Economics and Politics of the Future

[GreyLord]

Just some thoughts on supply and demand of the future. Technology questions in regards to NEW have got me pondering other types of technology.

In Star Trek, one idea at one point was that no one goes hungry or without shelter or needs (at least in the core of the Federation). This differs from earlier versions of the Federation (where I suppose this wasn't so). Because everyone has what they need, they pursue interests of how to improve themselves or better themselves instead of trying to collect material gains. In many ways, the way they present it, seems almost like a socialistic society.

Simply put, as the requirements of work go down...less people will be able to get work in those types of fields and hence be able to get the money to prevent themselves from going hungry or obtaining the basics of life. However, ironically, even as that occurs, the amount of resources increases, which means that in theory, if there was a way to redistribute the resources, they wouldn't have to work and indeed, may even be able to do whatever the heck they want.

In that idea, as the resources get better and there is enough to really make it so no one is really poor or destitute...would the governments go from one style to a more universal socialistic approach?

To take our modern world in looking at this,

I'd say as the world has progressed, our ability to actually feed everyone has also increased. I'd say currently, there is NO reason that there is anyone hungry, or shelterless in Western Society (Western Europe and the US/Canada). However, with the Capitalistic system of economics, I'd say there is little chance of completely solving that difficulty. However, even as we see nations with 30-40% unemployment, and even a greater percentage that do not work (are not unemployed as they have no desire to find work...older folks, disabled, etc), we can see that nations DO have a socialistic way of trying to ensure that everyone has food and shelter.

I'd say technologically...we just have not gotten advanced enough to eliminate ALL hunger and destitution. In otherwords, even if the technology is there for us to be able to create the resources to house and feed all in a physical sense, the administrative/government/bureaucracy has not advanced technologically enough for us to be able to do this easily yet.

So...looking at technology...could we say government and bureaucracy itself is a form of technology (afterall, look at how the world advanced with governements...even over the past thousand years, with monarchy and feudalism...then going to a more democratic and republican type ideal...and finally today where we still have the democratic and republican ideas (for example, Constitutional Monarchy) but very much interspersed with socialistic ideas.

In that way...what type of government do you think a future technology would be? With how we are going...I'd say it would deal with a way to distribute resources so no one is hungry or shelterless or in need (I'd even say we're part of the way there already). If they can travel ingalactically, wouldn't it make sense that at that point they'd also have the resources and government advances to provide for everyone if needed?

In which case, what do people do most of the time. Will it be like Star Trek where people choose to improve themselves? Will it be like Doctor Who where one can basically have a Tardis that provides food (as far as I can tell, the TARDIS provides food, etc...as needed, changes as it adapts to the situations, has basically everything one needs if they never even wanted to leave the TARDIS)? Or something else.

I know that technology and eras of tech have been asked about already...in that regards...how would government and economics fit into these arenas. Is it something like I've imagined (going more and more towards a sociological slant, but then probably far advanced beyond that by the time periods I'm discussing above) or how is that going to be handled. Will it even be discussed?

Seeing how a LOT of the way the technology today progresses and has in the past, and how it's directly related to how and what type of governments are there and what they allow and provide, as well as how the economies act and occur...I would think it's relevant.

Is there a timeline or anyway these will be integrated or discussed?

 

[Morrus]

That's very much a setting-based thing; it's going to be different in everybody's game.

I don't see it as an advancement scale - partly because sci-fi sometimes says otherwise (Ferengi, for example) and partly because I don't want to get into the business of implying judgement on any real-world economic systems we use today. The likelihood is that there may be some GM advice on the subject, but no core rules.

 

[Celebrim]

Star Trek's Federation was certainly conceived as a sort of Marxist Humanist Utopia by Roddenberry - communism as it were, done right, where freedom and respect for rights coexisted with economic parity. Kirk famously insists that the Federation has no money.

Exactly how it works is an entire other question, as the economic details of the Federation are no more explained than the economic details of Marx's projected communist economic systems. There is at least one nuclear war in the past of Earth by the time of the Federation, so we can see how it might get put into place - but its never explained how it actually works.

For example, who decides how much economic resources to spend on Star Fleet vessels? The Federation has sufficient manufacturing capacity, but its clearly not unlimited capacity. So, obviously if it comes down to building a person a private skyscraper and launching another Constellation class cruiser, something has to go. Is Star Fleet subject to civilian commanders, or is this pretty much a military autocracy however benevolent? Are we seeing only a window in to what is functionally the Federation's aristocracy? What's life like for your average Federation citizen - the sort that are dead even before the red shirts start dying? Are elections held regularly or at all? Do Federation citizens have any real say in or control over their government? It seems like most colonies tend to have a central leader figure/cult of personality figure who is in charge (and this figure is usually insane or corrupt) as opposed to any sort of complex government. Ok, so everyone gets basic necessities taken care of, but let's say you want to own a farm, a vineyard, a starship, or a planet? One of the fundamental theorems of economics is that human wants are unlimited. Who gets to decide who gets what they want? AI seems to be illegal, so who is doing all the jobs that humans generally don't find intellectually rewarding and stimulating? Genetic engineering also seems to be illegal, so what is happening with all the idiots that can't become top star fleet officers? What is there life like? If you don't have money, can anyone have property and if you have property but not money, is basically everything on the barter system? And if you don't have property, to what extent does anyone actually have rights? What actually happens with political or religious minorities that dissent from the overall socialist/humanist system? Are they allowed colony worlds, and how are they proportioned? Or are they ruthlessly crushed and people/children sent to reeducation camps?

To take our modern world in looking at this,

I'd say as the world has progressed, our ability to actually feed everyone has also increased. I'd say currently, there is NO reason that there is anyone hungry, or shelterless in Western Society.

I take it you've never worked much in homeless shelters or food pantries, or really done much social work at all. The fundamental causes of poverty aren't easily removed from a society regardless of the manufacturing capacity you develop. Presumably an advanced society can cure mental illnesses that have a chemical basis, but even that is hard, since the person being cured needs to cooperate and if they don't cooperate things get ugly in a hurry. But even an advanced society probably can't cure all the insanity that has no chemical basis. The wealthy and the educated are just as wasteful, mean, and emotionally dysfunctional as the poor, deprived, and ignorant. Dislocation occurs not only at higher tech levels, but arguably increasingly at higher tech levels. And witness what happens in Hollywood with people who objectively have every material comfort that they could want, as well as fame, clout, and a presumably intellectually fulfilling career. Suicide, divorce, anti-social behavior, etc. Make everyone rich, doesn't make everyone good, well-adjusted or happy. There are no easy answers.

 

[MarkB]

Star Trek's Federation was certainly conceived as a sort of Marxist Humanist Utopia by Roddenberry - communism as it were, done right, where freedom and respect for rights coexisted with economic parity. Kirk famously insists that the Federation has no money.

Exactly how it works is an entire other question, as the economic details of the Federation are no more explained than the economic details of Marx's projected communist economic systems. There is at least one nuclear war in the past of Earth by the time of the Federation, so we can see how it might get put into place - but its never explained how it actually works.

In particular, it's never explained how the Federation interfaces with other cultures that do use money. In Star Trek DS9, Starfleet officers clearly pay for goods, meals and services bought on the Promenade, and some of them gamble at Quark's. We never see anyone go into debt as a result, but they do seem invested in the results. So, can they simply requisition a few bricks of Latinum from the Federation if they're running short?

 

[Morrus]

I don't think Star Trek thinks all that hard about it.

 

[Derren]

You might want to read the Eclipse Phase rpg.

One major point of the setting is the existence of replicators which can create anything from easily available base elements (including other replicators).
In this setting there are 3 types of government

1. Old style capitalism
Replicators are heavily restricted and people have to work for money to buy things. They are rather totalitarian in order to keep replicators out of the hands of the people (as their availability would destroy their economic system)

2. Anarchy
In anarchic "governments" no money exists as everyone can make anything. The only thing of real value is knowledge (including blue prints for replicators). But they are given out more along a reputation and "you know someone who knows someone who knows how to make what you need" basis. Mostly you trade favors for other favors

3. The middle ground
I am not sure how they are called in the game. Those governments are in between the above two. Access to replicators is unrestricted, but they only contain "basic" blueprints (basic still means pretty much all food, no matter the quality, clothes, entertainment, etc.) Only real luxury items are restricted (you have to work to buy the blueprints for them) and of course dangerous stuff.

 

[Storminator]

I don't think Star Trek thinks all that hard about it.

Star Trek assumes that all human problems are solved - except for this week's drama.

PS

 

[GreyLord]

In particular, it's never explained how the Federation interfaces with other cultures that do use money. In Star Trek DS9, Starfleet officers clearly pay for goods, meals and services bought on the Promenade, and some of them gamble at Quark's. We never see anyone go into debt as a result, but they do seem invested in the results. So, can they simply requisition a few bricks of Latinum from the Federation if they're running short?

DS9 did explain it if I recall, along the following lines.

They give each of the Star Fleet members an allowance of sorts for recreation, which they could spend on drinks, gambling, holosuites, etc. because they don't have those items there themselves to provide. The Federation does have an official currency that can be brought out to deal with other cultures that have a monetary system, but doesn't need to use such itself in dealing with it's own resources.

Star Trek assumes that all human problems are solved - except for this week's drama.

PS

LOL

 

[TarionzCousin]

Kirk had lots of "money" to "spend" when other races' females wanted some loving.

 

[GMMichael]

In that way...what type of government do you think a future technology would be? With how we are going...I'd say it would deal with a way to distribute resources so no one is hungry or shelterless or in need (I'd even say we're part of the way there already). If they can travel ingalactically, wouldn't it make sense that at that point they'd also have the resources and government advances to provide for everyone if needed?

What type of government? Depends on the society. If they're ironworking, it should probably be a state. And state-size governments work best when the lower classes hold up the upper classes - ala "capitalism" and "communism." I use quotes because state-sponsored capitalism requires a heavy enforcement hand (which is a bit on the authoritarian side) and state-sponsored communism doesn't actually grant communal resources fairly to everyone.

Now, highly-advanced societies could have some cool government solutions going on (or just be one big business - authoritarian dictatorship). But consider: more government services means bigger government, and bigger government means more control (less freedom).

Re: providing for everyone. People **** like rabbits. If everyone has everything they need, they spend a lot of time making babies. So the government that provides for everyone is probably also interested in shipping loads of people off the planet. Say, to go start a "colony" (Aliens, anyone?). Failing that, you'd better dream up some sort of government-imposed birth control, and then dream up the revolution that would occur after the futuristic government tells people they can't be doing their favorite, um, extra-curricular activity. Or go the Chinese route. And say goodbye to your daughters...