• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The 500 pound bar of latinum in the room

M

mlbach

Captain
Captain
Some folks have posted comments in other threads indicating skepticism of Roddenbery's vision that the Federation would have abolished money or that such a thing would even be desirable. I personally think it is both possible and desirable. In two of the Jake/Nog episodes where money was discussed, most of the transactions were conducted by barter, not cash.
I personally think that the inequities created by our present monetary system are the root of many of the problems in the world. Visionary Rudolf Steiner said that one of two things must happen to solve the problems of the world. The first is that man(kind) should not work for money.
 
A bar is a unit of measurement lager than a slip or a strip but smaller than a brick.

A "case of latinum" has also been mentioned but I think that is a container of bars.
 
 
mlbach said:
In two of the Jake/Nog episodes where money was discussed, most of the transactions were conducted by barter, not cash.
Click to expand...
In one of these episodes the end result of trading resulted in Jake and Nog eventually having actual money in the form of GPL.
 
I think it's a great premise for a TV show to have a world without money where everybody is without material desire and works for the betterment of mankind.

In real life, to me it's more a mathematical imperative than a moral imperative to have a currency system. If you take away the ability to get rich, people stop competing with each other and you take away the incentive of people to work harder, be more innovative, etc. It's a choice between some people having more wealth than others and nobody having wealth. And worse, instead of bartering for currency people barter for influence. It creates even more inequitable than if there's money. People who have no powerful connections have no way to get out of influence-poverty.

To me, a better and more realistic way to solve the social problems caused by wealth division without expecting humankind to change its basic nature is to eliminate the education gap and create universal access to basic needs like food, shelter, competent legal representation and healthcare, have consumer protections, and public campaign financing. That way you still have some wealth division but anybody talented who works hard can get rich and politicians have no incentive to design laws around just helping wealthy campaign donors. Keep the benefits of capitalism while keeping its problems in check.
 
JirinPanthosa said:
I think it's a great premise for a TV show to have a world without money where everybody is without material desire and works for the betterment of mankind.

In real life, to me it's more a mathematical imperative than a moral imperative to have a currency system. If you take away the ability to get rich, people stop competing with each other and you take away the incentive of people to work harder, be more innovative, etc. It's a choice between some people having more wealth than others and nobody having wealth. And worse, instead of bartering for currency people barter for influence. It creates even more inequitable than if there's money. People who have no powerful connections have no way to get out of influence-poverty.

To me, a better and more realistic way to solve the social problems caused by wealth division without expecting humankind to change its basic nature is to eliminate the education gap and create universal access to basic needs like food, shelter, competent legal representation and healthcare, have consumer protections, and public campaign financing. That way you still have some wealth division but anybody talented who works hard can get rich and politicians have no incentive to design laws around just helping wealthy campaign donors. Keep the benefits of capitalism while keeping its problems in check.
Click to expand...

Well isn't one fix re: donors is to limit how much each party can spend during an election.

In the UK for example each party can spend ~£30 000 per consituency it contests at a GE. Though there is more to it than that.

https://fullfact.org/law/election-spending-rules-conservatives-electoral-commission/
 
One wonders where the starving, dirty miners on so many a planet in Federation Space ended up after they realized they could re-purpose myriad "Voyager Doctors" to take on those dirty jobs.

Ok, this will probably get me ostracized here but I never thought that everyone in the Federation leads cushy lives of leisure and plenty. Miserables pop up over and over in Star Trek and not just in time jaunts to past times. Maybe there is a small elite we see in most episodes balanced by teeming hordes in abject poverty we mostly don't.
 
mlbach said:
Is that why so many people are simplifying and downsizing?
Click to expand...

I believe that is due to the raises in the minimum wage (at least in the United States where several states increased said wages by law, sometimes by several dollars from what it had been). This caused several corporations to cut down on their human resources, either by downsizing, or just reducing hours in order to maintain their previous profit levels. This is accomplished the goal by not only reducing the amount of man hours the company needs to spend on employees, but also reduces their employee's hours to the point were the company is no longer obligated to provide benefits to these employees as they are mostly now considered part-time employees. This has a side effect of having more people working multiple jobs to get the needed hours of work to survive and pay for things that had previously been employee benefits out of their own pockets...even with government help on things like health care.

This has also seeming caused several larger retail companies to start to collapse in the last year or so, (along with internet competition ruling over retail more and more) as customers get worried when they see registers that are closed and a lack of employees to help them on the floor. The business is not in fact in direct trouble, but the human resources reductions make it look bad when the company finds out it can do enough with less, but forgets to take into account the visual impression it leaves the consumer when half the store seems devoid of employees, even when the company is making just as much profit (or more) as the previous year.
 
You make valid points, but I was discussing something different, namely that instead of always wanting more stuff, many people are voluntarily divesting themselves of things and choosing a simpler lifestyle. There is a growing tiny house movement, more and more people are growing their own food, corporate managers are leaving high paying (and high stress) jobs to become artists or bakers or chocolatiers or...
When comparing "capitalism" and "communism," I think it's important to recognize that the U.S. system is not capitalism and the old Soviet Union did not practice communism. What the USSR had was very much like the old czarist regime, and the KGB was like the old czarist spy system. And that regime in turn was an outgrowth of the old system used by the Mongol invaders. The US economic system...unfortunately too much of it reminds me of the seagulls in Finding Nemo, perched on something and saying, "Mine. Mine. Mine."
I believe that people want to work, to contribute, to be part of a community. And if they can't belong to the dominant community, they'll form their own. The black community came about because the white community wouldn't let the blacks play an equal part in society. Ditto the gay community.
Someone said that too many people would sit around playing video games all day. Maybe they would--for awhile. There was a Twilight Zone? episode, or maybe it was a short story. Anyway, a man dies and goes to a place where he's told his every need is met and he doesn't have to work. The man is delighted and revels in his freedom. After awhile, though, he gets bored and asks for something to do. He's told that, not only is he not required, he is not permitted to work. The man exclaims, "You call this Heaven? I'd rather be in the other place!" (or words to that effect), and he's told, " This is the other place."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top