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

191–200 of 240 posts

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#191

Post by Jack000 »

talmand wrote: post #122
dkuntz2 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Joule is basically the currency of the Federation. While most of the time in the Federation people don't use currency and get what they need/want, in Voyager because there suddenly was scarcity again they implemented replicator rationing.

I wasn't the biggest fan of Voyager, I saw episodes here and there so maybe someone can explain this idea to me. I saw a few of the episodes where they described the rationing of replicator usage due to some shortage of something. I never understood this as the replicators are described as transforming a base material into near anything a person asks for which required energy to perform this task. The ship was the so…

possible explanations

- not sure about the over-abundance of energy. I remember several episodes where energy shortage was a plot point. It's also possible that assembling matter atom-by-atom takes a non-trivial amount of energy compared to warp travel.

- I also thought the replicators did have certain limitations - eg. you can't replicate living beings. If the "resolution" was limited at the atomic level, you would still need a certain amount of hydrogen and oxygen to replicate water.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#192

Post by bronsoja »

nickff wrote: post #152
disputin wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was a reply, but devolved into a dump of my current thoughts on economics. As I'm no economist it is likely muddled, naive, nonsense. The UK newspapers regularly have articles about the increased use of food banks. I haven't looked into it at all so can't comment on details such as how much is genuine need versus playing the game, or the rate of increase, etc. Combined with wage deflation or stagnation, food inf…

> "The more capital you have, the more capital you are able to accrue. And capital is power. The old saying, the rich get richer, is not just the superficial, flippant comment it might appear, flung around in the pub - it describes a core characteristic of capitalism." This is an interesting idea, but has been shown to be false. One example is that the average company on the S&P 500 lasts for less than 20 years, and…

For your point about Anheuser-Busch, I'm not familiar enough with all that went down, so hopefully you can clarify if I'm wrong. Since the company was bought out (vs going out of business), doesn't that mean the Anheuser-Busch family (which I'm presuming had a large number of shares) would still have their wealth?

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#193

Post by msandford »

greenbeethree wrote: post #188
msandford wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"while minimally distorting prices" SNIP! I think there's a serious misunderstanding here. Any basic income that is high enough to be useful will also be high enough to be distortive. Any basic income which is low enough not to distort will also be low enough not to be useful. Consider a few thought experiments. Set a basic income to $100 per month. Time 300 million americans that's only $3b per month or $36 billion…

You misunderstand Basic income as providing equal wealth to everyone... That is not the goal. The point is to provide the bare minimum amount of money required for someone to survive. You would base the amount of money each person gets on the cost of living where they live, just like how wages very from place to place today. The amount of Basic income wouldn't be the same everywhere. Basic Income isn't socialism, peo…

> You misunderstand Basic income as providing equal wealth to everyone...

I can see how you might think that, but I disagree. What I am trying to do is show that the idea that a basic income can provide without distorting prices isn't grounded in reality.

What is the bare minimum amount of money required for someone to survive? And who defines what "surviving" is? If you're married with six kids (four currently of the right age for private school) your "bare minimum" might be $25k/mo. No that's not legit? What is? Does the "bare minimum" require that you get only a small 1 bedroom to yourself? Or an efficiency? Or maybe you should be required to live with roommates to bring your rent cost down? Do you get more money if you have kids, or less? What happens if you get married or divorced?

If you live somewhere where the cost of living is high you get more money; how do you ensure people actually live where they say they do? What would prevent me and 100 of my closest friends from all saying we live in a shithole in NYC while we use that money to buy all kinds of good lives for ourselves in more rural areas? The cost of living differential is probably at least 2x and maybe higher, so there's a lot of incentive to abuse the system.

So the businesses have more profits, but higher taxes right? The money for a basic income doesn't just magically appear does it? Where does the money come from to pay it?

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#194

Post by etler »

rasz_pl wrote: post #62
etler wrote: post #50

>The big challenge here is how does society get someone to do the menial jobs that cannot be done in an automated manner. Are there examples of menial jobs in the Star Trek universe? I would imagine by then there simply are no menial jobs. I'm not sure what menial job examples there are that can't be automated. The jobs left over are interesting jobs. I'd imagine the motivation to do so are on par with the same motiv…

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.

I don't consider being a mechanic to be a menial job necessarily. I was thinking more about boring jobs where you do the exact same thing over and over again, like working fast food or factory work.

A mechanic has to solve new problems all the time making it more interesting and fulfilling.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#195

Post by whatevsbro »

bluntly_said wrote: post #190
whatevsbro wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

I think you're missing the point of the article. Pretty much entirely.

Well that was bluntly said. I'm not sure it's accurate though, and besides, I was just talking about the nature of economies and Capitalism, which is certainly relevant to an article talking about, well, economies.

But if you see a problem with what I said, perhaps you'd like to tell me what it is?

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#196

Post by nickff »

bronsoja wrote: post #192
nickff wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The more capital you have, the more capital you are able to accrue. And capital is power. The old saying, the rich get richer, is not just the superficial, flippant comment it might appear, flung around in the pub - it describes a core characteristic of capitalism." This is an interesting idea, but has been shown to be false. One example is that the average company on the S&P 500 lasts for less than 20 years, and…

For your point about Anheuser-Busch, I'm not familiar enough with all that went down, so hopefully you can clarify if I'm wrong. Since the company was bought out (vs going out of business), doesn't that mean the Anheuser-Busch family (which I'm presuming had a large number of shares) would still have their wealth?

Anheuser-Busch is a very interesting case, I would refer you to Julie Macintosh's book "Dethroning the King", or one of her excellent presentations.[1]

The Wikipedia page on Augustus Busch IV states the following:

>"Press reports indicated that the Busch family ownership of the company had greatly dwindled over the years with Busch's father owning only 1.2 percent of the shares at the time of the takeover. In total the Busch family owned only 4 percent of the company"[2]

I think it is fair to say the the Busch family were able to preserve some of their wealth, but their status has declined drastically over time, and will likely continue to do so. I must admit that the story about this family is subjective, and anecdotal.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXq9Jj4LGCo

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Busch_IV

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#197

Post by gwern »

bentcorner wrote: post #185
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when looking for a new economic model, why not go back to psychology? Excellent point. > Is it really true that most people don't want to work? Most if not all people, unless hobbled by various ailments, are not only content to perform almost daily light work, but basically require it for their own well-being. Think how gardening keeps you healthy well into old age. Think how the boredom of total inaction destroys…

> Most if not all people, unless hobbled by various ailments, are not only content to perform almost daily light work, but basically require it for their own well-being. Think how gardening keeps you healthy well into old age. Think how the boredom of total inaction destroys people. If I could devote my hours to manual gardening and the betterment of an area of land while still maintaining my standard of living I wou…

'"Work then without disputing," said Martin; "it is the only way to render life supportable."

The little society, one and all, entered into this laudable design and set themselves to exert their different talents. The little piece of ground yielded them a plentiful crop. Cunegund indeed was very ugly, but she became an excellent hand at pastrywork: Pacquette embroidered; the old woman had the care of the linen. There was none, down to Brother Giroflee, but did some service; he was a very good carpenter, and became an honest man. Pangloss used now and then to say to Candide:

"There is a concatenation of all events in the best of possible worlds; for, in short, had you not been kicked out of a fine castle for the love of Miss Cunegund; had you not been put into the Inquisition; had you not traveled over America on foot; had you not run the Baron through the body; and had you not lost all your sheep, which you brought from the good country of El Dorado, you would not have been here to eat preserved citrons and pistachio nuts."

"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our garden."'

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#198

Post by dllthomas »

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…

With regards to the Business Week chart, do you know if the numbers are using median or mean?

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#199

Post by Canada »

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #136
skylan_q wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> Demand gets higher, and prices for those goods go up.

Then everyone will complain that they aren't getting their basic income anymore and demand the basic income be raised.

> On top of that, necessary goods with a satiation point (e.g. food and shelter) would be more resistant to these effects.

The opposite seems to occur in practice. The price of whatever is subsidized goes up. Example: Cost of education.

The only way to prevent this is to impose price controls. Single payer medical schemes are a great example.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#200

Post by seanmcdirmid »

blueskin_ wrote: post #96
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities are generally expensive because they are desirable places to live; that there are jobs available is only part of that.

There's a tradeoff. For example, even people making low 6 figures are unlikely to ever own a house in (a decent part of) London unless they inherit it or win the lottery. A medium to small city is more economical for cost of living, with a decent proportion of the pay and lower costs of living.

But you are living in a small city.

If you are young you might not care about buying a house, and care about hanging out with friends and doing things instead. Cities attract young people who don't mind renting, suburbs attract families who care more about buying their own houses.

Post reply on HN