Is the Federation a "cashless" society or not?

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Not all billionaires are greedy SOBs. Some actively point out that it is morally wrong for a tax burden to fall more heavily on their servants than on themselves, and some even actively try to change that.

And even today, it is only a zero-sum game if you choose to play it as such. Some of us earn our money by creating value that didn't exist before, and some of us consider the highest purpose of wealth to be to spend it to improve the lives of needy total strangers.

 

[Christopher]

Not all billionaires are greedy SOBs. Some actively point out that it is morally wrong for a tax burden to fall more heavily on their servants than on themselves, and some even actively try to change that.

It's not enough, though. The world's few thousand billionaires could easily end global hunger and poverty by giving up a fraction of a percent of their wealth, too small an amount for them to notice -- and yet most of them don't. The entire economic system is dysfunctional, producing greater and greater inequality and imbalance, and the fact that a few of the beneficiaries of that system are ambivalent about it doesn't make it any less broken.

 

[David cgc]

I don't think our system is actually built around such assumptions -- only Republican campaign propaganda is. As explained in the link I gave above, most federal aid programs go to the state overall rather than to individuals, and ironically the states that rely most heavily on federal aid are the red states, whose voters don't even realize how much they rely on the welfare programs they've been taught to despise.

I've read some very interesting stuff about how the US welfare system changed through the 20th century as the public image of the beneficiaries went from white widows raising children (and the system was designed so they wouldn't have to work) towards minorities, and began designing for recipients that are obligated to work. I'm not sure if this is place where I first learned about it, but it does touch on the shift from welfare being something designed so recipients didn't have to work to being designed to force them to work.

Then there's the stuff about putting more and more restrictions on food stamps because they have some horror story about standing behind someone paying with an EBT card for a steak or a lobster or candy or some damn thing, as if poor people don't deserve nice things (and that there might be a logic crusading politicians and moral scolds aren't aware of; I heard once from someone who grew up in a harder circumstance than I did that in terms of calories-for-the-dollar, the best value was dry cake mix).

It's not enough, though.

A few days ago, Vox had an article about how focusing on Bill Gates' out-of-context, but still instructive, comments on taxation and the backlash to them wasn't really helping move the dialog forward (if you missed it, Gates made a hypothetical comment about having to pay $100 billion in taxes and having to wait and see which presidential candidate was more "reasonable" in 2020, which were widely taken as being him misinterpreting certain democratic tax proposals and mulling voting for Trump for tax reasons, where in reality he was likely engaging in hyperbole and playing coy because he operates apolitical institutions, respectively). There was the argument that Gates was the thin edge of the wedge, and that being able to show that even the "good" billionaire wasn't really good would bring attention to the issue, but the article argued that it actually obscured how rabidly anti-tax, I-got-mine-eff-you the majority of largely-unknown billionaires are.

Anywho, before the mod comes in, I want to go back briefly to the idea proposed in the blog post I linked to earlier, that 24th century citizens all had money, but such a large amount that it wasn't a day-to-day concern for them unless they intended to do something massive, like buy a starship or a moon or something. It does seem to square the circle for the on-screen stuff, though I'm now very interested on this idea of Starfleet pay scales.

There is an argument that, since everyone needs to live equally and money isn't a motivation, there's no reason for there to be a difference between a captain's pay and a dilithium miner, since they're both necessary, both require training, both dangerous. On the other hand, if everyone receives a bigger UBI benefit than they could reasonably spend unless they were moving into a new house every day or something, then there also wouldn't be the same moral cost to inequality. We'd all be billionaires, making keeping-score money that can't actually affect our buying power, so in that case, may it could be argued a captain does deserve more than a miner, especially if the captain is of uncommon ability and is able to amplify the talents of those under their command (as any good leader should; as I like to point out, management is a support role). If Picard being a captain means that the Enterprise can do as much as a captainless ship could if it had five times the crew, maybe he does deserve more credits (or whatever) in his account (or whatever).

 

[Christopher]

Anywho, before the mod comes in, I want to go back briefly to the idea proposed in the blog post I linked to earlier, that 24th century citizens all had money, but such a large amount that it wasn't a day-to-day concern for them unless they intended to do something massive, like buy a starship or a moon or something. It does seem to square the circle for the on-screen stuff, though I'm now very interested on this idea of Starfleet pay scales.

I think that most of the time, people wouldn't need money. We take money for granted because it's part of our system, but it's not intrinsically necessary in every economic system. Money is just a convenient stand-in for items of value. If it's not practical to get the things you need or want through direct barter, then you can use money as an intermediate step -- you provide some goods or service to someone, they give you money, then you give that money to someone else to get something from them. But if you have replicators, you can just get anything you want with the push of a button or a verbal command. For most purposes, money would be totally unnecessary. It could still exist, but not as something everyone would need to have or use routinely.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

You're right, Mr. Bennett. It's not enough. Not nearly enough.

And as to why poor people in "red" states tolerate being reamed by the Far Right, and beg for more of it, I refer you to Whose Freedom?, by George Lakoff. Lakoff's theories are far from perfect, given his strong Leftist bias and his apparent misunderstanding of how the inhibitory function of the vertebrate nervous system works, but he has come up with what appears to be the only theory (based on conflicting mental models of the family) that can make Far Left and Far Right points of view comprehensible to each other (or to the Center).

And replicator technology only changes the point of scarcity from specific matter resources to energy itself. Thus, given that Voyager gets its energy from a matter-antimatter reactor, if we assume that the Delta Quadrant isn't stocked with free-for-the-taking antimatter, then we get replicator rations as a medium of exchange.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The Federation does have money. It's called credits. This is confirmed even in the 24th century:

- TNG "Encounter at Farpoint". Beverly buys a piece of cloth and tells the merchant to put it on her account.
- TNG ep-I-don't-know-the-name: Riker turns over a stash of credits in order to get information from somebody.
- VOY ep-I-don't-know-the-name: Janeway and Tuvok talk about buying an artifact from a Vulcan merchant.

Credits are apparently not physical currency, though. It'ts all electronic. No coins or bills actually change hands. So that's why, in ST IV, Kirk says "They're still using money."

But if you have replicators, you can just get anything you want with the push of a button or a verbal command. For most purposes, money would be totally unnecessary.

And what about those without replicators, like the Picard family?

 

[Christopher]

And replicator technology only changes the point of scarcity from specific matter resources to energy itself. Thus, given that Voyager gets its energy from a matter-antimatter reactor, if we assume that the Delta Quadrant isn't stocked with free-for-the-taking antimatter, then we get replicator rations as a medium of exchange.

For a starfaring civilization, energy is never scarce, because the galaxy contains several hundred billion gigantic nuclear reactors radiating gobs of free energy out into space, just waiting to be collected. Voyager was isolated from that civilization and its energy infrastructure, but people on Earth and other Federation planets would have endless energy reserves, and there's no reason they'd need to have their replicator use rationed. (And even on Voyager, references to replicator rations were rare after the first three seasons, presumably because they repaired their damaged power systems or increased their efficiency. Really, since starships' non-warp power is fusion-generated and hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe -- forget the sheer idiocy of "Demon" -- there's no good reason they should've had ongoing power shortages at all.)

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Exactly. Voyager had only their meager onboard resources for harvesting energy and storing it as antimatter, so (just as fresh water aboard a diesel-electric submarine is at a premium, with the batteries having first priority, and bathing having last priority) the warp drive has first dibs on energy, and elective use of replicators is rationed.

My point was that replicator technology only moves the point of scarcity; it doesn't, by itself, eliminate it. For that, you need to add unlimited cheap, clean energy.

When usable, storable energy becomes hard to come by, you end up, as in Voyager, with scarcity being reintroduced to people who had spent their lives in a post-scarcity society.

 

[Christopher]

Exactly. Voyager had only their meager onboard resources for harvesting energy and storing it as antimatter, so (just as fresh water aboard a diesel-electric submarine is at a premium, with the batteries having first priority, and bathing having last priority) the warp drive has first dibs on energy, and elective use of replicators is rationed.

Which doesn't make sense. As I said, non-warp power on starships isn't matter/antimatter, it's hydrogen (deuterium) fusion. And you can get deuterium anywhere, despite the idiocy of "Demon."

My point was that replicator technology only moves the point of scarcity; it doesn't, by itself, eliminate it. For that, you need to add unlimited cheap, clean energy.

Yes, and as I said, that is a given for any interstellar society. Indeed, I'd say it's a given for any society with a technology more than a generation beyond ours, because we're already at the point where renewable green energy is more economical than fossil fuels, and we keep devising better methods for harnessing solar, geothermal, wind, and other sources of energy.

Heck, we probably already have enough energy and resources to support everyone on Earth relatively comfortably, if most of it weren't being hogged by the rich and powerful few.

 

[Kor]

Why invent replicator rations (on Voyager) if money already exists in the future?
...

Because they were stranded in the middle of unknown space without a guaranteed source of resources compatible with Starfleet replicator tech, like they would have had back in Federation space where they could regularly check in at starbases for routine maintenance and resupply.

Kor

 

[Christopher]

Because they were stranded in the middle of unknown space without a guaranteed source of resources compatible with Starfleet replicator tech, like they would have had back in Federation space where they could regularly check in at starbases for routine maintenance and resupply.

Like I said, it's fusion power. All you need is deuterium, which can be mined from any ocean, comet, giant planet atmosphere, nebula, etc. Scarcity should never be an issue.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

But there, we're getting into the same plausibility issues we've had with everything from a warp drive malfunction disabling phasers (wormhole scene, TMP) to plot points about holodecks being on a power source that's independent of, and completely incompatible with, every other power system on the ship. And we're getting away from the original topic of cashlessness (which is related to, but separate from, whether a society is post-scarcity: cash is not merely a medium of exchange, but an inherently anonymous medium of exchange).

 

[Guy Gardener]

Because they were stranded in the middle of unknown space without a guaranteed source of resources compatible with Starfleet replicator tech, like they would have had back in Federation space where they could regularly check in at starbases for routine maintenance and resupply.

Kor

(I'll rephrase.)

On Voyager, Replicator Rations was money.

Why invent money, if they already had money?

 

[DimesDan]

My take on the "cashless society" is that it is in the sense they don't have have physical cash, like we have done since when ever coins were first used instead of bartering animal remains, basic tools and pottery.

Like debit/credit cards or Google/Apple Pay, there is a device that has access to an individuals own personal account that one can use to pay for goods and services.

Because of the wide spread use of replicators and other devices, for transport and energy sources, the Federation has a massive welfare state (no need to worry about paying for healthcare or education) and has a very comfy living wage for everyone of its citizens, this living wage could then be topped up by getting employment or joining Starfleet.

Since I've understood these concepts, that's how I interept Kirk's comments when it comes to paying for the pizza in IV.

 

[Christopher]

And we're getting away from the original topic of cashlessness (which is related to, but separate from, whether a society is post-scarcity: cash is not merely a medium of exchange, but an inherently anonymous medium of exchange).

Why shouldn't replicator use be anonymous? Just because our society has become a surveillance state, that doesn't mean any technological society would automatically have to be. I mean, if replicator use is free, then it's not like an ATM where you'd have to enter your PIN, or a store where you'd have to pay with a credit card. You just punch the button and take what you want.

Alternatively, there's the David Brin argument -- high tech makes a surveillance state inevitable, but also creates the option of sousveillance, the public scrutinizing higher authorities as closely as the reverse, making it harder for them to get away with abuses and ultimately resulting in more freedom, not less. (Although Brin's argument is less credible now that we have Trump and his officials brazenly committing crimes in public and still getting away with it somehow.)

 

[JD]

I have to admit, I've always been a bit confused the talk about not having money, but then all the references to buying stuff.
My assumption has been that there is no more physical money, and everything this is just done through digital credit.
Did any of the TNG episodes ever address what, if anything, they were betting in their poker games?

 

[Christopher]

I have to admit, I've always been a bit confused the talk about not having money, but then all the references to buying stuff.

I think any references to buying things in the 24th century usually pertain to settings outside the Federation, like DS9. And in TOS, they definitely did have a capitalist/commerce system based on "credits," which I assume were electronic currency.

Did any of the TNG episodes ever address what, if anything, they were betting in their poker games?

Poker doesn't have to be played for anything of real value, I think. The chips can just be tokens for keeping score in the game, like Monopoly money.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Yes, of course replicator use would be anonymous. If it's your own replicator. Or a replicator that one can otherwise use in privacy.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Yes, of course replicator use would be anonymous. If it's your own replicator. Or a replicator that one can otherwise use in privacy.

And if you're replicating arsenic at a replimat?

There are controlled substances, poison and weapons for instance, and even if you have permission to replicate controlled substances, you should only be allowed to replicate those substances in a safe local. Maybe you need plutonium for your work, and you are allowed to replicate it, but not at home, where you wife and children may fall afoul of it.

 

[Tallguy]

Other than the requisite forays into "The 'other side' is either greedy, dishonest, or stupid" this has been a more interesting discussion than this topic usually gets.

The answer to the post-scarcity economy is usually "We have replicators, people don't need stuff." But there are many things that can't be replicatated. Someone mentioned a reservation at Sisko's. (This in Ben's Dad's place? I'm not that far in DS9 yet.) My go to is either Picard's vineyard or Kirk's Wrath of Khan apartment (the one with the spectacular view of San Francisco).

I'm curious in a post scarcity economy what makes Picard's vineyard "his". We know it belonged to his father. It was (apparently) left to his brother. At some point it found its way from his sister-in-law's hands into his. (If she took it on when Robert passed away.)

One would assume this location and/or business has value. He could trade it for something else. Someone could offer him something to take it.

Maybe Earth isn't that desirable a place (I get the idea that it is). How do they manage the population? "Hey, we're full. Vulcan is nice this time of year!"

I'm just saying that there are a lot of things that people would use money for that aren't coming out of a replicator.

Oh and in answer to the original post: "No money" was a TNG thing other than a throwaway line in the same movie that had someone growing a kidney from a pill. (I think @Greg Cox agreed with me on this.) TOS (and TAS) had money all over the place.