ST book on abolision of money?

"Plantagenet" <plantagenet47.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0873e3f.0312191724.18676109@posting.google.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> x-posted from alt.startrek.books
>
> Fudge <ben.RemoveThis@musicdish.com> wrote in message
news:<cdjptv0ssanoac4p689jnkcjnh2tq7mp3m.RemoveThis@4ax.com>...
> > Is there a ST book that deals with how the Federation got out of
> > needing to use money? I'd be interested in that.
>
> Or how Latinum became the standard(?) currency throughout the
> non-Federation worlds. Or how Federation citizens acquire Latinum to
> purchase stuff on non-Fed worlds if they don't use money.
>
> There was the TOS episode where the Enterprise crew accidentally goes
> back to the 20th Century for the first time, and they beam up that
> pilot John Christopher before his plane was destroyed by the E's
> tractor beam. Kirk mentioned something about how the Enterprise was
> expensive to build.
>
> I'd like to think that the Fed is basically a cashless society, but
> there just isn't any major emphasis on how much credit anyone has
> anymore because it's easy to acquire. On one DS9 episode Sisko talked
> about using up transporter credits when he was in the academy. How
> did he get those credits?

He didn't say "Transporter Credits". He said "Transporter Rations".
Seems logically that you would need to ration the use of something like the
transporter, to prevent overflow when the planet got like +6 Billion ppl. on
it
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

In article <c0873e3f.0312191724.18676109 RemoveThis @posting.google.com>,
Plantagenet <plantagenet47 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
> x-posted from alt.startrek.books
>
> Fudge <ben RemoveThis @musicdish.com> wrote in message
> news:<cdjptv0ssanoac4p689jnkcjnh2tq7mp3m RemoveThis @4ax.com>...
> > Is there a ST book that deals with how the Federation got out of
> > needing to use money? I'd be interested in that.
>
> Or how Latinum became the standard(?) currency throughout the
> non-Federation worlds. Or how Federation citizens acquire Latinum to
> purchase stuff on non-Fed worlds if they don't use money.
>
> There was the TOS episode where the Enterprise crew accidentally goes
> back to the 20th Century for the first time, and they beam up that
> pilot John Christopher before his plane was destroyed by the E's
> tractor beam. Kirk mentioned something about how the Enterprise was
> expensive to build.
>
> I'd like to think that the Fed is basically a cashless society, but
> there just isn't any major emphasis on how much credit anyone has
> anymore because it's easy to acquire. On one DS9 episode Sisko talked
> about using up transporter credits when he was in the academy. How
> did he get those credits?


This whole sorry mess goes back to that joke in Star Trek IV, when Kirk
asks if they still use "money." I think he meant cash, which is
reasonable, but ever since then money has not been allowed in Trek,
even though the Federation is an expansionist frontier culture
surrounded by other expansionist frontier cultures that *do* use money.

You'll probably remember that, in the first Harry Mudd episode, Kirk
offers to pay the miners in gold and/or other goods for their dilithium
crystals. Barter trade like this is fundamental to frontier economics.

Over time, though, the economics of Trek have grown even more stupid
than its physics.
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

"Mr. Personality" <affable.RemoveThis@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:201220031019142452%affable@no.com.invalid...
>
> This whole sorry mess goes back to that joke in Star Trek IV, when Kirk
> asks if they still use "money." I think he meant cash, which is
> reasonable, but ever since then money has not been allowed in Trek,
> even though the Federation is an expansionist frontier culture
> surrounded by other expansionist frontier cultures that *do* use money.
>
> You'll probably remember that, in the first Harry Mudd episode, Kirk
> offers to pay the miners in gold and/or other goods for their dilithium
> crystals. Barter trade like this is fundamental to frontier economics.
>
> Over time, though, the economics of Trek have grown even more stupid
> than its physics.

Well said. It was even more ridiculous in the context of DS9 - supposedly
humans didn't use money, and Quark was running a place with gambling. Given
how endemic gambling is to human nature, don't you think some humans would
have been wanting to participate?
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

Additionally, I have often wondered how people on Earth function in the
24th century without money. Do people work with no reward other than
that it will benefit the common good? How do you acquire groceries?
What about a house or clothing? Not to mention technology like private
shuttles or even just a replicator in the kitchen. It's hard to believe
that people would just be able to walk up to a replicator dealer and
say "one please," and that's it. But then again, because they have
replicator technology built into so many facets of their society, it
does diminish the value of currency of any kind.

In article <JG6Gb.17127$Pg1.15372@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bo
Raxo <invasions_r_us DeleteThis @thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:

> "Mr. Personality" <affable DeleteThis @no.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:201220031019142452%affable@no.com.invalid...
> >
> > This whole sorry mess goes back to that joke in Star Trek IV, when Kirk
> > asks if they still use "money." I think he meant cash, which is
> > reasonable, but ever since then money has not been allowed in Trek,
> > even though the Federation is an expansionist frontier culture
> > surrounded by other expansionist frontier cultures that *do* use money.
> >
> > You'll probably remember that, in the first Harry Mudd episode, Kirk
> > offers to pay the miners in gold and/or other goods for their dilithium
> > crystals. Barter trade like this is fundamental to frontier economics.
> >
> > Over time, though, the economics of Trek have grown even more stupid
> > than its physics.
>
> Well said. It was even more ridiculous in the context of DS9 - supposedly
> humans didn't use money, and Quark was running a place with gambling. Given
> how endemic gambling is to human nature, don't you think some humans would
> have been wanting to participate?
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

"Summer" <susitucker.TakeThisOut@bazoombas.org> wrote in message
news:281220031235225264%susitucker@bazoombas.org...
> Additionally, I have often wondered how people on Earth function in the
> 24th century without money. Do people work with no reward other than
> that it will benefit the common good? How do you acquire groceries?
> What about a house or clothing? Not to mention technology like private
> shuttles or even just a replicator in the kitchen. It's hard to believe
> that people would just be able to walk up to a replicator dealer and
> say "one please," and that's it. But then again, because they have
> replicator technology built into so many facets of their society, it
> does diminish the value of currency of any kind.
>

True.
Invention of Replicator Technology would change how we value things. The
only thing that would have true value in such a society would the
replicator-technology itself.

Gold would have no value when everyone can replicate it. A painting might
(until someone scanned it into the replicator

The "work" beign done by a person would be the only thing that would be
uniqe, and that could not be replicated, same with human creativity. In such
a society, materialism would simply dissapear, since there would be no point
to it; You would have everything you need/desire.

Let's just hope that replicator-technology wouldn't be regulated/licensed
and only give to the elite few of society, but be free for all.



> In article <JG6Gb.17127$Pg1.15372@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bo
> Raxo <invasions_r_us.TakeThisOut@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mr. Personality" <affable.TakeThisOut@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:201220031019142452%affable@no.com.invalid...
> > >
> > > This whole sorry mess goes back to that joke in Star Trek IV, when
Kirk
> > > asks if they still use "money." I think he meant cash, which is
> > > reasonable, but ever since then money has not been allowed in Trek,
> > > even though the Federation is an expansionist frontier culture
> > > surrounded by other expansionist frontier cultures that *do* use
money.
> > >
> > > You'll probably remember that, in the first Harry Mudd episode, Kirk
> > > offers to pay the miners in gold and/or other goods for their
dilithium
> > > crystals. Barter trade like this is fundamental to frontier
economics.
> > >
> > > Over time, though, the economics of Trek have grown even more stupid
> > > than its physics.
> >
> > Well said. It was even more ridiculous in the context of DS9 -
supposedly
> > humans didn't use money, and Quark was running a place with gambling.
Given
> > how endemic gambling is to human nature, don't you think some humans
would
> > have been wanting to participate?
> >
> >
> >
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

I've always imagined ST a little like this. You see with out the need
for material goods, some of us might venture to think that there would
be no motivation or drive to do anything. Why should I get up and join
starfleet for example if I have everything I've ever wanted with me
already and without having to do anything?
I've always thought that the federation works on a merit basis.
Perhaps a full citizen (someone who was to join a SF academy, or served
in some sort of forces or merchant space marines or whatever it is they
have there) have special priveleges. It can't just be that simple, that
everyone is exactly the same. I'm looking towards something more like a
Starship troopers type of situation to a much lesser degree though as
food and clothing all these essentials are now totally availible to
anyone. But prime real estate, the latest space shuttles, vacation to
Risa are all things that have to be earned...

Thomas Håseth Johansen wrote:
> "Summer" <susitucker RemoveThis @bazoombas.org> wrote in message
> news:281220031235225264%susitucker@bazoombas.org...
>
>>Additionally, I have often wondered how people on Earth function in the
>>24th century without money. Do people work with no reward other than
>>that it will benefit the common good? How do you acquire groceries?
>>What about a house or clothing? Not to mention technology like private
>>shuttles or even just a replicator in the kitchen. It's hard to believe
>>that people would just be able to walk up to a replicator dealer and
>>say "one please," and that's it. But then again, because they have
>>replicator technology built into so many facets of their society, it
>>does diminish the value of currency of any kind.
>>
>
>
> True.
> Invention of Replicator Technology would change how we value things. The
> only thing that would have true value in such a society would the
> replicator-technology itself.
>
> Gold would have no value when everyone can replicate it. A painting might
> (until someone scanned it into the replicator
>
> The "work" beign done by a person would be the only thing that would be
> uniqe, and that could not be replicated, same with human creativity. In such
> a society, materialism would simply dissapear, since there would be no point
> to it; You would have everything you need/desire.
>
> Let's just hope that replicator-technology wouldn't be regulated/licensed
> and only give to the elite few of society, but be free for all.
>
>
>
>
>>In article <JG6Gb.17127$Pg1.15372@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bo
>>Raxo <invasions_r_us RemoveThis @thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mr. Personality" <affable RemoveThis @no.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:201220031019142452%affable@no.com.invalid...
>>>
>>>>This whole sorry mess goes back to that joke in Star Trek IV, when
>
> Kirk
>
>>>>asks if they still use "money." I think he meant cash, which is
>>>>reasonable, but ever since then money has not been allowed in Trek,
>>>>even though the Federation is an expansionist frontier culture
>>>>surrounded by other expansionist frontier cultures that *do* use
>
> money.
>
>>>>You'll probably remember that, in the first Harry Mudd episode, Kirk
>>>>offers to pay the miners in gold and/or other goods for their
>
> dilithium
>
>>>>crystals. Barter trade like this is fundamental to frontier
>
> economics.
>
>>>>Over time, though, the economics of Trek have grown even more stupid
>>>>than its physics.
>>>
>>>Well said. It was even more ridiculous in the context of DS9 -
>
> supposedly
>
>>>humans didn't use money, and Quark was running a place with gambling.
>
> Given
>
>>>how endemic gambling is to human nature, don't you think some humans
>
> would
>
>>>have been wanting to participate?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

"Dave" <df.TakeThisOut@oxeo.com> wrote in message
news:5MydnTFILs_FMuLfRVn-3Q@speakeasy.net...
> I've always imagined ST a little like this. You see with out the need
> for material goods, some of us might venture to think that there would
> be no motivation or drive to do anything. Why should I get up and join
> starfleet for example if I have everything I've ever wanted with me
> already and without having to do anything?

I figured with (in Carl Sagan voice) "billions and billions" of people,
there would be that one or two percent who would join Starfleet. Some would
be scientists craving the chance to make new discoveries, some would be
explorers, some would just want to impress the girls back home, or find out
if those Orion slave girls were really double-jointed...
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

"Dave" <df.TakeThisOut@oxeo.com> wrote in message
news:5MydnTFILs_FMuLfRVn-3Q@speakeasy.net...
> I've always imagined ST a little like this. You see with out the need
> for material goods, some of us might venture to think that there would
> be no motivation or drive to do anything. Why should I get up and join
> starfleet for example if I have everything I've ever wanted with me
> already and without having to do anything?
> I've always thought that the federation works on a merit basis.
> Perhaps a full citizen (someone who was to join a SF academy, or served
> in some sort of forces or merchant space marines or whatever it is they
> have there) have special priveleges. It can't just be that simple, that
> everyone is exactly the same. I'm looking towards something more like a
> Starship troopers type of situation to a much lesser degree though as
> food and clothing all these essentials are now totally availible to
> anyone. But prime real estate, the latest space shuttles, vacation to
> Risa are all things that have to be earned...
>

Really, it doesn't bear close scrutiny. Whichever way you cut it, it's the
ultimate communist control economy. Be a good citizen, get a bigger
allocation of goods and services.

Where did Kirk get that nice ranch-house? Just a loyal officer getting a
Dacha in the Crimea?

The problem is, you can't just say, everyone has everything they need, and
seperate off the "special" stuff like prime real estate and holidays on
Risa. Who defines what a person needs? Who will define what is a luxury? How
will you prevent one person feeling aggreived because their neighbour was
given some special bonus for services to the State, even though that person
feels they worked as hard?

How big a house do you need? Do single people get a standard small
apartment, you get a bigger one when you marry, have a baby? What if you're
an amateur artist and you need an extra room as a studio? Do you just ask,
and get? Or do you take your paintings to the Art Committee to judge if you
deserve a studio? You can't go out and earn more to *pay* for a bigger
apartment, because there's no *money* any more. If you can work for
priveleges (that bigger apartment) well- that's an economy where people are
paid in kind instead of tokens, so it's no great step forward really.

Suppose you're a keen gardener. Can you get a bigger garden, or do you have
to make do with the regulation State garden allocated to you? How many cars
are you allowed? Boats? Planes?

TBH, it's a stultifying, miserable, thought controlled benign police state
(look how furious Picard got with that poor businessman who woke from
cryogenic sleep and asked about his business assets- we don't have
businesses and money! stormed Picard- you must better yourself now! Become a
better little soldier, by OUR standards!) One highlight of First Contact was
Lily's angry deconstruction of Picard's holier than thou attitude regarding
the Utopian future. Like all dictatorships- it's a fine place to live so
long as you're happy with what you're allowed and don't complain.

Seriously- the only way they've got away with this piffle is that the shows
have always been centred on the military service- where peoples' lives are
inherently part of a rigid control structure. It couldn't begin to work for
the population at large, and it's kind of depressing that they even suggest
that it could. Who'd live in a world that deprives you of the means to buy
an Orion woman?

/me ducks

Ian
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

The bottom line is just look at the segment of the United States (and
perhaps worse in other countries) who have become members of "Entitlement
Nation". Just wait at home for the check while waking up around ten or
later to watch Oprah, Young and the Restless, Dr. Phil, and The Price is
Right. Don't worry, your housing, food, medicine, and any other needs will
be provided by the government. When there is no incentive in excelling, the
majority of the people don't excell.

Since the driving thrust behind the cutbacks of the US space program in the
early seventies was that the money could be better spent on social programs,
i.e. giveaways, in real life the socialist wonderland that some ST writer
who probably never had a real job in his life came up with, the Federation
wouldn't be able to get a ship out of low orbit, much like the US today.
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

In article <rYage.17879$RG2.13669@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Bob
<randreponodamnspam.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> The bottom line is just look at the segment of the United States (and
> perhaps worse in other countries) who have become members of "Entitlement
> Nation". Just wait at home for the check while waking up around ten or
> later to watch Oprah, Young and the Restless, Dr. Phil, and The Price is
> Right. Don't worry, your housing, food, medicine, and any other needs will
> be provided by the government. When there is no incentive in excelling, the
> majority of the people don't excell.

Do you actually think that these people whose needs "are provided by
the government" are doing really well? And are you ignoring the wasted
billions in sweetheart government contracts to well-connected companies
such as Halliburton as a courtesy to your fellow right-wing cranks?

I was hearing stuff like this "Entitlement Nation" nonsense forty years
ago. It matters even less now than it did then.

> Since the driving thrust behind the cutbacks of the US space program in the
> early seventies was that the money could be better spent on social programs,

Bullshit. The driving force behind those cuts was Nixon's contemptuous
dismissal of manned space flight as a Kennedy initiative, along with
the need to pay for his needless extension of the Vietnam War. Nixon
gutted the social programs instituted by JFK and LBJ, but you would
have to have read something about this in order to know that.

> i.e. giveaways, in real life the socialist wonderland that some ST writer
> who probably never had a real job in his life came up with,

Calling things you don't like "socialist" saves you from having to
think about things too much. It's always easier to affix labels you
really don't understand to public policies you don't like -- sort of
like calling Bush a fascist.

> the Federation
> wouldn't be able to get a ship out of low orbit, much like the US today.

So you're waiting for the government to go ahead and do that for you?
Are you feeling -- oh, entitled to it?
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

Hey, I know May is a special time for you guys, although since the breakup
you don't have the big parades anymore through Red Square, plus you lost
three elections since November, so just vent it while the rest of us go on
with and enjoy our lives.

"Dr. Personality" <affable.TakeThisOut@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:100520052053124668%affable@no.com.invalid...
> In article <rYage.17879$RG2.13669@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Bob
> <randreponodamnspam.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> The bottom line is just look at the segment of the United States (and
>> perhaps worse in other countries) who have become members of "Entitlement
>> Nation". Just wait at home for the check while waking up around ten or
>> later to watch Oprah, Young and the Restless, Dr. Phil, and The Price is
>> Right. Don't worry, your housing, food, medicine, and any other needs
>> will
>> be provided by the government. When there is no incentive in excelling,
>> the
>> majority of the people don't excell.
>
> Do you actually think that these people whose needs "are provided by
> the government" are doing really well? And are you ignoring the wasted
> billions in sweetheart government contracts to well-connected companies
> such as Halliburton as a courtesy to your fellow right-wing cranks?
>
> I was hearing stuff like this "Entitlement Nation" nonsense forty years
> ago. It matters even less now than it did then.
>
>> Since the driving thrust behind the cutbacks of the US space program in
>> the
>> early seventies was that the money could be better spent on social
>> programs,
>
> Bullshit. The driving force behind those cuts was Nixon's contemptuous
> dismissal of manned space flight as a Kennedy initiative, along with
> the need to pay for his needless extension of the Vietnam War. Nixon
> gutted the social programs instituted by JFK and LBJ, but you would
> have to have read something about this in order to know that.
>
>> i.e. giveaways, in real life the socialist wonderland that some ST writer
>> who probably never had a real job in his life came up with,
>
> Calling things you don't like "socialist" saves you from having to
> think about things too much. It's always easier to affix labels you
> really don't understand to public policies you don't like -- sort of
> like calling Bush a fascist.
>
>> the Federation
>> wouldn't be able to get a ship out of low orbit, much like the US today.
>
> So you're waiting for the government to go ahead and do that for you?
> Are you feeling -- oh, entitled to it?
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

In article <5uege.16557$0i3.2886@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Bob
<randreponodamnspam DeleteThis @bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Hey, I know May is a special time for you guys, although since the breakup
> you don't have the big parades anymore through Red Square, plus you lost
> three elections since November, so just vent it while the rest of us go on
> with and enjoy our lives.


What a clever little throwback you are, calling me a communist. How
Fifties!

I'm absolutely sure you're enjoying your life. After all, they say
ignorance is bliss. In fact, you're so ignorant that your whole
existence must be one continuing orgasm.
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

"Bob" <randreponodamnspam.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5uege.16557$0i3.2886@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Hey, I know May is a special time for you guys, although since the breakup
> you don't have the big parades anymore through Red Square, plus you lost
> three elections since November, so just vent it while the rest of us go on
> with and enjoy our lives.

Please, people. alt.STARTREK. Anybody wanting a row about politics is free
to talk to our new best friend John

Ian

> "Dr. Personality" <affable.DeleteThis@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:100520052053124668%affable@no.com.invalid...
> > In article <rYage.17879$RG2.13669@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Bob
> > <randreponodamnspam.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The bottom line is just look at the segment of the United States (and
> >> perhaps worse in other countries) who have become members of
"Entitlement
> >> Nation". Just wait at home for the check while waking up around ten or
> >> later to watch Oprah, Young and the Restless, Dr. Phil, and The Price
is
> >> Right. Don't worry, your housing, food, medicine, and any other needs
> >> will
> >> be provided by the government. When there is no incentive in
excelling,
> >> the
> >> majority of the people don't excell.
> >
> > Do you actually think that these people whose needs "are provided by
> > the government" are doing really well? And are you ignoring the wasted
> > billions in sweetheart government contracts to well-connected companies
> > such as Halliburton as a courtesy to your fellow right-wing cranks?
> >
> > I was hearing stuff like this "Entitlement Nation" nonsense forty years
> > ago. It matters even less now than it did then.
> >
> >> Since the driving thrust behind the cutbacks of the US space program in
> >> the
> >> early seventies was that the money could be better spent on social
> >> programs,
> >
> > Bullshit. The driving force behind those cuts was Nixon's contemptuous
> > dismissal of manned space flight as a Kennedy initiative, along with
> > the need to pay for his needless extension of the Vietnam War. Nixon
> > gutted the social programs instituted by JFK and LBJ, but you would
> > have to have read something about this in order to know that.
> >
> >> i.e. giveaways, in real life the socialist wonderland that some ST
writer
> >> who probably never had a real job in his life came up with,
> >
> > Calling things you don't like "socialist" saves you from having to
> > think about things too much. It's always easier to affix labels you
> > really don't understand to public policies you don't like -- sort of
> > like calling Bush a fascist.
> >
> >> the Federation
> >> wouldn't be able to get a ship out of low orbit, much like the US
today.
> >
> > So you're waiting for the government to go ahead and do that for you?
> > Are you feeling -- oh, entitled to it?
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money?