24th century wealth $$$
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
The questions are IMO - why did Roddenberry go to such lengths to make a fictional universe that is absent of religion and commerce that both defy not only our long history but the probability of the future of human beings?
If he was trying to make some grander point - he missed the mark on both. Religion is likely to exist in 200 years and so is commerce and most likely people will still want what they cannot have.
And the writers that ran with both concepts after his death should be hit with a cane for continuing the nonsense.
My premise is that because of greatly reduced costs of living (read: almost free thanks to replicators and antimatter energy generation) even a small amount of "earned money" can grow quite quickly and could easily be used by the few hobbiests who want "real" antiques or the such.
For instance, Catholic Priests make about $12,000 per year and max out at $15,000. This is below poverty level. Yet, because the Church also provides them free housing, the 12k per year is still enough for priests to eat at restaurants and even go on vacation.
Hence, for most Priests, the argument could be made that while they do earn some money, it's not the driving force behind their job. With replication devices making most of what everyone needs, people in the Federation would still have the money for some unnecessary expenses without seeing money as a motivating factor to work.
Let me explain simple economics to you. When everyone gets everything free the scarce items they now bid for increase in price. Nothing changes other than the variables on what something costs and what is free.
In our world today, drinking water is very scarce in some African countries today and people would give everything they own for it to live. In the US and Western countries it's plentiful and people pay very little or nothing for it.
Get it?
Oh I understand supply and demand, thanks, but your analogy is flawed.
Water is essential. Wars have been and probably will be fought for essential resources like water, food, land, oil, etc.
While I concede that humanity is petty enough to kill over baubles like gold, diamonds, and other nonessentials, for the most part, the violence over these items occurs in the poor and poorly governed countries where these things are mined.
In the semi-utopian Federation, the only products that would seem to require money are either "real" products such as antiques or perhaps vacations to non-federation worlds. Would "real" products be expensive because of limited supply but higher demand? Of course. Would the average Federation citizen, with all his/her needs and desires met, care about collecting antiques? Probably not.
However, even if someone did want to collect "real" products, it would be possible for them to do so on an extremely limited income because they would have no other expenses on which to spend that income.
Does this imply that some people would be "richer" than others because they could go out to dinner more often or buy a few more antiques? Sure. When the average family has all of their needs met, is this much of a driving force for them? Somehow, I doubt it.
Here's an analogy. I am middle class. I live better than a king in the middle ages because I have heat, electricity, various fresh foods and the like. When I watch MTV Cribs, I recognize that Michael Jordan has more than I do, but for the most part, I really don't care.
The difference in our income levels is really only important when I struggle to pay bills or have to sweat the credit card payments. Jordan doesn't.
In a future with limitless energy and replicated materials, the difference between the "me's" and the "Michael Jordans" would be infinitely smaller because all of the materials in Jordan's house could be replicated by me. Neither of us would have to worry about our bills. All essentials and most nonessentials are replicated at close to no cost. The only difference between me an Jordan would be the amount of "real" items we could afford. Hence, I'd imagine that the majority of people would consider money of little importance.
Then why are people willing to spend at Christmas a thousand dollars over the asking price for a Wii or Play station unit and don't tell me that either is 'essential to life?'
Answer: they are scarce - people want them - people are willing to give a greater percentage of their disposable non life sustaining resources to acquire them.
There is scarcity in the Federation world - it's canon.
Again, that doesn't solve the scarcity problem. Land on the planet earth is still scarce in the 24th century and again unless human nature suddenly changes certain places to live would be coveted by the many but available to the few. What do they have some kind of lottery system in place to allocate it and people just willingly go along with such a plan?
No .. it's more likely they barter/trade for what is scarce versus desired by many.
Ah, but people don't want WII's BECAUSE they are scarce. WII's are scarce because so many people want them. This is an important distinction in the world of instant gratification via replication.
Something tells me that future kid won't be looking for an old pair of glasses in their Christmas Stockings.
Uh oh, gotta run. My son's awake . . .
Ah, your definition there matches social-democracy - a diverse market economy, but a more equal one with far better social protection to match the range of personal freedoms.
I'm convinced that the 24th century Federation is a highly developed Social Democracy. Everyone can get a decent standard of living at the bottom rung of society (even the paupers of the Federation citizenry would have absurdly better life chances that the richest do here in 2008) no one starves, everyone gets rights, healthcare and education, etc. A better social safety net provided by 24th century technology, basically. All this and people are still free to do be involved in commerce and wealth creation.
Actually, what I think that what Roddenberry had in mind (at least from conceptual stages of Phase II) was that Earth and the Federation core worlds had a post-scarcity economy.
That doesn't match the canon dialog on the show, specifically from Picard where we hear time and again how mankind now simply serves humanity.
There is only one reference to any kind of monetary system in the series [TNG forward] and that's on the initial show. After which we're lead to believe that people barter verbally for everything. As if that would be an efficient system.
As stated, in the definition it's a sci-fi concept - utter fiction nonsense and not practical. Because there will always be scarcity.
The problem for me with Trek with the concept is not only is the concept of a scarcity free society impossible [because things like land will always be scarce] but also in Trek itself the writers create scarcity with medicines, goods, servies and even a substance called 'latinum.'
So they break their own rules on the absence of scarcity.
Similar threads
