Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Star Trek Economy

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 240 posts

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#31

Post by tiatia »

Xylakant wrote: post #22
tiatia wrote: post #13

Scarcity was a problem, is a problem and always will be a problem: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e... And sorry to break the news to you: A capitalistic system can not be run without growth and nobody has ever been able to show how it is possible to run a "steady-state" economy, The end is near. Enjoy the ride!

> nobody has ever been able to show how it is possible to run a "steady-state" economy This is a non-argument. Before money was created, nobody had been able to show that a non-barter economy would work. Or capitalism for that matter. The fact that nobody has so far has figured out a way to make it work doesn't mean anything. The only thing of interest would be conclusive proof that it's impossible. I'm fairly sure t…

Question: What is money?

And something existed before "money" was "created". It was and is called "debt".

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#32

Post by jdlshore »

harshreality wrote: post #7

I think this is a useless exercise. The economics of Star Trek won't be coherent, because it was pieced together through multiple series and some wishful thinking while retaining certain properties needed for the universe to be interesting. You can't have a TV show about drone ships flying around and beaming back exploration data via subspace. Without Star Trek replicators in the foreseeable future, all the 3d printi…

Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom is a fascinating take on a post-scarcity economy. As I remember it, though, whuffies were not a zero-sum game to be traded like currency; they were more like followers on Twitter or likes on Facebook. Sort of institutionalized Klout [1].

[1] https://xkcd.com/1057/

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#33

Post by Blahah »

harshreality wrote: post #7

I think this is a useless exercise. The economics of Star Trek won't be coherent, because it was pieced together through multiple series and some wishful thinking while retaining certain properties needed for the universe to be interesting. You can't have a TV show about drone ships flying around and beaming back exploration data via subspace. Without Star Trek replicators in the foreseeable future, all the 3d printi…

Another interesting SciFi exploration of economics is the Unincorporated Man (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4025200-the-unincorporat...). Everyone is incorporated at birth, and trades shares in themselves (paying dividends once they are earning) to advance in life. People who don't have majority of themselves can't make their own decisions.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#34

Post by lutusp »

tiatia wrote: post #31
Xylakant wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody has ever been able to show how it is possible to run a "steady-state" economy This is a non-argument. Before money was created, nobody had been able to show that a non-barter economy would work. Or capitalism for that matter. The fact that nobody has so far has figured out a way to make it work doesn't mean anything. The only thing of interest would be conclusive proof that it's impossible. I'm fairly sure t…

Question: What is money? And something existed before "money" was "created". It was and is called "debt".

> And something existed before "money" was "created". It was and is called "debt".

The word you're looking for is "barter", not debt. Debt exists whether or not there is money.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#35

Post by tiatia »

terranstyler wrote: post #30
tiatia wrote: post #13

Scarcity was a problem, is a problem and always will be a problem: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e... And sorry to break the news to you: A capitalistic system can not be run without growth and nobody has ever been able to show how it is possible to run a "steady-state" economy, The end is near. Enjoy the ride!

> A capitalistic system can not be run without growth I disagree. You are told we need to grow by X% p.a. and we need an inflation of Y% p.a. and we need to weaken our currencies to boost exports bla bla. It is possible to show that this is BS if you thought it through. BTW, I'd call "them" by their name if I knew it. BTW2, "Economics in one Lesson" was my eye opener, it was written in 1946 but it reads at if is was…

It is very easy. If you speak German I actually could send you an excellent PDF.

Debt is a law like gravity. You can have it explained by Ludwig von Mises. It is a reward for risk and saving. Discounted cash flow is actually the opposite and the reason why a cash creating asset, let's stay farmland, still has a finite price but theoretical unlimited future income.

To serve debt you have to create more in the future. Do you know how all our debt will be paid back? With more debt. Once the expected return is 0 then there is no reason to give credit anymore. Every capitalistic system relies on these unfortunate facts.

I like Mises a lot,even if I think his idea of money is plain wrong. But it was Keynes who always saw the end coming. He also gives some ideas in "The death of the rentier".

This is also an interesting post: Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-...

or here:

There is No Steady State Economy (except at a very basic level) http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-stat...

I am afraid you are the bullshitter, not me.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#36

Post by tiatia »

lutusp wrote: post #34
tiatia wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question: What is money? And something existed before "money" was "created". It was and is called "debt".

> And something existed before "money" was "created". It was and is called "debt". The word you're looking for is "barter", not debt. Debt exists whether or not there is money.

yes. And this is why I was talking about "debt" and not "barter".

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#37

Post by Xylakant »

tiatia wrote: post #31
Xylakant wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody has ever been able to show how it is possible to run a "steady-state" economy This is a non-argument. Before money was created, nobody had been able to show that a non-barter economy would work. Or capitalism for that matter. The fact that nobody has so far has figured out a way to make it work doesn't mean anything. The only thing of interest would be conclusive proof that it's impossible. I'm fairly sure t…

Question: What is money? And something existed before "money" was "created". It was and is called "debt".

There is a pretty well accepted definition of money: It's an object or record that's accepted as a form of payment, often with very little value in itself. Early forms of money included shells, for example. Coins are an evolution, printed bank notes as well. The precursor to money is barter: I trade 5 goats for one cow, that I can then trade for a horse. The money equivalent is that I sell 5 goats for 10 money that I can use to buy the horse.

Debt is related to property and certainly related to money, since debts are nowadays kept track of in terms of money, but debt is not the precursor to money and certainly debt is not a requirement for a money-based system. It's like saying "before money was created, there were the sun, the moon and the stars".

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#38

Post by ericd »

patio11 wrote: post #5
gress wrote: post #2

It's worth emphasising that a great deal of work in unnecessary for improving net happiness and consumes resources in the process and so undermines long term prosperity.

A heretical thought I have had about Star Trek: the Federation has no need for Star Fleet. They're fantastically wealthy and cannot meaningfully gain from trade in physical items. They're not just singularity-esque wealthy relative to the present-day US, they're equally more secure. Nobody kills mass numbers of Federation citizens. That occasionally happens on poor planets elsewhere. Sucks but hey poverty sucks. So w…

haha this is wonderful, thanks for sharing

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#39

Post by stormbrew »

Gupie wrote: post #21
patio11 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A heretical thought I have had about Star Trek: the Federation has no need for Star Fleet. They're fantastically wealthy and cannot meaningfully gain from trade in physical items. They're not just singularity-esque wealthy relative to the present-day US, they're equally more secure. Nobody kills mass numbers of Federation citizens. That occasionally happens on poor planets elsewhere. Sucks but hey poverty sucks. So w…

Good take, but the Enterprises have save the Federation from destruction on multiple occasions. With out them the Federation would have been assimilated, enslaved by the Klingons, destroyed by meglomanic advanced alien AIs...

I'm really enjoying patio11's really irreverant take on the subject, but it's not really necessary that their work be completely useless to support the thesis. Self-actualized people may perform useful work as well.

But it's also possible that robots have saved the Federation as many times as human-captained ships. I'd rather believe this than that it's because of the spirit-killing Section 31 being sneaky assholes behind everyone's back.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#40

Post by alextingle »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #10

So, economic models are more or less based on, or at least constrained by, human psychology, right? Communism and socialism don't work because peoples' brains aren't wired to do lots of work for little or no or unequal reward. This isn't restricted to just people, either, it's been observed in monkeys ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKhAd0Tyny0 -- it…

Thank you for the monkey fairness video link. Made my day.
Post reply on HN