Again you're attributing evil motives to people. This is a very bad habit because having defined the person as evil, you are now free to ignore the real issue and assume it is caused by malice.
Were you the captain of your high school football team? Why not?
The fundamental truth is that some people are just better than you or I at certain things. Wealthy people tend to work 80+ hour weeks and even while on vacation or at parties they are maneuvering to improve their business. They give up a lot to attain and maintain wealth. You don't and so you don't achieve their degree of success in business.
Such people often have lousy social lives and they tend to be prone to heart conditions which kill them young. You enjoy gaming, have friends who aren't friendly only because you have money, and can expect to live in health for the majority of your long happy life. Who's the real winner?
And an often overlooked point: you might have a 13 inch TV while the rich guy owns a home theater with a three meter screen. Does he get any greater enjoyment from his TV than you? What, exactly, does the rich guy have that you don't? Besides ulcers, that is.
The oft quoted 99% is true, but it fails to account for the fact that only about 5% of the population of Earth has access to entry level capitalism. The bulk of such fortunes are based on hereditary privilidge based in law. For example, go to Saudi Arabia and attempt to set up competition to the Saud family oil industry. Or throughout Europe where grants, titles, and licenses prevent competition from devouring the old companies owned by nobility, (or former nobility.) Or to any socialist country where state-owned businesses enjoy exclusive monopolies regardless of their actual performance. And go to England and try to buy land.
So, that 99% number doesn't reflect anything but that globally the economy is still in the Feudal Era. Where 'evil capitalism' reigns, new millionaires are quite common and the fortunes of the former aristocracy have long since been consumed by their descendants. It was a huge surprise to most Chinese how quickly their crushed economy recovered then accelerated when a very limited form of capitalism was allowed, and that single detail has contributed to the benefit of the masses of very poor who now have access to better and more abundant, (and thus cheaper,) goods and services than the government could ever hope to provide.
It is a particularly insidious disease that is the result of polar thinking that success must be achieved by theft, graft, or repression. When things become 'good' or 'bad' with no middle ground, there exists no means to reconcile the extremes. Rich people are 'evil' because they are rich. How could they get rich except by being 'evil'? If they were 'good' they couldn't become rich, because only 'evil' people are rich, and therefore rich people cannot be 'good'.
The world is filled with evil poor people and good rich people in the same proportions as the opposite. But by and large, people are just people, stuck somewhere in the middle.
Polarization is always a lie used to incite hate which can be manipulated by politicians to attain and consolidate power. Any time someone couches an argument in polar terms, you should reject his argument because there are very few truly polar situations in the world. You should also suspect his true motives. What does this person gain or lose by polarizing an issue?
You know by now that I am one of those evil capitalists. I got started early, before I knew any better. You see, all my friends had bicycles. I wanted one, so I asked my father if I could have one. He said yes. I then informed him that the bike I wanted only cost $100. He suggested I get a job. At 12 years of age.
I didn't know much about nything back then, so I borrowed a bucket, sponge, dishwashing liquid, and squeegee from my mother and went down the street knocking on doors offering to wash windows for $5 each. I figured twenty windows, or about five houses would pay for my bike. My mother made me buy her a new bottle of dishwashing liquid, my father made me buy my own tools, and of course, I discovered I needed a high pressure nozzle for garden hoses, but by the end of the summer I was not only the proud owner of a ten speed bicycle which I enjoyed immensely, but I had gained a reputation for being a good worker.
I was offered jobs like weeding gardens and cleaning gutters, mowing lawns, cleaning garages, painting, and lots of other 'can you do thises.' I often paid friends to help, but I was the richest kid on the back street of my neighborhood. I never stole, though once I had to pay back what a 'friend' stole while pretending to work with me. I 'made money,' (an expression unique to the world of capitalism,) the old fashioned way: with sweat.
What success I achieved in life grew out of that first summer when my father introduced me to capitalism. He gave me nothing but advice, and that only when I asked for it. I earned it.
Capitalism is not the evil it is portrayed to be by those whose only real contribution has been to take from others what they earned so they can buy votes. Capitalism is the single most effective means of creating opportunities for poor people to rise above poverty.
Again you're attributing evil motives to people. This is a very bad habit because having defined the person as evil, you are now free to ignore the real issue and assume it is caused by malice.
Were you the captain of your high school football team? Why not?
The fundamental truth is that some people are just better than you or I at certain things. Wealthy people tend to work 80+ hour weeks and even while on vacation or at parties they are maneuvering to improve their business. They give up a lot to attain and maintain wealth. You don't and so you don't achieve their degree of success in business.
Such people often have lousy social lives and they tend to be prone to heart conditions which kill them young. You enjoy gaming, have friends who aren't friendly only because you have money, and can expect to live in health for the majority of your long happy life. Who's the real winner?
And an often overlooked point: you might have a 13 inch TV while the rich guy owns a home theater with a three meter screen. Does he get any greater enjoyment from his TV than you? What, exactly, does the rich guy have that you don't? Besides ulcers, that is.
The oft quoted 99% is true, but it fails to account for the fact that only about 5% of the population of Earth has access to entry level capitalism. The bulk of such fortunes are based on hereditary privilidge based in law. For example, go to Saudi Arabia and attempt to set up competition to the Saud family oil industry. Or throughout Europe where grants, titles, and licenses prevent competition from devouring the old companies owned by nobility, (or former nobility.) Or to any socialist country where state-owned businesses enjoy exclusive monopolies regardless of their actual performance. And go to England and try to buy land.
So, that 99% number doesn't reflect anything but that globally the economy is still in the Feudal Era. Where 'evil capitalism' reigns, new millionaires are quite common and the fortunes of the former aristocracy have long since been consumed by their descendants. It was a huge surprise to most Chinese how quickly their crushed economy recovered then accelerated when a very limited form of capitalism was allowed, and that single detail has contributed to the benefit of the masses of very poor who now have access to better and more abundant, (and thus cheaper,) goods and services than the government could ever hope to provide.
It is a particularly insidious disease that is the result of polar thinking that success must be achieved by theft, graft, or repression. When things become 'good' or 'bad' with no middle ground, there exists no means to reconcile the extremes. Rich people are 'evil' because they are rich. How could they get rich except by being 'evil'? If they were 'good' they couldn't become rich, because only 'evil' people are rich, and therefore rich people cannot be 'good'.
The world is filled with evil poor people and good rich people in the same proportions as the opposite. But by and large, people are just people, stuck somewhere in the middle.
Polarization is always a lie used to incite hate which can be manipulated by politicians to attain and consolidate power. Any time someone couches an argument in polar terms, you should reject his argument because there are very few truly polar situations in the world. You should also suspect his true motives. What does this person gain or lose by polarizing an issue?
You know by now that I am one of those evil capitalists. I got started early, before I knew any better. You see, all my friends had bicycles. I wanted one, so I asked my father if I could have one. He said yes. I then informed him that the bike I wanted only cost $100. He suggested I get a job. At 12 years of age.
I didn't know much about nything back then, so I borrowed a bucket, sponge, dishwashing liquid, and squeegee from my mother and went down the street knocking on doors offering to wash windows for $5 each. I figured twenty windows, or about five houses would pay for my bike. My mother made me buy her a new bottle of dishwashing liquid, my father made me buy my own tools, and of course, I discovered I needed a high pressure nozzle for garden hoses, but by the end of the summer I was not only the proud owner of a ten speed bicycle which I enjoyed immensely, but I had gained a reputation for being a good worker.
I was offered jobs like weeding gardens and cleaning gutters, mowing lawns, cleaning garages, painting, and lots of other 'can you do thises.' I often paid friends to help, but I was the richest kid on the back street of my neighborhood. I never stole, though once I had to pay back what a 'friend' stole while pretending to work with me. I 'made money,' (an expression unique to the world of capitalism,) the old fashioned way: with sweat.
What success I achieved in life grew out of that first summer when my father introduced me to capitalism. He gave me nothing but advice, and that only when I asked for it. I earned it.
Capitalism is not the evil it is portrayed to be by those whose only real contribution has been to take from others what they earned so they can buy votes. Capitalism is the single most effective means of creating opportunities for poor people to rise above poverty.
Spot on, brother
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Also, right NOW, most people are NOT doing the work they WANT to do, but the work they are pretty much forced to do to survive. I mean how many people really like their jobs...as opposed to those who hate their jobs and are miserable, and only doing it to live? Lots of folks have wants to do the sorta of thing that would make 'em happy, but, in this backwards world we live in, right now, a lot can't do it because 'it don't pay the bills'.
And let's face it.....when the top 1 or 2 percent owns a huge chunk of the world's wealth, and the other 98 or 99 percent gets mere scraps, something is wrong, imo. Also, the pentagon admitted to 'losing' about 8 trillion (about 2 in 2001, and another 6 in recent years) dollars......um...you don't lose 8 trillion dollars....someone TOOK it. And imagine if WE had that 8 trillion, rather than whomever actually has it. No one would have to compete and back stab each other for the proverbial bone with a few scraps of meat on it, whilst the big shot at the table laughs with amusement.
Funny thing is that right now it's not just "the man" halting progress. According to my researches, the USA of all countries had a plan to have a base income in the sixties under President Johnson. A committee made up of economics, unions and people of public interest voted in favour of a plan like this - the committee's endeavour was highly unpopular though as the society at the time could just not agree to simply pay people for "nothing". A lot of people are deeply opposed to the idea of letting others "have" something, just because, even if they would profit as well.
Again you're attributing evil motives to people. This is a very bad habit because having defined the person as evil, you are now free to ignore the real issue and assume it is caused by malice.
Were you the captain of your high school football team? Why not?
The fundamental truth is that some people are just better than you or I at certain things. Wealthy people tend to work 80+ hour weeks and even while on vacation or at parties they are maneuvering to improve their business. They give up a lot to attain and maintain wealth. You don't and so you don't achieve their degree of success in business.
Such people often have lousy social lives and they tend to be prone to heart conditions which kill them young. You enjoy gaming, have friends who aren't friendly only because you have money, and can expect to live in health for the majority of your long happy life. Who's the real winner?
And an often overlooked point: you might have a 13 inch TV while the rich guy owns a home theater with a three meter screen. Does he get any greater enjoyment from his TV than you? What, exactly, does the rich guy have that you don't? Besides ulcers, that is.
The oft quoted 99% is true, but it fails to account for the fact that only about 5% of the population of Earth has access to entry level capitalism. The bulk of such fortunes are based on hereditary privilidge based in law. For example, go to Saudi Arabia and attempt to set up competition to the Saud family oil industry. Or throughout Europe where grants, titles, and licenses prevent competition from devouring the old companies owned by nobility, (or former nobility.) Or to any socialist country where state-owned businesses enjoy exclusive monopolies regardless of their actual performance. And go to England and try to buy land.
So, that 99% number doesn't reflect anything but that globally the economy is still in the Feudal Era. Where 'evil capitalism' reigns, new millionaires are quite common and the fortunes of the former aristocracy have long since been consumed by their descendants. It was a huge surprise to most Chinese how quickly their crushed economy recovered then accelerated when a very limited form of capitalism was allowed, and that single detail has contributed to the benefit of the masses of very poor who now have access to better and more abundant, (and thus cheaper,) goods and services than the government could ever hope to provide.
It is a particularly insidious disease that is the result of polar thinking that success must be achieved by theft, graft, or repression. When things become 'good' or 'bad' with no middle ground, there exists no means to reconcile the extremes. Rich people are 'evil' because they are rich. How could they get rich except by being 'evil'? If they were 'good' they couldn't become rich, because only 'evil' people are rich, and therefore rich people cannot be 'good'.
The world is filled with evil poor people and good rich people in the same proportions as the opposite. But by and large, people are just people, stuck somewhere in the middle.
Polarization is always a lie used to incite hate which can be manipulated by politicians to attain and consolidate power. Any time someone couches an argument in polar terms, you should reject his argument because there are very few truly polar situations in the world. You should also suspect his true motives. What does this person gain or lose by polarizing an issue?
You know by now that I am one of those evil capitalists. I got started early, before I knew any better. You see, all my friends had bicycles. I wanted one, so I asked my father if I could have one. He said yes. I then informed him that the bike I wanted only cost $100. He suggested I get a job. At 12 years of age.
I didn't know much about nything back then, so I borrowed a bucket, sponge, dishwashing liquid, and squeegee from my mother and went down the street knocking on doors offering to wash windows for $5 each. I figured twenty windows, or about five houses would pay for my bike. My mother made me buy her a new bottle of dishwashing liquid, my father made me buy my own tools, and of course, I discovered I needed a high pressure nozzle for garden hoses, but by the end of the summer I was not only the proud owner of a ten speed bicycle which I enjoyed immensely, but I had gained a reputation for being a good worker.
I was offered jobs like weeding gardens and cleaning gutters, mowing lawns, cleaning garages, painting, and lots of other 'can you do thises.' I often paid friends to help, but I was the richest kid on the back street of my neighborhood. I never stole, though once I had to pay back what a 'friend' stole while pretending to work with me. I 'made money,' (an expression unique to the world of capitalism,) the old fashioned way: with sweat.
What success I achieved in life grew out of that first summer when my father introduced me to capitalism. He gave me nothing but advice, and that only when I asked for it. I earned it.
Capitalism is not the evil it is portrayed to be by those whose only real contribution has been to take from others what they earned so they can buy votes. Capitalism is the single most effective means of creating opportunities for poor people to rise above poverty.
I hope I haven't derailed the topic, and if so I apologise.
Funny thing about George Carlin: he was a capitalist who became quite wealthy by exploiting anti-establishment sentiments. Is it ironic when you become what you spent a career vilifying?
One thing never explained by such philosophers is, exactly how does it benefit a rich person to hold you down? Rich capitalists are only rich because people buy their goods and services. Any capitalist wants you to be richer so you can buy more of his goods and services, or at least pay more for what you buy. Poor people are lousy customers.
Cui bono? Only one class benefits from your poverty, and that is the class which cannot produce its own wealth, but must frighten people into surrendering theirs with the threat of angry mobs.
> @valoreah said:
> angrytarg wrote: »
>
> There are efforts in some European countries to introduce a baseline income for every citizen so you don't have to work to survive.
>
>
>
>
> If you don't have to work, then who is going to pay for the program? The redistribution of wealth does not necessarily work all that well.
It's already been done at a lower level. Back in the '70s Canada experimented with it in a couple towns, a project called Mincome. Duke University recently looked back at the data and made some interesting findings: employment rates only dropped a few percent, and the overwhelming majority of the people who stopped working were teenagers and new parents. (I'm having trouble linking it from my phone but it should be the top result if you Google "Duke Mincome study".) Alaska does the same thing: part of the tax revenues from the hydrocarbons industry in that state go into an investment fund that makes yearly payouts to the state's residents.
Thing is, that's not a money-less economy. Instead it is an economy where poverty has a strict lower limit. Thus it is NOT the same as the sort of society Picard ranted about in FC.
Wealthy people have all earned it? What useful work, pray tell, has Paris Hilton performed? Or Alexa Dell? Jacqueline and Forrest Mars? Abigail Johnson? Georgina Bloomberg? Any of the heirs of Sam Walton? Sometimes wealth is merely inherited, and has nothing to do with ability or what one "deserves".
As for Pulaski, I always saw her more as challenging Data to prove himself. Everyone else aboard took it as read that Data was everything he seemed to be, and rather coddled him in the whole "trying to be human" thing; she wanted him to actually be as human as possible. (On the other hand, I didn't think much of the blatant attempt to appeal to the memory of McCoy by having her hate transporters, especially since she was over the top on that - Bones would beam himself hither and yon, he just complained about it once or twice. Pulaski actually used a shuttle to come aboard because she hated transporters so badly, which became a plot point in one episode.)
Wealthy people have all earned it? What useful work, pray tell, has Paris Hilton performed? Or Alexa Dell? Jacqueline and Forrest Mars? Abigail Johnson? Georgina Bloomberg? Any of the heirs of Sam Walton? Sometimes wealth is merely inherited, and has nothing to do with ability or what one "deserves".
Here's what Paris Hilton does for her money. That's right, her money, not the money she's inherited, but her money, which she earns through her own ventures and branding. Unless you can do what she does, you're in no position to cast aspersions on her financial validity As for the others, not names I know, and not interested in looking up, but I think that article about Paris rather proves the point that even for those viewed as vacuous celebrities famous for being famous, there is much more work involved in creating and maintaining their brand, than the average s.chmuck will ever realize (let alone be able to do in their own right)
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
*sigh* Well I can say that I fully disagree with this notion of moneyless socialist society. The more I hear about the idea the more utterly selfish it sounds. This notion that other people owe you stuff just because of your mere presence is ridiculous. It seems to me that the ones who preach the loudest about this philosophy are the ones who intend to contribute the least to it.
That's just my thoughts on the idea, agree or disagree if you want.
It's not just possible. It's already happening. And despite the screaming of conservatives, the sky has not fallen and the system hasn't crashed and burned
Star Trek style socialism isn't a pie in the sky utopian dream, it's the logical conclusion of technological advancement.
REally? because what's actually happened isn't even close. That "Mincome" thing is approximately the equivalent of having a minimum wage job. THAT is the incentive to get an actual job.... Money. Not "personal betterment" or satisfaction.
People mentioned Alaska earlier, well, Alaska's stipend to residents isn't actually enough for most people to live comfortably. From what my relatives tell me it's mostly soaked up by how much more things cost to buy there.
Again you're attributing evil motives to people. This is a very bad habit because having defined the person as evil, you are now free to ignore the real issue and assume it is caused by malice.
Were you the captain of your high school football team? Why not?
The fundamental truth is that some people are just better than you or I at certain things. Wealthy people tend to work 80+ hour weeks and even while on vacation or at parties they are maneuvering to improve their business. They give up a lot to attain and maintain wealth. You don't and so you don't achieve their degree of success in business.
Such people often have lousy social lives and they tend to be prone to heart conditions which kill them young. You enjoy gaming, have friends who aren't friendly only because you have money, and can expect to live in health for the majority of your long happy life. Who's the real winner?
And an often overlooked point: you might have a 13 inch TV while the rich guy owns a home theater with a three meter screen. Does he get any greater enjoyment from his TV than you? What, exactly, does the rich guy have that you don't? Besides ulcers, that is.
The oft quoted 99% is true, but it fails to account for the fact that only about 5% of the population of Earth has access to entry level capitalism. The bulk of such fortunes are based on hereditary privilidge based in law. For example, go to Saudi Arabia and attempt to set up competition to the Saud family oil industry. Or throughout Europe where grants, titles, and licenses prevent competition from devouring the old companies owned by nobility, (or former nobility.) Or to any socialist country where state-owned businesses enjoy exclusive monopolies regardless of their actual performance. And go to England and try to buy land.
So, that 99% number doesn't reflect anything but that globally the economy is still in the Feudal Era. Where 'evil capitalism' reigns, new millionaires are quite common and the fortunes of the former aristocracy have long since been consumed by their descendants. It was a huge surprise to most Chinese how quickly their crushed economy recovered then accelerated when a very limited form of capitalism was allowed, and that single detail has contributed to the benefit of the masses of very poor who now have access to better and more abundant, (and thus cheaper,) goods and services than the government could ever hope to provide.
It is a particularly insidious disease that is the result of polar thinking that success must be achieved by theft, graft, or repression. When things become 'good' or 'bad' with no middle ground, there exists no means to reconcile the extremes. Rich people are 'evil' because they are rich. How could they get rich except by being 'evil'? If they were 'good' they couldn't become rich, because only 'evil' people are rich, and therefore rich people cannot be 'good'.
The world is filled with evil poor people and good rich people in the same proportions as the opposite. But by and large, people are just people, stuck somewhere in the middle.
Polarization is always a lie used to incite hate which can be manipulated by politicians to attain and consolidate power. Any time someone couches an argument in polar terms, you should reject his argument because there are very few truly polar situations in the world. You should also suspect his true motives. What does this person gain or lose by polarizing an issue?
You know by now that I am one of those evil capitalists. I got started early, before I knew any better. You see, all my friends had bicycles. I wanted one, so I asked my father if I could have one. He said yes. I then informed him that the bike I wanted only cost $100. He suggested I get a job. At 12 years of age.
I didn't know much about nything back then, so I borrowed a bucket, sponge, dishwashing liquid, and squeegee from my mother and went down the street knocking on doors offering to wash windows for $5 each. I figured twenty windows, or about five houses would pay for my bike. My mother made me buy her a new bottle of dishwashing liquid, my father made me buy my own tools, and of course, I discovered I needed a high pressure nozzle for garden hoses, but by the end of the summer I was not only the proud owner of a ten speed bicycle which I enjoyed immensely, but I had gained a reputation for being a good worker.
I was offered jobs like weeding gardens and cleaning gutters, mowing lawns, cleaning garages, painting, and lots of other 'can you do thises.' I often paid friends to help, but I was the richest kid on the back street of my neighborhood. I never stole, though once I had to pay back what a 'friend' stole while pretending to work with me. I 'made money,' (an expression unique to the world of capitalism,) the old fashioned way: with sweat.
What success I achieved in life grew out of that first summer when my father introduced me to capitalism. He gave me nothing but advice, and that only when I asked for it. I earned it.
Capitalism is not the evil it is portrayed to be by those whose only real contribution has been to take from others what they earned so they can buy votes. Capitalism is the single most effective means of creating opportunities for poor people to rise above poverty.
and what if it was caused out of malice? i understand what you are saying, you can't judge a book by it's cover but you can't always know what some is thinking. we all come from different backgrounds and if you had known me in the real world you wouldn't of known i almost tried to kill someone and yet you wouldn't believed i would be capable of it from my timid appearance. Everyone is capable of something, even in the case of Riker and Pulaski.
Wealthy people have all earned it? What useful work, pray tell, has Paris Hilton performed? Or Alexa Dell? Jacqueline and Forrest Mars? Abigail Johnson? Georgina Bloomberg? Any of the heirs of Sam Walton? Sometimes wealth is merely inherited, and has nothing to do with ability or what one "deserves".
As for Pulaski, I always saw her more as challenging Data to prove himself. Everyone else aboard took it as read that Data was everything he seemed to be, and rather coddled him in the whole "trying to be human" thing; she wanted him to actually be as human as possible. (On the other hand, I didn't think much of the blatant attempt to appeal to the memory of McCoy by having her hate transporters, especially since she was over the top on that - Bones would beam himself hither and yon, he just complained about it once or twice. Pulaski actually used a shuttle to come aboard because she hated transporters so badly, which became a plot point in one episode.)
I liked Pulaski because she always challenged Picard to his own assumptions, it's the same reason i like Lwaxana Troi because she keeps Picard honest. When it came to Data, Pulaski gives us a more dispassionate point of view, a little more human point of view, something which is rare to find in Star Trek other than with Odo and Data himself.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
*sigh* Well I can say that I fully disagree with this notion of moneyless socialist society. The more I hear about the idea the more utterly selfish it sounds. This notion that other people owe you stuff just because of your mere presence is ridiculous. It seems to me that the ones who preach the loudest about this philosophy are the ones who intend to contribute the least to it.
That's just my thoughts on the idea, agree or disagree if you want.
That's always how it's spun, but how true is that really? Think about it. We are producing more and more using less and less human labor input all the time, and as technology continues to progress that will only magnify. The system is designed to funnel maximum resources upwards to a very tiny group and as little as possible to the masses, what makes you think that's how it should be? What makes you think it's even sustainable? We're already hitting the point in some areas that attempting to enforce artificial scarcity requires more effort than simply letting people "pirate" what they want. That's just going to continue.
How exactly do you maintain a capitalist economy based on limited goods when you have a machine that can make ANY bloody thing at the push of a button --including more maker machines and power plants that run on hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe? What can you charge for when everyone has a Mr Fusion and a machine that turns garbage and dirt into whatever you want? It can't be done.
Feudalism gave way to mercantilism which led to capitalism because human productivity reached a level where funneling everything to a tiny nobility could no longer be justified or even maintained because it was impossible to defend. More people had to be included in the fruits of all that increased productivity.
Without interference from those fighting progress, capitalism gives way to a mixed socialist economy for exactly the same reason. Every developed economy in the world --even the US!-- has one. While we officially call it capitalism, it hasn't been pure capitalism since the New Deal and Social Security or public funding of police, emergency services, infrastructure, and the military. The difference between us and, for example, Norway is the degree of socialism mixed in with the capitalism. We have a lot less than they do, Great Britain is somewhere in between but we're all on the mixed-socialist spectrum.
It's not just possible. It's already happening. And despite the screaming of conservatives, the sky has not fallen and the system hasn't crashed and burned and in fact those who do more than we do are pretty successful with it and happy about it. We're way behind the rest of the developed world, and we're in denial about it. We have failed to adapt. Sooner or later, we're going to have to at least begin to catch up whether naysayers like it or not.
Star Trek style socialism isn't a pie in the sky utopian dream, it's the logical conclusion of technological advancement. As I said above, changes are coming and if we aren't prepared we will experience serious disruptions. We need thought experiments like Trek to help us prepare. Denial will get us nowhere.
I agree with all your points, that once we get replicators and clean energy, there will simply be no need for currency as we know it. But with regard the boldened point, it's defensible, in so much as people need mediators to resolve their issues. That means someone/ something, needs to be in place for people to go to. Be it a baron, a king, a government, it's all the same difference: Someone/thing keeping order, and stopping people knifing each other in the street, because someone told them someone else killed their cow or parked on their driveway Personally, I'm all for the idea of direct democracy
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
once we get replicators and clean energy, there will simply be no need for currency as we know it.
Will we? Even in Star Trek it's not free, it's just so inexpensive compared to other things that "basic needs" are a tiny expense. the modern-day precursors to replicators are extremely expensive as-is. It's hard to say just what would be required to make it cheap enough to be a public service.
That's always how it's spun, but how true is that really? Think about it. We are producing more and more using less and less human labor input all the time, and as technology continues to progress that will only magnify. The system is designed to funnel maximum resources upwards to a very tiny group and as little as possible to the masses, what makes you think that's how it should be? What makes you think it's even sustainable? We're already hitting the point in some areas that attempting to enforce artificial scarcity requires more effort than simply letting people "pirate" what they want. That's just going to continue.
How exactly do you maintain a capitalist economy based on limited goods when you have a machine that can make ANY bloody thing at the push of a button --including more maker machines and power plants that run on hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe? What can you charge for when everyone has a Mr Fusion and a machine that turns garbage and dirt into whatever you want? It can't be done.
Feudalism gave way to mercantilism which led to capitalism because human productivity reached a level where funneling everything to a tiny nobility could no longer be justified or even maintained because it was impossible to defend. More people had to be included in the fruits of all that increased productivity.
Without interference from those fighting progress, capitalism gives way to a mixed socialist economy for exactly the same reason. Every developed economy in the world --even the US!-- has one. While we officially call it capitalism, it hasn't been pure capitalism since the New Deal and Social Security or public funding of police, emergency services, infrastructure, and the military. The difference between us and, for example, Norway is the degree of socialism mixed in with the capitalism. We have a lot less than they do, Great Britain is somewhere in between but we're all on the mixed-socialist spectrum.
It's not just possible. It's already happening. And despite the screaming of conservatives, the sky has not fallen and the system hasn't crashed and burned and in fact those who do more than we do are pretty successful with it and happy about it. We're way behind the rest of the developed world, and we're in denial about it. We have failed to adapt. Sooner or later, we're going to have to at least begin to catch up whether naysayers like it or not.
Star Trek style socialism isn't a pie in the sky utopian dream, it's the logical conclusion of technological advancement. As I said above, changes are coming and if we aren't prepared we will experience serious disruptions. We need thought experiments like Trek to help us prepare. Denial will get us nowhere.
I agree.
But still, maybe we should talk at least about Star Trek again?
I didn't feel Pulaski was "challenging" Data, she openly displayed nothing but contempt. I know why she did it, @jonsills said it she was meant to be McCoy (not just a nod at, she and Data were supposed to be Spock and McCoy because Phase II scripts and all) but she really didn't hit the right notes aside from the futile attempt of trying to copy other actor's chemistry. She didn't fit at all in the 24th century Starfleet.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
once we get replicators and clean energy, there will simply be no need for currency as we know it.
Will we? Even in Star Trek it's not free, it's just so inexpensive compared to other things that "basic needs" are a tiny expense. the modern-day precursors to replicators are extremely expensive as-is. It's hard to say just what would be required to make it cheap enough to be a public service.
I don't understand the question 'Will we?' what? :confused
You're looking at the subject from a 21st Century perspective. (even Picard's comment to Lily should be taken either as a writer's mistake, or, him trying to simplify 24th Century economics to something she would be able relate to)
If most commodities become replicatable, they become valueless, because their rarity ceases to be a measure of value.
If all someone needs is raw matter, a replicator, and energy, then they could quite literally turn TRIBBLE to gold, but to them, said gold would be as worthless as what went into the replicator Now the energy used to power the replicator, yes, more of a commodity, but given the easy creation of clean, easy energy, still not something rare enough, to hold large economic value.
Hence my observation, that once we have replicators and easy energy, we won't need currency. The entire mindset will change, due to that lack of need. Remember how Jake tried to defend the Federation's economics to Nog? And that Nog quite rightly pointed out, that if it meant that Jake didn't need money, it meant he definitely didn't need Nog's money But that lack of need which Jake mentioned, that was the key point: When the technology becomes that widespread, it would be impossible to keep class-based, or with artificial scarcity attached. When people don't have to work for a living, they will work to follow their passions: Art, entertainment, food, music, etc, because their will be no need for them to do otherwise
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
If all someone needs is raw matter, a replicator, and energy, then they could quite literally turn **** to gold, but to them, said gold would be as worthless as what went into the replicator Now the energy used to power the replicator, yes, more of a commodity, but given the easy creation of clean, easy energy, still not something rare enough, to hold large economic value.
Which would seem to be what runs much of the economy in Star Trek.
Hence my observation, that once we have replicators and easy energy, we won't need currency. The entire mindset will change, due to that lack of need. Remember how Jake tried to defend the Federation's economics to Nog? And that Nog quite rightly pointed out, that if it meant that Jake didn't need money, it meant he definitely didn't need Nog's money But that lack of need which Jake mentioned, that was the key point: When the technology becomes that widespread, it would be impossible to keep class-based, or with artificial scarcity attached. When people don't have to work for a living, they will work to follow their passions: Art, entertainment, food, music, world domination, etc, because their will be no need for them to do otherwise
Actually there is a hidden assumption in that line of thought you just spit out. Namely that the energy supply dwarfs the demand for it. Historically that is the sign of an upper class subsection of a society, and not the whole. It is more common for excessive supply to be absorbed by increased usage. Just look at the US power grid... It's impossible to maintain an excess because people FIND uses for it. It's kinda like having a monthly budget that you can't bank at the end of the month. You pay off everything that NEEDS paid, then look for ways to use up the excess.
Or do you think human nature will change in the near future?
If all someone needs is raw matter, a replicator, and energy, then they could quite literally turn **** to gold, but to them, said gold would be as worthless as what went into the replicator Now the energy used to power the replicator, yes, more of a commodity, but given the easy creation of clean, easy energy, still not something rare enough, to hold large economic value.
Which would seem to be what runs much of the economy in Star Trek.
Hence my observation, that once we have replicators and easy energy, we won't need currency. The entire mindset will change, due to that lack of need. Remember how Jake tried to defend the Federation's economics to Nog? And that Nog quite rightly pointed out, that if it meant that Jake didn't need money, it meant he definitely didn't need Nog's money But that lack of need which Jake mentioned, that was the key point: When the technology becomes that widespread, it would be impossible to keep class-based, or with artificial scarcity attached. When people don't have to work for a living, they will work to follow their passions: Art, entertainment, food, music, world domination, etc, because their will be no need for them to do otherwise
Actually there is a hidden assumption in that line of thought you just spit out. Namely that the energy supply dwarfs the demand for it. Historically that is the sign of an upper class subsection of a society, and not the whole. It is more common for excessive supply to be absorbed by increased usage. Just look at the US power grid... It's impossible to maintain an excess because people FIND uses for it. It's kinda like having a monthly budget that you can't bank at the end of the month. You pay off everything that NEEDS paid, then look for ways to use up the excess.
Or do you think human nature will change in the near future?
By the 24th century, the post-scarcity economy is supposed to have caused people, by and large, to realize that satiability, the ability to reach a point where you have enough and then be satisfied, is a good thing; they'd probably treat anyone acting like a 19th-century robber baron as possessed of mental illness, requiring therapy. That's also the only way I can make sense of Picard's lecture to the unfrozen investor in ST:TNG "The Neutral Zone" - the monomaniacal focus on accumulation of wealth, which Picard's history lessons probably focused on (just as our history lessons about the 16th century tend to gloss over how society worked at the time), isn't really a thing within the Federation any more. (Of course, those living on frontier worlds, or within other polities like Deep Space Nine in Bajoran space, know a slightly different reality - but just try telling them city folks back home what life's really like on the frontier.)
That being said, it's postulated that there's enough energy on the core worlds of the Federation that everyone's basic needs, and perhaps just a bit beyond, can be filled with replicator technology. Discussion of its plausibility has its place, but it's part of the background of the universe, just like warp drive and the even less probable photon torpedoes (if it's a matter/antimatter package with a short-lived magnetic field separating them, the explosions should be a lot bigger, for starters).
Or do you think human nature will change in the near future?
In the 'near' (as in immediate) future? No, I don't. But I do think that when people no longer need to hussle and TRIBBLE each other over for the next meal, when anyone is able to take a handful of mud off the ground, and instantaneously turn it into a meal, then yes, I think human nature will then change, because those hunter-gatherer instincts will no longer be applying to every day survival. The retail industry, for example, would essentially cease to exist. The only things which would retain some value, would be hand-crafted items which a person has had to make. Anything else, be it RunningShoesTypeIII or DolphinStatueNumber5, would all be generically available at near-zero (certainly negligible) energy cost. IMO, that's going to cause a massive social revolution, and a different way of looking at the world
Actually there is a hidden assumption in that line of thought you just spit out. Namely that the energy supply dwarfs the demand for it. Historically that is the sign of an upper class subsection of a society, and not the whole. It is more common for excessive supply to be absorbed by increased usage. Just look at the US power grid... It's impossible to maintain an excess because people FIND uses for it. It's kinda like having a monthly budget that you can't bank at the end of the month. You pay off everything that NEEDS paid, then look for ways to use up the excess.
But again, tied to current business/financial models. When the production of near-limitless energy exists, when people have replicators, which can create anything that has been scanned in or a template exists for, then stuff becomes valueless in terms of commodities. Intrinsic value for a solid gold walking cane, for example, would lie solely in the aesthetics of the design, not the commercial value of the metal, which would have no commercial value, because it would no longer be a precious metal (in terms of rarity to mine and refine)
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
By the 24th century, the post-scarcity economy is supposed to have caused people, by and large, to realize that satiability, the ability to reach a point where you have enough and then be satisfied, is a good thing; they'd probably treat anyone acting like a 19th-century robber baron as possessed of mental illness, requiring therapy. That's also the only way I can make sense of Picard's lecture to the unfrozen investor in ST:TNG "The Neutral Zone" - the monomaniacal focus on accumulation of wealth, which Picard's history lessons probably focused on (just as our history lessons about the 16th century tend to gloss over how society worked at the time), isn't really a thing within the Federation any more. (Of course, those living on frontier worlds, or within other polities like Deep Space Nine in Bajoran space, know a slightly different reality - but just try telling them city folks back home what life's really like on the frontier.)
It's interesting that you should mention that since that guy's "business instincts" made it so having him in the Federation was like releasing a shark into a goldfish tank. i especially loved what he had to say to Picard about the Romulans. Something to the effect of "They're not be obstinate just to annoy you, they're only pretending they know more than you do!" haha, for a guy who'd never seen a Romulan before he was good at figuring out how they thought.
That being said, it's postulated that there's enough energy on the core worlds of the Federation that everyone's basic needs, and perhaps just a bit beyond, can be filled with replicator technology. Discussion of its plausibility has its place, but it's part of the background of the universe, just like warp drive and the even less probable photon torpedoes (if it's a matter/antimatter package with a short-lived magnetic field separating them, the explosions should be a lot bigger, for starters).
enh, depends on the quantity. 3 positrons? IIRC that's less than the Hiroshima bomb. Now a pound? yeah, that'd be something.
Actually there is a hidden assumption in that line of thought you just spit out. Namely that the energy supply dwarfs the demand for it. Historically that is the sign of an upper class subsection of a society, and not the whole. It is more common for excessive supply to be absorbed by increased usage. Just look at the US power grid... It's impossible to maintain an excess because people FIND uses for it. It's kinda like having a monthly budget that you can't bank at the end of the month. You pay off everything that NEEDS paid, then look for ways to use up the excess.
But again, tied to current business/financial models. When the production of near-limitless energy exists, when people have replicators, which can create anything that has been scanned in or a template exists for, then stuff becomes valueless in terms of commodities. Intrinsic value for a solid gold walking cane, for example, would lie solely in the aesthetics of the design, not the commercial value of the metal, which would have no commercial value, because it would no longer be a precious metal (in terms of rarity to mine and refine)
Actually in that scenario the SOURCE of those goods would have value, IE energy and replicator technology. And even the Federation does not have limitless energy. Also, data would have immense value. It was shown several times in TNG that replicator programs could have high value. Especially things that were hard to find. sure you can say "but computer programs can be copied endlessly" true, but the question is "will they?", apparently not. Then you have materials like Latinum, which for whatever reason are more expensive to replicate than to mine.
[Actually in that scenario the SOURCE of those goods would have value, IE energy and replicator technology.
But that's still not true, dude. You're still thinking that the person needs to buy the replicator. But the replicator itself is replicatable It has no intrinsic value It only needs powering. What if it can be powered remotely, such as by broadcast-power, rather than by powercells? As soon as it's created, it becomes operational, and whatever the person has to hand, even their socks, becomes raw material for a meal (maybe only a sandwich, in the case of a pair of socks, but still something to eat )
And even the Federation does not have limitless energy.
On a technically literal level, no. But for all everyday intents and purposes, it effectively does. There's no need for fossil fuels, or the dangers/costs in their production. If there's no cost in the production of the fuel, there's not going to be any cost in the energy produced. There ceases to be a reason to sell something, because at present, the only need for anyone to sell anything, is that they need the money from the sale to acquire something (food/shelter) for themself: when food and shelter cease to be issues, there's simply no need to sell anything. It can be given away.
Also, data would have immense value. It was shown several times in TNG that replicator programs could have high value. Especially things that were hard to find. sure you can say "but computer programs can be copied endlessly" true, but the question is "will they?", apparently not. Then you have materials like Latinum, which for whatever reason are more expensive to replicate than to mine.
They had value because the plot needed them to have value. I would split that point to say that mere data itself, would not be valuable, unless it was some kind of strategic information. Musician-created audio files, possibly. But even now, we have copyright-free music, it would't surprize me if, in the future, there was to be generic 'freemium' music, rather than tracks created by a live artist, so that data, for example, wouldn't be of immense value. The issue, is trying to visualize a world without fiat currencies Once not only the currency, but the very commodity upon which it takes its value (oil/gold/silver etc) is immediately available at near-zero cost, there'd be no need for currency At All, and the world would have to change. It would be impossible for the 1% to retain social supremacy, when the thing which makes them 1%ers, is available to everyone
"If everyone's super, no one will be..." - Syndrome, The Incredibles
"All those who gain power, are afraid to lose it..." - Palpatine, Revenge of the Sith
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
^For the record, the TNG Technical Manual specifies a Galaxy-class starship's photon torpedoes as containing 1.5 kilos each of antimatter and matter, which gives a theoretical yield of 64 megatons. Of course, some of that's going to be wasted as neutrinos and the like, and it would be decently easy and probably safer* to use a form of dial-a-yield device (whereby the torpedoes are fueled from the starship's antimatter supply before launch).
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
But that's still not true, dude. You're still thinking that the person needs to buy the replicator. But the replicator itself is replicatable It has no intrinsic value It only needs powering. What if it can be powered remotely, such as by broadcast-power, rather than by powercells? As soon as it's created, it becomes operational, and whatever the person has to hand, even their socks, becomes raw material for a meal (maybe only a sandwich, in the case of a pair of socks, but still something to eat ) (...)
That's not quite right. Complex machinery cannot be replicated. The existence of replicators in Star Trek doesn't mean anything can magically be created out of thin air. Not only do the replicators need access to the basic resources to create things (although that might be negligible in terms of food and everyday commodities) but they also cannot create "computer chips". The show made it clear that complex machinery will be faulty if replicated. So the machines themselves are still assembled traditionally. The difference is it isn't done to profit, the people building replicators do so because they like to help others getting replicators (probably helping to maintaining the standard of life for everyone). The economy portrayed assumes that society (not including all individuals of course) doesn't promote and centre around accumulating personal wealth as present day's is.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
once we get replicators and clean energy, there will simply be no need for currency as we know it.
Will we? Even in Star Trek it's not free, it's just so inexpensive compared to other things that "basic needs" are a tiny expense. the modern-day precursors to replicators are extremely expensive as-is. It's hard to say just what would be required to make it cheap enough to be a public service.
I don't understand the question 'Will we?' what? :confused
You're looking at the subject from a 21st Century perspective. (even Picard's comment to Lily should be taken either as a writer's mistake, or, him trying to simplify 24th Century economics to something she would be able relate to)
If most commodities become replicatable, they become valueless, because their rarity ceases to be a measure of value.
If all someone needs is raw matter, a replicator, and energy, then they could quite literally turn **** to gold, but to them, said gold would be as worthless as what went into the replicator Now the energy used to power the replicator, yes, more of a commodity, but given the easy creation of clean, easy energy, still not something rare enough, to hold large economic value.
Hence my observation, that once we have replicators and easy energy, we won't need currency. The entire mindset will change, due to that lack of need. Remember how Jake tried to defend the Federation's economics to Nog? And that Nog quite rightly pointed out, that if it meant that Jake didn't need money, it meant he definitely didn't need Nog's money But that lack of need which Jake mentioned, that was the key point: When the technology becomes that widespread, it would be impossible to keep class-based, or with artificial scarcity attached. When people don't have to work for a living, they will work to follow their passions: Art, entertainment, food, music, etc, because their will be no need for them to do otherwise
As for Pulaski, I always saw her more as challenging Data to prove himself. Everyone else aboard took it as read that Data was everything he seemed to be, and rather coddled him in the whole "trying to be human" thing; she wanted him to actually be as human as possible. (On the other hand, I didn't think much of the blatant attempt to appeal to the memory of McCoy by having her hate transporters, especially since she was over the top on that - Bones would beam himself hither and yon, he just complained about it once or twice. Pulaski actually used a shuttle to come aboard because she hated transporters so badly, which became a plot point in one episode.)
I never cared for the character of Dr. Pulaski. Nothing against Diana Muldaur, I just don't feel the character meshed well with the other cast. From what I've seen in behind the scenes documentaries over the years, the main cast felt the same and didn't care for her at all.
Least George did not TRIBBLE over people to get his wealth. Politicians, bankers and businessmen have.
[Actually in that scenario the SOURCE of those goods would have value, IE energy and replicator technology.
But that's still not true, dude. You're still thinking that the person needs to buy the replicator. But the replicator itself is replicatable It has no intrinsic value It only needs powering. What if it can be powered remotely, such as by broadcast-power, rather than by powercells? As soon as it's created, it becomes operational, and whatever the person has to hand, even their socks, becomes raw material for a meal (maybe only a sandwich, in the case of a pair of socks, but still something to eat )
Oh really? how much power do you think it takes to replicate a replicator? I'd say quite a lot. Replicators are extremely complex and even small errors in their circuitry can have disastrous consequences. Just ask the Kazon if you don't believe me. AND you can't simply have the replicator scan itself to make the program.
And really, broadcast power? Haha.... It's not used IRL because it's so wasteful that it's wastefulness makes it dangerous. Tight beam, maybe, but that requires the transmitter to be pointed at you.
And even the Federation does not have limitless energy.
On a technically literal level, no. But for all everyday intents and purposes, it effectively does. ... If there's no cost in the production of the fuel, there's not going to be any cost in the energy produced.
Except that, that's not true in-universe, now is it? energy usage was always shown to be budgeted, and while one person getting a meal is cheap and easy, it adds up quickly.
Also, data would have immense value. It was shown several times in TNG that replicator programs could have high value. Especially things that were hard to find. sure you can say "but computer programs can be copied endlessly" true, but the question is "will they?", apparently not. Then you have materials like Latinum, which for whatever reason are more expensive to replicate than to mine.
They had value because the plot needed them to have value. I would split that point to say that mere data itself, would not be valuable, unless it was some kind of strategic information.
Or just anything that isn't publically available. you seem to have this weird idea that everyone who makes replicator programs would be happy to give them to everyone. It was often said in TNG and DS9 that replicated food was of inferior quality to the real thing. Makes you wonder why eh?
The issue, is trying to visualize a world without fiat currencies
"fiat" currencies are ONLY things with no practical value... the energy Credit concept used in Star Trek IS a currency with practical value.
"All those who gain power, are afraid to lose it..." - Palpatine, Revenge of the Sith
And whoever controls the replicators controls the Federation. Most people in the Federation couldn't build one even with a set of schematics. Why? they're just that complex.
Comments
Were you the captain of your high school football team? Why not?
The fundamental truth is that some people are just better than you or I at certain things. Wealthy people tend to work 80+ hour weeks and even while on vacation or at parties they are maneuvering to improve their business. They give up a lot to attain and maintain wealth. You don't and so you don't achieve their degree of success in business.
Such people often have lousy social lives and they tend to be prone to heart conditions which kill them young. You enjoy gaming, have friends who aren't friendly only because you have money, and can expect to live in health for the majority of your long happy life. Who's the real winner?
And an often overlooked point: you might have a 13 inch TV while the rich guy owns a home theater with a three meter screen. Does he get any greater enjoyment from his TV than you? What, exactly, does the rich guy have that you don't? Besides ulcers, that is.
The oft quoted 99% is true, but it fails to account for the fact that only about 5% of the population of Earth has access to entry level capitalism. The bulk of such fortunes are based on hereditary privilidge based in law. For example, go to Saudi Arabia and attempt to set up competition to the Saud family oil industry. Or throughout Europe where grants, titles, and licenses prevent competition from devouring the old companies owned by nobility, (or former nobility.) Or to any socialist country where state-owned businesses enjoy exclusive monopolies regardless of their actual performance. And go to England and try to buy land.
So, that 99% number doesn't reflect anything but that globally the economy is still in the Feudal Era. Where 'evil capitalism' reigns, new millionaires are quite common and the fortunes of the former aristocracy have long since been consumed by their descendants. It was a huge surprise to most Chinese how quickly their crushed economy recovered then accelerated when a very limited form of capitalism was allowed, and that single detail has contributed to the benefit of the masses of very poor who now have access to better and more abundant, (and thus cheaper,) goods and services than the government could ever hope to provide.
It is a particularly insidious disease that is the result of polar thinking that success must be achieved by theft, graft, or repression. When things become 'good' or 'bad' with no middle ground, there exists no means to reconcile the extremes. Rich people are 'evil' because they are rich. How could they get rich except by being 'evil'? If they were 'good' they couldn't become rich, because only 'evil' people are rich, and therefore rich people cannot be 'good'.
The world is filled with evil poor people and good rich people in the same proportions as the opposite. But by and large, people are just people, stuck somewhere in the middle.
Polarization is always a lie used to incite hate which can be manipulated by politicians to attain and consolidate power. Any time someone couches an argument in polar terms, you should reject his argument because there are very few truly polar situations in the world. You should also suspect his true motives. What does this person gain or lose by polarizing an issue?
You know by now that I am one of those evil capitalists. I got started early, before I knew any better. You see, all my friends had bicycles. I wanted one, so I asked my father if I could have one. He said yes. I then informed him that the bike I wanted only cost $100. He suggested I get a job. At 12 years of age.
I didn't know much about nything back then, so I borrowed a bucket, sponge, dishwashing liquid, and squeegee from my mother and went down the street knocking on doors offering to wash windows for $5 each. I figured twenty windows, or about five houses would pay for my bike. My mother made me buy her a new bottle of dishwashing liquid, my father made me buy my own tools, and of course, I discovered I needed a high pressure nozzle for garden hoses, but by the end of the summer I was not only the proud owner of a ten speed bicycle which I enjoyed immensely, but I had gained a reputation for being a good worker.
I was offered jobs like weeding gardens and cleaning gutters, mowing lawns, cleaning garages, painting, and lots of other 'can you do thises.' I often paid friends to help, but I was the richest kid on the back street of my neighborhood. I never stole, though once I had to pay back what a 'friend' stole while pretending to work with me. I 'made money,' (an expression unique to the world of capitalism,) the old fashioned way: with sweat.
What success I achieved in life grew out of that first summer when my father introduced me to capitalism. He gave me nothing but advice, and that only when I asked for it. I earned it.
Capitalism is not the evil it is portrayed to be by those whose only real contribution has been to take from others what they earned so they can buy votes. Capitalism is the single most effective means of creating opportunities for poor people to rise above poverty.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Well,
I feel it's more like this:
Funny thing about George Carlin: he was a capitalist who became quite wealthy by exploiting anti-establishment sentiments. Is it ironic when you become what you spent a career vilifying?
One thing never explained by such philosophers is, exactly how does it benefit a rich person to hold you down? Rich capitalists are only rich because people buy their goods and services. Any capitalist wants you to be richer so you can buy more of his goods and services, or at least pay more for what you buy. Poor people are lousy customers.
Cui bono? Only one class benefits from your poverty, and that is the class which cannot produce its own wealth, but must frighten people into surrendering theirs with the threat of angry mobs.
My character Tsin'xing
As for Pulaski, I always saw her more as challenging Data to prove himself. Everyone else aboard took it as read that Data was everything he seemed to be, and rather coddled him in the whole "trying to be human" thing; she wanted him to actually be as human as possible. (On the other hand, I didn't think much of the blatant attempt to appeal to the memory of McCoy by having her hate transporters, especially since she was over the top on that - Bones would beam himself hither and yon, he just complained about it once or twice. Pulaski actually used a shuttle to come aboard because she hated transporters so badly, which became a plot point in one episode.)
Here's what Paris Hilton does for her money. That's right, her money, not the money she's inherited, but her money, which she earns through her own ventures and branding. Unless you can do what she does, you're in no position to cast aspersions on her financial validity
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
People mentioned Alaska earlier, well, Alaska's stipend to residents isn't actually enough for most people to live comfortably. From what my relatives tell me it's mostly soaked up by how much more things cost to buy there.
My character Tsin'xing
and what if it was caused out of malice? i understand what you are saying, you can't judge a book by it's cover but you can't always know what some is thinking. we all come from different backgrounds and if you had known me in the real world you wouldn't of known i almost tried to kill someone and yet you wouldn't believed i would be capable of it from my timid appearance. Everyone is capable of something, even in the case of Riker and Pulaski.
I liked Pulaski because she always challenged Picard to his own assumptions, it's the same reason i like Lwaxana Troi because she keeps Picard honest. When it came to Data, Pulaski gives us a more dispassionate point of view, a little more human point of view, something which is rare to find in Star Trek other than with Odo and Data himself.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
My character Tsin'xing
I agree.
But still, maybe we should talk at least about Star Trek again?
I didn't feel Pulaski was "challenging" Data, she openly displayed nothing but contempt. I know why she did it, @jonsills said it she was meant to be McCoy (not just a nod at, she and Data were supposed to be Spock and McCoy because Phase II scripts and all) but she really didn't hit the right notes aside from the futile attempt of trying to copy other actor's chemistry. She didn't fit at all in the 24th century Starfleet.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You're looking at the subject from a 21st Century perspective. (even Picard's comment to Lily should be taken either as a writer's mistake, or, him trying to simplify 24th Century economics to something she would be able relate to)
If most commodities become replicatable, they become valueless, because their rarity ceases to be a measure of value.
If all someone needs is raw matter, a replicator, and energy, then they could quite literally turn TRIBBLE to gold, but to them, said gold would be as worthless as what went into the replicator
Hence my observation, that once we have replicators and easy energy, we won't need currency. The entire mindset will change, due to that lack of need. Remember how Jake tried to defend the Federation's economics to Nog? And that Nog quite rightly pointed out, that if it meant that Jake didn't need money, it meant he definitely didn't need Nog's money
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Or do you think human nature will change in the near future?
My character Tsin'xing
That being said, it's postulated that there's enough energy on the core worlds of the Federation that everyone's basic needs, and perhaps just a bit beyond, can be filled with replicator technology. Discussion of its plausibility has its place, but it's part of the background of the universe, just like warp drive and the even less probable photon torpedoes (if it's a matter/antimatter package with a short-lived magnetic field separating them, the explosions should be a lot bigger, for starters).
In the 'near' (as in immediate) future? No, I don't. But I do think that when people no longer need to hussle and TRIBBLE each other over for the next meal, when anyone is able to take a handful of mud off the ground, and instantaneously turn it into a meal, then yes, I think human nature will then change, because those hunter-gatherer instincts will no longer be applying to every day survival. The retail industry, for example, would essentially cease to exist. The only things which would retain some value, would be hand-crafted items which a person has had to make. Anything else, be it RunningShoesTypeIII or DolphinStatueNumber5, would all be generically available at near-zero (certainly negligible) energy cost. IMO, that's going to cause a massive social revolution, and a different way of looking at the world
But again, tied to current business/financial models. When the production of near-limitless energy exists, when people have replicators, which can create anything that has been scanned in or a template exists for, then stuff becomes valueless in terms of commodities. Intrinsic value for a solid gold walking cane, for example, would lie solely in the aesthetics of the design, not the commercial value of the metal, which would have no commercial value, because it would no longer be a precious metal (in terms of rarity to mine and refine)
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
My character Tsin'xing
On a technically literal level, no. But for all everyday intents and purposes, it effectively does. There's no need for fossil fuels, or the dangers/costs in their production. If there's no cost in the production of the fuel, there's not going to be any cost in the energy produced. There ceases to be a reason to sell something, because at present, the only need for anyone to sell anything, is that they need the money from the sale to acquire something (food/shelter) for themself: when food and shelter cease to be issues, there's simply no need to sell anything. It can be given away.
They had value because the plot needed them to have value. I would split that point to say that mere data itself, would not be valuable, unless it was some kind of strategic information. Musician-created audio files, possibly. But even now, we have copyright-free music, it would't surprize me if, in the future, there was to be generic 'freemium' music, rather than tracks created by a live artist, so that data, for example, wouldn't be of immense value. The issue, is trying to visualize a world without fiat currencies
"If everyone's super, no one will be..." - Syndrome, The Incredibles
"All those who gain power, are afraid to lose it..." - Palpatine, Revenge of the Sith
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
That's not quite right. Complex machinery cannot be replicated. The existence of replicators in Star Trek doesn't mean anything can magically be created out of thin air. Not only do the replicators need access to the basic resources to create things (although that might be negligible in terms of food and everyday commodities) but they also cannot create "computer chips". The show made it clear that complex machinery will be faulty if replicated. So the machines themselves are still assembled traditionally. The difference is it isn't done to profit, the people building replicators do so because they like to help others getting replicators (probably helping to maintaining the standard of life for everyone). The economy portrayed assumes that society (not including all individuals of course) doesn't promote and centre around accumulating personal wealth as present day's is.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Yep....as in living....not merely surviving.
Least George did not TRIBBLE over people to get his wealth. Politicians, bankers and businessmen have.
And really, broadcast power? Haha.... It's not used IRL because it's so wasteful that it's wastefulness makes it dangerous. Tight beam, maybe, but that requires the transmitter to be pointed at you. Except that, that's not true in-universe, now is it? energy usage was always shown to be budgeted, and while one person getting a meal is cheap and easy, it adds up quickly. Or just anything that isn't publically available. you seem to have this weird idea that everyone who makes replicator programs would be happy to give them to everyone. It was often said in TNG and DS9 that replicated food was of inferior quality to the real thing. Makes you wonder why eh? "fiat" currencies are ONLY things with no practical value... the energy Credit concept used in Star Trek IS a currency with practical value. And whoever controls the replicators controls the Federation.
My character Tsin'xing