Happy Birthday to Terry Farrell, 50. She retired from acting, apparently; I hadn't know that.
Some good stuff:
1. John Sides on Liz Cheney, Republicans, and marriage.
2. Seth Masket looks to move the campaign finance debate forward.
3. And Matt Yglesias on the economy of the United Federation of Planets.
It'll be interesting to see whether the Democrats can really marshall a lot of support for prioritizing the expansion of Social Security benefits as part of their platform. It's in the news now with Warren and liberal groups like PCCC supporting it. I certainly don't want to cut benefits, but I'm not convinced that this issue is the one to focus attention and political energy on, and on which to devote any new revenues obtained by raising taxes, like the payroll threshhold. In the best of all worlds, we'd push everything in a liberal direction, but that's strategically unrealistic. I haven't thought this all through, but I'll be looking for commentators to do so in the coming days. My first reaction upon hearing about the Social Security expansion was, "hey, our biggest problems these days are not the retirement conditions of senior citizens; it's a whole bunch of pressures on young people just trying to enter their working years and on young and middle-aged families trying to manage their budgets." Most of the Democrats' existing goals, already a big lift, seem better targeted at the most pressing problems facing the country: to better regulate the exploitative finance industry, to raise the minimum wage, to make pre-school more affordable, to stimulate the economy with infrastructure investment.
ReplyDeleteBoth of the articles on Star Trek economics make good points. It's always seemed goofy to me that people had to categorize it in terms of today's capitalism. v. communism. The ideas that it is made possible by a change in values, and that parts of it are a gift economy, comports with my analysis as well. They perhaps don't make enough of a distinction between Starfleet and the civilian world. I doubt that Starfleet officers are a "ruling class" outside of Starfleet.
ReplyDeleteIt does remind me how far we are from a concept that was seriously discussed by economists and futurists in the 60s when the original Trek series was airing: the guaranteed income. Some came at it as a solution to how you keep an economy going when automation was doing most of the work, unemployment was high etc. Others (like Bucky Fuller) saw it also as supporting creative thought which would pay larger dividends.
That the Star Trek future means that people are not enslaved to the dollar but work for the betterment of themselves and society was enormously attractive to people who worked on Trek, and to many people even today who go to Trek conventions, or who are very quietly devoted to Trek.
What did Bucky Fuller create that produced large dividends? His balls are the leakiest and most expensive to maintain buildings ever. His three wheel car was an actual death trap. Did he produce anything really useful?
DeleteYglesias' piece is interesting, but there are strong counter-examples, of which the most obvious is the existence of the Ferengi (especially in DS9), and there most obviously as represented by Quakr's bar on the space station. Clearly, the Ferengi see the exchange of goods for bars of latinum, which they presumably use to obtain other goods (or unless the Ferengi are subject to the mercantilist fallacy), as a means of acquiring economic power.
ReplyDeleteThe Ferengi aren't members of the Federation, though it is unclear how Quark's works on DS9. But the interesting thing is that no matter how much latinum they acquire, they can't gain power over the Federation. Their competition is in allies and resources, and technology.
DeleteQuark's is interesting. Webb's piece (linked in Yglesias') I think deals with it a bit better. First, a lot of what Quark does is probably loss-leading. He makes his real money from gambling and holosuites, often from non-Federation traders.
DeleteMeanwhile, Quark has essentially bartered free drinks to the Federation in exchange for free rent and maintenance. Since he's able to charge various other people for his services and Federation personnel are typically a minority in the bar, this is probably a fairly profitable set-up for Quark (well, except for the fact that he never really makes all *that* much money).
The other piece to note is that DS9 isn't a Federation station per se. It's a Bajoran station, administered by the Federation.
Yglesias describes a war economy. The Federation produces and rations a host of goods and dispenses rationed credits for said goods. There must be scarcity or people could use whatever they desired without spending rationed credits. No matter how wealthy people are, more stuff is always desired by many/most.
ReplyDeleteThe point of running your restaurant or your vineyard is essentially to show off your mastery, not accumulate wealth.
People pay big money to see live concerts now. The number of concert-goers is limited. What Yglesias describes is a restaurant-as-performance. Seating is limited and so the people who get to experience it would have to trade something. Since money is principally used to mediate trades, it would arise automatically as it has for thousands of years. There is no such thing as "post scarcity" if anyone can offer anything that not everyone can have. Americans are massively wealthier now than they were 200 years ago, with poverty characterized by obesity. The undiscerning from 200 years ago might claim that Americans today are "post-scarcity" because no one starves, but try telling that to Elizabeth Warren.
To show off your mastery or accumulate wealth? Are those the only two choices? How about to enjoy a sensory experience? Enhance learning that is essential to human beings? The Federation's existence is predicated on these and other choices.
DeleteAs for today, the implication that there is not real poverty and suffering in America linked to lack of money is wrong and repugnant.
You didn't read Yglesias' piece. I quoted him.
DeleteThe point is that even in Trek land there will be scarcity of some goods or services.