Towards the “Star Trek” Economy
Seriously.
From Google (“what kind of economy does Earth have in the Star Trek franchise”):
AI Overview
In the Star Trek universe, Earth operates on a post-scarcity, moneyless economy, where basic needs are met through advanced technology and a focus on self-improvement and the betterment of humanity, rather than material wealth.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
- Post-Scarcity:
- Earth has achieved a state where basic necessities like food, shelter, and clothing are readily available to all through advanced technology like replicators, effectively eliminating poverty and hunger.
- Moneyless Society:
- Money and the concept of wealth accumulation are obsolete, as the focus is on personal growth and the collective good.
- Federation Credits:
- While the Federation itself doesn’t use money, it does utilize a system of credits for trade and commerce with non-Federation entities.
- Socialist leanings:
- Some commentators on YouTube suggest that the Earth’s economy leans towards a socialist model, with a strong emphasis on collective ownership and resource distribution.
- Examples in the series
- In “Star Trek: First Contact”, Picard explains to Lily Sloane that “The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.”
- Examples in the series
- In “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”, Jake Sisko explains to Nog that “I’m Human, I don’t have any money”
The reference to “socialist leanings” is, I think, misleading, at the least. It would be more accurate to say that the economy of Earth in Star Trek is ‘post-ideological’. There is an economy — goods/services are produced/acquired — but its structure and functioning are not determined by any belief-based notion of what an economy ‘should be’. Rather, as technology developed the role of people in producing goods and services approached zero. An economy that does not employ people in producing goods and services has transcended any possibility of ‘exploiting people’ — thus ‘what is to be done’ to eliminate it.
In Star Trek the ‘means of production’ are a fact of material existence that are outside any concept of ‘ownership’. They are set on ‘autopilot’ to respond to demand. The entire retail economy (including food) works on the same principle as ‘publish-on-demand’ does with books: an order comes in and the desired item is selected or produced, packaged, and shipped. The ‘back end’ of the economy — producing what is needed to sustain retail production — is governed by what is happening in the retail economy (with ‘natural resources’ coming from uninhabited planets, asteroids, etc.). Since there is no part of the production of goods/services that is any longer a source of income/wealth for individuals, there is no ‘drive’ to produce in any part of the economy independently — ‘ahead of’ — what is desired: in economic terms, ‘demand’.
In short, Earth has gone from a supply-driven economy to a pure ‘demand economy’. In the economy we now have demand must be constantly ‘stimulated’ (using marketing as well as public and private debt) to try to ensure the ‘consumption’ of total output, which is always being maximized for multifarious reasons — though including the ‘good’ goal of maximizing employment. In the Star Trek economy supply is nothing but a response to demand.
That brings us to the other part of the economy: acquisition. Google’s AI overview stresses that in Star Trek the economy of Earth functions with no money. It isn’t that hard to imagine how production can proceed without money: it’s simply that there are no people involved in production. No one must be compensated for one’s time and effort (or incentivized for effort). How a process of acquisition could proceed without money is not as easy to fathom.
Apparently, people just order what they need. I suppose that’s where the part about “as the focus is on personal growth and the collective good” comes in. People have moved their focus away from material wants. They only order what they need because they have no interest in material things beyond what they need to sustain themselves materially while they pursue their loftier attainments.
Here’s the thing: there is an actual proposal ‘out there’ that would set us on a course towards the Star Trek economy. To be clear, this proposal could be adopted tomorrow by any nation on the planet — without having to change the institutional structure of its economy (or its system of government, for that matter).
To be sure, this would not be, immediately, in any way close to that ultra-advanced economy. There would still be money, and people employed in the production of goods and services, and (to get a tad ahead of ourselves) taxes — initially. Still, it would be a start.
While this proposal does not get rid of money, it does fundamentally alter the approach to money. At the same time — and more importantly, really — it changes the relationship between income and employment. In it money would be created as needed to fund a guaranteed minimum income — one that would be sufficient for a materially comfortable life.
[Money can be created as needed at present, but all creation of money always involves debt — usually newly created debt. That money in this paradigm would not involve debt in any way.]
People who were not of retirement age and who were able to work would have to have a job to be paid that income, but a job of some kind would be assured for every (adult) citizen. That income could, however, become the pay for every employee of any business or government — to include CEO’s and heads of state. At that point there would be a divide between the revenue of a business or government and the income of any employee, which would be a first step towards divorcing income from employment. At first we could retain varying benefits for different positions in the economy (for purposes of traditional material incentives), but eventually (as people evolved?) those might be eliminated. In the absence of benefits the amount of the income could be increased. At that point an impermeable barrier would exist between the revenue of a business or government and any compensation of any employee — a step towards decoupling not just income from employment, but material well-being holistically. Moreover, from the start it would be as easy as not to pay that income to households — perhaps, as a start, paying it to one parent (or legal guardian) in a household with at least one (legally recognized) dependent living there (the same income, regardless of the number of dependents), as pay for that job. Star Trek aside, if we are on the verge of a robotics/AI revolution in production, an income that can be paid to households rather than employees will become an important component of the economy. [To prevent inflation, in this proposal that guaranteed income would have to start at something close to the current minimum income and be increased gradually.]
In Star Trek there are no nation-states but there is still government. With no money, though, there are no taxes. (Apparently the only people ‘employed’ in government are unpaid people deciding which choices for the community to effect, leaving the details to AI.) In this proposal taxes would be reduced to zero. That’s because money would also be created as needed to fund government — all government, from local to national — forevermore at the current per capita rate of total government spending. [Taxes would have to be reduced gradually in order to prevent inflation, since doing away with taxes would increase the money people had to spend — hugely, in total.]
Those two streams of money, one funding demand in the private sector and the other funding demand in the public sector, would effectively govern total output (though passively). That would already be a ‘demand economy’ of a kind.
Even better, the total of each stream of money would be determined by demographics, meaning demographics would govern total output. That would increase sustainability systemically.
As noted, this paradigm could be implemented in our present reality by any nation. It could also be implemented by a group of nations sharing a currency (with no nation’s sovereignty being compromised in any way). Eventually, it could become a single currency shared by every nation on the planet. Over time, along with the whole nation-state apparatus, money could also just (to borrow a phrase from the most famous socialist) “wither away.”
To borrow some more famous words, for any nation to make the “small step” of implementing this proposal would be a “giant leap” for humankind; it would lead the way for us “to boldly go where no” economy “has gone before” — an economy so wonderful that human beings living at the end of this Age can scarcely imagine such a thing.