Welcome to the World of Trekonomics?

[Gene Steinberg]

Yes, I'm serious.

Check it out:

What the economics of Star Trek can teach us about the real world - The Washington Post

 

[Wade]

Here are a couple of principals of this economic theory employed

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Ah, no tribble at all.

 

[mike]

With replicators, matter and energy are freely interchangeable, but there are some situations where you have, as you say, replicator rations. Which suggests the Star Trek economy is not really a non-economy so much as an energy economy. That's the part of Star Trek that — if you try to bring in the real world, it gets complicated. Energy in Star Trek is essentially free, because they have this matter/anti-matter converter thing.

Personally i think an energy economy is better than the current model
But we would need to replace the current control mechanisms with something new. You cant just hand someone a replicator and say go for your life.
There needs to be some oversight much as we do with funding grants now.

I think ST gets it pretty much right, you get the basic lifestyle for free, if you want more you need to either justify it or earn it with service

Lets say i was a scientist and wanted to set up a lab with staff and equipment, i would need to convince starfleet that my research wasnt frivolous, and that any scientists who wanted to participate in the project should earn some sort of economic credit as a result. In ST the primary payment is of course the pursuit of knowledge and expoloration itself. Participants get a payoff by getting academic credit and the self satisfaction of expanding the knowledge base.

Perhaps that should be enough, but i think there should also be some form of energy credit earned as an incentive.

Who knows perhaps the social evolution would take care of the imelda marcos shoe collection problem. ie given free and unrestricted access to the replicators why doesnt deana troi own a thousand pairs of shoes ?

Even if the custom is to feed them back into the system and simply create the desired shoes as needed, people still tend to want to hang onto things.

But perhaps thats the only value that should stand, sentimental value

 

[mike]

Another example.

We are all used to E books these days kindle etc.

The book isnt physically with you you can simply call it up from the memory

But i have a large library of physical books, i like the smell the feel the thrill of owning a rare first edition

The replicator could make me a copy, but i suspect there would still be a demand for original first edition rare books.

How does one purchase commoditys the replicator simply cant make, there still need to be some unit of exchange

The energy credit system would fill this role

 

[Tyger]

OMiGosh! This is up my ally. I'm an activist for what is called the Basic Income Grant. There is no question that we need to re-tool our economic system. It will happen, just a matter of when. JMO.

Personally i think an energy economy is better than the current model.

Though, in fact, we are in an energy economy. Our work is energy. Money, therefore, is energy.

But we would need to replace the current control mechanisms with something new. You cant just hand someone a replicator and say go for your life.

I say yes we can. Everyone is entitled to an automatic sum that gives them food, clothing, and shelter - the necessities of life.

There needs to be some oversight much as we do with funding grants now.

Why? Why oversight? Should we be so fearful of our creativity?

I think ST gets it pretty much right, you get the basic lifestyle for free, if you want more you need to either justify it or earn it with service.

Yep. I agree. Though I would not call the lifestyle 'free' but rather an entitlement - just what one gets for being alive.

Lets say i was a scientist and wanted to set up a lab with staff and equipment, i would need to convince starfleet that my research wasnt frivolous, and that any scientists who wanted to participate in the project should earn some sort of economic credit as a result. In ST the primary payment is of course the pursuit of knowledge and expoloration itself. Participants get a payoff by getting academic credit and the self satisfaction of expanding the knowledge base.

I think that we are so ingrained to think of our free will activity being involved with money that it's very hard to see differently from that model.

Perhaps that should be enough, but i think there should also be some form of energy credit earned as an incentive.

In a world of poverty and risk, money/energy becomes an incentive. But in a world where there is no poverty and risk is minimal, incentive may not be money/energy. It might be love. Might be companionship. Might be the joy of exploration for the sake of exploration.

Currently in the US we are talking about a national minimum wage. Someone has suggested that we need to also have a maximum income. As they said: "I’d like to see them implement a maximum wage. If you can’t live off of $100,000,000 a year, there’s something wrong with you. There’s not a person on the planet that should make more than that in one year. What could you possibly spend it all on?"

Who knows perhaps the social evolution would take care of the imelda marcos shoe collection problem. ie given free and unrestricted access to the replicators why doesnt deana troi own a thousand pairs of shoes ?

If you want more than the basic, you can work for it in any way one chooses. There would still be limits so there would be choices. Not saying human nature would resolve addiction problems. However, when anxiety around survival is eliminated, human behavior will adjust accordingly, as you suggest.

Even if the custom is to feed them back into the system and simply create the desired shoes as needed, people still tend to want to hang onto things.

But with ease of access, less addiction.

But perhaps thats the only value that should stand, sentimental value

Recall, though, that the Star Trek universe is a military one. Naval, in fact. Submarine culture. Only what is essential. Same as on shipboard in the 1700's. Only the essentials. The replicator assures that, plus the holideck.

 

[mike]

Recall, though, that the Star Trek universe is a military one. Naval, in fact. Submarine culture. Only what is essential. Same as on shipboard in the 1700's. Only the essentials. The replicator assures that, plus the holideck.

Only in what we see presented, earth itself still has plenty of civilians and they will be living under the same conditions ie free energy/replicator technology.

Though, in fact, we are in an energy economy. Our work is energy. Money, therefore, is energy.

What i meant was that energy units are themselves the direct currency. The dilthium antimatter generators provide virtually free energy, no one needs to work. But i imagine a combination of no one needing to work with free unlimited money for all would be a bad mix.

This is why i suggest their needs to be some oversight and control

A science outpost on a remote planet might be able to get much of its needs via the replicator, but there are still resources such as military protection, supply chain items that cannot be replicated, personel transport etc that must be provided for. This would require some oversight to ensure the demands on the system were not higher than the system could provide.

And of course just because an item can be replicated doesnt mean it should be, Chateau Picard wine for example. Yes the replicator could make a bottle indistinguishable from the one Lean Lucs brother makes, but that would put him out of business

So again there needs to be some sort of currency for purchases such as these. Replicator units if you like based on a standardised energy consumption measure.

Gambling is another aspect, we see it in DS9, The chance to aquire more via chance. Clearly the desire to aquire more than the ration ,prevails in the ST universe.

bit more here

Forum:Enlisted Starfleet - Salary? - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki

I must admit i find this topic

 

[Randall]

The Memory Alpha page on Money in the Star Trek Universe: Money - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki

27 quatloos on the drill thrall !

​

 

[Tyger]

The Star Trek perspective is very much echoing ideas that have been around at least from the late 1800's, especially in esoteric circles (interestingly enough). What pops out at me is the idea that - if the conservation needs of the population are taken care of as a given, it then releases the individuals of the society to do what they love in freedom. The creativity explosion would be massive. We already have ample (historical) evidence that where a leisure class successfully maintains, advances in science and the arts ensues. If an entire region maintains the principles of conservation of the whole - if the whole world maintains that ethic - one can only imagine the changed world we would live in.

The below is just one example of the effects of creating a society where ease rather than stress governs the conservation needs of a society. [I am acutely aware that these ideas are not strange for many in certain parts of the world. In the US there is a deep-seated bias against thinking along these lines. The bias is rooted in what I will call a 'cultural urban legend' about the nature of work.]

Living in Switzerland ruined me for America and its lousy work culture
by Chantal Panozzo on July 21, 2015
LINK: Living in Switzerland ruined me for America and its lousy work culture - Vox

 

[Tyger]

Listening to a StarTrek:TNG episode (on one of these marathon weekends) and in that episode Roddenberry's economics is clearly stated: everyone's needs are provided for so that the populace is free to be creative. This is straight out of many streams of thought, economic and otherwise. Yep.

Came across this blog which states the obvious - what should not be a surprise to any thinking person, but a 'scientific study' always lends more credence to common sense in these days.

Entrepreneurs don’t have a special gene for risk—they come from families with money
LINK: Entrepreneurs don’t have a special gene for risk—they come from families with money - Quartz

TEXT: "We’re in an era of the cult of the entrepreneur. We analyze the Tory Burches and Evan Spiegels of the world looking for a magic formula orset of personality traits that lead to success. Entrepreneurship is on the rise, and more students coming out of business schools are choosing startup life over Wall Street.

"But what often gets lost in these conversations is that the most common shared trait among entrepreneurs is access to financial capital—family money, an inheritance, or a pedigree and connections that allow for access to financial stability. While it seems that entrepreneurs tend to have an admirable penchant for risk, it’s usually that access to money which allows them to take risks.

"And this is a key advantage: When basic needs are met, it’s easier to be creative; when you know you have a safety net, you are more willing to take risks. “Many other researchers have replicated the finding that entrepreneurship is more about cash than dash,” University of Warwick professor Andrew Oswald tells Quartz. “Genes probably matter, as in most things in life, but not much.”

"University of California, Berkeley economists Ross Levine and Rona Rubenstein analyzed the shared traits of entrepreneurs in a 2013 paper, and found that most were white, male, and highly educated. “If one does not have money in the form of a family with money, the chances of becoming an entrepreneur drop quite a bit,” Levine tells Quartz.

"New research out this week from the National Bureau of Economic Research (paywall) looked at risk-taking in the stock market and found that environmental factors (not genetic) most influenced behavior, pointing to the fact that risk tolerance is conditioned over time (dispelling the myth of an elusive “entrepreneurship gene“). Resilience is undoubtably a necessary trait for success; many notable entrepreneurs experienced success only after leading failed ventures. But the barrier to entry is very high.

"For creative professions, starting a new venture is the ultimate privilege. Many startup founders do not take a salary for some time. The average cost to launch a startup is around $30,000, according to the Kauffman Foundation. Data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor show that more than 80% of funding for new businesses comes from personal savings and friends and family. “Following your dreams is dangerous,” a 31-year-old woman who runs in social entrepreneurship circles in New York, and asked not to be named, told Quartz. “This whole bulk of the population is being seduced into thinking that they can just go out and pursue their dream anytime, but it’s not true.”

"So while yes, there’s certainly a lot of hard work that goes into building something, there’s also a lot of privilege involved—a factor that is often underestimated."​

 

[Tyger]

Only in what we see presented, earth itself still has plenty of civilians and they will be living under the same conditions ie free energy/replicator technology.

What I meant was that energy units are themselves the direct currency. The dilthium antimatter generators provide virtually free energy, no one needs to work.

Well, that's the fiction in the science fiction (as they say ).

It can be reasonably argued that no one needs to work even now - but that can only happen in a re-organized economic system. In a way, it's an unavoidable system, because in any advanced society we are looking at automation. Everyone needs an income for a healthy society.

But I imagine a combination of no one needing to work with free unlimited money for all would be a bad mix.

Why? Why a bad mix? As indicated in my previous post, a situation where no one needs to work with all their needs met, results in risk-takers, results in creative thinking.

Of course, the Basic Income Grant - BIG (aka Unconditional Income Grant - UIG) is not 'free unlimited money for all'. It's solely enough money to cover all basic needs as a basic right.

In fact, like with indoor plumbing resulting in a lower birth rate, I have a hunch that a basic income would also result in a lowered birth rate.

This is why I suggest their needs to be some oversight and control.

Roddenberry had controls in that episode - a fairly brutal law system where any infraction, however small, resulted in death. I would argue that the controls you see as necessary (and Roddenberry saw, too) is more a function of a situation of scarcity. Remove scarcity, remove stressors around basic needs, and I think one will see different behaviors within society.

 

[mike]

The birth rate is a classic example

The cost of having children does have a limiting effect imo.

 

[Tyger]

The birth rate is a classic example. The cost of having children does have a limiting effect imo.

Actually, the evidence does not indicate that. Poverty seems to ensure many children. It may seem counter-intuitive, but ensuring a high standard of living - with health care and basic needs met - and most importantly free education for all (men and women alike) - substantially lowers the birthrate, it's been found.