Talk:Federation credit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |  Star Trek Portal |
The article states:
..."which suggests that the Federation does not use money - unlikely on its face, as it would not be possible to operate an efficient economic system, particularly one encompassing thousands of worlds, without some form of exchange"
I disagree. In Star Trek: First Contact, Picard clearly states that not only does money not exist, but that people are not paid for their work, because they work to "better themselves", and not for a salary. In an episode of DS9 (I forget which), Jake Sisko tells Nog that, as a Federation citizen, he has no financial ressources whatsoever.
Clearly, the very concept of money is meaningless on Federation worlds. Remember that this is a utopia, and it's often been stated that Humans (and other Federation species) no longer experience greed or self-centredness (in VOY: "Future's End", for example, or in that TNG episode where they revive several frozen people from the 21st century). We have to assume that people on Federation worlds contribute freely to society because they want to, and take whatever they need in return, being sufficiently advanced in ethical terms to not abuse this system. (This system exists in other utopias, including William Morris' News From Nowhere.)
My theory is that Starfleet officers stationed on the borders, and interacting with non-Federation species, do have some sort of monetary ressources, and that's where Federation credits come in. For purchases from non-Federation merchants (such as Quark), and for Federation trade with foreign worlds. --Aridd, January 27th, 2006
I agree with what has been said by the first poster, it is a well established fact that the Federation does not use any form of Money (or even anything resembling money, be it electronic or otherwise). Therefore this article is entirely unnecessary and misleading, it should also be removed from the United Federation of Planets article (where it is stated to be the "Currency" of the federation). If you want to know what the actual Economic System of the Federation is check out Technocratic movement, I was once told by a Technocrat that one of them actually asked Gene Roddenberry whether his idea of the Federation was similar to Technocracy, and he apparently said that they were pretty much identical (of-course this is just anecdotal evidence and I can't offer any proof of it). Anyway I suggest that this Article be either thoroughly rewritten or deleted.
--Hibernian 07:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It is complete nonsense to say there in no money in the United Federation of Planets.
In The Trouble with Tribbles, set in 2267, Uhura offers to buy a Tribble for 10 credits.
In the episode Errand of Mercy, also set in 2267, Spock estimates that Starfleet has invested over 122,200 credits in his training as a Starfleet officer.
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, in 2285, while on Earth, McCoy attempts to hire a ship to take him to the Genesis Planet, and is warned it would be expensive and cost many credits,
The first mention of the Federation not using money came in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, where Kirk (coming from 2286) is suddenly unfamiliar with the idea of using money in the 20th century (whereas only a few months ago McCoy was on Earth trying to spend large amounts of money on Earth).
In Encounter at Farpoint, set in 2364, Beverly Crusher buys a bolt of fabric and requests that it be charged to her account on the Enterprise, while later that year in The Neutral Zone, Picard tries to explain to cryogenically preserved people from the late 20th century that 24th century economics are quite different and money as they know it is not used or needed in the Federation,
Two years later, in 2366, in The Price, the Federation is willing to pay millions of credits for access to a stable wormhole.
Credits are a canonical part of the UFP, plain and simple. --Wingsandsword 20:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I will refer you to what I wrote in the Talk:United Federation of Planets Page, and yes I do indeed still believe that there is no Form of Currency in the Federation and that the "Federation Credit" of this page is an utterly wrong interpretation.
- --Hibernian 04:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Wingsandword actually provides several valid examples in the other discussion page. Hibernian needs to research more on Star Trek canon before he can lecture about this topic; see Talk:United Federation of Planets for further discussion on this topic. --Minaker
-
- See my response on the other talk page. And sign your comments for crying out loud. --Hibernian 21:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
A few people have mentioned references to people (Starfleet officers) offering credits for products and services (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock; Star Trek TOS episode Trouble With Tribbles; Star Trek TNG Episodes Encounter at Farpoint and The Neutral Zone, etc). I think that it's pretty reasonable to assume that, even in the Federation, people offer and accept credits for products and services. It's clear from these episodes and others that people operate across the boundaries of the quadrant's political entities. Doesn't it make sense that these people would want a form of currency that could be converted to other currencies? In Star Trek III, McCoy is talking with someone who probably doesn't abide by the Federation concept of "money doesn't exist." From the TNG episode Encounter at Farpoint, maybe the merchant from whom Crusher purchased the bolts of fabric needed a form of payment. I just think that it's reasonable to assume that there are currency policy differences within the Federation. Remember, although Great Britain is a part of the European Union, it did not accept the Euro as the national currency. I think this analogy is appropriate, as is one of the Federation and the United Federation of Planets). The UFP is modeled on the UN (for example, compare the flags of both organizations), and in the UN, member states are still soveriegn territories. Don't planets in the Federation have governments comparable in structure, if not the exact same, to the ones they had before they joined the Federation? I'm just trying to reconcile the contradictory canonical evidence here. I think this could explain the contradiction, even though some big assumptions are used. What does anyone else think?
One of the TOS episodes (I forget which one) had an inexperienced officer in charge of the Enterprise while Kirk was indisposed, who makes the comment that the force field surrounding the bad guys is inpenetrable, but "I'll bet credits to navy beans we can punch a hole in it". — Loadmaster 23:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have the ultimate proof that there's money in ST (at least in TNG) - what are they playing poker with? If they weren't playing for money nobody would ever fold. Losing because you fold and losing because you go in and lose would be the same thing if you were just playing for bragging rights. Clearly they are betting money. Albertod4 02:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, no that doesn’t prove anything. No kind of money was ever mentioned in the poker games, they were shown playing for chips. Most likely those chips don't represent anything except in the game, and I disagree that they wouldn't take it seriously if it wasn't money, haven't you ever played Monopoly (or other similar games)? Well in playing that, you can see players take winning and losing quite seriously, even if it's only "Monopoly money". In voyager some crewmembers were shown gambling for "Replicator rations" and Holodeck time (which was apparently not allowed in Star Fleet), that further indicates to me that they didn't have any money, otherwise why bet non-monetary things?
- As to the wider issue, I've been investigating further and found that there are several Fan Websites that have already done extensive research into this topic. Some of there evidence needs to be presented here. As for the conclusion I still think that the definitive statements against money Trump those instances where money seems to appear. --Hibernian 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
