24th Century Economics

[Dumbass 0]

Lily:  How much did this ship cost?

Picard:  The economics of the 24th century are a little different.  You see, money no longer exists.

Lily:  No money?  You mean you don't get paid?

Picard:  The aquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our existance.  We seek to better ourselves.

 

Excuse me, but Adam Smith and Milton Friedman would have a real issue with this.  So do I.  I don't see how you can possibly have a functioning society without some kind of money as a means of exchange.  

 

How would you aquire resources, or determine the value of one resource over another, without the ability to reduce these to a currency figure for comparrison? How would the Federation aquire resources, many of these in the hands of individuals (especially labor), without some form of payment?  That's what economists call stealing.

 

I don't see how a society can function without money.  Even Voyager used replicator rations as an ad-hoc currency.  There was also a lot of bartering on Voyager, but this has it's limits.  The value of everything would have to be set against the value of a multitude of other options, which leads to inefficient trading markets with no price stability.

 

Sorry, but I think the Ferengi are right on this one and the Federation is full of crap.  Your thoughts?

[VileRomulan 0]

Lily:  How much did this ship cost?

Picard:  The economics of the 24th century are a little different.  You see, money no longer exists.

Lily:  No money?  You mean you don't get paid?

Picard:  The aquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our existance.  We seek to better ourselves.

 

Excuse me, but Adam Smith and Milton Friedman would have a real issue with this.  So do I.  I don't see how you can possibly have a functioning society without some kind of money as a means of exchange.  

 

How would you aquire resources, or determine the value of one resource over another, without the ability to reduce these to a currency figure for comparrison? How would the Federation aquire resources, many of these in the hands of individuals (especially labor), without some form of payment?  That's what economists call stealing.

 

I don't see how a society can function without money.  Even Voyager used replicator rations as an ad-hoc currency.  There was also a lot of bartering on Voyager, but this has it's limits.  The value of everything would have to be set against the value of a multitude of other options, which leads to inefficient trading markets with no price stability.

 

Sorry, but I think the Ferengi are right on this one and the Federation is full of crap.  Your thoughts?

it would help to know the poll question... lol, but yeah, I thought that was off though too, in star trek ship designer, your money is resources, so I not entireley sure how this works, but it sounds like titanium and other means of resources would be like currency in a way

[Dumbass 0]

it would help to know the poll question...

Sorry, my bad.  I messed up when doing the post.  My intention was that:

 

A "Yes" vote means an advanced civilization can exist without money (or something that serves that function as a medium of exchange - latinum, pretty stones, whatever).

 

A "No" vote means it can't.

[VileRomulan 0]

it would help to know the poll question...

Sorry, my bad.  I messed up when doing the post.  My intention was that:

 

A "Yes" vote means an advanced civilization can exist without money.

 

A "No" vote means it can't.

oops, than take that one yes and make it a no

[Images 0]

i think the whole point is that there is NO median of exhange or money! people do things because they want to, remember even a mining operation in the 24th century is a cushy job, you don't have some poor bugger swinging a pickaxe or anything like that, knowledge is power. The whole system is based on the Utopian idea which believes that once a socialist government is properly instituted money will not exist and man respects fellow man. And then they begin to ask why we seek pieces of paper to prove our worth. don't get me wrong here, i'm no hippy i'm a greedy man and i want to swim in money. The point is that these types of societies have continued to fail in such countries as russia and china because we aren't ADVANCED enough to overcome our personal lust for power causing people to take charge and therefore never letting the socialist existance to take place. So my answer is that it's possible but not in our time or our childrens but someday...

[Cmdr Laura Issia 0]

Star Trek tends to contradict itself on this point.  On the one hand, we are frequently told that there is no need for money -- everything in 10-4 is free, for instance -- and yet we see that societies other than the Federation do use a monetary system (Ferengi, notably), which means that in order for the Federation to deal with them in terms of trade there must exist some form of money, whether as digital vouchers for labor/goods or as cold hard currency.  Now, within the Federation it might be possible for people to exist without cash, via requistioning resources they're entitled to as citizens... but we've also seen various standards of living, which raises questions about how resources are distributed, and we've also seen gambling.  DS9, notably, but also I recall a TNG episode in which Riker redeems some latinum he's won from Quark -- now, no matter how lucky you are, gambling would require some money as a stake.

 

I think, overall, it would probably be more accurate to suggest that STARFLEET has no money per say.   The Federation takes care of Starfleet -- new ship? Well, how badly do you need it? Ok, we've got the resources, here you go... -- and Starfleet takes care of its members, at least while they're in service -- hence, meals and recreation on board ship need no money, and there may even be arrangements made for shoreleaves.  But a certain amount of wages are probably paid even to Starfleet members, particularly to non-coms who would need to re-enter a regular economy when their tour of duty was up.

[LoAmi 0]

Star Trek tends to contradict itself on this point.  

This is quite true.  It is especially puzzling how the Federation would trade with other species who use money (like the Ferengi).  Money is used for exchange -basically a placeholder for things that haven't yet been acquired.  And, money has to be acceptable for exchange everywhere.  (What if one group likes latinum and another only likes leaves?)

 

One important point has not yet been brought up -- the replicator.  On a rich planet like Earth, where energy is plentiful and can (presumably) be distributed to everyone in copious amounts, any thing could, in theory, be replicated.  The division of things that cannot be replicated (like dilithium and latinum, presumably, real duct tape in our sims, and land everywhere) and how to recompense those who give them to you then becomes the major issue.

 

On a replicator-aware planet, the difference between a rich planet and a poor planet is the capacity to generate energy.  If the planet had a monetary system, the difference between a rich person and a poor person would be his capacity to buy energy or generate his own.  A monetary system works well when you're dividing limited resources.  If the primary resource (energy) is no longer limited (thanks to matter-antimatter reactors), why artificially limit its use?  If there is some kind of monetary instrument in the Federation, its distribution - and the power it brings - is probably quite different from money today, at least in the sense that the necessities of daily living are already taken care of.

[MajorZStarDust 0]

Interesting discussion. First Contact had numerous contradictions, from # of decks all the way to the money issue.

I mean, you have gold plated latinum mentioned throughout the series, yet they don't have money? The point about

gambling in Quarks, not to mention that Quark charged for holodeck time. IE:Money. And Garak didn't give his clothes

away. There were TNG episodes where money was mentioned. And if they bartered on Voyager, then they obivously had

an idea of monetary value.

Yeah, I am sure they are trying to point out that the Federation is a utopian society, free of greed, but I don;t think so.

WE can't do it.. I don't see how that will change in a few hundred years, as much as we might like it to.

[Garnoopy 0]

I don't see how a society can function without money.  Even Voyager used replicator rations as an ad-hoc currency.  There was also a lot of bartering on Voyager, but this has it's limits.  The value of everything would have to be set against the value of a multitude of other options, which leads to inefficient trading markets with no price stability.

Ahh, yes, a very complicated issue.

 

The other issue with attempting to see how this works is that we all live in a world with money, and do not have the ability to comprehend what it would be like to not something that it is all around us, and we use daily. So, it is impossiable for us to understand what we cannot live without.

 

My comprehension of the futuer and its economics isn't that there is *money* per say, but things have value depending on a situation. Basically, there are trades of items for items to which each side can agree upon.

 

With Voyager, the reason for replicator rations was that they didn't have enough power to run the replicators so you could get anything at any time, so the amount a crewmember could use the replicator was rationed, thereby creating replicator rations. These were valuable because everyone wanted to use the replicator ( Neelix's cooking might be a reason for this one  :) ), so, crewmembers would trade them in bets or such. Whether you consider this money or not might vary, due to that the rations can only be used for a replicator, and not for saying purchasing an item on a foreign planet that does not use replicators.

 

Also with Voyager, they were traveling through different species space, so nothing for them could really have a *standard* value because they were entering a new economy each time, meaning that the worth of one item would change as time went by.

 

From what I've seen, the only item in the UFP that has value and if you aquire, you can trade it for other items is latinum. This apparently is some form of metal that the Ferengi love, and which over time has apparently gained a certain amount of value through the Quadrant. But still, the Federation, no matter how much latinum, won't be selling off ships.

[Dumbass 0]

Well obviously I don't agree with everything that has been said, but I am impressed with the sophistication of some of the arguments.  Do we have any current or former econ students here besides me?

[LoAmi 0]

Do we have any current or former econ students here besides me?

Nah... in what I used to study (physics), 5% error was generally considered bad.  In what I study now (biophysics), 20% error is considered just good enough.  In what I don't study (economics), 100% error is considered right-on. :)

[Dumbass 0]

In what I don't study (economics), 100% error is considered right-on. :)

LOL - Two economists are on a nature hike when they realise they are lost.  One of them pulls out a map, studies it, looks to the other economist, and says:

 

E1:  You see that hill way over there?

E2:  Yeah, what about it?

E1:  Well, according to this map, we're standing on top of it.

[STSF Jorlis 0]

I've always been uncomfortable with the idea of there being no need for money in the future. Rather uncomfortable with the whole notion of the replicators, for that matter. In my simming, I always rely on the B5 system in this sort of situation... I use a credit chit. That's one of my golden rules. If Star Trek's idea doesn't work for you... Babylon 5's the answer.  :cool:

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

Well, I guess this discussion falls into two categories. First is Trek lore and the second is simply economic in nature.

 

First, Trek lore. Throughout The Original Series mentioned numerous times that "economics of the 23rd century was quite different" than what we have today. However, they gave very little in the way of details. If I recall, there was mention numerous times of people buying things...which would seem to indicate there was some type of currency.

 

By the "modern" Trek era, there's a lot of confusion. As Nog said "It's not my fault your planet gave up money." Yet, at the same time, it's mentioned at least 20/30 times that Starfleet Officers have "credits." This would seem to indicate there is *some* type of currency in play. It may mean this currency is normally only used when dealing with non-Federation worlds. As in, there is internal Federation money (aka: nothing) and external Federation money (aka: credits).

 

From an economic standpoint, it's really hard to make a sound conclusion. There really is a big gap about what happened on Earth between First Contact and Captain Pike. Enterprise really hasn't shown much around what's been going on back home. I kind of wish they would give more details about this.

 

Given we can assume the "world economy" totally collapsed after World War III, more than likely some type of barter system was immediately in place. However, by the time of the first warp flight (many years later), it is reasonable to assume that old currency was again being used. After things had "stablized" in the new world (aka: world of chaos), people may have started using currency again for the same reason we use it today. A lot easier to manage than carrying stuff the barter with.

 

Now, once the entire planet started to recover post-First Contact, I would have to assume that there was some type of currency in place. Again, countries were trading with each other and economies were operational. Let's not forget, that Trek lore even says that the "Australia" was the last government to join the world government. Before this, they had to have been trading with them and exchanging something in the way of goods/services.

 

Making a long story short, over the evolution since that point, I think currency continued to play a role but it probably slowly moved to a back burner. As was said in DS9, Earth moved away from materalism to improvementism. Such a change would mean that currency wouldn't be needed as much.

 

So, in the end, do I think it an economy exists. I think it probably is more for external Federation dealings though. So in the same way, money probably still exists but it isn't commonly used for internal-Federation transactions.

[Dumbass 0]

From an economic standpoint, it's really hard to make a sound conclusion. There really is a big gap about what happened on Earth between First Contact and Captain Pike. Enterprise really hasn't shown much around what's been going on back home. I kind of wish they would give more details about this.

Good point.  I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that a society can change overnight just by launching a few ships.

 

As to your comments that money exists for markets external to the Federation I think your credit card is still bouncing. The greater need for currency (or credits or chits or whatever you want to call it - we basically use the same thing now, it's called an ATM card) is going to be INTERNAL, at the common citizen level.

 

Take Ben Sisko's dad, for example.  He owns and manages a restaurant.  He needs to aquire resouces - the building itself, kitchen staff and other laborers, equipment, maintenance on that equipment, ingredients, business and health licenses, waste disposal, etc.  And that's just to physically set up shop.  He also has to aquire marketing resources if he wants to convice customers that his food is better than another restaurant down the street.

 

Restaurant managers are busy people - I know, I've done it.  There just aren't enough hours in the day to aquire these resources by barter or by filling out some requisition form and sending it... wherever.  Currency is needed so that Mr. Sisko doesn't have to spend all day arguing whether the printing of menus is worth 3 bowls of jambolaya or 4.

 

And what price would be printed on the menus anyway?  I don't really see customers paying for food with tribbles, holodeck privliges, stem bolts (We never did figure out what these things are, did we?) and other things a restaurant would have no need for.  Sisko is not going to feed the public out of the goodness of his heart either.  He also has to make enough of a profit so that he has a home to go to at night.

 

It's like my late Money & Banking professor used to say:  We do not value money.  We value the THINGS we can get WITH money.

[Voran 0]

ever hear of replicators??????

[Dumbass 0]

ever hear of replicators??????

How do you replicate an official business license?  Or a food server?  Or the building the replicator is part of?  Or sensitive engineering components (like duct tape)?

 

Replicators, transporters, and holodecks are useful, but they can't do everything.  With the restaurant example, sometimes people want proper food, not reconstituted proteins.

[VileRomulan 0]

I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that a society can change overnight just by launching a few ships.

are you kidding?! shuttles(NASA shuttles I mean), yeah yeah, big deal, but something that can go at the speed of light? I'm not sure about you, but that would be a huge accomplishment, that means exploring places we could NEVER visit before, Mars, thats a planet away, 'Earth's Twin' is 18 months away (1.5 years) round trip, I saw on a warp chart that that trip could be done in less than a minute, that's like a 2 minute trip max, hell, turning around once your there would take longer then getting there, that is a HUGE leap in technology, (but Zefram Cochrane's flight was 2 minutes long and Earth still looked pretty big, hmm...) that makes deep space planetary stations possible (when I say deep space, I mean what they would think of it in 2063) there are ALOT of questions I have about how warp works, heres one, how do spaceships decelerate out of warp so fast? that would tear ships apart, and inertia dampeners are far too farfetched and unexplained, but if we ever do travel at the speed of light, it would forever change the way we think about our limits, it would forever change us as a culture amd a society

[LoAmi 0]

Take Ben Sisko's dad, for example.  He owns and manages a restaurant.  He needs to aquire resouces - the building itself, kitchen staff and other laborers, equipment, maintenance on that equipment, ingredients, business and health licenses, waste disposal, etc.  And that's just to physically set up shop.  He also has to aquire marketing resources if he wants to convice customers that his food is better than another restaurant down the street.

 

[snip]

 

It's like my late Money & Banking professor used to say:  We do not value money.  We value the THINGS we can get WITH money.

Now, let's say, for argument's sake that everyone's minimal (and maybe more) material needs are provided for.  So, everyone has a house, heat, hot water, transportation, sanitation services, computer access, etc.  This can be done because Earth has a plentiful amount of energy (see my post above).  It means that Ben Sisko's dad is no longer working for his livelihood!  He's working because he wants to contribute something to society, and he's good at cooking, so he will make people happy by cooking for them.  The people who give him the resources he needs are operating under the same conditions.  The farmers who grow his produce and the wineries that provide his wine, the business managers who help him run his business, all have their own and their employees' material necessities taken care of.  That is what I think is meant by humanity not neing obsessed with the acquisition of wealth.  It does not mean a return to a barter system that is just totally impractical for a large-scale economy.

[Cmdr Laura Issia 0]

Can I be a stick in the mud and raise the question of jobs that nobody in their right mind actually wants to do?  You know, those utterly mindless, repetitive ones?  Sure, I bet a lot of them have been taken over by machines, but that just creates new incredibly mind-numbing jobs -- like the person who gets to sit in a lonely control booth in the middle of a junkyard keeping one eye on the monitors to make sure none of the machines taking the stuff apart have decided to go berserk.  You're going to tell me somebody volunteers to do that for the good of society?

[LoAmi 0]

Good point and I was thinking about that while I was writing it.  Basically, the only answer I could come up with was: if a computer could practically run a starship, it can't do the menial labor involved in making menial labor easier?

 

It sort of reminds me of some lab work I did.  First, I set up this elaborate data analysis system that must have required 100 or so not-so-obvious keypresses to get it to work right.  Then, after two weeks, I had programmed some macros reducing the number of keypresses to 4 (the numbers 1,2,3 and 4) and only requiring keypresses when a decision had to be made.  In other words, I had converted complicated (but annoying) labor into work a monkey could (almost) do.  Maybe menial tasks work like that in 24th century: find someone to figure out how to get it automated, and after that, it's his business to support it.

[Guest STSF Dacotah]

Or, find a highly trained monkey.  I'm sure we have one around here somewhere   ::):  

 

Dac

[FredM 0]

Or, find a highly trained monkey.  I'm sure we have one around here somewhere   ::):  

 

Dac

So that's Atragon's new job.....interesting....

[Cmdr Laura Issia 0]

You still need someone to make those decisions, though.  And in some ways, by automating it to that extent, you've increased the boredom factor, because now you have extensive periods of time with nothing to do, rather than have a task to focus your attention.

[LoAmi 0]

You still need someone to make those decisions, though.  And in some ways, by automating it to that extent, you've increased the boredom factor, because now you have extensive periods of time with nothing to do, rather than have a task to focus your attention.

Actually, no: (1) the chance of procedural error is reduced (2) the only step with human involvement is the decision - the part that requires some intelligence (well, truth be told, it would've just required a much more complicated program that the macro language couldn't handle), so the computer couldn't do it (3) since the computer could do O(100) operations much faster than a human, the downtime and boredom time was reduced, because the only thing taking up time was the decision (and recording results).  This is not true for all cases of automation, but, ST computers seem to be able to understand natural language pretty well - including the context of the language - they could probably get around doing menial tasks a lot better than today's computers, and certainly a lot better than the particular lab software I happened to be using.  

 

Another possibility: developing the ability to do a job takes time and practice.  Maybe employment in the Federation works more like an apprenticeship system, where people who want to get in to a business (and succeed at it) take on the smaller, more menial roles, with the goal of advancing to the next highest position.