DS9 and Money

[Mark]

I've recently started watching DS9 again via Netflix and during "Emissary" (which I haven't seen in about five years) I had a thought about the economics of the region. We know that Cardies have a monitary system as well as the Bajorans. Starfleet and the Federation theoretically have none. I came up with two theories for discussion.

1. Could the Bajorans have been "paying" Starfleet for administrating the station? That would explain how Starfleet officers and families suddenly had money in a moneyless society.

2. Bajor was in serious turmoil. Could the Federation have adopted money for use in the Bajoran system as a means of economic stimulas????

What do you guys think?

[Tyyr]

I think you've just sailed off the map and into the "There be Dragons" portion of the ST debate map.

[Mikey]

1. Could the Bajorans have been "paying" Starfleet for administrating the station? That would explain how Starfleet officers and families suddenly had money in a moneyless society.

Certainly possible. I never got that impression, but it would explain the possession of money among Federation citizens. Alternatively, Starfleet (or whatever other governing body a UFP citizen might fall under) could have taken a portion of each person's material "budget" - that is, the stuff needed for necessities replication, etc. - and provided some of the regional currency in order to be able to interact in a currency-based, non-UFP environment.

2. Bajor was in serious turmoil. Could the Federation have adopted money for use in the Bajoran system as a means of economic stimulas????

I doubt it. Given that the UFP didn't use money internally, any stimulus would likely have been in the form of material, not money.

[BigJKU316]

I think you've just sailed off the map and into the "There be Dragons" portion of the ST debate map.

If they do anything with the new timeline I would like to see them retcon this nonsense right out of Trek. The notion in and of itself is stupid beyond imagination. I could envison societies in which it would work, but even for TNG it makes no sense. If you have no money how can you have property? Why should the Picards get a large vinyard in France when others have to presumably live in apartments? Those things have different values and you have to have some sort of system for deciding who gets to live where if there is no money.

It just breaks down worse from there.

[Captain Seafort]

If you have no money how can you have property?

You can't. Not privately-owned property at least.

Why should the Picards get a large vinyard in France when others have to presumably live in apartments?

Simple - it had been in the family for generations and they got to keep living there

Those things have different values and you have to have some sort of system for deciding who gets to live where if there is no money.

Simple. Either a) they get to keep the old family house (as the Picards did) or b) everyone gets a state-owned flat or house. The more important your job, the bigger and better the flat/house.

[Mark]

Communisim at its finest

[Mikey]

Simple - it had been in the family for generations and they got to keep living there

This was one of the biggest conundrums witht he "no money" idea that I had found, personally. So, you're saying that a vintner - who, in our alleged no-money economy must be producing his vintages for government distribution, not to mention doing so in an era in which the government-preferred posion is synthehol - gets a sprawling manse and estate in France's wine country, while Admiral James T. Kirk gets a two-story walk-up condo?

[Captain Seafort]

This was one of the biggest conundrums witht he "no money" idea that I had found, personally. So, you're saying that a vintner - who, in our alleged no-money economy must be producing his vintages for government distribution, not to mention doing so in an era in which the government-preferred posion is synthehol - gets a sprawling manse and estate in France's wine country, while Admiral James T. Kirk gets a two-story walk-up condo?

Not at all. Given the high status of the military in most communist countries, Kirk would probably have got a pretty swish house if he'd lived into the TNG era. I think it's more likely that he bought whatever he could afford with his salary, given that the existence of a proper economy in TOS-era Trek is pretty well established.

[Mikey]

given that the existence of a proper economy in TOS-era Trek is pretty well established.

Very well, I'll give you that. Doesn't explain why Robert Picard was afforded the estate he had and allowed to work it by himself, especially considering the luxury nature of his product (which was even more marginalized by the presence of synthehol.) His vintages were pretty clearly offered (somehow) to the consumer as his own. Family history of the estate means very little in communistic societies.

[Graham Kennedy]

One could assume that the Picards don't own the vineyard. The government may own it, and the Picard family are essentially multigenerational tenants. Indeed with Robert and his son killed in a fire, it may well be that the vineyard has been passed on to some other suitable persons.

[Mikey]

Indeed with Robert and his son killed in a fire, it may well be that the vineyard has been passed on to some other suitable persons.

Obviously I was talking about a point at which Robert and Rene were alive.

One could assume that the Picards don't own the vineyard. The government may own it, and the Picard family are essentially multigenerational tenants.

One could. It's been a while since I've seen the ep, but I thought Robert implied that the wine they produced was offered for "sale" as proprietary of the Picard family.

[Tyyr]

As much as I enjoy a good debate, can't we all just agree that money in Trek is so terminally screwed up that you can't reconcile the economics of the Federation based upon existing evidence?

[Mikey]

As much as I enjoy a good debate, can't we all just agree that money in Trek is so terminally screwed up that you can't reconcile the economics of the Federation based upon existing evidence?

I think that's a given. I also think that's why these discussions open.

[Captain Seafort]

I'd say it's pretty easy to reconcile their economy. The only problems are when you assume a single economic system throughout Trek, rather then recognising the clear differences between TOS/TOS Movies and TNG+.

[Tyyr]

Except that in the TNG era you've got people spending money, owning property, etc. in a society that presumably has no money or work for material gains anymore. I don't presume there's a continuous system as TOS is pretty clear on how things work. The problem is that when you get to TNG they say one thing and then do another.