A country without Money how it's work?

[Brainsucker]

Is it me or is the OP just engrigh McCarthyism101, replete with false dichotomies and oversimplifications?


Look, Brainsucker. I know modern society bashes into our skulls from a very young age that laziness is the ultimate crime (sadly, intellectual laziness isn't frowned upon, though) but have you ever examined that belief?
I used to think like you, when I was a teenager: ultra-capitalism "just made sense": it was a beautiful, self-regulated system with no discernible theoretical exploitable flaws (the past 4 years sure have proven the theory wrong on that aspect); but then I matured and discovered the meaning of "empathy": any system that leaves so many on its fringes, in dismal poverty, cannot be very good; any system where one man has to live in the streets so that another can live in decadent luxury cannot be very good.
Nobody deserves the former man's fate; nobody needs the latter man's riches, diligence or lack thereof be damned*.

*Clarification: I am not implying the poor are lazy; just pointing out that even if that was the case, their fate is undeserved.


Truth is, not only is "diligent vs lazy" a false dichotomy, it's not even true.
Nobody is "lazy" or "diligent", people are differently motivated to do different things; we might label those motivated to do X lazy and those motivated to do Y diligent, but those labels simply rely on the evaluated productivity of the action.
Nobody likes "doing nothing", over time boredom even leads to depression and eventually death (by suicide).

Maybe in the 23rd/24th century, the contemplative philosopher will be valued as much as (or even more than) the field labourer: he might not contribute to the community's material wealth, but his ponderings validate us all as a species; regardless of outcome.

It is interesting post, thanks. And now I'm an oversimplifications McCarthyism (although I'm not familiar with that name until I open Wikipedia. Well consider me an uneducated person; but I'm really not familiar with this man called Joseph McCarthy nor care about him prior this post. He is not even in any historical book that I have read until today. Or maybe I just lack of interest to American history in general. But thanks, this is indeed give me new insight).

And now I'm a person who lack of Empathy and compassion. So thank you. But still, I don't believe that having empathy and compassion would make us to give a person who work hard and people who isn't with the same reward. But I agree with you that "any system where one man has to live in the streets so that another can live in decadent luxury cannot be very good."

Remember, it is about a man has to live in the street SO that another CAN live in decadent luxury. It is different to a man who work hard and become rich, while the other being lazy and become poor.

It is not about lazy = poor. But, how to motivate this Lazy People to work / give contribution to the society. If he wants better house, better holodeck, etc, then work harder / contribute to the society more. You won't get anything if you just lock yourself inside your room and masturbate in the holodeck everyday.

"Maybe in the 23rd/24th century, the contemplative philosopher will be valued as much as (or even more than) the field labourer: he might not contribute to the community's material wealth, but his ponderings validate us all as a species; regardless of outcome"

Well yes, Philosopher is a man with a job being philosopher, not somebody lazy who love only masturbate in the holodeck all days long.

Nobody is "lazy" or "diligent", people are differently motivated to do different things; we might label those motivated to do X lazy and those motivated to do Y diligent, but those labels simply rely on the evaluated productivity of the action.
Nobody likes "doing nothing", over time boredom even leads to depression and eventually death (by suicide).

And what about people who hide in their room and masturbate / play game all day long? Their interest is play their thing or just play game without thinking about anything else? Ah, yes, you're right. They are not lazy, but diligent too. but in their own way.

Alright, because you give me "McCarthyism101", an American Term. A word that foreign to me. So now I give you Hikikomori, a Japanese term. Just googling it.

 

[T'Girl]

any system where one man has to live in the streets so that another can live in decadent luxury cannot be very good

Except the mere presence of a wealth person doesn't necessitate that the one man "has" to live in the streets. There no direct connection. If you take the wealth person and all their money/possessions and somehow delete them from existence, the one man is still where he was before.

If you stipulate that the wealth person has a vendetta against the one man, and is purposely ruining his life, then that is something different. But simply being wealth doesn't mean the first person is the cause of the one man's street existence. Again, there is no direct connection.

What is the actual reason for the one man living on the streets? Is there drug and alcohol use? Are there psychological problems? I doubt it's because Donald Trump has a real nice house.

*****

scape·goat·ism

the act or practice of assigning blame or failure to others,
to deflect attention or responsibility away from oneself.

*****

 

[Brainsucker]

any system where one man has to live in the streets so that another can live in decadent luxury cannot be very good

Except the mere presence of a wealth person doesn't necessitate that the one man "has" to live in the streets. There no direct connection. If you take the wealth person and all their money/possessions and somehow delete them from existence, the one man is still where he was before.

If you stipulate that the wealth person has a vendetta against the one man, and is purposely ruining his life, then that is something different. But simply being wealth doesn't mean the first person is the cause of the one man's street existence. Again, there is no direct connection.

What is the actual reason for the one man living on the streets? Is there drug and alcohol use? Are there psychological problems? I doubt it's because Donald Trump has a real nice house.

*****

scape·goat·ism

the act or practice of assigning blame or failure to others,
to deflect attention or responsibility away from oneself.

*****

I agree with you

But, the world is full of surprise. Everything can happen. Even Donald Trump can cause you to live on the street just because he has a very nice house. Maybe... just maybe, you went to a gambling den, meet Donald Trump there, play a high stage poker game, lost everything and have to live on the street after that. Who know, he used your money to build his new nice house.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

any system where one man has to live in the streets so that another can live in decadent luxury cannot be very good

Except the mere presence of a wealth person doesn't necessitate that the one man "has" to live in the streets. There no direct connection. If you take the wealth person and all their money/possessions and somehow delete them from existence, the one man is still where he was before.

If you stipulate that the wealth person has a vendetta against the one man, and is purposely ruining his life, then that is something different. But simply being wealth doesn't mean the first person is the cause of the one man's street existence. Again, there is no direct connection.

What is the actual reason for the one man living on the streets? Is there drug and alcohol use? Are there psychological problems? I doubt it's because Donald Trump has a real nice house.

*****

scape·goat·ism

the act or practice of assigning blame or failure to others,
to deflect attention or responsibility away from oneself.

*****

I agree with you

But, the world is full of surprise. Everything can happen. Even Donald Trump can cause you to live on the street just because he has a very nice house. Maybe... just maybe, you went to a gambling den, meet Donald Trump there, play a high stage poker game, lost everything and have to live on the street after that. Who know, he used your money to build his new nice house.

Then that is user stupidity.
The user made a bad choice in deciding to gamble at all.

 

[R. Star]

No! It's Donald Trump's fault! He opened that casino, MADE that poor man walk in and spend his rent money on it. That poor man did not actively make a choice and certainly under no circumstances should have to take responsibility for his actions. Perish the thought!

 

[T'Girl]

just maybe, you went to a gambling den, meet Donald Trump there, play a high stage poker game, lost everything and have to live on the street after that. Who know, he used your money to build his new nice house.

Or, Donald Trump uses that money (and other money) to construct yet another casino/hotel. Employing thousands of high wage union construction workers, who spend their wages in the local economy. After construction, the casino/hotel employs several hundred staff employees for years on end, pumping even more money into the economy.

Wealth people hire others, homeless man in the streets hires no one.

Thank you wealthy people.

under no circumstances should have to take responsibility for his actions

He really is the victim here. Don't believe me? Just ask him.

(sometime when he's sober)

 

[R. Star]

just maybe, you went to a gambling den, meet Donald Trump there, play a high stage poker game, lost everything and have to live on the street after that. Who know, he used your money to build his new nice house.

Or, Donald Trump uses that money (and other money) to construct yet another casino/hotel. Employing thousands of high wage union construction workers, who spend their wages in the local economy. After construction, the casino/hotel employs several hundred staff employees for years on end, pumping even more money into the economy.

Wealth people hire others, homeless man in the streets hires no one.

Thank you wealthy people.

under no circumstances should have to take responsibility for his actions

He really is the victim here. Don't believe me? Just ask him.

(sometime when he's sober)

I love wealthy people. I get a check made out to me signed by one twice a month. It's great, I can pay my own bills, buy my own things, and not ask for handouts. All he asks is I show up to work every day and do a few things for him.

If the people who rail the most against rich people really believed in their convictions, they wouldn't cash those payroll checks, or accept handouts from taxpayers who worked for their "dirty money." But no, it's a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Curse Donald Trump, he hates poor people and victimizes them with his wealth! Then again what do I know? I always think the people pointing the finger the most are just trying to get attention away from their own failings.

 

[Brainsucker]

I have a question here, regarding Star Trek Earth Society :

So, according to someone here that because there is no money so there won't be private company in the 24th century.

My question is... then, all companies are belong to the government? Why remind me of China and Soviet in '70?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I have a question here, regarding Star Trek Earth Society :

So, according to someone here that because there is no money so there won't be private company in the 24th century.

My question is... then, all companies are belong to the government? Why remind me of China and Soviet in '70?

All because there isn't money doesn't mean everybody works for the state.

I don't even understand how you came to that logic.

 

[Brainsucker]

I have a question here, regarding Star Trek Earth Society :

So, according to someone here that because there is no money so there won't be private company in the 24th century.

My question is... then, all companies are belong to the government? Why remind me of China and Soviet in '70?

All because there isn't money doesn't mean everybody works for the state.

I don't even understand how you came to that logic.

Well, yes, not everyone works for the state. But all the companies belong to the state.

 

[T'Girl]

All because there isn't money doesn't mean everybody works for the state.

Well, he did not say "everybody," he said every company ... i.e. business.

I don't even understand how you came to that logic.

In modern society, resources for a business are largely allocated with money. Electrical power, property, structures, goods, services, equipment, talented people.

If a government totally controls the allocation of all the "free" resources, they effectively own all businesses. If they only exercise a small degree of control through laws, regulations and taxes, then they don't own all businesses.

If there is a new residential tower being built in 24th century San Fransisco, who is doing the actual construction? A private company or a government? And who owns it after it's finished, by which I mean who is responsible for it, maintenance and upkeep? What mechanism decides who get to live there, who get the penthouse view, and who faces a wall on the other side of an alley?

In a society with a functioning monetary system, many of these latter decisions would be made with money, and who has it. In a work of complete fantasy, you can say "these things just happen all by themselves." Somewhere decisions are being made, people using money, or government using authority.

And that KamenRiderBlade is how Brainsucker "came to that logic." If I understand his position correctly.

It's all in the details.

 

[Brainsucker]

All because there isn't money doesn't mean everybody works for the state.

Well, he did not say "everybody," he said every company ... i.e. business.

I don't even understand how you came to that logic.

In modern society, resources for a business are largely allocated with money. Electrical power, property, structures, goods, services, equipment, talented people.

If a government totally controls the allocation of all the "free" resources, they effectively own all businesses. If they only exercise a small degree of control through laws, regulations and taxes, then they don't own all businesses.

If there is a new residential tower being built in 24th century San Fransisco, who is doing the actual construction? A private company or a government? And who owns it after it's finished, by which I mean who is responsible for it, maintenance and upkeep? What mechanism decides who get to live there, who get the penthouse view, and who faces a wall on the other side of an alley?

In a society with a functioning monetary system, many of these latter decisions would be made with money, and who has it. In a work of complete fantasy, you can say "these things just happen all by themselves." Somewhere decisions are being made, people using money, or government using authority.

And that KamenRiderBlade is how Brainsucker "came to that logic." If I understand his position correctly.

It's all in the details.

Yes thank you. It is what I means.

That's why I think that a government that not using money, they would own every companies on the planet. Because no one would care to open a private company to provide service for the people.

 

[robau]

But in the Utopia, you're supposed to want to provide a service for your fellow man. Like a restaurant. Or wine. It's supposed to be rewarding and fulfilling by itself.

 

[Brainsucker]

But in the Utopia, you're supposed to want to provide a service for your fellow man. Like a restaurant. Or wine. It's supposed to be rewarding and fulfilling by itself.

Well I don't know. But tell me, what push you to provide service to other people in daily basis for your entire life? To open a restaurant that open at 9 AM to 9 PM everyday is not an easy task. You have to sacrifice your life style, your family time, for work. Not to mention that you need helpers to cook, clean, and serve. And because you serve a non replicator food, then you need to buy the meat etc in the market, prepare them, etc.

It is definitely not a one man show activity. And it will bore you after two or three years because of the repetitious and hard work. People keep doing this today because it is profitable. What about in the 24th century?

So... how do you do that? It is rewarding and fulfilling by itself? yes, it is. But how do you keep doing that everyday for your entire life? What motivate you to work and work, and work in a never ending same activity? Remember, a restaurant is different to a canteen or a chicken coop.

It is different if there is a government interfering. Like this :

The Earth Government give a rule to the entire Earth Population :

The Government said : Earth is the safest place in the universe. Ok, I can provide you a safe haven for your entire family, give your children education, food, etc. But you must work for me (the Government) with your skill. And because you can cook, then you should open a restaurant. I'll provide you with the raw material, etc. You must work to provide your neighborhood with good food. A restaurant is a life style center. It makes people happy, and the government is happy if seeing their people happy. Because there is no unrest on Earth (a kind of population control program)

Then what about the lazy people and free loader? It easy. Just get out of Earth. Seek your fortune in the backwater colony.

Well, it is not a paradise like we want to think, but it work, I think.

 

[T'Girl]

But in the Utopia ...

We don't all have the same idea of what constitutes "utopia."

you're supposed to want to provide a service for your fellow man.

But we only heard this from two characters on the show, and one of them was a child at the time. There's certainly nothing wrong with selling quality services to your fellow citizens. Responsible adults do not need to have all things "provided" for them, they can make their own way in a complex society. Adults are not children.

It's supposed to be rewarding and fulfilling by itself.

Not always, you really should be compensated for you efforts, whether they are intellectual or physical.

 

[cgervasi]

1. Without money, what is the stimulation for people to establish private companies? Work for free?

The idea behind this point is scarcity motivates people to product things to trade for scarce goods and services. Suppose that because of automation goods and services were not scare.

There is a recent book about what motivates people called Drive. It claims once you pay people the going rate, so they don't feel cheated, people mostly aren't motivated by money. They're motivated desire to finish a puzzle.

The need for money IMHO would come up any time something is scarce. You'd have to find something to trade, but you cannot trade without mutual coincidence of needs. So some sort of medium of exchange.

It seems to me that the writers of Star Trek confuse materialism with money. Money is just a medium of exchange. They want to say there is no materialism or scarcity, but they wrongly say there is no medium exchange.

Credits are mentioned a medium of exchange. It could be Credits or Latinum are used to make trades, but trading is less frequent because scarcity is less common. In the US many fast-food places will give you free water and water cups. Banks will give you free pins. Electronics is getting cheap enough that there are dedicated players for a single audiobook-- all the value is in the content, and the player is analogous to the free cup your coffee or pop comes in. If automation continues and things like a basket of groceries or common consumer durables (cars, appliances, etc) are also equally cheap, there would be less need for a medium of exchange. You could make, distribute, and store products with no human labor, so there would be no need to trade anything for them. You use trade only in rare cases like the baseball card Jake wanted. He had to provide services to various people in exchange for things he needed to get the card. It really made the Feringi system look better. Feringi would work for money that could be use to buy whatever goods and service people want. Jake had to find specific services needed by people who had things that would help get the card.

 

[Lighthammer]

You know, I thought I was gonna have to chime in and write a post similar to what Decks wrote on the first page.

I think I am very pleasant surprised that a lot of people took what he had to say and built largely upon throughout the thread.

That's pretty neat to see.

Usually when I get into this discussion with people; or hell, when I mostly see this topic come up on this forum, it usually seems to fall deep into a complete mess where by everyone is considering the past of humanity and not the future. Everyone always seems to throw maslow out the window in this debate.

If we could achieve a point where Maslow's first tier was UNQUESTIONABLY covered, I think as a whole, we could really start to edge up the entire world towards the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. The problem in today's world is we keep fighting the bottom tier for now real logical reason save greed.

 

[Deimos Anomaly]

A country without Money how it's work?

Drugs in the water supply? (Or in this case, drugs automatically encoded into all replicated food)

Tweaking of the human genome en-masse to alter basic human nature?

I dunno, but whatever it is, it's radical.

There was a time that several million people worked for no money in America. But it required a system of brutal enforcers, chains and shackles, whips and barbarous punishments, trackers devoted to hunting down runaways, breaking up families to crush people's will etc... and it so outraged people that the country went to war with itself to stop this.

But none of that matters in the weird world of ST. Not quite 500 years after Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation, all of humanity is working for no money. Replicator drugs or mass secret genetic reprogramming.

 

[T'Girl]

The need for money IMHO would come up any time something is scarce.

You would also need money for times that you want other people to do things for you. To engage in activities that you can't do, like say doctors or other professionals. To perform actions you need done far away from where you are, that can't be done where you are, like mining (there's a fair amount of mining on the show). To do things you don't wish to do, because they are dangerous or time consuming.

Or pay someone to prepare you a meal, and walk it out to your table overlooking the sunset bay.

There are other uses for money other than scarcity.

In the US many fast-food places will give you free water and water cups. Banks will give you free pins.

But the modern restaurants and banks did pay for these things originally (including the water) from their suppliers. In the case of banks, the pens are not "free," they are "advertising." In the case of the restaurants, other items on the menu are priced to compensate the restaurant's operating costs for the "free" items (cups and water).

Everyone always seems to throw maslow out the window in this debate.

I've been on this board since mid 2009, and Abraham Maslow is rarely mentioned. So it not a matter of his idea being discounted, his hypothesis just doesn't enter into the discussion. I don't really see how you think it to be relevant.

it usually seems to fall deep into a complete mess where by everyone is considering the past of humanity and not the future

What is being considered is basic Human psychology, and the ways we have organized (relatively) stable patterns of human activity for many thousands of years. And the ways we've done this across the world, even in communities in extreme isolation. We're unlikely to fundamentally change who and what we are as a people in a small number of centuries.

 

[Arpy]

Oh for God's sake. I want to work because it's fulfilling. It's something to do with myself that helps me not go mad at the one end, and provides me a glimpse of perspective of what it's all about at the other. Now, I don't get that much from my job. I do get it from there, but I also get it from drawing, from interacting with friends, from spending time with family. All require effort. In a better world, I'd be better matched with a career that makes the most of this want of mine to work. Again, I don't want to work for the money itself necessarily (though it's a big part of it most of the time when) and I haven't mentioned any ego-stroking feelings of nobility working provides me. It's to maintain sanity and to touch some glimpse of meaning and achievement.

And guess what, I'm willing to bet that EVERYONE no matter how lazy or jaded feels that to some degree. The glory of the Federation economy is that it's set up to make the most of everybody's that. Of course there's still ownership of things and some sort of measurement units of work (money) but you're not thinking about them in the same way we do today. 1) because it's the actual love/need for money that's being discussed in these threads, and most people don't have either in the Federation (love of because that's pointless unless you're like Vash and it's just a game to you; need for because technology provides everything cheaply), and 2), considering those units without love/need for them is like thinking about how many watts of electricity we use today: yeah the info's in your electric bill but you don't care about IT, you care about how MUCH the bill is in dollars.