The Economics of Star Trek (Particularly the Federation)*

[Jam Stunna]

*Note- I'm by no means an economist, just a huge Trekkie. I apologize for any glaring errors in logic, or incorrect assumptions. Please point them out if you find any issues.

I suppose that this thread requires that you have a basic understanding of the Star Trek universe, so be forewarned.

Basic ideas about how economics work in the Federation have to be thrown out right away, due to the elimination of scarcity. In the future, anything (presumably) can be replicated: home-building materials, medical supplies, food, weapons, etc. Crime, war, poverty and disease have been eliminated on Earth thanks to replication technology: if there is no scarcity of resources, then there is no need to compete for those resources. As a result, there is no money in the Federation.

However, those of us who are familiar with Star Trek have heard anecdotal evidence that some replicated materials are not up to the same quality as their "real" counterparts, in particular food. Chief O'Brien, in an episode of The Next Generation, described to his wife in one episode that his mother didn't believe in replicators, that she cooked real meat, grew real vegetables, etc.

This begs the question: where did it come from? Did the O'Briens have their own farm? If so, how did they get cows, and seed, and fertilizer, and everything else necessary to make "real" food? These things would (presumably) have a premium attached to them, at least as far as we understand economics today. So how did they pay for these things?

The same question arises again with the Chief again in Deep Space Nine. Quark runs the bar on the station. He's a Ferengi, a race characterized by their comical appearance and belief in hyper-capitalism. As such, Quark demands money for his services. Yet we often see Starfleet officers eating, drinking, or even more confusingly, gambling in his establishment. It can be assumed that Quark has worked out some special agreement with the penniless but benevolent Federation where they don't have to pay for replicated goods(although even this doesn't make sense, as Quark once says to the Chief "No refunds"), but gambling at the Dabo (sp?) wheel specifically requires money. Where do Starfleet officers get their latinum?

But this is all just nitpicking I suppose, and my main question is this: our current political ideologies center, in large part, on the role that money plays in our lives. A large part of the conservative platform consists of fiscal conservatives, who think that government should keep its hands to itself and leave individuals and private business with their money. To them, the future Earth of Star Trek might well be a nightmare, as it seems that EVERYTHING is provided to citizens by the Federation. In addition, Starfleet personnel, civilian contractors and all sorts of individuals work, it seems, for free. I can imagine that this would drive conservatives up a wall, considering that a primary motivation for innovation and improvement is the accumulation of wealth. So why would anyone work if they weren't getting paid for it?

The objections to the Federation's economic model, however, are still based on our understanding of a monied economy. Perhaps it's simply impossible for us to look at the future of Star Trek without wondering, "How do they pay for all of it?" But for a moment, let's assume that the continuity issues with the Federation's system don't exist, and that somehow everything works perfectly. I know that's a huge stretch, so let me put it another way: let's look at a theoretical economy where scarcity doesn't exist, and therefore there is no need for money to exist. The Federation gives us the clearest example of that, even if it is imperfect.

With those conditions (no scarcity and no money), is there actually a complaint to be made against the Federation's economic model? I'm assuming that liberals and other left-leaning individuals don't have a problem with the Federation, but if I'm wrong please point out your issues. This is directed primarily at those who shun government interference: If the government can give you everything without taxing you to hell to do it, is there a problem?



EDIT- I forgot to include these. The first link slams the Federation, and the second one seems to support it.

1) http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

2) http://vanparecon.resist.ca/StarTrekEcon/index.html

 

[AltF4]

Hmm, well even though objects can be replicated, presumably the raw materials the stuff is made from has to come from somewhere, right? Unless they're just breaking the laws of conservation of matter.

So maybe there's a market for whatever the raw materials are that replicated stuff comes from. If entire houses are being replicated, there must be a very high demand for that replicating material.



Actually, this whole topic bears a striking resemblance to my copyright topic. "How do you sustain a business when you can't sell your product?". Well, don't sell a product. Sell a service.

Even in a Star Trek world where physical objects can be replicated (like file sharing today) one can still make money from providing a service.

So maybe that's the deal. Replicating isn't actually "for no cost", since you still have to pay for the raw materials. And you can do this through providing a service.

 

[Eor]

I'm pretty sure in the show the raw material is either "matter taken from space" or it breaks it. But at the same time I've seen like two star treck episodes, about five years ago

 

[RDK]

I think the heart of the matter comes from people's general unwillingness to have the government spoon-feed them everything. I certainly don't want anyone else to reap the benefits (or consequences) of my decisions, so I tend to take an uber-capitalist approach to this subject.

This poses an interesting question to all the economic lefties out there: if the goal of the individual is to work for everyone else, what incentive is there to actually do the work? If everyone just took care of themselves, we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today concerning abuse of government-instituted systems (like welfare).

Pure capitalism calls for the individual to work towards his own interest, and for nothing else. This naturally breeds creativity and productivity because of competition. Under a system like the one the Federation uses, people will start to realize that they can just coast and rely on everyone else to do the work for them. When everyone starts doing this, we might have a small problem.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

The world is like a bag of sand, when it releases it falls into what shape? A pyramid, some people just make it higher up on the ladder than others and when the gov't tries to make people all equal, they end up all poor, not all ok. Capitalism supports competition, which what makes the quality of the products and services provided by the US so good.

 

[Deleted member]

nothing is free, not even inferior goods approaching perfect elasticity (replicated food). they probably just work for their livelihood rather than money as a means of exchange.

I don't watch star trek, by the way, just going off of what you posted.

 

[East]

So why would anyone work if they weren't getting paid for it?

I like this question, because from my perspective it draws in personal philosophies.

Money plays a large part in how people live their lives. It is the measurement, by which you are able to perform activities, measure success, live in certain places, etc. When you take money out of the picture, and everything is simply given to you, the medium through which you wished to do things with your life is no longer there. At that point you become freed from the limitations of what your money can do, and then the question becomes not "What can I do?" but rather "What do I want to do?"

I guess what a person wants to do with their life in this situation really depends on what kind of mark they want to leave after they're gone. Because everyone is free of money constraints, being lazy and doing nothing would probably be very tempting to some, but I'd like to think that without the need for money, people would be able to invest their lives in subjects of which their passions lie.

If you've ever heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs [Link to info about it] then without the need to work for money [and assuming you're alive] you instantly skip the bottom two slices of the pyramid and then begin prioritizing your life around social needs. From this psychological theory, a money-less society only helps to enrich ones life faster.

Despite everything above, I'm like Umbreon. I've never watched too much Star Trek, just going off what was put in the original post said, so perhaps I should shut up and stop pretending to know what I'm talking about : x

 

[Eor]

The world is like a bag of sand, when it releases it falls into what shape? A pyramid, some people just make it higher up on the ladder than others and when the gov't tries to make people all equal, they end up all poor, not all ok. Capitalism supports competition, which what makes the quality of the products and services provided by the US so good.

But if the world was like a bag of oranges then they'd just roll away

 

[Aesir]

This poses an interesting question to all the economic lefties out there: if the goal of the individual is to work for everyone else, what incentive is there to actually do the work? If everyone just took care of themselves, we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today concerning abuse of government-instituted systems (like welfare).

Well I wouldn't call myself a huge economic leftist I'm not like a marxist or anything. But I can honestly say somethings I would rather have government handle then business. Services such as Health care, Education (schools libraries), Safety services (Fire Dept, Police) Postal. I think you know where I'm getting at here.

I just wanted to throw that out there.

Now onto this point:

If everyone just took care of themselves, we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today concerning abuse of government-instituted systems (like welfare)

You're right we probably wouldn't have many of the problems we have today, we'll just have all new ones. Those abuses in government instituted systems comes from bad government, effectively when you have people who think government is bad you're going to have bad government. The level of incompetence allowed in the government is staggering it's like Americans have different sets of standards for our elected leaders. For instance if you need a fence built would you hire the guy who felt his company was the best at it and despite being on the pricey side they offered you a quality product. Or would you go for the guy who hated his company offered a really low pricing producing at the sake of quality.

Things like welfare are abused there's no argument there but what might happen if we didn't even have it in the first place? I remember Jam said he was under some state support but said he wants to get off of it as soon as possible. I would argue a lot people on welfare have this same mentality. No one wants a free ride, it's a very bad feeling to have someone always handle your things for you.

 

[East]

I remember Jam said he was under some state support but said he wants to get off of it as soon as possible. I would argue a lot people on welfare have this same mentality. No one wants a free ride, it's a very bad feeling to have someone always handle your things for you.

If you argue this, you are absolutely right. You learn in macroeconomics that most spells of unemployment are short, and that most of the unemployment observed at any given point in time is long-term [usually people abusing the system]

Knowing this, I took the average of Unemployment Rate from 2007 to 1949 [Reference] which came out to approximately 5.59%. Knowing what I said above, we can take about 1-2% away from this [short term unemployment] that doesn't leave very much.

That said, most of the economies unemployment problem is attributable to relatively few workers who are jobless for long periods of time [or abusing the system]

 

[Hive]

Scarcity isn't the only reason for money to exist-
I helps facilitate trades, so that a "double coincidence of wants" does not need to occur.-
for example without money if you wanted, say, a replicator you would have to trade something that the seller of the replicator wants. (say he wants 3 apples, but the seller has four oranges). Even in star trek replicators are broken or damaged and new ones need to be gained. Without money the person would have to search around and trade his oranges to someone who will trade him apples to trade with, or find a seller of a replicator who specifically wants what he has. Basically money creates a "common currency" that people can accept the value of and trade things with.

It allows the economy to be measured and accounted for.- using the example above instead of the replicator costing 3 apples, and if each apple costs 4 oranges, and each orange costs 3 grapes, etc...
we don't have to list the price of the replicator as (3 apples, or 12 oranges, or 36 grapes). Using money we can price all items using a single item. This also allows people to account for how much value a company has, how much inventory they have, and access the general conditions of a business and the economy as a whole (sort of like a checkup).

It allows for the accumulation of wealth.- Currency is nonparishable, and can be stored in banks, etc... for future use.

And finally it allows for the financial sector to operate curbing inflation and recessions.-
Having a money supply allows the central bank to influence interest rates, and the money supply and help curb infaltion and recessions if the economy does start to go offtrack. When interest rates go up-> investment generally goes down, and as a result spending goes down, which helps contract inflationary pressures.

So basically, I guess my point is, money can still be a very important thing in an economy, even in a world with replicators. (I still think people will want more though than just the things they can get from replicators as well, because people value their own happiness compared to others, and if replicators are common, people will seek out more uncommon things.)