• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

federation economy.. plausible / beliveable?

Timo said:
I still can't make heads or tails of what you are saying.

How does scarcity of rarities or an innate greed in human nature relate to

1) the removal of monetary transactions as an element of consumer economics,

2) the provision of everyday needs at such low cost that in practice a truly free lunch is provided, and

3) the completely free movement of labor between locations and professions, and the associated emphasis on working for enjoyment,

*A cashless society doesn't mean one that isn't governed by the laws of economics.

*"A free lunch' doesn't preclude people from wanting more. E.g. many Europeans enjoy living in a society that provides lifetime unemployment benefits if necessary - yet that has failed to change human nature to want we cannot have.

*I know many people that would elect to not work at all. Your premise is faulty in that you assume people naturally want to work towards 'societies benefits' which most don't. The failure of communism is ample proof that such a system fails to work and is counter to human nature.



Greed has not gone away from the Trek mankind. It has simply ceased to be an overriding element of the consumer market. Which is what is happening today in limited sectors of life. All we see is expansion to encompass the entire population, and it's very difficult to see why such an expansion would be forbidden, or even limited in scope.

Timo Saloniemi

As presented in Trek and according to Picard it has disappeared magically for only humans which gets a :rolleyes: . Other species not so much.

edited to add: You want to believe in the faux Utopian future as presented on Trek be my guest. But it is a house of cards based on many faulty premises the main one being that human nature is magically going to change and people will not covet scarce things any longer because they have a few more of our basic needs for free.
 
I think we've already seen more "ordinary" citizens in the form of Bashir's parents in DS9. His father moves from job to job trying to prove his worth. I would think that there's an unwritten social code that everybody does their share to ensure their place in society. Besides I'm sure people in such an economy would do a job just to feel some sense of self worth and that this would be part of societal indoctrination in schools, etc.

Also this 10,000 years malarky is based upon what, exactly? Written history doesn't go back that far and what does doesn't give us a clear picture of life for ordinary folks beyond a few thousand years; arguing that people have been greedy bastards forever is specious at best. After the Dark Ages in Europe there was the enlightenment with all kinds of new humanist ideals, which would be familiar to ourselves as utopian. Read Hume; even Adam Smith -- who is often misrepresented as pro-laissez faire -- felt that ultimately capital must serve society and not the other way around or it was of no use. It's not too much of a stretch to think that the complete societal breakdown in much of the world implied as the aftermath of WWIII couldn't shift attitudes towards finally attempting a utopian ideal on the ground. All it would take is strong, bold leadership.

It's science fiction for fuck's sake, it's supposed to imagine the unimaginable.
 
*A cashless society doesn't mean one that isn't governed by the laws of economics.

Exactly. Which is why I cannot fathom why you attempt to see a violation of laws of economics when all that is visible is a cashless society.

*"A free lunch' doesn't preclude people from wanting more.

Again, exactly. And we see people in Trek wanting more. They just don't want more lunch.

*I know many people that would elect to not work at all. Your premise is faulty in that you assume people naturally want to work towards 'societies benefits' which most don't.

Why cling to the "most" part? There is no law that states that >X% of the population has to work to sustain the society. For the highly automated Trek 24th century, 0.03% (already billions of people) might be interested in working, and might perfectly well suffice.

The failure of communism is ample proof that such a system fails to work and is counter to human nature.

Heh. The resounding success of socialist economies across Europe could just as well be taken as proof that rampant capitalism is counter to human nature.

As presented in Trek and according to Picard it has disappeared magically for only humans which gets a :rolleyes:. Other species not so much.

Oh, Picard is just as greedy as others, for adventure. He has no reason to be greedy for Earl Grey. Sublimation of desire is quite characteristic of human nature, and indeed any particular form of desire can change from a "driving force" to a secondary concern at the drop of a hat. As you say, the desire for the unattainable would be the one constant, but there's no reason why that would have to tie into consumer economics if those are made to fall into the "attainable" category.

Timo Saloniemi
 
CaptainSpock said:
Also this 10,000 years malarky is based upon what, exactly? Written history doesn't go back that far and what does doesn't give us a clear picture of life for ordinary folks beyond a few thousand years; arguing that people have been greedy bastards forever is specious at best. After the Dark Ages in Europe there was the enlightenment with all kinds of new humanist ideals, which would be familiar to ourselves as utopian. Read Hume; even Adam Smith -- who is often misrepresented as pro-laissez faire -- felt that ultimately capital must serve society and not the other way around or it was of no use. It's not too much of a stretch to think that the complete societal breakdown in much of the world implied as the aftermath of WWIII couldn't shift attitudes towards finally attempting a utopian ideal on the ground. All it would take is strong, bold leadership.

Oh yea, I forgot you don't have anyone in the UK that will gladly sit on the dole for as long as they can and head to the pubs. Not. You have many.

It's science fiction for fuck's sake, it's supposed to imagine the unimaginable.

I'll agree with that - which is why people shouldn't try to fit Trek into any type of reality that may ever exist when it defies human nature.
 
ktanner3 said:
The other is replicators. I don't think you could overstate the impact on society that being able to press a button and having virtually anything you want would bring.

Bingo. That is the key right there. With replicators that can create food and clothing, you eliminate poverty and third world countries right there.Without having to worry about making enough money for food and clothing, societies can concentrate more on a "fulfilling" life instead of how much they make to survive.



Unless of course you introduce Digital Rights Management into replicator technology. In order to have a template to replicate from you have to either scan what you want to replicate or do some very detailed programming. And what do you think the odds would be that McDonald's would copyright the molecular structure of the Big Mac the instant they got wind of this type of technology? The same would follow with everyone else.And think about this before the microwave entered the home it was used by restaurants for decades. The same would be true of replicators which logically would be used for industrial manufacture first. Eventually they filter down to being point of sale devices and later a home appliance. By that time of course a system would be in place to charge for the use of the templates. Yeah you can replicate a pair of generic shoes for next to nothing, but if you want Nike quality professionally designed running shoes you're gonna have to pay. Maybe you're a fantastic chef who licenses his dishes for use. And so on, the replicator would do for consumer goods what the internet did for information. And everything on the internet is free isn't it?
 
That would depend a lot in whether the society had an interest in obeying the laws. And while distribution of popular music is something of a fringe phenomenon, distribution of Big Macs might be cause enough for armed uprisings.

Moreover, we know that lots of violence and social upheaval did take place in the 21st century of Trek, and we further are told that the subsequent decades eliminated poverty and hunger and disease, and possibly interhuman violence on a large scale as well. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to assume that intellectual rights were simply suppressed in the mid-21st century, just at the right juncture to hammer in a new economic model.

After the days of TOS, the writers haven't attempted to portray the Trek universe as a gradual development of today's universe. Time is growing far too short for that, after it has been established that Kirk lives in the 23rd century... A series of upheavals is postulated instead, quite probably comparable to the native Americans undergoing the Industrial Revolution and the Reformation while being subjugated by Europeans from the 20th century, but compacted in timescale. It would be quite a miracle if "laws of economics" survived that!

Timo Saloniemi
 
DarthTom said:
Timo said:
Umm, the system does not require unselfishness at all. Rather, it caters for ultimate selfishness.

The economics of the federation to by real would require a complete lack of scarcity of everything including land. And as we know there is scarcity within certain types of medicines and other objects that are rare.

People make the erroneous assumption the replication technology fixes the scarcity problem - it does not.

I'll give you an example on DS9 that I ran into the other day. If you recall Jake Sisko wanted to purchase a rare baseball card for his father but cannot because he doesn't have 'latinum' to trade - only Nog does. Items like the card would still require barter and trade.

Yes but this was simply a plot device, and was inconsistent with previous episodes where Jake rented Quark's holosuite. How would he have rented the holosuite without money?

I think as denizens of 20th/21st century Western capitalist society we all take the whole 'credit' thing far too literally. Yes it's a kind of currency but is it money per se and not more?

For example, Picard says in "First Contact" how the economics of the future are different, it's all about humanity bettering itself. With a surplus of energy and resources (read: technology) the Federation is able to supply its citizens with all the amenities and necessities of life. What then? The driving force is to better oneself.

It's like the credit system is one massive give-and-take; a welfare net if you will. People can better themselves by education, by becoming artists, by doing labour jobs or whatever--it all contributes to the greater good in some way. Some people work harder than others--some jobs are more intellectual. What is different is the apparent loss of that 'gimme gimme gimme' attitude that exists today where everyone expects and demands the biggest bang for their buck, where everyone is basically a spoiled little prince/princess.
 
Dorothy_Zbornak said:
What is different is the apparent loss of that 'gimme gimme gimme' attitude that exists today where everyone expects and demands the biggest bang for their buck, where everyone is basically a spoiled little prince/princess.

That's my point and I've been mocked for arguing it but in 10,000 years of human history the 'gimme' culture has failed to change or evolve. We are, despite our creature comforts today, relativity the same selfish bastards we were in the caves struggling to survive and wanting what someone else has that we don't. And so long as scarcity exists, [land, medicine, rare objects etc] so will some kind of barter system to acquire them - hence money.

Which is why this magical world of the future where everyone works together in some kind of college communal system to 'help better mankind' is nonsensical and denies human nature.

The other poster made an excellent point as well that I hadn't considered before but that also reinforces the notion that the Federations 'economy' is impossible is related to ownership rights. It's canon that people can own things/create [books, clothing, objects etc] things in Trek. Yet the writers would have us believe that, they'd just gladly hand over their own property for man kinds betterment.

Private ownership of one's own creation and its 'value' is no longer relevant.

Come on.
 
Dorothy_Zbornak said:
For example, Picard says in "First Contact" how the economics of the future are different, it's all about humanity bettering itself.

I just suddenly had a revelation of sorts. What if we took Picard's statement in its most literal sense? That the future economics of Earth is directly pegged to humanity bettering itself.

I'm thinking somewhat along the lines of a society where you are paid according to how well you perform and not according to the position you hold. In such an economy, a politician might earn as much as a waiter if the politician wasn't very good at his job. Whereas a waiter might earn as much as the president if he is considered the best waiter ever. Is this plausible?
 
...in 10,000 years of human history the 'gimme' culture has failed to change or evolve.

This "axiom" I simply cannot accept as true.

When Picard speaks against the 1980s consumerism in "The Neutral Zone", he speaks against a sharp aberration in human behavior. Consumerism didn't even exist before the 1800s, when a sufficient pool of the petty bourgeoisie had evolved, the concept of spare time for the masses emerged for the first time, and a sufficient industry at last overcatered for their arfiticial needs.

If Ralph Offenhouse had instead traveled 300 years into the past, one of Picard's ancestors could quite plausibly present the very same argument: that people are not obsessed with the accumulation of things. Back then, they weren't. Only back then, it was due to the unavailability of those things; forward in Picard's time, it seems to be due to the gross overavailability of them.

Whether this results in a deeply different economy or not is the viewer's guess. All the heroes ever make clear is that consumers no longer use money in intra-UFP things of everyday nature, which is how many people live today already.

But to say that economics is independent of time, because the human nature that drives economics is independent of time... That's a clear double fault. Change is the only constant, and to see no change in TNG would most certainly be against human nature!

Timo Saloniemi
 
Timo said:
...in 10,000 years of human history the 'gimme' culture has failed to change or evolve.

This "axiom" I simply cannot accept as true.

When Picard speaks against the 1980s consumerism in "The Neutral Zone", he speaks against a sharp aberration in human behavior. Consumerism didn't even exist before the 1800s, when a sufficient pool of the petty bourgeoisie had evolved, the concept of spare time for the masses emerged for the first time, and a sufficient industry at last overcatered for their arfiticial needs.

I think people will always have wants, and they always have. Maybe not to the degree of the 1980's, but they've always wanted stuff. So that part is constant.

But it's not always equal even among cultures. There are plenty of cultures that didn't see greed as the ultimate good. Confucianists weren't very fond of shopkeepers, for example.

Merchants are a ridiculed class because they produce nothing except profit from the work of others.
-Miyamoto Mushashi

But to say that economics is independent of time, because the human nature that drives economics is independent of time... That's a clear double fault. Change is the only constant, and to see no change in TNG would most certainly be against human nature!

Well, I think part of this might be a technological effect, not a human nature effect. Today, using a PC, a person can copy a design, a movie, music, a book or a program infinately. The RIAA and MPAA among others hate this, but it's essentially made digital products so common that if the industry can't create artificial scarcity, they can't profit from the media they create.

Once you have widespread matter repllication, the same dynamic would work on stuff like chairs and tables, computers, xboxes, just about anything, provided you had the energy to power the system. So the same thing should apply to matter once replication becomes possible.

People can get what they want essentially free. So they'll refuse to pay for it, much like many people use bittorent to get movies. They'll see it as free, and absent something more valuable added to make it worth paying for (say seeing the song performed live in concert, or having the artist paint a masterpiece for you in your house) a thing that can be copied undlessly has no intrinsic value. So they'll be free, except for the energy and basic matter used to recreate it.

Explaining such a concept in the 1980's would be about like trying to explain our current economic system in medieval Europe. "Wait, so you flash around that piece of plastic and walk out with goods? Then at the end of the month you sit down at a computer and type in the amount you owe and you're paid up?" It wouldn't make a bit of sense to them, because in their world, you either paid with gold or barter. To their mind, WE are a cashless society, with everything we need.

Timo Saloniemi

[/QUOTE]
 
There seems to be three tiers of argument regarding the Federation Economy. Canonical references, Feasibility & Human Nature, and Trade & Barter.

As far as Canonical References are concerned, I think it's quite logical to believe that within the confines of the Federation, there is no monatary system required. I could see a barter or credit system installed, or even used by people trading items of value, but overall, there is no need. Think about most things that people spend money on today. Housing, Food, Clothing, Energy (Electric, Natural Gas, Gasoline), Communication and Commodity Items (Phone, Internet, Computers, Televisions, etc.), Vehicular Transportation, Taxes, Non-Renewable Supplies (Soap, Toilet Paper, Etc.). In a three person household, one being a child, a person is spending at least $600-1,000 a month in housing costs at low-to-mid income, an additional $300-1,000 a month in energy, $200-600 in vehicles if they are newly purchased or leased (including insurance), $100-300 in communications (providing Internet, Cable, Phone), $100-200 a week in food, God Knows with Taxes, $50-200 a month in Toiletries, and whatever other expenses. That averages out to be $1,650-$3,900 a month, or $19,800-$46,800 a year.

In the United States, that means that just in the above mentioned catagories, figuring 100 million households (average 3 per household, 2005 census was actually 113 million households), 1,980,000,000,000-$4,680,000,000,000 (~2-4.6 Trillion) is used every year in income, or for ease-sake we'll say 3.3 Trillion Median. And though I'm not going to discuss it beyond this point, medical expenses are not even mentioned here.

The medium income level per household in 2006 was approximately $48,000. Or $4,800,000,000,000 total (4.8 Trillion). So that means we as a country alone spend about 68.75% of all money made per year on the above mentioned items.

Now, say that in the future, energy is provided for free by the government, as is land, communications, food, or whatever other needs. That means that suddenly 68.75% of what people could potentially make are available for use in a generalized economy. On top of that, due to automation, the need for a huge workforce is reduced due to lack of working for menial jobs, such as farming, manufacturing (1 person could run a replicator), etc. I could see in this circumstance people writing because they want, acting because they want to, etc. Open source in this greedy world is starting to take root. People write for the joy of it in their spare time. During all of this 'I'll do what I desire', a branch of Starfleet, or the overall Government through enlistment, would be running the menial jobs that were needed, such as replicator patterns, data networks, energy production, etc.

As far as talking about canonical information, people tend to forget that if you do have something, whether it is replicated or not, you still OWN it. Even if you had to buy extra large things such as houses, land, boats, etc. with credits, money by and large is no longer used in everyday needs. So I don't think it too far off to say that the characters in Star Trek generally don't think of credits, in that estimation, as money. Everything that you need is already provided for.

Where I think the credit idea really would come into play is commerce among other powers. Especially powers that already have replication technology. Or even other worlds within the Federation. So say, for example, you are moving from Earth to Bajor. You no longer have use for that land on earth. I don't see it too far off to sell your house and land for credits to be converted to another currency system so you may move to another society that may not be compatible with the Terran Economic System.

Now, as far as human nature, people here have said that humans havn't changed much in 10,000 years. I would agree. However, the greed analogies to this aspect are not the root of human problems, nor the true driving force. Money in our society is power--- The power to control your own destiny, if not the destiny of others. So I do believe that, with the right combination of automation, replication, and the ability for the average person to do what they want in life, a Star Trek Socialist Economy is completely feasible, and very realistic (IF there are aliens out there who would be willing to trade with us, or we can learn this technology on our own).

Quick Edit: Not to even mention the impact that a world unifcation would cause, if there are aliens and humans learn to trade with them: Internal trade would be completely minor compared to an intergalactic economy.
 
DarthTom said:
*I know many people that would elect to not work at all. Your premise is faulty in that you assume people naturally want to work towards 'societies benefits' which most don't. The failure of communism is ample proof that such a system fails to work and is counter to human nature.

The failure of communism has more to do with the Cold War, then human nature.
 
bismarck_1892 said:
DarthTom said:
*I know many people that would elect to not work at all. Your premise is faulty in that you assume people naturally want to work towards 'societies benefits' which most don't. The failure of communism is ample proof that such a system fails to work and is counter to human nature.

The failure of communism has more to do with the Cold War, then human nature.

Actually, it has more to do with rising nationalism in the "republics" that the Soviet Union had conquered and oppressed than the Cold War.
 
Sci said:
bismarck_1892 said:
DarthTom said:
*I know many people that would elect to not work at all. Your premise is faulty in that you assume people naturally want to work towards 'societies benefits' which most don't. The failure of communism is ample proof that such a system fails to work and is counter to human nature.

The failure of communism has more to do with the Cold War, then human nature.

Actually, it has more to do with rising nationalism in the "republics" that the Soviet Union had conquered and oppressed than the Cold War.

Nope, sorry has nothing to do with nationalism. I was there. :)
 
Basic tenets don't matter much if there is a strong "leadership" (read: military) to keep the structure together. Why, something as absurd as the Holy Roman Empire could be held loosely together for the better part of a millennium on a political, religious and economical structure that nobody believed in or observed for real. And Cuba manages just fine with being communist, just as is would with being, say, Scientologist or Vegetarian - the ideology has little to do with it.

OTOh, ideology is good in lieu of economics or other such logic. The Federation could quite well subsist on pure hatred of capitalism, still blaming it for WWIII. So even if money still flows, it might be absolutely forbidden to call it money, or to be seen using it - so workarounds would be (almost trivially easily) found.

Timo Saloniemi
 
bismarck_1892 said:

The failure of communism has more to do with the Cold War, then human nature.

Precisely, you couldn't build washing machines and nuclear missiles and feed everyone in a society based on full employment and equal economic opportunities.
 
...To be sure, you couldn't do it elsewhere, under different economic systems, either. Not at the rate those folks kept building their missiles.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Timo said:
...To be sure, you couldn't do it elsewhere, under different economic systems, either. Not at the rate those folks kept building their missiles.

Timo Saloniemi

Communism failed because most people don't want to work hard to the benefit of their neighbor and not themselves. So the incentive to exceed evaporates without a personal reward. Being average must have been not only prevelant in the USSR but encouraged.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top