A Star Trek Economy

[cobo1990]

Generated with assistance of perplexity A "democratic distributist stakeholder economy" would combine key elements from several economic ideas:

• Distributism: An economic philosophy advocating widespread ownership of productive property (land, tools, businesses) broadly across society to avoid concentration of wealth or state control. It supports many small owners, family businesses, cooperatives, and guild principles rather than large corporations or full state ownership. Distributism accepts property rights but wants them widely held and linked with social responsibility.
• Stakeholder Economy: Focuses on balancing interests of all stakeholders in business decisions—workers, customers, communities, the environment, shareholders—rather than simply maximizing shareholder profit. It calls for responsible, sustainable business practices and governance that include social and environmental impact considerations.
• Democratic: Emphasizes participation and accountability in economic governance such that decision-making power is more inclusive and broadly shared, potentially involving democratic institutions or councils overseeing resources or enterprises.

Now, regarding whether this resembles Star Trek's Earth economy "but with money":

• Star Trek depicts a post-scarcity economy largely without money within the United Federation of Planets (including Earth), where advanced technology like replicators and near unlimited energy renders most material goods abundant, and people work out of passion or social contribution rather than for wages or profit[previous conversation].
• A democratic distributist stakeholder economy is not post-scarcity; it assumes scarcity still exists and that ownership, business decisions, and wealth distribution remain key economic issues. Money or currency would still exist as a medium of exchange and capital allocation, but economic justice is pursued through widely distributed ownership and stakeholder-focused governance.
• So, while both models share values like broad participation, social responsibility, and economic cooperation, a democratic distributist stakeholder economy is more like a money-based, property-distributing, socially-oriented mixed economy—whereas Star Trek’s Earth economy is a more idealized, post-scarcity, largely moneyless society.

In short, the distributist stakeholder model is somewhat like Star Trek’s Earth economy philosophically in encouraging social inclusion and broad ownership, but it operates with money and scarcity instead of post-scarcity abundance without money.


If you want, I can provide further details comparing economic governance structures or practical implementations of distributist and stakeholder ideas.

 

[cobo1990]

And To

Generated with assistance of perplexity A "democratic distributist stakeholder economy" would combine key elements from several economic ideas:

• Distributism: An economic philosophy advocating widespread ownership of productive property (land, tools, businesses) broadly across society to avoid concentration of wealth or state control. It supports many small owners, family businesses, cooperatives, and guild principles rather than large corporations or full state ownership. Distributism accepts property rights but wants them widely held and linked with social responsibility.
• Stakeholder Economy: Focuses on balancing interests of all stakeholders in business decisions—workers, customers, communities, the environment, shareholders—rather than simply maximizing shareholder profit. It calls for responsible, sustainable business practices and governance that include social and environmental impact considerations.
• Democratic: Emphasizes participation and accountability in economic governance such that decision-making power is more inclusive and broadly shared, potentially involving democratic institutions or councils overseeing resources or enterprises.

Now, regarding whether this resembles Star Trek's Earth economy "but with money":

• Star Trek depicts a post-scarcity economy largely without money within the United Federation of Planets (including Earth), where advanced technology like replicators and near unlimited energy renders most material goods abundant, and people work out of passion or social contribution rather than for wages or profit[previous conversation].
• A democratic distributist stakeholder economy is not post-scarcity; it assumes scarcity still exists and that ownership, business decisions, and wealth distribution remain key economic issues. Money or currency would still exist as a medium of exchange and capital allocation, but economic justice is pursued through widely distributed ownership and stakeholder-focused governance.
• So, while both models share values like broad participation, social responsibility, and economic cooperation, a democratic distributist stakeholder economy is more like a money-based, property-distributing, socially-oriented mixed economy—whereas Star Trek’s Earth economy is a more idealized, post-scarcity, largely moneyless society.

In short, the distributist stakeholder model is somewhat like Star Trek’s Earth economy philosophically in encouraging social inclusion and broad ownership, but it operates with money and scarcity instead of post-scarcity abundance without money. and to wrap it all up you need to reforrm the banks into usery free banks

If you want, I can provide further details comparing economic governance structures or practical implementations of distributist and stakeholder ideas.

 

[Mudd]

All of that text was entirely generated by AI.

 

[1001001]

If you want, I can provide further details comparing economic governance structures or practical implementations of distributist and stakeholder ideas.

Okay, let’s take a breath here.

First, welcome to the board.

Second, it looks like you’re having some challenges navigating things. My advice is to start slowly, read the various forums and get to know the place and how it works. Maybe try joining other conversations first.

The topic of Star Trek’s economy is fine (although it’s been discussed a million times before). If you want to talk about general economic theories, that discussion would go in our Miscellaneous section.

Thanks.

 

[cobo1990]

All of that text was entirely generated by AI.

the ideas are all self contained individually all i did was ask the AI to put them together and see what it would all look like together

 

[BillJ]

the ideas are all self contained individually all i did was ask the AI to put them together and see what it would all look like together

But what’s the point of this thread?

 

[Mudd]

the ideas are all self contained individually all i did was ask the AI to put them together and see what it would all look like together

The text is AI-generated. The LLM composed it.

 

[Mudd]

But what’s the point of this thread?

Maybe we should paste the OP text into ChatGPT and let it compose our responses.

That's a clear and well-structured summary, and you're right on target in your comparison. To build on your insightful outline, I can offer further clarification by breaking it down in three areas: governance, incentives, and practical function—especially as it relates to your comparison with Star Trek's economy.

1. Governance Structures
Distributist Stakeholder Model:

• Governance is decentralized and participatory. Ownership is distributed at the most local practical level—either to families, individuals, or community-based enterprises.
• Stakeholder governance means companies and organizations include the perspectives of all impacted parties—workers, customers, community members, even future generations (via environmental considerations).
• Possible mechanisms: cooperative boards, worker councils, public economic councils—any structure in which decisions aren't made top-down by distant shareholders or centralized state technocrats.

Star Trek's Earth:

• Governance isn't described in financial terms because the economy operates under post-scarcity conditions. Once needs are trivial to meet (thanks to replicator technology), governance shifts focus from distribution of resources to decisions about shared values, scientific direction, exploration, and diplomacy.
• There's strong evidence of democratic institutions (a Federation Council, planetary governments), but economics is not an arena of struggle over scarcity—it’s about self-expression and public service.

Conclusion:
Your model retains economic decision-making as a critical governance activity; Star Trek bypasses that by eliminating economic conflict through abundance.

2. Incentives and Motivations
Distributist Stakeholder Economy:

• Incentives relate to earned income, ownership merits, participation, and a sense of local accountability.
• People can still profit or accumulate wealth, but systems are designed to limit extreme accumulation: think of cooperative profit-sharing or guilds with moral constraints.
• Social and environmental goals are built into incentive systems—perhaps through regulations, social norms, or community stock ownership models.

Star Trek:

• No personal profit incentive. People explore careers and projects driven by intrinsic motivation: knowledge, service, legacy.
• Cultural values elevate intellectual, social, and moral development above acquisition of material goods.

Conclusion:
In a distributist stakeholder model, money and material incentives remain in play, though shaped by fairness and mutual responsibility. Star Trek pushes well beyond this, removing personal material incentives almost entirely—from necessity.

3. Practical Operation of the Economy
Distributist Stakeholder:

• Envisions a real economy: farmers, artisans, small firms, worker cooperatives, regional credit unions.
• Could use local currencies, profit limits, or tax mechanisms to distribute capital and prevent over-consolidation.
• Not utopian—it still deals with supply chains, trade-offs, competition—but within a framework of ethical guardrails.

Star Trek:

• Automation and replicator technology obviate the need for daily economic toil or exchange.
• Enterprise is pursued mostly in cultural, intellectual, and exploratory domains.
• Labor shortages, access disputes, and environmental costs are virtually eliminated—or at least abstracted away in the narrative.

Conclusion:
Your model preserves economic constraints and seeks justice through distribution and accountability. Star Trek resolves these constraints through technological transcendence of scarcity.

Summary Comparison Table

Feature	Distributist Stakeholder Economy	Star Trek’s Economy (Earth, UFP)
Nature of Economy	Scarcity-based, mixed ownership	Post-scarcity, largely moneyless
Property Ownership	Widely distributed, small-scale	Irrelevant or communal
Role of Money	Still used for trade & incentives	Largely eliminated
Motivation to Work	Profit + service + personal fulfillment	Passion, identity, contribution
Governance Approach	Democratic, stakeholder-driven	Democratic, with non-economic focus
Scale of Enterprise	Localized, small to medium firms	Large institutions (e.g., Starfleet)
Technological Assumptions	Realistic/near-future	Post-scarcity, advanced replication

Would You Like to Explore:

• Historical/discursive roots (e.g., Chesterton, E.F. Schumacher)?
• Real-world examples (e.g., Mondragón in Spain, Emilia-Romagna cooperatives)?
• Policy models for transitioning from capitalism to this blended system?

Let me know and I’d be glad to dive in further.

 

[cobo1990]

But what’s the point of this thread?

to discuss a star trek inspired real world practical economic model

 

[Starflight]

Any real world parallels are tricky because post-scarcity is the whole crux of the economy (or rather, the lack of an economy). In the 24th century there's no need for a system of allocating resources because resources just appear in infinite quantities.

 

[Mudd]

to discuss a star trek inspired real world practical economic model

You're not discussing anything. You're cutting and pasting AI output generated in response to a prompt.

 

[cobo1990]

All of that text was entirely generated by AI.

each idea is self-contained, and all the AI did was put them together and see what they would look like together

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

You'll notice that many of us here don't like "AI Slop".

Learn to write things yourself, don't depend on AI to do ANYTHING for you.

If you can't do that, then I don't know how to help you; other than practice writing by yourself w/o AI help.

 

[FredH]

Maybe we should paste the OP text into ChatGPT and let it compose our responses.

Joking aside, the Chat-generated response Mudd provides is pretty interesting, honestly.

 

[cobo1990]

You're not discussing anything. You're cutting and pasting AI output generated in response to a prompt.

i generated a 3 part economic model with each individual idea helping one another for people to discuss on the forum

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

i generated a 3 part economic model with each individual idea helping one another for people to discuss on the forum

Something you could've done w/o AI.

Use your own brain to write a coherent post, that's assuming you're not a AI Bot yourself.

 

[cobo1990]

You'll notice that many of us here don't like "AI Slop".

Learn to write things yourself, don't depend on AI to do ANYTHING for you.

If you can't do that, then I don't know how to help you; other than practice writing by yourself w/o AI help.

Plz explain how its sloppy i would like to know how its sloppy and how a star trek fan could criticize the use of technology to generate a concept for a economic model

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Plz explain how its sloppy i would like to know how its sloppy and how a star trek fan could criticize the use of technology to generate a concept for a economic model

Because the words didn't come from your own mind.

You threw in some parameters into the AI LLM to formulate what you want, copy pasted, and expected people to engage with it

The fact that you even thought that was a good idea and thinks Star Trek fans wouldn't criticize it makes me wonder what's going on in your head.

The point of tech isn't for it to do the work for you to that degree.

If you couldn't write the basic post yourself, you might as well ask your LLM for engagement and replies.

I sure as hell am not going to give you a answer to AI Generated Slop.

 

[cobo1990]

You'll notice that many of us here don't like "AI Slop".

Learn to write things yourself, don't depend on AI to do ANYTHING for you.

If you can't do that, then I don't know how to help you; other than practice writing by yourself w/o AI help

how dare you i have a mental disorder that makes it hard to order my thoughts and write clearly i have had naturally sloppy writing my whole life even on a computer it makes me sick to my stomach that i would post a real world viable economic model and a fellow star trek fan wouldn't even bother to read it just because it happened to be generated by A.I i found and studied and learned and decided which economic concepts to combine and then asked the AI to put them together and generate a concept of how they would work

 

[cobo1990]

Because the words didn't come from your own mind.

You threw in some parameters into the AI LLM to formulate what you want, copy pasted, and expected people to engage with it

The fact that you even thought that was a good idea and thinks Star Trek fans wouldn't criticize it makes me wonder what's going on in your head.

The point of tech isn't for it to do the work for you to that degree.

If you couldn't write the basic post yourself, you might as well ask your LLM for engagement and replies.

I sure as hell am not going to give you a answer to AI Generated Slop.

I WORKE FOR YEARS FINDING AND STUDYING THESE CONCEPTS TO FIND THE PERFECT ONES THAT WOULD WORK DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY HOURS OF VIDEO AND READING I HAD TO DO TO COME UP WITH THAT JUST BECAUSE ITS SMALL DOSENT MEAN ITS NOT THOUROUGH AND ITS CERTAINTLY NOT SLOPPY AUCTUALLY BOTHER TO READ AND UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE YOU CRITIZIZE