TOS -- mo money, mo money, mo money.

[Destructor]

My brother makes a bunch of beer every year that he then gives away. No-one pays him for the beer, he makes it for fun and gives it away for pleasure. Now imagine a world where you can convert energy to matter and that things like food, water and shelter are all taken care of. I don't need to go to work. But I don't do my job because I need money. Indeed, I could make a lot more money doing something else. But I like my job. My job helps people. Yes it pays me and I like that, but only because it gets me food. If I already had food I would still like helping people and might do something similar to my job purely for my pleasure, part of which comes from being a beneficial member of society.

I think people who believe that people can only be motivated by money are cynical in the extreme and are probably overly attached to money and possessions. They need to watch more Star Trek.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

Tell you what, come work for me for free. You can hang drywall, pick banana peppers and strawberries, make copies, clean out the trashcans and recycling bins, paint the walls of the kids' bedrooms, that sort of thing. The sort of thing that isn't exactly automated, the sort of thing you either do yourself or pay someone to do it for you.

People who think money isn't necessary usually are the sort who aren't successful in real life.

 

[I Eat Food]

Has anyone checked out the economic system called "Participatory Economics"? Seems like it'd be a perfect fit (at least, according to this website).

 

[T'Girl]

imagine a world where you can convert energy to matter and that things like food, water and shelter are all taken care of

Okay, all taken care of by whom?
The Replicator.
And how do you obtain one in the first place.
Oh, well it just either just given to me or magically appears.
The show consistently show the replicator consuming lots of power. Where do you get the power?
Oh, well that given to me too. They have fusion power that's "cheap."
Who builds the fusion power reactors?
People build them for free.
Who runs the reactors?
Whoever shows up that day.
Where do you live?
I going to be given a house on a cliff overlooking a beach.
Who builds this house?
Whoever shows up that day. People build them for free.

I think people who believe that people can only be motivated by money are cynical in the extreme and are probably overly attached to money and possessions. They need to watch more Star Trek.

Not solely motivated by money, however people are consistently motivated by money.

... and the society wants them off the streets

And you don't think society still will, four hundred years in the future? When 98% of the population has absolutely nothing they have to do, there will be no problems.

 

[Destructor]

Tell you what, come work for me for free. You can hang drywall, pick banana peppers and strawberries, make copies, clean out the trashcans and recycling bins, paint the walls of the kids' bedrooms, that sort of thing. The sort of thing that isn't exactly automated, the sort of thing you either do yourself or pay someone to do it for you.

You don't think I don't already do all those things, for free, in order to make my life better? You think if money didn't exist I still wouldn't do those things?

People who think money isn't necessary usually are the sort who aren't successful in real life.

If your definition of success is 'having lots of money', sure. But people who use that as their definition of success are invariably miserable, particularly in later life when they realize that they have spent their lives in pursuit of something that doesn't automatically translate to happiness- it certainly helps, but that is a result of the way we have constructed our society- if it was constructed in a different way, as is postulated in Star Trek, I could achieve happiness by having my needs met (done without money) and contributing to my community (done without money). Money is the reason these things happen now and it works very well, praise be to capitalism. But to be simply unable to imagine that it could not work any other way is a failure of imagination- shifting the burden of your failure onto the show is pathetic. "Ooh, I can't imagine how a moneyless society could work, therefore it possibly couldn't work." You remind me of the people who can't imagine how relativity works and so dismiss it out of hand as fallacy.

And how do you obtain one in the first place.

It's been shown that replicators can self-replicate. So... why wouldn't everyone have one? And if everyone did have one, which clearly they would, why would anything have a monetary value, since the value of physical items is based on scarcity.

Where do you get the power?

Matter and energy are interchangeable. This is a proven scientific fact (e=mc2) and Picard states that in his society they can transfer them back and forth (Transporter, Replicator, Holodeck). So you don't need to 'produce' energy at all. It's all around you, all the time- we call it 'mass'. Throw whatever you like in the replicator. Converted to energy, and then converted back into whatever you like, provided you have the pattern. In fact, the notion of 'producing' energy is a scientific fallacy- energy can only be transferred from one state to another. If everyone had a replicator, everyone would have power. Again, this technology would make currency utterly meaningless.

Who runs the reactors?

People who care about their community! Is it honestly so hard to imagine? People give up money ALL THE TIME to help others. Soldiers. Police officers. Teachers. Even politicians have been known to quit much higher-paying jobs in order to serve their community. Is it honestly so hard to imagine that after all your physical needs have been taken care of, you might actually want to spend your free time helping others? I know dozens of programmers who contribute their time towards free, unpaid, open-source software. Because they like it! It's fun! I know engineers and lawyers who donate time towards charitable projects. Because they have passion, drive. If you asked them: "Hey, would you quit your job and work on this community project fulltime, assuming you didn't need the money?" the answer would always be yes. Of course it would. Helping your community always trumps working for the money. Is it really so hard to imagine, from what we have seen of Picard, Janeway, Sisko, Kirk, is it really so hard to imagine that people might actually help their communities because they want to? If you honestly can't imagine it, well... why in the world do you like Star Trek?

Also... have you ever even tried contributing to your community? You might learn something about yourself.

Whoever shows up that day. People build them for free.

As above. Your cynicism is a product of your training by a money-obsessed society. People built houses before money existed, I don't see why they'd stop if it no longer existed- particularly in a world where matter and energy were interchangeable, so you could produce the materials required on demand. People go to sub-Saharan Africa and build houses for free, and that's in a world where materials CAN'T be produced on demand. Of course, those people believe in changing the world for the better, while you believe in... oh yeah, money.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

Money makes the world go 'round. It's not a belief; it's a fact.

Actually, I contribute quite a bit to the community. I'm a well known supporter of local churches (of ALL denominations, from Hindu to Catholicism, from Muslim to Freewill Baptist). My family and I have volunteered for community service every year at places such as Habitat for Humanity, recording ID kits for young children to help in case they go missing, gathering food for Neighbors in Need. The school where I pay tuition for my children requires them to do community service. (The public schools, I should point out, don't.)

Even though we are far from being rich, my success in my family-owned business that my wife and I created in 1994 allows me to engage in these good works. I charge an honest price for honest work; I treat my customers with respect, and perform the services we offer to the best of my ability. I love my job, but I cannot see how telling my employees that they'll no longer be paid because they should LOVE their jobs and be happy to do it for free could ever work. The spending habits of folks spending money drives markets and demand. Without money as a means of determining what works (and what doesn't) means that mediocrity prevails, stagnation runs rampant, and honestly, civilization/society declines. Look at the failed experiments in socialism throughout the world.

So for you to decry anyone who doesn't share your views as "money obsessed" just demonstrates an overwhelming sense of naivete. I can honestly say that I don't know very many people who are "money obsessed" except those who are obsessed in taking away material, property and funds from those who actually work hard to build what they have through taxation and other means to redistribute the "wealth." And that's what it sounds like to me that you're suggesting.

 

[InklingStar]

Honestly I think the whole "contributing to the community" philosophy would end up creating the world seen at the end of Atlas Shrugged than the one in Star Trek - that is, a dystopian hellhole. Human nature does not change.

As far as desiring money - I think people have it wrong when they say that people who desire money are short-sighted and miserable. It's not money we want, it's the freedom to do what we wish. Money buys cars to drive places, it buys houses to live in, it buys airline tickets to see the world with, it buys food beyond government cheese. One wiser than me said that the love of money is a root of evil, but that doesn't mean that money is necessarily a bad thing.

If it is possible to create a utopia where people all work together to better themselves and their community, then why has it never once succeeded in all history?

EDIT: Yeah, what Potemkin said.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It's been shown that replicators can self-replicate.

No, it hasn't. We have never seen a replicator replicate itself.

So... why wouldn't everyone have one? And if everyone did have one, which clearly they would

Like I said, not everyone has a replicator. Picard's brother, for example, refused to have one. He wouldn't allow them in the family home.

 

[Destructor]

No, it hasn't. We have never seen a replicator replicate itself.

Sure we have. When they mined the wormhole is Deep Space Nine the mines were 'self-replicating'. Ergo, they had replicators on board which created more mines, and those mines had replicators on board that could create more mines. No idea how they were powered, but it seemed pretty clear that replicators can make other replicators.

Like I said, not everyone has a replicator. Picard's brother, for example, refused to have one. He wouldn't allow them in the family home.

Not everyone in capitalist society 'opts in' to the capitalist system. Some people live entirely without money. So Robert Picard 'opted out' of the replicator-based economy. That doesn't mean that would not be the dominant economic system of Earth or the UFP.

Actually, I contribute quite a bit to the community.

I really applaud you for that and apologize for my assumptions, I come across as a real ass and I'm really sorry.

Money makes the world go 'round. It's not a belief; it's a fact.

That's certainly a fact to us, because we have constructed our society in that fashion, and that's entirely appropriate because it has done so much good- we are at the appropriate stage in human evolution. But to assume that because it works now means that it will operate in that fashion forever is facile. I mean it's understandable, peasants operating in a monarchy probably bemoaned the fact that the monarchy would exist forever, but it was just a stage in human evolution. Maybe money will exist forever, but the Star Trek universe postulates that it won't. The elimination of money is actually a far simpler matter than the creation of things like warp drive, transporters, replicators and holodecks. We take those things for granted as sci-fi precepts, but we somehow draw the line at a moneyless society- as I said, I think this is a failure of imagination. I am not advocating the moneyless society, or saying it would be better than the society we have constructed. But it is what Star Trek has postulated, and I can imagine it, and am surprised when people so adamantly declare that it would be an impossibility. It's never indicated in Trek that people don't get rewarded for their work or that there aren't jobs and recompense. There's just no money because in a replicator-based economy there couldn't be. That's not even imagination, that's just the logical conclusion of a society where matter and energy are interchangeable.

Money exists because there are human needs to be fulfilled. Once all those needs are fulfilled by an unrealistic technology, it would become redundant. I don't imagine that technology will exist anytime soon so I don't imagine money is going anywhere. But if replicators existed- it would.

 

[T'Girl]

And if everyone did have one, which clearly they would, why would anything have a monetary value,

Why would simply having a replicator mean that what comes out of it is at no cost? This is a assumption on your part, not backed up by canon. I have a water faucet in my home, but I pay for the water. The majority of people in America have cars, that doesn't mean that transportation comes at no cost. At minimum, there would be initial purchase price and operating costs of your replicator.

The chilled air that comes out of my air conditioner cost me money, the food that come out of your replicator costs you money.

since the value of physical items is based on scarcity.

False, value is often base upon a measure of the item's intrinsic value, what it took to place it in your hands. Value is also based upon what you're willing to pay for a item, whether it's scarce or not. We have an abundance of food in America, it still costs money, The lack of scarcity hasn't made it free.

Throw whatever you like in the replicator. Converted to energy

No, Star Trek has never shown power being derived from a replicator. If this were so, there would be no need for antimatter to be carried aboard the Enterprise, nor for the Enterprise to have a reactor/warpcore. DS9 also wouldn't require all those fusion reactors.

"Hey, would you quit your job and work on this community project fulltime, assuming you didn't need the money?" the answer would always be yes.

Always? No, and this is the big problem with your entire theory. You will never get everyone to agree to anything, no matter how important. But let assume that at one point in time you have a planetary culture that will whole-heartedly agree to engage in community volunteerism.

What happen if the planetary culture changes?

In order for your fantasy future society to work over an extended period of time, the culture you've described can never change. Ever. Not even over the course of centuries. Talk to anyone over the age of seventy or eighty and ask them if the culture they live in has change since they were children.

the answer would always be yes.

Always yes. If a substantial portion of the society goes though a "non-volunteer" phase, even one that only lasts a few decades, your society falls completely apart.

The advantage of a market based-monetary economic system is that it been shown over the course of multiple centuries to work. Depressions, wars, plagues, even when capitalism partial collapses, it actual doesn't. Remember, in the Star Trek universe robots are oddities, their society is managed and worked by living people. People need a motivation to consistently work, income is one motivation, if you can't live without income, it's a powerful motivation.

However if you work only when you choose to, then you will have the option to choose not to. Freewill. In a society without a financial system, no impetus can be offered. Societal pressure doesn't works if the pressure is ignored.

But it is what Star Trek has postulated

Really? There are far more references in Star Trek to Humans and the Federation in general having money, credits, rations, purchases, accounts, businesses, private property, than there are reference to there being no money. There is one reference in a TNG movie by Picard, and one reference in a DS9 episode by Jake, and that's it. And in one of those examples, In The Cards, Nog said that Humans had abandoned a currency-based economy.

One of my favorite examples of money in the 24th century is Commander Riker's frequent poker games. As most of you know, you can't play poker without money on the table, you can't play with just colored chips. It doesn't work. All the chips on Riker's table had value, the players made wagers based upon their hands. The one occasion that Picard joined them, one of the players had to stake Picard some money (chips) just so he could play.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

And I could easily see a "credit" based economy where a "credit" is a unit of currency, i.e. a "dollar." What you do in life earns you credits that you can exchange throughout the Federation. This is what I think they had in mind until GR's drug-use spilled over into Modern Trek. There's no exchange of currency; just an electronic (or duotronic) exchange of "credits" for goods and/or services rendered.

We're heading to that now. I don't ever have cash on me anymore, and the only checks I write are for the business. At home, my wife pays ALL and I mean ALL the bills electronically. I could see at some point in the future where there is no currency in use in the US.

But I'm not sure I can see that being true throughout the world. Currency would be needed in areas of the world that doesn't have "credit technology." Currency would be preferred by those in illegal enterprises (easier to hide currency than it is to hide bank transactions--that's why the banks report all transactions greater than a certain amount to the Feds). Currency would be needed in an exchange between planets, especially alien ones until such time as a mutually agreed upon credit system could be established.

It doesn't exist in TOS's timeline. It doesn't exist in DS9's. I just don't think it can exist.

 

[InklingStar]

There simply must be some sort of exchange of Federation credits for real currency, such as latinum. If there wasn't, Quark would never allow Starfleet officers to play his dabo table.

 

[Destructor]

Why would simply having a replicator mean that what comes out of it is at no cost? This is a assumption on your part, not backed up by canon.

This is true. What's canon is that there is no money in the future and that they have 'ended poverty'. I am trying to explain why this would be so.

I have a water faucet in my home, but I pay for the water.

But you wouldn't if you had a replicator.

The majority of people in America have cars, that doesn't mean that transportation comes at no cost. At minimum, there would be initial purchase price and operating costs of your replicator.

If replicators can make replicators (which they can), then how long do you think it would take for everyone to have a replicator? I'd make `em for my neighbours, for free. You are applying capitalist theory to a system that is explicitly stated as not capitalist.

The chilled air that comes out of my air conditioner cost me money, the food that come out of your replicator costs you money.

That is an assumption on your part, an assumption rooted in your inability to imagine a world without money. Since it's canonically established that there is no money, you need to let that assumption go.

False, value is often base upon a measure of the item's intrinsic value, what it took to place it in your hands.

This is simply not so, and anyone with even a basic grasp of economic theory knows this. There is no such thing as 'intrinsic value'. Money is a shared illusion, an agreement we have come to for our own benefit. It has no value. If I have a bag of flour and you are gluten intolerant, that bag of flour has no value to you, and I can't sell it to you.

Value is also based upon what you're willing to pay for a item, whether it's scarce or not. We have an abundance of food in America, it still costs money, The lack of scarcity hasn't made it free.

But it has reduced the value, yes? You'd agree that the greater the difference of surplus over demand, the cheaper the price, yes? That is a basic tenement of economic theory. Now make the surplus equal 'infinity'. If the surplus is infinity, the value is zero.

No, Star Trek has never shown power being derived from a replicator.

No, but we do see the replicator consuming items and then producing items, and Picard does state that in his century matter and energy are interchangeable. When a replicator eats up your dirty dishes, where does the energy go? It can't be destroyed (energy cannot be destroyed- it can only change forms), so the only other explanation is that it is stored somewhere for later use.

If this were so, there would be no need for antimatter to be carried aboard the Enterprise, nor for the Enterprise to have a reactor/warpcore. DS9 also wouldn't require all those fusion reactors.

The antimatter reactor is necessary for the immense power required to travel at warp speed.

Always? No, and this is the big problem with your entire theory. You will never get everyone to agree to anything, no matter how important. But let assume that at one point in time you have a planetary culture that will whole-heartedly agree to engage in community volunteerism.

Sure. Not hard to imagine, since we have already convinced a large portion of the planet to move from monarchy to democracy. Voyager even gives an approximate date for this transformation:

"When the New World Economy took shape in the late 22nd century and money went the way of the dinosaur, Fort Knox was turned into a museum." - Tom Paris

Again, canon reference- money does not exist in the 23rd century.

In order for your fantasy future society to work over an extended period of time, the culture you've described can never change. Ever. Not even over the course of centuries. Talk to anyone over the age of seventy or eighty and ask them if the culture they live in has change since they were children.

I disagree. I think culture would have more freedom to change if removed from the shackles of money.

The advantage of a market based-monetary economic system is that it been shown over the course of multiple centuries to work. Depressions, wars, plagues, even when capitalism partial collapses, it actual doesn't.

Yeah, I know! I've said repeatedly I think capitalism is grand, and I don't think it's going anywhere, because I don't think replicators will ever be invented because they break several laws of physics, just as transporters and warp drive and holodecks do, and I don't think they will ever be invented, either. But I can't escape the conclusion that if they were invented, money would become valueless. Money already is valueless, but it's value in our society is weighed against the value of physical things, like gold. When you take away that value, money goes out the window.

I mean Christ, if the transporter was invented you'd basically have the perfect murder weapon, and if holodecks were invented no-one would ever come out of them, but you don't go on and on about how unrealistic those precepts are. The disappearance of money after the creation of the replicator actually is a realistic consequence, and you can't accept it.

People need a motivation to consistently work, income is one motivation, if you can't live without income, it's a powerful motivation.

Agreed, but we are talking about a world where there is no m money, and you are saying that without it no-one would do anything! I reject that completely. How do you think mankind reached a state where money was even possible?

However if you work only when you choose to, then you will have the option to choose not to. Freewill. In a society without a financial system, no impetus can be offered. Societal pressure doesn't works if the pressure is ignored.

Again, I didn't say work would go unrewarded. Just that money would not be the reward. It's be a pointless reward, since anything I could 'buy' I could just go and get from my replicator.

There is one reference in a TNG movie by Picard, and one reference in a DS9 episode by Jake, and that's it. And in one of those examples, In The Cards, Nog said that Humans had abandoned a currency-based economy.

Gillian Taylor: "Don't tell me they don't use money in the 23rd century,"
Kirk: "Well, we don't."

One of my favorite examples of money in the 24th century is Commander Riker's frequent poker games. As most of you know, you can't play poker without money on the table, you can't play with just colored chips. It doesn't work. All the chips on Riker's table had value, the players made wagers based upon their hands. The one occasion that Picard joined them, one of the players had to stake Picard some money (chips) just so he could play.

As someone who has:

A. Played poker for chips not money and
B. Seen that scene about a billion times

I am going to call you for being totally wrong about this. It would be completely in-character for Riker & friends to play Poker just for chips, just as I play Scrabble 'for the points' (while I agree that Poker is a terrible, useless game if you don't play for money- but you don't actually have to play for money). When Picard comes to join their game no-one mentions money, a stake, having to owe him, anything- they just give him the chips without comment. This actually implies there is no money being exchanged and that anyone who shows up just gets an allotted amount of chips. Which makes sense, since it's repeatedly stated that there is no money in the 24th century!

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

it's repeatedly stated that there is no money in the 24th century!

Actually, it's not. In "Encounter at Farpoint," Crusher is shopping in the alien bazaar, and picks up a material sample. Later she says, "Charge this to my account. Doctor Beverly Crusher." Sounds like the credit system is in place.

 

[iguana_tonante]

People who think money isn't necessary usually are the sort who aren't successful in real life.

People who think money is the only parameter by which a person shall be judged are the sort who aren't much loved in real life. Just saying.

Money makes the world go 'round. It's not a belief; it's a fact.

Wrong. Power makes the world go round. Money is just an indicator of power. Different societies and cultures had very different indicators of social standing. You are mixing causes with consequences.

I love my job, but I cannot see how telling my employees that they'll no longer be paid because they should LOVE their jobs and be happy to do it for free could ever work.

So if all your material needs were met, you would refuse to work a job you love just out of spite?

Without money as a means of determining what works (and what doesn't) means that mediocrity prevails, stagnation runs rampant, and honestly, civilization/society declines. Look at the failed experiments in socialism throughout the world.

If you look at the last century, yes. If you look a little further in history, not so quite.

I can honestly say that I don't know very many people who are "money obsessed" except those who are obsessed in taking away material, property and funds from those who actually work hard to build what they have through taxation and other means to redistribute the "wealth." And that's what it sounds like to me that you're suggesting.

I also suppose you can say that you don't know many well-fed people who are obsessed with food. Funny how usually it's hungry people who think about food most of the time.

Honestly I think the whole "contributing to the community" philosophy would end up creating the world seen at the end of Atlas Shrugged than the one in Star Trek - that is, a dystopian hellhole.

I should have guessed someone would throw Rand in this sooner or later.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

People who think money isn't necessary usually are the sort who aren't successful in real life.

People who think money is the only parameter by which a person shall be judged are the sort who aren't much loved in real life. Just saying.

You've just put words in my mouth, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that. It weakens your entire argument when you do. At no point have I made any pronouncements about the parameters by which people are judged. My comments are an observation about the condition of those who think we should do away with money, not a judgment on their worth.

Money makes the world go 'round. It's not a belief; it's a fact.

Wrong. Power makes the world go round. Money is just an indicator of power. Different societies and cultures had very different indicators of social standing. You are mixing causes with consequences.

Actually, I'm making reference to several songs, including one from the musical Cabaret.

So if all your material needs were met, you would refuse to work a job you love just out of spite?

I didn't say that either. I said none of the girls who work for me would. They'd find something else that did pay.

If you look at the last century, yes. If you look a little further in history, not so quite.

That's nice, but you didn't provide a single example of a successful system like the one described. Because, I'm certain, there's never been one.

I can honestly say that I don't know very many people who are "money obsessed" except those who are obsessed in taking away material, property and funds from those who actually work hard to build what they have through taxation and other means to redistribute the "wealth." And that's what it sounds like to me that you're suggesting.

I also suppose you can say that you don't know many well-fed people who are obsessed with food. Funny how usually it's hungry people who think about food most of the time.

You're wrong there. I've found that the people who are the most corpulent (i.e. over-fed) are the ones who are far more obsessed with food.

 

[iguana_tonante]

People who think money isn't necessary usually are the sort who aren't successful in real life.

People who think money is the only parameter by which a person shall be judged are the sort who aren't much loved in real life. Just saying.

You've just put words in my mouth, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that. It weakens your entire argument when you do. At no point have I made any pronouncements about the parameters by which people are judged. My comments are an observation about the condition of those who think we should do away with money, not a judgment on their worth.

I'm sure the specious sophistry brings you comfort in the cold, dark nights, but I don't think you can argue that saying what basically amounts to "people disagree with me because they are losers" is not a judgement of worth.

Actually, I'm making reference to several songs, including one from the musical Cabaret.

Heh. Personally I prefer Money, money, money by ABBA.

I didn't say that either. I said none of the girls who work for me would. They'd find something else that did pay.

I know, but it still has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you don't need the money to buy stuff, why would you want to get paid to do something you like?

That's nice, but you didn't provide a single example of a successful system like the one described. Because, I'm certain, there's never been one.

Some examples are found here and here. An interesting thought experiment (from a literary source) can be found here.

I also suppose you can say that you don't know many well-fed people who are obsessed with food. Funny how usually it's hungry people who think about food most of the time.

You're wrong there. I've found that the people who are the most corpulent (i.e. over-fed) are the ones who are far more obsessed with food.

I suspect you are limiting your analysis to modern Western societies, where the concept of "hungry" is rather softened. In fact, among truly impoverished countries and during economics hardships and famines, thinking how to put something in the stomach is the single most important thing in the world.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

I'm sure the specious sophistry brings you comfort in the cold, dark nights, but I don't think you can argue that saying what basically amounts to "people disagree with me because they are losers" is not a judgement of worth.

My, aren't you the bitter one? Frankly, people who disagree with me are people who disagree with me, and people who agree with me are people who agree with me. I make no value judgment about I shouldn't take it personally if I were you. To answer your question, in general I go to bed each night and every night with the knowledge that I've done my best each and every day. That's all that you can expect of yourself.

I know, but it still has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you don't need the money to buy stuff, why would you want to get paid to do something you like?

Because there's always something new to purchase. That's the nature of technological advances. There's also always services to be obtained.

Some examples are found here and here. An interesting thought experiment (from a literary source) can be found here.

The first is not an example of a workable economy, and was abandoned with the introduction of technology. Wikipedia and the others like it get money from the data they collected. The folks who provide input into it are doing so because of the same reason we're here debating. It's inherent in mankind to share knowledge; of course, seeing some weird listings in wikipedia, one can assume some wiki users have ulterior motives for posting misinformation. But make no mistake about it, wiki itself generates income. The third is not Star Trek, not reality and therefore I'm not going to debate it here.

I suspect you are limiting your analysis to modern Western societies, where the concept of "hungry" is rather softened. In fact, among truly impoverished countries and during economics hardships and famines, thinking how to put something in the stomach is the single most important thing in the world.

Such hunger is usually the result of tribal/nation conflict. The hungry are the vicitims of such conflicts, and their states are responsible for their condition. And I would disagree that my analysis is confined to Western societies. I would admit that my analysis is confined to technologically advanced societies, most of which are Western.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

it's repeatedly stated that there is no money in the 24th century!

Actually, it's not. In "Encounter at Farpoint," Crusher is shopping in the alien bazaar, and picks up a material sample. Later she says, "Charge this to my account. Doctor Beverly Crusher." Sounds like the credit system is in place.

Also, Bolians must be considered - they are a Federation world with a BANK.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I'm sure the specious sophistry brings you comfort in the cold, dark nights, but I don't think you can argue that saying what basically amounts to "people disagree with me because they are losers" is not a judgement of worth.

My, aren't you the bitter one?

I don't think so. I'm not the one who thought he was entitled to pontificated about "the sort of people who aren't successful in real life".

I make no value judgment about I shouldn't take it personally if I were you.

I don't take it personally. I don't have to be personally slighted to think it's inappropriate to disparage an entire category of people based on their earning.

To answer your question, in general I go to bed each night and every night with the knowledge that I've done my best each and every day. That's all that you can expect of yourself.

I expect of myself to be awesome. Luckily, I don't disappoint myself often. But I've found that booze and blowjobs help too.

If you don't need the money to buy stuff, why would you want to get paid to do something you like?

Because there's always something new to purchase. That's the nature of technological advances. There's also always services to be obtained.

What part of "you don't need the money to buy stuff" escapes you?

Some examples are found here and here. An interesting thought experiment (from a literary source) can be found here.

The first is not an example of a workable economy, and was abandoned with the introduction of technology.

On the contrary, it's perfectly workable. In fact, it worked for thousands of years. It was only abandoned when Europeans thought it was cool to bring smallpox and gunpowder and take care of that.

Wikipedia and the others like it get money from the data they collected. The folks who provide input into it are doing so because of the same reason we're here debating. It's inherent in mankind to share knowledge;

I would argue that sharing knowledge is just as inherent in mankind as sharing stuff. In fact, there are much less people who produce open-source knowledge than there people are who donate to charitable organizations or do some kind of volunteer activity.

The third is not Star Trek, not reality and therefore I'm not going to debate it here.

Too bad, because it's exactly the type of economy I see working on Star Trek, with monetary wealth replaced with social standing and reputation.

I suspect you are limiting your analysis to modern Western societies, where the concept of "hungry" is rather softened. In fact, among truly impoverished countries and during economics hardships and famines, thinking how to put something in the stomach is the single most important thing in the world.

Such hunger is usually the result of tribal/nation conflict. The hungry are the vicitims of such conflicts, and their states are responsible for their condition.

Erm, okay. What this has to do with the issue that poor and hungry people are the ones who are more concerned with money and food?

And I would disagree that my analysis is confined to Western societies. I would admit that my analysis is confined to technologically advanced societies, most of which are Western.

Fair enough. Care to address the point now?