• 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!

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

What does the future without money mean in the Federation?


  • Total voters
    11
I do not think that Risa is a Federation planet, it always seemed like lawlessness. Are there any references that Risa was Federation?

There's no proof that Risa is a member of the Federation, but it's implied that it is. (I don't recall any canon references to non-Federation members making use of it.)

There's no evidence that Risa is "lawless", at any rate.
 
And he also said "money doesn't exist in the 24th century".
Of course Picard didn't say money doesn't exist in the Federation, he said the 24th century, making the no money statement basically include ... well everywhere.

Risa, Bajor and the Klingon Empire have money, so not the 24th century.
It's a pretty explicit statement regarding the economics of the Federation.
Or just the economics of Humanity.
At this point you are just making random speculation in order to support a pre-conceived conclusion that contradicts explicitly established canon.
You mean the canon that money does exist? Because we hear of it's use inside the Federation by people from the Federation?

Given that money is used in the Federation, Picard's and Jake's identically worded statements could mean the absence a particular form of money by Humanity, while all other forms are still there. For Humanity physical money might be long gone, while electronic financial transfers are common.

The latter would explain both Beverly's purchase of the cloth (nothing physical, just an authorization), and Uhura shopping trip on K7 (no apparent purse/pockets).

At the same time, non-Humanity across the Federation might use a combination of electronic financial transfers and physical money, as they see fit.

So Picard can still purchase a statue, but not have any "money."

And the piano player can still have a tip jar for cold hard cash.
 
When has a Federation citizen ever been explicitly shown to be paying for something with cash within the Federation?
 
At this point you are just making random speculation in order to support a pre-conceived conclusion that contradicts explicitly established canon.
And canon is holy writ.... right?
Risa is a Federation member - ST TNG episode, 'Let he who is without sin' aka Worf joins the Federation Taliban'
 
When has a Federation citizen ever been explicitly shown to be paying for something with cash within the Federation?
I a citizen of the UK in the 21st century never buys anything with cold cash, its debit cards all the way. And its still considered money.
 
When it comes to the idea of everyone showing up to Sisko's to eat just because it's free opens up the idea that just because anyone can do it and not worry about paying I think can be answered by simply saying that maybe it operates like a night club. You basically have a bouncer outside that stops people from coming in if the place is packed.

Jason
 
I a citizen of the UK in the 21st century never buys anything with cold cash, its debit cards all the way. And its still considered money.


Fine... when has a replicator, or any other sort of vendor - be it humanoid or machine - within the Federation ever asked for payment as a pre-requisite for service?
 
Just like there are still pickpockets in 24th century Marseilles, who steal but do so only for the benefit of the tourists,and give it back later... most of the time. At least, according to Tom Paris.
That brings up a good question...if people in the 24th century have neither money nor pockets, what the hell are they picking...?
 
Last edited:
Do you remember those 80's cartoons with the weird errors such as a character being written off the show, and then reappearing in the very next episode with no explanation? That explains Star Trek and money lol.

One moment everybody uses money, the other it completely disappears, and no one remembers.

Here are some choice quotes from the show;

NOG: It's my money, Jake. If you want to bid at the auction, use your own money.
JAKE: I'm
human, I don't have any money.

ARISSA: It's not like a Federation world where everything is handed to you.

Jake says he doesn't have any money, and he's stating it's because he's a human. This states that humans don't have, use or process money. Arlissa seems to be claiming that things are free on a federation planet.

From this you can only conclude that on earth, people just walk up to a replicator, order want they want, it appears and that is that. People work hard to run restaurants and give away the food, because they want to.

Waiters volunteer to serve food all day because it enriches them, they don't get paid. Some humans get into smuggling, illegal activities and stressed filled jobs because they're supposed to have jobs, not because they get paid for it.

It sounds crazy, but that's just the way it looks to some of us lol.
 
He gave Uhura a Tribble. A Tribble is not money.
Jones was haggling a price for the tribble with the bartender. The price was in monetary units. How it this not money? Are you just going to be willfully ignorant of evidence seen right there on screen because of something Roddenberry would say twenty years later?
 
This is why I think there was a change during the late 23rd century. It allows for this exchange in the 2260s, while also allowing for Kirk to say they don't use money anymore by the 2280s.
 
That works all well and good until suddenly it doesn't. What happens when Sisko's when everyone wants to go to Sisko's because of his War Hero Son?

The same thing that happens now. There is a line and people get turned away. Reservations are made if you want a seat.
 
The difference between that and Sisko's is, of course, the food at Praeto's is not free.

When food (or anything else, really) actually costs something, then there will be people who can't get it. And that's one of the ways crowds stay down.

Hey, look, I am in your camp. I'm not buying the no money idea as much as I didn't buy that other idea that needs not mentioned.

But this argument is flawed. You all need to find a valid argument.

If ALL restaurants are free, then there is no problem. Nobody has money and nobody gets charged to eat at any restaurant. In Contrast people today have money and restaurants charge money. Balance. So, what happens when McDonald's charges $1 for drinks? Does McDonald's run out of drinks because everyone rushes there for drinks? No. People still go where they want. Price alone does not affect consumer demand. Prices are only part of economics.

The entire argument is that Sisko's would be swamped by customers because the food is free. That argument doesn't consider all restaurants are free. If someone can't get a seat at Sisko's, they will go down the street to Dwayne Pride's place or any of a hundred other places. It's all free, after all.

Now, the argument about freeloaders overloading the system has its place. But remember, home cooked food is free, too. The example of overloading the system is further back the chain. It's not Sisko's.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top