Money
- Thread starter garoo1980
- Start date
Oh boy. Good luck. 
The use of credits in the 23rd century was repeatedly established in TOS, in "The Trouble with Tribbles," for instance. There was an episode where Kirk told Scotty he'd earned his pay for the week, and another where Kirk and Spock discussed how much Starfleet had invested in Spock's training.
So Kirk's assertion in The Voyage Home that they don't have money in the 23rd century is a bit problematical. The most likely interpretation is that he meant they don't use physical money because they've switched fully to a credit-based system.
It's in the 24th century that the need for money or credit has apparently fallen by the wayside, which is somewhat logical if you consider that replicators have become practical and ubiquitous by then, establishing a post-scarcity society where any and all goods can be easily obtained and raw materials are not a problem since everything can be recycled. However, there are signs that money is still used here and there in the Federation even if it isn't needed -- for instance, we know there's a Bank of Bolias, and the Bolians are Federation members. And of course we've seen Starfleet personnel using latinum to trade with people from outside the Federation.
There's also money in the STXI universe.
One of the Shatnerverse books had an amusing bit about the 24th century lack of money. Kirk kept asking people to explain to him how the system worked, and why he couldn't just take a starship from the dock, or walk into the best apartment and declare it his. He never figured it out.
I think one of the FASA RPG books came with a salary list for Starfleet personnel, rank by rank, and it even had pension info
Oh, and one of the 80's novels even mentioned the cost of the USS Enterprise (maybe Final Frontier?), something along the lines of three billion credits.
One of the Shatnerverse books had an amusing bit about the 24th century lack of money. Kirk kept asking people to explain to him how the system worked, and why he couldn't just take a starship from the dock, or walk into the best apartment and declare it his. He never figured it out.
I think one of the FASA RPG books came with a salary list for Starfleet personnel, rank by rank, and it even had pension info
Oh, and one of the 80's novels even mentioned the cost of the USS Enterprise (maybe Final Frontier?), something along the lines of three billion credits.
kirk should've just told Gillian he couldn't use money in '86 cuz it had an alien on the notes...
I think it's the Ferengi that propogate the use of physical money, gold pressed latinum for example, simple because they can't understand the notion on a lack of profit. Can't have profit without some kind of curency or credit.
I do enjoy the lack of greed brought about by replicators. Would a replicator produce 6 million dollars, pesos, denari, etc.?
Another thought for the authors to consider: How do the Vulcans deal with this? Or Andor? What is the medium of trade? In "Errand of Mercy", Spock said he was a dealer of Kivas and Trillium. He also helped blow up a munitions dump on Organia...blowing up things usually has a detremental affect on trade.
A sticky question I would love to see addressed!
I do enjoy the lack of greed brought about by replicators. Would a replicator produce 6 million dollars, pesos, denari, etc.?
Another thought for the authors to consider: How do the Vulcans deal with this? Or Andor? What is the medium of trade? In "Errand of Mercy", Spock said he was a dealer of Kivas and Trillium. He also helped blow up a munitions dump on Organia...blowing up things usually has a detremental affect on trade.
A sticky question I would love to see addressed!
We know there's plenty of trade and commerce in the 23rd century, as exemplified by folks like Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones. There's no question that there was still a largely capitalist economy in that era, Kirk's comment to Gillian notwithstanding.
(But how could blowing up a Klingon munitions dump have any effect on trade? It's not like the Klingons were going to sell those weapons.)
(But how could blowing up a Klingon munitions dump have any effect on trade? It's not like the Klingons were going to sell those weapons.)
The idea that there's no money in the 24th Century is one of Star Trek's most ludicrous. There will always be money. It may not be the over-riding obsession it is for people today, and there may not be the division of society in the poor, working class, middle class, wealthy, and super-rich, but there will always be money and trade -- simply because there will always be a need to distribute resources to those who most value them and money is the most efficient way to manage that trade.
I choose to interpret it to mean, not that they don't have money, but that they don't need money for everyday survival. With unlimited resources due to replicators and unlimited energy due to having thousands of stars at their disposal, there's no scarcity. So nobody requires money just to get through everyday life. Money would be more for luxuries or special needs.
And it could also mean that the culture simply doesn't place that high a premium on material possessions or on competing to be wealthier than other people. That's not a universal behavior. There have been Native American cultures where status in society has been measured by how much one gave away to others, not how much one amassed for oneself. The Federation is full of people who place more value on personal enrichment and achievement, learning, gaining experiences, spending time with their loved ones, etc. than they do on possessing objects. So while money may still play a limited role in their lives, it's not something they ascribe any great importance or power to. It's just a tool that serves certain limited functions.
And it could also mean that the culture simply doesn't place that high a premium on material possessions or on competing to be wealthier than other people. That's not a universal behavior. There have been Native American cultures where status in society has been measured by how much one gave away to others, not how much one amassed for oneself. The Federation is full of people who place more value on personal enrichment and achievement, learning, gaining experiences, spending time with their loved ones, etc. than they do on possessing objects. So while money may still play a limited role in their lives, it's not something they ascribe any great importance or power to. It's just a tool that serves certain limited functions.
In James Blish's adaptation of "Mirror, Mirror", there's a mention of the Enterprise costing 12 billion credits.
As for how it all works, there's no logic to it. It only works because Roddenberry says it works.
As for how it all works, there's no logic to it. It only works because Roddenberry says it works.
Picard does say in First Contact that money's no longer the driving force in people's lives. which sounds more like they have money, tehy just don't depend on it.
Good points about money, but money does have its downside.
There is an economic theory called Say's Law, which summarized says "Supply creates its own Demand." Which really means that in a barter economy, markets must always clear. Therefore there can be no general gluts, particularly labour gluts (unemployment), and supply gluts (shortages of demand for goods or too much goods, not enough customers).
Trouble is that Says Law doesn't work in a monetary economy. It's because money is both the unit of account and unit of exchange. Therefore everyone wants to sell stuff for money and buy as little as possible. It means that supply is not necessary equal to demand and forced unemployment is possible.
This was an active point of debate during the Depression and we're being reminded of it now when lots of people want to work and can't. For many people, myself included it's a very painful realization.
So getting rid of money can make Say's Law true again, and banish the devil of gluts and supply/demand mismatches.
There is an economic theory called Say's Law, which summarized says "Supply creates its own Demand." Which really means that in a barter economy, markets must always clear. Therefore there can be no general gluts, particularly labour gluts (unemployment), and supply gluts (shortages of demand for goods or too much goods, not enough customers).
Trouble is that Says Law doesn't work in a monetary economy. It's because money is both the unit of account and unit of exchange. Therefore everyone wants to sell stuff for money and buy as little as possible. It means that supply is not necessary equal to demand and forced unemployment is possible.
This was an active point of debate during the Depression and we're being reminded of it now when lots of people want to work and can't. For many people, myself included it's a very painful realization.
So getting rid of money can make Say's Law true again, and banish the devil of gluts and supply/demand mismatches.
V
vanessaa
Guest
all about the Money
*spam removed by moderator*
*spam removed by moderator*
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, of course it does. I just think that it's the sort of thing that will never be abolished; its benefits, even today, outweigh its costs.
Which is not to say that Capitalism will always be around, or that Capitalism as we know it will always be around. I think Christopher has it right when he suggests that Capitalism only survives in the market for luxuries, but that the things everyone needs to live a healthy and safe life are now freely available.
That makes me realize there's probably a note out there with President Archer's face. . .
It probably had a positive effect on the traders the Klingons could no longer take pot-shots at.
^Not to mention on the traders who sold the Klingons new weapons. Thirty-fourth Rule of Acquisition, y'know.
But the poster I was responding to seemed to think that destroying the munitions dump on Organia would hurt trade, and that's what puzzled me. The particular munitions in question were already owned by the Klingon military, and I doubt they had any interest in selling them rather than using them.
But the poster I was responding to seemed to think that destroying the munitions dump on Organia would hurt trade, and that's what puzzled me. The particular munitions in question were already owned by the Klingon military, and I doubt they had any interest in selling them rather than using them.
Probably with President Ra-ghoratreii's face and President Wescott's face, too. Maybe one with President Thelien's face, too, given how well-regarded he seems to be.
And, depending on what roles they end up playing in the Federation's founding and early years, ones with Nathan Samuels's, Soval's, Avaranthi sh'Rothress's, and Haroun al-Rashid's.
What would a Federation Credit note look like, anyway?
Similar threads
