reject. LOTS has been added. You just disagree with what has been added, because it seems to not mesh with your own preconceptions.

I find it fascinating to see you "criticizing" others for... let's be blunt here... not agreeing with everything you've said or proposed.

I don't mistake courtesy for reasonable discourse. Some of my most enlightening debates were knock-down drag-out, vitriolic slugfests. But underlying the displays of venom were ideas about the nature of the thing, not ideals about what the thing should be. Here I see the later. Here I see people trying to twist the UFP to fit their prejudices, rather than an attempt to understand it. It is pointless.

Here, I see you doing EXACTLY what you've just ascribed to others.

Honestly, you're upset because you haven't been agreed with in entirety. That's all that's coming across in this post of yours.

So the way your comments come across, it seems that you're trying to "guilt" those who you've disagreed with to just shut up?

 

[Maverisms]

At what point did I say you couldn't discuss this?

Just because someone passes judgement on something isn't an admonition to stop doing it. It's a judgement. As it happens, if one is not judge, judgements are not binding upon others. The idea that my judgement precludes your discussion, silly as it may be, is just mushy thinking.

American Idol is silly. People talk about it, and I certainly don't expect them not to. If they talk to me about it, I will tell them it is silly. They are free to make a counter case, and if it is interesting I'll listen to it. If not, I'll exercise my freedom to walk away, unless I find their efforts amusing.

I don't need to define the truth of reality to justify my disdain for economic fairy-tales. I just need to prove that they are fairy-tales.

First, Free Market. Two words; "Great" and "Recession." Two more words "Great" and "Depression." Two more words; "Robber" and "Barons." The free market does not self regulate. It massively concentrates wealth with the few. It is a ruinous and stagnating economic platform. Every time it has come close to reality it has crashed the system. My proof is called history. Appeals to "Corporate Welfare" don't apply. The market crashes are just a side effect. The real proof is in the massive gap between the haves and have-nots. This isn't about redistribution of wealth. It is grinding the working class into poverty while those with money get more. Free Markets can't regulate themselves because they concentrate wealth. The basic theory is that the movement of wealth is what regulates the economy. People cannot vote with their dollars if they have no dollars.

Next, we'll tackle Communism. Socialism is not an economic system, and I wouldn't want imprecision to muddy things. I know you dislike that.

My evidence; The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The People's Republic of China. Capitalism's big advantage over communism is the obvious motivating factor. Those who have wealth can manipulate the market to have more. In theory this would work just fine in communism, if communism itself could work. It can't because there's no simple way for the workers to own their work. Instead, a central authority must manage the resources in the workers' stead. This turns out have the same effect as unrestrained capitalism, but rather than wealth concentration occurring via market manipulation it occurs via fiat. Largely this is against communist principles, but it happens anyway because deep down, human beings are rat bastards and can't be trusted.
the USSR fell because of the corruption inherent in the system. The PRC wised up and instituted capitalist economic reforms. Now they have much the same problem as the US has. They have a massive and growing wealth gap. To add to that, they still have central authority problem the USSR had.
Some tend to see their successes and think this isn't true, but China has been benefiting, like the US, from baby boom. That boom occurred at about the same time as ours. Their population is aging, and their population control measures are also taking a bite. Their current growth isn't sustainable, and this likely explains some of their currency manipulation policies. In any event, despite being "communist" on paper, their reforms are capitalistic. Communism again proves unsustainable.
There are other Socialist nations with stable and even growing economies, but each of these is actually a capitalist economy under a socialist government. As reference to capitalism this seems the only sustainable format. It happens to the format the US had for the 50 years following the great depression, before Reagan started the great deregulation. It is not Free Market. Long term sustainability remains doubtful. The system is too dependent on the level of socialism in government to maintain its stability.

Finally, Libertarianism. Like Socialism, it is not really an economic system. It can best be described as the Free Market sans Government. Some libertarians cleave to the idea of small government, but this makes them radical Republicans in denial. In the libertarian ideal, the government has no role in the lives of the people. The idea is, that if something is needed, someone will go out and build it. Sadly reality just screws the whole thing over.

To be honest, I can't say the libertarian ideal would not have worked had it gained traction in say 1790. But the advent of nuclear weapons, and modern warfare make it impossible today. No one can afford to build a credible defense against modern military power. Any Libertarian state that wasn't dirt poor would simply be conquered by its neighbors. If it did manage to mount such a defense, that defense would have to include MAD. At which point the person controlling the missiles would declare him or her self absolute monarch.

Ultimately, the issue with libertarianism is a lack of sustainability. It suffers from all of the flaws of the Free Market, but some how manages to have none of that system's meager advantages. The system lacks any form of security. Left unchecked it would fall to a Marxist Revolution.

That, ultimately, is the reason all of the extreme cases just dismissed must fail. They rely on everyone agreeing to do it. But Marxism exists. Market Theory exists. The only way to achieve temporary sustainability would be to suppress the opposing economic theory. The Open Source community might be wrong about information wanting to be free, but it has disturbing habit of getting loose.

These things aren't fairy-tales because I said so. They are fairy-tales because they can only work under perfect tyranny (impossible) or a world wide agreement to willful ignorance (highly unlikely).

The world is, in fact, complex. I called it mess, but in deference to your desire for specificity, I'm moving to different descriptor. I don't chose complex randomly. I refer to complexity theory. Economies seem to run in complex patterns, per the mathematic definition of complex. That is to say, small variations in initial condition lead to wildly diverging results. I used the word mess to start because we don't even understand the initial conditions. That makes economics inherently unpredictable. The best we can do is make iffy predictions about small sectors of the market.

This is why I don't have to provide a system that represents "the truth." No such system has been identified. That is the truth. We do not have enough information to understand our economies. I can hold those who think their pet philosophies are the truth in disdain because of that fact. They think they know how works. How it works is currently unknowable.

I would think this would be self evident, which is why I didn't explain it before. I don't like to belabor the obvious on the internet. It inflames my repetitive stress injury.

As for the rest; Star Trek is portrayed as a people's utopia that doesn't use money. It is portrayed as world in which humanity has moved beyond the accumulation of things for the sake of accumulating things.

You say this isn't in dispute, but then reach to the inconsistencies in order to dispute it. That's very political of you, but it isn't an discussion about how it might work in reality. Your own concept of reality requires that certain concepts of Trek Canon be rejected, not because they are unworkable, but because you don't like them.

You and I have already had this discussion. You know I don't accept that. Trek canon is Trek canon. Resolution of inconsistency must deal with the canon as it stands to be anything other than personal opinion. Arguing over whose personal opinion is superior is akin to arguing over who is the better masturbator. It might have amusement value but it isn't interesting in an informative sense. You can't learn anything from it.

Meanwhile, your accusations are flimsy, at best. You claim I have nothing but assertions, while your only basis for argument seems to be the assertion the the canon's creator made a mistake. That's not a basis for argument. Again, it is your personal opinion. Nothing more.

Beyond that, you clearly have a lot of bias. I don't do the mind reader thing. Your bias is showing in your signature.

I am slightly interested in the fruits of your political bias, but I don't take them all that seriously. While some scripts have displayed the central government of the UFP as being fairly strong, most indications suggest it is a weak federal system that takes a fairly hands off policy toward its member worlds

As for the tone of my comments... I be trollin'. It amuses me. It is a gentle trolling. I'm not insulting you, I'm stating my point of view. If your argument has merit, you shouldn't feel threatened by a little no holds barred discussion. If it doesn't, you still shouldn't feel threatened, at least not by the tone. Whether you find the content threatening is personal thing, and not any part of my intention. You've certainly shown a willingness to be indirectly insulting, describing opposing positions as "pathetic," and what not. I'm not doing anything different. I don't care if you agree with me or not. You literally do not matter to me, accept that in interaction with you, it is possible that I might learn something. You shouldn't be insulted by this. I don't know you. You are just lines of text in my browser to me, and I fully expect I am the same to you. I don't see how it matters. This is a discussion of fantasy. I honestly do not understand how emotional upset could be involved here.

This discussion is entertainment. It does not matter. It will not change the fate of the universe. Science tells me the odds of you changing your beliefs in this matter, even faced with undeniable evidence, are next to zero. My reasons for being here boil down to working a stressful project and using these boards to blow off steam. I happen to be the type who likes a two-fer if I can get one, so it would be pretty cool if something insightful popped up, but lacking that I'm more than willing to engage in pointless debates. As I've said before, it is entertaining.

I do find it amusing that you think I'm upset about something. Or rejecting anything. That's not personal either. I'm always amused when people claim to read minds over the internet.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

First, Free Market. Two words; "Great" and "Recession." Two more words "Great" and "Depression."

And that's a HUGE part of why I can't take you seriously when you say this sort of thing.

Look at when and how the current "recession" started. In particular, you can watch the U6 Unemployment as a great indicator of that. This chart shows the U6 Unemployment rate (which, unlike the U3 rate you usually hear, includes everyone who's unemployed and in the market, not merely those who are eligible for unemployment insurance).

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=600x300&cht=ls&chco=B22222&chf=c,lg,45,FFFFFF,0,76A4FB,0.75|bg,s,EFEFEF&chd=t:7.1,7.2,7.1,6.9,7.1,7.0,7.0,7.1,7.0,6.8,7.1,6.9,7.3,7.4,7.3,7.4,7.5,7.9,7.8,8.1,8.7,9.3,9.4,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.7,9.5,9.5,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.7,9.8,10.0,10.2,10.0,10.2,10.1,10.3,10.3,10.1,10.4,10.2,10.0,9.8,9.9,9.7,10.0,9.6,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.4,9.7,9.4,9.2,9.3,9.3,9.1,8.9,8.9,9.0,8.8,8.9,9.0,8.7,8.7,8.6,8.4,8.4,8.2,8.1,8.2,8.4,8.5,8.4,8.0,8.2,8.1,8.0,8.3,8.1,8.0,8.2,8.2,8.2,8.3,8.5,8.4,8.4,8.5,8.8,9.1,8.9,9.0,9.2,9.7,10.0,10.5,10.9,11.2,11.9,12.8,13.7,14.0,15.0,15.6,15.8,16.4,16.5,16.4,16.8,17.0,17.4,17.2,17.3,16.5,16.8,16.9,17.1,16.6,16.5,16.5,16.7,17.1,17.0,17.0,16.7,16.1,15.9,15.7,15.9,15.8,16.2,16.1,16.2,16.5,16.2,-1,-1&chds=-0,20&chg=8.333333333333334,10,8.0,0,0&chbh=r,0.5,1.5&chxt=x,y,r&chxl=0:|2000|||||||||2001|||||||||2002|||||||||2003|||||||||2004|||||||||2005|||||||||2006|||||||||2007|||||||||2008|||||||||2009|||||||||2010|||||||||2011|||||||||||1:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16|18|20|2:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16|18|20

Look at when the unemployment rate starts rising. Look at its status prior to that point.

Oddly, it seems to correspond to a particular period of time. Are you inferring that the "evil capitalists" who "caused this" were never in a position to do so until then? Or did something else happen around that timeframe?

You want to talk about what brought on the "Great Depression?" If you do, let's do so. I'll point out that there was a depression in 1920 which was ended almost immediately. That depression seemed quite severe, but the President at the time, Warren G. Harding, put into place a policy which many thought would be a bad idea, including his own treasury secretary, Herbert Hoover.

His policy was simply to reduce taxes by roughly 40%, but to reduce spending by 50%.

The result was that the next decade is still known, today, as the "roaring 20s."

Harding died in office. His VP took over, and "stayed the course" but showed little enthusiasm for doing so. Most people don't even recall who he was, but his name was Calvin Coolidge. He served out the remainder of Harding's final term, and then was elected, himself.

Now, Harding's treasury secretary was Herbert Hoover, and Hoover held an utterly different view. Hoover was a believer in the idea of the government "controlling the economy." And when he was elected President himself, that's exactly what he did. And the result is a near-perfect match-up. The moment that Hoover started implementing his "centralized economy" theories, the economy started to decline.

Hoover led the nation into a recession, but it didn't become a DEPRESSION until he was replaced by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who, despite speaking out against Hoover's policies during the election, essentially carried the same policies on. And it made matters worse.

I was taught the same garbage most of you were in school, that Roosevelt "brought us out of the depression," but in my independent studies since then, I've come to recognize that he CAUSED IT, and he PROLONGED IT.

There's a nearly perfect correlation between the two.

Just like there's a near-perfect correlation between the "Great Depression" unemployment statistics and the "U6" unemployment statistics today.

So... yeah, I have two words for what you just threw out. The first one is "Bull," and I'm sure you can guess the second one.

You're PROMOTING YOUR OWN POSITION AS THOUGH IT IS FACT, when it is not.

You are, as I said, every bit as "biased" as anyone else in this conversation. You just assume that your side is "right" and anyone not agreeing with you is "wrong," regardless of what that position might be.

But your claims, above, are not facts... they're just claims. And claims that the true facts do not agree with.

Two more words; "Robber" and "Barons."

Wow... so you can repeat phrases you were taught in school, without thinking about what they really mean.

Who coined the term "robber barons?" (I mean, in modern American terms, not in the ancient Germanic sense.)

It is a pejorative, not a factual description. It was used by partisans, and still is, but is not a factual description nor is it a justifiable on in most cases.

If you're going to use that term to describe any successful industrialist, why not go the rest of the way and portray them as wearing tophats and monocles... heck, just portray them all as "the monopoly guy."

It's just about as historically accurate.

"Robber baron" was, at that time, nothing more or less than a way of saying "I don't like this guy." But many of those who were called "robber barons" dramatically improved the situation for not only their employees but the American civilization as a whole.

Using an acknowledge pejorative as though it's somehow a "factual proof" is just laughable.

The free market does not self regulate. It massively concentrates wealth with the few. It is a ruinous and stagnating economic platform.

Ah, yes, and it's YOU who have no "axe to grind" in this conversation.

Got it.

Every time it has come close to reality it has crashed the system. My proof is called history.

Really? Seems to me that you didn't know about the 1920 event. Did you? Seems to me that much of what you think you "know" about "history" is at the very least "questionable."

You're like the Hollywood starlet who never took a science class in her life who thinks that "global warming killed her puppy" because "science says so."

History shows that every time the government tries to control the economy, it causes a crash. And every time the government gets out of the way, things get better.

MY proof is called history.

Appeals to "Corporate Welfare" don't apply. The market crashes are just a side effect. The real proof is in the massive gap between the haves and have-nots.

Gotcha. So you buy that there's a "99%" and there's a "1%" and that everyone who disagrees with you is part of that "1%?"

Man, that's an awfully large 1%, though, isn't it? Seems like that 1% makes up something like half of the population.

Sure, there are "haves" and there are "have-nots." So, the first thing we should do is confiscate Al Gore's millions, and the Kennedy fortune, and Jeffrey Immelt's fortune, and George Soros's billions, and... the list goes on.

Oh, sorry, I forgot... those are the "GOOD GUY" haves, right?

Realistically, part of why the numbers in this nation look as they do is because we keep redefining what "poverty" is. Do some reading on the term "poverty threshold" if you're really interested. "This measure recognizes poverty as a lack of those goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society."

So, if most people have private jets, and you lack a private jet, by the government's standard you're "in poverty."

Consider that those "in poverty" in the United States have more than the "upper middle class" do in some other nations.

This is not to say that there are not people in true poverty... even here. There are. But the numbers are artificially skewed by the government's rather curious definition for the "poverty threshold."

Are the "rich getting richer?" Well, it's true that there are more people in the "rich" category in this nation than there were in the past, but that's not a sign that this is a "fixed class" living in that category, is it? What this really means is that we have more people who are "rich" now than we had in the past. Which, as far as I'm concerned, isn't a bad thing. I hope to be one of those people myself someday...

This isn't about redistribution of wealth. It is grinding the working class into poverty while those with money get more.

Again with the "evenhanded, logical, factual" arguments.

Free Markets can't regulate themselves because they concentrate wealth. The basic theory is that the movement of wealth is what regulates the economy. People cannot vote with their dollars if they have no dollars.

Well, first off, Keynesian economic theory is only one theory, and is the one which worst matches the actual data, so I'd be cautious about saying it is "the theory" if I were you.

Second, true free markets do not "concentrate wealth." CENTRALLY CONTROLLED ECONOMIES do that. We have real-world examples of that all over the world.

The USA and Europe, historically, showed the greatest overall distribution of wealth in the world. The peak of this growth in standard of living occurred at the same point when the "free market" was the most unfettered. As control has been more and more centralized, the wealth disparities have grown almost in parallel to that.

Europe has moved towards a very much centralized system, and overall Europe has a worse wealth distribution than we do in the USA today.

The USSR, China, and other "full command economies" show even worst "distribution."

It is true that virtually all Chinese nationals have the same standard of living. But that standard of living is below what we, in the USA, consider "poverty." And there is an elite class in China which rules the nation, and lives in unbelievable luxury. Yet they are not "as rich" as people here in the USA, because those luxuries which they, and only they, get to experience are "society's" property, not theirs (at least, so the story goes).

The closer you get to a command economy, the worse the wealth disparities are. Data, not opinion.

Next, we'll tackle Communism. Socialism is not an economic system, and I wouldn't want imprecision to muddy things. I know you dislike that.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate, though again it's largely what is taught in schools.

Socialism, at its root definition, means "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Consider this as a "Venn diagram." Communism is one form of Socialism. In other words, not all socialism is communism, but all communism is socialism.

There are other sects of socialism, of course. "National Socialism" is probably the most common form in the world. Its two most well-recognized examples, historically, were the Italian National Socialists, who called themselves the Fascists (based upon an Italian word for a bundle of sticks which are weak individually, but once bound together become much stronger), and the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, who we most often call "Nazis" today.

Of course, there are other sects of socialism. Iran, today, is a socialist state. However, they follow a different sort of socialism... what I refer to as "religious socialism." It still meets the core definition of socialism... centralized governmental control over the means and distribution of national output.

My evidence; The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The People's Republic of China. Capitalism's big advantage over communism is the obvious motivating factor. Those who have wealth can manipulate the market to have more.

Except that your "examples" are examples of just the opposite. The elites in those two examples had far, far more then the average citizen.

You're correct that the opportunity to have more is a greater motivational factor than a police state, which is what China has today... been there quite a bit, though I don't really enjoy going to visit a police state very much. The workers in China are effectively slaves of the state. NOT a pleasant situation for them.

The leaders have huge amounts of wealth, power, and privilege, however.

The problem with so many of these arguments is that it gets painted as "government, on the side of the little guy, protecting that little guy from big bad business."

That's pure fiction. Not because there aren't "big bad" guys in business, though. There are, though not everyone is.

The issue is simply about "elites" versus "the common man." The top tiers of both business and government are populated by "the elites." Those who would be our rulers.

The thing is, only one of these groups has the power to arrest you, to confiscate your goods, to put you into jail if you fail to comply, to pick winners and losers through a means other than competition, and so forth.

I'm not saying that there aren't "bad guys" in business. Just that the worst "bad guy" in business can't do 1% of the damage that the same "bad guy" could do if he were in a position of significant authority within the US Government.

So why do so many people trust "the government" (which actually means "the people who've sought out power and now run the nation through the government") more than they trust "business" (which actually means "the people who've sought out business advantages and profit, but who do not have any legal authority over anyone")

How does that work, again?

 

[tighr]

Wowwww... TL;DR.

I enjoy a healthy debate as much as the next guy, but I will straightforward admit that I completely glossed over the last 5 posts. Huge blocks of text when your main argument hasn't changed in 60 posts are rather unnecessary.

Instead, I'll pick the one quote that I wanted to comment on:

We all know that the bits about "no money" really came from a late-in-life Gene Roddenberry, and reflected a great deal of emotionally-driven wishful thinking. We know that, when pressed on how it would work, he had no idea. And we know that, in large part, this edict from GR was either ignored or "glossed over," because it really made little if any practical sense, at least insofar as the writers, the producers, and the audience were concerned.

I would argue that Leonardo Da Vinci was steadfastly convinced that man would one day fly, but when pressed on how it would work, he had no idea. Nearly 400 years after his death, man finally figured it out, and now billions of humans take flight for granted.

Thus, I believe in a future with no need for currency. I also believe in a "Star Trek" written by writers who had no idea how a future with no currency would work, and thus ignored the idea.

Just because the writers couldn't figure it out TODAY, doesn't mean we as a civilization won't figure it out in 400 years.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

In theory this would work just fine in communism, if communism itself could work. It can't because there's no simple way for the workers to own their work. Instead, a central authority must manage the resources in the workers' stead. This turns out have the same effect as unrestrained capitalism, but rather than wealth concentration occurring via market manipulation it occurs via fiat.

That's largely a correct statement.. except that I would say that nobody really buys into the idea that "the individual" owns anything, even a "percentage" of the State. The state owns everything, including the individual. And "the state" is controlled by a small elite... who effectively own the individuals who make up that society.

It's pure Feudalism, reborn with a new name.

Largely this is against communist principles, but it happens anyway because deep down, human beings are rat bastards and can't be trusted.

Well, I'd disagree that it's "against communist principles," ... it's against "communist talking points" but not really against the principles.

And as far as people being "rat bastards," that's a bit of an over-generalization, but is effectively true. Nobody is "perfect" and thus nobody can be trusted with that level of authority over others. People who may seem nice enough, when put into positions of absolute authority over others, may end up letting little hidden peccadillos (like a strongly anti-Jewish bent) out of the darker layers of their psyche.

The best way to ensure that the existing "rat-bastardness" of men is never allowed full sway is to ensure that power is kept in as decentralized of a form as possible.

Of course, this does not mean I'm advocating anarchy. "As possible" is a key part of what I just said. There needs to be just enough centralization of power to ensure order, and no more.

Or, as Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address:

... with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

That's one of my favorite quotes... and does sum up my own socio-economic and political position pretty effectively.

the USSR fell because of the corruption inherent in the system. The PRC wised up and instituted capitalist economic reforms.

Except... and I've spent a LOT of time there in the past several years... this is untrue. It's what we're told, but it's untrue. They have, instead, implemented "National Socialism." The government has FULL CONTROL over all business, without exception.

And if you work for a company which tells you that it has a "Chinese division," please take a look into the ownership of that "division." It is legally entirely a separate entity... Chinese law prohibits ANY foreign ownership of any business located in China.

No, China is not "capitalist" or "free market" in any way, shape or form. But we, in the USA, buy into that so that we keep transferring our intellectual property to "our partners" in China, shut down our own production capabilities, and then start transferring our remaining wealth to China.

They are NOT "Capitalist."

Now they have much the same problem as the US has. They have a massive and growing wealth gap. To add to that, they still have central authority problem the USSR had.

Not entirely true... they do have the "central authority" issue, but the overall standard of living has improved somewhat in the past decade. It's been FORCIBLE... entire villages emptied out and gunpoint and forced to work in new factories in Shanghai, Suzhou, or the like... but the overall standard of the living in the nation has improved quite a bit since the aftermath of the "Cultural Revolution" (and the murders of about 40,000,000 chinese by their government) devastated the nation's economy in the last 1960s.

Some tend to see their successes and think this isn't true, but China has been benefiting, like the US, from baby boom. That boom occurred at about the same time as ours. Their population is aging, and their population control measures are also taking a bite.

Well, as much as I personally despise the state-mandated "one child policy," I disagree with the claim that this is hurting their economy. Any negative impact from that will not show up for another twenty or so years, based upon current population numbers.

And the "elderly mortality rate" there is quite high... those who are no longer "beneficial to society" simply don't get the medical care we provide here. So I'm not sure how much impact there really will be.

Their current growth isn't sustainable, and this likely explains some of their currency manipulation policies.

Another place where I find what's been put out to be just wrong.

I'm no fan of China, but I recognize that they're not "manipulating their currency." That was just an excuse to try to blame them for the consequences of our own excessive, unceasing borrowing. China is doing exactly the right thing, and it's OUR IDIOCY which is causing the problems, if you look at the actual facts. We keep borrowing from them, and unless we DEFAULT on that borrowing (which would not end well for us), they stand only to win.

Smart, and not even sneaky. They're just acting intelligently, taking full advantage of the US government's lack of restraint. And Harry Reid is trying to blame THEM for that? Riiiight...

In any event, despite being "communist" on paper, their reforms are capitalistic. Communism again proves unsustainable.

No, their "reforms" are "National Socialistic."

The "wonderful" thing about National Socialism is that the government still maintains full control, but the RISK of business is not on the government's head like it is in Communism.

This is part of why Benito Mussolini left the Communist Party and started the Fascist party... he realized that in Communism, he's be held responsible for failures, but in National Socialism, he'd get the benefits of success but would be able to pass the blame for failures down to the "owners" of the businesses.

There are other Socialist nations with stable and even growing economies, but each of these is actually a capitalist economy under a socialist government.

Except that's not really true. All are, to one extent or another, merely different flavors of "National Socialism." Some are more centralized than others. And by the way, the USA is essentially a "National Socialist" nation as well at this point.

Every time you hear a call for more "governmental control over business," what you're really hearing is a call for a move further away from "free market capitalism" and more towards "National Socialism." It matters not one bit who OWNS the business... it matters who CONTROLS the business.

Inevitably, though, the lines will blur... just ask Jeffrey Immelt.

As reference to capitalism this seems the only sustainable format. It happens to the format the US had for the 50 years following the great depression, before Reagan started the great deregulation.

Another pejorative term, by the way, intended to infer that Reagan was somehow "responsible for the economic downturn," while in fact his promotion of free market principles and lowered taxation led to the biggest economic boom since the post WWII recovery, and the longest sustained boom in American history.

It is not Free Market. Long term sustainability remains doubtful. The system is too dependent on the level of socialism in government to maintain its stability.

Actually, I strongly hold that if we reduce the "level of socialism in government," we will dramatically increase the business output and thus increase our overall productivity (and standard of living) as a result. History has proven this to be the case, every time it's been tried... from Harding to Kennedy to Reagan.

Finally, Libertarianism. Like Socialism, it is not really an economic system. It can best be described as the Free Market sans Government. Some libertarians cleave to the idea of small government, but this makes them radical Republicans in denial.

"Republicans" are not a group. It's a party, but the party is not a single coherent whole.

There are two major subdivisions within the Republican party. There are the "Conservative Republicans" and there are the "Liberal Republicans."

There are plenty of liberal republicans, and always have been. Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, Gerrald Ford... well-known examples from the past. Today, we have John McCain and Mitt Romney as the two most prominent examples.

On the Conservative side, well.. most of those who are supported by the grass-roots "Tea Party" movement, really, though that's not a clear indicator necessarily.

The two groups are in conflict, and have been since the early 1960s. At the time of the mid-1960s, these two groups were known as the "Goldwater Republicans" and the "Rockefeller Republicans." The "Rockefeller" types are, for the most part, the "blue blood, country club" types, and do tend to stick together, and promote "their own" pretty strongly. The other group was behind Reagan, and is now a major force behind the "Tea Party" movement today.

Hardly a cohesive whole.

In my own case, I've refused to ever "join a party" at all. I don't really believe in formal political parties, or "team jersies" as I tend to describe it.

In the libertarian ideal, the government has no role in the lives of the people. The idea is, that if something is needed, someone will go out and build it. Sadly reality just screws the whole thing over.

An entirely false definition.

What you just described is anarchy, not libertarianism.

Libertarianism is defined, rather, as "An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

That's MINIMAL, not "ZERO." That's basically the Jeffersonian principle I quoted earlier.

Unfortunately, much of the base of the current "Libertarian party" is more concerned with drug legalization than anything else. I'd be fine with that if it as treated as "one end among many" rather than the primary goal for so many of the party faithful.

To be honest, I can't say the libertarian ideal would not have worked had it gained traction in say 1790.

What you described, which is ANARCHY, would NEVER have worked. Fortunately, nobody has ever REALLY advocated anarchy.

Even the modern anarchists really only advocate "temporary anarchy" in an attempt to tear down the current system. They then promote replacement of that system with another, and more restrictive, system... so they're not true "anarchists" at all, when you get right down to it.

But the advent of nuclear weapons, and modern warfare make it impossible today. No one can afford to build a credible defense against modern military power. Any Libertarian state that wasn't dirt poor would simply be conquered by its neighbors. If it did manage to mount such a defense, that defense would have to include MAD. At which point the person controlling the missiles would declare him or her self absolute monarch.

Again... Jefferson's quote (above) says it best... the proper role of government is to prevent men from harming one another, and otherwise to stay the hell out of their way.

"Preventing men from harming one another" is why National Defense is a proper role of government. Libertarians don't disagree with this. They do tend to be a lot more isolationist, though... see Ron Paul, for example.

Ultimately, the issue with libertarianism is a lack of sustainability. It suffers from all of the flaws of the Free Market, but some how manages to have none of that system's meager advantages. The system lacks any form of security. Left unchecked it would fall to a Marxist Revolution.

Actually, you just made a Glenn Beck point...

His idea is that the political spectrum isn't a line, it's a circle. If you go too far in either direction, you inevitably end up flipping over to the other side. Go to full anarchy (NOT LIBERTARIANISM), and you'll "flip" to a pure tyranny which will eventually become more free with the passage of time. Go to full tyranny, and the system will collapse under the impossibility of exercising that level of control, and anarchy will be the inevitable result.

Bet you didn't know that you and Beck agree, did you?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

These things aren't fairy-tales because I said so. They are fairy-tales because they can only work under perfect tyranny (impossible) or a world wide agreement to willful ignorance (highly unlikely).

Except, of course, that NO ONE HAS EVER ADVOCATED EITHER POSITION. Certainly not in this thread, and as far as I know, not in history.

"Perfect tyranny" is, as you say, impossible. That level of control isn't achievable. "The Matrix" showed something very close, mind you, and Trek's "Borg" (as originally portrayed, not as they were corrupted over time, mind you) are as close as is imaginable.

On the other hand, Anarchy, while undesirable, has nothing whatsoever to do with "willful ignorance." Rather, those who believe "anarchy" could exists are mainly high on something when they say it. The moment that someone starts thinking about "how would this work," they realize that it won't... and this typically leads into the other extreme, tyranny.

That's sort of what Roddenberry ended up doing, really. He thought that what he came up with in the late 70s was "better," just like he thought that "warp 10 = infinity" was better... but both just led to more problems and confusion.

The world is, in fact, complex. I called it mess, but in deference to your desire for specificity, I'm moving to different descriptor. I don't chose complex randomly. I refer to complexity theory. Economies seem to run in complex patterns, per the mathematic definition of complex. That is to say, small variations in initial condition lead to wildly diverging results. I used the word mess to start because we don't even understand the initial conditions. That makes economics inherently unpredictable. The best we can do is make iffy predictions about small sectors of the market.

This is actually a real science. You've heard the term, but maybe haven't related it to what you just described, which is simply Chaos theory.

Agreed, the world is much more complex than any "control system" will ever be able to control. The more centralized the control is, the more impractical the control becomes. Even the best intention will lead to failure. But most of the time, centralized control is not paired with "the best intentions," is it?

This is why I don't have to provide a system that represents "the truth." No such system has been identified. That is the truth. We do not have enough information to understand our economies.

Which is, in the end, a cop-out.

You can criticize EVERYONE ELSE as being "irrational" or "simplistic" while totally insulating yourself from similar criticism.

But I don't buy it. I think you have a "preferred solution." You may not think it's "perfect" but you do prefer one approach to another, don't you?

I can hold those who think their pet philosophies are the truth in disdain because of that fact. They think they know how works. How it works is currently unknowable.

The same can be said for most anything. You think you know how your computer works, for example. But you really don't. The complexity is way too high.

This does NOT mean that you can't make observations, however... and that you can't draw conclusions from those observations.

You can say, with a high degree of probability, that if you hit "shut down" on your computer, it will end in a particular result. Yet you can scarcely comprehend the cascade of signals that flush through a huge number of N-P-N and P-N-P junctions on a wafer of silicon to get you to that point.

We don't need to fully understand the entire situation. We only need to observe "If this, then this" and, with experience, determine relative probabilities.

The odds are VERY high that if you hit "shut down," on your computer, it will shut down. You don't need to understand the entire process in order to grasp that basic fact, do you?

As for the rest; Star Trek is portrayed as a people's utopia that doesn't use money. It is portrayed as world in which humanity has moved beyond the accumulation of things for the sake of accumulating things.

And again, it's portrayed as a culture which doesn't use CASH. But there are many, many examples of people in that culture buying and selling... of using money. Merely not "cash money" so to speak. Numerous example of this have been put out there, yet you've failed to acknowledge any of those examples. Not because they're "invalid," but rather because they don't fit your own model.

You say this isn't in dispute, but then reach to the inconsistencies in order to dispute it. That's very political of you, but it isn't an discussion about how it might work in reality. Your own concept of reality requires that certain concepts of Trek Canon be rejected, not because they are unworkable, but because you don't like them.

Ummm... and so is yours.

You've rejected all the clear evidence of monetarily-driven commerce in Star Trek, in favor of a couple of lines supporting a different position.

There is inconsistency. It is there. It is real. The only way to reconcile inconsistency is to find which item is best in accordance with logic, reason, and reality.

You and I have already had this discussion. You know I don't accept that. Trek canon is Trek canon. Resolution of inconsistency must deal with the canon as it stands to be anything other than personal opinion.

True, and as soon as you accept that Starfleet personnel and Federation and Earth citizens are shown engaging in commerce, involving payments being exchanged, in-canon, you won't be guilty of the very thing you're accusing me of.

Meanwhile, your accusations are flimsy, at best. You claim I have nothing but assertions, while your only basis for argument seems to be the assertion the the canon's creator made a mistake. That's not a basis for argument. Again, it is your personal opinion. Nothing more.

No, it's not. Because GENE RODDENBERRY ISN'T THE CANON'S CREATOR.

He is one man. He played a role in the creation of Star Trek, but so have... well, at this point, THOUSANDS of others.

He is not "God of Star Trek."

He was, at best, "Star Trek's overbearing mother." At times he was central to its creation, but at the same time, he denied anyone else any influence over it, and eventually it ran away and told him to stay the heck out if its life. He was invited back in, eventually, but drove the rest of the family away.

Beyond that, you clearly have a lot of bias. I don't do the mind reader thing. Your bias is showing in your signature.

I make no secret of my beliefs. You, on the other hand, also have a lot of bias. You've made that quite clear as well. But you'd like to pretend that you don't... and that's dishonest. Whether it's self-deception or willful deception is unclear, but you DO have strong biases, don't you?

As for the tone of my comments... I be trollin'. It amuses me. It is a gentle trolling. I'm not insulting you, I'm stating my point of view.

Oh, I know. And the same goes here.

All discussion is valuable, as long as it's HONEST discussion. It only becomes worthless when one party or the other has a "hidden agenda" and is not acting honestly and honorably.

I'm sure you really do think that you're being "reasonable" and that others in the thread, myself among them, are not. But that's merely because your position agrees with your position, and thus seems "normal" to you, while other positions do not agree with your position and thus seem "extreme" or "irrational" or "silly" to you.

That's as clear of sign of bias as anything I can imagine. I've been hoping you'd see this in yourself and, well, just admit that you're in the same boat as those whom you're criticizing. I've pointed it out, over and over, in the hopes that you'd have that "aha" moment and realize "well, damn, I'm doing it too!"

No such luck so far, though, huh?

If your argument has merit, you shouldn't feel threatened by a little no holds barred discussion. If it doesn't, you still shouldn't feel threatened, at least not by the tone. Whether you find the content threatening is personal thing, and not any part of my intention.

You are the only one to mention "feeling threatened." I certainly don't feel that way in the slightest. I feel like a teacher trying to explain a complex theory to a high school kid who's convinced he already understands "how the world really works" and thinks that it's "the adults who don't get it."

You may not care for that, but that's how I see this interaction. My hope is that you'll see a bit of a reflection of the strong, overt biases you've put forth (while claiming, sillily, to be the "one unbiased person" who's not "engaging in silliness.")

You've certainly shown a willingness to be indirectly insulting, describing opposing positions as "pathetic," and what not. I'm not doing anything different. I don't care if you agree with me or not.

I have described POSITIONS in negative terms, but not people. And, to be fair, for the most part so have you (although you have crossed that line a couple of times). I've described a lot of claims as "nonsense," and you've described things in similar terms.

But I've followed on with my statement with a clear (if wordy) explanation of WHY it's "nonsense." You have done that on occasion, but you've also made ad-hominems without supporting them, and most of the explanations have only come once the ad-hominems were challenged. And to date, you have still not really stated a position of your own, though you've inferred quite a bit in this last post.

You literally do not matter to me, accept that in interaction with you, it is possible that I might learn something.

Not QUITE the same here. EVERYONE matters to me, to an extent. People I've had no contact with can't matter much except as an abstract. People I've had interchanges with matter more. But you're not a part of my life, any more than I'm a part of yours... and I think that's what you mean. If so, we're agreed.

You shouldn't be insulted by this. I don't know you. You are just lines of text in my browser to me, and I fully expect I am the same to you.

Not insulted in the least. I do recognize that there's a real person on the other end (as I'm sure you do as well) but our interaction is limited. However, I do hope that you will "learn something" from this exchange. If nothing else, PLEASE take a look at the real economic events surrounding 1920. It might open your eyes to things you hadn't ever anticipated.

I don't see how it matters. This is a discussion of fantasy. I honestly do not understand how emotional upset could be involved here.

And there IS no "emotional upset." Why in the world would you be talking about any such thing? I can tell that you're not "upset" and I can assure you that I've been absolutely "Spockian" throughout this entire exchange. If you think you're seeing something else... you're reading in, or projecting, something which isn't there.

This discussion is entertainment. It does not matter. It will not change the fate of the universe. Science tells me the odds of you changing your beliefs in this matter, even faced with undeniable evidence, are next to zero.

"Science" tells you no such thing. Science is a process by which we observe, experiment, measure, and analyze, and hopefully come to understand better what we've observed as a result.

Please don't misuse the term "science" to mean something besides what it actually means. We get more than enough of that today, with people who flunked out of their high school science classes acting as though "science" is some form of religion. It is what it is... a very useful tool, but a tool nontheless.

And in this case, a tool which is not related to your opinions about another person's opinions... even if your opinions prove to be correct in the end.

My reasons for being here boil down to working a stressful project and using these boards to blow off steam. I happen to be the type who likes a two-fer if I can get one, so it would be pretty cool if something insightful popped up, but lacking that I'm more than willing to engage in pointless debates. As I've said before, it is entertaining.

Same here. Particularly when traveling, I spend a significant amount of time doing this sort of thing. Especially if the people I'm around during the day barely speak English, and I barely speak their language, and if I don't want to go out unescorted and have no "guide" at the moment.

When I'm traveling, my postings become far, far more frequent and extensive. It's not like watching foreign-language TV game shows is a better use of my time.

I do find it amusing that you think I'm upset about something.

I don't think I said "upset." Did I?

Or rejecting anything.

That, on the other hand, I did say, and I do mean. You've been very quick to disregard all the evidence that goes against the "socialist utopia" position, of which there is an extensive amount in Trek, being utterly dismissive of those points. And you have, repeatedly, used denigratory (and unsupported) descriptions of opposing viewpoints. You have, bluntly stated, rejected those items which don't conform to the position you've chosen, out of hand.

That's not personal either. I'm always amused when people claim to read minds over the internet.

As am I. So, when you mentioned what you believed was my "emotional state" a few lines up, I found it amusing, especially since you were so far off the mark. But seeing you say this... again, you really do need to take a step back and see your own behavior when you start doing this sort of thing.

I never discussed your emotional state, only your claims and your openly expressed attitudes. I actually assumed you were engaging in this as much as a "lark" as I've been doing. At no point did I pick up "rage" or "fear" or "hurt." Only obstinacy, closed-mindedness, judgementalism, and a lack of personal introspection.

All of which you COULD get past, with just that one "aha" moment I've been hoping you'd have.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Wowwww... TL;DR.

I enjoy a healthy debate as much as the next guy, but I will straightforward admit that I completely glossed over the last 5 posts. Huge blocks of text when your main argument hasn't changed in 60 posts are rather unnecessary.

Instead, I'll pick the one quote that I wanted to comment on:

We all know that the bits about "no money" really came from a late-in-life Gene Roddenberry, and reflected a great deal of emotionally-driven wishful thinking. We know that, when pressed on how it would work, he had no idea. And we know that, in large part, this edict from GR was either ignored or "glossed over," because it really made little if any practical sense, at least insofar as the writers, the producers, and the audience were concerned.

I would argue that Leonardo Da Vinci was steadfastly convinced that man would one day fly, but when pressed on how it would work, he had no idea. Nearly 400 years after his death, man finally figured it out, and now billions of humans take flight for granted.

Thus, I believe in a future with no need for currency. I also believe in a "Star Trek" written by writers who had no idea how a future with no currency would work, and thus ignored the idea.

Just because the writers couldn't figure it out TODAY, doesn't mean we as a civilization won't figure it out in 400 years.

I believe in a CLOSE future with no need for "currency" (meaning physical units such as bills or coins or the like).

I do NOT believe that "a unit of stored value" will ever not be necessary, however, and that is ultimately what MONEY means.

So I agree with your statement, but I don't believe I agree with your INTENDED statement.

 

[TheBrew]

I was taught the same garbage most of you were in school, that Roosevelt "brought us out of the depression," but in my independent studies since then, I've come to recognize that he CAUSED IT.

That just might be the stupidest thing I've read on the internet. At least in the top 10.

Did you inhale a good amount particles from a dustbuster while you were doing reference work for your designs?

 

[Deckerd]

I do NOT believe that "a unit of stored value" will ever not be necessary, however, and that is ultimately what MONEY means.

So I agree with your statement, but I don't believe I agree with your INTENDED statement.

It seems you're just arguing terminology here. One man's credit is another man's money. It's obvious that nobody works for nothing in the Star Trek world. The 'no money' comment(s) are just a terminology problem too. Perhaps if the script had said 'no cash' the hundreds of thousands of miles of text generated by that comment would never have happened. In another timeline perhaps.

 

[Maverisms]

TL : DR

Sorry Cary. This is supposed to be entertainment. I'm not going to dig through all of that silly bull shit you writ trying to find the point, if you had one.

Come back when you've learned to be succinct rather than trying to obfuscate using the wall of text method.

That said, I'll address your strange fantasy that "raising Taxes" or some such bull caused the Great Recession.

The Most Proximate cause of the Great Recession was the housing bubble. No taxes or regulations were enacted to burst the bubble. The bubble started in 2001-2 and burst in 2006-7 It would have been a mild issues had it not been for the Mortgage Back Securities issue.

This led to the realization that the investment market was heavily invested in Mortgage Back Securities. A Market Panic ensured.

During all of this, the common man on the street was not able to even play in the market (Day trading requires, by federal law, a minimum $25,000 investment). If they had anything invested it was small sum they were using for retirement. Few were making any market moves. So they didn't cause the Recession.

Good old W was president when the Recession kicked off. The first tumble occurred before the election. At most you could make the claim that the threat of higher taxes had something to do with the recession, but if that is your logic then I must say, you are insane.

Since the Recession kicked off, no major tax increases have happened. In fact, those few that did pass were delayed and will only start to come on board in 2012. Yet some how you are trying to connect the Depression's policies to the Recessions through a measure of unemployment.

You say I have an axe to grind? Seriously, you keep making assumptions and you keep making an ass out of your self. I'd be saddened by this if you weren't so damned predictable about it.

I based my assessment on a raft of different information sources. Everything from the Wall Street Journal to Wikipedia. I based it on the evaluations of experts, from all side of the isle. I looked at what the pointed to has the source of the problem, not what they said it means. It is clear that the Recession and the Depression were both caused my market manipulation. Trying to tie the non-recovery to administration policy might work with the Depression, I wasn't there, but the Administration has been successfully cock-blocked by Congress through out the Recession. It hasn't passed any policy at all.

The lack of recovery at this point has more to do with the actions of banks and the actions of employers that it does with any policy choices. Again, analysis from the WSJ and FOX News. I know, those bastions of liberal thought. Businesses are hiring people, slowly, but are paying less. Banks, are borrowing from the Fed at zero interest and then using those funds to invest...in T-Bills. They are at a low point in issuing loans including short term loans that businesses rely on to make payroll (which is why the businesses are barely hiring).

There are other effects at play here. But none of them is a policy decision. Things like homeowners being upside down on what they owe. Too many houses (because of boom in housing flippers) lack of business (Since no one is getting paid much lately, fewer are buying non essentials).

You pull one chart out of your ass and claim that all of the rest is bunk? A chart? Who are you, Ross Perot?

 

[Maverisms]

I do NOT believe that "a unit of stored value" will ever not be necessary, however, and that is ultimately what MONEY means.

So I agree with your statement, but I don't believe I agree with your INTENDED statement.

Dude...You realize statements like that make the baby Jesus cry, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

"Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law."

Fiat money is basis of the US Dollar which is, in turn, the defacto world currency. In short, money has value because we said so. It in NOT a unit of stored value. It is, as I said before, a "Value abstraction layer."

Here's an experiment. Take a flight out to the deep wilderness of Alaska. Take 3 years of food, an arctic tent, and enough money to buy the supplies and the plane 20 times over.

You'll also need a grenade.

Once you landed, get the pilot to help unload. Make sure he has all of the supplies and you have all the money.

Pull the pin and throw the grenade into the plane.

When the shrapnel settles, offer the pilot all of the money if he gives up all of the supplies.

Tell me how that works out. Better yet, tell me what you would do in that situation, if you were the pilot. Call it a thought experiment.

 

[Maverisms]

I don't think I said "upset." Did I?

Yes you did. I find it bizarre that you did know that. You wrote it, and it is right at the top of the page

I never discussed your emotional state, only your claims and your openly expressed attitudes.

"Upset" is an emotional state. Do we need to go to the dictionary?

Honestly, you're upset because you haven't been agreed with in entirety.

Your words, linked back to the post you wrote them in. Not the only case where you've done it, but the specific example to your "I didn't do it claim."

I'm still working my way through your epic wall of text, but I couldn't pass this one by. You aren't helping your case by not looking back at your own words before replying. It one thing to avoid a bit of web research, it is another to ignore something on the same page

Ctrl+F Most browsers support it. You could have found your words with an automated search.

 

[tighr]

I don't think I said "upset." Did I?

Yes you did. I find it bizarre that you did know that. You wrote it, and it is right at the top of the page.

He wrote so much damn text, it makes sense that he forgot what's he's written!

I believe in a CLOSE future with no need for "currency" (meaning physical units such as bills or coins or the like).

I do NOT believe that "a unit of stored value" will ever not be necessary, however, and that is ultimately what MONEY means.

So I agree with your statement, but I don't believe I agree with your INTENDED statement.

Well I'm sorry that we disagree, then. Because my "intended" statement is that we will have a future with no MONEY, no CURRENCY, no UNITS OF STORED VALUE, no CASH, none of that. Absolutely none of that.

Again, my point is that just because you and I can't figure out how such a thing would ever be possible doesn't mean that it is impossible.

 

[BK613]

Sometimes all it takes is to change the world is to tack 95 theses to the door.
Or "hold [certain] truths to be self-evident."
Or "have a dream."
Sea changes in society usually start with an impossibly radical idea. You would need such a sea change here.

 

[Maverisms]

I think it is normal to forget what one wrote. The thing I find odd is, that when challenged, he didn't double check. Something like that weakens the argument by making one appear erratic and confused and, as I said, it is easy to prevent.

Edit: Also, I've hit the bottom of the wall of text. It was amusing, but not convincing. I'm not going to respond to it. Which isn't to say I can't. It just rambles to much. The discussion is getting inflationary. I will respond to any specific point anyone cares to single out. I've formulated a response to most of them, and at least a dismissal of the rest. But that whole wall of text thing made me tired. Though it was more flood than a wall, I suppose. Wall of text usually implies dense formatting, where this was just a lot of text.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I was taught the same garbage most of you were in school, that Roosevelt "brought us out of the depression," but in my independent studies since then, I've come to recognize that he CAUSED IT.

That just might be the stupidest thing I've read on the internet. At least in the top 10.

Did you inhale a good amount particles from a dustbuster while you were doing reference work for your designs?

No, it's not. But thanks, "Corporal Captain," for recruiting folks to come into this thread to argue it. God knows you wouldn't want to actually be up-front and actually discuss things yourself, now, would you?

You might want to review what I said, instead of simply responding to a selective, partial quote provided in the "Neutral Zone" by "Corporal Captain."

In 1920, the economy started a downturn. Warren Harding was president, and he took a hard-line approach. He cut spending by 50%, and cut taxes by about 40%. He was opposed in this by his own Secretary of the Treasury, Herbert Hoover.

But what Harding did worked. The economy turned around, the "doom sayers" were proven wrong, and the economy of the 1920s was booming... in fact, that's where the term "the roaring 20s" came from.

Harding died (under... "suspicious" circumstances) just prior to the vote for his re-election. The remainder of his last year was fulfilled by his VP, Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge was elected and served the next four years, taking us to 1928.

In 1928, Herbert Hoover sought, and won, the election for President. Hoover disagreed wholeheartedly with Harding's philosophy, and immediately reversed Harding's policies.

Hoover believed in "government controlled economy." He implemented exactly those sort of policies, and the economy immediately entered a downturn... a major recession.

So, as I clearly said earlier, Hoover brought about the beginning of the Great Depression. "Corporal Captain" somehow forgot to mention that part when he went into "The Neutral Zone" to try to stir this up, though, didn't he?

In 1932, Hoover lost the election to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt was very critical of Hoover's policies, and placed blame for the "major recession" at Hoover's feet... and rightfully so.

But, again EXACTLY AS I SAID EARLIER... Roosevelt not only continued Hoover's policies, he accelerated them and grew them. Despite campaign rhetoric, the two men were largely in agreement about economics, frankly. Roosevelt just went further than Hoover did.

Had Roosevelt taken a different tact, he could have quashed Hoover's recession. Instead, he took the tact he did and the result was that we ended up in a true depression. He transformed a bad situation into a worse one.

And he continued to implement these sorts of policies, which means that what might have been a brief hiccup ended up being a decade-plus downturn.

The depression was not ended by WWII, but instead by the post-WWII reforms and the restoration of "wartime spending" to the domestic situation. Basically, FDR didn't get us out of the Great Depression, Harry Truman did.

Now, for those of you who are blind partisans... please note that I'm critical of Hoover (a republican) and am praising Truman (a democrat).

Did you know ANY of that? Care to discuss it? Or is it more fun to come into a serious conversation and make bratty, snide snipes.

And yes, "Corporal Captain," nice job. Running into a "people we hate on the TrekBBS" thread and asking people to come here and comment... and doing so with a short, out-of-context quote, intended to stir outrage.

You must be very proud.

 

[Deckerd]

People? You mean one guy who should have known better.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I think it is normal to forget what one wrote. The thing I find odd is, that when challenged, he didn't double check. Something like that weakens the argument by making one appear erratic and confused and, as I said, it is easy to prevent.

Nobody has ever claimed to be perfect here.

Here's the bit in question, by the way

I don't mistake courtesy for reasonable discourse. Some of my most enlightening debates were knock-down drag-out, vitriolic slugfests. But underlying the displays of venom were ideas about the nature of the thing, not ideals about what the thing should be. Here I see the later. Here I see people trying to twist the UFP to fit their prejudices, rather than an attempt to understand it. It is pointless.

Here, I see you doing EXACTLY what you've just ascribed to others.

Honestly, you're upset because you haven't been agreed with in entirety. That's all that's coming across in this post of yours.

So the way your comments come across, it seems that you're trying to "guilt" those who you've disagreed with to just shut up?

Your use of the terms like "venom" and "twist" and "prejudices" and the like do not infer "calmness," and yes, it did come across that way.

I forgot that particular bit, it's true... I have other things on my mind as well.

I did not claim I never said that, exactly, though, did I?

I don't think I said "upset." Did I?

A bit different. And yes, I was responding in real-time to your own post and didn't bother to go back and re-read all prior posts.

I made a mistake. I forgot that one line. It's not a big deal, unless someone really, really wants and needs to find something to be critical of, though, is it?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It seems you're just arguing terminology here. One man's credit is another man's money. It's obvious that nobody works for nothing in the Star Trek world. The 'no money' comment(s) are just a terminology problem too. Perhaps if the script had said 'no cash' the hundreds of thousands of miles of text generated by that comment would never have happened. In another timeline perhaps.

No, I'm arguing different concepts:

1) Physical currency (bills, coins, etc)
2) Mathematical units of stored value.

Not the same thing. One we are practically beyond today. The other, I do not believe we will ever be beyond unless our society and civilization becomes totally unrecognizable (which is not the case in Star Trek, is it?)

The on-screen evidence shows clear "trade" in the same sense we have it today. The lines on-screen which show otherwise are much less clear. The bit from "ST-IV" where they don't understand the concept of "currency" is pretty much tied to not getting what "exact change only" means, for example.

Maybe "mass transit" in Trek times is paid for entirely by taxation, and thus requires no individual payment at time of use. Maybe other transactions are made with "Federation Credit accounts." Clearly, nobody uses "Federation Dollar Bills."

 

[Deckerd]

Not the same thing. One we are practically beyond today. The other, I do not believe we will ever be beyond unless our society and civilization becomes totally unrecognizable (which is not the case in Star Trek, is it?)

Then perhaps [whisper it], you've just answered the OP's question? It was a semantic problem after all.