Here is how I think the federation works without needing money.

Can you provide a modern day 21st century (or earlier) example of this? How can propaganda convince Cmdr Joe Public that humans don't use money then have Joe Public turn around and use money? Riker used money at Quarks. Picard used money when negotiating with Ro in the DMZ. They know what money is and how to use it. Therefore, they would know if they use money within the Federation. How could they then believe propaganda that humans don't use money?

 

"It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement." ~ Nog (DS9 "In The Cards")

 

Currency could mean a physical currency, like gold pressed latinum. Their isn't a physical object connected to exchanges of goods and services.

 

Currency-based economics.

 

Here is how I think the propaganda might be sold to the average federation citizen. Let's say almost all the money the federation uses is all gold=pressed latium. The Ferengi invented this kind of currency and the Federation doesn't even have a type of currency of it's own. It's all alien aquired money and they only use it when dealing with non-federation races.

In Picard's mine, maybe that money is seen as Ferengi money instead of as federation money. If a British person bought something with American dollars, wouldn't he consider that money as a American money even though he is using it? Then you toss in the fact that, everything on earth is basically free from food replicators to homes and I could see how people might see that as a society that doesn't require money. It can be all about perception, and the actual truth might be a little different.

Jason

 

The reason none of this is ever adequately explained in Trek because it's a pipe dream. The economics of the 24th Century are no doubt 'different' as Picard explains to Lily (they would have to be, in a Federation spanning interstellar distances), but make no mistake, economics still exists and everything isn't 'free.' The premise that it could be just doesn't hold up, even as it's presented in the various shows.

 

And by "it's citizens" you mean two people.

 

Also, the topic issue isn't the argument of whether or not there's money in the Star Trek universe but whether or not a currencyless society could ever function. And the answer is a resounding "no."

 

Digital currency is still currency.

Earth/the Federation has something total alien to our understanding by the 24th century. We don't understand it and try to make it work with what we know, and this is the wrong thing to do because it can't work with what we know because it does not use currency based economics anymore, and that is all we know. We can't grasp how a currency-less based economy can function because that is a total alien concept for our society.

But we are giving that as the basis for how things are in the mid-late 24th century with it possibly having been that way since the late 23rd century. We are also given confirmation that the currency-less based economy is a real thing by a species that worships currency and has their pseudo-religion have a gold pressed latinum heaven. They think it is dumb, but accept that it exists, and try to make a profit on it anyway.

 

The wiki article you link to did say this ...

"... especially circulating banknotes and coins."

I am suggesting that when Picard and Jake said no money, they were referring to traditional physical money, and not any kind of digital form.

Today, some auctions won't take credit, debit, or paypal, they insist upon cash. Which could have been one part of Jake's problem in bidding on the baseball card. Jake needed Nog's physical money.

 

On the one hand there is a currency-based economy. On the other hand is a philosophy of self-enhancement.

Humans follow a philosophy of self-enhancement, according to the quote.

Currency is defined as:

Currency is not necessarily the physical or tangible representation. Currency is not the dollar bill or the coin. Currency is what those tangible items represent. Currency is a system. Digital money would be currency.

Money is a medium of exchange. The definition specifies coins and banknotes, but the advent of bitcoin shows this definition needs to change.

 

It also mentions things like Bitcoin, Game-Credits, and Loyalty Point as currency.

 

I think there have been a lot of good ideas in this thread. Personally I think the federation operates it's economy like a free to play MMO.

They have already indicated that they use replicator and holodeck credits. This leads me to believe that they truly don't have what we would consider money / currency. You can't just buy what you want. Instead you have to earn specific credits for the kinds of products or services you need. To further the analogy, no one has to work in order to live. Everyone is given basic access just like a free to play MMO. It's just more convenient and comfortable if you go get a job or in the free to play MMO analogy become a paid subscriber. This would explain how you have waiters and service industry workers. No one would want to do these kinds of jobs with a regular schedule without compensation. I can't imagine anyone who would get up early every day or work on the weekends just to bus tables if there is no legitimate reward for the activity. I would guess that they earn different kinds of credits depending on the activity. This would even allow the federation to push citizens to become more well rounded by spending time performing different kinds of public service. It's not really money they are earning, it's free to play MMO tokens.

 

The Federation could even encourage help where they need it with "events".
Say its Mardi Gras, the Federation could say that for the duration anyone who goes to New Orleans to do some service work would get bonus stuff. That way they could help to make sure there were enough waiters and whatnot for all of the celebrants.

 

Some of GR's ideas about a "Utopia" were pretty silly. This was one of them.

p.s. My favorite is from TNG's "Neutral Zone" where the crew is discussing cryogenics and they seemed shocked that primitive 20th century humans feared death. Apparently humans of the 24th century have evolved beyond petty concerns like that.

 

It's worse than that. According to Roddenberry, enlightened 24th century humans aren't even supposed to mourn the dead. Which is supposed to be the reason why everyone was so cool with Data doing silly Sherlock Holmes impersonations while discussing the death of the engineer in Lonely Among Us. Funny how that was forgotten by Skin of Evil, though.

 

^ Wasn't forgotten in "The Bonding" two seasons later, though...

 

^^ Or that humans weren't bothered by words anymore.

Another weird one that comes up was the episode about the stranded elderly couple where the husband was described as a "starving student in a threadbare suit and mismatched shoes" before the wife met him. Once again, it makes no sense, since a season earlier, Picard just said there was no want or need and replicators can provide everyone's needs.

This the best I pull (so far) from the idea that the Federation doesn't use currency;

-Currency is a form of money
-money is a medium of exchange for payment of goods and services or debts.
-earth at least, doesn't have currency based economics.
-Nog says they gave it up in favor of a philosophy, not another system a philosophy.
-Therefore humans are not exchanging currency for goods for services
-Humans only work to better themselves or the rest of humanity
-Therefore humans don't get paid, material things don't have a cost, services are free.
-Therefore earth's economic system may based on some social philosophy

One interesting thing about the replicator. With it, a someone like a janitor has the same access to things as a lawyer. A janitor can replicate the same full course dinner that a lawyer can, because there would be no difference in cost or quantity. So there probably isn't a distinction between rich and poor as far as replicators go. A lawyer or can't really acquire any more than a janitor, butler or miner could.

 

Already, no one "owns" land in that
a higher authority can tell you what to do with it and seize it under certain circumstances. We still call it "ownership" to make ourselves feel better.

Owning land is a ridiculous idea anyway. It's like claiming to own the Sun or Moon. It's basically a legal idea to make it possible for individuals to have privacy away from others and control their lives.

The larger community already decides so much regarding anyone's land that "leasing" it from from planetary authorities isn't even that much of a change, more a change of language.