Live data from Hacker News

The Star Trek Economy

medium.com

171–180 of 240 posts

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#171
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…

>When you sit at the dinner table and ask for the salt, you get it. Actually, it's you who has a fundamental misunderstanding of communism, and yes, this probably shows the sad state of our education system. Communism is not cooperation. Sitting down to dinner with family, is not Communism. Working on a project with your friend is not Communism. Donating money, time or skills is not Communism. Communism is a particul…

> Communism is a particular way of allocating scare resources (which also implies a particular government structure).

Such as salt at the table, or time spent at a company. You haven't actually explained what he got wrong about communism; you're just basely asserting a negation.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#172
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_fi…

> a communist society is essentially just one very large firm.

This is my favorite discussion of the topic so far:

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-what-d...

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#173
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheating by definition leads to undeserved reward. Greed by definition leads to maximal reward.

> "Greed by definition leads to maximal reward." Greed attempts to attain maximal reward, but this does not mean the reward is achieved. Greed is neither necessary or sufficient to achieve extraordinary outcomes.

Rational greed exploits whatever system you have though. A rationally greedy capitalist will do startups or work on Wall Street or something; a rationally greedy communist will gain political power. In a world of magical egalitarianism rational greed will increase the size of the pie for everyone; if you allow society to break egalitarianism purely to incentivize this kind of behavior you have become John Rawls.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). See…

It's not like current birth rates are lower for lack of aid.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Voyager completely destroyed its own credibility as an interesting story to establish the post-scarcity angle. If you count all the shuttles and torpedoes they lost throughout the series and the continual damage and repair to the ship, it's obvious that one tiny ship must somehow have the capability to produce nearly unlimited output, because otherwise they wouldn't have a ship left after seven years.

They also seem to be able to produce an unlimited supply of red-shirt crewmen.

To be fair it's not like you knew how many they had to start. I liked how BSG had an up-to-date population count in nearly every episode.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great link! One thing that always bothered me about The Federation was how they treated certain worlds and members. Recall the TNG episode Journey's End where the Enterprise is sent to remove what amounted to some 'Space Native Americans' from a planet the Federation had given to Cardassians in a treaty. The inhabitants in question were members of the Federation (with all the rights that was supposed to confer) but t…

You're not a terrible nerd. Star Trek just isn't that great a show. I blame Roddenberry. He sold the network 'Wagon Train to the Stars' but what he deliberately _produced_ was an episodic morality play. Good fiction and a consistent universe were just not going to happen in that kind of a deal.

To be fair, some of the writers did a great job of creating brilliant episodes, despite the setting. My favorites are the DS9 episodes focused on Garak, many of which remind me of Phillip K Dick short stories, in that they make the viewer question the true motives (and natures) of all the characters, combined with inconclusive facts.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#177

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#178
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not a terrible nerd. Star Trek just isn't that great a show. I blame Roddenberry. He sold the network 'Wagon Train to the Stars' but what he deliberately _produced_ was an episodic morality play. Good fiction and a consistent universe were just not going to happen in that kind of a deal.

To be fair, some of the writers did a great job of creating brilliant episodes, despite the setting. My favorites are the DS9 episodes focused on Garak, many of which remind me of Phillip K Dick short stories, in that they make the viewer question the true motives (and natures) of all the characters, combined with inconclusive facts.

Oh yes! More than a few episodes from all eras are quite fun to watch.

But the universe, as a whole, disappoints.

I don't know if Paramount would have let them, but if the writer's for TNG (and DS9, and so on) had been free to ignore the canon from the preceding shows the entire thing would be much better.

"Same idea", they could have said "But we're not going to be constrained by what came before. Accept it on it's own terms."

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#179
post #99

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…

What is 'work', anymore? In context of capitalism/communism (and the old industrial economy), 'work' had basically meant a 'worker' getting paid to do some tangible, quantifiable task. E.g. I pay you $5 to move those 100 widgets. Or, maybe you get a loaf of bread if you move those 100 widgets. But, in terms of the modern, knowledge economy, work means something different. I don't need someone to move widgets. What I…

> Anyway, my thought is that if we can give people basic freedom from the inane logistics of life, they will free themselves up to do other things. Very few people will do nothing. I can't even imagine nothing.

You need to realize that all money has to come from somewhere. If you're some 3rd-party observer and want to hand money out to some people, you'll have to take it from others, and you have no business doing that, nor does anyone else. We're all trained to think about economics from a central planning perspective. People drone on and on about what should be done to an economy, or how whatever should be arranged, when in reality, it's all about people interacting and engaging in voluntary exchanges and investments and so on.

Capitalism is just people pursuing their personal gain, which is something they'll do regardless of what kind of "system" you'd like to place upon them. It's important to realize that Capitalism itself, as I've just described it, is not a system. It's not a model for economic behaviour that's imposed on people, it's what people do in any case.

Scarcity is a fact of nature and life. This planet's resources are scarce - there's just a certain, finite amount of them out there, and that's it. Our time as human beings is scarce too, there's no way around that (for now). It's pointless to wax poetic about "post-scarcity" and what should be done about it. If we get there, we get there. But until then, we'll have to work within the confines of scarcity and that's fine. We're all responsible for our own well-being, we're all pursuing our personal goals all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's just how we're biologically wired to behave.

The only problem with economies in the world is coercion, ie. other people intentionally affecting your choices in the market, compelling you to do something else than you'd otherwise do. Perhaps the most massive example of this is fiat currency. Without taxes being collected in dollars and euros etc, no one would use those currencies.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#180

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)…

If you change incentive systems in countries to make children & marriage an economic negative you get population shrinkage. Educate women, reduce infant mortality, free birth control, dual income house holds, expensive rents, etc. Almost every developed nation is reproducing at below replacement levels as a result.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/0...

Post reply on HN