Economics is not money. Its about how to allocate the limited resources in the most efficient way. Money is just a tool used for example in capitalism.

> Economics is not money. Its about how to allocate the limited resources in the most efficient way.

At least some presentations of Star Trek (or, at least, Federation) "economics" were that it was not economics; not having money was a symptom of that, but the fundamental thing presented was that scarcity was solved because resources were not practically limited (which is why they didn't have money.)

(Of course, there was a whole lot presented at other times that seems to be at odds with that.)

When you have technologies like replication and warp drives and your federation is off colonising multiple planets in an area 8000 light years wide your civilisation is not worried about limited resources

interestingly enough in star trek they still have constraints on things like dilithium, and of course wars are waged over territories

You're always going to have things that are scarce. They might not be the things that are scarce today, but not everyone can have everything.

>You're always going to have things that are scarce. They might not be the things that are scarce today, but not everyone can have everything.

you forgot the Continuum - they have no scarcity at all, so no economics (yet, surprise!, they still have politics)

but no constraints on ham sandwiches

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Star Trek style economics no economics?

"Star Trek economics" was an incoherent mess where the explanations given didn't match what people were actually shown doing.

I suppose, in that respect, its pretty much like economics everywhere.