Really? That's interesting, I didn't know that. I wonder if that grants officers some perks, like having choices on what to eat or something.
Profits?
- Thread starter GulGoneCrazy
- Start date
Really? That's interesting, I didn't know that. I wonder if that grants officers some perks, like having choices on what to eat or something.
Well, what's being paid for?
When I go to Starbucks and order a coffee, I'm paying for the labor needed to make the coffee, the equipment used to make the coffee, and the overhead needed to support the staff. Starbucks paid for the shipping of the coffee beans to them, a farmer worked to grow the coffee beans, and paid for supplies necessary to grow the beans, etc., etc. There's a whole supply chain in operation, and the costs incurred are being passed around to the end consumer.
When Picard goes to his replicator to order an Earl Grey tea, where's the supply chain? What are the raw materials needed? Whose labor is being paid for?
Have we really established whether the replicator converts energy directly into matter, or whether it takes raw, inert material and converts it into a beverage, steak, or plate? Is it even relevant? Either way, the whole supply chain is shortened considerably. What labor is involved in the production of Picard's Earl Grey tea - maintenance of the replicator? Production of energy? Supply of raw material, maybe? No matter what, it seems to be a far shorter supply chain, with a lot less effort involved in the production, so the costs should be consequently lower.
As for how he's paying, well, the idea that Picard is paying for his Earl Grey tea is pure conjecture. There's no indication he's charged for the transaction at all. Why would he be charged? Who would the payment go to?
The Federation, or at least Earth-based humanity, could be working on a reputation-based economy, or using a time-based currency, or a gift economy. There are lots of different ways for a society to regulate the distribution and consumption of resources, especially when resources are far more abundant.
Except not everything is abundant. Sure, the essentials of life are, and no doubt you can get some luxuries freely, but what about objects limited to rarity, or geography, or quality?
There is only so much quality living space on Earth, for example, and if you want a historical townhouse in...oh let's say, New Orleans, instead of living in some orbital habitat or some massive arcology, how do you decide without some sort of economy?
Paris: Fort Knox. The largest repository of gold bullion in Earth's history. Over fifty metric tons worth over nine trillion U.S. dollars. [snip] Well, errrr, when the New World Economy took shape in the late twenty second century and money went the way of the dinosaur, Fort Knox was turned into a museum.
It a bit difficult to know what Tom was referring to here, obviously Humans and the Federation were using money in the TOS era, which is after the time peroid Tom mentioned. Of course Tom isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
The United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox (currently) holds 4,578 metric tons, not over 50,000 metric tons.
Fort Knox (again currently) isn't "the largest repository of gold bullion in Earth's history," that would be Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which holds 7,000 metric tons of gold bullion.
Tom said that gold was valued at over 5,600 dollars a troy ounce, why would it's worth be so high if it was about to be rended valueless under the New World Economy?
No country on Earth (currently) uses the gold standard as the basis of its monetary system anyway.
(oh, and gold is currently at $1,615 toz, if it's going to $5.600 toz, I'm holding on the mine)
Yes, gave up currency, I don't think anyone has a problem with that. Again in the United State only about eight perent of all our money is currency. So we are (currently) on our way to that now, I often have no currency on ne, but with my debit card I have access to money.
Wrong, in The Neutral Zone, Picard never told businessman Offenhouse that money did not exist, and Picard never implied that money did not exist. Picard never mentions money at all.
Okay, at the risk of being rude, exactly where? Where did any one of the characters come right out and directly say "money doesn't exist" There is the single statement in FC, where else? There are a few internet sites that have copies of the dialog.
Deks bring out a quote.
Irrelevant... we are talking about humans who no longer obsess over material possessions.
It has been possible to create abundance in all human needs and most wants for a century in real life (let alone today) several times over for each and every individual on the planet.
By contrast... humans only occupy less than 1% of the Earth's land mass.
'Real estate' matters not so much when you live in a technologically developed setting where everything is within reach (via say, mag-lev trains/pods) in mere minutes or can get something on-demand - or if you were raised with sustainability in mind (which is a direct opposite to the consumer wasteful mind-set being ingrained into people's minds from birth).
There is a big difference between needs and wants.
Wants come from society in which a person is raised in.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Excessive wants are distorted byproducts of culture.
How much is too much exactly?
What is someone decides they want half a continent?
I'm sorry, that kind of way of thinking is borderline psychotic and I would also dare say a crime against Humanity.
Today only 1% of the global elite owns 40% of the worlds resources.
Just how stupid do we have to get util people realize how damaging this is?
Humans in Trek were portrayed where they have no need to 'posses' things anymore - and by contrast... such people exist today in relatively large quantities.
Numerous people don't 'buy' new things even though they have the purchasing power to do so.
Also... why the 'need' to possess things in the first place if everyone has access to it on-demand?
Its possible to create that today if we use our technology for betterment of mankind (but technology was NEVER used in real life for such a purpose- it was an accidental byproduct of a monetary system which implemented technologies that seemed MOST PROFITABLE - and in turn, it caused extreme levels of technological stagnation).
In essence... 'private property' is a notion that would go extinct (it stems from scarcity in the first place).
In the face of providing access to things that people need and want, why would there be a requirement to 'own' something when they can simply get it when needed and then return it/recycle it when no longer required/usable?
This is something that was evident in Trek (at least partly from a replication point of view).
They replicate whatever it is they need or want, and then once they no longer want it, they simply recycle/return it.
If an apartment is available that doesn't face the sea, but rather the park, they simply make peace with it and accept it (though we can already create an optical illusion on the walls of looking at the sea for example or other vistas).
A similar notion would be applicable to economy based on access/usership (compared to money and ownership).
Why is it so hard for people to get rid of money out of their minds and imagine a state of being where it no longer exists?
Its utterly useless/worthles since 100 years ago... let alone today.
You can't eat money.
You need resources (such as food, etc.) in order to survive and make something - and money serves no purpose to facilitate the 'exchange' in the face of technological abundance we've been making since a century ago.
I realize its been and played a part in our history, but its only holding us back (severely) now.
Justifying money for the sake of preserving the system that does a lot of damage to us and the planet is absurd (fighting wars as an excuse to invade other countries and raid their resources).
It only shows the amount of distorted values being generated by the system we live in - its absurd.
As for any other direct quote that 'money doesn't exist' in the future.
Uhm... well, there was that one other quote... from ST IV if I'm not mistaken.
Kirk in San Francisco of the late 20th century noted: 'They're still using money'.
and then later in the movie during dinner...
GILLIAN: Don't' tell me they don't use money in the twenty-third century.
KIRK: Well, they don't.
So... we have both Kirk in ST IV, and Picard in FC. (although I'm relatively certain you will find some kind of way to turn that into whatever it is you want it to mean as well).
Then also Paris in 'Dark Frontier' (and don't split hairs on that one, the meaning was perfectly clear - I'm just making allowances on Quark because he comes from a culture that uses economics based on money).
As for Nog mentioning that Humans abandoned currency based economics... uhm... currency and money are often interchangeable terms.
And finally in regards to TNG... even if Picard never said it to the 3 survivors... Offenhousen mentioned : my money is gone... and Picard said that material needs no longer exist and that the challenge is in improving oneself.
Last edited:
Time for me to chime in on this topic and for arguments sake, I'm willing to accept that any reference to no money was in reference to Earth (and humans in general).
Earth in the 24th century is shown not wanting anything. Food can be replicated, any enviormental damage has been repaired, and even the weather is under humanities control to prevent disasters. Earth is paradise, and in paradise no one needs money.
This extends somewhat into the Federation as a whole, however every planet is independent of the Federation as well as a member (for my argument to work, and I haven't seen anything to contradict this onscreen, but Earth is directly ruled by the Federation, or lacks any need for a supreme planetary authority to keep the Federation in check) of it. Earth being the exception. Earth is the crown jewel of the Federation and is what the Federation wants the galaxy to be, but may be the only world its able to achieve this on.
Planets may be hesitant of this in fear of losing what they are. Which is why a planet can have a bank (although no one seems to consider that the Bank of Bolia may deal exclusivly in foreign currency, because why wouldn't your money be secure on a world where it has no value so its local population wont take it for themselves).
Do Starfleet officers get paid for what they do? No, but they receive compensation in the training they receive and the opportunities that someone from Starfleet has.
As a previous poster has mentioned, we are trying to reconcile fictional mid 24th century economics with real early 21st century society. We can't. Just not possible. Its a funny joke on DS9 for Jake to have no money, but it was meant to be a joke for us. Its pretty absurd by our standards, but if we lived in this fictional 24th century world, we may find us funny.
As a side note, I had an objection that we could achieve this world today. We can't. The 24th century economy was build on the lack of need. The world has an abundance of what people need. Until we can manufacture anything we want without worry of running out of resources (for example, with current supplies, we can only have reliable touch screens for another 20 years. After that we have to move to a more rigid material that breaks easily and is very toxic) we just can not achieve this goal.
PS: I skipped a page of comments to get my thoughts out before I leave my house. Sorry if someone mentioned this on page 4.
Earth in the 24th century is shown not wanting anything. Food can be replicated, any enviormental damage has been repaired, and even the weather is under humanities control to prevent disasters. Earth is paradise, and in paradise no one needs money.
This extends somewhat into the Federation as a whole, however every planet is independent of the Federation as well as a member (for my argument to work, and I haven't seen anything to contradict this onscreen, but Earth is directly ruled by the Federation, or lacks any need for a supreme planetary authority to keep the Federation in check) of it. Earth being the exception. Earth is the crown jewel of the Federation and is what the Federation wants the galaxy to be, but may be the only world its able to achieve this on.
Planets may be hesitant of this in fear of losing what they are. Which is why a planet can have a bank (although no one seems to consider that the Bank of Bolia may deal exclusivly in foreign currency, because why wouldn't your money be secure on a world where it has no value so its local population wont take it for themselves).
Do Starfleet officers get paid for what they do? No, but they receive compensation in the training they receive and the opportunities that someone from Starfleet has.
As a previous poster has mentioned, we are trying to reconcile fictional mid 24th century economics with real early 21st century society. We can't. Just not possible. Its a funny joke on DS9 for Jake to have no money, but it was meant to be a joke for us. Its pretty absurd by our standards, but if we lived in this fictional 24th century world, we may find us funny.
As a side note, I had an objection that we could achieve this world today. We can't. The 24th century economy was build on the lack of need. The world has an abundance of what people need. Until we can manufacture anything we want without worry of running out of resources (for example, with current supplies, we can only have reliable touch screens for another 20 years. After that we have to move to a more rigid material that breaks easily and is very toxic) we just can not achieve this goal.
PS: I skipped a page of comments to get my thoughts out before I leave my house. Sorry if someone mentioned this on page 4.
Plus I think it takes some really, heinous, hardcore event to happen to help trigger it. Look at the third world war, according to First Contact, humanity was pretty much left in a Mad Max, everyone for themselves type of life. I got no idea who or what caused the third world war, but most wars are because of money (look at all the illegal wars America itself has waged, and look at the profiteers raking in cash, hand over fist), sometimes religion, but even during the crusades, it was primarily the aquistion of land and loot that kept it going, religion was just a bonus to them.
And during those years, where man was pretty much living in post war tribal communities, scraping and scrounging to survive one day at a time I am sure they spent their nights thinking "How could all this have been prevented, and how can we get out of this pickle we are in now?" That, and the Vulcans landing, I think pretty much made humans think, "Our way of thinking for the past few thousand years is what caused this, we need to stop and take a good, long look at ourselves, and maybe make some long overdue changes to how we think and what's really imporant." Here's the biggest issue regarding money and wealth.....money and wealth is merely a means to achieve an end, if it becomes the end itself, that's a problem, especially seeing what people, from the petty thug on the street to big government agencies, do in order to get that money and wealth (and power in the case of the latter). When people start cheating, stealing, lying, and killing for the sake of it, there's the biggest problem there. When morals, ethics, common sense, and basic goodness takes is given a shove in favor of wealth and power, you have no right being called a person, you're just an animal....no, I take that back.....animals have much more sense and goodness than most people these days, you don't see animals fucking each other over in the name of profit and percentages.
False.
consider the following:
The world has been producing enough food for over 30 years to feed 10 billion every year.
This is by using current agricultural techniques which are outdated.
And incidentally, the western world wastes/destroys about 50% of the food in question because it cannot be sold.
Today, we can create fully automated vertical farms that use hydroponics, aquaponics and aeroponics (this would minimize our footprint severely and wouldn't require use of toxic chemicals, pesticides, or GMO) - and those were invented decades ago.
1 vertical farm the size of 1 acre that is 44 stories high would produce enough to feed 613000 people daily with 10 different vegetables (per person).
We apparently have a water issue on a planet that is literally covered with it (71% water) - in light of that, desalination technology existed for over a century.
Today we can desalinate water with 99% efficiency (using graphene) whereas this process was less effective (but nevertheless still applicable for widespread use) - and we had technology to extract water from the atmosphere for a few decades (by contrast, the amount of water in the atmosphere alone is 13,000 km^3 and is completely replenished every 8 days. This means, assuming 10 billion people are as wasteful as the average American, 0.03% of all the water in the atmosphere would meet each individual's water needs and could easily be extracted through atmospheric water generators integrated into the buildings themselves, or designed into wind turbines to provide us with electricity as well ).
Water purification technologies are also nothing new and are quite old.
Housing: We've had prefabricated homes (or the technology to make them) for 70 years now (which were just as sturdy/durable as their conventional counterparts).
The Chinese by contrast have recently constructed a 30 floor hotel in 15 days which was pre-fabricated (with the electrical systems, plumbing, etc.) and it was made to be energy efficient, earthquake resistant, etc.
And we also have a self-assembled robot that can literally PRINT a house in less than 1 day (with plumbing and electricity to boot) - it can also be scaled to buildings as well (this technology is based on 3d printing and is 5 years old by now - although contour crafting and 3d printing are over 3 decades old technologies).
Recycling technology which allows us to break matter down into base elements and reconstitute them into something else or convert them into alternative energy sources was perfected in the late 19th century.
We have tonnes upon tonnes of landfills on this planet that are FILLED with raw matter which can be converted into resources such as man-made materials, tools, electronics, construction materials and various other things we might need or want.
Oh and as for your projection on screens in electronics - there's a very simple solution to that:
stop using outdated materials which cannot be produced in abundance via technology and use more efficient ones that won't cause such a problem in the first place (or just use recycling technology to use all those landfills - I can assure you that there's enough resources on those landfills to create ludicrous amounts of abundance for every person on the planet and industry several times over).
There are nearly two cell phones in existence for every three people on Earth - which are commonly being replaced every 18 months.
Ok... so we are already OVER producing in this area too.
We've been producing synthetic diamonds since the 1950's for industrial use, and chip sized synthetic diamonds since 1996 (applicable in electronic chips since at least 1998 in hybrid form).
Diamonds in their natural state are actually quite abundant on this planet - the DeBeers holding a monopoly over them (and the prices high) is a different story - and then look - we've been making artificial diamonds (in abundance) for a while now as well.
Geothermal and wind power could have been switched over to entirely by 1929 for power generation (seeing how both technologies were already used by 1911).
Also... in 1929 when the great depression took place, 33% of the global workforce lost their jobs because of mechanization/automation - and majority of the planet today works in the service industry.
People were roaming the streets during the great depression, starving... and in turn they were literally surrounded by food and material goods and housings in ample suply - just no one had the 'money' to afford any of it.
Today... we have robots, and computers to replace humans (so no one is 'irreplaceable') and existing technology can automate 75% of the global workforce (100% though is more than doable).
So, I'm sorry... were you mentioning something about our inability to produce abundance in need and most wants in real life?
Because I distinctly see a world that has been more than capable of doing just that for the past 100 years.
Last edited:
Yep, we are pretty much at least 100 years behind what we could/should be. It's all because the top 1%, elitists or whatever you wish to call them, don't want to loose the status quo. A world like Trek is a nightmare come true for them.And yes, a lot of crops we produce get thrown into the ocean, because we made too much or whatever, and was not sold....instead of dumping them, why not send them overseas to starving nations, or better still, give them to folks starving in our own nation(s)? That is something I can not fathom, apart from the 1% guys calling the shots.
So, unless everyone pulls off what would make the French revolution look like a picnic, the 1% guys are going to lay back and not give a damn what we think.
No, but you can take the money that you yourself have earned, and purchase food. Then you have something to eat. Isn't money wonderful?
Problem there is, just like money, you can't eat imagination.
You're ducking the question, how would you allocate limited resources?
In the last movie, what mechanism decided who lives in the the penthouses of those tall towers in San Fransisco, and whose apartment windows faced the wall across the alley?
When Picard said "We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions," how big was this "we" group? Everyone in the Federation, seems unlikely. Was it "we" as in: we are having a dinner party this weekend. a more likely size.
Plus Picard's statement was a out and out lie. Consider one of the last scenes in ST: GEN, Picard and Riker are sorting through the wreakage of Picard's ready room, eventually they find Picard's big book of Shakespearean plays, supposedly this isn't a replicate item, but is a historical antique. Why was it important to Picard? Why not simple replicate a brand new one?
Because it's a treasured possession and Picard wanted it.
Oh please, urban/suburban areas alone acount for three percent of the land area on Earth, agricultural crop land is around eleven percent of Earth's surface, and pasture range land is another twenty-five percent.
And the rather large piece of private property that Robert Picard grows his grapes on?
*********************
Sometime, however currency has a very definate meaning. So while money can mean any medium of exchange (including currency), currency only means currency, a particular form of money. Nog being a Ferengi would understand the differences.
Now on the surface, this is a falsehood on Kirk's part. Because we have examples of money use in the TOS movies, both before TVH, and after.
In TSFS, McCoy wishes to charter a starship. McCoy said "... price you name, money I got." This is from Earth to another point inside the Federation.
After TVH, in TUC, Scotty mention that he had recently purchased a boat.
In the next movie, Kirk states that he owned (private property) a house, and also that he sold it at some point. The usual definition of sold is, to transfer (property or goods) to or render (services) for another in exchange for money.
So what was Kirk talking about? Earlier in TVH, Kirk and company witnessed a woman deposit coins into a vending machine and extract a newspaper. And he said, " They're still using money. We've got to find some." Given that there is money use in the future, Kirk was referring to a certain type of money, the coins, the currency use.
Later in the restaurant with Gillian, the waiter arrives with the bill, Kirk (I'm assuming) no longer has enough of the money he acquired earlier to handle it, he no long possesses enough US currency circa 1980's to pay. Kirk can't access his 23rd century account, and it doubtful the waiter would accept it anyway.
Gillian: "Don't' tell me they don't use money in the twenty-third century." No, they don't use US government banknotes anymore. They don't use anything that Kirk could use to pay for the pizza and beers.
Who obviously hadn't the slightest idea what he was talking about. Again, there was money use in the Federation and on Earth after the time period he mentioned.
This one is easy.
Beverly said that all three people had died. People who are cryogenic frozen are considered dead by current legal definitions. If Offenhouse had business partners, family, heirs, they would have inherited, or his mentioned ex-wifes.
If no one else claimed his wealth, then the money would have been taken by the government. This is called escheated. Nearly four centuries after his death, of course his money was gone.
T'Girl, you covered basically what I would have said, although I would have used DS9 based examples instead (Sisko's collection of African artwork, his baseball, the Willie Mayes baseball card, etc)
I'm still not convinced. I'm not saying you are wrong about any of the stuff you said, its just unconvincing for the argument at hand. What you describe isn't at all the society that exists in Star Trek. Its more of the society that exists in Judge Dredd (the comic book, which is actually a very good read). The only difference is that in Judge Dredd money does exist.
For those who have no money (for example, the setting is Mega City 1, which has 98% unemployment. So out of a city of 400 million, thats a lot of people without work. And this was caused by automation, not the war) they are assigned homes by the Justice Department. They are also given money (called credits) to spend on the resources they need. Everything is recycled (even the dead, who are processed into their base elements). The problem with this world is boredom. Which is why the comics (and the movies) always depict the world is violent.
Now of course in what you say, I assume people have no sense of property, and the State provides something for them to do. Right? Artistic pursuits, maybe? Human nature, even if the money motive is removed, will not allow this world to function. While these robots build houses and plow the fields, people will have to come up with some way to keep themselves busy.
And I won't even get started on the environmental disaster that a wind farm the size you're talking about would be.
Lol.
Then how about the following:limited resources you could use, and you have $50 billion dollars.
Do tell how exactly do you intend on survive in such a scenario and what good is your money in such a situation?
Oh and... its hardly an extreme example.
By that same token, colonies on Mars for example would have to be completely self-sufficient and able to grow their own foods seeing how the astronauts cannot simply go to a supermarket and buy any.
You have to design it all in into an environment you will be living in.
Money on Mars or on a deserted island is utterly useless.
You need resources.
Not money.
Not my problem if people are stuck in a paradigm that limits their perceptions.
However, one cannot nor should expect the minds to change.
We can only expose people to education.
Limited resources like what?
As I said before, 'wants' are generated by culture.
Not everyone wants a mansion, or a villa, or a beach house.
Those are quite frankly stupidities of consumer based society that makes people think they want things they really have no use for.
Give everyone relevant general education by exposing them to as much of it as possible so they couldn't be manipulated, and a massive shift in 'wants' will probably occur.
As for how you might allocate materials that are scarce... carefully.
Use them sparingly, and intelligently.
Right now we don't do anything of the sort except expend rare minerals on moronic stupidities that have 0 practical use to society as a whole.
I've seen latest Trek movie and that thing was effectively turned into a Star Wars wannabe.
It also has humans behaving like ones today.
Utterly wattered down and dumbed down version from what we saw in regular Trek even.
Based on action only.
Also... as for what mechanism decides who lives in the penthouses... uhm... you do realize we can create penthouses for every person on the planet today.
People simply live wherever there's space that satisfies most of their 'expectations'.
That doesn't mean everyone wants a penthouse in a specific location.
You are assuming that if 1 person lives in a penthouse or a 2 story house that EVERYONE wants the same thing on the same location.
That doesn't even happen today that much... so why would it happen in Trek where humans are supposedly beyond us in behavior?
I would imagine Picard was talking about majority of the Human race.
Inconsistency is a part of Trek and writers simply had 0 idea on how to represent such humans properly.
That's why Trek degenerated into 21st century in space more and more after Roddenberry's death.
And obviously, the notion of 'private ownership' apparently survived with Trek humans more or less... however, that wouldn't be the case in real life with Resource based economy.
Trek kept numerous elements from today.
http://www.disclose.tv/forum/percentage-of-land-on-earth-is-dominated-by-humans-t66685.html
As for Robert Picard...
Seeing how he liked growing grapes and had sentimental feelings about traditions (however unrealistic in that day and age) why wouldn't he be allowed to grow them on a specific portion of the land... especially if that land was intended for that use since the time when money and private property still existed?
I would imagine that no one would want to force them out of that portion of the land if they hold attachment to it.
But Jean Luc didn't hold that land in any special regard, and Rene probably didn't either.
Would he now? Nog was still not part of Starfleet at that point and he was in his Ferengi mentality.
So to him... currency and money could be interchangeable terms.
We don't know what Ferengi exact definition of those terms suggests. But currency is not just 'tangible' money (such as coins and paper) - it can and does extend to electronic currency.
Of course... but seeing how the Federation allows races (that operate within boundaries of monetary economics) into its part of space, its not a stretch to think that as infrequent such use of currency was, it was mostly with such people that were operating outside of regular economics as Humanity and the Federation has.
What can I say, except... writers are stupid for allowing these kind of glaring idiocies?
McCoy's chartering a starship is easy. He could have been dealing with someone who operates on monetary based economics as he wanted to avoid 'official' channels - and these kind of 'underground' deals are stereo-typically connected to monetary based economics to add more 'drama'.
As for Scotty saying he had recently 'purchased' a boat.
Uhm... he also could have been joking.
However, as I said before, the notion of private ownership was extended to Trek only because its something that exists in real life today - doesn't mean it would be the same when we eliminate money.
Trek is limited and only an extremely vague representation.
Plus you are using a movie that also has the Enterprise crossing 30 000 Ly's in a matter of hours all the way to the center of the galaxy.
Already explained this above. But sufficed to say that apparently Trek used the notion of private ownership as something that survived... only because its a TV show and had writers with a concept that didn't know (or didn't want to) flesh out properly because they thought that some things need to be kept as they are so they wouldn't alienate the audience.
As for TVH... Kirk was rather to the point when he said that they don't use money.
And no... not just 'US gov. banknotes' but 'money' (as in everything it might imply).
Private ownership could exist without money.
As opposed to you, who lived in the Federation and experienced it first hand?
Sounds to me like mr. Paris is an expert compared to everyone on this board - yourself included.
But its only expected you would claim he had no idea what he was talking about.
This one is easy.
Beverly said that all three people had died. People who are cryogenic frozen are considered dead by current legal definitions. If Offenhouse had business partners, family, heirs, they would have inherited, or his mentioned ex-wifes.
If no one else claimed his wealth, then the money would have been taken by the government. This is called escheated. Nearly four centuries after his death, of course his money was gone.
Except that you are ignoring everything that Picard said to these people (for the sake of perpetuating monetary based economics because its something that 'makes sense' to you) and Offenhouse for the other thing was a rather prime example of a capitalist who would do whatever it takes to keep what he 'earned'.
One could say that Picard initially found this man utterly irritable and somewhat pathetic.
I wouldn't call Picard a liar because he was quite consistent in his reasoning time and time again.
A massive shift in social structure and the way we do things as was indicated in early TNG (which was more in line with Roddenberry's ideas in the first place) would probably cause such a thing to occur in the first place.
Ignore every movie and media representation of a money-less economy.
Those are woefully inadequate and inaccurate.
Also, ignore Terminator and similar stupidities.
Machines taking over and turning against Humanity and exterminating us is one of the worst stupidities that came from Hollywood - its one of the reasons why some people 'fear' technology from being unleashed completely.
Besides, I'm not proposing we recreate what was seen in Trek.
Trek was a VERY (read, extremely) vague representation - and numerous things it incorporated simply wouldn't exist in a true money-less economy.
I'm proposing that we make something BETTER.
But in order to do that, we need to educate the general population of our abilities and expose them to relevant generalist information.
That way they won't be prone to manipulation, and when Capitalism crashes again (and it will)... people will start looking towards creating something new (and not just a variation of an existing system like it was done before) because it will be then that they will loose their 'confidence' in the current system, their leaders (because the general population will in turn start loosing everything they have and will be fundamentally unable to survive, let alone do anything else).
Patching up the system won't work.
You are effectively treating the symptoms and not the cause (just like pharmaceutical companies do) - and that, is only a temporary solution.
Last edited:
Sure, plenty of wants are generated by culture, but they're also limited to availability.
Let's say...I want a house within walking distance to my workplace, that has enough comfortable living space for myself, my wife, and our two children. Guess what? There will be a limited amount of suitable housing facilities that can accommodate my standard. That highlights a limited resource.
And? Most people don't set their eyes on villas or mansions or beach houses. Most realize those are luxuries that are unnecessary. However, people do find a comfortable standard that they find necessary to comfortably live. Some people can be comfortable with studio apartments, or with detached, suburban homes.
However, said luxuries still exist within the Federation, considering Picard's family runs a beautiful winery. That certainly a luxury as well.
Sure, maybe. Even so, people still want a high standard of living. People still want to live comfortably, and Star Trek doesn't change that. Keiko O'Brien was about two seconds away from stealing a shuttle to get off DS9 in the first episode.
Except it doesn't work that way. People, if they can, enjoy waterfront property, or pools, or homes vs. apartments. How do you allocate said resources "intelligently"?
Are we talking about a situation within the context of Star Trek technology, or real world, or what? Seems to me that this thread has lost some focus on the possibilities of 24th century Earth economics.
In the 24th century, a person could have a day job in Pretoria and have a cabin in the Rocky Mountains, because transporter technology would eliminate the need to concern yourself with distance between home and work. Then only time zone differences would factor into the living versus working arrangements to be made.
True enough. I always assumed transporter technology was not exactly used that casually, but restricted for Starfleet. Still, though, there are always going to be limited amounts of property in highly desirable locations. There can be only so many townhouses in New Orleans French Quarter, or condos with a view of the Eiffel Tower.
So, let's go with another limited resource. Klingon Shakespeare is coming to London for the last leg of their tour, and there is only a limited amount of seating available. How exactly do you distribute the tickets without some sort of currency?
Really? Why? I'm interested in how these little tidbits of information develop into "fanon". Have you asked yourself why you assumed transporters were restricted to Starfleet?
True. But we don't know anything about Earth's population or its distribution, nor what is desirable or undesirable to civilians in the 24th century. What difference would it make if you didn't have a view of the Eiffel Tower from your home, if you can beam there at any time you wish to view it?
I guess it depends on what is considered currency. If the seats were distributed by the producers of the play according to something like reputation, where people who apply for the seats are evaluated based on their reputations, then assigned seats (or not) depending on the evaluation (we respect you, you get a seat; you're an ass, you don't!), you could have a "free" showing of the play with the limited resource of seats allocated "fairly".
Of course, the only thing that is really limited in this scenario is the number of seats available for the in-person viewing of the play. Millions of citizens could view the same play if it were repeated in holographic theaters. Given the existence of holosuites and holocommunicators, which could be set up to distribute the exact same show at the exact same time to theaters around the world, why distinguish between being at the in-person show versus the holographic show? The only difference would be the smell of the Klingon actors.
Yes, but what Pevonis said was he wanted to to be able to walk to work, personal preference. Not that he want to be able to beam there.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the site you posted as the source of your facts is the self professed "Largest multimedia hub and alternative news website about UFO Videos, Ancient Mysteries, and Conspiracy Theories." www.disclose.tv/
*******
Columbia University's Earth Institute (Global Rural Urban Mapping Project ) says three percent of Earth's surface is urban. So does The International Union for Conservation of Nature.
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2005/story03-07-05.html
http://www.iucn.org/about/union/sec...ities/?9164/URBES-for-cities-and-biodiversity
11 percent of Earth’s land surface is used to grow crops, came from these. The first reference is from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
https://www-pls.llnl.gov/?url=science_and_technology-earth_sciences-agriculture
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e06.htm
http://futurefoodqld.com.au/facts.php
http://www.thehowardgbuffettfoundation.org/initiatives/improving-u-s-agricultural-production
Combined cities, crop fields, and livestock pastures adding up to 40 percent of the Earth's land surface comes from NASA.
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-scien...ystem-changing-and-what-are-the-consequences/
******
The three examples I sighted were with Kirk, McCoy and Scotty, all Humans, all conducting business on Earth.
It wasn't a claim on my part, two of the fact that Tom presented on Fort Knox were obviously wrong, and (once again) there was money use in the TOS time period, which was after the time period Tom sighted for money going the way of the Dinosaurs. Tom was wrong in his statement.
What does your conspiracy theories website have to say about that?
Given the large number of normal commerce going on in the 23rd and 24th centuries (no, not just the Ferengi), money, pay, credits, buying, owning, selling, payments, accounts. many of these things happening right on Earth itself. If anyone was making a joke, perhaps it was Picard with his single "money doesn't exist" sentence?
Allowed by whom? I believe Robert and Marie own that land, and operate a business there. You seem to be suggesting that someone else effectively owns and controls the land.
I'm assuming nothing of the kind. And my question stands, penthouses at the top of tall towers are a limited commodity, with no money, what decide who lives in that location?
Actually no "we" can't, there is no way to give all 7,034,091,770 people on Earth the ability to live in a penthouse on top of a tall tower.
If you're talking only of a small expedition to Mars, then okay. But in the case of "colonies" than yes you will need a functional economic system. Once the colony is large enough, then the food grown by some of the "astronauts" will be sold in supermarkets, Someone else will start a restaurant, and they'll buy and prepare the food grown on the farms for their customers, someone else still will buy hops, barley, and field corn from the farms and open a bar. Someone else will grow cotton and raise sheep for wool and make clothing to be sold in the colonies stores.
The people living in these colonies will need money, so they can grow and prosper..
In the DS9 episode Explorers, Sisko states that he used to visit his father back in New Orleans so often, he burned through a month's worth of "transporter credits". Plus, transporters seem to be relatively restricted technology, considering how it can be used to violate one's privacy rather easily.
Plus, I think there are hovercars seen to be used in a few episodes throughout the franchise.
I think in First Contact, once Picard sees "Borgified" Earth, they state there is a population of 9 billion Borg on the planet at the time.
Plus, like I stated earlier, I figured, and I think it is reasonable to believe that the use of transporters is not something that can be used constantly by all individuals. You are correct that we don't know what might be desirable to civilians in the 24th century, but it can still be assumed plenty of people would enjoy having a home along the ocean, or in view of a major landmark.
How would you figure out "reputation" meters for something like that? Sounds almost like a video game, haha. Anyway, the issue I see with that is that there will be plenty of people who conduct moral, but indiscreet lives. The teachers, doctors, engineers, artists, etc. that are perfectly good at their jobs, but they're not famous by any means, like Picard might be to the Federation as a whole.
We have that now, through television and radio. Millions of people watch sporting events, like the Olympics, or artistic events like musical concerts. Yet, even with this low-cost ability to view such events, people still fill stadiums and amphitheaters to view them live. I don't see that changing in the future.
