Here is how I think the federation works without needing money.

[Tenacity]

To further the analogy, no one has to work in order to live. Everyone is given basic access just like a free to play MMO. It's just more convenient and comfortable if you go get a job or in the free to play MMO analogy become a paid subscriber

I certainly can't see future society letting people be the equivalent of starving homeless, and I would agree that to get above the basic survival minimum you would work at some job. I think that what you would get in return for that job would be money, even if (for whatever reason) they don't refer to it using that term.

You work Mardi Gra, and you get something in compensation (but not money), and you can then use that something to get bettering living space, better food, tailored clothes, holosuite time, travel.

This something isn't money, it just works exactly like money, and has the same purpose as money.

My favorite is from TNG's "Neutral Zone" where the crew is discussing cryogenics and they seemed shocked that primitive 20th century humans feared death

Same episode, a woman from the 20th century finds out that she'll never see her husband or children again and begins to cry.

Picard asks why she's crying.

-Humans only work to better themselves or the rest of humanity

How do Humans interact with the rest of the Federation's people?

Or that humans weren't bothered by words anymore.

Actually I like this one.

 

[UnknownSample]

The makers of Trek leave the nature of this new economy open, because they aren't brilliant economists who can come up with revolutionary new economic systems for the sake of their TV show. We can rest assured it was a brilliant idea, very innovative and unexpected, so puzzling over it is fairly pointless. Unless you are a brilliant economist, it probably won't occur to you.
--------------------
However we can be sure of some things about it, such as the fact that replicators had a lot to do with it, ending scarcity.
-----------------------
They use "credits" in place of dollars or pounds, etc.. Credits function exactly the same way money does, for all transactions of any kind.
----------------------
I'll guess that what credits will get you is pre-determined and restricted. You can get practically any item you need or don't need from replicators. I'm guessing saving up millions of credits to buy gold-plated spittoons is one kind of thing credits won't buy from a replicator. Fajo from The Most Toys must operate outside the Federation. A lot of leeway is shown as far as what crap you can buy but decadent showing off that squanders resources is out.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I certainly can't see future society letting people be the equivalent of starving homeless, and I would agree that to get above the basic survival minimum you would work at some job.

That's why I think the idea of having to work or else to use the replicator wouldn't be approved, and be rejected out of hand. It wouldn't fit in with the concept Trek already established with humans defeating poverty and having what seems to be endless abundance.

As far as it's not money but some type of credit-- if you don't have enough credits or points to use the replicator, that's still need or want. You'd have the same situation that any society that uses money would have. It probably look even worse if there is tremendous abundance surrounding those people and they can't share it.

How would that make the Federation seem any different?

 

[Tenacity]

It probably look even worse if there is tremendous abundance
surrounding those people and they can't share it.

That's called incentive.

 

[velour]

The makers of Trek leave the nature of this new economy open, because they aren't brilliant economists who can come up with revolutionary new economic systems for the sake of their TV show. We can rest assured it was a brilliant idea, very innovative and unexpected, so puzzling over it is fairly pointless. Unless you are a brilliant economist, it probably won't occur to you.

If any of the makers of Trek were to be asked "how does the Trek universe economy works?" It wouldn't surprise me if they gave the same answer as the one they gave to the "how do inertia dampeners work" question: "very well, thank you". What else can they credibly say?

 

[Tenacity]

Inertia dampeners are created with fairy dust, economic systems are real and numorious.

You can point to actual examples and say it's basically this, with a little of those two added on

 

[fireproof78]

If any of the makers of Trek were to be asked "how does the Trek universe economy works?" It wouldn't surprise me if they gave the same answer as the one they gave to the "how do inertia dampeners work" question: "very well, thank you". What else can they credibly say?

Look at real world economic systems and delve in to theory. Say it's kind of like "X" and "Y" mixed together.

Economics is not magic. There are real world implications for a post scarcity world and plenty of research to be had to make a foundation and extrapolate from there.

 

[GabyBee]

It's not a question of whether or not a real world post-scarcity society would include money or not. It's a question of whether that is the case in the Star Trek universe. As a fictional universe, Star Trek is under no obligation to "make sense" to real-world economic theory. It's sort of like trying to explain Q's powers using Newtonian physics. Not compatible.

 

[velour]

Look at real world economic systems and delve in to theory. Say it's kind of like "X" and "Y" mixed together.

Economics is not magic. There are real world implications for a post scarcity world and plenty of research to be had to make a foundation and extrapolate from there.

I agree that economics is not magic. Economic systems, Federation regulations, supply and demand, money or lack of money, moral hazards, etc., do matter and have consequences.

The way Trek has portrayed Trek economics create more questions than answers.

 

[Ithekro]

The way Trek has portrayed Trek economics create more questions than answers.

That's a good thing. It makes us question if their can be a society that can function without money and the greed we tend to associate with it.

 

[fireproof78]

It's not a question of whether or not a real world post-scarcity society would include money or not. It's a question of whether that is the case in the Star Trek universe. As a fictional universe, Star Trek is under no obligation to "make sense" to real-world economic theory. It's sort of like trying to explain Q's powers using Newtonian physics. Not compatible.

Then why explain any thing? That puts science fiction firmly in the world of of fantasy, with made up science to satisfy story need.

I agree that economics is not magic. Economic systems, Federation regulations, supply and demand, money or lack of money, moral hazards, etc., do matter and have consequences.

The way Trek has portrayed Trek economics create more questions than answers.

It does create questions, which is a benefit when exploring different facets of economic systems. But, as part of creating a world and building in "suspension of disbelief" is having things that make sense, so that when the things that don't make sense (Q, FTL travel, transporters) you have the foundation to build off of and earn audience confidence.

So, the idea that economics falls under the same category as intertial dampners is an unequal comparison, because one has real world foundations and models that can extrapolate the kind of consequences such a system would bring about, as well as its impact upon people.

 

[GabyBee]

Then why explain any thing? That puts science fiction firmly in the world of of fantasy, with made up science to satisfy story need.

What I mean is that it's not intended to be explained by real world 21st century theory, but rather by evidence presented in-universe. Don't throw Adam Smith at the New World Economy. They're not going to get along well. Rather use evidence that is shown to us on the shows and movies. If you do that, the NWE does fit in quite snugly with the Star Trek universe as it is presented to us.

 

[Tenacity]

but rather by evidence presented in-universe

All the evidence? Or just the evidence that proves there's no money, or just the evidence that proves there is money?

A theory that includes all references, and treats them all fairly (I think) would be the best one.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Except all the practical in-universe evidence suggests there is scarcity and trade.

 

[Tenacity]

When Quark tried to hustle Harry Kim into buying some jem stones, Harry didn't come back with "you know, I can replicate these for free back on my ship."

But he didn't.

Also, if Starfleet officers is simply given a great wad of money to throw around (because it's worthless) when outside the Federation (which DS9 is), Why didn't Harry just buy the jem stones?

In fact why not pay Quark twenty times what Quark was asking? The money was meaningless ... right?

Unless the money was Harry personal earnings, and the money did have actual worth to Harry, because it was coming out of his own bank account.

 

[fireproof78]

What I mean is that it's not intended to be explained by real world 21st century theory, but rather by evidence presented in-universe. Don't throw Adam Smith at the New World Economy. They're not going to get along well. Rather use evidence that is shown to us on the shows and movies. If you do that, the NWE does fit in quite snugly with the Star Trek universe as it is presented to us.

Not all of the evidence lines up, nor is there going to be an explanation that satisfies all of the evidence. There is still some means of exchange for goods and services as evidenced by unique, non-replicated goods, such as Sisko's restaurant and Picard's Vineyard. These goods are clearly unique, and non replicated items seem to be preferred over replicated ones. In addition, you have the Federation engaging in trade with non member worlds for goods and services, such there would need to be a method of exchange as well.

The problem with "In the Cards" is that all the things that Jake did, could have easily been a story about a kid working summer jobs to save up money for the baseball card. Currency just provides an easier means of exchange because it is an agreed upon value.

Secondarily, the Federation may not use "currency based economics" but other planets do, so I would think that, at least, Starfleet officers would be familiar enough with other cultures to understand the concept. Kirk at least recognized that they still "use money in the 20th century."

 

[CorporalClegg]

Not all of the evidence lines up, nor is there going to be an explanation that satisfies all of the evidence. There is still some means of exchange for goods and services as evidenced by unique, non-replicated goods, such as Sisko's restaurant and Picard's Vineyard. These goods are clearly unique, and non replicated items seem to be preferred over replicated ones. In addition, you have the Federation engaging in trade with non member worlds for goods and services, such there would need to be a method of exchange as well.

The problem with "In the Cards" is that all the things that Jake did, could have easily been a story about a kid working summer jobs to save up money for the baseball card. Currency just provides an easier means of exchange because it is an agreed upon value.

Secondarily, the Federation may not use "currency based economics" but other planets do, so I would think that, at least, Starfleet officers would be familiar enough with other cultures to understand the concept. Kirk at least recognized that they still "use money in the 20th century."

This illustrates the crux of the issue: The debate ultimately comes down to "it's just bad writing." It basically excuses lapses in common senses and practicality (not to mention all the plot holes) simply to push a pie-in-the-sky agenda, which (dare I say) is exactly the same problem as with the whole "it's not a military" thing.

But here's the kicker: moving forward--Discovery/Kelvin/whatever--it actually makes sense to change this position, especially under the umbrella of provocative Star Trek progressiveness.

In the upcoming quarter-century or so, the one big social hot potato (globally) is going to be the UBI. What better way to get out in front of this and say, "In the future there's still money/trade/commerce, but humanity has moved beyond the profit motive as its primary driving force. In turn, we've managed to created a sustainable world where all its citizens basic needs--and then some--are met without having to rely on some magical fantasy device."

 

[Nyotarules]

In the Star Trek future as long as your business breaks even then all systems go hence we work to better ourselves and not please the shareholders or all companies work in the form of partnerships or cooperatives ala a 23rd century John Lewis

 

[Nightdiamond]

This illustrates the crux of the issue: The debate ultimately comes down to "it's just bad writing." It basically excuses lapses in common senses and practicality (not to mention all the plot holes) simply to push a pie-in-the-sky agenda, which (dare I say) is exactly the same problem as with the whole "it's not a military" thing."

I have to agree. It doesn't make Trek universe look very mature. Honestly, in order to follow this show, you have to believe one moment money disappears, the next it reappears.

According to Picard building a ship the size of the Enterprise had no cost. And people involved who did build it, did only for personal enjoyment and to better humanity. That means the miners, manual laborers etc, spent all those months or years working entirely for free. Picard said it.

I like it least how Star Wars organized it universe--there's advance tech everywhere, but people need money. Hans Solo is basically on the good side, but he's a smuggler. Because in his universe he needs money--he has debts, he likes to live well, he has motivation.

Kassidy Yates or Vash are humans who come from a world where poverty has been eliminated, there is no need or want, and there is no need for money. And yet they break the law to get "paid", and one of them ends up going to prison. Does this scenario make any sense to anyone?

 

[Nyotarules]

^ And righteous, no money, 'we work to better ourselves' Picard finds the profiteering hussy sexy! lol