Another take on "there's no money in the 24th century"

I think "no money" is definitely not capitalist but it's not necessarily communist nor even socialist.

 

If you're accepting Trek "as it is," then what explains the pro-money references? I've come up with some explanations for the no-money dialog, how do you explain the pro?

A year and a half ago the top people at the US internal revenue service decided to give themselves 70 million dollars in bonuses. These are the people who collect the tax money. The top people at the US postal service also give themselves lavish bonuses, plus "conferences" in Las Vegas and Hawaii. The USPS is debatably the worst run/most wasteful division in the Federal government.

While some of these bother me, for the most part it makes the Trek "in-universe" a complex and in some cases mysterious place, a place we the fans don't completely understand.

Which I like.

 

I've given explanations for the pro-references as well. Haven't you been paying attention?

 

How many different ways do I have to say it? THERE'S ALWAYS MONEY IN THE BANANA STAND!!!

 

O... K...

 

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuHILqDIvis[/yt]
​

"And that's why you always leave a note."

 

I see.

 

No touching.

 

Well, suppose money really is the root of all evil...

 

NO TOUCHING!

 

It's not money. It's the love of money.

The apostle Paul says in his first letter to his young disciple Timothy. 1 Timothy 6:10
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

While a subtle difference, it has a major impact on the meaning.

As far as I'm concerned the 'no money' issue is just like the whole 'Starfleet isn't a military' issue. It's a bunch of idealistic, happy happy horse shit that is tossed aside whenever it is inconvenient for the plot or gets in the way of some fun banter.

Captain's Holiday (3rd season TNG) Vash scamming Sovak because it was the only way she could afford to get to Risa.

Star Trek 6 The Undiscovered Country - Scotty had bought a boat.

Star Trek 7 Generations - In the Nexus Kirk says it is his house but that he had sold it years ago.

I ignore it.

Warmest Wishes,
Whoa Nellie

 

I'm not reading back through 210 replies on this thread - can anyone tell me if anyone has already mentioned "Er'rybody BROKE" as another take on the matter?

 

In the last TNG epiosde, all good things, when Picard wanted to join the poker game, one of the officer had to stake him some chips just so he could play.

 

True- greed is behind some of the most psychotic behavior of people.

It's also ironic, Jesus said, 'there'll always be poor people around'. There is quite a few anti-money statements in the New Testament.

It's been speculated that in his time many people were influenced by asceticism-- shunning money and comforts in it's entirety as a way to achieve peace, happiness etc.

Trek's idea seemed to be that when all humans live in abundance and comfort, then the more problems they solve, and the more evolved they will behave.

And not one moment before.

Two almost opposite ideologies with the same goal.

I didn't even know government officials could vote themselves huge bonuses. But to do it, while expecting lower level, minimum wage employees to work harder and faster is what's so insane.

Executives and managers get bonuses for meeting certain goals --the regular, minimum wage workers get nothing, even when the bonuses are based off their work.

That's the ugly side of capitalism.

I think the no money whatsoever premise has ground for one major reason;

Trek always wanted to show how humans eliminated poverty and obtained Utopia. Not just a better life, but Utopia.

So they haveto preach the concept that humans have grown beyond money or above it or something.

Imagine the future that Trek, especially TNG, has displayed so far-- no bigotry, strife, hunger, prejudice, annoying diseases, want, need--

Devices produce instant food, clothing and tools. Holodecks, weather control systems, and so on---

And then imagine humans still needing to purchase things, working long and hard. The two images couldn't mesh together, so they had to add the 'no money concept'.

 

The postal service pays for itself. It doesn't get tax dollars. Now the DoD, on the other hand, is an appalling waste of money.

 

You win!

 

The USPS is a independant government agency that directly charges the American people for a government service. It's lavish spending/mismanagement directly impacts the American people.

It doesn't get tax dollars for operations, it does get five and a half billion dollars in tax dollars for health and penisons of post office retirees.

 

It's been made quite obvious that they don't play for keeps.

 

When was this made obvious?

The amount being gambled certainly seems to have had meaning to the participants in the game.

 

Government service is paid for by taxes -- that's how we get charged for them. If the USPS doesn't take in tax money, but if they also don't charge customers directly, then they don't get any money to carry out its services.

We don't criticize private corporations for "lavish" spending if it's not detrimental to service for that exact same reason -- it's their earned money they're spending (and corporations in similar size to USPS have a much larger definition of "lavish"). The USPS also has competitors in companies like FedEX, UPS, and intracity delivery couriers to provide checks on prices, too -- as well, UPS also has an option on their website to transfer packages to USPS handling simply because they have a larger infrastructure that reaches areas they can't or to help ease the workload.