The Star Trek Economy • Hacker News Board

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#131

Post by a-priori » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 4:49 PM UTC

mempko wrote: post #94

The way people talk about socialism and communism in the west show the sad state of our education system. communism is already a big part of our lives. When you sit at the dinner table and ask for the salt, you get it. When are at work and you ask for a code review and the person gives it to you. If the need is great enough, or the obstacles to ability are small enough, people do things. From each according to their…

The similarities between how people act within a firm (where a 'firm' is basically any sort of corporation, partnership, or similar economic entity) and within an ideal communist society are not a coincidence: a communist society is essentially just one very large firm.

(Aside: The core problem with communism is that a nation much larger than the optimal firm size. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_optimal_firm_size)

But I think it shows a gross misunderstanding of both capitalism and communism to say something like "Our economy is firmly based on communist actions and the capitalists exploit this". It's not. Both concepts are very modern inventions, and the psychology of how people act within a firm (regardless of its size) is based on how people act within family units and bands: based on working towards shared goals and loose sense of reciprocity.

It's not a coincidence that money is not normally used between family members: people don't normally buy things off their family, but receive them as gifts/favours and then are expected to give similar value gifts/favours in the future (a gift economy). That's the psychology that the firm re-uses, and it predates both capitalism and communism.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#132

Post by skyshine » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 4:49 PM UTC

transfire wrote: post #118

The main hurdle facing post-scarcity economics is not actually scarcity. Rather it is the elitist class, who will do everything it can to ensure continued scarcity in order to keep their socioeconomic positions. We already see this today in a number of ways. For instance, if a commodity isn't scarce, it can be made scarce by effectively creating a monopoly (even if it doesn't appear to be a monopoly from the outside)…

Then perhaps it is time to start looking for an alternative economic system. I've been developing a framework to explore new economic systems for several years. http://babblingbrook.net

There are two pressures in society. One pushing in the direction you say and another pushing towards a post scarcity economy. Which will prevail is difficult to say, but I suspect that in the short term the status-quo definitely have an advantage, but in the long term they will most likely lose.

The reason is due to a little known theory called non equilibrium thermodynamics, which essentially states that if the reconfiguring of a system (an atom, a cell, a solar system, a hurricane, society etc...) can produce more entropy in the universe, then given the opportunity, it will do that.

A moribund restrictive society that inhibits innovation creates less entropy than one where everyone is free to innovate, investigate and have fun in ways that expend energy. This doesn't mean that this will automatically happen, in the same way that biological evolution uses chance to produce more adapted species, so do all forms emergent complexity due to non equilibrium thermodynamics (evolution is just one organising principle). Also, it needs to be possible for the system to organise in this way. Societies organising principle is its socio-economic system. We have had several in the past, such as a monarchic command economy, but today the most successful is free market democracy. There is no reason to presume that this is the best one. Free market democracy became possible due to several inventions and innovations, such as coins, the printing press and debt. Recently we have invented the internet and this makes many new systems possible.

I've written a lot more on my theory page. http://babblingbrook.net/page/theory.

Sorry if this is poorly written. I have just bashed it out and would like to write more, but I have to go and get my daughter from grandmas so I don't have time...

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#133

Post by skylan_q » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 4:52 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43

One capitalist hybrid which does not distort the market is a free market with a basic income [1], i.e. an unconditional income as a right of being a citizen. At what level - survival, comfort, or luxury - the income is set is an open question to each society. Too high and scarcity erupts in the form of inflation, too low and inequality and populism corrode the society. Post-scarcity economics is more the study of loc…

One capitalist hybrid which does not distort the market is a free market with a basic income

Yes, it does distort. Why work on a manufacturing line producing required and high-demand materials and equipment when instead you can be creating arts and crafts that very few people would want and adds little to the productive capacity of the economy?

People need to realize that prices are not just a pain in the butt, but they are useful pieces of economic information.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#134

Post by ggreer » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 5:03 PM UTC

Blahah wrote: post #33

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.

I liked the idea, but didn't enjoy the book. It was frustrating to see concepts only partially explored. For example: Apparently nobody in the civilization thought of using non-voting shares.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#135

Post by philwelch » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 5:06 PM UTC

Nicholas_C wrote: post #117

rasz_pl wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont remember seeing any robots (other than Data) on Star Trek. How do you propose to fix broken replicator? or a toilet? Best case scenario is you throw whole thing away and put a new one - now someone has to unbolt the old unit, get the new one out of storage, push it through half of the ship and mount it.

Maybe things didn't break. I would assume everything in the Star Trek universe is super high quality and doesn't just break like things we have today.

Considering how busy everyone is in Engineering I find that unlikely.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#136

Post by AngrySkillzz » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 5:11 PM UTC

skylan_q wrote: post #133

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43

One capitalist hybrid which does not distort the market is a free market with a basic income [1], i.e. an unconditional income as a right of being a citizen. At what level - survival, comfort, or luxury - the income is set is an open question to each society. Too high and scarcity erupts in the form of inflation, too low and inequality and populism corrode the society. Post-scarcity economics is more the study of loc…

One capitalist hybrid which does not distort the market is a free market with a basic income Yes, it does distort. Why work on a manufacturing line producing required and high-demand materials and equipment when instead you can be creating arts and crafts that very few people would want and adds little to the productive capacity of the economy? People need to realize that prices are not just a pain in the butt, but t…

The key point to basic income, in my opinion, is that it seems like it would increase social welfare while minimally distorting prices and being cheap to administer. So let's take this to its logical conclusion, that lots of people don't work/do "useless" jobs, but still want to buy high-demand goods. Demand gets higher, and prices for those goods go up. Does this break the economic signalling mechanism? I'd argue that it doesn't, price signals are still firmly in place. Producers of high-demand goods can afford to raise salaries and attract more workers. There is still an incentive to work. On top of that, necessary goods with a satiation point (e.g. food and shelter) would be more resistant to these effects. You don't need more food than you can eat or more houses than you can live in. If you aren't working, you still have to mind your money and budget accordingly; it's not like everything is free.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#137

Post by markc » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 5:13 PM UTC

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…

James P. Hogan's "Voyage from Yesteryear" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_from_Yesteryear is another SciFi work where a post-scarcity economy figures prominently, including some funny scenes with new arrivals who take a while to adjust. (Hoarding behavior for a while, then they bring all the stuff back when they are comfortable with it).

I have experienced this myself in small measure when I took a job where all the snacks and beverages were free.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#138

Post by patio11 » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 5:17 PM UTC

kybernetikos wrote: post #51

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…

> Because Jean Luc Picard is a Federation citizen, and he wouldn't be happy as other than a starship captain. There are strong hints in Iain M Banks' Culture series that a significant portion of the mission of Contact and Special Circumstances is giving humans with a pathological need for conflict and excitement something to do to keep them happy.

Thanks for this recommendation -- I'm a quarter of the way into the first book now and mostly enjoying it.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#139

Post by ggreer » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 5:19 PM UTC

kybernetikos wrote: post #51

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…

> Because Jean Luc Picard is a Federation citizen, and he wouldn't be happy as other than a starship captain. There are strong hints in Iain M Banks' Culture series that a significant portion of the mission of Contact and Special Circumstances is giving humans with a pathological need for conflict and excitement something to do to keep them happy.

I got that impression most strongly in The Player of Games. (Minor spoiler alert.) The Minds could have sent an avatar or SC agent to destroy The Empire of Azad, but they figured, "Hey, this Gurgeh guy is bored and he's pretty good at strategy games. Let's kill two birds with one stone."

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#140

Post by powertower » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 5:23 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #130

powertower wrote: post #92

> But we actually have the capacity to feed them, to feed everyone, even now, even if we don’t have the will. Careful, having the capacity to do something does not mean you should do it. An excellent way to grow a starving population from 80MM people to 800MM people in about 80 years is to feed them (these numbers aren't made up). Then all you have to do is just feed their children, and their children, and their chil…

http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/#section=myth-three

So all we have to do to prevent the population booms by feeding the poor of the world is to provide them education, housing, clean water, healthcare, a good government, and about 12 other things (while praying hard to make sure they don't get dependant on that outside help)?

And then after the initial exponential population run-up (which happens anyways), it will all level out in the end (with lower birth-rates).

Seems kind of like the counter-argument is avoiding the issue at hand by re-framing it in terms of future birth-rates (instead of accepting the immediate reality).