Enterprise is currently set in the year 2152. According to Tom Paris, "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." My impression is that he is speaking about economy of the Federation, won't you agree?
So, my question is: where's the money in the Enterprise? Logically speaking, Enterprise is rather not a charity ship, so they should receive some kind of payment. That was especially visible (or, rather, invisible) in "Two Days and Two Nights".
Oh well, yet another tiny thing that Berman and Braga forgot (this time I think they really simply forgot that there still may be some money-based economy in that era).
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
As Douglas Adams so keenly pointed out, bars on Antares don't take American Express. Or even Visa.
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
Not to mention that currency in some form at least survives into the mid- to late-23rd century.
Take the on screen evidence.
In "Errand of Mercy." While planning on what to do about the Klingon incursion on Organia, Kirk tells Spock, "The Federation's invested a lot of money into our training, it's time to pay up."
In "The Apple." Kirk tells Scotty, "You've earned your pay for the week."
Not to mention the charge of "credits" for merchandise in "The Trouble with Tribbles."
The famous line from "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," adds to the confusion of the economy of the Federation.
quote: Taylor I supposed you don't use money in the 23rd Century.
Kirk We don't.
It is often used as confirmation that the Federation does not have a monetary system. Yet, it could also be taken to mean that they don't use hard currency like cash.
Does anyone know when or whereabouts Roddenberry decided explicitly that the Federation does not use money as we know it? Was it with TNG? Or does it go back further, perhaps the development of "Phase: II?"
quote: Originally posted by Kazeite: According to Tom Paris, "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." My impression is that he is speaking about economy of the Federation, won't you agree?
Also, Paris could've been referring to the economy of the newly unified Earth in that line, which would've or could've abolished the American dollar. Thus the need no longer for Fort Knox.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: In "The Apple." Kirk tells Scotty, "You've earned your pay for the week."
I think that this falls in line as an idiom, more so than it does to finances. That Scotty's accomplishment was as valuable to the Captain, in that one instance, as what the Captain may normally expect of him for a particular week or mission or whathaveya. To say "You've earned your pay for the week" rather than saying, "You did an exceptional job, Scotty!" seems to be the meaning Kirk really intended.
quote: The famous line from "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," adds to the confusion of the economy of the Federation. Taylor I supposed you don't use money in the 23rd Century.
Kirk We don't. It is often used as confirmation that the Federation does not have a monetary system. Yet, it could also be taken to mean that they don't use hard currency like cash.
I agree, I think that its not that they carry wallets and purses and fanny packs around with their cold hard cash like we do nowadays; they would more than likely have some sort of database with smartchip technology or a credit card/account which holds some sort of 'universal credits' which anything they acquire requiring said 'credits' can be debited from. Similar to say Quarks voucher system we see in DS9/"First Born"(TNG), or at least, that is an example of how one form of finances is dealt with.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: In "The Apple." Kirk tells Scotty, "You've earned your pay for the week."
I think that this falls in line as an idiom, more so than it does to finances. That Scotty's accomplishment was as valuable to the Captain, in that one instance, as what the Captain may normally expect of him for a particular week or mission or whathaveya. To say "You've earned your pay for the week" rather than saying, "You did an exceptional job, Scotty!" seems to be the meaning Kirk really intended.
except in that same episode, Spock states how much has been invested in his career in Starfleet.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
It might be safe to say that money goes out not by disappearing from the face of earth all at once, but by gradually mutating to or spawning new forms. Which, come to think of it, is more or less what happened to the dinosaurs.
The Kirk era meanings of "to pay", "to be paid", "to cost", "to buy", "to sell" might be incomprehensible to the 21st century audience. Kirk in turn might not understand the concept of paying for food, even if he pays for those antique firearms on the walls of his nice apartment. "Next you claim you pay for electricity, too?"
The Archer era would have concepts more familiar to us, but still on their way to mutating into something weird. And people gallivanting around in a starship would be the last to learn about those developments, of course.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: except in that same episode, Spock states how much has been invested in his career in Starfleet.
Investing has more meanings than where you put your money....in the same sense Starfleet and Picard invested a lot into Ro Laren too, ya know....
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:"The Apple"
KIRK "Do you know how much Starfleet has invested in you?" SPOCK "One hundred, twenty-two thousand, two hundred..." KIRK "Nevermind.. but thanks."
quote:"Errand of Mercy"
KIRK "Starfleet has invested a great deal of money in our training. They're about due for a small return."
I can also point out the shenanigans in the K-7 bar about paying for things, Beverly Crusher having the roll of cloth billed to her ship in "Encounter at Farpoint", etc..
and that's only the more tangible ones.. leaving out the "I'd give real money if he'd shut up.." kind of lines..
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike:
quote:"The Apple"
KIRK "Do you know how much Starfleet has invested in you?" SPOCK "One hundred twenty-two thousand, two hundred..." KIRK "Nevermind.. but thanks."
quote:"Errand of Mercy"
KIRK "Starfleet has invested a great deal of money in our training. They're about due for a small return."
I can also point out the shenanigans in the K-7 bar about paying for things, Beverly Crusher having the roll of cloth billed to her ship in "Encounter at Farpoint", etc..
and that's only the more tangible ones.. leaving out the "I'd give real money if he'd shut up.." kind of lines..
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
!?
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
He's in line for quoting himself
I guess I see your point...but I still think that they have evolved to other forms of currency or investments that calculate to "credits" or what have ya...outside of the tangable "gold" and later, "latinum".
Even today isn't there work on systems to just pick something up and you just tell them your name and they automatically bill your account without any exchange of currency? Even if in the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th Centuries this exists in a more evolved form they may still call it "money" even though they aren't getting a paycheck in hand.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Ah, yes, our future perhaps?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
There can still be explicit mentions of "money", even if the Federation doesn't use it. A person may not need money on an everyday basis, because they're provided w/ housing, food, etc., but money would still exist in the galaxy for the purposes of buying things off interstellar traders an such.
Probably when Crusher bought her cloth, or people bought things on K-7, it was some sort of credits system a lot like electronic money today, only not thought of as "money".
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Money (or 'credits') are probably still the best way to trade stuff. My primitive 21st century brain says that it's a lot easier trading for credits, then with goats or salt.
I assume you don't have to pay for food, energy, housing, health care and other commodities. But you possibly DO have to 'pay' for rare or just expensive things, like owning a personal starship/shuttle, or using Starfleet cargo bays (like mentioned in the DS9TM). But it is probably just a way to somewhat control the supply/demand issues. If anyone could just get their hands on a shuttle, or if anyone could just store their goods in a Starfleet cargo bay, you run into problems.
That leaves the question of where/how you acquire credits. Possibly only by trading goods/services, and that those credits are only for the faceless organization, and not for any particular person.
Did that make any sense at all?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
my own personal theory is some sort of socialized capitalism..
theoretically, if you eliminated the need to work in exchange for goods and services you need to survive, people would of course stop working and society would collapse..
but everyone always says, that the humans work not for their livelihood, but to better themselves, and that money is not an issue (i dismiss everytime a Trek character says 'we don't need money' as a translation of 'money is not necessary for survival'.. basically that there is money, but not everyone chooses to employ it)
so food.. we've seen the Replimat, which is replicators that give out free food to whoever wants it.. presumably you can get free food, water and oxygen, pending availability, anywhere in the 'civilized' Federation.. housing always seems plentiful too, i'm sure that if you file as a citizen you can request free housing to be assigned to you.. this eliminates the basic needs of life, food and shelter.
But what if you want really nice food? or non-replicated food? or a really nice house? you've got to work for the credits to buy it. So you could accept a small piece of basic housing assigned to you by the local government of wherever you live, or you could work and receive a salary until your credit rating rates you getting a bigger one.
this knocks the bottom rung off the socio-economic ladder, there would be no starvation or homelessness. But people would still compete for the higher valued amenities.
And those that are sick of the liberal handout system would of course go out and colonize new worlds where there is more of a struggle to survive.
And since security isnt guaranteed in this system, it still leaves an opening for those that want to join the quasi-military armed exploration forces, for filling the role of the planets protection.
We've seen what happens on Trek when people work because of wanting to rather than needing to, Richard Bashir hops from job to job doing whatever catches his fancy, serving on a passenger starship, being an architect, etc etc.. he works to satisfy himself, not to satisfy his needs. but weve seen that through his work he was able to purchase genetic engineering for Jules, so obviously he wasnt just lazing about on Earth in the 'taking the handout' class.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't think we're thinking big enough. In a post-scarcity world (that is, for most goods and services), things like gift economies or reputation economies start to look much more attractive, especially if one has enough processing power to keep track of all the relevant information.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Also, think about Sisko's. He'd have to pay for all the food he brings in, and his customers probably pay something for meals.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Good point...
I wonder what PETA is up to by that time, considering the various meat products he would have there. Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I think Timo and Harry have it - but I don't think they're thinking big enough yet.
This system of economics would apply for all Federation member planets. It may well be one of the main criteria for membership - setting up an advanced and enlightened economy (obviously, a planet would need a world government first). And you'd need a highly-industrialized tech base to implement it.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
Anyone read Ken MacLeod? Most of Earth in The Cassini Division might be a decent model. I've never read any of the other Fall Revolution novels, so I don't know if they all feature that particular economy. For that matter, how about Ursula LeGuin's anarchosocialism in The Dispossessed, minus the anarchy? There are countless post-capitalist money-free economies in non-Trek sf.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Re: MacLeod: I believe each book is set in a different location.
I think a better example would be Banks' Culture, which is a bit like what the Federation might be if it let its hair down.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, the four MacLeod Fall Revolution books form a rough series, with The Star Fraction being a sort-of precursor, followed by The Stone Canal and ending with The Cassini Division; the fourth book, The Sky Road, is a parallel-universe to what might have come about by TCD. Only in TCD is the post-libertarian anarchy really mentioned or described in depth.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I think a better example would be Banks' Culture, which is a bit like what the Federation might be if it let its hair down.
Banks is next up on my reading list... never read him before.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
It occurs to me, if Earth in 2150 is still using money, that the NX-01's mission is probably costing a lot. Could we see the rise of some sort of Proxmire figure, criticising the policy of exploration?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'd think that the first requirement for daring to claim that poverty has been eliminated would be to make social security independent of things like defense spending. That is, no matter what your overall budget, social security is fixed, secured, *sacred*: let your defenses fall, your labs shut down, but never ever let the soup, soap and salivation run out (or the taxes rise even a smidgen).
This would take a bit of oomph out of complaints that defense/science/infrastructure spending is eating up funds, because it would be eating up funds from other defense/science/infrastructure spending only. The anti-exploration faction couldn't point to Lil' Orphan Tim with the missing eye and three wooden legs when fishing for sympathy - the money going to "nonessentials" would be away from the same "nonessentials". Which of course wouldn't remove budgetary tugs-of-war, but would make them less emotional in the populist sense. And less appealing for dramatic presentation.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: I'd think that the first requirement for daring to claim that poverty has been eliminated would be to make social security independent of things like defense spending. That is, no matter what your overall budget
Budget, my shiny rear... The only way to get rid of poverty is to make social security self-sufficient, the only way to do that is to make every member of the society self-sufficient.
I think that a third world war and nuclear holocaust would teach a significant portion of the world's population to be self-sufficient, and the rest [living in an incredibly awful world without much of a support mechanism] would fall to the way side. When there is no longer a portion of society draining the resources from the rest [social security and other welfare programs] you free up a significant portion of the society's resources--- programs concerning exploration become quite a bit more compatible with everyone's world view, leaving separatists and isolationists to argue with.
It's not a matter of separating the funds of the different types of programs it's a matter of completely erasing the need for such programs. Defense will always be necessary because there will be an unknown out there that might harm [whether that be a natural disaster, a war, or criminal activity, defense is necessary]. Social programs will not always be necessary, even the original champion said that such programs were temporary to get people out of the Depression [paraphrase FDR].
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Cutting money for social security is what leads men to live in wheelchairs with only a blinking light to communicate with.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Delayed response to topic title:
"I don't know, but Cuba Gooding Jr. is looking for it too!"
or
"In Cuba Gooding Jr's pants!"
or
"HAHA! LIKE CUBA GOODING JR!"
or
"BEACAUS OF JARRY MAGWIER!111 DONT YUO GET TI!?!1 I MAEN WAHT IS TEH DEAL!?1"
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Cutting money for social security is what leads men to live in wheelchairs with only a blinking light to communicate with.
I'd beg to differ... Pike wouldn't be alive if not for the Federation's government care. In the beginning of course both freeloader and legitimate would have been at a loss [this would have been prior to Enterprise], but people's senses would return to them and those who have legitimate problems would again receive support [This would be during Enterprise, though some people would still have problems... by TOS it would be normal, so Pike's situation was the best the Federation could provide for his condition (remember Pike was extremely injured, he should have died)].
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Blip!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It was more a "Bleep", or a "Boop".
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: It was more a "Bleep", or a "Boop".
A cutting edge effect either way.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Well this point is almost interesting enough to resurrect this thread, moreso than the DS9 DVD thread. I know its not exactly about Enterprise, but, oh well...
In "Explorers" while Ben and Jake were talking about Ben's first year at SF Academy, Ben said that during the first few days&weeks he was homesick and that he would transport home every night at 6pm for dinner as if he was still living there. Jake then said, "You must have used up a months worth of transporter credits", apparently suggesting that on Earth each person/family has an allotment of 'transporter credits' per month.
Maybe this opens up a few doors on those topics.
I guess the questions would be why there would be such an allotment on anything, as I cannot believe there would be any sort of shortage of power due to transporter consumption on Earth, considering how freely it is used aboard starships throughout TNG and beyond. Having transporter credits or even limiting or defining how many time you use a transporter seems to give the Federation a sort of Socialistic approach.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Since Sisko was a cadet at the time, it's very reasonable to assume that the Academy rationed the freedom of cadets based on performance. Restricting travel time based on an allowance of transporter credits would require cadets to spend more time on Academy grounds, and foster bonding with their fellow cadets.
My point is, since Sisko was involved in a military organization at the time, it probably explains the terminology without touching much on "every-day" use by civilians.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Alternatively, the transport requirements of a bunch of people living on a starship is going to be very different to the transport requirements for a bunch of people living on a planet.
Everyone on a starship lived where they worked, and lived where they played. They didn't need to transport on a daily basis.
People on planets though might not feel like catching the hover tram to go and see Uncle Phil when they could just beam there.
And when you consider that a crew of a thousand had at least 20 transporter rooms (my memory fails), imagine how much a planet of 9 billion odd would need.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
The Enterprise's transporter complement (how ever many you believe the ship had) was probably to facilitate quickly loading or unloading cargo, crew, refugees, etcetra. If you've got a crew of 1,000, and the ship is about to explode, and each transporter can handle up to six people, you could reasonably expect to evacuate the entire crew in a matter of seconds. OTOH, if you've got to evaccuate a bunch of people from a world or from another starship, you could quite quickly do so with the transporter resources of the Enterprise.
All I'm saying is, again, that the useage of transporters in the military probably isn't representative of civilian life in the Federation. Starfleet might demand a ratio of one transporter for every 50 people on a Galaxy-Class starship, but the Federation Transportation Administration might not.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: If you've got a crew of 1,000, and the ship is about to explode, and each transporter can handle up to six people, you could reasonably expect to evacuate the entire crew in a matter of seconds. OTOH, if you've got to evaccuate a bunch of people from a world or from another starship, you could quite quickly do so with the transporter resources of the Enterprise.
Maybe, except I don't think that's quite how episodes show it. In "11001001" it certainly took longer than seconds to evacuate the crew, and I'm sure there's at least one episode where the crew talk of evacuating the people on a planet, and Worf mentions that it would take days, or even weeks.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes, I know. Of course, post-1100101, the number of transporter rooms went from 20 to 6. And if you'll notice in 1100101, at one point, with a line of people out the transporter room door, there are only FIVE on the pad waiting to be beamed out. Seems like some transporter operators needed to be slapped around a bit. "Hello, we're trying to evac the ship, beam as many as you can off at the same time, m'kay?"
Also as regards evacuations, you've also got to factor in providing living spaces for the evacuees aboard ship. I mean, you could just start beaming up people six at a time and shoving them into the corridor, but it strikes me that there is probably some sort of procedure for the Enterprise to follow to accomodate thousands of evaccuees aboard -- i.e., setting up bunkbeds in cargo holds, cots in the corridors, etc. So while it might theoretically be possible to beam up 36 people per transporter room per minute (assuming one cycle lasted ten seconds, including getting the people out of the transporter room, and could bring up six people every round), bringing seven hundred and twenty people aboard every minute would facilitate some sort of "where we gonna put 'em" system beyond "shove 'em into the corridor" because at that rate, the corridor is going to get filled pretty damn fast.
OTOH, consider that if the USS Arizona is getting shot up by Zeroes, the Enterprise could drop her shields and every ten seconds transport one hundred and twenty friendly crewmen aboard.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i've timed the scenes from 11001001.. the evac takes a helluva lot longer than the 3-5 minutes they said it did.. Geordi and Data even spent some time for chit-chat before they were the last ones to beam off
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And people were also walking off the ship in that situation too.
There might be some other reason why they can't simply run 100% of the transporters at 100% capacity as often as possible. Maybe they overheat?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
bandwidth.
you're converting people to data right? the emitters are like people-modems.. upload time can be a bitch, and if it's not quick enough the signal degrades and they end up like that good lad Matt Franklin.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Concerning Sisko's transporter credits, that may have been just an educational restriction.
Still, the general problem of availability remains. If people travel as frequently as in our times, several million transporters would have to run all the time, with several million people operating and servicing them, consuming huge amounts of energy that must come from somewhere.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I really don't think most people use a transporter to get from Typical Destination A to Typical Destination B. Or at least, I wouldn't. The journey is half the fun. Mind you, I live out in the country. If I had to deal with gridlock on a daily basis I could see how my attitude might be different. Of course, we've seen so little of your average Federation township that we're pretty much free to imagine it organized along whatever lines we like.
As far as energy goes, the Federation surely has a lot of it. Were it up to me to make such decisions, I'd say they probably harvest huge amounts of solar energy. (Really efficient solar cells should be child's play to people with transporters and warp drives.) Pave Mercury with them and use your fancy power transmission techniques to juice up the solar system. (Juice up?) Or just build a nice thick cloud of independantly orbiting solar collectors. You can tell a Federation world because its primary is 5% dimmer than it should be. And so on.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
But transporters are a peripheral concern, we were talking about cold-hard cash-money. What do people here think about the concept of Meritocracies? Not, like, with regard to rule as the 'cracy' would lead you to believe but in the 'ism' sense of this is how people get things for themselves and their families and how they distinguish themselves as worthier mates, etc.
Perhaps because it's in Bernd's sig, but it got me thinking that Barclay's might be a good example to take up. He's Starfleet but he's not living on a starship, he's got a day job. Clearly from VOY he's a sporadically excellent engineer. But his holo-addiction nearly gets him 'fired' from his job. If he lost this job would he also lose his INCREDIBLE split-level apartment in SF with that impossible view (that would in actuality right now go for about $12 Million a month). Would he lose other priveleges? Is Starfleet a meritocracy, not in the sense that people's positions and priveleges are assigned by their IQs, but by their accomplishments and efforts? Is that even a Meritocracy/ism? What's a gift-economy? What's a reputation-economy? What kind of 'ocracy/'ism would the Federation be?
Incidentally, my curiosity isn't entirely speculative. I'm developing a series of my own and I'm still researching and puzzling out the way the money works. It's supposed to be all egalitarian and utopian and semi-anarchosocialist, but ugly humanity has twisted it all up (as humanity inevitably will) and so the class barriers and caste-systems still exist. So understanding the Federation would go a ways. Please kindly lend me your insights and help me, oh smarter and better educated ones than me.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
A few science fiction examples of post-scarcity economies:
I guess the Neo-Victorians from The Diamond Age might qualify. I should note that I haven't read either Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom or any of Iain Banks' Culture novels.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"Is Starfleet a meritocracy, not in the sense that people's positions and priveleges are assigned by their IQs, but by their accomplishments and efforts?"
This is one slippery slope (slope? a fucking precipice) I'm reeeally hesitant to go down, but... uh... Reginald Barclay v1.0, for all his social ineptitude, could arguably accomplish more with less effort than Julian Bashir v1.0 could have...
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: This is one slippery slope (slope? a fucking precipice)...
Hey! Is that an asian/affirmative-action/meritocracy slam? No, but, like, where I'd hoped these questions might foster spurious and heated (and occasionally dorky) debate over the definition of meritocracy and the qualities and properties which might constitute the delicate balance of an egalitarian (but still free) society, instead the crickets have become deafening.
Big thanks unto you, Simon as I found both links to be very illuminating/thought-provoking. I may wind up reading that Disneyworld book. Banks is very much into himself (with some refreshing acknowledgements of his artifice), but it's still the Culture is a cool idea. People who read are cool.
As to Cartmaniac's comment, I'm not sure I understand your point. My intellect has not been genetically enhanced and 30 years of American TV have done nothing to help this fact. Are you saying that Barclay's remarkable (if inconsistent) engineering capacity earned him the stellar dream-lofted apartment in SF, where Julian's still-impressive (if GMO) medical prowess only earned him the dark and dirty hovel he occupied on a backward out-of-the-way Deep Space Outpost and what does this say about Federation accomplishment/effort valuation?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"Maneki Neko," a story by Bruce Sterling, may also be of some interest.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
bX: what I was surreptitiously getting at was, and this is a very PIC thing to say hence my scenic approach to the issue, that IQ and accomplishments go hand in hand more often than not. Bashir's GE spurred his abilities in, well, EVERYTHING, whereas Barclay's were always there but obscured by his diffidence... every meritocracy would inevitably be biased towards, uh, Bay Area residents.
[ June 28, 2003, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Of course, the very concept of "IQ" is biased to begin with...
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Well I wouldn't imagine Starfleet would be using anything so crude as IQ as a basis for merit. It might be some ratio of capacity and accomplishment. So that if I've got an IQ of 85 (purely for sake of argument, say) but I've got an uncanny capacity for high-warp field dynamics and so Starfleet's got me working on hyper-optimal nacelle geometry and sets me up in a cushy penthouse apartment in the Marina and keeps me in edible crayons and bunnies (such soft, fluffy bunnies) or whatever else it is that keeps me happy/working. And meanwhile Julian's lesser known (well unknown, really) brother Michael "call me Mike" Bashir (who has also been upgraded) has focused on researching how to make various funghi respond (via coloration or fluorescence) to the moods of those around them. He gets a modest place with a porch in a small town whose name sounds disturbingly like some horrible glandular disease.
And then there's Deke Luc Picard (who stumbled through one of those countless portals that seem to appear from the alternate timeline where Crusher-on-Picard had finally been allowed to run it's course.) And Deke with his mastery over his father's "Inner Light" flute hires an ultra-hip string quartet and an old blind guy named "Cranberry" who can play the harmonica and hoots a lot and together they are all big and cool and play all the big halls and have put out five or so fairly decent albums that nearly everyone enjoys and continues to be downloaded more often than any band Simon has ever truly adored. Where does Deke get to live? What happens when Deke puts out that inevitable 'experimental' album and no one downloads it and rather than chalking it up, he instead he snubs his band-mates, goes all Sting and starts bragging about how eastern mysticism has improved his sex-life and what is worse makes seven more successively more self-indulgent albums which even the hard-core fans are kind of embarassed about having in their PADDs? Does he lose his choice three-story mansion in Old-town New New Orleans?
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
There can't be a fair system of assigning those beach condos, man. A talent/achievement ratio? Maybe, but what happens when you don't deliver? Do you then have to haul your luxury-bathing ass down to a murky old place in Chinatown or face forceful relocation by SF's Uber-Egalitarian Housing Corporation? It's all skewed.
[ July 02, 2003, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Since the Federation is supposed to be a utopia, (Or at least utopic. Is that even a word? Utopia-like. Utopia-esque. A really nice place to live, let's say.) however it distributes wealth can be assumed to be at least as fair as your average western post-industrial nation, and surely many times more fair than that. I mean, assuming we take the show at its word.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
So then no one lives in Yakima or Livermore or Tempe or Mogadishu or wherever unless they want to or it's convenient for work or whatever (although without raising the spectre of transporter rations, convenient and commute have ENTIRELY different meanings) And so everything is good and happy and let's say your production is down, they're not going to take away your house and make you move to Mississippi. I mean maybe if you steadfastly refuse to do a single thing, like not just temporarily slacking off, but actively fucking off. But a dip in the inspiration or motivation or whatever just means you don't get that Risan holiday or the massage therapist visits or holodeck sessions or whatever barter you might be wanting.
It's difficult. Trying to think of how this might work without money or credits or whatever. I'm just trying to puzzle it out. It's obviously not all apartment switching. It's a question of motivation. At some point there needs to be day-to-day incentives to become better and more productive members of the society (and possibly punishments for non-contributors.) Otherwise what's to keep people from just fucking-off and replicating fudge sundays, and getting off with holo-pron all day? I mean aside from an over-arching desire for achievement and advancement ingrained in every child's mind since birth and the profound disapproval of your peers.
Could it be as simple as that? Who gets to decide where you live? A housing authority? What keeps them from asigning themselves and their family all the really nice mansions while everyone else gets the crap places? Who gets to decide what clothes you'll have? Which shuttlecraft you'll own? Which movies get made, and which ones don't? Which houses to build? What technology? Restaurants? Concerts? How do they quantify demand? How do they determine what to supply (and to whom)? What makes me get out of bed every morning, even when it's going to be really fucking hot and even though my very hot mate (non-gender specific) has just purchased new and sexy underthings? What makes me get up and go to work, to serve, to bring food to the tables at the restaurant, or to program the robots that wash the windows at the Academy or to fix the transporter? Why would I go do that?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
There HAS to be some for of "fee for services" concept,. Perhaps it works like my SSI & state benefits: there's a fixed amount of X allotted to each person based upon their situation. X amount of transported credits, X amount of energy credits, X amount of food credits. These can be spent but once it's gone, it's gone until the next month. Maybe it's a big pot so if you don't eat a lot but need to beam a lot of places, you can skew things that way.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I get the feeling that this conversation has taken a wrong turn somewhere, but I can't put my finger on where. Anyway.
Some basic facts, as I see them.
1.) Human beings are value-seeking and -laden entities. This is just a complicated way of saying they want things and they want them for reasons, I guess. These values are by and large assigned internally, having been, it seems, internalized via the evolutionary process. Survival is a Good Thing, how do I maximize it? And so on.
2.) Any particular area can only have so much in the way of resources, or, uh, items "pregnant" with value. This is why we find some things more valuable than others.
Neither of these things are likely to change. But within them, values are changing all the time. As the ways in which we interact with value evolves, so do our concepts of value itself.
Money is just one method of tracking the value people assign to things. Its ubiquity is a sign of its usefulness and accuracy. But that's tied to our current social, technological, and economic environment. As our values change, and the way we interact and modify goods changes, we could very well wind up with some "score keeping" system that would seem as weird and convoluted to us today as a trip to First National would to the first people to move into Ur.
My suspicion is that we'll never consider ourselves to have moved "beyond money," because money is just a good word to use for our value-measuring whatsits. But just what that measuring consists of can surely change wildly.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Well, thought it was time to re-resurrect this thread once again.
Today while at Barnes & Noble I saw the "Star Trek TNG: The Continuing Mission" and was looking at some of the Okudagrams, and granted they walk the line more than they draw it, but I did notice one thing as far as forms of currency used within the Federation, the example being from "The Price" and part of their offer to the Barzans for use of their wormhole.
And I quote:
quote: Key Provisions: Lump sum payment of 1,500,000 Federation credits to be made upon conclusion of agrement, 100,000 credits per Barzanian year thereafter.
So back to the 'credits' theory again... Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
In addition to my last post, I found, from "A Piece of the Action" (TOS):
quote: KIRK: I don't want any trouble from the rest of you ... because you'll have to answer to the Federation. We'll be back every year to collect our cut. You figure maybe 40% is enough?
OXMYX: Yeah, I think 40% is sufficient.
--------------------------------------------
SPOCK: But I do have reservations about your solution to the problem of the Iotians.
KIRK: Ah, yes. I understand that. You don't think it's logical to leave a criminal organization in charge?
SPOCK: Highly irregular, to say the least, Captain. I'm also curious as to how you propose to explain to Starfleet Command that a starship will be sent each year to collect our "cut"?
KIRK: A very good question, Mr. Spock. I propose our cut be put into the planetary treasury and used to guide the Iotians into a more ethical system. Despite themselves, they'll be forced to accept conventional responsibilities.
So now, apparently, StarFleet/UFP/Earth has a "planetary treasury"...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
No, you fool, he meant the IOTIAN treasury. It's obviously a money-based system, therefore...
Seriously. The leaps & rationalizations are here are verging on Kryptonian in nature & power.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
I'm just listing all financial references from Trek...thats what this whole thread is moreless about. Like how SF has 120,200+ credits invested in Spock....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The Price reference is different because it refers (as references tend to) to an external use of money, rather than an internal. We have seen plenty of times that the Federation trades with other planets and powers. Now, it could simply offer a list of items, services and whatnot, but it could also simpify it into a monetary equivelent.
If you want, you could even imply this is a new thing. Perhaps the Ferengi, when they got active in the Alpha Quadrant, assigned "credit" ratings to all the superpowers? If we assume that the Ferengi are good at that sort of thing (and all indications are that they are), perhaps the other powers picked it up and used it?
Or it could be something else entirely. Perhaps a Federation Credit = one solar generator, or a single cow. But you need SOMETHING to trade with, and that means that the Federation has to have some item or service that it can offer better than other races. And vice versa.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Not sure if anyone posted this (not gonna go back and read through 5 pages to do it), but I thought this might be a quirk in the 'no money in the future' bit.
From ST: Generations
KIRK Looks like someone was cooking eggs...
(to Picard) Come on in, it's all right. This is my house -- or at least it used to be, I **sold** it years ago.
Posted by Dr Phlox (Member # 680) on :
They have2have Money because without money there's no economy as DUBya has shown us. What about latinum? Starfleet officers could also have credits.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
quote:They have2have Money because without money there's no economy as DUBya has shown us.
Take that, interesting thread!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ahkileez: (to Picard) Come on in, it's all right. This is my house -- or at least it used to be, I **sold** it years ago.
That could just be a language holdover, like, er, other ones...
Saying "I gave the property to someone" sounds confusing and communist.
Posted by Dr Phlox (Member # 680) on :
Ultra Magnus big ups for actually reading the post. U are the ultra man. ---------------- Axel Foley: Don't you think I realize what's going on here, miss? Who do you think I am, huh? Don't you think I know that if I was some hotshot from out of town that pulled inside here and you guys made a reservation mistake, I'd be the first one to get a room and I'd be upstairs relaxing right now. But I'm not some hotshot from out of town, I'm a small reporter from "Rolling Stone" magazine that's in town to do an exclusive interview with Michael Jackson that's gonna be picked up by every major magazine in the country. I was gonna call the article "Michael Jackson Is Sitting On Top of the World," but now I think I might as well just call it "Michael Jackson Can Sit On Top of the World Just As Long As He Doesn't Sit in the Beverly Palm Hotel 'Cause There's No Niggers Allowed in There!"
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
And you need to learn to spell stuff out ... like "you" instead of "u" ... and knock off that sig already, it's damn annoying.
Posted by Dr Phlox (Member # 680) on :
Looky here if Y-O-U don't like the way I express myself I'm sorry this is a forum and a forum is for people to express their views.Now if view is a little deepfried u need to live with it and stop gettin Y-O-U-R pannies up in a bunch. Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Aw, did I hurt your feelings? Good. You'll find we here on Flare don't really, well, gosh, like "l337" people who apparently operate under the line of thought: "I'm so leet I don't have to type out words, I can say '2' and 'u' and other silly stuff." Look at UM for a fantastic send-up of this phenomena.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Pannies?
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Phlox: Looky here if Y-O-U don't like the way I express myself I'm sorry this is a forum and a forum is for people to express their views.Now if view is a little deepfried u need to live with it and stop gettin Y-O-U-R pannies up in a bunch.
I dont think being lazy spelling "you" and "two", "too" or "to" has anything to do with expressing views in a forum about Star Trek...it has to do with writing like a junior higher, perhaps the Care Bear forum would better suit you....
Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
wait, im forgetting which Phlox is the cool one..
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Full Stop Phlox is the one who writes as if he actually read a book more advanced than "See Janeway. See Janeway shout. See Janeway act moody. See Janeway change personality."
Period Phlox is the one who writes as if he is some strange offspring of man and twat.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Other way 'round.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Not quite. Full Stop Phlox is right, whereas Period Phlox should be "No Period Phlox".
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)