How Dose Starfleet Pay For Stuff?

[Captain April]

The Federation is a post scarcity society where any and all needs and wants can be met for everyone. Within the Federation no money changes hands. Outside of the Federation the citizen simply authorises a payment and the Federation central 'bank' makes the necessary exchange of value.

It simplifies things as the Federation would only need to make periodic bulk exchanges with different societies and not necessarily for 'cash'.

 

[Arpy]

It isn't the post-scarcity alone that makes them good, Captain April. Again, was Caligula a nice guy having everything?

137th_Gebrig, Quark was wrong about hu-mons for the same reason. Teresa was considerably nicer than Caligula with far fewer creature comforts. It's about self-awareness and considerations of morality more than the distraction of wealth. You do need food to survive to be able to think about what's right, but owning your own moon alone will not force you to get your head on straight.

 

[uniderth]

It isn't the post-scarcity alone that makes them good, Captain April. Again, was Caligula a nice guy having everything?

137th_Gebrig, Quark was wrong about hu-mons for the same reason. Teresa was considerably nicer than Caligula with far fewer creature comforts. It's about self-awareness and considerations of morality more than the distraction of wealth. You do need food to survive to be able to think about what's right, but owning your own moon alone will not force you to get your head on straight.

^ This.

 

[T'Girl]

The "dear leaders", of course, must have fancier cars and nicer clothes than everyone else ...

And a large office, with a large window, facing the Eiffel Tower in Paris.

So the moneyless utopia is really just a replicator economy.

No, it can't be "just" a replicator economy. Joe Sisko serves real shellfish so there must be a supply/supply chain for that. Rob Picard feeds his family and works a vineyard without using a replicator, so there's a source for the food and equipment he needs. And there are frequent references to mining, and we hear about interstellar trade. The replicator is only a part of their economy, but there are other aspects too that don't include the replicator.

... but wealth can not be amassed.

Why can't it? One of the most common forms of wealth is property, we see property owners. Corporations in the Federation own entire planets. If someone works harder and smarter than their fellows, why shouldn't they become (quite) wealthy?

One of the Vulcan's sayings is "life long and prosper."

I've always viewed the Federation as something more analogous to the European Union rather than the United States...

I feel it's less the EU (or the US), and more something like the UN (but not exactly). In the Voyager episode The Void the UFP charter is on display and is basically just a rewording of the UN charter.

 

[hux]

And let's not forget those poor sewage workers (they sure ain't doing it to better themselves).

And plumbers. Last time we had this discussion, some people actually tried to suggest that excrement was beamed directly from the body to the sewage plant. Such was their determination to explain-away the need for plumbers.

Surely easier just to say... plumbers exist... and they get paid.

 

[uniderth]

... but wealth can not be amassed.

Why can't it? One of the most common forms of wealth is property, we see property owners. Corporations in the Federation own entire planets.

Because ownership and property are illusions. Control is an illusion. Can one own the clouds? Yes, we can have temporary stewardship over an object. But the universe is always in motion and tomorrow your "property" or your may not be there anymore. Where then is your property, your ownership? It was just an illusion.

If someone works harder and smarter than their fellows, why shouldn't they become (quite) wealthy?

Because human society is not about the individual. All humans have a responsibility to their fellow beings, not only to themselves. Wealth brings power, and power brings corruption. Individuals who work hard and smart do gain and increase in wealth, but it is not only for themselves it is also for their tribe. All members of the tribe contribute and all reap the benefits.

I can go on and on but meh... you get the idea. I imagine this the the kind of philosophy going around during the time of the advanced human revolution. Especially if it was discovered the elite corporations were behind WWIII (New World Order style). You would see a huge ramp up in anti-corporatist, anti-capitalist rhetoric. You would see anti- government as well. Who's going to trust those guys not to blow up the world again? Thus big government communism/socialism is out.

Couple this with the Neo-Transcendentalist philosophies of Liam Dieghan in the late 21st/early 22nd century. I think we would see a push back to a more tribal egalitarian social order. Thus working together and eliminating money among humans.

I imagine though that the prime of this system would have occurred in the mid to late 22nd century. Thus by the time and Kirk and certainly Picard these "advanced humans" may have reverted back to a more urbanized individualistic structure. By that time the "advanced human" and "no money" thing may have become more cliche than reality.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Starfleet is funded by a donation from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

[T'Girl]

All humans have a responsibility to their fellow beings

Legal responsibility?

I can go on and on but meh... you get the idea

No, I really don't. You can (as a act of free will) help those around you, and good for you if this is your choice. Are you suggesting some form of government or societial mandate, with penlities for non-compliance?

 

[137th Gebirg]

Reminds me of that final episode of "Seinfeld", where they were all arrested, tried and convicted for NOT being good Samaritans in a time of someone's need. Guilty of acting like a New Yorker, I guess.

I think they were in Connecticut or Massachusetts or one of those tiny New England states. If they do have silly-ass laws like that, there is no way in sweet honey fuck I would ever visit that region again.

Update: Yep, from IMDB:

Five years after he and George made their original pitch, Jerry gets a call from NBC saying they want to go ahead with the original proposal. As a perk, they offer him the company jet to take him anywhere he likes and he, Elaine, George and Kramer are soon winging their way to Paris. They don't get very far when the plane has to make an emergency landing - thanks to Kramer's water-logged ear - and soon find themselves with a few hours to kill in a small town. When they see a fat man being car-jacked, they make fun of it but are soon arrested under a new Good Samaritan law for failing to help him.

Update 2: After thinking about this, I did some extra research on whether or not these kinds of laws exist and, to some extent, they do, being referred to as "Duty to Rescue" laws (another, more descriptive name for "Good Samaritan" laws). There is some debate as to whether or not they could be taken to draconian extents as was shown in Seinfeld. Here is an interesting article on the matter. Regardless of how people feel about the law, or the quality of Seinfeld's finale (reviews were mixed), it certainly brought the concept into serious discussion and debate at the time. Another article here about the mechanics, various flavors and purpose behind such laws.

I always thought "Good Samaritan" laws provided protection to people trying to help and wind up accidentally killing someone else through their action, preventing the family of the deceased from suing them, or police for charging them with manslaughter or some other felony. They appear to be referred to as "Medical Amnesty" sub-clauses, but not always present. Apparently there is far more to them than that limited interpretation.

Anyways...I digress from the OP. Carry on...

 

[Ixion]

My opinion on how Trek pays for stuff...

The Federation developed into a Utopia after the invention of the Replicator, which basically takes base components and outputs something useful. In essence, you can shovel in as much manure as you like and roses will come out of the other end as long as there is enough raw material to reconstruct it.

No one in Starfleet actually gets paid (pretty sure Voy covered this), everyone is strictly volunteer. They are doing it purely because they want to be there, not because they are being paid to do it or because there are other financial incentives. There's no need for money since you can get the replicator to produce whatever you want, leaving the Federation civilians to engage in artistic pursuits and "bettering themselves" as Picard put it.

That's not to say that the Federation does not trade with species not in the Federation. It will happily trade what it can create (what it produces) for things that it wants. In the very first TNG episode Beverly Crusher traded for cloth. Starfleet would then hand the business whatever it was they wanted in exchange. There are some things that did thwart the replication process.

Ferengi do not search just any wealth. They could have as many rubies as they like, the Federation would provide them freely. They are replicable. What is not Replicable is apparently Gold Pressed Latinum, something which Quark lusted after on numerous occasions. I believe this was the only currency he accepted and this actually requires the Federation to do work to mine. It is possible that where Gold Pressed Latinum is required, the Federation allots a certain amount per person depending upon their need (need being rather broad here rather than the strict definition).

It was made very clear during TNG that money had been completely abolished by that time, even the very idea of it was alien to many.

So how do huge massive ships get built?

Free Open Source Software and a bunch of volunteers who used futuristic 3d printers to basically print the parts and then pretend it was an airplane model kit. (Pass the PVA please).

How did scientists come up with the latest research? Well they printed the tools they needed and researched not for any financial incentive, but because they were curious. This is the whole basis of Star Trek and to miss it, is to miss Roddenberry's line of thought completely. The only reason this wasn't the case in TOS was because of the producers, not Roddenberry.

When you genuinely enjoy doing something, it doesn't matter if you get paid. *points to numerous literate role-play groups who write book after book after book for free*. There are examples of technology being produced freely in today's world, free open source software is usually such a thing, where there is no monetary reward, just a "thank you" (if that). The Replicator technology does the same thing but to real objects. It's the same reason why most people will not pay for music or pornography when they can just copy it.

Also, I don't believe that the Federation forces any of its citizens to not use money, it's just a concept that they have "evolved" past. They're no longer the Materialistic specimens that we are today. In fact, if it wasn't for Starfleet itself being quite command and control orientated, I would say that the Federation is a Libertarian Collectivist utopia. It's not possible in todays world unfortunately.

 

[Captain April]

It isn't the post-scarcity alone that makes them good, Captain April. Again, was Caligula a nice guy having everything?

One man having great wealth is not the same as everyone having anything they wish.

Caligula may have had everything, but everyone else didn't. Therefore he was an object of jealousy and hatred and he knew it. He needed to protect his everything from those that wanted it. Hence, Caligula becomes paranoid, cruel, etc.

 

[uniderth]

All humans have a responsibility to their fellow beings

Legal responsibility?

Natural responsibility.

I can go on and on but meh... you get the idea

No, I really don't. You can (as a act of free will) help those around you, and good for you if this is your choice. Are you suggesting some form of government or societial mandate, with penlities for none compliance?

If you had a family would there need to be a mandate for you to help them? This the crux of the issue. Today, in the western world, we tend to gather in large communities of unrelated people.

However, we evolved to live in closely related tribal groups. We are social creatures and this is manifest in that even among unrelated people we establish psuedo-tribes with friendships, clubs, co-workers, etc. In those groups we support each other. But to outsiders we tend to be more uncaring.

We react negatively to the idea of being forced to care for those we have no vested interest in.

However if we gathered into related tribal communities of about 200 people. I believe that it would be easier to care for those around us.

In western culture there is a huge focus on individualism. But the truth is we are not individuals. We effect others around us and others affect us. We are not isolated units whose actions are done in a vacuum. So whether we like it or not our actions effect others. Thus we have a duty to do things that will not only benefit ourselves but will benefit others.

Now if we are living in a large city like New York where you are surrounded by unrelated people the idea is pretty repulsive. But replace those strangers with friends and/or family and the picture becomes clearer.

Now to bring this back to the topic of money. Imagine being part of a family and all are living in a single house. Everyone has different responsibilities. These responsibilities are done not for money but because they contribute to the welfare of the family. If the family is successful then the individual is successful.

Expand this model out to a group of 200 related people. All those who contribute have access to the resources of the tribe. If I go and wash everyone's car(for example), I don't need to get paid because my contribution allows me to have access to what I need.

All contributions being an overall increase to the tribes success. Because individuals make up the tribe, they are the beneficiaries of those contributions.

Because these things are handled by related people, rather than a large central government, communism and socialism can be avoided. Capitalism and corporatism is likewise avoided because everyone benefits from the individuals contribution.

 

[T'Girl]

If you had a family would there need to be a mandate for you to help them?

Mandate? No, there are plenty of people who disconnect from their families and leave them behind upon becoming adults.

Personally, I'm very connected to my extended family many of whom live in distant countries. But those people are familia, and are not a random assemblage of strangers. I also have a small group of close friends who are "like family," they too are not strangers.

Every person on this planet is not (in any way) a part of my extended family.

Thus we have a duty to do things that will not only benefit ourselves but will benefit others.

No, not a duty, but instead there is a option, one you can choice or not as you see fit.

But replace those strangers with friends and/or family and the picture becomes clearer

The problem with this example is that those random strangers in fact are not family or friends. A stranger and a family member are not interchangeable components in some social order.

Now to bring this back to the topic of money. Imagine being part of a family and all are living in a single house. Everyone has different responsibilities. These responsibilities are done not for money but because they contribute to the welfare of the family.

But when I go to work, to my place of employment, that is not the house of my family, it's a place of business. The owner or manager is not the head of my family, they are a instead the person for whom I am working, there is nothing wrong in the least in my expectation of financial compensation in exchange for my labors on their behalf.

You know, money.

Similarly, if I enter a store and obtain shoes, a restaurant where I am served a meal, a cantina where a refreshment in placed before me, I feel it's perfect reasonable to pay (money) for these things. Waitress get tipped for their efforts.

If I go and wash everyone's car (for example), I don't need to get paid because my contribution allows me to have access to what I need.

And if you (hypothetically) contributed absolutely nothing, would it be reasonable to "cut you off?" Or you do a inadequate job washing cars, who decides? Because whoever makes that determinate is your boss.

All contributions being an overall increase to the tribes success. Because individuals make up the tribe, they are the beneficiaries of those contributions.

Can you claim that the bartender with months of training contributes equal to the surgeon with a decade of education and the two decades of experience? Our current society compensates them differently.

Capitalism and corporatism is likewise avoided because everyone benefits from the individuals contribution.

If it was just farming and cottage industry perhaps, with a highly technological interstellar society this would be impossible.

T

 

[Jedman67]

TLDR
The Federation, Starfleet et al has money and cash economies.
Because of the extant of replicator technology, money is far different in the 24th century than it is today.
Money (and currency) was a lot different 400 years ago than it is today, so the possibility of it evolving into a very different form is plausible.
One of the principles of economics is TINSTAAFL: There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch: everything has value, and everything is paid for one way or another.
Regardless of what was established in the shows, somethings gotta pay for stuff.

 

[velour]

How did scientists come up with the latest research? Well they printed the tools they needed and researched not for any financial incentive, but because they were curious. This is the whole basis of Star Trek and to miss it, is to miss Roddenberry's line of thought completely. The only reason this wasn't the case in TOS was because of the producers, not Roddenberry.

If that was the case, then the producers showed themselves to be wise, at least wiser than Roddenberry.

This topic reminds of a scene from TOS's "This Side of Paradise". I think I wrote about this before in some previous thread.

MCCOY: Well, Jim, I've just examined the last of the colonists, and they're all in absolutely perfect, perfect health. A fringe benefit left over by the spores.
KIRK: Good.
MCCOY: Well, that's the second time man's been thrown out of paradise.
KIRK: No, no, Bones. This time we walked out on our own. Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through. Struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums.



What Kirk said was so true. The episode as a whole, I thought, was a good metaphor for the fatal flaws of a seemingly Utopian society.

A society where a replicator can fulfill everyone's material needs and wants, where people no longer have to work, and where people can just lounge around and be idle, that is going to lead people to be complacent and decadent. There will probably be a lot of hedonism too.

Human nature is human nature. That society is going to collapse.

Besides, who is going to fix the replicators when they break? Who is going to make the house call to repair the replicator? Who is going to manufacture them in the first place? if people no longer need to work.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm reminded of a quote from the late, great Yogi Berra:

"If the world was perfect, it wouldn't be."

 

[Arpy]

There's always something else to strive or struggle for. If we had everything we wanted, we'd find other things to want. Today we have running water, heating and air-conditioning, supermarkets, hospitals, schools...all would have been "beyond the dreams of avarice" millennia ago yet are often taken for granted today despite having changed the nature of human existence. If we had all our material needs met...Warren Buffett, George Bush, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs...why didn't they sit around all day with hookers and blow playing croquet with Faberge eggs?

 

[robau]

Chief O'Brien will fix the replicators. He lives for that shit. That and transporters.

 

[Nightdiamond]

People get hungry again after eating. They'll need new clothes eventually. They'll go to the replicator again.

If they have to pay to get it to work again, that would take care of the motivation to work part.

The main difference between that and today is the replicator provides full abundance. Nothing is too expensive to make, so everyone has the same access to good food or clothes.

It at least makes sense for why everyone works at all types of jobs or have businesses.


Problem is? Trek doesn't really suggests this happens. Food, clothes and a lot of other things are free, and there is no want or need.

That has to mean someone volunteers to fix your replicator or waste extraction unit for free-- for the enjoyment of it.

 

[Arpy]

That has to mean someone volunteers to fix your replicator or waste extraction unit for free-- for the enjoyment of it.

Put me in the Federation and I'll volunteer to fix waste extraction units for the rest of my days.

But this brings up another point. What you mean to say is fix toilets. Who volunteers to fix broken toilets as their life's bliss? Well honestly, if they've mastered FTL travel, matter-energy teleportation, material replication, etc why the hell wouldn't they have created a bathroom roomba?

When Trek get's lazy, it assumes everything will be as it is today, only called something else. A "waste extraction unit" instead of toilet. "Grab your space-wrench, Johnson! I've got a hover-pipe loose, and you're just the holo-plumber to fix it!" As Riker said in "Up the Long Ladder," "the ship will clean itself."

"He said clean itself, not fix itself!" ...They've mastered FTL, I think they've got this.