Star Trek - Space: The Final Frontier

[ProfDongs]

Started up Voyager and finished the first season yesterday. So far I'm enjoying it, none of the cast have really stood out that much though. The Doctor, Tuvok and Paris have been doing a good job. I think I liked the episode Jetrel the most so far, the back and forth between Neelix and Jetrel was really good, especially the speech Neelix gives on what it was like after the blast

 

[Exceptionally Exceptional]

Well....

This scene was produced under Gene's watch.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XQQYbKT_rMg
And let's not forget that it was the ferengi introduced under his supervision as an outright political cartoon?

Yeah, but keep in mind that under Gene's watch we also saw that Riker himself often dealt in latinum and gambled at Quarks.
I don't think Gene had a major problem with capitalism itself but seemed to think that capitalism based off greed was crude and self serving. You can have capitalism without greed, capitalism born out of mutual interest.

I have corn, you have meat. I'd like meat with my corn and you would like corn with your meat. And so we trade and expand each other's diets. Each party benefits pretty well. That was early capitalism.

 

[AnOminous]

I have corn, you have meat. I'd like meat with my corn and you would like corn with your meat. And so we trade and expand each other's diets. Each party benefits pretty well. That was early capitalism.

That was simple barter. Capitalism is a bit more complicated and requires actual capital, which requires some abstract currency that isn't just a commodity in disguise. It also requires acquisition of capital (sound like a certain species?). Part of the point of it is to encourage this kind of behavior. Then you need private property, specifically not government or tribal property. Those rights have to be protected somehow. There have to be markets in which these things can be exchanged competitively. And finally, you actually need labor and more specifically, paid labor.

Arguably, there are other things you need before any of this can actually work and flourish, like credit, which requires interest, and more generally, banking, to make the acquisition and transfer of capital more efficient, but those above are the main necessities for capitalism.

The general philosophy of the Ferengi is textbook capitalism, but ST presents it as less than an unalloyed good thing. Which it is. But then at the same time, the Ferengi are not portrayed as utter villains and, in fact, are often actually pretty useful.

They're often accused of being anti-Semitic stereotypes, and while it is certain that elements of this were deliberately thrown in (often by Jews involved in the show), the broader implication of the Ferengi is they implicate our own modern society.

 

[White Devil]

the broader implication of the Ferengi is they implicate our own modern society.

Armin Shimerman has said this same exact thing in an interview when asked about Ferengis and antisemitism.

 

[Exceptionally Exceptional]

That was simple barter. Capitalism is a bit more complicated and requires actual capital, which requires some abstract currency that isn't just a commodity in disguise. It also requires acquisition of capital (sound like a certain species?). Part of the point of it is to encourage this kind of behavior. Then you need private property, specifically not government or tribal property. Those rights have to be protected somehow. There have to be markets in which these things can be exchanged competitively. And finally, you actually need labor and more specifically, paid labor.

Arguably, there are other things you need before any of this can actually work and flourish, like credit, which requires interest, and more generally, banking, to make the acquisition and transfer of capital more efficient, but those above are the main necessities for capitalism.

The general philosophy of the Ferengi is textbook capitalism, but ST presents it as less than an unalloyed good thing. Which it is. But then at the same time, the Ferengi are not portrayed as utter villains and, in fact, are often actually pretty useful.

They're often accused of being anti-Semitic stereotypes, and while it is certain that elements of this were deliberately thrown in (often by Jews involved in the show), the broader implication of the Ferengi is they implicate our own modern society.

Capital is the logical extension of barter. Nobody wants to haul their trade goods around everywhere, and often times not dong so could bite you in the ass when you find someone selling something you want or need while traveling without your 40 bushels of corn. So we have to designate currency as a stand in for the value of the trade goods to make that value easier to transport and thus more convenient as you can actually carry some around at all times in case opportunity presents itself.

Sure, some people think the capital itself is the end goal, which is when you get greed based capitalism. But for most people the capital is a means to an end, something you hold onto as long as you need it to get what you require, which is practical capitalism.

And we see both sorts in the Ferengi. Some Ferengi will happily gouge you for many times the value of whatever you're buying. Some Ferengi, however, are willing to trade at face value simply because they give a shit less about Latinum than they do about buying that Tholian Silk Lingerie for their favorite Dabo girl.

Then you get the occasional act of benevolent capitalism, like when Quark sold medical supplies at cost to the Bajoran resistance. No profit and the risk of execution, now THAT is charity.

 

[AnOminous]

Armin Shimerman has said this same exact thing in an interview when asked about Ferengis and antisemitism.

I probably am echoing him then. I'm pretty sure I've seen or read it.

Capital is the logical extension of barter.

Capital is an abstraction of value. Barter doesn't necessarily lead to it. Barter has only one aspect of capitalism, which is voluntary exchange.

And we see both sorts in the Ferengi. Some Ferengi will happily gouge you for many times the value of whatever you're buying.

Most Ferengi would view it as actually wrong not to do that if they could. The Rules of Acquisition are quite specific that it is actually immoral to pay more for something than you can get away with or sell it for less than you can. The main reason a Ferengi would not do this is not to lose a customer.

 

[Chilson]

Capital is the logical extension of barter. Nobody wants to haul their trade goods around everywhere, and often times not dong so could bite you in the ass when you find someone selling something you want or need while traveling without your 40 bushels of corn. So we have to designate currency as a stand in for the value of the trade goods to make that value easier to transport and thus more convenient as you can actually carry some around at all times in case opportunity presents itself.

Sure, some people think the capital itself is the end goal, which is when you get greed based capitalism. But for most people the capital is a means to an end, something you hold onto as long as you need it to get what you require, which is practical capitalism.

And we see both sorts in the Ferengi. Some Ferengi will happily gouge you for many times the value of whatever you're buying. Some Ferengi, however, are willing to trade at face value simply because they give a shit less about Latinum than they do about buying that Tholian Silk Lingerie for their favorite Dabo girl.

Your entire point is sort of muddled. No one actually gives a shit about cash, its fancy paper. What we care about is what we can get with cash. Same thing with the Ferengi. They only care about latinum because of what it can get them. Now they elevate it to religious significance though it being able to buy your way essentially into heaven., but its still just a means to an end.

Cash or its equivalent has been around since way before capitalism in barter based economies. What's important is the private property element. Before, most goods were controlled by the state (or its equivalent, be it tribes, clans or what not) with very few goods being in the control of private parties outside the state. The Ferengi represent the control of goods by private individuals to the extreme and their portrayal is almost always negative under Rodenberry. DS9 does a lot to undo Rodenberry's bias against capitalism by showing the positive aspects and hilariously unintentionally portray regulatory agencies like the Ferengi Commerce Authority (FCA) as the real villain's in Ferengi society (which they are, monopolies are built on regulation of goods not private control of goods), but Rodenberry would have been very much against this idea had he been alive.

 

[Exceptionally Exceptional]

No one actually gives a shit about cash, its fancy paper. What we care about is what we can get with cash.

Tell that to the ultrawealthy assholes who never touch more than 10% of their income and choose instead to hoard it over generations. Those people only care about money for the sake of having it because having large amounts of money brings power. They could care less about what they could actually buy with it or how they could use that power, they just know they want it for it's own sake.

You give me, say, Jeff Bezos' fortune and I would be trying to put every single damn dollar to work making all the shit that I want to exist a reality. I would also try figuring out how to hurl some of that money at societal problems in ways more meaningful than just handing people loads of cash without regulation.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

Capital is the logical extension of barter. Nobody wants to haul their trade goods around everywhere, and often times not dong so could bite you in the ass when you find someone selling something you want or need while traveling without your 40 bushels of corn. So we have to designate currency as a stand in for the value of the trade goods to make that value easier to transport and thus more convenient as you can actually carry some around at all times in case opportunity presents itself.

A couple years ago, I read a scientific paper on the use of money in the viking era and it was quite fascinating.
Their approach to value was completely different from ours, ie: money was just another commodity that was bartered and their concept of "value" alone was radically different from what we have nowadays. From a modern perspective, the concept of "value" is an attribute in an economic sense based on money (or, sometimes a bit more abstract, the equivalent of the time it takes you to earn enough money to buy something). Meanwhile, to someone trading in the tenth century, money is more akin to a small standardized ingot of precious metal, but their value is based on supply and demand as much as it is with everything else on the market. When you look at historical coins from Europe, you'll quickly realize that they really are more like gold or silver ingots with a stamp on top that guarantees their validity. Some of the things used as coins a thousand years ago are so crude, you'd not even identify it as "money" if you found it lying on the ground. Pieces of precious metal banged into a very flat, lumpy shape and a stamp that isn't even centred, sometimes even only partially on the piece of metal.
It's hard to explain, but a thousand years ago, you'd not go "12 chickens are worth x amount of money", they'd have a much more abstract "value" and money was just one of literally countless other goods to barter with.

 

[Emperor Julian]

I always got the impression the federation exists in a post scarcity society which makeas most of our economic models redundant. It's socialist in the sense capitalism is pointless if you can't really sell anything of worth to anyone.
Plus I think it's important to consider that star trek is utopian fiction, I'm a socialist but don't really think the heaven on earth in star trek is achievable, but it is a nice aspiration.

 

[Chilson]

Tell that to the ultrawealthy assholes who never touch more than 10% of their income and choose instead to hoard it over generations. Those people only care about money for the sake of having it because having large amounts of money brings power. They could care less about what they could actually buy with it or how they could use that power, they just know they want it for it's own sake.

You give me, say, Jeff Bezos' fortune and I would be trying to put every single damn dollar to work making all the shit that I want to exist a reality. I would also try figuring out how to hurl some of that money at societal problems in ways more meaningful than just handing people loads of cash without regulation.

You don't really seem to understand what the ultra wealthy actually use the vast majority of their wealth on. You also seem a bit irrationally mad at rich people, at least that is what I am getting from all this. They don't horde it, that is a complete waste of money and goes against the time-value of money.

Most rich peoples money is re-invested and do exactly what you said you would do with it. Its either in managed investment accounts that help to fuel the market, put into promising start ups, Charities are a famously large part of any rich persons yearly expenditure (mainly for the tax benefits), or being re-invested back into their own businesses. Its all to make more money for themselves at the end of the day, but greed is what ultimately everyone (workers, owners and investors all) benefits from in this system. Even those that do horde it are doing it to invest for future generations of their own kin which is a completely valid way to "spend" money (and funeral taxes are a thing to curtail such dynasties anyways).

 

[Exceptionally Exceptional]

You don't really seem to understand what the ultra wealthy actually use the vast majority of their wealth on. You also seem a bit irrationally mad at rich people, at least that is what I am getting from all this. They don't horde it, that is a complete waste of money and goes against the time-value of money.

Most rich peoples money is re-invested and do exactly what you said you would do with it. Its either in managed investment accounts that help to fuel the market, put into promising start ups, Charities are a famously large part of any rich persons yearly expenditure (mainly for the tax benefits), or being re-invested back into their own businesses. Its all to make more money for themselves at the end of the day, but greed is what ultimately everyone (workers, owners and investors all) benefits from in this system. Even those that do horde it are doing it to invest for future generations of their own kin which is a completely valid way to "spend" money (and funeral taxes are a thing to curtail such dynasties anyways).

Not really mad at the rich. More disappointed at how many of them simply squander the money in pursuit of more wealth for the sake of it. Granted that greed is what creates industry, but it's somewhat disappointing that the people with obscene amounts of money wont often use that money to better mankind unless there's something in it for them. Usually the ability to make more money.

 

[Chilson]

Not really mad at the rich. More disappointed at how many of them simply squander the money in pursuit of more wealth for the sake of it. Granted that greed is what creates industry, but it's somewhat disappointing that the people with obscene amounts of money wont often use that money to better mankind unless there's something in it for them. Usually the ability to make more money.

People are selfish, that's just how it is. Rodenberry was unwilling to accept this fact and work with it, instead creating a reality where humans somehow evolved it away (or something equally as unrealistic). If you truly want to make things better, then support measures that curb this inherent selfishness for good rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Exceptionally Exceptional]

People are selfish, that's just how it is. Rodenberry was unwilling to accept this fact and work with it, instead creating a reality where humans somehow evolved it away (or something equally as unrealistic). If you truly want to make things better, then support measures that curb this inherent selfishness for good rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

Oh, I've accepted it. But I still find it disappointing.

 

[ditto]

The economic model in Star Trek is Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

I always got the impression the federation exists in a post scarcity society which makeas most of our economic models redundant. It's socialist in the sense capitalism is pointless if you can't really sell anything of worth to anyone.
Plus I think it's important to consider that star trek is utopian fiction, I'm a socialist but don't really think the heaven on earth in star trek is achievable, but it is a nice aspiration.

Which begs the question of WHY the Federation is post-scarcity in the first place. We know in Voyager that replicators use more energy than actually cooking food, which is why they had replicator rations and had to put up with Neelix's cooking. Also, as Sisko said in his Maquis speech, colony life was not like life on Earth. Remember that time when Riker was hitting on some colonist and the Crystaline Entity cock-blocked him by turning the entire colony into salt? Just before she died, she was talking about how they didn't even have a replicator set up or the creature comforts we usually see, which is why she invited him to have dinner in her tent. Or Picard's fake son, Jason Vigo, complaining about how hard life was for him on the frontier? Or Turkana IV?

The Federation is the positive version of the Imperium of Man. They colonize whatever planet they can get their hands on, are poorly defended ("We're the only ship in range."), then when they meet opposition to some minor race like the Shelliak or the Talarians or the Cardassians, they get into a small border war and sign some dumbass treaty that requires the Feds to pack up and leave. I suspect the early part of the 24th century up until TNG was the Feds aggressively expanding or "exploring" without having to worry about the Klingons or the Romulans checking them. The Fed-Cardassian treaty wasn't even the first of it's kind either, like when Data had to evict a colony because of the Shelliak. Why would the Federation have such sloppy colonization laws?

1. Raw resources. Even in Encounter at Farpoint, free access to interstellar trade was considered a boon to a planet's economy. So much so that the Bandii were willing to enslave a space jellyfish for membership. While "money doesn't exist in the 24th century," trade most definitely does. Because this massive trade network exists, the people are Earth and the other Founding member homeworlds can delude themselves into thinking they live in a post-scarcity society.

2. To remove undesirables in their society. Your average Earth citizen is like Joseph Sisko or Jaresh Inyo, liberal-minded, friendly, and despises the national security state. What about people like Eddington or the Irish Nationalists in Up the Long Ladder or the genetically engineered people in The Masterpiece Society or the Navajo? They are "encouraged" to leave to set up their own colonies where they are not under many Federation laws and allowed self-governance until some treaty tells them otherwise. The Feds help set up colonies to keep these people from thinking about the Fed government's problems.

General Chang also has an excellent analysis of how the Federation actually functions @33:33

 

[Flexo]

Yeah, but keep in mind that under Gene's watch we also saw that Riker himself often dealt in latinum and gambled at Quarks.
I don't think Gene had a major problem with capitalism itself but seemed to think that capitalism based off greed was crude and self serving. You can have capitalism without greed, capitalism born out of mutual interest.

I have corn, you have meat. I'd like meat with my corn and you would like corn with your meat. And so we trade and expand each other's diets. Each party benefits pretty well. That was early capitalism.

Ummm... quark's didn't exist until Gene was dead. (Gene died in '91 and DS9 was on air in '93.)

Btw I recommend "trek nation" sometime. Dunno how much I agree with it but it has some interesting POVs in it.

(Btw, I like capitalism)

 

[Emperor Julian]

Which begs the question of WHY the Federation is post-scarcity in the first place. We know in Voyager that replicators use more energy than actually cooking food, which is why they had replicator rations and had to put up with Neelix's cooking. Also, as Sisko said in his Maquis speech, colony life was not like life on Earth. Remember that time when Riker was hitting on some colonist and the Crystaline Entity cock-blocked him by turning the entire colony into salt? Just before she died, she was talking about how they didn't even have a replicator set up or the creature comforts we usually see, which is why she invited him to have dinner in her tent. Or Picard's fake son, Jason Vigo, complaining about how hard life was for him on the frontier? Or Turkana IV?

The Federation is the positive version of the Imperium of Man. They colonize whatever planet they can get their hands on, are poorly defended ("We're the only ship in range."), then when they meet opposition to some minor race like the Shelliak or the Talarians or the Cardassians, they get into a small border war and sign some dumbass treaty that requires the Feds to pack up and leave. I suspect the early part of the 24th century up until TNG was the Feds aggressively expanding or "exploring" without having to worry about the Klingons or the Romulans checking them. The Fed-Cardassian treaty wasn't even the first of it's kind either, like when Data had to evict a colony because of the Shelliak. Why would the Federation have such sloppy colonization laws?

1. Raw resources. Even in Encounter at Farpoint, free access to interstellar trade was considered a boon to a planet's economy. So much so that the Bandii were willing to enslave a space jellyfish for membership. While "money doesn't exist in the 24th century," trade most definitely does. Because this massive trade network exists, the people are Earth and the other Founding member homeworlds can delude themselves into thinking they live in a post-scarcity society.

2. To remove undesirables in their society. Your average Earth citizen is like Joseph Sisko or Jaresh Inyo, liberal-minded, friendly, and despises the national security state. What about people like Eddington or the Irish Nationalists in Up the Long Ladder or the genetically engineered people in The Masterpiece Society or the Navajo? They are "encouraged" to leave to set up their own colonies where they are not under many Federation laws and allowed self-governance until some treaty tells them otherwise. The Feds help set up colonies to keep these people from thinking about the Fed government's problems.

General Chang also has an excellent analysis of how the Federation actually functions @33:33

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XqVlSNP1jEI

Well the utopian setting is mostly framework for the fun space adventure setting with some of Rodenburys hopes for mankind which is accidently aspirational. He wasnt really a sociologist or economist so I doubt he put much thought into it. I get the impression the solution is largely technological and sociological, simular to how things are genrally more pleasent now than they are 100 years ago. It's ultimatly a whiggish attitude but since it's fiction its going to be.

1/2 the writtings a total mess at the best of times and the federations comparitive economic, tech or military strength is all over the place in differant circumstances.It's pretty inevitable since a utopain society wouldnt generate Imuch of plot, it's probably why most of the plots focus on an outside issue.

Also changs assement is self serving projection, the Empire is imperialistic ergo their opponent must be.

 

[Rebel Wilson]

Anyone have an opinion on Jammer's Reviews? Their comment section for some of these episodes is a blast.

Posting here to say I regularly troll Jammer's comment sections with gender critical and pro-orville shitposts.

 

[Flexo]

Tell that to the ultrawealthy assholes who never touch more than 10% of their income and choose instead to hoard it over generations. Those people only care about money for the sake of having it because having large amounts of money brings power. They could care less about what they could actually buy with it or how they could use that power, they just know they want it for it's own sake.

You give me, say, Jeff Bezos' fortune and I would be trying to put every single damn dollar to work making all the shit that I want to exist a reality. I would also try figuring out how to hurl some of that money at societal problems in ways more meaningful than just handing people loads of cash without regulation.

Never forget that there is a difference between CASH and WEALTH.