posted
I'm not sure if I've hefted gold or saw it on Mr. Roger's. But it was impressive. I think they showed an equivalent weight of iron and it blew my mind. I mean I sort of understand density, but the idea of iron being fluffy compared to another metal just boggles me.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: How many women shave off 15 pounds, or won't say what they weigh?
IME, men lie about their weight just as much. Many people lie (or refuse to answer, and unless you're their doctor, rigging mountain climbing gear, etc., why shouldn't they?) about their weight -- male or female.
Rabbit, you're right about the average height. I always misremember that one (probably because I'm pretty tall, and my daughter is taller).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There may be a relative gender bias in that case. IME, men are generally honest with each other about what they weigh, if it's a topic of discussion. Do you think maybe women lie to men more than to other women? I have definitely lied about my weight to women. I don't recall lying about it to another man.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not really here, either. When you rig climbing gear, it's with a margin of safety of several times the body weight of anyone that's not so obese they couldn't walk on their own (a typical carabiner is rated for around 5000 lb.).
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are all being dumb. Everyone knows that in the future gold will become obsolete, along with every other form of currency. We will all live in a socialistic one-world government where people do their jobs because it betters society as a whole, and everyone can have whatever they want because we've got replicators and all kinds of other stuff.
At least that's what Star Trek said would happen.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if material resources actually become fully fungible and infinitely replenishable, then at that point, it will be an interesting question as to what will actually serve as a valuable commodity. It stands to reason that in that scenario, intellectual creativity would increase in perceived value.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Star Trek does away with money, so whenever someone needs something they have to trade replicator rations. Even in a fictional socialist paradise, the market rears its ugly head. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: You guys are all being dumb. Everyone knows that in the future gold will become obsolete, along with every other form of currency. We will all live in a socialistic one-world government where people do their jobs because it betters society as a whole, and everyone can have whatever they want because we've got replicators and all kinds of other stuff.
At least that's what Star Trek said would happen.
Sans replicators as pure science fiction I don't see anything objectionable about the above.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, if material resources actually become fully fungible and infinitely replenishable, then at that point, it will be an interesting question as to what will actually serve as a valuable commodity. It stands to reason that in that scenario, intellectual creativity would increase in perceived value.
Or Nancy Kress's short story "Nano Comes to Clifford Falls"?
Or Charles Strauss' novel Singularity Sky (well, this one kind of deals with the subject tangentally)?
Or some other short story or novel length examination of this idea that will occur to me after I click "Submit".
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Star Trek does away with money, so whenever someone needs something they have to trade replicator rations. Even in a fictional socialist paradise, the market rears its ugly head.
Replicator rations were a minor plot point on Voyager, because of a damaged power system. They were not really a currency, as the source of power remained fully fungible and infinitely renewable. This was not a currency scheme used in the rest of the series as I recall.
And anyway, the economic system was not exactly socialist, but I think the implication as simply that there exists virtually no incentive to trade in commodities due to the ready availability of nearly infinite sources of energy. So the only valuable good, energy, has almost no market value, making the pursuit of accumulated wealth in the form of physical possessions outdated.
One could even argue that the economics of Star Trek's Earth are libertarian, only with no valuable physical commodities market. All government organizations are volunteer, and all trade and social advancement is intellectual.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should point out though, some theories on Star Trek economics place the system at a different point in th scale, as "participatory Econmics". Essentially that credit exists to value work and social input, but that credit is not tradable, and goods, and work, have a fixed absolute value. It is impossible to privately control the means of production, and since credit is nontransferable,, there exists no financial incentive for corruption. So the theory suggests.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not entirely clear, but the Federation does use a form of currency known as the Federation credit which is probably exchangeable with gold pressed latinum. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Federation_credit
It's not well explained how this exists in conjunction with the frequent assertions that there is no money http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Money
In reality, the first article touches on some of the behind the scenes disagreement on money, which explains why the portrayal of currency is somewhat inconsistent between episodes and shows.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seem to remember people in Next Generation bargaining away holodeck privileges, but I can't cite a specific episode off the top of my head.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Star Trek does away with money, so whenever someone needs something they have to trade replicator rations. Even in a fictional socialist paradise, the market rears its ugly head.
Replicator rations were a minor plot point on Voyager, because of a damaged power system. They were not really a currency, as the source of power remained fully fungible and infinitely renewable. This was not a currency scheme used in the rest of the series as I recall.
And anyway, the economic system was not exactly socialist, but I think the implication as simply that there exists virtually no incentive to trade in commodities due to the ready availability of nearly infinite sources of energy. So the only valuable good, energy, has almost no market value, making the pursuit of accumulated wealth in the form of physical possessions outdated.
One could even argue that the economics of Star Trek's Earth are libertarian, only with no valuable physical commodities market. All government organizations are volunteer, and all trade and social advancement is intellectual.
Have we really given up so COMPLETELY on solving actual economic problems in real life?
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Star Trek does away with money, so whenever someone needs something they have to trade replicator rations. Even in a fictional socialist paradise, the market rears its ugly head.
Replicator rations were a minor plot point on Voyager, because of a damaged power system. They were not really a currency, as the source of power remained fully fungible and infinitely renewable. This was not a currency scheme used in the rest of the series as I recall.
And anyway, the economic system was not exactly socialist, but I think the implication as simply that there exists virtually no incentive to trade in commodities due to the ready availability of nearly infinite sources of energy. So the only valuable good, energy, has almost no market value, making the pursuit of accumulated wealth in the form of physical possessions outdated.
One could even argue that the economics of Star Trek's Earth are libertarian, only with no valuable physical commodities market. All government organizations are volunteer, and all trade and social advancement is intellectual.
Have we really given up so COMPLETELY on solving actual economic problems in real life?
Oh, I'm sorry to intrude on the Serious Business clearly intended by the topic starter. Fiction is a reflection of our feelings about our shared realities. It's a valid topic for discussion, and it can edify and enrich our understanding of life. So don't be a tool.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: Honestly thought the thread title read "GOD vs the dollar."
I figured it was a bit of an unfair fight, considering the fact that every dollar trusts in god.
Now Rocky vs Drago, THAT was a good matchup.
For a minute I thought this said "Rocky vs. Drogo," and I thought, "Rocky vs. Khal Drogo? That's be badass."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not entirely clear, but the Federation does use a form of currency known as the Federation credit which is probably exchangeable with gold pressed latinum.
It's not well explained how this exists in conjunction with the frequent assertions that there is no money
Anyone looking for logical consistency in Star Trek is looking in the wrong place. Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. I would note its kind of understandable when you're looking at multiple "creators" and dozens of writers over the years.
Makes it kind of fun though, IMO. When one looks at the frequent retcons and inconsistencies in even some fairly rigidly controlled single creator universes, I actually find that the Star Trek universe holds together at all somewhat endearing.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah it is surprising that we can even kind of sort of make sense of a commonly defined history and structure of a society portrayed by not only over a 5 decade period, but in how many fairly independently generated series and films? Understandably, the novels can't play into a definition that calls the whole thing "cohesive," but the cannon content is remarkably so, even for its inconsistencies.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Oh, I'm sorry to intrude on the Serious Business clearly intended by the topic starter. Fiction is a reflection of our feelings about our shared realities. It's a valid topic for discussion, and it can edify and enrich our understanding of life. So don't be a tool .
At long last, some outright name calling! And in response to such a benign and flippant quip of mine! Huzzah!
Brother, if there was a "butthurt" alarm, it'd be screaming right now.
Twas in jest. Fret not, I don't ACTUALLY believe any of life's problems would ever be solved on this internet forum. "Debates" around here have long since devolved to thinly and poorly veiled attempts at declaring, "I'm more enlightened than you! Nanny nanny boo boo!"
So, Star Trek or no Star Trek, I wasn't sincerely hanging the world's economic hopes here in this thread. So don't be butthurt.
quote:It's a valid topic for discussion, and it can edify and enrich our understanding of life.
And if this is actually fact, then I submit to you that all of our economic woes can be solved with Pootie Tang's belt.Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: So, Star Trek or no Star Trek, I wasn't sincerely hanging the world's economic hopes here in this thread. So don't be butthurt.
Well, alright, be a tool then.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paper money will collapse. It is too elastic, and governments can devalue it too quickly. Gold is preferrable. Maybe that is what the original post is about?
posted
The best thing about the gold standard is that it makes it easy to recognize people whose opinions you should generally dismiss.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: Paper money will collapse. It is too elastic, and governments can devalue it too quickly. Gold is preferrable.
Espousing a return to the gold standard right now is like saying "We have volatile markets that we think is likely to result in an unstable fiat currency in the future. But why bother with the ambiguity? With the gold standard, we could have an unstable currency right now!"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's not even enough physical stores of gold to back the economy anyway, right? So what is the proposal, back currency with assumed gold credit?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The best thing about the gold standard is that it makes it easy to recognize people whose opinions you should generally dismiss.
posted
When the US$ was on the gold standard, you could walk into a bank and exchange currency for gold or silver.
Now the dollar is 100% conceptual, you can still buy things, but that is the definition of curacy, there is not set standard good that is backing the money.
Oh, also 1 US$ is worth .03¢ now (compared to the original value).
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
And I was saying I have $3 to my name...what does my internet provider have to do with it? I pay them in sea shells.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Normally, I would jump at the chance to trade 100% of the US dollars minted in 1774 for cold hard cash, but right now I'm more intrigued that you're worried about inflation when you have a grand total of $3.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:When the US$ was on the gold standard, you could walk into a bank and exchange currency for gold or silver.
No, you often couldn't. The dollar was frequently "backed" by gold or silver in a less than convertible fashion. Anyways, you can go purchase gold and silver right now with your dollars, easily. Heck, you can do it online and pay someone else a tiny fee to store it for you! Dollars into gold or silver, just like you asked for.
quote: Now the dollar is 100% conceptual, you can still buy things, but that is the definition of curacy, there is not set standard good that is backing the money.
It is backed by the full faith and credit of the united states government, which means that if someone stops accepting dollars as payment on debt the US gov't will use its not-inconsiderable power to make them. It also volunteers to manage the currency. That's a
quote: Oh, also 1 US$ is worth .03¢ now (compared to the original value).
First, so what? You don't have dollars then, you have dollars now, and you have rather more of them. You might have a complaint if a typical day's wages were still frequently paid in pennies. They aren't. All that number means is that all the numbers are larger. If I took everyone's dollars, and handed them two billion times as many new dollars, ignoring the costs for retooling everything (which is barely noticeable when done gradually over hundreds of years) to accept the new rates, absolutely nobody would have gained or lost anything of value (well, excepting maybe some collectible money). Apparently you think everyone would be two billion times poorer or something.
Second, and in some ways more importantly for getting at the conceptual problem at the heart of all this, is that your numbers are wrong. Inflation is not such a simple construct. When comparing two years near each other, where people basically consume similar things, in similar proportions, we can boil it fairly reasonably down to a number or two and have that be an acceptable approximation. But viewed across centuries, inflation can't be viewed as one number, two numbers, ten numbers, or much of anything other than thousands of numbers, as the prices of so many goods will have varied almost independently of each other. Take a look at some of the ways we can approximate inflation (with available data) here: http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/index.php . But even that only goes so far in showing the complication. Imagine you have diarrhea one morning. Would you rather have a dollar's worth of healthcare in 1774 or a dollar's worth of healthcare today? Remember that 1774's dollar of healthcare is costing you, for some really hard to pin down notion of "more", over twenty times more than the dollar of healthcare today. Would it get you over twenty times better care, or even close to the same care? Potentially useful information: people, even rich people, frequently died of diarrhea in 1774. Hardly anyone dies of diarrhea today. (Granted, a lot of that is sanitation improvements, but we're already presupposing you have the diarrhea, which can still be deadly today if untreated; if you want, we can imagine you being in some country around the world with much worse sanitation, but you've found a small hospital willing to give you care in dollars).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, your point is that inflation is like a fraction, that is, as long as both numerator and the denominator both grow evenly then the whole number it represents is the same, i.e. 1,000/1,000 = 1/1?
As to the relative value of the dollar, that I just find interesting, I didn't have a big sweeping point or anything.
So, in 1970 average income was $7k/year (or so) and the dollar was at $0.20/original... Ok, in 2010 average income was $41k/year (or so) and the dollar was at $0.03/original...
So, 7,000 x .2 = 1,400 and 41,000 x .03 = 1,230
So, we are making less...but I imagine that a lot of things are a lot cheaper right?
So, in 1970 the average cost of a new car was $3,542 and the dollar was at $0.20/original... So, in 2000 the average cost of a new car was $20,355 and the dollar was at $0.05/original...
So, 3,542 x .2 = 708 and 20,355 x .05 = 1,017
Yes, inflation is meaningless if income and cost of things stay the same, but when they don't...then it is a different story.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
At long last, some outright name calling! And in response to such a benign and flippant quip of mine! Huzzah!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
