Link for rational enlightened thinking

Post Reply New Topic

Whenever ther is abundance, the ruling class takes it for themselves. They need to keep the masses working from paycheck to paycheck to stay in power. Thus scarcity will ALWAYS exist because the rulling class will make sure it does. If you look at history, almost every famine that has occured has been a result of politics of some sort or another. (wars or leaders deliberately starving their people)

You can't adapt your system to physical capacity. There will always be political forces blocking that. The physical capacity always adapts to the system.

There are no "classes" in the technocratic system, because there is no money in the technocratic system. We are using energy accounting instead of money, which we have already thoroughly discussed.

How are preference accounted for? I prefer steak to hamburger, I prefer Cashmere to Cotton clothing...the production costs of these items are not equal. How do I indulge my preferences?

We put the cost on the production instead of the consumption. Any commodity costs the amount of KWh converted into energy credits, and the cost equals the production cost. It is not a price system, not even an economy, but rather a distribution channel. It is based on abundance, not scarcity.

Does that mean if I choose to eat steak, you cut off my lights? I am not following the concept.

edit...I meant to sat say eat too much steak...additionally, some things are naturally more abundandant than others.

No.

Energy credits are not energy. They are information about the total continental production capacity, divided on the number of citizens. All citizens get their share of energy credits, and have to plan their own consumption. When energy credits are used, they are terminated, and the information derived from the usage of them is the determining factor of how production will manifest itself during the cycle. The technate will adapt it's production after what the energy credits are indicating.

Energy credits are not only destroyed after usage, but reloaded to the level made possibly by the capacity in the beginning of the following cycle. They are not possible to use for bartering with other individuals.

In other words, you're talking about something that does'nt exist, and could'nt exist. So what's the point of flapping your gums about a pie-in-the-sky theory??

It does'nt exist, yet, exactly like libertarianism does'nt yet exist according to libertarians. I am working to make technocracy a reality.

How would a resident of such a place acquire an automobile forinstance produced elsewhere that he prefers to one produced by the technocrate, if there is no money? ie...a Ferrari?

Libertarianism as being a part of the values of a society has existed though, if you just look at the United States you can see that it was to a great extent founded on libertarian(classical liberal) values and not only that but it has done quite well, and there have been other experiments in libertarianism that have been lauded as well. Technocracy may have never existed but ideas of centralized planning have been done before and they have failed incredibly miserably in terms of human welfare, human rights, economic efficiency, etc and not only that but they also failed in a manner that was in many cases predicted by the opponents of such systems. Technocracy strikes me as a system similar to the communism or maybe even fascism tried in the past, therefore because of that, I think that technocracy will fail in a similar manner. The failure in human welfare and economic efficiency will occur due to a lack of the pricing mechanism of the market system that allows it to adjust to change, and the lack of property rights and freedoms that will allow it to grow. I think it will fail in human rights because as economist Friedrich Hayek so eloquently wrote "Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rates higher and which lower, in short, what men should believe and strive for." In essence, I think that it will be too easy for some nimrod planning committee to decide how men should live their lives out of some paternalistic desire or some favoritism towards certain beliefs.

Well, he may travel there an buy one.

To awesomely... : Those who are deciding what is going to be produced in a technate are the consumers through their energy certifikates, not a planning committee, something which I have written numerous times.

A planning committee must however, still deal with the same issues of deciding with what is to be created as we are not dealing with individuals putting it out themselves. Essentially because there must be changes in production based upon changes in consumer tastes there must also be people who plan how this is to be implemented. In capitalism, planning only exists in firms and competition between firms keeps the plans in check, in technocracy there is no such competition. The critique of the planning committee still must stand given the nature of individual planning vs societal planning.