Miles O'Brien's Bar tab

[Borgholio]

I look at it from my own point of view. I don't use money either. At least, in the physical sense. When someone says "money" that can mean either hard currency or digital currency equally. 50 years ago, if you asked people what they thought about us using small plastic cards instead of coins and bills, they'd wonder how society worked without actual money...while as far as we're concerned, a small plastic card is money just the same as a silver dollar.

In the future, they may have even done away with the plastic cards. When you think about it from an economic standpoint, everything has to have value. Even if acquiring wealth is no longer the main driving force in life, you still need some way to compensate someone else for their products or labor. The barter system would be horrendously complicated when dealing with the literally millions of various goods, products and services in a typical economy. They need currency such as the Federation Credit.

I think the big reason why people think the Feds have no currency at all is because we NEVER actually see Federation currency. NEVER. But we DO see gold-pressed latinum, we see Bajoran currency, and various other coinage in the series. So I think that's why some people think the Federation never uses money ever, because we never see any coinage from them. But they DO use the Credit, so that right there shows they DO have money...just not in the sense of coinage or bills.

[FaxModem1]

Just re-watched Little Green Men. After the events of the episode, Quark and Rom discuss the fact that Quark had to sell his ship to book passage from Earth back to Deep Space Nine. So, it seems you need money just to travel in the Federation.

[Zeropoint]

The Federation doesn't seem to be a post-scarcity economy (although they OUGHT to be, what with the replicators and all), so it stands to reason that they're using SOME sort of medium of exchange. Sisko's dad runs a restaurant on Earth . . . are we going to assume that he just likes cooking SO MUCH that he spends all day feeding people for free just to have an excuse to cook? Does he get his ingredients from people who farm and ranch just for the joy of it, and give the results away for free?

That would actually be a perfectly valid way to run a post-scarcity world, now that I think about it . . . but outside of life on a Federation starship, it doesn't feel as though that's the case.

[Borgholio]

Earth is not post-scarcitiy. At some level, even with replicators giving you almost everything you need...raw materials and energy production are still needed to feed the replicators. Jobs still need to be done that people would never want to do (sanitation, for instance). Also we know that some materials can't be replicated, such as dilithium, latinum, duranium, and others...

So while the average Joe can probably do whatever he wants just for the satisfaction of it, there are opportunity costs and wasted energy that somehow must be accounted for.

[Steve]

You've clearly never met Trekkies who insist that replicators make matter from energy....

[Borgholio]

You've clearly never met Trekkies who insist that replicators make matter from energy....

I have. They are quite terrifying.

[Batman]

Leaving the idiocy of replicators doing so when simply rearranging matter is much more efficient (and curiously enough supported by 100% of available evidence) aside, what, exactly, is that supposed to prove? Congratulations. You just managed to turn 9E16J (minus the inevitable inefficiencies of the process) of energy into not quite a kg of salad (that'd be the inefficiencies). At least where space combat is concerned, I'm not seeing the salad being more useful than the 9E16J of energy.

[Zeropoint]

So, it sounds like most of us are in agreement that regardless of what people SAY in the show, the Federation has a scarcity economy, and therefore must have some form of money, since it's mildly absurd to think that they've gone back to the barter system. Is that about right?

[Napoleon the Clown]

I'm sure that the excuse Roddenberry would have given is that everybody would just automatically only take their fair share and that there's no form of financial transactions. Because people in the Federation are good and honest and would never try to take so much that another was left wanting.

Theoretically, you can have a scarcity economy where people voluntarily don't take more than what they need for a comfortable existence. It just isn't realistic, given humanity's basic nature.

[WATCH-MAN]

I think the big reason why people think the Feds have no currency at all is because we NEVER actually see Federation currency.

Just re-watched Little Green Men. After the events of the episode, Quark and Rom discuss the fact that Quark had to sell his ship to book passage from Earth back to Deep Space Nine. So, it seems you need money just to travel in the Federation.

The Federation doesn't seem to be a post-scarcity economy [...]

So, it sounds like most of us are in agreement that regardless of what people SAY in the show, the Federation has a scarcity economy, and therefore must have some form of money [...]

I'm sure that the excuse Roddenberry would have given is that everybody would just automatically only take their fair share and that there's no form of financial transactions. Because people in the Federation are good and honest and would never try to take so much that another was left wanting.

Congratiulations: You have just gone a step back in that debatte.

It was already said that there is a difference between Earth and the Federation.

It was already said that there is a difference between intenal trading and external trading.

It was already said that there is a difference if one lives on Earth or e.g. on an colony in the Demilitarised zone.

But now you are lumping all these aspects together again.

It seems that it is asking to much to demand that you are reading more than only the last post in a thread or that yoo consider what was already said in such a thread.




Let's take a detour through the facts:

1. We have heard Kirk, Picard, Sisko and others speaking of Earth (respective humanity) and how Earth is a paradise where there is no poverty, no crime, no war and no money is used ...
2. They have never said such thing about the whole Federation.
3. Quite the contrary: Sisko explicitly said that it makes a differens if one lives on Earth or in the Demilitarised zone.

As far as I know: We have never seen money used on Earth (of their time) or anything else that would contradict their statements.

What evidence do we have to prove that what they said is - to quote Replicant - bullshit?

What eviedence do we have to prove that the humans on Earth are using a form of currency in internal trading?

What evidence do we have that e.g. Joseph Sisko had to pay to get his ingredients or was paid from his patrons?

And a limited imagination which does not allow to imagine that people are willing to do something only because they enjoy it, is no evidence. A limilted imagination which does not allow to imagine a economy that can work this way is no evidence. We have to suspend our disbelieve and can not argue that something can't exst only because we do not not understand how it works or because it violates our understanding of nature or human nature. If you want to claim that what they said about Earth is wrong, you need to provide evidence.

[Zeropoint]

Please don't insult me for not being able to imagine things I imagined and mentioned in the post that you quoted part of. As you've pointed out yourself, an abrasive attitude doesn't help a debate.

As far as I know: We have never seen money used on Earth (of their time) or anything else that would contradict their statements.

We've never seen anyone poop on Star Trek, either. However, pooping now and then is the normal condition for humans; the null hypothesis, if you will. It takes more than "we never saw anyone do it" to make a convincing argument that they don't. Similarly, scarcity economy is the baseline condition for humans, and it seems reasonable to proceed on the basis that scarcity conditions continue, until such time as we see good evidence that they don't.

As it turns out, we don't have any evidence (that I'm aware of) of post-scarcity conditions on Earth. What we do have are some grandiose bits of dialogue, just like we have dialogue about how lasers won't penetrate navigational deflectors. I'm not going to adamantly assert that Earth can't possibly be a post-scarcity money-free world, but I will say that a few lines of dialogue aren't really enough to convince me that it is.

Of course, if there's evidence beyond dialogue that I'm missing, or flaws in my reasoning, please feel free to point them out, if you can do that civilly.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I had a post written up but decided it was too long, so instead I'll just ask this: When do we hear people say that Earth is the place without money? Kirk and Picard both fly around on a space ship, spending most of their time away from Earth. I don't see them saying "We don't have money in the future" when what they really mean is that Earth no longer has money.

I do admit it's kind of funny to see someone get so worked up over a series that has plenty of retcons throughout it. People were discussing how the things we've seen could all be true at once, and it's honestly pretty civil. Then along comes Sparky and suddenly it's srs bsns in here.

Honestly, I'm content to go with my earlier explanation: Q likes to fuck around with the Federation economy every so often. We've seen him pull off sending Picard through time, why should we think he can't make the Federation jump between using currency and not using currency? Q's a dick that likes to abuse his power. He got booted from the Continuum for it, as you'll recall.

[WATCH-MAN]

Please don't insult me for not being able to imagine things I imagined and mentioned in the post that you quoted part of.

1. I didn't insult you.
2. I didn't say that you were the one who is not able to imagine things
3. But as it seems you are the one who seems to have a problem to imagine that Joseph Sisko likes cooking SO MUCH that he spends all day feeding people for free just to have an excuse to cook and he get his ingredients from people who farm and ranch just for the joy of it, and give the results away for free.

As you've pointed out yourself, an abrasive attitude doesn't help a debate.

Agreed.

As far as I know: We have never seen money used on Earth (of their time) or anything else that would contradict their statements.

We've never seen anyone poop on Star Trek, either. However, pooping now and then is the normal condition for humans; the null hypothesis, if you will.

Wrong analogy because nobody ever stated that the humans in the 24th century do not poop. But several people stated indepently from each other that they don't use money [to put it simply].

It takes more than "we never saw anyone do it" to make a convincing argument that they don't.

Correct - but there is more.
There are several instances in which different people have said that they don't use money [to put it simply].

Similarly, scarcity economy is the baseline condition for humans,

Do you have any evidence for this assumption?

To quote Wikipedia about the history of money:

• • • • The use of barter-like methods may date back to at least 100,000 years ago, though there is no evidence of a society or economy that relied primarily on barter. Instead, non-monetary societies operated largely along the principles of gift economics and debt. When barter did in fact occur, it was usually between either complete strangers or potential enemies.

and gift economy:

• • • • A gift economy, gift culture or gift exchange is a mode of exchange where valuables are not sold, but rather given without an explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards. In contrast to a barter economy or a market economy, social norms and custom govern gift exchange, rather than an explicit exchange of goods or services for money or some other commodity.

With other words: Other economy models without money are not only imaginable but do exist. That they are foreign to us as we are using money is no evidence to claim that such models can't exist or that the model with which we are familiar is the baseline condition for humans - especially as it was said that no money is used.

and it seems reasonable to proceed on the basis that scarcity conditions continue, until such time as we see good evidence that they don't.

But there is such evidence.
There are several instances in which different people have said that they don't use money [to put it simply].

As it turns out, we don't have any evidence (that I'm aware of) of post-scarcity conditions on Earth. What we do have are some grandiose bits of dialogue,

That's evidence.

just like we have dialogue about how lasers won't penetrate navigational deflectors.

The one is a physical problem the other a economical problem.

And - I do not want to argue about no-limit-fallacies - but suspension of disbelieve means that I have to accept that something is possible even if our understanding of science says that it should be impossible. Transporters should be impossible due to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. That superman can fly should be impossible. That Galactus can change the position of whole galaxies should be impossible. There are many things in science fiction and other fiction that should be impossible or at least implausible. But, if from the context I have no reason to doubt what was said, I'm assuming that what was said is true until there is an in-universe event that shows that what was said is wrong . In this case, there is no event that proves that money is used on Earth for internal trading.

[WATCH-MAN]

• • • • Error

[Prometheus Unbound]

Just re-watched Little Green Men. After the events of the episode, Quark and Rom discuss the fact that Quark had to sell his ship to book passage from Earth back to Deep Space Nine. So, it seems you need money just to travel in the Federation.

well Bajor system isn't that well travelled from Earth and Quark is not a Federation or Bajoran citizen - I'd imagine he would have to pay passage.

[WATCH-MAN]

And more important: Bajor is not part of the Federation. Starfleet may operate DS9. But this does not mean that the Federation (let alone Earth) has to establish a bus line to Bajor. Insofar this doesn't prove anything.

[FaxModem1]

It means that Quark and Rom had to sell the thing just to leave the Solar System. Meaning that in Earth Space, in order to travel, you need money. Or did Rom and Quark just not mention that they sold his ship just to leave the Federation?

[WATCH-MAN]

• • • • • • ROM:
        Oh, it's good to be home. I bet you can't wait to see the bar again.
        
        • • QUARK:
        The bar? I could've ruled the galaxy, but now I have nothing. I don't even have my ship anymore.
        
        • • ROM:
        Look on the bright side, brother. You may've had to sell your shuttle for salvage, but at least you got enough for our passage home.

There is nothing said about where they sold the suttle or for which part of the passage they needed the money. It's possible that they could travel for free on Earth and in the solar system, maybe even in the whole Federation territory and had only to pay to get from the last stop in Federation territory to Bajor and from there to DS9, both outside of the Federation.

And as they are neither humans nor earth-dwellers, the selling of the shuttle would not fall into the category Earth-internal-trading.

[bilateralrope]

You may've had to sell your shuttle for salvage

Sounds like the ship wasn't in a very good condition when they were selling it.

[WATCH-MAN]

• • • • And?

[bilateralrope]

It means that it's possible that they didn't have to pay anything to get back to DS9 and only sold the ship because it was too damaged to be of any other use to them. And they might have sold it to someone who wasn't a Federation citizen.

[WATCH-MAN]

That's not how I understand Rom. He said:

• • • • »You may've had to sell your shuttle for salvage, but at least you got enough for our passage home.«

To me it sounds as if they did need money for their passage home.

[Ted C]

There's obviously some kind of reward for work on Earth or in the Federation, but they don't think of it as "money" because they don't generally need to go out and "buy" things. All healthcare is presumably free, but I expect that doctors live pretty well because of the amount of training it takes to become qualified. I'm sure that the more you put into "improving society", the more reward you get for your efforts, but I also expect that there's a minimum standard of living considered acceptable in the Federation, so even if you have very little to contribute, you still have decent food, clothing, housing, and healthcare.

The Federation undoubtedly has ways of conducting business with other cultures that DO use money, so anyone who must interact with a society that uses money can presumably draw some "credit" of the appropriate type for their business.