Voyager made the Borg wusses

[sonak]

Money stopped representing resources a long time ago (more accurately when the US was first struck with the great depression - because production was very high, and purchasing power was low - why? - because of mechanization - there was enough material goods to go around but no money to buy them).
As for why geothermal was not tapped in - very simple: the coal based industry was already very big at that point and was still quite lucrative - there was no monetary incentive to go into it.

As for history... I'm well aware of it. I'm not saying that the monetary system had no place in history... it did, but we are way past the point where we need it.
It's an outdated system that was kept around simply because anything else that is presented as alternative is attacked under the guise of: 'its been tried before', 'its communism', 'its Marxism', etc.

You do realize we live on a planet where 1% of the worlds population controls 40% of global resources, right?
Oh and lets' not forget that there are about 2 billion people out there right now starving, even though over 50% of food is being destroyed because it cannot be sold (nevermind the premise that we had the technology for some time to feed the entire planet).
History is repeating itself.
Purchasing power is dropping, and production is increasing.
The industry is already mostly automated as is... majority of the workforce is in the service industry (and even that is being automated).

Seriously... are you blind to what is happening on the planet or is just your delusion with a monetary system that keeps you that way?

This thread is not really the place to discuss the pros and cons of monetary systems and policy. It was a discussion about the Borg and their use or misuse during Voyager. However, I will say that if you feel the current problems with the allocation of resources is due to the monetary system and would all go away if we "moved past" money, then I do question whether you have an understanding of economics and/or history.

I don't mean that as an insult. I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm just saying that your arguments make no sense in either an economic or an historical context. The basic problem with the allocation of resources is that you are dealing with human beings, and human beings are flawed. One of our biggest flaws is greed. Another one of our biggest flaws is the tendency to desire power, and the belief of many that the only way to keep power is to keep others dependent and subservient. Until you can solve those issues, no monetary system, monetary policy, or lack thereof is going to solve problems like starvation.

And, to keep this mildly Trek-related, that's why I find Trek's vision of the future to be enjoyable but unrealistic. I do not believe in the "perfectibility of man" as Roddenberry seemed to. And it seems to me that even if you do away with money, and suddenly have a fantastic technology like replicators, you are going to still be dealing with flawed human beings with their same foibles and, therefore, are going to continue to have some with more than others and lots of arguments over resources.

you'll notice as is usual in criticisms of his type of thought, that you turned the argument from his economic analysis(which was pretty accurate) to discussions of Human nature. It's easier to mock the argument that way.

And yes, resources are not the problem right now. There's more than enough to go around, the issue is allocation and monopolization.

 

[CoveTom]

you'll notice as is usual in criticisms of his type of thought, that you turned the argument from his economic analysis(which was pretty accurate) to discussions of Human nature. It's easier to mock the argument that way.

And yes, resources are not the problem right now. There's more than enough to go around, the issue is allocation and monopolization.

First off, I did not "mock" anything. In fact, I went to great pains to choose my words carefully so that I was addressing the facts of the argument, and not simply resorting to ad hominems.

Second, you cannot separate the economic argument from the discussion of human nature. That was my entire point. His argument rests on the premise that the idea of money became outdated a long time ago and that clinging to that monetary system is the source of the world's greatest problems such as poverty, starvation, etc. My point is that you have to allocate resources whether you have money or not, and until you overcome basic human nature, you're not going to be able to do so in a way that alleviates the problems he is discussing.

 

[Sci]

"Money" -- whether in the form of cash, or electronic credits, or whatever -- is a perfectly fine mechanism for allocating resources without requiring a large central authority to control and monitor that allocation at all times.

"Money" is not the problem. Capitalism is the problem. Or, more accurately, the demand for an ideologically pure, laissez-faire form of Capitalism, in which there is nothing to curb Capitalism's excesses, no mechanism to prevent the inevitable redistribution of all wealth to the top on the basis of economic leverage rather than fair competition, no means by which to prevent the inevitable erosion of equal opportunity and fair competition that laissez-faire Capitalism inevitably produces...

... that is the problem.

An enlightened, egalitarian, free, and prosperous system needs some Capitalism. It also needs some Socialism. The two need to curb each other's excesses, balance each other's extremes. Ideological purity in economics is a bad thing.

 

[sonak]

"Money" -- whether in the form of cash, or electronic credits, or whatever -- is a perfectly fine mechanism for allocating resources without requiring a large central authority to control and monitor that allocation at all times.

"Money" is not the problem. Capitalism is the problem. Or, more accurately, the demand for an ideologically pure, laissez-faire form of Capitalism, in which there is nothing to curb Capitalism's excesses, no mechanism to prevent the inevitable redistribution of all wealth to the top on the basis of economic leverage rather than fair competition, no means by which to prevent the inevitable erosion of equal opportunity and fair competition that laissez-faire Capitalism inevitably produces...

... that is the problem.

An enlightened, egalitarian, free, and prosperous system needs some Capitalism. It also needs some Socialism. The two need to curb each other's excesses, balance each other's extremes. Ideological purity in economics is a bad thing.

I believe the words you're looking for are... social democracy.

 

[Knight Templar]

Oh and lets' not forget that there are about 2 billion people out there right now starving, QUOTE]

and right there you are 100% wrong.

 

[Sci]

"Money" -- whether in the form of cash, or electronic credits, or whatever -- is a perfectly fine mechanism for allocating resources without requiring a large central authority to control and monitor that allocation at all times.

"Money" is not the problem. Capitalism is the problem. Or, more accurately, the demand for an ideologically pure, laissez-faire form of Capitalism, in which there is nothing to curb Capitalism's excesses, no mechanism to prevent the inevitable redistribution of all wealth to the top on the basis of economic leverage rather than fair competition, no means by which to prevent the inevitable erosion of equal opportunity and fair competition that laissez-faire Capitalism inevitably produces...

... that is the problem.

An enlightened, egalitarian, free, and prosperous system needs some Capitalism. It also needs some Socialism. The two need to curb each other's excesses, balance each other's extremes. Ideological purity in economics is a bad thing.

I believe the words you're looking for are... social democracy.