Today's Economy & Trek's Future Economy

[Paradon]

I think the concept of socialism and social medicine kindda explain why most people, even Americans, think that the world owes them a living and life should be fair and square. The truth is: the world was here first. You're born into it and it's up to you what you want to do with your life. You have to make the world a better place for you and everyone, not the other way around. Even with adversity, if you try, you can endure it, even if most of the problems were dumped on you by others. You think you can and so you can. The life you got is the life you got. If you don't try to make it better, no one can help you on that one.

And, you know, the U.S. healthcare system isn't run by free market at all, like most people think. It's run by few special interest group, that force the price to sky rocketed. The first thing we need to do is get rid of the middleman, the insurance companies and let the doctors run their own clinic and hospital.

 

[Paradon]

I have to say this; if you have replicators that can produce almost anything, then do you know how silly it is to slave away at a business like mining or something, for "profit"?

Or commit crime, risking your life and freedom for profit, when there are replicators readily available?

With the Universal Healthcare issue;

The real question is, is Canada or the UK having the same type of tense debates about healthcare the way the US is?

If they're not, that is a BIG argument in their favor.

In that sense, the UK/Canada is like the Federation, and the US is like an outside world, struggling with economic health care problems.

While the "Federation" (Canada/UK) already solved the problem
and has a relatively comfortable and "advanced" healthcare system. Ironic

Energy can't be created or destroyed... It changes from one form to another. Whatever they use to power the replicator probably would still cost a lot. Hence, they have to mine dilithium for power source because you can't create the energy out of nowhere. I think this is why the Romulan use dilithium as power source to create artificial singularity for even more power (I could be wrong be wrong on this one, though. hehe!)

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I wonder if every time Picard orders tea, or Janeway replicates coffee, they know that their grandchildren are going to be paying for it?

Well, that's what time travel is for.

Trek's economy is based on limitless energy provided by dilithium crystals and limitless goods provided by replicators. Put them together, and you have an economy that runs on radically different rules than the one we know & love so well. Nobody needs to work at all. They get all the free stuff they need, regardless of whether they lift a finger, ever. Simple boredom will propel them into doing something, even if it's the 24th C equivalent of yakking on the internet all day (with holosuites! why would anyone do anything else?)

I wonder if the Federation somehow "drafts" its citizens into assigned careers in exchange for all the basic necessities of life.

All the boring shit work can be done by robots. Other jobs such as "politician," "doctor," "holosuite programmer" and "Starfleet redshirt" are so inherently fun and rewarding that people will do them without being paid. Nobody needs to be paid anyway, so the lack of pay makes no difference.

That might explain situations like the miners on Rigel XII choosing to live on some sand blasted rock in space, rather than take a menial "street cleaning" job on earth.

I think there must have been some massive change between the 23rd and 24th C, because TOS does have references to paychecks and mining operations that don't look very pleasant. On Janus VI, Kirk was blowing a gasket over the Horta not letting the miners get back to work, like some kind of capitalistic slave driver.

But they didn't have replicator tech in the 23rd C. By the 24th, they could replicate any mineral and the mining career would have gone extinct, except for those who regard it as a fun hobby.

To change tacks for a sec:

I have to admit the part of about having to insurance 'or else' is a bit creepy.

But then again, there's a lot of other stuff people have to sign up for or risk fines or penalties-- like car insurance-if you want to drive you have to get it.

If you really can't stomach getting car insurance, you can refuse to buy a car. But there's no way of refusing to have health and therefore opt out of health insurance.

I'm not against Obamacare at all - we gotta have something because the current system is headed off a cliff - but you're right that it's creepy.

Back to the main discussion:

`I don't think the Federation would be arguing amongst themselves over the issue of health care , if they have an "enlightened economy".

It's not "enlightened" at all. The system is based on fantastical technology that removes the issue of having scarce resources and therefore removes the source of conflict that causes controversy, name-calling etc. You can't take credit for being enlightened when the technology is removing any reason to be unenlightened.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Energy can't be created or destroyed... It changes from one form to another. Whatever they use to power the replicator probably would still cost a lot. Hence, they have to mine dilithium for power source because you can't create the energy out of nowhere.

Ahh but look at this--in "Call to Arms", they created "self replicating mines"- now if I'm correct, that means mines with replicators that create other mines-with their own replicators.

That means a replicator that creates another replicator with the capacity to replicate another replicator--perpetual energy. All I see is endless energy and resources.

So at this point, why would anyone risk their lives to smuggle something out of a dangerous place for profit--they're gonna buy food, clothes or something a replicator could make anyway!

If you really can't stomach getting car insurance, you can refuse to buy a car. But there's no way of refusing to have health and therefore opt out of health insurance.

I'm not against Obamacare at all - we gotta have something because the current system is headed off a cliff - but you're right that it's creepy.

To go even deeper into this concept, we have to pay taxes, and if we don't, the penalty is seizure of property, fines and even prison.

The philosophy behind it, is "it's for our own good," which it actually is. It pays for the military, police, education, ect, things we need.

So should insurance be any different? Is it because the idea is new to Americans, it's harder to accept, even if we are already doing similar things?

It's not "enlightened" at all. The system is based on fantastical technology that removes the issue of having scarce resources and therefore removes the source of conflict that causes controversy, name-calling etc. You can't take credit for being enlightened when the technology is removing any reason to be unenlightened.

Oh, but the Federation calls their economy the New Economy. They would probably consider our current economy primitive.

In fact, what's that episode....the Neutral Zone... they took some pot shots at the 20th century economy and claimed they've (24th century humans) 'grown out of their infancy'.

In fact, what's the difference? It could be argued;
If technology removes a problem and as result people become less greedy and selfish, wouldn't that still be considered enlightened behavior?

Many Americans would tend to probably see our economy as enlightened, as compared to other economies.

 

[Arpy]

"It took us centuries to learn that it doesn't have to take centuries to learn."

We don't need to create replicators and antimatter drives to learn to live in peace and prosperity. It may take that, but what a glory it would be if it didn't.

 

[Sean Aaron]

It may sound hokey, but do you think some people fear Trek's economy simply because it's new?

In some cases yes. Some people seem to take offense at the idea that people in the world depicted by TNG won't be interested in collecting things or sitting around and watching lots of TV like they do.

The very idea that people could "move beyond" the current consumer-capitalist system offends them. I honestly don't know why, but I have encountered this very attitude in discussions on this board regarding the Fed economy in the past.

I wonder if the Federation somehow "drafts" its citizens into assigned careers in exchange for all the basic necessities of life. Careers requiring more skilled labour, or are higher risk would come with better perks, more spacious residences for example.

I don't think people get "drafted," but if Bashir's dad is an example of the average joe it looks like job boards exist to help people find their niche if they want to work and it may be that they change jobs looking for the right fit.

I cannot imagine in a world of 11 billion people with most of the non-creative manual work being done by machines that you'd have enough jobs for everyone so I suspect the world would resemble Judge Dredd's Mega City One to a degree with masses of unskilled people living on the dole effectively. I expect if you got bored enough then you might opt to join a new colony and get stuck in getting it established, but who knows?

 

[Nightdiamond]

"It took us centuries to learn that it doesn't have to take centuries to learn."

We don't need to create replicators and antimatter drives to learn to live in peace and prosperity. It may take that, but what a glory it would be if it didn't.

I agree in theory, but, sometimes I think the human brain is just wired to be stubborn.

It seems when technology is created that creates more abundance, then humans to tend fight less and begin thinking more about intellectual/spiritual pursuits.

This is pretty much what Trek is claiming about the Federation and humans.

It may sound hokey, but do you think some people fear Trek's economy simply because it's new?

In some cases yes. Some people seem to take offense at the idea that people in the world depicted by TNG won't be interested in collecting things or sitting around and watching lots of TV like they do.

The very idea that people could "move beyond" the current consumer-capitalist system offends them. I honestly don't know why, but I have encountered this very attitude in discussions on this board regarding the Fed economy in the past.

Then in that case, economically, the US could be compared to the Ferengi more than anything else.

The Ferengi are hard core capitalists. They are an economic power, yet still have impoverished citizens.

They have replicators, yet want nothing to do with the Federation's idea of a no money society.

It may explains the US's reluctant attitude towards Universal Healthcare, while other countries embrace it and utilize it more easily.

 

[Paradon]

I can understand people wanting to live a better life, but really life is all about the pursuit of one's idea of happiness and working hard with perseverance to achieve the goal. Because, really, the world doesn't owe you a living; it's the other way around... People have to work for a better life for themselves, their children and society. Everyone has to contribute in some way. Things don't magically work out the way you want unless you make it happen (it's a simple metaphysics)...if you don't want to help yourself, then no one can; it's a simple facts of life. How do we as a society and country get anywhere if people don't work and only wait for the government to hand you money that they stole from someone's else? The government doesn't have a real source of revenue, other than taxes. There is no such thing as free money...that is a lie. People go out and work and contribute to the economy...making it strong. Money just don't grow on tree, or appear out of thin air when you want it.

There is a limit to socialism. The government can only tax so much money. Free health care established by the government has limited budget, because they can only tax so much, and therefore, they are not afford to properly staff their clinics and hospitals and are equipped with outdated medical equipments. The more taxes and the more spending the less money is in the economy and poorer the people. The well being and the backbone of the economy relies on hard working people. And the idea of free market is really not about greed, but really about embracing individualism, the world free of government influence and rules, where everybody can make something of themselves if they have the talent, work hard and persevere at it, and not rely on the government to help you solve every problem because really the government doesn't have the knowledge and wisdom (they don't know everything) to solve your personal problems and societal problems. Government rules and regulation only hinders the ability of a country to move forward economically. The people knows the best how to spend their own money. Furthermore, a lot of government elected officials are not the smartest people on earth and some are crooks and corrupted...

Our health care system is a disgrace. It's not run by free market but a greedy special-interest-group (the insurance companies), that have force the price of health care to go up so high for them to make money, that lower income and lower working middle class cannot afford it. Doctors should be allowed to run their own clinics and hospitals to make the cost of health care affordable.

 

[Nightdiamond]

One type of thinking we have today is that the responsibility to create jobs is the government's job.

Well, that's sort of the tradition that's appeared over the years anyway.

Right now companies are making money-they're just not hiring anybody extra, they're cutting costs and enjoying the profit.

But the other problem is, is that if you let corporations and banks run wild, then things like the housing crisis happen.

A few years ago a lot of people would have said the government should stay out of regulating company practices.

Today, a lot of people wished the government stepped in and regulated the banks before they issued those economy sinking mortgages.

I don't think they care how intrusive it would have been, as long as they prevented "this" from happening.

Maybe a little balance is needed, too much of each extreme is dangerous...

 

[T'Girl]

But the other problem is, is that if you let corporations and banks run wild, then things like the housing crisis happen.

US Government compelling banks to meet quotas of home loans to low/medium income, high-risk borrowers (The Housing and Community Development Act of 1977) is what got the economy into the crisis you spoke of,

Government compelled the issuing of mortgages to large numbers of people with low and unsteady incomes (many of whom had no real chance of repaying them), combined with the Federal Reserve System pumping up the money supply so as to drive interest rates down to artificially low levels, made home ownership and housing construction looked like really great investments. Without government interference interest rates would have remained at market levels, and many loans wouldn't have been issued. The housing bubble would not have grown to the enormous size it did.

The government, both parties, loved that home ownership was increasing, especially among minority voting groups, however when the Fed stopped (about 2006) expanding the money supply and interest rates began rising, many borrowers found that they couldn't afford to keep the homes they had been lured into buying and many builders found that the housing projects they had started couldn't be completed because demand had died.

President Bush tried to shut the whole thing down, but he didn't have the political capital in both houses of Congress to do it, it was likely too late anyway. Banks had insured their loans through the big insurance companies, when the loans began to fail in large numbers the insurance companies were looking at collapse, this lead to the first of Bush's big bailouts.

Right now companies are making money-they're just not hiring anybody extra, they're cutting costs and enjoying the profit.

Problem is companies don't know what taxes and regulations are going to be over the next few years and so can't assemble a business plan, a business plan that includes hiring and expansion of their businesses.

A few years ago a lot of people would have said the government should stay out of regulating company practices.

Simply knowing if Obama-care is going to kick in in 2013 would help. If Republicans take the Senate in 2012 (and maybe the White House) then no problems, Obama-care is repealed. If the Democrats retake the House, then many small/medium sized businesses will have to contract-reduce their work forces to compensate.

Today, a lot of people wished the government stepped in and regulated the banks before they issued those economy sinking mortgages.

It was certain government regulations that caused the problem. The banks had no legal option, but to issue those mortgages.

I don't think they care how intrusive it would have been, as long as they prevented "this" from happening.

At this point, a few years later, i think most people wish that the government had refrained itself from "helping."

Maybe a little balance is needed, too much of each extreme is dangerous...

On this we can agree, when the government puts into place a really well thought out idea that proves that it just doesn't work, the government should have the guts to admit that the plan isn't working and kill it.

 

[Paradon]

Funny that people say the government should step in and regulate some businesses which could have prevented the housing crisis. But the housing program was sponsored by the government, which gave them special privileges, with the tax payers' money going towards the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). It was the cause of the housing crisis and once again tax payers have to bail these special interest group out and pay the ultimate prices. During the Bush Administration, the government control and intervention were bigger than it was, ever.

 

[Sean Aaron]

It's not just the liberalisation of mortgage lending but also a general lack of oversight over profit reporting leading to outright frauds like Enron and rampant speculation in southeast Asia and at home later. Letting the market "run itself" is a terrible idea, clearly.

 

[Paradon]

Government sponsor is not free market, though. Basically, they can paid of their debt because they have the explicit statutory authority monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve.

By diverting the money from their most productive use into housing, this reduces the efficacy of the entire market thus reducing the standard of living for all Americans. By transferring the risk of mortgage default, the government is increasing the risk of painful crash in the housing market. The special privileges allow them to attract capital where they could not under pure free market...diverting it from their most productive use.

The housing crisis would not have happened if the government did not encourage over-investment in housing where they diverted the capital to other uses to create a short-term boom.

Government and economy is two different identities. The economy doesn't need the government to prosper. The government is not made of people who are wise and knowledgeable...like a club for geniuses to discuss their findings and research. When you empowered them by giving them power, most people in any position of power will try to control you and most are reluctant to give up their power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Can a government really tell doctors how to do their jobs or tell you how you should live your life?

 

[Nightdiamond]

Government and economy is two different identities. The economy doesn't need the government to prosper. The government is not made of people who are wise and knowledgeable...

You'd be surprised at the number of high ranking politicians that used to be CEO of corporations or had ties to the finance industry.

At this point, they're too damned intertwined with each other .

Letting the market "run itself" is a terrible idea, clearly

Here's an example of how weird things can get. Slightly different concept;

A few years ago, a number of privately owned juvenile detention centers-were opened--for profit.

As the story alleges, they needed kids to fill these centers, so deals were allegedly made with judges who would give harsh sentences to kids for very minor offenses.

They were then sent to these places.

An example that was alleged to have happened was a teenage girl who was sentenced to a few months in one of these facilities- for mocking her assistant principal on Facebook!

It's the greed factor that makes these things so dangerous- these kid's rights were violated, so some private corporations (and judges) could make money-- that is really creepy.

Would it be safe to say that the US, in many ways, is a Ferengi-like economic power as opposed to a Federation one?

 

[iguana_tonante]

Maybe less fear and more incomprehension. They have warp drive, but that's really just a engine, they have transporter, but that just a elevator of sorts.

And they have a moneyless economy, but that's just an economic system of sort. So where's the difference? They are both fantastical elements of sci-fi.

Except that, to have warp drives and transporters, you have to break down the laws of physics and the inherent boundaries of the universe since 13.6 billions years ago, while to have a moneyless economy you have just to a few millennia of social constructs. Take your pick which one is easier.

The only reason why people accept more readily warp drive and transporters than a moneyless economy is because they don't understand physics, while they think they understand economics.

With the Universal Healthcare issue;

The real question is, is Canada or the UK having the same type of tense debates about healthcare the way the US is?

If they're not, that is a BIG argument in their favor.

In any country with UHC (including Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and virtually all of Europe), talking about discarding it will be met with hilarity (and maybe concerns over one's sanity). Leaving health care in the hands of private business would be virtually unthinkable. Especially since UHC is easier, cheaper, brings better results, and doesn't leave a significant portion of the population without medical coverage. Why would people be against it, except some wacky ideological reasons?

Lack of choice is a favor? Or simply a system that doesn't present it citizens with the freedom of options.

Lulz. We have a private-practice doctors and private clinics in countries with UHC. And we have voluntary medical insurances. There is no lack of choice. You can always choose to go to a private doctor, and have your insurance pay for the procedure. Or you can just pay out of your pocket. But you can also go to public hospitals, and have it done for free (or for a small fee, depending on the situation).

I think the concept of socialism and social medicine kindda explain why most people, even Americans, think that the world owes them a living and life should be fair and square.

Yeah, and that silly concept of "civil rights" explains why people think they are entitled to have representation, free speech, equal treatment before the law, etc.

I agree in theory, but, sometimes I think the human brain is just wired to be stubborn.

Actually, judging from millennia of social inertia and sticking to the status quo, the human brain is just wired to be complacent and lazy. Not everyone, obviously, but by definition you'll find more people sticking to the current situation than people actively seeking a change. Revolutions are rare things, and even then they are successful only if the majority of the population jumps into the boat (or at least do nothing to oppose it).

The economy doesn't need the government to prosper. The government is not made of people who are wise and knowledgeable...like a club for geniuses to discuss their findings and research. When you empowered them by giving them power, most people in any position of power will try to control you and most are reluctant to give up their power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Then why having a government at all?

Can a government really tell doctors how to do their jobs or tell you how you should live your life?

In countries with UHC, the government does not tell any doctor how to do their job, or tell people how to live their life. It's a lie, even if it's repeated often enough by some people.

It makes you think when people opposing UHC have to make up blatant lies and scare tactics to push their point.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Would it be safe to say that the US, in many ways, is a Ferengi-like economic power as opposed to a Federation one?

Seems like it. Good example with the juvie centres; adult prison is also big business in the US. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the War on Drugs is in part due to a desire to keep the prisons full intentionally.

 

[Paradon]

Free market is not about committing haneous crime to make money. Nobody has the right to hurt anyone, or pollute the land and air where everyone suffers. That's illegal. The government jobs is to protect people's rights from being violate by criminals. They have no rights to tell anyone what to do. Do you think they know how to run your burger joint better you, or clinics and hospitals. You don't let other people tell you how to live your life, spend your money, run your business and what job you want to do, why should it be any difference when it comes to the government. You should look at the government like you would a stranger, with suspisions when it comes to your personal affair and well being (economically and safety). As it always was, a lot of politicians always turn out to be completely untrustworthy.

A health care run by free market is always better because cost and quality is determined by demand. There's not shortage of funds there and compitition forces the prices down. Some thing for nothing is not logical. Money just don't grow on tree. One way for the economy to move forward is for people working and contributing to the economy and one way to do that is to give people the economic freedom and choices.

 

[Paradon]

Would it be safe to say that the US, in many ways, is a Ferengi-like economic power as opposed to a Federation one?

Seems like it. Good example with the juvie centres; adult prison is also big business in the US. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the War on Drugs is in part due to a desire to keep the prisons full intentionally.

I think the U.S. is not the nicest country in the world but that is just outright criminal. I don't think it has nothing to do with free market if this story is even true.

Here's a good link to explain why free market is much better than trying to manipulating the economic system that we see in England and Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek Some of his thinking parallel that of John Forbes Nash Jr. a mathematical genius that won a Nobel Prize for economics with his game theory.

And here a link to Ron Paul's article where he predicted the housing crisis would occur because of the government roles in this: http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/

 

[Sean Aaron]

A health care run by free market is always better because cost and quality is determined by demand. There's not shortage of funds there and compitition forces the prices down. Some thing for nothing is not logical. Money just don't grow on tree. One way for the economy to move forward is for people working and contributing to the economy and one way to do that is to give people the economic freedom and choices.

Health care is not a product; the running of health care service as a for-profit enterprise seems to be at odds with basic morality. Your goal is to make people well, not get enough to buy the new jag or reward shareholders. The very idea makes me sick. I need a doctor!

if this story is even true

It is true; it was even the basis for an episode of Law & Order some years ago. As with health care profit-making enterprise should have no involvement with the prison service due to the inevitable conflict it causes with seeking justice.

 

[Paradon]

A health care run by free market is always better because cost and quality is determined by demand. There's not shortage of funds there and compitition forces the prices down. Some thing for nothing is not logical. Money just don't grow on tree. One way for the economy to move forward is for people working and contributing to the economy and one way to do that is to give people the economic freedom and choices.

Health care is not a product; the running of health care service as a for-profit enterprise seems to be at odds with basic morality. Your goal is to make people well, not get enough to buy the new jag or reward shareholders. The very idea makes me sick. I need a doctor!

if this story is even true

It is true; it was even the basis for an episode of Law & Order some years ago. As with health care profit-making enterprise should have no involvement with the prison service due to the inevitable conflict it causes with seeking justice.

The doctors have to make a living and the drugs they use ain't free and it's hard work being a doctor. Not everyone can do it. This kind of work require special skills, schools, equipment and workers. They have to pay their staff, pay off their payment for the latest equipment they've just purchase, their house mortgage, their expensive tuition fees, they need to eat, pay for basic necessity for themselves and their family. If they don't pay off the cost of operation of a business and the start up cost, they are going to go bankrupt. Yes, there is the little thing call the cost of operation and running clinic and hospital is more expensive than most of businesses to prevent unnecessary death by keeping up with the current research and technology.

It would be affordable for everyone if you let demand and competition dictate the cost. It doesn't cost that much for a simple preventive care; the problem is the insurance companies make it that way so they can make money. All you need is a cheap insurance for serious injuries after we get rid of the insurance companies, which are basically the middleman. Look at Thailand. They are able to do common difficult surgeries for a fraction of the price that the U.S. do because they don't have to go through the insurance company. The health care system in this county is driving demand to countries like Thailand, Singapore and India, where they do excellent jobs for a fraction of what it'w worth in the U.S.