tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post9181567642239633599..comments2023-09-02T21:41:54.953-05:00Comments on ST-v-SW.Net: The Blog: Trekonomics: The Economics of Star TrekGuardianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01284444370958467313noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-54618276564927702592015-12-29T16:12:53.014-06:002015-12-29T16:12:53.014-06:00One thought that I don't believe anyone discus...One thought that I don't believe anyone discussing the economic theories of _Star Trek_ has ever considered was that when Kirk (in ST:IV) and Picard (in ST:VIII) talk about there being "no money in the future", they were exclusively talking about Earth. Not the Federation as a whole, just Earth. Vulcan would have its own economic system, Andoria would have its system, this "no money" thing was exclusive just to Earth (and maybe Mars, Luna, Titan, and all the colonies of the Terran Sol system). <br /><br />Trade between different Federation member worlds would necessitate the creation of some medium of exchange, therefore Federation credits, to be used by federation citizens when traveling to distant locations (Quark's bar where Fed credits could be exchanged for gold pressed latinum).<br /><br />BTW, there is no kitchen on the _Enterprise_, it's called a galley. STSWB5SG1FANhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03274246318714907262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-82596715156240347052015-08-07T16:30:04.739-05:002015-08-07T16:30:04.739-05:00Oops, nope. Things didn't get better in conte...<br />Oops, nope. Things didn't get better in context. That same nonsensical pattern of claiming direct evidence from mere tenuous scraps is still here in regards to the "pivot point" of Kirk's no-money comment from Star Trek IV, as if he missed Kirk and Spock discussing the cost of Spock's training in "The Apple". Indeed, he seems to go on and on about cash's absence, as if he's never used or heard of a credit card. <br /><br />Even the TNG Writer's Bible is used, though only as indirect evidence of a sea change in the production office's supposed handling of Federation economics going forward. (This is kind of silly, what with the replicator also appearing in the Bible along with the scene from "Encounter at Farpoint"[TNG1] of Crusher buying the whole bolt of fabric, charged to her.)<br /><br />And we get more jealous-commie nonsense, e.g. "Not everyone can afford a BMW and nobody would bother to try, if it were not for the purpose of showing off. But they are great cars! From Germany! No. Both science and history amply prove that, German or not, there is no such thing as a truly great car."<br /><br />What the hell? Science and history prove there are no great cars? What absurdity is this? So Commanu claims there is no appreciable distinction in quality between different automobiles. Third-world carmakers, rejoice! Your gappy-manufacturing-toleranced, ill-running, weeks-lasting piles of unsafe crap are every bit the Bavarian. Hell, Jaguar owners might as well tell the shop they're driving a Rolls before they bring it in. And I guess Kia can be forgiven for ripping off Ford designs so much lately (rather than previous targets like Chrysler) because their crappy little trash heaps are no different.<br /><br />Commanu is absurd. It's even stranger when he seems to heart Adam Smith, until a few lines later when he notes, as if on cue, "This is the ideal theory. In practice, that ideal conceals a potentially fatal flaw that we will explore later."<br /><br />Ah, of course he says that. After all, we mustn't allow the greatest economic system yet conceived to go unpunished.<br /><br />He does have some interesting moments, like discussing the etymology of the word "dollar", and he does seem to recognize that Picard's vineyard and Sisko's restaurant are not disproofs of post-scarcity. <br /><br />*But, he never seems to really try to prove post-scarcity.* <br /><br />He uses Picard's line about material needs no longer existing, for instance, while ignoring Picard's more ominous point about how controlling one's destiny is an illusion.<br /><br />Y'know, I may have originated the post-scarcity model for Trek (or not), but I'm *less* inclined to accept it when reading this guy's excuse for an argument. It's that bad. <br /><br />(That college paper I wrote got a failing grade, by the way, because the teacher didn't think I'd defined my terms adequately (no Trek fan was she!). I am failing Commanu for not proving the argument, with extra negative credit for his commie blowhard junk.)Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01284444370958467313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-28532414820744272152015-08-07T16:29:12.253-05:002015-08-07T16:29:12.253-05:00Ah, so he has sample chapters available. And inde...Ah, so he has sample chapters available. And indeed, Chapter 8 is pointless and non-sensical, strewn with rabid anti-Americanism and, I suspect, anti-Semitism, but not quite open enough to say directly.<br /><br />The Federation may not be communist, but this asshat sure is. This Manu guy is the fool Piketty of Trek economics, though unlike Piketty I am unaware of any data falsification ... I just refer to the ill-considered, unsupported conclusions.<br /><br />Robert Heinlein gets the bulk of his ire, for he is "as vile and stale as a Gadsden Flag". That's the "Don't Tread On Me" snake flag, for those unaware, a bright yellow Tea Party favorite. Naturally Comrade Manu (Commanu?) recoils in angry disgust.<br /><br />"Heinlein, like most criminal advocates of war and torture, had never seen combat."<br /><br />What the ... how the hell did a science fiction writer become a criminal advocate of war and torture? <br /><br />"It is my understanding that Heinlein is some sort of folk hero for the American conservative movement,"<br /><br />I've barely heard of him and never on this basis.<br /><br />"[...] not only for his books but also for his public commitment to America's repugnant and murderous tradition of legal gun ownership. Exceptionalism cuts both ways, and mostly on the wrong side when handled by fools."<br /><br />Holy shit! How could the guy see the keyboard to type this with Putin's crotch in the way?<br /><br />==========<br /><br />Let's go back to Chapter 1, shall we? Maybe things will be better in context. To be continued ...Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01284444370958467313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-13243953502417511122015-08-07T04:02:44.768-05:002015-08-07T04:02:44.768-05:00Um, wow. So yeah, my perception of the book autho...Um, wow. So yeah, my perception of the book author was spot on.<br /><br />I tweeted to him the question: "How far back does the Trek as post-scarcity idea go, per your research? I make 15 years." Then I posted a link here.<br /><br />25+ tweets and 40 minutes later, I still don't have an answer. For one, he went nuts over the Hiroshima note ... forgivable, I suppose, but off-topic. And he then misinterpreted my question (and a whole lot more), trying to point to post-scarcity evidence in Trek chronologically, starting with ST4:TVH which he said "explicitly articulated" post-scarcity by having the bit about no money.<br /><br />The hell? Folks, if not having cash equals living in a society of post-scarcity abundance, then Thag the Caveman had it effing *made*, and Bitcoin is better than the replicator. <br /><br />Oh, but he wasn't finished, because in fact he does believe we are at post-scarcity *now*, which has to be the dumbest thing I've heard in awhile.<br /><br />But let's back up, because his criteria for "explicitly articulated" is so abysmally low that he even says Roddenberry "specifically described" post-scarcity in the TNG Writer's Bible. I've been skimming it since the tweet and, as with ST4, I'll be damned if I see any such thing.<br /><br />As a man used to dealing with people who at least try to have real evidence, and as someone who almost invariably does, this evidence-free guy is pretty horrifying.<br /><br />He did try to provide further evidence, such as the crew's befuddlement at 1985 city hubbub as a "foretaste" Um, no. I'd be equally befuddled at the vehicular insanity of 1906 San Francisco: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q2GCdXmbQE<br /><br />... or the complete traffic lawlessness of some Asian cities today. It's a different world, not post-scarcity.<br /><br />He also suggested that computwer advancements had something to do with the topic (huh?), and more damningly that the kitchen on the Enterprise from The Undiscovered Country was proof that they did not have post-scarcity then. Again, this is wrong-headed. That may prove a lack of shipboard food replication (or a too-limited menu from their replicator or protein resequencer, what with those freaky colored cubes from TOS), but means jack-all in relation to the wider economic climate.<br /><br />In short, the guy's tweets were a pure disaster on every level. I haven't even touched his Hiroshima absurdities, his statement that peace on Earth was Reagan's nightmare, and other ridiculousness. <br /><br />Little wonder I inquired "Is the book like this, too? {...} I'll just look for the bibliography, I guess." <br /><br />I feel confident that unless he writes books a helluva lot better than he tweets, that thing is going to be a complete mess that sets back the post-scarcity model's dominance over the communist model by, oh, 15 years or so. Hell, that may be his goal, given what a nutty leftist he seems to be!Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01284444370958467313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-9102542290698173182015-08-07T02:05:50.918-05:002015-08-07T02:05:50.918-05:00(*
"One strong belief of mercantilist doctrin...(*<br />"One strong belief of mercantilist doctrine was bullionism, the idea that the amount of precious metals a nation possessed was an indicator of its economic health. One aspect of mercantilism that Americans usually know the most about is the way in which colonies were considered a "captive audience" of the homeland's economy, and thought to be little more than a source of raw materials and a market for exported manufactured goods.<br />Try, for a moment, to imagine the cognitive dissonance a 17th Century individual whisked forward in time, attempting to understand the economic policies of modern capitalist and communist societies. To be sure, some things would look familiar . . . tariffs, balances of trade, et cetera . . . but much of the modern economic landscape would be absolutely foreign to him. He would look at the United States, and see that we haven't been on the gold standard for decades . . . meaning that a citizen can't go "cash in" his dollar for a set amount of gold or any other precious metal. He'd see the complexities of our economics, mixed with the stunning revelation that we abhor monopolies and attempt (in many cases, especially in the past) to adopt free trade and laissez-faire attitudes. On the other side of the coin, he'd see the communist states actually controlling all economic activities, and be shocked to learn that (ostensibly, at least) everyone received the same pay for their work. I can only imagine his reaction to the World Trade Organization.<br />In the mercantilist's mind, the economy of the United States might appear as some sort of backwards mixture of pre-mercantilist and mercantilist philosophies, with communism as perhaps a sort of uber-mercantilism. Is he correct? No, not really. He's looking at modern times through the eyes and ideas of centuries prior."Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01284444370958467313noreply@blogger.com