So, Why Are You A TnT 'shipper?

[Alelou]

Hey, the no money thing started with Next Generation, not the BBs, and it seemed problematic right from the start if you ask me.

Were they not part of TNG?

Yes, but they came in later, didn't they, long after the whole TNG we-don't-need-money-anymore thing got going. Berman might have been around but not Braga.

I hope you guys don't really think it was a leftwing conspiracy to foist Marxism on the American people through the medium of Star Trek. I mean, honestly. Get a grip. They merely reflected their times. The cold war was over and the only bad guys left on American television were evil corporate honchos and early terrorist types, so that was what they were channeling, translated into Ferengis and alien terrorist types.

[CX]

The no money thing was an invention of Roddenberry, not B&B. B&B just kept it up, at least until they got bored with it and started having them use "credits" again. Behr and the others on DS9 were the same way, though there the main focus was on gold-pressed latinum.

[enterprikayak]

Riker did say once onscreen "That's why they pay me the big bucks."

Hmm. Maybe Jean-Luc gave him hot stone massages. Maybe that was the big bucks.

[blacknblue]

Hey, the no money thing started with Next Generation, not the BBs, and it seemed problematic right from the start if you ask me.

Were they not part of TNG?

Yes, but they came in later, didn't they, long after the whole TNG we-don't-need-money-anymore thing got going. Berman might have been around but not Braga.

I hope you guys don't really think it was a leftwing conspiracy to foist Marxism on the American people through the medium of Star Trek. I mean, honestly. Get a grip. They merely reflected their times. The cold war was over and the only bad guys left on American television were evil corporate honchos and early terrorist types, so that was what they were channeling, translated into Ferengis and alien terrorist types.

Nobody said it was a conspiracy. TNG just presents it as a desirable world. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I am not sure if that was Marx himself, or Lenin. But it was one of the founding tenets of Communism. Either way, it is significantly less believable than warp drive to anyone who has studied even a smattering of Human history.

I don't personally believe that there was any deep dark evil intention at work. Merely wishful thinking by bubble heads. It just screws with my suspension of disbelief that's all. And thereby cuts deeply into my enjoyment of the series.

[Alelou]

Nobody said it was a conspiracy. TNG just presents it as a desirable world. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I remember back when they first launched that series, and I think Rdodenberry explained that they wanted to show that money was irrelevant because there was no more scarcity -- every problem on earth had been solved by technology and the resources available in space, and the fear and insecurity that drives people to amass wealth had been eliminated. (Utopian, much?) Which was also why the starship looked like a freaking Marriott.

We can't relate to this at all today. We're back into energy crisis, climate crisis, expensive food crisis, jobs being sucked away to China and India, military prowess being questionable. We're all thinking scarcity at worst, conservation at best.

[Alelou]

military prowess being questionable.

I was just standing in the shower thinking it was a good thing I'm not running for office. I don't want to suggest there's any less military prowess than there used to be. It's more how a matter of how it has been committed. I think we're all dealing with the reality of how limited military superiority can be when it's been committed to a politically impossible mission underpinned by terrible intelligence and incompetent planning. And unfortunately the whole world is watching this.

But this is too political for this setting, no doubt. My apologies.

[blacknblue]

Nobody said it was a conspiracy. TNG just presents it as a desirable world. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I remember back when they first launched that series, and I think Rdodenberry explained that they wanted to show that money was irrelevant because there was no more scarcity -- every problem on earth had been solved by technology and the resources available in space, and the fear and insecurity that drives people to amass wealth had been eliminated. (Utopian, much?) Which was also why the starship looked like a freaking Marriott.

We can't relate to this at all today. We're back into energy crisis, climate crisis, expensive food crisis, jobs being sucked away to China and India, military prowess being questionable. We're all thinking scarcity at worst, conservation at best.

You know, it isn't only a question of wealth. Like I said in a previous post - even if the Federation is wealthy beyond the wildest dream of feverish greed you still need a medium of exchange simply for practicality. A society needs a common reference point for keeping track of the flow of goods and services. Money isn't all about greed, any more than food is all about gluttony, or clothing is all about vanity. Money serves a functional purpose in keeping a society moving along. But plainly the producers of Star Trek have never grasped this concept. At least not until DS9. The Ferengi indicate that at least some of the writers are not completely ignorant of the functional underpinning of how society actually operates, notwithstanding the overall utopianism of the larger Federation "dream".

Remember the episode where Jake wanted to buy a baseball card for his dad, but he couldn't because he had no money? So he went to his friend Nog for help? And Nog told him, "It isn't my fault that your people gave up money for some sort of philosophy of self-improvement."

There was another episode where the adult Alexander comes back from the future and sets the Enterprise on a wild goose chase after the two wicked Duras sisters. Riker uses a debt that Quark owes him for leverage to get some information. It turns out that he won a big pot at Quark's and Quark couldn't cover it, so he paid him off in credit at his bar. Riker objects that he could spend latinum anywhere, but credit at Quark's bar was only good at Quark's bar, and demands the information in payment instead.

Plainly somebody in that episode has at least a glimmer. Or was advised by someone who had a glimmer, about the function of a medium of exchange in the workings of social interaction.

[blacknblue]

military prowess being questionable.

I was just standing in the shower thinking it was a good thing I'm not running for office. I don't want to suggest there's any less military prowess than there used to be. It's more how a matter of how it has been committed. I think we're all dealing with the reality of how limited military superiority can be when it's been committed to a politically impossible mission underpinned by terrible intelligence and incompetent planning. And unfortunately the whole world is watching this.

But this is too political for this setting, no doubt. My apologies.

You are absolutely right. As Sun-Wu wrote many centuries ago, the fact that an enemy may have more troops than you do is no sign that they are going to win. Incompetent leadership will destroy the best soldiers on Earth.

[Alelou]

[quote="blacknblue"][You know, it isn't only a question of wealth. Like I said in a previous post - even if the Federation is wealthy beyond the wildest dream of feverish greed you still need a medium of exchange simply for practicality. A society needs a common reference point for keeping track of the flow of goods and services. Money isn't all about greed, any more than food is all about gluttony, or clothing is all about vanity. Money serves a functional purpose in keeping a society moving along. But plainly the producers of Star Trek have never grasped this concept. At least not until DS9. The Ferengi indicate that at least some of the writers are not completely ignorant of the functional underpinning of how society actually operates, notwithstanding the overall utopianism of the larger Federation "dream".
quote]

I'm not defending the no money thing. It just doesn't make sense in any world in which people have the power to make choices about how they feed and clothe themselves, find shelter, or give to others anything not produced by themselves. In the very first episode when Beverly bought cloth at a market you just had to think -- hello -- how's she doing that? My point was that it was a half-thought-out Utopian idea and not some diabolical Marxist conspiracy to lull hapless Star Trek fans into becoming -- gasp! -- communists.

[blacknblue]

I don't think the person who wrote that article comparing TNG economics to communism was trying to advance any conspiracy theory. At least, I didn't get that impression. They seemed to me to be merely pointing out that TNG was presenting the future as being a successfully utopian realization of the communist dream.