When Picard said (basically) in FC "we no longer have money" who at the time was we? During Kirk's time there would seem to have still been money, value for effort, the bar scene in "The Trouble with Tribbles" makes no sense with out money. Kirk's comment during TVH of "They're still using money" may have referred to physical "folding" money. In the non-canon novel "Crisis on Centaurus" Kirk didn't just recieve a small salary from star fleet, but as a starship captain was generously paid. In the TNG episode "The Price" the federation is bidding on a wormhole, with what, the opportunity to better yourself?
State resources. "We'll give you this planet/this technology/these two billion tons of antimatter for exclusive access to your wormhole."
QFT 'Myasishchev'
Money was stated on multiple occasions to not exist in the Federation.
Ranging from Kirk in TVH (he explicitly said to the woman that money doesn't exist in the future) all the way to Picard in FC who again said clearly 'money doesn't exist in the 24th century'.
They use a variety of resources to barter with other cultures ... in the case of the Barzan wormhole, that was meant in the capacity of exchanging resources to have access to it (which the Feds would likely share with others after deeming it was safe).
The potential for betterment T'Girl in this particular scenario was to open up a new area of the Galaxy for exploration and knowledge.
Latching onto terms we use for money today which were used in the show for all intense and purposes for jokes, is just an attempt on your part to further ignore that 'money doesn't exist in the future' because in your opinion as already stated 'any other system has proved to fail'.
And during Voyager there are repeated referances to "replicator credits", the crew are given a certain number of replicator credits which they trade amongst themselves, or exchange for replicated items.
Sorry, that's money.
The scarcity required them to reintroduce capitalist elements. Janeway is kind of like Lenin, and
Voyager is kind of like the NEP.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't argue they had to reintroduce capitalist elements.
Any sensible human being would reduce consumption of resources at their disposal if they are scarce to extend their survivability.
Also ... there was never a mention of anything like 'replicator credits' on Voyager.
'Replicator rations' were mentioned.
As for the crew asking each other to borrow repliactor rations so they can replicate some items = some of the crew were not using replicators for a while and were primarily eating Neelix's food (which is how it was meant to be to begin with), therefore, another member of the crew would give their replicator code to the one who needs it and voila.
In terms of replicators ... it's possible that replicator rations = amount of energy one can use per day or in a week.
Primary reason for replicator use being rationed was energy consumption (since replicators can convert energy into matter and back again ... or you can recycle all kinds of matter into energy for later storage) and Voyager was all alone in the DQ, so they needed to conserve energy.
T'Girl, one more thing about your glorification of capitalism:
Perhaps you haven't noticed the amount of greedy individuals in power, not to mention companies/corporations that are pocketing as much money as possible and extracting as much as possible from OUTDATED technology and not investing into new ones?
The development is incremental at best.
The US power grid is about a century out of date, ISP's throttle down speeds for using the Internet because of the copper wiring used in their network is showing it's age for one thing, lack of proper maintenance and outright refusal of switching to fiber optics for example even though they have the money to do so.
Computer technology: numerous hardware parts only come down in price only years after they became outdated, and in some parts of the world are even pulled out of the market entirely and replaced with new technology that is equally or more expensive (therefore prohibiting people with less money of acquiring them). Manufacturers don't create notebooks/laptops as very modular as it's much better for them profit-wise when a consumer buys a new laptop (which is often more expensive than a simple upgrade of components, and sometimes certain parts that you could upgrade cost as much as new system altogether).
Space shuttles: outdated internally and externally (no wonder they experienced as many problems) ... and even before NASA went to the moon, the technologies to accomplish the task were already there ... they were just brought together.
These are just some examples of your precious capitalism that spurs 'technological growth and development'.
If you think it's working, then that's great for you ... but then you are ignoring it's many negative aspects since our technology is quity simply OUT OF DATE, and hardly in sync with the 21st century.
There are tons of wasteful enterprises that are nothing but a drain on resources in a significant amount in the US alone, and yet nothing is done about them.
The only reason people mention resources as a problem is when transitions to new techs is concerned and conducting changes that would be beneficial to society ... primarily focusing on what?
Ding ding ding ... money.
Money is no longer used to regulate our resources since we reached a technological level where we can do more with less if implemented properly.
Primary obstacle is money, and people in power who prefer things as they are instead of actual change and growth.
If things would to change, it brings uncertainty and they don't like the loss of power money brings with it.
Never mind the fact that transitioning to new techs in numerous cases would result in even more money and profit on a long term basis for numerous companies.
).
