[Siberian Fox]

In the 1920's a well respected non-profit research group called the Technical Alliance noticed after years of researching industrial and technological progression in North America that it was technology itself that could not only solve the problem of scarcity, but indeed already had. North America no longer had a natural scarcity, but instead became the first area on Earth to acheive a state of natural abundance. The real problem now was that both these countries (Canada and the US) were still using economic systems designed for scarcity environments, and were thus imposing an artificial scarcity on the area. This, they concluded, would cause severe economic problems as technology replaced workers, creating more products (supply) and lowering purchasing power (demand). Since both these factors lower price, the result would be an economic crash (a small example of this can be seen if you ever tried to sell normal air to someone; you can't, it's too abundant). Hence they had predicted the Great Depression within 6 months of when it actually happened (they predicted early 1930).

Heh, the belief that overproduction leads to recession actually sounds rather communist Kolzene

I *think* that Marx was the first person to suggest a reason for economic cycles, and that was his reason for it. Later Keynes said it was due to a lack of demand... which is funny because they are both opposite sides of the same coin.

About modern thinking, the monetarist view is definitely the weirdest, and sounds like something the Iraqi information minister would come up with. There is no unemployment, people just don't feel like working right now. It may sound stupid, but that was basically the view adopted in the USA and UK in the 1980s and has more-or-less prevailed since

[A_Technocrat]

About modern thinking, the monetarist view is definitely the weirdest, and sounds like something the Iraqi information minister would come up with. There is no unemployment, people just don't feel like working right now. It may sound stupid, but that was basically the view adopted in the USA and UK in the 1980s and has more-or-less prevailed since

That must be one of those 'band aids' of the price system.
Fools!

[Siberian Fox]

What exactly do you mean by "'band aids' of the price system"?

It isn't very easy to get someones meaning when they only make a one line post unfortunately, which is why they're discouraged in these forums. It only leads to misunderstandings, and then people get angry at each other

[A_Technocrat]

Kolzene will eventually come along and probably explain it in full. But the gist of the 'band aids' is programs/propaganda that the price system government uses in the post-depression era to keep their irrational system going. That propaganda that you referred to is a 'band aid' that the price system uses to pacify the sheep (read: public).

Sorry about that, I won't post anymore unless I have more time to do the post in full. Or at least provide a relevant link like I did in the edit.

P.S. - Would it be possible to use a different colour for the links? The current colour barely constrasts with the other text. Thanks.

P.S.S. - LOL

For sure the rule will stick with me after seeing this image.

[Siberian Fox]

Hmm that has me curious now...

I assume the basis for removing the price system is that in a system of abundence prices will fall very low, and people being as they are will "overconsume"? Or is there something else I am missing here?

Also if one does away with the price system, what does one use in it's place? A computer organised planning system based on quotas perhaps? That would be extremely complicated to impliment.

[TomThumbKOP]

Kolzene, I make no pretense to completely understand the theory behind Technocracy (but I'm learning ). Something you said about measuring value in terms of energy however prompted a thought. If energy is the measure of value, and there is no such thing as a truly renewable energy source, then won't the values of all products eventually go up and become impossible to afford?

[Siberian Fox]

I have read through most of the article you posted on eleven reasons technocracy works. Although there were a few things I am sceptical about there is only one point which which I felt was not properly addressed:

Interest!

Take out money, profit, debt, and interest. What you have left is a country full of natural resources, factories, and consumers.

Money, profit and debt can be removed by central planning, but the USSR is a great example of why interest cannot be ignored. I am not just talking about monetary interest in banks - to put it in relevent terms - I am talking about energy interest on capital!

My premises are that:

Capital depreciates over time. All capital will 'wear down' as it is used, or even if it isn't used, since the advance of technology makes capital obsolete. Therefore over time the usefulness of capital lessens until it reaches the point where it must be retired from operation.

A technocatic system would select those methods of production which require the least amount of input energy cet par. Since money is not the issue here, but energy, it is the logical choice that all things being equal the means of production should be those which are most energy efficent.

Now, let me take you back in time to the Soviet Union where in the 1950s it was assumed that Marx was correct that the source of all value was labour input required, and no acceptace was given to the capitalist view that interest on capital was a cost. When in August 1958 Nikita Krushchev opened the Kuibyshev hydro-electric power station he essentially acnowledged that fact that Marx had just been wrong on this point. The failure to take interest into account had led soviet planners to make a massive misallocation of resources in the U.S.S.R. Whilst the hydro-electric power stations produced electricity at the lowest cost once they were built because they required no fuel inputs, they required a huge investment in capital to construct. Those resources would have been better allocated in thermal power plants which required less capital and thus made up for the cost of having to fuel them over the course of their lifespan.

Thus in technocracy to ignor the interest on ones 'engergy investment' in constructing something would be a grave folloy, and hence Technocracy would have to account for this in it's planning - as any planning system should, monetary or otherwise.

[TomThumbKOP]

What advantage would technocracy give over other forms of government in say foriegn relations? I can see some changes that would be required on the domestic side for a technocracy, but how would a technocracy interface with other countries?

[Siberian Fox]

when technical descisions are made by political and financial leaders. They have so many other things to consider (including their own self-interest in most cases), that they interfere with descisions about how to fix technical problems. Technocracy refers to these as "Price System Interferances"

Well that is the main reason I used the example that I did, because in the U.S.S.R. in the 1950s they were trying to reach the same aims with their own economic planning, and ignor the capitalist price system. Of course their problem was that it was just not possible to derrive the "cost" of all products in terms of man-hours of simple unskilled labour as Marx had assumed possible. I dare say that it would also be difficult for a technocracy to measure everything purely in terms of energy required to produce it also - that's not to say impossible, but in the case of "thought work" one does wonder.

[Siberian Fox]

Hmm interesting stuff.

I'll have to try and get a book on this to read over the summer.

[Proctor]

Seeing as I don't really understand what you and Fox are on about, I'll just change the subject.

Latency.

The USSR utilised what appears to be a similar form of state planning. The idea was that when a lot of something is being bought, a lot should be produced. If this does not happen, we have a problem. This is solved automatically under capitalism, since the demand will increase, and so the price will increase, and so entrepenuers will produce more in the hope of making more money. When the demand is met by the products of these entrepeneurs, the price will decrease, and the entrepeneurs will move onto more profitable products.

This did not happen in the USSR. When there was a demand for a product, but not enough product, there is simply a lack of that product until someone in government realises, and alocates more resources to build more products, thus satisfying demand. But in the meantime, there were a lot of pissed off consumers, or seeing as there was nothing to consumer, would be consumers.

As I understand it, this will be controlled in a Technate by a computer that monitors purchases of each individual product. But this will not allow for people who want to buy a product, but can't.

But there is another problem as well, which stems from the same flaw. Say my company wants to purchase 100 chairs. If there are 100 chairs readily available, cool, I buy my chairs, the computer realises I want chairs and builds more. But I don't want chairs anymore. So what are the new chairs for?

Obviously, for other people. But suppose a new, more comfortable, cheaper, gooder in every way chair is invented. Everyone will want one. If everyone buys one, then the computer will recognise this and build more. But everyone has one now, so noone wants to buy one. This means the chairs will sit somewhere not being used, until the first batch of chairs break (which will probably happen at a massive rate, once the first chair fails, others will quickly follow).

Sorry this is so long winded. Criticisms are supposed to be short and sweet, but I wanted to make sure everyone (including myself ) understood what I was getting at.

[Proctor]

I'm not clear about who you are refering to here, who can't purchase a given product. If you mean poor people, according to the design, there wouldn't be any.

Well, no. I meant people who want to buy a product, but there simply aren't enough of that product to go around. But you go on to say:

And even that could be rectified by placing "orders," like is done in stores today that are out of stock. Naturally, the more "orders" placed, the more efficient the manufacturing processes that could be used, and hence lower energy costs.

Which answers my question.

I'll give the chairs another go, since it just didn't come across right. When a new chair is invented, everyone goes and buys one. This will show up on the computers as a massive leap in demand. The next period, loads more chairs are produced. Only problem is, everyone has already bought all the chairs they need.