[AFAIK]

My understanding is that technocracy reached the height of its popularity in 1930s USA. At this time there was a very finite amount of media. TV and radio operated on a limited bandwidth, which had to be rationed.

Did any technocrats address this lack of abundance?

Most of this bandwidth was controlled by capitalists. How much of a voice were technocrats given in the media?

[mikema63]

The bandwidth was artificially limited by the FCC which gave licenses for specific bandwidths, which allowed them to control content.

It wasn't any more or less scarce than it is now really.

[AFAIK]

It wasn't any more or less scarce than it is now really.

So how scarce or abundant is it now? Maybe I don't understand the technology but if technocracy can only function in North America due to its low population density and abundance of resources then my question is; is there enough space on the electromagnetic spectrum for it to be considered abundant.

Currently ownership of the media is dominated by billionaires. If Rupert Murdoch owns 2/3rds of Australia's newspapers can they be considered to be in abundance (if there are 1,000 publications)?

[mikema63]

With the electro magnetic spectrum your mainly talking about radio nowadays which is local. You could probably fit 1,000+ radio stations in an area if you really wanted to but there is much more space because of satellite radio.

TV is digital so the number of channels you can have approaches infinity.

Whether or not post-scarcity is actually possible is a matter of debate, but if you are talking about information as an example it is about as scarce as air. The internet is post-scarcity.

[AFAIK]

Slow down Mike. I'm asking about 1930s America. Was this considered to be an issue? Was it addressed or ignored?

[mikema63]

I haven't the slightest idea, I haven't looked into the history much.

[Eran]

Originally, frequencies were controlled by common law principles (essentially, first-come-first-serve).

A rational government policy would have been to protect property rights in wave frequencies and allow free trading in such rights. That kind of policy would have naturally led to a rational and efficient use of available frequencies, as higher-valued uses would have out-bid lower-valued uses.

Instead, the FCC opted for a license-based system which gave its bureaucrats effective control over over-the-air communications, control lasting until the present.

This is yet another example of government acting to increase its own power, rather than for the public good.

[TechnocracyTNAT]

"The only thing that can be done against Technocracy is to keep silent about it. It is, therefore, verboten for any newspaper. magazine, or radio to mention Technocracy. Only twice has this ban been lifted, as I mentioned, in an effort to smash Technocracy: but both time; Technocracy gained more from it than it lost."

https://archive.org/details/TheTechnocrat-August1943

"I'm glad to announce, of course, that one of the worst of all Americans, William Randolph Hearst, passed to his just reward. I have the original telegram, signed in his handwriting, which was sent out to every Hearst official that the name "Technocracy" was not to be used under any condition whatsoever. They were subject to dismissal and severance from the Hearst organization if they did so. That I consider one of the nicest mementoes that we have."

-MEMBERSHIP MEETING, DETROIT, WITH HOWARD SCOTT 1951
archive.org/details/TheWordsAndWisdomOfHowardScott