Hell, why The Federation Uses No money

[Nedersong]

Hello, i'd like to introduce myself with my first post here. I've been a long time fan of Star Trek beginning with The Wrath of Khan. When I saw that movie it got me into The original Series.

I have some personal theories about Trek. Here's one of them that deals with the reason why The Federation doesn't use money.

That reason is the transporter.

And here's why. While i was watching a show on the History Channel on Star Trek Tech, it did a spot on the transporter, and it mentioned that along with the ability to transport it would have another ability that was never explored in the series. Although it really has to a limited extent as a plot device more than anything else. The episode where Kirk was split in two comes to mind.

And that it was also a copy machine, in that it could also make duplicates of whatever it transported.

Now it could have real humanitarian applications. It could end hunger by replicating tons of food to feed people. We wouldn't have to worry about running out of fossil fuels.

But the downside to it is that it could be used as a great weapon of war. Because it could replicate precious metals and minerals. In doing so it would wreck the economies of the world.

So, under those circumstances, earth would be forced to undergo changes to adapt to the technology, or to destroy the transporter.

So that is why the Federation uses no money.

But it beats me what economic system would be put to replace money.

Added: I'm sorry, there's a typo in the title. Would a mod change the word hell to hello please? Thank you.

I'm a lousy typist.

 

[Timewalker]

Hello, i'd like to introduce myself with my first post here. I've been a long time fan of Star Trek beginning with The Wrath of Khan. When I saw that movie it got me into The original Series.

I have some personal theories about Trek. Here's one of them that deals with the reason why The Federation doesn't use money.

That reason is the transporter.

And here's why. While i was watching a show on the History Channel on Star Trek Tech, it did a spot on the transporter, and it mentioned that along with the ability to transport it would have another ability that was never explored in the series. Although it really has to a limited extent as a plot device more than anything else. The episode where Kirk was split in two comes to mind.

And that it was also a copy machine, in that it could also make duplicates of whatever it transported.

Now it could have real humanitarian applications. It could end hunger by replicating tons of food to feed people. We wouldn't have to worry about running out of fossil fuels.

But the downside to it is that it could be used as a great weapon of war. Because it could replicate precious metals and minerals. In doing so it would wreck the economies of the world.

So, under those circumstances, earth would be forced to undergo changes to adapt to the technology, or to destroy the transporter.

So that is why the Federation uses no money.

But it beats me what economic system would be put to replace money.

Added: I'm sorry, there's a typo in the title. Would a mod change the word hell to hello please? Thank you.

I'm a lousy typist.

I just assumed the typo was meant to express your exasperation with the subject of economics.

There was a TOS episode ("Catspaw") where Kirk and his crew were offered plates full of jewels and precious stones. Kirk dismissed them in contempt, saying he could "manufacture a ton of these." However, I doubt he meant he would have used the transporter, since that would require a massive amount of energy for a frivolous purpose. Mind you, the food replicators -- an earlier form of the 24th century ones -- supposedly used small transporters that acquired the materials for Kirk's chicken sandwiches and materialized them on a plate. I'm not sure where the original materials would have come from, though.

It's not entirely true that the Federation doesn't use money. After all, in "The Trouble With Tribbles," Cyrano Jones haggles with the barkeeper over the price he'll pay for tribbles. A century later, in "Encounter at Farpoint", when Beverly Crusher decides to buy the bolt of cloth, she tells the vendor to "charge it to the Enterprise" (paraphrasing).

Instead, I suggest that money is probably widely used in the Federation, but is likely not used much in Starfleet. However, Starfleet personnel have contact with non-fleet people all the time, so they need to be aware of the concept of cash money.

On the major Federation planets such as Earth and Vulcan, the system is probably similar to Voyager's system of replicator rations -- according to one's station/job, one is permitted to replicate/access replicated items up to a predetermined daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly limit. That would prevent everybody on Earth deciding they want to live in a grand palace and have all kinds of rare and precious materials in their daily lives.

 

[AdmiralGarak]

Why use money when every home on Earth has replicators capable of creating food, clothing, tools, etc...?

 

[Hermiod]

As Nog in "Treachery, Faith and the Great River" would tell you, the economy runs from people who have a thing to people who want it.

A Human's basic needs are food, water, clothing and shelter plus the energy to deliver all those things. The value of all of those things collapses when they are freely and readily available to everyone. No Human needs to worry about their basic needs. Food, clothing and water can be replicated and the Federation has vast numbers of colonies you can live on, all on unspoiled worlds.

 

[ParticleMan]

As Nog in "Treachery, Faith and the Great River" would tell you, the economy runs from people who have a thing to people who want it.

A Human's basic needs are food, water, clothing and shelter plus the energy to deliver all those things. The value of all of those things collapses when they are freely and readily available to everyone. No Human needs to worry about their basic needs. Food, clothing and water can be replicated and the Federation has vast numbers of colonies you can live on, all on unspoiled worlds.

I would then think that if there is money and an economy even approaching anything like real economies, it is for items that cannot be easily replicated or "luxury items". While all basic needs are met, I don't think that there are just replicators on every corner and in every house that are programmed to give you anything and everything your heart desires.

Of course, once holodecks are invented, civilization will fall as men lock themselves in there for eternity with 1000 copies of Jessica Alba...

 

[Timewalker]

Why use money when every home on Earth has replicators capable of creating food, clothing, tools, etc...?

But every home on Earth doesn't have a replicator. That was stated by several characters -- their families refused to have them, preferring the "real" thing, or preferring to make things (ie. cooking) themselves. And Earth is not the entire Federation. Do you think the colony Tasha Yar grew up on had replicators? I doubt it -- everything was dirty, grimy, and life was extremely hard.

There are some things replicators are not programmed to do (remember, they are just computers): they can't replicate weapons or harmful substances like poisons (although 'harmful' is a relative term). I would guess that if the average Joe Citizen went to a replicator and ordered up a ton of emeralds, he wouldn't even get one single emerald.

Replicators are tools, not fairy godmothers.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Welcome aboard!

And that it was also a copy machine, in that it could also make duplicates of whatever it transported.

Yes, that's the common assumption how the Federation could do away with the profit motive. People usually cite the replicator as the reason - the replicator is just a smaller version of a transporter, really - and the intriguing thing is, there were no replicators till the 24th C series, and that's also when the "communistic" aspect of the Federation became more pronounced. There were several references to capitalism or at least the sense that resources are not infinite, in TOS - people earning paychecks, Kirk's anxiety that the mining operations resume in Devil in the Dark, etc. Doesn't seem it was entirely gone in Kirk's day.

Added: I'm sorry, there's a typo in the title.

I didn't even consider that was a mistake. Hell, I spend too much time in TNZ.

 

[tobindax]

because they're evil commies that want to destroy the motherland with their demonic ideas. hail the motherland, hail the dollar. hail.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

They were trying to throw a radical sugestion out there, I think the term is coinciousness raising (excuse my spelling), the economc model we currently use represents only a tiny sliver of human history, it hasn't existed for long, so it's reasonable to assume that over the next 2-400 years it will gradually change, espechally with the advent of new tech.

It all depends on cultural attitudes too, our good friends in the UK seem happy to be charged for tap water in their own homes, whereas we'd consider that a basic public service.
Before 1900 there was no social security in the US, anyone who sugested taking that away today would be very upopular, things change.

 

[sbk1234]

As I recall, the whole "no money" thing came about from a throwaway line in TVH, where Kirk remarks, "They're still using money. We've got to get some." Probably a mistake in retrospect. They could have just as easily made the point that all of their money was 300 years out of date, so they needed some 20th Century money.

Anywho... I've always interpreted the line to mean that all finances were handled with "virtual" currency over the computer, and nobody actually had physical money that they actually held or traded.

Perhaps they should have said, "They're still using currency."

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

The Memory Alpha article on "Money" quotes Ronald D. Moore:

Ronald D. Moore commented: "By the time I joined TNG, Gene had decreed that money most emphatically did NOT exist in the Federation, nor did 'credits' and that was that. Personally, I've always felt this was a bunch of hooey, but it was one of the rules and that's that."

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

I've heard them mention credits plenty of times. So they use some form of money.

 

[Sci]

The problem with this entire concept is that Trek has contradicted itself. There are numerous episodes where money is a major motivating factor for Federation citizens -- "Mudd's Women," "The Devil in the Dark," etc. There are also numerous references to Federation Credits, to buying things, etc. And then there are claims that there is no money and no greed, most famously in "The Neutral Zone" (TNG) and Star Trek: First Contact.

 

[137th Gebirg]

IIRC, this was why gold-pressed-latinum was so valuable - the liquid latinum infused into gold was done in such a way that it was impossible for replicators to reproduce. I think it was "Who Mourns for Morn" explained all that - Morn found a way to extract all the latinum in his gold cache - which is why Quark lamented over all the "worthless" gold. Gold was worthless as it was easy to replicate - the latinum that Morn hid in one of his "stomaches" was the valuable part.

At the end of the day though, yes, Star Trek has always been contradictory over its flimsy use of commerce.

 

[BenRoethig]

The Memory Alpha article on "Money" quotes Ronald D. Moore:

Ronald D. Moore commented: "By the time I joined TNG, Gene had decreed that money most emphatically did NOT exist in the Federation, nor did 'credits' and that was that. Personally, I've always felt this was a bunch of hooey, but it was one of the rules and that's that."

They also completely broke that on more than one account when it became impractical. Look, there is no such thing as poverty and everyone's needs are taken care of, but there is also some type of monetary system to get more than the basic necessity.

 

[Sean Aaron]

They also completely broke that on more than one account when it became impractical. Look, there is no such thing as poverty and everyone's needs are taken care of, but there is also some type of monetary system to get more than the basic necessity.

I don't see why. It could easily be like a meritocracy, where the more you contribute the more perks (credits) you get -- I'm not saying some jobs would be valued more than others, but maybe the quality of work that you do. After all there are clearly performance reviews on the Enterprise in TNG (Lower Decks and others), so why not something similar on Earth and other Federation worlds for non-Starfleet folks where the reward is not just a better "rank" or job standing, but additonal perks as well? I don't see an issue with that or a need for money. It's clearly not a consumer-oriented society and frankly as time goes on I think we're seeing more harm that good in the model of the US economy.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Now I got it... they're not using money, they're using credits! There's a difference.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

They also completely broke that on more than one account when it became impractical. Look, there is no such thing as poverty and everyone's needs are taken care of, but there is also some type of monetary system to get more than the basic necessity.

I don't see why. It could easily be like a meritocracy, where the more you contribute the more perks (credits) you get -- I'm not saying some jobs would be valued more than others, but maybe the quality of work that you do. After all there are clearly performance reviews on the Enterprise in TNG (Lower Decks and others), so why not something similar on Earth and other Federation worlds for non-Starfleet folks where the reward is not just a better "rank" or job standing, but additonal perks as well? I don't see an issue with that or a need for money. It's clearly not a consumer-oriented society and frankly as time goes on I think we're seeing more harm that good in the model of the US economy.

I think thats it, the credits are not like money, it's more...earned maybe? like you don't get if from maniplation like "investments" but from real work and thats how it's different to money.
There would have to be something similar to country, I can't think of a way of controlling resources that can't be replicated without it

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yep, given boundless energy sources and a technology like the replicator, physical wealth becomes entirely meaningless.

By the time of TNG, there seems to be a never-ending supply of Class M planets and interstellar transportation is extremely speedy. This renders even real estate an unlimited resource.

 

[Dr. Chandra]

I always assumed Kirk meant they were using cash, and he didn't have any. I figured people can still pay for goods, just using a "space debit card".