I have been outdone in my own thread on a geeky subject... you guys can give the TVTropes crowd a damn good run.
But your claim about Star Trek not discussing money or credits must be examined more closely.
Many writers of future history have developed the concept of taking core elements to create food. Fredrick Pohl, in his Heechee series, postulated a food factory that is capable of turning raw carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen (CHON) from comets into sustenance for an over populated planet.
Once a population can feed everyone, whoever controls the machine controls everything. Including the marketplace.
Although Star Trek didn't openly talk about money, if you think back to the episode the Trouble with Tribbles, the basis for the storyline is that control of "Sheman's Planet" will be awarded to either the Klingons or the Federation and the decision would be based on who could manage it more efficiently. And since the planet was described as little more than a farming enterprise, the wheat they were transporting was critical to the success. Why would they be fighting over a planet that could produce wheat if they could simply replicate all the wheat they need? The series had many glaring holes such as how the food dispensers on the ship could make anything yet there was still demand for specific items such as the wheat or even more importantly, the dilithium crystals needed for the ship that only occur naturally. Again, why would they struggle over planets that had supplies of them if they could simply replicate the crystals?
But more importantly, think back to the scene in the bar where Scotty gets into a fight. The tribbles are being sold for credits, drinks require credits, pretty much everything requires credits.
Here's another Star Trek issue as it relates to the hobby. Go back to "The Cage" and recall the Orion green women. Wasn't that a pleasure planet? Obviously it looks like a very upscale brothel and the drinks and playtime would never be free.
The trading and transportation of goods was part of the overall story line. Cargo ships? They had plenty. Why would you transport cargo if you should only really need the base elements for the replication machines?
Originally Posted by LazurusLong
As was already pointed out replicators came between TOS and TNG. But even then, the replicators worked much like Pohl's. TNG and DS9 had to have a store of raw materials to replicate. And even then it was the equivalent of microwaving a meal instead of actually baking or going out to eat. Quick and it got the job done, but the quality just wasn't the same. Hence why Benjamin Sisko's father owned a Cajun Restaurant and they had to do more than move food from a replicator to the table. Voyager was the first show to have replicators that worked virtually energy only and in fact according to some sources the Intrepid class ship was the first design to have these brand new replicators.
And the Federation was pretty much the only group in the fictional universe that had a "Who needs money?" mentality. And because of this the whole concept of money never truly ceased. We see this a lot in DS9 as they have a lot of interaction with the Ferengi. Sisko blackmails Quark by pointing out that he doesn't have to pay rent because the Federation runs the station, but there is no reason they have to run it that way. Nog even proves that the Federation has a hidden economy when he essentially traded a few dozen items and services around to get a piece of equipment for O'Brien.
But even though focusing on Star Trek was not the point of this whole thread, that whole bit went back to the point. If the concept of money becomes obsolete, the economy won't. If food, shelter and medical care become so freely accessible that you could literally choose anything you wanted to do with your life to be a productive citizen, would the hobby live on? Do you think that people would still go in to this line of business as their chosen trade? What would they hope to get out of it? That sort of thing.
This optimistic part reminds me of the ideas of Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899). He suggested that reduced amount of labor needed to meet our needs would allow people more time to elevate themselve's spiritually 
They could study philosophy, the fine arts, read and reflect.
Obviously his book pre-dated tv and video games. People haved filled their leisure time with quite a bit of mindless activities.
Another interesting part of his book was predicting that as our income rises, the amount of money we spend on leisure must increase. Since the appeal of whittling and Sunday drives has pretty much disappeared, I believe he's right.
Originally Posted by HoneyRose
There have always been idealistic dreamers who thought that "If only this happened then everyone would just start thinking more and become more enlightened." Thomas Jefferson thought the USA would turn into a society of educated farmers. John Adams thought that was hogwash and predicted we would become a powerful industrialized country. Adams won that little contest in the end. Veblen just never studied his cultural history. Shakespeare, who is now considered classical literature, was thought to be vulgar and low class back in the day. Sure, the Queen had been known to go to a play or two but the theater started in a brothel. If you wanted to see a high class play you would go watch someone do one of the Ancient Greek plays. There have always been mindless activities for the masses to take part in on their down time. It's the mass access to information that is the new thing and scientists have actually proven that even though are tastes seem to be getting worse and more mindless, the minds themselves are getting sharper. Take a good look at this very thread. We are having a philosophical debate involving Star Trek, Veblen, a few Sci-fi authors, and I just threw in Shakespeare and two founding fathers. And this is happening on a "Silly Whore Board". In a sense, we are proving Veblen right, while turning it oh so wrong.
I forgot about Harry Mudd and the episode "Mudd's Women".
Apparently, even in the future, there's a shortage of women and Mudd uses an illegal drug, the Venus drug, that works like many of today's providers that abuse photoshop in order to present a much more lovely package.
Originally Posted by LazurusLong
"Even in the future, there's a shortage of women" we have that beat now. Depending on where you get your source the ration of men to women is somewhere between 50.2%M/49.8%F to 47%M/53%F. And that is with China having a population that is 90% male as an unfortunate cultural side effect of enforcing a population control. We don't really have a shortage of women, China does, but the world doesn't.
I'm not the only one! Whew!
