Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Star Trek Books] Re: Vanguard - Harbinger and Summon the Thunder (Explanation o

Expand Messages
  • David Mack
    ... A lot of the people who say that Star Trek posits a future without money, in my opinion, have misinterpreted a few key bits of canonical evidence. The
    Message 1 of 25 , Jul 11, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- April Payne <april_anastasia@...> wrote:
      >
      > Well, I'll admit I didn't follow later Trek series the way I did
      > the original, but in the original they did trade in "credits" and
      > the crew earned them as wages.

      A lot of the people who say that "Star Trek" posits a future without
      money, in my opinion, have misinterpreted a few key bits of canonical
      evidence. The two chief exhibits they offer for this hypothesis are:

      1) Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
      Gillian Taylor says, "I suppose you don't use money in the 23rd
      century," and a flustered Kirk replies, "Well, we don't!" I've always
      interpreted that line to mean that they no longer use 20th-century
      paper currency or credit cards, instead relying on a universal,
      biometrically secured credit system. The Federation has "money," just
      not =cash.=

      2) Star Trek: The Next Generation - "The Neutral Zone"
      Picard tells Offenhouse that in the 24th century, humanity no longer
      works for fiscal gain but for self-improvement. Perhaps it's no longer
      necessary to work for gain in order to live in peace and comfort, but
      clearly some people are still in business to make money, or else
      Ezri's family would not own a pergium mine, the Federation would have
      no means of trading with other political entities, etc.

      In other words, they have money, but most people don't consider its
      acquisition to be the chief reason to get out of bed in the morning.

      Just my opinions. YMMV.

      ~ David Mack
    • Keith R.A. DeCandido
      ... Much as I hate to correct my colleague in public, I m going to correct my colleague in public. The people who say that the Federation doesn t have money
      Message 2 of 25 , Jul 11, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        >A lot of the people who say that "Star Trek" posits a future without
        >money, in my opinion, have misinterpreted a few key bits of canonical
        >evidence. The two chief exhibits they offer for this hypothesis are:

        Much as I hate to correct my colleague in public, I'm going to
        correct my colleague in public.

        The people who say that the Federation doesn't have money have one
        very solid piece of canonical evidence that you don't list: Jake
        Sisko in the episode "In the Cards" saying that the Federation
        doesn't have money.




        Keith R.A. DeCandido
        keith@...
        www.DeCandido.net
        kradical.livejournal.com

        "Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk."
        ---Tom Waits, "Heartattack and Vine"
      • Staci Hapdock
        I always figured that the Federation operated on a work credit type situation, with economics based on contributions, instead of on hard currency. People such
        Message 3 of 25 , Jul 11, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I always figured that the Federation operated on a work credit type situation, with economics based on contributions, instead of on hard currency. People such as Mudd and Jones tend to operate on the fringes of UFP space, in areas where the Federation system wouldn't always be in place, and, as they don't do any 'approved' work, they therefore wouldn't have earned any credits.



          "We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be."
          Angel, 'Deep Down' 6/1

          ---------------------------------
          Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Mack
          ... Actually, Jake s line was: I m human. I don t have any money. That could just as easily imply that he has no need for it, since Federation society
          Message 4 of 25 , Jul 11, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- "Keith R.A. DeCandido" <krad@...> wrote:
            >
            > The people who say that the Federation doesn't have money have one
            > very solid piece of canonical evidence that you don't list: Jake
            > Sisko in the episode "In the Cards" saying that the Federation
            > doesn't have money.

            Actually, Jake's line was: "I'm human. I don't have any money."

            That could just as easily imply that he has no need for it,
            since Federation society doesn't require it -- especially
            on Deep Space Nine (unless he wants a drink or a meal or
            some time in a holosuite at Quark's, for instance).

            It is not a verbatim declaration that the =Federation= has no
            money-equivalent credit system. For all we know, the auction
            he wanted to bid at was cash-only, no credit allowed, which
            would be why Jake was so flummoxed about having "no money."
          • Paul Dicks
            Whether it is money as we know it, or credits (which are really the same thing), the Federation must have some sort of financial system. I remember an old
            Message 5 of 25 , Jul 12, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Whether it is money as we know it, or credits (which are really the
              same thing), the Federation must have some sort of financial
              system. I remember an old Star Trek book that mentioned that James
              T. saved up his pays to buy a long strip of shore along a river on
              Alpha Centauri (one of its planets, I assume). What would the
              father of Sisko be running a restaurant for, if he had free
              government housing, and the customers were not paying for the meals
              he was providing? Humans being what we are, if we are not payed, we
              do not try harder, and no one would be working, except for the
              exceptional few, who needed more than sitting at home watching TV.
              So, I feel and think that it is short sighted to say that the
              Federation has no money. If so, how could they trade with other
              politcal entities? I don't think the Federation would need all that
              much bloodwine in return if sending the Klingons grain. Barter is
              okay for a small group of people, but once it gets to a certain
              size, you need credit chits, and voila, you have money again. What
              would cause someone to work in space building a starship, when they
              could do something simple on earth? I doubt it would be the
              adventure - it should be the pay.

              Maybe it is just me - I am a Level 1 paramedic in Toronto, and I
              could train to be higher, but a 10% increase in pay is not enough
              for accepting all the additional responsibility. Pay me more, and I
              would do it.

              Take care, Paul Dicks

              --- In startrekbooks@yahoogroups.com, "Keith R.A. DeCandido"
              <krad@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > >A lot of the people who say that "Star Trek" posits a future
              without
              > >money, in my opinion, have misinterpreted a few key bits of
              canonical
              > >evidence. The two chief exhibits they offer for this hypothesis
              are:
              >
              > Much as I hate to correct my colleague in public, I'm going to
              > correct my colleague in public.
              >
              > The people who say that the Federation doesn't have money have one
              > very solid piece of canonical evidence that you don't list: Jake
              > Sisko in the episode "In the Cards" saying that the Federation
              > doesn't have money.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Keith R.A. DeCandido
              > keith@...
              > www.DeCandido.net
              > kradical.livejournal.com
              >
              > "Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's
              drunk."
              > ---Tom Waits, "Heartattack and Vine"
              >
            • don hallenbeck
              Read the SCE Foundations last night. Tip of Hat to Mr. Ward & Co. for another eggcellant Novel. When is SCE #8 due out????? Don H. ... Much as I hate to
              Message 6 of 25 , Jul 12, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Read the SCE Foundations last night. Tip of Hat to Mr. Ward & Co. for another eggcellant Novel. When is SCE #8 due out?????
                Don H.

                "Keith R.A. DeCandido" <krad@...> wrote:

                >A lot of the people who say that "Star Trek" posits a future without
                >money, in my opinion, have misinterpreted a few key bits of canonical
                >evidence. The two chief exhibits they offer for this hypothesis are:

                Much as I hate to correct my colleague in public, I'm going to
                correct my colleague in public.

                The people who say that the Federation doesn't have money have one
                very solid piece of canonical evidence that you don't list: Jake
                Sisko in the episode "In the Cards" saying that the Federation
                doesn't have money.

                Keith R.A. DeCandido
                keith@...
                www.DeCandido.net
                kradical.livejournal.com

                "Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk."
                ---Tom Waits, "Heartattack and Vine"






                ---------------------------------
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • April Payne
                And that would be correct. They use credits, not money . If you look at the Webster s definition of money, Jake Sisko is correct, they aren t using stamped
                Message 7 of 25 , Jul 12, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  And that would be correct. They use credits, not "money". If you look at the Webster's definition of money, Jake Sisko is correct, they aren't using stamped pieces of metal or paper as means of exchange. I get the impression it's all done electronically and you keep track of just how much "buying power" you have left like many of us do, via our computers, lol.

                  However, to suggest that all goods and services are provided without a means of barter, be it services provided in exchange or "credits" exchanged via electronic banking is absurd. Drinks were "purchased" at the lounge in "Trouble With Tribbles" and certainly Cyrano Jones was "selling" the little furry beasts in exchange for "credits". People were still "making a living", as we call it.

                  At least in the 23rd century commerce survived. It may not have been the driving force behind the formation of the Federation of Planets, but goods and services were exchanged and not simply because they were being nice and wanted to share.

                  I don't believe in Utopia -- we'll end up like "Plato's Stepchildren" or worse, if we don't strive for things on our own!

                  april

                  "Keith R.A. DeCandido" <krad@...> wrote:

                  >A lot of the people who say that "Star Trek" posits a future without
                  >money, in my opinion, have misinterpreted a few key bits of canonical
                  >evidence. The two chief exhibits they offer for this hypothesis are:

                  Much as I hate to correct my colleague in public, I'm going to
                  correct my colleague in public.

                  The people who say that the Federation doesn't have money have one
                  very solid piece of canonical evidence that you don't list: Jake
                  Sisko in the episode "In the Cards" saying that the Federation
                  doesn't have money.

                  Keith R.A. DeCandido
                  keith@...
                  www.DeCandido.net
                  kradical.livejournal.com

                  "Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk."
                  ---Tom Waits, "Heartattack and Vine"






                  april


                  "Consider me a fool, for I believe in something greater than myself." -- The Galactic Prophet




                  ---------------------------------
                  Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • rubbersoul1978
                  Those are good points. Also consider Ben Sisko s father s restaurant. I remember him specifically saying that business was suffering because of the
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jul 17, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Those are good points. Also consider Ben Sisko's father's
                    restaurant. I remember him specifically saying that "business" was
                    suffering because of the Dominion scare. Surely he would be
                    disappointed if he had a period of time in which few patrons visited
                    his restaurant, but his concern wasn't to the point where he couldn't
                    sleep at night because of it. He just loves running a restaurant,
                    and the monetary aspect of it is certainly secondary at most.
                    Apparently, food isn't "free" in the 24th century.

                    --- In startrekbooks@yahoogroups.com, "David Mack" <davidmack@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > --- April Payne <april_anastasia@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Well, I'll admit I didn't follow later Trek series the way I did
                    > > the original, but in the original they did trade in "credits" and
                    > > the crew earned them as wages.
                    >
                    > A lot of the people who say that "Star Trek" posits a future without
                    > money, in my opinion, have misinterpreted a few key bits of
                    canonical
                    > evidence. The two chief exhibits they offer for this hypothesis
                    are:
                    >
                    > 1) Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
                    > Gillian Taylor says, "I suppose you don't use money in the 23rd
                    > century," and a flustered Kirk replies, "Well, we don't!" I've
                    always
                    > interpreted that line to mean that they no longer use 20th-century
                    > paper currency or credit cards, instead relying on a universal,
                    > biometrically secured credit system. The Federation has "money,"
                    just
                    > not =cash.=
                    >
                    > 2) Star Trek: The Next Generation - "The Neutral Zone"
                    > Picard tells Offenhouse that in the 24th century, humanity no longer
                    > works for fiscal gain but for self-improvement. Perhaps it's no
                    longer
                    > necessary to work for gain in order to live in peace and comfort,
                    but
                    > clearly some people are still in business to make money, or else
                    > Ezri's family would not own a pergium mine, the Federation would
                    have
                    > no means of trading with other political entities, etc.
                    >
                    > In other words, they have money, but most people don't consider its
                    > acquisition to be the chief reason to get out of bed in the morning.
                    >
                    > Just my opinions. YMMV.
                    >
                    > ~ David Mack
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.