Star Trek Economy

[Dr Strangelove]

The big question is what would happen to civilization in a society in which work might be optional. Would pople reaslly be happy or would it be some sort of punk nightmare. Personally I think it would be a lot like "A Clockwork Orange".

[Dis]

Originally posted by alva
It's about doing work one would actually enjoy, nothing to do with 'commie crap'

not everyone can do work they enjoy. Yes, even in Star Trek.

Too many people want to do the same thing.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The big question is what would happen to civilization in a society in which work might be optional. Would pople reaslly be happy or would it be some sort of punk nightmare. Personally I think it would be a lot like "A Clockwork Orange".

What I want to know, is what happens to all the white trash in the Star Trek universe.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Dissident


What I want to know, is what happens to all the white trash in the Star Trek universe.

They get re-programmed. It's Star Fleet's dirty little secret.

[DRoseDARs]

[TREK GEEK]
The thing you have to remember is that in the Star Trek universe, their economy wasn't a transition from our existing one to their utopian. World War III was the transition. Earth's economy was decimated, though not completely destroyed. With the help of the Vulcans, they managed to switch over economies after a time with greater ease than would otherwise happen. Once the Federation's charter was adopted, other races either emulated Earth's new economy or adjusted their's to be sufficiently compatible.
[\TREK GEEK]

Speaking of which, I have to go to work now.

[Dis]

you know what would be cool. A star trek movie that actually shows WW3

Sure it wouldn't involve space ships or warp travel. I'd just like to see the war

[Lonestar]

Trek is not only a communist society, but it's not even a Utopian one.

[Pythagoras]

Most things are taken care of with replicators.

Some things, however, cannot be replicated (authentic things, uncommon substances) these things still retain economic value. Hence trade, Ferengi, and gold plated whatchamacallit on DS9. Still, I think the level is to the point of barter for the most part, hence there is no official currency.

Even if you didn't ration by price, you would have to ration by some other means. For instance, the commies try to ration by force.

Good question, first I think in a stable, (mostly) non agricultural society, the population growth at places like Earth would stabilize. Look at the U.S. today vs more agricultural societies. The average U.S. family has 2.5 (maybe fewer these days) kids. The agricultural society prizes cheap labor, hence more kids.

Anywho, if most things are free, would property still serve a purpose aside from being a residence? I mean if my property is my store or farm in an economy where its products are valued, well sure, its worth something. But in ST? I'd think property was something owned by an individual who could give it (and bequeth it) to whomever he/she wishes. If it happens to be worth something, maybe they can barter for some gold-plated whatchamajiggers or other non-replicatable items.

Of course, I don't think that anything happening in Voyager and Enterprise should be considered canon. I'm sure they complicate the picture with their overt inconsistancies.

Bottom line, trek is not communist IMO, its a barter economy where most things are already provided almost freely, and the barter is just for those that cannot be replicated.

[Dis]

TNG is what complicates things. The other series had barter (not sure about Voyager- I never watched that pile of crap) and currency.

But here's the kicker. TNG also had property. Remember when Picard was back in France picking grapes for making wine in the final episode? This was the same land his family had run for generations.

So obviously land ownership still exists- even in a TNG society with no money.

This means some people like Picards family are going to have more land than the average Joe. Would this not breed discontent and jealousy?

Although TNG counters this by saying humans have evolved and grown to not value material objects, and don't get jealous. Which is a load of bull, but that's the plot device they used.

TOS didn't have currency that I can recall, but they are military. Currency isn't a big concern in the military (except for spending money when you are off duty- not a concern for Kirk- who did what he wanted anyways ) TOS didn't really mention what life was for regular civilians. Although in the movie ST IV: the voyage home, it is shown Kirk has no understanding of currency. So perhaps TOS is also a society without money. The distinction to make here is they did not have replicators in TOS- they did not come until TNG.

But TNG did illustrate what life was like for regular civilians. Remember the episode where they revive the people in cryogenic storage in that space capsule? And the one business man was anxious to get back into the "action". That's the episode that really ruins TNG. Tha'ts the episode where they explain they have no money, and humans evolved to work for the sole puprose of self improvement.

[GePap]

Economics is the question of the distribution of goods. If energy became for all intents and purposes limitless, people would no longer need to work for subsistance since in theory, everyone could be given all the energy they ever needed. Can energy be made infinite? Not likely, but then, we could find sources of energy vastly more productive and meet everyones basic needs by far.

As for "work", surely an economy would be created around services like barbers, or trainers, educators and artists- stuff that can't simply be replicated with a machine (assuming no vast robot workforce). But manufacturing jobs would nearly vanish, as would jobs in the financial sector (being rich would not longer be worth it- you gain no social advantage or power from it).

The iddle masses would either need to be "opiated", or you can forsee lots of mayhem, since a lot of idle rich hands are still iddle hands.

[Dis]

but energy is not limitless!

else they wouldn't have the problem of not having enough power to break free from certain graviational fields and tractor beams in various episodes.

The damn Enterprise is always running low on power! Especially in their shields

And as I said before, if the energy is limitless, why mine dilithium crystals?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dissident
but energy is not limitless!

else they wouldn't have the problem of not having enough power to break free from certain graviational fields and tractor beams in various episodes.

The damn Enterprise is always running low on power! Especially in their shields

And as I said before, if the energy is limitless, why mine dilithium crystals?

The whole "dilithium crystal" stuff is bull. The question is that of a planetary economy and how much energy it takes for say 10 billion people to have all needs met. I am sure we could say that the energy needed to propel a craft of several thousand tons at many multiples of the speed of light is so vast as to be "infinate" for all intents and purposes.

If someone gave you access to a single bank account that contained 1*10^50 dollars- you know what? Obviously that is not infinate, but I doubt you would ever come close to spending even 1% of that, so for all intents and purposes it is infinate.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Dissident


if you have transporters and replicators, it's safe to say you can destory waste completely.

They have a transporter and I think it is at the lab in Livermore now, but it can only tranfer energy right now. Also someone has a tri corder and it can read 4 bio at this time.

[DanS]

Dissident is on to something. There would still be rationing in many situations for some items, even if the broader economy did not require stringent rationing. This might be because of the limits of our knowledge of physics, for instance, even in ST.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
Dissident is on to something. There would still be rationing in many situations for some items, even if the broader economy did not require stringent rationing. This might be because of the limits of our knowledge of physics, for instance, even in ST.

So? Rationing is not inherently worse than seeing the richest get it if the item is rare, not for the type of stuff Diss sort of mentions. In fact, the better as accumulation of such things would mean too much power in too few hands.