[Poelmo]

What are your thoughts on using free market principles for the consumer market in a technocracy-like economy? To clarify: who- (or what)ever is responsible for the manufacturing (whether it's a computer running competing algorithms or an actual collection of competing businesses "owned" by society) measures demand based on what people are willing to pay for a product, just like in a free market. Citizens are given a monthly income of energy that they can spend as they please, with the state responsible for all energy production, land ownership (citizens can only rent land, not own it) and confiscating a fixed percentage for services such as basic foodstuffs, health care and education apart from the citizen income budget. Any surplus energy received for manufacturing (that which is not spend on either production or investment) periodically flows back to the sole shareholder, society itself. In my view this system solves some practical questions technocracy struggles with and would also make the transition easier to accept for many people.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Siberian Fox]

It's difficult to imagine a world without any markets at all for consumer goods. Freely available perishable goods like food would result in lots of waste as people help themselves to more than they need. I suppose the technocratic solution is to engineer foods that last longer, but existing technology will only go so far to that end.

[Soixante-Retard]

What are your thoughts on using free market principles for the consumer market in a technocracy-like economy?

What you are talking about is contradictory. See here.

[Siberian Fox]

And why would they do that?

See here. Cheap food leads to people buying more than they need so they need not fear it running out. It it also erodes that value people place on the commodity when it is cheap to replace, so they think nothing of wasting it.

Removing cost entirely would take one to the extreme of the problems outlined in that article on modern wastage of bread.

[mikema63]

While its interesting to contemplate how technology may help us in the long term, technocracy seems to be something that won't help in the short term and then will be inevitable in the long term as technology develops (assuming o disasters or an anti-technology government).

It makes me question what goals people who consider themselves technocrats might have at all, I do not think there is even a political party for it.

[Poelmo]

What you are talking about is contradictory. See here.

Can you explain what you mean? That Hayek text isn't really helpful.

No, not like a free market at all.

I know it's not technocracy, that's why I said "technocracy-like", it's a fusion of capitalism and technocracy.

See here. Cheap food leads to people buying more than they need so they need not fear it running out. It it also erodes that value people place on the commodity when it is cheap to replace, so they think nothing of wasting it.

Removing cost entirely would take one to the extreme of the problems outlined in that article on modern wastage of bread.

That's exactly the sort of practical questions that technocracy has no satisfying answer to and which I'm trying to address. There has to be some mechanism that signals the (changing) popularity of a product and there has to be some competition to encourage innovation. Why not use the free market principle from capitalism, with capitalism's nasty side effects being prevented by the social dividend aspect of the economy?

[Poelmo]

And what I'm saying is that a) it can't be done, and b) there is no point. I've seen many people over the years trying to do it and it doesn't work. Scarcity problems require scarcity solutions, and problems of abundance require solutions of abundance (i.e. Technocracy). The closest you might ever get to seeing any elements of the market in a Technocracy would be where scarce items are concerned (original works of art, antique furniture, etc.), but a) that is up for the people of the Technate to decide what to do with them, and b) it would serve no practical purpose.

Almost everything is scarce and always will be: people will find a way to tax the system to its limits, it could be as simple as not turning the lights off when you leave a room. Even if citizens could monitor the resources in the economy and see that if society doesn't cut back compared to last month there will be shortages, they still won't collectively act on it. because the benefits of not playing along are yours alone, while the drawbacks are spread out across society. This is actually a well known phenomenon in game theory that explains bubbles and lackluster response to environmental pollution.

Did you read my response to him? What was unsatisfying about it? You say that "There has to be some mechanism that signals the (changing) popularity of a product", there already is, it's called Energy Accounting, and it works far better than any market system would, for many reasons. If you need another explanation of it try this.

Energy accounting tracks production, but it does not signal information about the relative desirability of a product once demand outstrips current production.

Then you say: "there has to be some competition to encourage innovation". No, there doesn't. This is a popular belief in market-systems in order to promote themselves, but it is not true. I won't go into it all here because there's a lot that could be said about it, and it's all done here.

It's not about people working for free, it's about creativity and efficiency: competitors can test different strategies against each other, letting the consumer decide, competitors also drive each other to deliver bang for buck (if there's only one manufacturer this manufacturer will become complacent and sloppy, monopolies screw the consumer, why try a risky, but promising new strategy when the consumer has nowhere else to go?)

[Soixante-Retard]

What are your thoughts on using free market principles for the consumer market in a technocracy-like economy?

What you are talking about is contradictory. See here.

Can you explain what you mean? That Hayek text isn't really helpful.

In short, a technocratic "economy" is the negation of a free-market economy. In a free-market, knowledge, which is dispersed, is traded and exchanged. Whereas in a technocratic (or "command") economy, where knowledge isn't exchanged but centralized in a few technocrats who can fathom nothing.

To put it another way, the emergence of an economy from a free price mechanism is superior to a that of a command economy because of how knowledge is used an acted upon.

[Poelmo]

In short, a technocratic "economy" is the negation of a free-market economy.

You're playing wordgames: it's like saying that a submarine is the opposite of an airplane (because something cannot simultaneously fly through the air and be underwater), therefore it's physically impossible to put wings (to function as fins) on a submarine. Pure capitalism is incompatible with pure technocracy but that doesn't mean you cannot combine parts from both systems to create a functioning hybrid.

[Igor Antunov]

Since it is a technocracy, people need not be hungry beyond their body's inherent needs, thus no fatties leeching food from the state. I.e pills or genetic alterations that regulate feeding times.

[AFAIK]

Since air is used as an example of abundance why not attempt to consume all the air around you right now.
Now try to drain the oceans of water.

The water in public toilets is free but almost everyone turns off the taps after washing their hands.
People currently consume bottled water at home even though tap water is cheap and convenient but their consumption is still limited and demand can be met.

I would imagine that there would be labour shortages, especially in the early stages.
How many people would want to work in an Alaskan mine during the winter if they could be living by a beach in Florida?
Access to new technology, celebrities and long distance travel may also be scarce. Also vanity items such as original artworks and shiny metals.
These scarce items could be distributed by way of a lottery and tickets would be distributed in exchange for labour.

[mikema63]

How many people would want to work in an Alaskan mine during the winter if they could be living by a beach in Florida?

The idea is to use technology to automate such things as much as possible and reduce the amount of labor needed as much as possible. The grand goal would be for such basic things as resource collection and refining to eventually become totally automated.

The water in public toilets is free but almost everyone turns off the taps after washing their hands.
People currently consume bottled water at home even though tap water is cheap and convenient but their consumption is still limited and demand can be met.

People are led to believe that bottled water is purer and better for you than tap, even though a great deal of bottled water uses municipal water sources. It's mainly advertisement driven, If you tell people something is purer or a food is from a high end restaurant it has been proven that it will taste better too them. Even if its hose water and taco bell.

Access to new technology, celebrities and long distance travel may also be scarce.

Why? Technocracy is all about new technology before anything else, why would celebrities not exist? Why have planes and trains dissapeared?

Also vanity items such as original artworks and shiny metals.

The idea is that society should share resources, If you aren't using a car at the moment it will be given to someone else, and when you need a car again an available one will be given to you. Artworks would be in museums for you to view at any time.

[AFAIK]

Why? Technocracy is all about new technology before anything else, why would celebrities not exist? Why have planes and trains dissapeared?

Access is scarce.
If a pop star has millions of fans s/he would be unable to meet them all. Concerts regularly sell out, often months in advance.

Planes and trains still exist but will there be enough capacity and fuel to allow unlimited global travel?
What about space travel?

I agree with your other points. I'm thinking more of the transitional and early stages of Technocracy.

[mikema63]

If a pop star has millions of fans s/he would be unable to meet them all. Concerts regularly sell out, often months in advance.

The music industry as we know it would collapse (as would movies and TV) since there wouldn't be millions of dollars in it, I expect it would be limited to small operators rather than national idols.

Planes and trains still exist but will there be enough capacity and fuel to allow unlimited global travel?
What about space travel?

If people wanted to travel an unlimited amount all of the time no, there would be quite a waiting list. However since most people aren't traveling most of the time I see no reason why they wouldn't be able to travel.

As for space travel, don't be silly, we can barely get ourselves out of the atmosphere at our current stage, even in a technocracy people wouldn't be able to all go do something that is so technologically difficult and a great resource hog.

[AFAIK]

--As for space travel, don't be silly, we can barely get ourselves out of the atmosphere at our current stage, even in a technocracy people wouldn't be able to all go do something that is so technologically difficult and a great resource hog.--

Hence for the potential for a lottery.

There are videos on Youtube that have been viewed by millions of people. Minor celebrities may wish to ration the amount of time they spend with fans.

[mikema63]

People may ration there time of course, meeting a minor celebrity is not a necessity but just another luxury good.

I suppose a lottery for the purpose of showing off to other countries would be neat but if there isn't any actual reason to shoot people in a rocket so they can fall back down I don't see why it would be done at all.

[Figlio di Moros]

AFAIK, we're aware some goods and service will, in their nature, remain scarce; however, those are all luxury goods, and will simply be obtained differently. There's no reason for mass goods to be held scarce; if you want a mink coat, you'd have to find someone who produces them as a hobby and befriend them, or trade. I'm perfectly content w/ mutual credit existing for certain items such as shows, foie gras, caviar, etc. One example I can give is venison; knowing hunters or hunting yourself it the only means of accessing it.

[AFAIK]

The articles I've read say that if a Technate were established in N America people would work 16hrs per week between the ages of 25 and 45 (I forgot how much holiday they get).

How do you compel people to work?
How do you direct people to undesirable jobs in hostile locations?

I'm suggesting that if labour shortages develop for any reason one possible solution is to provide people with an external incentive to work in the undesirable job.

[mikema63]

How do you compel people to work?
How do you direct people to undesirable jobs in hostile locations?

Instill in them a regard for their duty to society and impress upon them that this is the price paid for the freedom they have in society the rest of the time.

Consequences may range from exile to rehabilitation.

It's hardly any harsher than work or starve to death/lose your home that we have today.

Of course what people are directed to do can be set according to their abilities and preferences as well as what jobs need doing, so it wont be so terrible.

[Figlio di Moros]

People do choose to work- most people will do what they like given the chance. Technocracy is a hundred year old proposal, so naturally even the 16 hrs for twenty is obsolete- eliminate planned obsolescence and 70% of consumption disappears overnight, and much of what's left can be automated and streamlined. We'd still need nurses and doctors, but those are jobs people choose.