Trekinomics

I bow to calguard66 for this lovely term!

Okay, the UFP has no poverty, no greed, no currency. This is part of the canon.

OTOH, many individual planets within the Federation appear to have money. There are interstellar merchants, both from the UFP and other groups, who trade inside and outside the UFP borders. And there is the credit, a lovely and vague topic in and of itself. And it has also been seen that one may procure souvenirs of trips to specific planets.

So, how does the UFP handle such matters? How is it decided who gets how much? Is everyone economically equal in the Federation? Is there a vast differenct between the UFP and member planets in terms of economics? How is trade conducted?

Discuss amongst yourselves... ;)

Oh, geez....talk about a nebulous subject... ;)

My take on the moniless system is that when you have things like replicators to make things for you, and fusion power plants that provide endless energy for next-to-nothing, a person wants for little. That may be part of the basis behind the utopian ideal of Trekinomics.

It's hard for primitive money-users (i.e., us) to understand exactly how this moniless system works, especially in places where the credit is used exclusively. It seems that since goods seem to only take time and labor to produce (since there are no expenses for food, etc., because of replicator technology), there are no actual costs to pass on to the customer. That said, the customer makes a request (i.e., orders a drink from the bar), and it's served. End of story.

Now, there are places on the fringe of Federation society where replicator capabilities are limited and items begin to carry overhead cost. Or, a society that hasn't eliminated needs may still use money as a part of their society. In those situations the credit becomes necessary as a unit of exchange.

It's been established that ships have "allotments" of credits for use by their crew, which are issued as necessary. Officers may receive larger allotments than enlisted personnel (rank has its privileges), and this may be as close to "pay" as Starfleet gets.

I've always assumed that the abundence of cheap energy, combined with the waste-less (or nearly so) manufacturing techniques (i.e. most parts or whole objects are simply replicated) has "raised the floor".

That is, there's a certain minimum level of comfort that a society extends to everyone. In an energy rich society, that minimum level of comfort can be quite high. Today's working poor, for example, live better than the nobility of a few centuries ago.

This means people can work at what pleases them, without worrying about where food comes from. There's more emphasis on intellectual pursuits, and a shift from a largely technology based workforce to a more evenly distributed workforce.

There's still a place for currency and wealth. These things go to people who really want them, and are willing to work for them. But there are fewer wealthy people, because the incentive to acquire wealth is less powerful.

Supposedly, the focus is no longer on aquiring wealth, but upon self-improvement. Unfortunately, utopias are a rotten place to set internal conflict, so the characters have to get adventerous and go out into space for mischief most of the time (barring the Borg, the Founders, a wacky admiral (what _do_ they put in the water at Starfleet Command, anyway?), or sibling rivalry).

If the DS9 Tongo scene with O'Brian and Bashir is any indication, with basic needs already provided, Starfleet pays their officers not very much.

For a more detailed examination of Federation economics, I refer you to the MST3K theme song lyrics...

grimjack2

One fallacy of the utopian logic stems from the notion that if there was no money or hunger the world would be perfect and crime free. With such a world, we would be free to pursue endeavors that would allow us to grow as individuals and benefit society.
For a percentage of us, this would be a wonderful thing. However, for the majority of us, it would be an excuse to be lazy. With a few exceptions, man’s nature is to get the most for the least work. In real world applications of this philosophy, what you end up with is the person who does the most gets the least and the person who does the least gets the most. This is one of the problems that Russia faced during the 20th Century after the Communist coup. A society that incorporated this philosophy would slowly degenerate until it’s citizens were living in 3rd world conditions because of a lack of motivation.
Another fallacy of the utopian logic stems from the belief that man’s nature is inherently ‘good.’ The utopian philosophy believes that crime is a byproduct of bad living conditions. The problem is, this mindset ignores the fact that some people do bad things to each other, not because they are poor and hungry, but because they just want to.
In reality, human nature is the main reason why utopian societies have always failed and always will fail.
As for Star Trek. Come up with a reason that sounds the best to you. In reality, what we are seeing is producers who have a more realistic view of human nature and the future than did the original creators of Star Trek who were utopian idealists.

As for comparing UFP society to a modern day equivalent, I seem to remember someone saying that the Federation was a Communist society. This is not whole true or accurate. The UFP is a Socialist society.
So what is the difference? Socialism, in its purest form, believes that the role of the government is to micro-manage your life. You work, all your money goes to the government, and the government divvies out based on need. Reliance on the government is strongly encouraged, and attempts to become more independent are discouraged. Examples of Socialist societies include Canada and most of Europe. In the USA, socialist ideals are espoused by the Democrat party.
Communism takes it one step further. Communism believes that a country should be forced into this kind of society with military force. Martial law is imposed for an indefinite period of time. After some time and plenty of education on the way things should be (brainwashing for the layman), the rains of the military will be slowly loosened until what is left is a Socialist utopia that no longer needs the wise guidance of the military or the political branch. Examples of Communist countries have included Russia, China, and Cuba.

Star Trek utopy is, of course, quite irrealistic - but I don't think it's the point. FTL travel is irrealistic. Transporters are irrealistics. Sending the Captain and all major officers on any away team is irrealistic. Cross species interbreeding is irrealistic. I accept ST utopy as I accept anything else in Star Trek - it's another thing that works only in a movie or series (like being able to kiss a girl 10 minutes after meeting her :D).

Back on topic, I tend to consider that everybody in the UFP has a certain number of virtual credits per month/year/whatever, allowing them to use transporters, replicators and the like enough to ensure a comfortable living. Then, depending on what that person does (nothing, bartender, Starship officer, miner), this number of credits is increased according to the value of his activity (determined by very complex calculations made by the Federation Economic departement).
The Federation uses credits as a virtual currency for trading with other powers; if a UFP citizen wants to, he can convert part of his virtual credits to any foreign currency at the standard conversion rate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KNIGHT
One fallacy of the utopian logic stems from the notion that if there was no money or hunger the world would be perfect and crime free. With such a world, we would be free to pursue endeavors that would allow us to grow as individuals and benefit society.
For a percentage of us, this would be a wonderful thing. However, for the majority of us, it would be an excuse to be lazy.

---

But this is also part of the Trek utopy. Man does not grow lazy without the need to work and man does not commit crime for the hell of it.
Whether or not this is realistic is a philosophical discussion and also moot as far as Trek is concerned. If it were realistic it wouldn't be utopy.

Socialism/Communism - I have to disagree here. What you defined as socialism is communism in my eyes. What you described as communism is basically a military regime with a remotely communist agenda.
If you were to ask anybody in europe what kind of society they live in, they would say socialist democracy (at least germans and most scandinavians would).

One more thing..

Quote:

---

attempts to become more independent are discouraged.

---

That's just plain wrong. I don't know where this idea came from, but attempts at independance are NOT discouraged anywhere in Europe.

Joe Dizzy,

There is very little difference between Socialism and Communism. Socialism can be practiced in a democracy, Communism can't. Communism dictates that the military be used by the intellectual elite in the government. In reality, once the government has control it doesn't let go.

You are correct in that most of the countries in Europe are socialist democracies. They practice a form (although not a pure form) of Socialism that isn't as extreme as the socialist ideal. Same with the Democrat party in the USA.

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
attempts to become more independent are discouraged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's just plain wrong. I don't know where this idea came from, but attempts at independance are NOT discouraged anywhere in Europe."

No, I was right. Here is a prime example: In the USA (and any other country that has a welfare system), once you are on welfare, and receiving any assistance from the government, it is next to impossible to get off. If you make a dollar more than they think you should, they cut you off. There have been attempts at reforming the system in parts of the US, but they have been resisted by the Socialists.

By the way, I wasn't talking about Europe in that quote. I was talking about the socialist ideal.

Here's an interesting piece of trivia: in the USA, about 50% + of a person's income is taxed away in one form or another (income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc.). In some Europian countries, the tax burden can reach as high as 90%.

P.S. If you are lost in this talk about political philosophy, it has to do with the beliefs of the creators of Star Trek and the form of government behind the UFP.

P.P.S. I firmly believe that the humans in Star Trek are not human at all but a race of body snatchers that have taken our place ;0)

Apologies ahead of time for drifting off topic on this one.

First off, what you need to understand is that Socialism and Communism are not political systems per se, they are economic systems.

Communism
Communism involves the collective ownership of all property. If you need food, or a car, or a broken leg set, you receive them. If someone needs... whatever it is you do, you do it for them. There is no exchange of money because there is no exchange of value. You willingly do what you can for the good of everyone else, and they do the same, and everyone is happy. It's a wonderful system on paper, but Marx kind of forgot to take into account human nature. You honestly could not get this to work with any large group of people without widespread, religious devotion among them to making it work.

Socialism
What most people think of as communism is actually socialism. The Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. are not communists, they are socialists, and don't believe them if they tell you otherwise. Under socialism, the state owns all property. Thus my house, and my computer, and my Star Trek RPG books have all been granted to me by the government to fulfill my needs, and I work at a government owned and controlled job to provide for the needs of others. Ideally, there would be no money exchanged under this system as well, because the State manages the production and distribution of all resources. Marx envisioned this as a necessary transitional step towards communism, but nobody has managed to get past the point where omnipotent enforcement of the state is required.

Capitalism
This is the one we are most familiar with. Property is owned privately (meaning my house, my computer, and my Star Trek RPG books are mine, damnit, I worked for them, if you want some, go buy your own), and the value of goods and services is determined by competition, supply, and demand.

In practice, no pure form of any of these economic systems exists on the macro scale. A purely socialist system would require such a massive bureaucracy to micromanage everything that it would collapse under its own weight. A purely capitalist system is open to all sorts of abuse and exploitation. A purely communist system is hopelessly utopian. Thus we see that the socialist systems still rely on paying people money as an incentive to get them to produce, while in capitalist systems the government places legislative controls on trade, and siphons out capital for redistribution to those who haven't "earned" it (hey fellow Americans, what do you think Social Security, Medicare, and the other social programs that make up something like 2/3 of the federal budget are? Quit razzing them furriners about being a bunch of socialists, because we do it, too. :D).

Note that none of these systems necessarily precludes one sort of political structure or another. You could have a representative democracy operating a largely socialist system, or an autocratic dictatorship running a completely lassez-faire capitalism. Some systems just lend themsleves to one government type more than another (since socialism requires totalitarian government control of the economy, it tends to attract a totalitarian government: see the aforementioned list of socialist states).

Communism is supposed to operate under a total anarchy, and since we're being totally unrealistic about human behavior economically, why not do the same politically, right? ;)

In order to stay on the Trek topic, I'd hazard that the Federation operates under a blend of communism and capitalism, mostly due to the level of technology. With matter/antimatter power generation and replicator technology, scarcity of and competition for basic resources has been all but eliminated in the core worlds. This has led to an elevation of the basic value of labor, and a decrease of the inherant value of "items". I would speculate that Federation citizens do actually earn "money" in the form of credits, but that the cost of living is rather low so they don't need to earn a lot. Basic needs are taken care of as a mater of course, and your leasure credit goes a long way, since the value of an item lies not in its manufacture (that's the touch of a replicator button away) but in the act of its creation/design. Which explains why things which can't be replicated are very expensive.

-Chris Landmark
(Who now wonders if the Republicans are gonna show up at his door and take away his party membership for talking like this...;))

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KNIGHT

There is very little difference between Socialism and Communism. Socialism can be practiced in a democracy, Communism can't. Communism dictates that the military be used by the intellectual elite in the government. In reality, once the government has control it doesn't let go.

---

There are a quite a few differences between Socialism and Communism. And it's not just the use of military force.
The USSR might have called themselves communist, might have (at least in theory) had some simliarities with communism. But they were no communists. Far from it.

Quote:

---

No, I was right. Here is a prime example: In the USA (and any other country that has a welfare system), once you are on welfare, and receiving any assistance from the government, it is next to impossible to get off. If you make a dollar more than they think you should, they cut you off. There have been attempts at reforming the system in parts of the US, but they have been resisted by the Socialists.

---

Well, in theory..... you don't get any money from the gov't once you start earning enough to rely on yourself.
Just how much exactly is "enough".. is a whole new question, every new gov't has to deal with. Which is why I disagree with your assessment whole-heartedly.
The problem is if welfare is too high, the number of people who are just too lazy to work will increase. (Arguments of the conservative party, whichever it is in the US)
If welfare is too low, people will never have enough money to get out of the "social impasse" they're in. (argument of the socialist party (I presume), whichever it is in the US)

Once you have a job, you are guaranteed to have it for a certain amount of time. If your boss decides to fire you at some point, you have at least a few weeks time to find an alternate job. It's not fool-proof, but at least the gov't tries to ensure that the employee has enough time to find a new job before applying to welfare again. Just how much time you get, is constantly changing to adapt to the economical situation. (All this applies to europe, I'm not an expert on the way it's handled in the US.)

Quote:

---

By the way, I wasn't talking about Europe in that quote.

---

Then you should have marked it better. I don't like it when people start bad-mouthing the european system. Although it has its flaws, I prefer it to the flaws of the US or other systems.

Quote:

---

In some Europian countries, the tax burden can reach as high as 90%.

---

Really? Well that's news to me. Where did you hear that?
Sounds like some half-truth that got twisted and bended out of shape before appearing in some book or newspaper.
I'd honestly like to hear where this was printed or claimed.

Quote:

---

P.S. If you are lost in this talk about political philosophy, it has to do with the beliefs of the creators of Star Trek and the form of government behind the UFP.

---

Why should I be lost? Are you?

Chris Landmark,

Very well stated socio/economic run down of each of the systems. Gotta love the differences between theoretical economic philosophy and real world political applications of it. Communism being a prime example.

I tend to agree with you on the economic system of the Federation.

I guess the only real utopia that most people believe in is heaven (in what ever form your religion believes).

I don't think the Republican party would pull your membership :cool: Time to listen to Michael Medved :)

Joe Dizzy,

I was talking about the differences in philosophy in terms that most people could understand. The reality of political & socio-economic theory/philosophy is many times different than it's name/use in the real world. I.e.: Communism has a different real world meaning than its theoretical/philosophical counterpart. Communism as espoused by Lenin (although in reality a militaristic form of Socialism) is what most people view as Communism. Socialism as practiced by the Democrat party and various other political parties around the world is what most people view as Socialism (although not as extreme as it's theoretical counter part).

As for the welfare system. The reality is that the cut off point is altogether to low. The Republican party (the Conservative party in the USA) in some states has attempted to reform this so that when you are cut off you can actually support yourself. These reforms have also included allowing welfare recipients to receive assitance while attending college, and setting a limit on how long you can receive assistance (unless there is a reason why you can't go back to work. i.e., some form of handicap.). You will have to educate me on the differences in the Europian system.

I'm sorry that you felt that I was attacking Europe. What I was talking about was Socialism as a theory and then mentioned Canada, Europe, and parties within the USA as examples of socialism being practiced in some form.

As for high tax rates in some europian countries, Denmark has a high end cap of 59% income tax, for example. This doesn't include any other taxes levied (Excise Duties, Taxes on Capital and Real Property, etc.) (source: The Danish Ministry of Taxation). I will admit that 90% might be a little high of an estimation but it isn't off by much.

Your explanation of scialism is pretty good, but Communism is completely off. The philosophy of communism is an ecnomic philosophy, not a political one.

Marx's theory was briefly:

Human civilization goes thru stages of development, each of which sets the stage for the next.

Anarchy causes people to realize they need order and protection, thus setting the stage for Feudalism. Feudalism gathers the wealth into the hands of particular people, and provides enough peace for scientific development, thus setting the stage for Captialism. Captialism creates the industrial capital goods and means of production, while making people realize they need protection from those with all the money, thus setting the stage for Socialism. Socialism provides for the basic wants of all people my controling the means of production and allotting the output based on need, causing people to have few or no needs, little or no greed and developing them philosophically, thus setting the stage for Communism. Communism is the stage where all needs and wants are met, the means of production are sufficient to provide the basics to all... whether they contribute to the system or not. Those who WANT to work will, others don't have to.

The problem with Communism as applied in our world is that the USSR, China Cuba and almost everybody else tried to jump from the end of Feudalsim to the begining of Communism all at once. The underlying structures were not present to support the system.

The philosophy of Communism in and of itself does not advocate military force, and generally implies a democratic political structure.

The Federation of Startrek is close to being Communist, but is probably at the tail end of Socialism...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KNIGHT
As for comparing UFP society to a modern day equivalent, I seem to remember someone saying that the Federation was a Communist society. This is not whole true or accurate. The UFP is a Socialist society.
So what is the difference? Socialism, in its purest form, believes that the role of the government is to micro-manage your life. You work, all your money goes to the government, and the government divvies out based on need. Reliance on the government is strongly encouraged, and attempts to become more independent are discouraged. Examples of Socialist societies include Canada and most of Europe. In the USA, socialist ideals are espoused by the Democrat party.
Communism takes it one step further. Communism believes that a country should be forced into this kind of society with military force. Martial law is imposed for an indefinite period of time. After some time and plenty of education on the way things should be (brainwashing for the layman), the rains of the military will be slowly loosened until what is left is a Socialist utopia that no longer needs the wise guidance of the military or the political branch. Examples of Communist countries have included Russia, China, and Cuba.

---

Political system, yes... but not economic system. Most people, in the US especially, do not diferentiate between poilitcial and economic systems.


Communism=Totalitarianism is bad, Captialism=Democracy is good.

But it is just as likely, in fact more likely, to have a democratic comunist stare and a totolitarian capitalist one.

Political and economic systems are not the same.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy

If you were to ask anybody in europe what kind of society they live in, they would say socialist democracy (at least germans and most scandinavians would).

---