[nico]

I am considering a shift towards technocracy it is very well thought out theory . And unlike some other theories it can be widely accepted by the public. But as I reading up on it, I came upon the energy economy. A ecnomy based on energy. Sounds feasible, but I believe it can a recipe for inequality. I believe eventually if this ever takes off, if would capture the N.American continent then it would spread around the world. Now for this energy economy from what I could understand is that each person instead of having money (which is abstract), they recieve energy credits. My first question how do they get these credits, if eventually machines will take their jobs away? Will everyone get a basic allotment every month? Would some ppl have more energy credits? Secondly they said the North American continent from the Panama Canal up to the Arctic. This includes some of the poorest nations on earth. With little tech progress. Now what else gets to me is that most of the energy that the US consumes comes from outside the continent. She imports 8 million barrels of oil a day. Thus wouldn't the middle east be the most well of region with her HUGE energy reserves? Wouldn't there be a trade imbalance? And if Arabia decides to raise or lower production so do the prices (or energy credits). Wouldn't things begin to cost more as the oil prices move up and down?

Look at what I mean:

USA

Electricity - production:
3,799.944 billion kWh

Electricity - production by source:
fossil fuel: 71%
hydro: 7%
other: 2%
nuclear: 20%

Electricity - consumption:
3.613 trillion kWh
Electricity - exports:
14.829 billion kWh
Electricity - imports:
48.879 billion kWh

Now if we keep all the exports for the domestic market then the imports could be cut down to 34.050 billion kWh. But that is still a huge amount of imports. And fossil fuels constitute a huge portion electricity consumption thus putting the N.American continent at the whim of other nations. Would it be correct to assume that Instead of GDP, we would count kWh? And would be it be measured by consumption of production?

Nicaragua

Electricity - production:
2.233 billion kWh Electricity - production by source:
fossil fuel: 82%
hydro: 9%
other: 9% nuclear: 0%
Electricity - consumption:
2.176 billion kWh
Electricity - exports:
1 million kWh
Electricity - imports:
100 million kWh


Wouldn't this make Nicaragua much poorer then the US? Would they still live in poverty? I really like to know.

[A_Technocrat]

I am considering a shift towards technocracy it is very well thought out theory . And unlike some other theories it can be widely accepted by the public. But as I reading up on it, I came upon the energy economy. A ecnomy based on energy. Sounds feasible,...

I knew you would like it, I'm glad you gave it a read over.

My first question how do they get these credits, if eventually machines will take their jobs away? Will everyone get a basic allotment every month? Would some ppl have more energy credits?

Ok, energy credits per person is determined taking the total amount of available energy (production) dividing it by the population. Of course the energy dividends can't be below a certain level or else the Technate will be in danger of collapsing. It will be up to planners to make sure that production is more than what can be consumed.

Everyone will get an equal allotment of energy based on 2 year intervals, and then their accounts will be reset.

To sum up energy credits: they cannot be transferred/stolen/scammed, they have a constant value since they represent physical production, and they cannot be stored (or it's very limited) since excess is returned to the Technate after 2 years. With these properties removed all of the evils of distribution credits are removed.

Also, you worry about machines taking people's jobs? Well Technocracy's research has solved it with one simple algebraic formula, how succinct and elegant is that. The basic gist of it is that: just reduce the amount of time that is needed to work for a living (like a 16 hour work week). This link will explain and show how this is done: http://www.technocracyinc.org/pamphlets/man-hours-distribution.html
Also, another relevant link is: http://www.technocracyinc.org/briefs/b29.html

Secondly they said the North American continent from the Panama Canal up to the Arctic. This includes some of the poorest nations on earth. With little tech progress.

That is true but the Technate will invest in them to bring them up to our levels. This will benefit everyone (the people will enjoy a high standard of living and they will contribute their resources to the Technate)

Now for the actually point of your post:

Now what else gets to me is that most of the energy that the US consumes comes from outside the continent. She imports 8 million barrels of oil a day. Thus wouldn't the middle east be the most well of region with her HUGE energy reserves? Wouldn't there be a trade imbalance? And if Arabia decides to raise or lower production so do the prices (or energy credits). Wouldn't things begin to cost more as the oil prices move up and down?

Actually you just found a huge problem with the price system/capitalism. Which goes for the lowest bidder, it doesn't matter how the goods were produced. These huge trade deficits are unacceptable and Technocracy will move away from them. Technocracy will move away from North America's huge oil dependence by developing its native reserves in Mexico and Northern Alberta. It may take a bit more energy but it will be more of a benefit. Also, we will drastically reduce oil consumption by overhauling the transit system. This will be done by using transit technologies with higher load factors (such as trains) and getting rid of inefficient trucks. Also, we'll have a design for a continental hydrology system that will provide for the most efficient transit of bulk freight. As well, alternative energies technologies will take off in the Technate since price system interference (ie: oil companies) are removed.

As for the electrical situation:

Look at what I mean:

USA

Electricity - production:
3,799.944 billion kWh

Electricity - production by source:
fossil fuel: 71%
hydro: 7%
other: 2%
nuclear: 20%

Electricity - consumption:
3.613 trillion kWh
Electricity - exports:
14.829 billion kWh
Electricity - imports:
48.879 billion kWh

Now if we keep all the exports for the domestic market then the imports could be cut down to 34.050 billion kWh. But that is still a huge amount of imports. And fossil fuels constitute a huge portion electricity consumption thus putting the N.American continent at the whim of other nations.

Putting some context to this, I believe that most of the electricity trade is within the continent (ie: between Canada and the US) so the imports and exports are ill relevant under Technocratic analysis. Also, most of the electricity in the continent is generated by hydropower or domestic coal fired plants. I believe that imported oil accounts for almost none of it, so we're ok there. But of the sake of the environment we will try to move away from coal plants.

Would it be correct to assume that Instead of GDP, we would count kWh? And would be it be measured by consumption of production?

Yes that would be correct, the size of a Technate's economy would be measured by a unit of energy. I'd prefer joule myself, but kWh is a larger and more common unit. Also, yes it would be measured by consumption of production by everything and not just the population. Also, input energy would be measured to calculate load factor (efficiency).

Wouldn't this make Nicaragua much poorer then the US? Would they still live in poverty? I really like to know.

If they cannot produce the energy they need, then they will still be poor. But it appears that they are in the Technate of North America by the definition. Under the Technate they will be provided for by the northern areas. So they don't have to live in poverty if they are in the Technate.

[nico]

This is very sound, and so sound it's almost scary. But I still have issues.

It will be up to planners to make sure that production is more than what can be consumed.

So wait, this will become a polictical organization, there will be economic planners. I assume they would be elected directly by the populous, but then wouldn't they be wasting energy by campaigning? Or there would be a higher echelon deciding the fate of the nation?

and they cannot be stored (or it's very limited) since excess is returned to the Technate after 2 years.

That is very confusing, now let's say I have 50000 kWh credits, I have 1000 kWh left after two years. Now that 1000 kWh would go back into the system as excess energy, that isn't being produced? Thus shouldn't my 1000 kWh be eliminated?

link

I will have to read that.

That is true but the Technate will invest in them to bring them up to our levels.

That would be a massive amount of energy, these peoples live no where near our levels. They have little to contribute in terms of energy production. Let's see:

Technocracy will move away from North America's huge oil dependence by developing its native reserves in Mexico and Northern Alberta.

The entire N.American continent has about 54 billion barrels of oil, and 282 trillion ft3 of natural gas, and 282,444 million tonnes of coal.

Yet we consume:

23.5 million barrels a day (oil)
26.9 billion ft3 of natural gas (mind you a shortage in the US)
1,147 million tons of coal (per annum).

You tell me.

This will be done by using transit technologies with higher load factors (such as trains) and getting rid of inefficient trucks

I agree, but North American culture would not accpet that. Now I think a good way to get rid of that is the urbanites, having work and home within walking distance or a short bus ride. But what will happen to cities?

As well, alternative energies technologies will take off in the Technate since price system interference (ie: oil companies) are removed.


Wouldn't it possible that the economy could stagnate, what would happen when the oil, gas, and coal really begin to decrease would the wealth of nations decrease enourmously.

I believe that imported oil accounts for almost none of it, so we're ok there. But of the sake of the environment we will try to move away from coal plants.

Shouldn't there be a part of the continent that has all of the powerplants so the vast majority of the land wouldn't be polluted like the desert in Arizona?

Also, yes it would be measured by consumption of production by everything and not just the population

So then would decreases in energy use be better or worse? I mean if the machinery is getting more efficent then less energy, but making us poorer with purchasing power. Then if that is true, would the excess plants be wasteful?

If they cannot produce the energy they need, then they will still be poor. But it appears that they are in the Technate of North America by the definition. Under the Technate they will be provided for by the northern areas. So they don't have to live in poverty if they are in the Technate.

What about the Carribean?

[A_Technocrat]

What about the Carribean?

Yes, I believe that they will be included.

[nico]

Positions are filled based on the proven method of nomination from below and appointment from above. For example, if a position were vacated for whatever reason, then the people immediately below that position would nominate candidates from among their ranks for the position. Then, the managers from the rank above the position would choose from those candidates the person most qualified for the job. This is the method that is most often used in the technical portions of present organizations, and is based on competence. Competence of the person is determined by the consistent operation of the technology involved. If such machinery should fail to operate within acceptable parameters, then the person responsible would be quickly removed and replaced with someone who could perform the job adequately.

From what I read it is a sound system, but the nagging question I have on this is the fact that who would choose the top? That top precentile? Now another thing is that the system has sequences that could very easily be corrupted IMO. If the Armed forces could overthrow the government as in every system. I think having a armed force under it's own command is extremely dangerous.

Another thing:


In addition, the northern tip of South America would be invited to join, embracing that portion of the southern Continent north of the Amazon River basin.


I have a problem with this, because it seems a little like imperialism. Now the thing is that the official borders of the nation would be from the Arctic to Panama. I only reason I see to expand into N.South America is to get the massive oil deposits in Venezuela (77 billion barrels) thus making the wanning off the hydro-carbons easier. The Amazon is obvious, for her abunadance of natural resources.

Until this Continent sets its own affairs in order, it is unlikely that any other area of the world would be interested in any proposition that might issue from here.

Common if the superpower changes the world is quick to follow. I think not all of North America is a co-heisive geo-political, and industrial giant. Chiapas? Hounduras? Cuba? etc. Meanwhile countries like Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil have much more to offer.

The energy isn't wasted, because nothing was ever produced with it.

That is un-realistic, the energy credit should be divided equally by the population. And how do we divide, by how much energy is produced thus for instance:

Canada:

Electricity - production:
576.22 billion kWh

Population:
31,902,268

Approx. 19,000 credits per person.

So then energy is wasted if that person doesn't spend those credits, I don't see the logic in just giving credits assuming i don't what?

Any that are unused are simply not produced

Do you really mean consumed?

It is also unlikely that these nations will join right away anyway, but when they do, there will sufficient resources to provide the same for them

So then what would happen if they wanted to join right away? Mexico would and there are huge swaths of area with very low living standards.

Only non-polluting power plants would be used

The Arizona desert is the best region for huge solar power plants.

But overall, it is a good thing, because it means less waste, less dependance, and more freedom to do other things.

But evetually you will have excess energy and power, that could be sold, or wasted.

[A_Technocrat]

** Note: please read the post below mine before reading this and take this post with a grain of salt.

From what I read it is a sound system, but the nagging question I have on this is the fact that who would choose the top? That top precentile? Now another thing is that the system has sequences that could very easily be corrupted IMO. If the Armed forces could overthrow the government as in every system. I think having a armed force under it's own command is extremely dangerous.

The person on the top, the continental director, would be nominated by his or her peers, and then the directors of the sequences approve the person that is most qualified. As for the directors of sequences, they will be nominated by their peers and the continental director approves the most qualified director.

The sequences are free to operate on their own because they would know their situation the best and apply the best solution. Although the directors on the top would be watching the sequences and they see something wrong an investigation will be launched and those that are incompetent will be demoted and will have to work extra hard to be promoted again.

As for the armed forces, the continental director will act as a commander-in-chief. Everyone else in the military will have to take the director's orders.

Another thing:

In addition, the northern tip of South America would be invited to join, embracing that portion of the southern Continent north of the Amazon River basin.


I have a problem with this, because it seems a little like imperialism.

I don't agree with this either. Although, I talked to Kolzene about this once and he said that Northern South America would be a protected state until the rest of the South America forms its own Technate.

But like you say, if North America (the US mostly) converts to Technocracy, the advanced countries in South America, like Brazil, will follow suit and form their own Technate. I at least hope so for their sake.

And how do we divide, by how much energy is produced thus for instance:

Canada:

Electricity - production:
576.22 billion kWh

Population:
31,902,268

Approx. 19,000 credits per person.

So then energy is wasted if that person doesn't spend those credits,

I think you're taking energy accounting too literally and you have a narrow view of it. Allow me to elaborate:

Looking at how much electricity is generated and how much potential energy is available is a good way to see what input energy is, it's bad for seeing how energy is consumed. If look at any product, it takes a certain amount of energy to get it into your hands.

Take a piece of paper for example: energy is expended as the form of chemical and human energy when the tree is cut down. Chemical energy is used to transport a tree on a truck (or if continental hydrology is used then the energy for it to be placed and fetched from the river is used). Then electrical energy is used to chip the tree. Then thermal energy is used to heat and dry the pulp. Electrical energy is again used to cut and package the paper. Finally, energy is used to transport it to market and a person uses energy to sell it to you.

Thanks to physics, the amount of machine energy can be easily determined from the design. Determining human labour is a little bit harder, but different types work can be assigned a power rating (ie: how much energy per unit of time). This power rating will be determined on studies of work situation.

Also, since the energy, that started out as a kWh, is still contained in the product and is not wasted if you don't 'buy' it. But no more will be produced until the energy accounting system indicates that the surplus has been consumed. Instead the energy accounting system will indicate products that are not in surplus and direct the energy to its production.

So then what would happen if they wanted to join right away? Mexico would and there are huge swaths of area with very low living standards.

The US and Canada will help in getting rid of their problems. They are North Americans also. And there's no reason why they can't produce their share and contribute once they are organized.

Only non-polluting power plants would be used

The Arizona desert is the best region for huge solar power plants.

Or North America as a whole could be one big solar generator. Consider every structure in an Urbanate fitted with solar cells generating its own electricity. Any excess or deficit of electricity can be handled by an electrical grid that is interconnected throughout North America.

But evetually you will have excess energy and power, that could be sold, or wasted.

Unlike the USSR we don't need to waste excess energy to function (a classic example is having materials shipped across Russia a few times to ‘fulfill a quota’). Excess processed material (energy) can just be stored in a warehouse. The highly responsive energy accounting system can be used by people to build extra projects like a space tower or a park.

[nico]

How do you see this happening?

Well since profit is out of the question, then I guess what I mean is power. That will never go away as the continental director is around. Now wouldn't be feasible for the armed forces director to build a political base? That can't be proven science, abstract human thought. I can see a 1984 "underground" movenment. Even if the director knows of such a thing how can he "prove" it, since I would imagine in order for the technate to work you have to prove, 100%?

No. Another example is trying to "steal" more than your share of energy credits. If you were to funnel more into your account, it would easily be picked up that you have more than everyone else does

This is what I have problems with, this is where is sounds a little bit communistic. You said more than everyone else does? That would mean everyone reguards of work gets the same energy credits? So then working would it really have a purpose in terms of gaining energy credits?

That's why it isn't. The armed forces, if you look on the chart, is under the control of the Continental Control

That scares me a little, no consider the C.C is corrupted in it's vision of the technate? What they are bad leaders, just because they are super-brains dosen't mean they aren't power hungary. I mean Nazi Germany was not unlike this, with Hitler at the helm with all the major decisions going to him to decide. Too much power in the hands of the few.

Again, the corruption is profitless.

But not pointless.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the first sentence at all.

This one?

Common if the superpower changes the world is quick to follow

If the US converts to technocracy then the world would be soon to follow.

we are not a cohesive geo-political unit.

So let's say NAFTA, and Mecosur join forces in the technate but the rest of the continent dosen't want to then eventhough the two are seperated they will be one?

2) Prepare all sectors (sequences) to produce the same amount within the next period

What if there was a higher demand for a certain product? Or international trade increased, then wouldn't they have to break that 2.7 billion MJ?

If consumtion at the end of the term is less that expected (say, 2.3 billion MJ), then the extra (0.4) will not have been actually produced yet (since the production is in real-time).

And what if there was a deficit?

Another question is, is it really that limited to this energy economy? I mean there a great deal many, W.Europe, Japan, Mercosur, China even. I mean I don't see Angola doing this but other much more advanced states. Also since no new value (energy), then would we all be poorer if the energy production decresed due to more efficent machines?

I really enjoy this idea, I AM A TECHNOCRAT! I mean it is almost perfect, it does scare you. But sadly I am mathimaticly rejected. But it makes sense.

[A_Technocrat]

Kolzene: sorry about dropping the ball on some stuff. Hopefully I will have everything straight after doing the study course.

Nico: Welcome abroad, good to have you. Anyways the next best step for you (or us) is to complete the study course.

As for your post I'll let Kolzene take it. I think might start my study sabbatical pretty soon.

[A_Technocrat]

No problem, Kolzene. It's better that everyone gets the right info. I just have to learn more about the technate structure.

[Omnist Priest]

Someone said that technocracy may resut in inequality...

If North America becomes a technate the first thing that will happen is a migration of people to all of the major cities. The areas with rich soil and water supply will be connected to a computer which will manage that area's output. The agriculture will be completely computerized. Meanwhile the cities will be planned so that all housing is near to all services. When these two steps are completed the two systems will be connected. The agricultural production will be linked (with auto-transport) to the cities and factories. In about one decade, if the technate is operated correctly, the production would have skyrocketed and total energy will have risen as well. While this occurs, every citizen will be issued an energy distribution card. Each year, along with total energy, the energy credit on each card will rise. Each citizen will be issued equal energy credit because everyone is equally entitled to the achievements of the machines.

The only malfunction in the system is lack of incentive to work difficult jobs.(As in my topic: "They who do not work, shall eat")
Inequality is not possible in the same area. Although a city in one area may have greater amounts of a product, but all of the citizens are equaly entitled to that production. Eventually all cities will have equal access to all production. Inequality will fade with time.