[Uniqueuponhim]

Forgive my blasphemy, but although I adore the concept of Technocracy, I can't help but think that it is too good to be true (and whenever I explain technocracy to someone, they always point out that it sounds too good to be true). It is not without basis that I say this, either: it does make sense to me that as technology improves and new machinery is built, that the number of hours a person must work should go down, while the number of luxuries he enjoys increase, but Technocracy seems to arbitrarily say that the rate at which this occurs should be faster than the rate at which it does occur, and I have seen no primary research done to show that this is, in fact the case. While I do agree that many goods within the economy are still based on a scarcity mindset despite an abundance of that good (ie CDs, Oil, etc), many goods are not: Most pieces of electronics are sold at marginal profit, and some at a significant loss (Sony is was projected to lose ~$150 per PS3 they sell, though it will be even more than that since the yields for their processors are so low), and many objects which are either hand-made, or very specialized (such as a lot of lab equipment) cost so much to manufacture that they are necessarily scarce. Furthermore, as technology has advanced and machinery has been becoming more and more prevalent, we have been gaining more and more luxuries, and some things which used to be luxuries are now considered neccessities: 100-150 years ago, very few (or no) households had cars (or horses), telephones, televisions, refrigerators, electric stoves, washing machines, dishwashers, or computers. Even books weren't usually found in a common man's home, people usually only had a sets of clothes, and in most cases got by with the bare minimum. Now, the bulk of society has all of this and more, and even the lowest class of society lives in what the majority of people in those times would consider luxury. So what makes you so sure that if our economy weren't based on scarcity, we would really have a lot more than we already do? I would like to see some evidence, some research which has been done - and not research from the 1910s: research from the last decade or two at most.