Old Issue: We Don't Use money
- Thread starter Vulagr
- Start date
- Status
It didn't. Human nature would prevent it. Honestly it's one of the stupidest things in the series. I chalk it up as the ramblings of a senile old man.
We've also heard about Federation Credits, so what are those if not a form of money?
There are too many instances of buying and selling to believe that payment is no longer tendered for goods and services.
I've concluded that the "no money" thing means no tangible currency (coins, paper, etc) and that it's all electronic credit exchanges.
There are too many instances of buying and selling to believe that payment is no longer tendered for goods and services.
I've concluded that the "no money" thing means no tangible currency (coins, paper, etc) and that it's all electronic credit exchanges.
They never said that they don't have some unit of store of value. In fact, quite the opposite... they have credits, and "Federation Credits" are referred to typically.
We also hear references to Scotty "earning his pay" and so forth. While it's POSSIBLE that these could be euphemisms, there's no real indication that this is the case, and as euphemisms, they'd be meaningless if nobody understood the reference, wouldn't they?
"Money" isn't the right term, then... "Currency" (or "Physical money") is what they don't have.
It's entirely reasonable to assume that there is no such thing as "paper money" or "coined money" in the times of Trek. But, it's unreasonable to assume that "units of value" in some form are obsolete, and I reject that position out of hand. We hear, regularly, about interstellar trade, all through every one of the Trek series. Yet obviously, trade requires some measure of value between goods and/or services to exist.
All "money" is, when you get down to it, is an intermediate store of value, so that it's not necessary to have every transaction be a "barter transaction."
And there is nothing in any Trek that demonstrates that they have no such thing as "money" in that sense... only that they don't have "currency."
There is some indication that by the time of TNG, there's so much plenty on planets like Earth that "money" seems largely meaningless. But basic human psychology, barring full lobotomization of the human race en masse, means that there will always be someone who wants more than they have, and who wants more than their neighbor, don't you think?
People will always need to produce something in order to have something. The amount of labor to be exchanged for an amount of wealth may become so small that everyone will be "reasonably well off" even while doing only the bare minimum, though.
At least until you start facing war conditions, and goods/services become scarce. I wonder what sort of things happened on Betazed, for instance, during the Dominion occupation?
It may also simply be that money is no longer used for everyday things such as food, accommodation or entertainment, and the average consumer thus never handles any. Many an enterprise today offers free benefits to its employees; the UFP society could offer free lunch to all its citizens, at such a low cost that accountants wouldn't even bother to write it down because the ink would cost more.
Really, it's easy to see how people would no longer need money for keeping tabs on their purchases and consumption. We already have that today: you don't really need to handle cash, or even follow your bank account, if you are financially stable enough. You don't need to ask for the price of an item, you don't need to think of money. Essentially, then, you could already run a society where no person has any money. The abstract tracking of expenses simply happens on the far background, with automated precision.
Credits and the like only need to come to play when you step outside the UFP (or, as some argue, just Earth and its direct dominion). Might be you need to fill a special form to get access to them, then. It's a known Trek fact that Jake Sisko did not have such access - but whether this was due to him being a UFP citizen, or an underage UFP citizen, or perhaps a certified mental case who was forbidden from handling dangerous items such as guns and cash, we don't know.
It's easy to get rid of money in the consumer economy. All you need is a bit of automation, and some sort of an incentive. And incentives are easily created; some political party might have come to power on the promise to remove the problems of the screwed-up economy by removing the evil money, and if they did good there, the idea could have stuck. Far sillier ideas have, after all.
Why?
The world today is overproducing. Most of it goes to waste almost directly. We could do just fine with far fewer people producing, and far more people standing aside. No "law of economics" (insofar as such things even exist!) states that 100% of the population has to produce. Or even that any fixed X% does. The value of X changes with times and circumstances; in the Trek 24th century, that value might be 0.002.
There is no explicit reason to share that burden equally between the citizens. Indeed, that's probably an incredibly inefficient way to do it, as certain recent nationwide experiments have shown. Rather, it might be a good idea to literally have just those 0.002% of people working, and the rest watching and appalauding.
Timo Saloniemi
Really, it's easy to see how people would no longer need money for keeping tabs on their purchases and consumption. We already have that today: you don't really need to handle cash, or even follow your bank account, if you are financially stable enough. You don't need to ask for the price of an item, you don't need to think of money. Essentially, then, you could already run a society where no person has any money. The abstract tracking of expenses simply happens on the far background, with automated precision.
Credits and the like only need to come to play when you step outside the UFP (or, as some argue, just Earth and its direct dominion). Might be you need to fill a special form to get access to them, then. It's a known Trek fact that Jake Sisko did not have such access - but whether this was due to him being a UFP citizen, or an underage UFP citizen, or perhaps a certified mental case who was forbidden from handling dangerous items such as guns and cash, we don't know.
It's easy to get rid of money in the consumer economy. All you need is a bit of automation, and some sort of an incentive. And incentives are easily created; some political party might have come to power on the promise to remove the problems of the screwed-up economy by removing the evil money, and if they did good there, the idea could have stuck. Far sillier ideas have, after all.
Why?
The world today is overproducing. Most of it goes to waste almost directly. We could do just fine with far fewer people producing, and far more people standing aside. No "law of economics" (insofar as such things even exist!) states that 100% of the population has to produce. Or even that any fixed X% does. The value of X changes with times and circumstances; in the Trek 24th century, that value might be 0.002.
There is no explicit reason to share that burden equally between the citizens. Indeed, that's probably an incredibly inefficient way to do it, as certain recent nationwide experiments have shown. Rather, it might be a good idea to literally have just those 0.002% of people working, and the rest watching and appalauding.
Timo Saloniemi
In all honesty, I fully expect to see that within the next decade, at least within the USA and Europe, and absolutely within China.
The argument which will support that, and which is already being made, is that it's mainly "illicit" transactions which require cash. So, this will be treated as a means of combating fraud, illegal trade, drugs, crime, etc.
I'm not really comfortable with the idea... I, personally, don't want anyone being able to track my every transaction, even though I do nothing illegal. It's just a bit creepy for me.
But, I fully expect to see this in place well before 2025, and likely before 2020.
Of course, if you outlaw cash, outlaws will still have cash. And it will be pretty darn difficult to tell an outlaw apart from an inlaw there... Probably everybody will retain or reintroduce some cash for some of his or her dealings, regardless of one's interest in serious crime or dubious pastimes.
A more over-the-counter reason why cash will probably be difficult to weed out is that cashlessness costs money. Entire nations may rebel against the idea that it takes three cents to move a dollar from owner to owner...
Timo Saloniemi
A more over-the-counter reason why cash will probably be difficult to weed out is that cashlessness costs money. Entire nations may rebel against the idea that it takes three cents to move a dollar from owner to owner...
Timo Saloniemi
Unless of course it stops costing three cents to move money. In a cashless society there would be competition the same as there is now. One bank will offer free transactions. All it takes is one. They'll be making enough from the interest of their customers' credit/debit.
Except the transactions aren't actually free, the "three cents" is still there some place, if the bank moves the expense somewhere else (like interest rates) it's still there.
That why Bank of America can start charging transaction fees on ATM/debit usage, because most of their customers are smart enough to realize that TANSTAAFL.
That why Bank of America can start charging transaction fees on ATM/debit usage, because most of their customers are smart enough to realize that TANSTAAFL.
TANSTAAFL doesn't apply to the BoA transaction fee. This is about revenue protection, not covering costs or making a profit.
The fees are based on the logic that when the government stepped in and said, "these transaction fees you charge for each use of a debit card are out of control," the banks would lose a revenue stream. The government did not say they couldn't charge the fees, just limited how much could be charged.
As it happens, the banks tend to disclose the size of their customer bases, and the average rate of debit card use is known. An intrepid reported did the math and determined that, conservatively, banks stood to make billions on fees using the new rates.
They just won't be making what they used to make. The new fees rates would still be profitable, and the the banks know this. Meanwhile, the banks are making out like gang busters, borrowing from the fed at stimulus rates (0% interest) and using the funds to buy Treasury Notes (at 3-4% APY) instead of lending it to businesses or something useful. Effectively the banks are getting free money from the government and selling it back to the government at mark up.
Apparently there are free lunches.
(I know that TANSTAAFL implies someone eventually has to pay, and that hasn't changed here. But it seems that someone won't be the banks unless someone makes them pay. Despite the philosophic conceit, anyone can have free lunch as long as they don't care who ends up holding the bill. It isn't sustainable, but it is possible.)
The fees are based on the logic that when the government stepped in and said, "these transaction fees you charge for each use of a debit card are out of control," the banks would lose a revenue stream. The government did not say they couldn't charge the fees, just limited how much could be charged.
As it happens, the banks tend to disclose the size of their customer bases, and the average rate of debit card use is known. An intrepid reported did the math and determined that, conservatively, banks stood to make billions on fees using the new rates.
They just won't be making what they used to make. The new fees rates would still be profitable, and the the banks know this. Meanwhile, the banks are making out like gang busters, borrowing from the fed at stimulus rates (0% interest) and using the funds to buy Treasury Notes (at 3-4% APY) instead of lending it to businesses or something useful. Effectively the banks are getting free money from the government and selling it back to the government at mark up.
Apparently there are free lunches.
(I know that TANSTAAFL implies someone eventually has to pay, and that hasn't changed here. But it seems that someone won't be the banks unless someone makes them pay. Despite the philosophic conceit, anyone can have free lunch as long as they don't care who ends up holding the bill. It isn't sustainable, but it is possible.)
I'll give you that.. I carry very little cash. I'd even almost say i only carry cash when I know i'll need it. The small amish meat shop we goto only takes cash, the county fair take cash only.
Things like that. Other then that, I just simply don't carry it.
I'm sick of hearing that money is 'tied into human nature' and that because of that it will 'never go away'.
Such a narrow-minded perception is exactly why people are constantly looking for explanations that warrant the existence of money as far as Humans and the Federation go (furthermore, it ignores the impact of WW3 on Earth, elimination of poverty/disease/wars in the next 50 years, proper utilization of technology - probably recycling huge mountains of trash to create material abundance and a self sufficient society and not touch new resources, and the premise that material wealth stopped being the driving force for those people shortly after FC with the Vulcans).
I mean, seriously... continuously ignoring canon evidence simply because people cannot wrap their brains around the premise of a moneyless economy is getting OLD.
Just because a system in real life was created, doesn't mean it's the 'best' one out there (because I can tell you it's NOT) or that a moneyless one (implemented properly) cannot work.
Humans are capable of great deal many things, but continuously advocating 'greed' and 'human nature' as things that will never change is a bit idiotic.
Last edited:
Okay,then, if you're sick of hearing about it, propose an alternative theory on how things will work.
The "everyone is happy and never wants anything" is just NONSENSE. That is the "human nature" bit which is being talked about.
You can say "everyone has enough to survive," but how many (non-lobotomized) people do you know who feel this way?
Is there anything you don't have today which you'd like to have, and which you can't afford?
Is there anything which Donald Trump doesn't have today, which he can't afford?
It has NOTHING to do with "having enough." All people, by their nature, want more than they have.
Take that away, by the way, and you've taken away one of the most significant motivators for people to DO THINGS. Take that away, and you suddenly have a society in which the vast majority of people will end up choosing to live on their couch, watching Oprah-2368 (the holographic edition), and eating Andorian Cheetos.
And yes, that's "human nature" we're talking about. Deny it all you want, as certain real-world political/economic systems have tried, and you're only proving a total lack of grasp of human nature.
The only way to create the sort of "everyone has their needs taken care of" situation, in reality, is to institute absolute tyranny.
Is that what you're arguing in favor of?
"Narrow-minded?" Really? You DO realize we're talking about A TV SHOW, not reality, don't you?
No, what's really going on is that socialists (which is a wide category including "National socialists," communists, and "religious socialism" types, among others) have chosen to "read-in" their unproven ideas into Star Trek, while others have chosen not to do so, and the left-side types are really annoyed that, just like in real life, lots of thinking people recognize the flaw in that argument.
I reject the "la-la-la, everything is all perfect once we just get rid of those evil people who believe that we're not all children, being taken care of by "mommy and daddy State" idea utterly. I reject it in real life, and I reject it in fiction. I reject it for the same reason I reject the all other childish, silly, intellectually incoherent "wish-fulfillment" ideas.
Um... there's canon evidence that people get paid, and spend their pay, in return for work all throughout Star Trek. And you're choosing to ignore that "canon evidence" as well, now, aren't you?
Okay, explain to us all how such a system works, without establishing a TOTALITARIAN REGIME and suppressing the population.
Every situation ever proposed to do what you suggest has, in the end, resulted in exactly what's been discussed. The Soviet Union only went partway, but it gave us exactly what we'd expect... the productivity of the society fell through the floor, alcoholism and other vices became rampant, food and goods shortages became commonplace ("bread lines" anyone?), and the "equal to everyone else" leaders lived in ABSOLUTE LUXURY while the average "equal" citizen lived in near-poverty.
And there, they still had money, by the way... because, once again, ALL MONEY IS, IS A UNIT OF STORED VALUE.
How do you create value, and distribute that value, fairly and equitably? Do you give the same pay to someone who sits on their couch eating CHeetos as to someone who spends their life doing things to make things better for everyone?
Propose your alternative system. Let us see your "alternative," and moreover, let us PICK IT APART. If you really have a better system, that will come out. Fair, open discussion of ideas, not "the current system sucks, so if we only get a DICTATOR who can take care of all of us, it'll all be fine, so STOP QUESTIONING ME AND JUST OBEY!!!!!" argument isn't going to wash, though.
Can you show me any point in recorded human history that "human nature" has been changed through the sort of WISHFUL THINKING you've just demonstrated?
And it's not "greed." It's FAIRNESS. Do you have a problem with, say, actors or or pop stars making a lot of money? You know, the sort who've been all behind the "Occupy" movements so far?
I'm not fond of many of those folks, but it's not because I think it's "unfair" for them to make money, just that it's MORONIC for those who are filthy rich to pretend to be "for the common man."
The reality is, people do things. If what we do is considered of value by other people, those other people will exchange things they've done, which are considered of value, with the first people.
If you do nothing that I consider of value, why should I have to trade my own effort to support something which is of no value to me.
That's the real issue here. Who does my labor belong to? Does it belong to me, or does it belong to "my rulers?"
Because all trade, when you get down to it, is about exchanging LABOR... transformed, as it is, into goods and/or services... between the owners of that labor.
And all MONEY is, is an intermediate form of storing that value, so that the entire economy need not be based upon "barter."
IF you have a real, better solution... one that does not require me to be, as a person, considered the "property of my rulers," I'd sure love to hear about it though!
- Status
