The economics of Star Trek?
The economics of Star Trek?
Disclaimer: I have not seen much if any of Star Trek, although I love Science fiction as such, so I can only comment on the descriptions and claims made in the original text here: The economics of Star Trek
Today I read a blog post on the economics of Star Trek by author Rick Webb. It brings up a thought experiment that attempts to describe economic redistribution without a monetary (or a least a market based)- system. The premise is that in the world of Star Trek, there is no money, and all paid work is done at ones leisure. This is made possible since all (conventional) work is done by robots and computers, including presumably, the work of creating and maintaining the machines themselves.
The author claims that if everything that the inhabitants of Star Trek desire is ubiquitous, then there should be no need for paid work and, less intuitively, no overconsumption.
Starting with overconsumption
I can't really see what unlimited supply at zero cost would do to help -If I can get an unlimited supply of new mobile phones, why would I ever stop buying them? I guess I could run out of space in my home, or in my trash, but if any waste is easily destroyed or disintegrated, I guess I could just keep buying "stuff". If there were none of the problems we face in the real world, like pollution or exhaustion of resources, then by definition this life style is "sustainable" and the point of lowering consumption becomes moot.
In the blog text, Rick suggests an arbitrary measure of what is "conspicuous consumption" to which the (computerised market-) system "simply says no". With a huge surplus of resource and energy, what is the reason for this? Certainly there are more planets than 10x the number of people in the universe, so what is conspicuous about that consumption? If I want 100 star ships (let's say driven by computers) to help me build a giant Hollywood sign out of these planets, what is the problem for the rest of society?
Of course with limited resources there is a problem of distribution - perhaps someone with a better idea for the use of those star ships should be allowed to have them. This is elegantly solved by a market system.
Rick is not suggesting this, however. Rather "social pressure is so strong against conspicuous consumption", that overconsumption will be a non-issue. What this has to do with market economy as a system, I will never know. Perhaps, Rick wants to discuss legislation on advertisement and lobbying, or maybe the growing challenge of environmental issues?
Rick admits that even in the world of Star Trek, there are still the basic boundaries found in any economy: demand for food, medicine and clothing, demand for transportation, demand for recreation etc., It is supply of all of these things that has vastly increased.
It is a basic principle that if there is more supply than demand, then the price of any item will tend to the marginal cost By the premise of the ubiquity of some goods (like shirts or food), this cost is by definition zero, so food is free! But the marginal price is not zero - Even in Star Trek, someone needs to gather resources, build robots and program computers to create the services that people need. If these tasks are easy, and resources cast, then the marginal price will be low.
This assumes that the armada of robots building our stuff are not corrupted, overcharging for the cheap shirts they make and keeping the profit themselves, but that is certainly not a problem solved by critiquing the market system.
Is huge wealth increase impossible? Indeed we have an unprecedented wealth in the world today. In countries like Sweden, citizens are free to educate in their field of choice for free -you even get student benefits (part of it is a loan from the government that needs to be paid back) for costs of living, so you do not need to work while studying to support yourself. Still, social workers get paid half or less than doctors -this is the market forces at work. If social work (or hand-made wooden horses) does not meet the demands of the market as a whole, those products and services will be valued less to account for that. Otherwise we would lie in a mountain of social work (or wooden horses) wondering where our medical supplies went.
Is the prospect of becoming rich the only deciding factor for what work you choose to do? There are several examples of the contrary; A lot of work is unpaid, such as taking care of your children, or posting fun videos on Youtube (I teach maths in my spare time for but a nominal fee). The world of open source software lowers the friction of getting access to and using modern technology to save time or money in your own time in whatever way you see fit. This at the cost of a PC and Internet connection, both having become very cheap in the industrialised world. Armed with the possibility of education and social welfare systems in your back, you are quite free to choose what to do with your time and money. Whether it is to carve wooden horses, or buy hot cocoa.
An issue that looms is fantastic inequality in distribution that some rich countries like the U.S. (and many poor countries) are suffering from. The top 10% of the richest are getting all the richer since they can invest their accumulated wealth. It can be useful to challenge the notion that this is fair, and try to find a good solution. A start is to review the starting blocks method of redistribution A similar problem is pollution and congestion from car travel, air travel and consumption. If I go on a plane ride, I pay (indirectly) for the amount of work and resources that went into producing and distributing the plane ride. But I do not pay for the greenhouse gas emissions, noise- and local pollution or the work for disposing of the aircraft at the end of its life time. The (most efficient) way to deal with these issues within the market system is through externality charges, i.e. taxes on flights, or simply on being very rich. It is a concept that makes a big difference and is important to understand the mechanics of (I'll do a quick summary of externalities in another blog post)
In a market economy, tax is not automatically a bad thing. Externality charges are necessary to avoid market breakdown, while other taxes (like sales tax) could indeed make the economy less efficient. Similarly, central planning of redistribution is not a good thing. Some times it is necessary to have centralised systems (like for the police force, or perhaps Star Treks Federation) but often, a better (more efficient) solution can be found within a market system.
In conclusion, Star Trek might state that there is "no money" but this statement is really not very meaningful. Wherever there is limited resource, there needs to be a form of valuation and distribution, which currencies supply. We could all be trading goats, but money (whether it's republic credits or a representation of Joules in a computerised system or a mobile phone-type device) is more convenient, so we stick with that.
What is quite clear is that even in the world of Star Trek, everything cannot be had for free. The benefit of a market system is that it is self-organising demand and distribution of goods and services, which a centrally planned system (whether by a dictator or a coalition of federation representatives, or coal mine workers) is not.
Freedom of choice, concern for social and environmental issues and fair distribution of knowledge and education are all desirable, and not guaranteed by a market economy. Regulation of the economy is needed for the market forces to function -some of the failures of U.S and European economies stem directly from the lack of important and relevant regulation. When it comes to tacking environmental concerns or overconsumption, a lot can be explained by studying externality pricing.
There are several good reads on both economy and science fiction, that shine light on these interesting issues from a more rigorously sensible line of thought. Try e.g. The Undercover Economist and Physics of the Impossible to begin with.
2087
kianamaiart
romaincrisis
germansingergirl
blakekathryn
