Golden, I would never make the assertion that we live in an efficient system. Hell, the system has been designed to be inefficient. But it is inefficient for very good reasons. Having two gas stations face each other across the street when one would suffice is wasteful. But, that waste has a purpose in that it buys honesty and effort. How much should a gallon of gasoline cost at the intersection of 87 and 52? If there is only one station, then we have no idea, they charge whatever they want and customers accept whatever they have for sale, be it dirty bathrooms or stale donuts.

Similarly, flex-car schemes have been tried and they always suffer the same problems: dirty cars and routinely wrecked and not repaired. People simply do not care for cars they do not own. As such, to save resources we make way more cars than we need and apply ownership.

Technocracy fails to take incentives into account. As such, in the real world with real people, technocracy would have an even lower load factor than capitalism as society disintegrated in response to perverse incentive structures.

4/22/2008 3:09:19 PM

Quote :

"have themselves served society. If you break that link then there is no incentive to serve others, and human nature being what it is, many people will only serve themselves."

agreed. liberals can not seem to grasp this idea. instead choosing to live in some idealistic hippy world.

^^ plenty of responsible people can do drugs w/o fucking up their lives.

[Edited on April 22, 2008 at 3:11 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on April 22, 2008 at 3:12 PM. Reason : a]

4/22/2008 3:11:08 PM

I think we have a relatively similar understanding of the facts, Snarkie. As you say, a capitalist society accepts gross inefficiencies to create the proper incentives. This allegedly makes less waste than the alternatives.

I don't really buy the argument, but there's some support for it. We could debate for pages whether technocracy could have been instituted in the 1930s. Perhaps we've haven't yet developed a way to manage incentives without prices.

I would suggest that current economic system isn't designed to benefit everyone. Instead, it's made to benefit the powerful. This goes for earlier economic systems as well. If not for the interests of these elites, I think a better system would exist.

In any case, capitalism is objectively inefficient. As such, it cannot be considered ideal. We should try to discover a way to encourage work without the blatant inefficiencies we've discussed. If successful, this could dramatically increase standards of living for all.

4/22/2008 3:49:36 PM

My take is that production "incentives" are a relatively small part of capitalisms success. The main advantage is that the price system

a) Aggregates information and solves problems that suffer from sensitive dependence on intial conditions (SDIC)

b) Has the bankruptcy filter which serves to help kill off unproductive firms, unlike unproductive government programs which can live forever

4/22/2008 9:01:42 PM

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you expand on the idea a bit so I get it? While capitalism clearly aggregates and distributes information, I've never heard economists talk much about SDIC or chaos theory. On the other hand, they love to discussing incentives.

4/22/2008 9:45:07 PM

i quit reading this garbage after page 1, but eyedrb won this thread many times over

4/23/2008 12:14:16 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps we've haven't yet developed a way to manage incentives without prices."

This is not entirely accurate. Other non-price incentives have been tried from time to time. To be blunt, there was Stalinism where "be effective or die" would be an adept description. After that was Kruschev communism, where "be efficient please" would be an adept description. Suffice to say, Stalinism worked better, but both proved to be rediculously wasteful of land, labor, and capital.

Quote :

"I would suggest that current economic system isn't designed to benefit everyone. Instead, it's made to benefit the powerful. This goes for earlier economic systems as well. If not for the interests of these elites, I think a better system would exist."

Capitalism is not the chosen system by elites. As Adam Smith pointed out centuries ago, capitalism (he used different terms) was no accident: it prospered and conquered all the other systems, including those preferred by the political elites, because it was so dramatically more productive that it could effectively bribe the elites with enough money to make them give up political control. That is what capitalism is: the restraint and containment of the political elites.

Quote :

"In any case, capitalism is objectively inefficient. As such, it cannot be considered ideal. We should try to discover a way to encourage work without the blatant inefficiencies we've discussed. If successful, this could dramatically increase standards of living for all."

In an imperfect world, ideal only exists in heaven. We have many thousands of years of various peoples trying every system their imaginations could devise; so far, today's structures seem to work far better than our ancestors ever thought possible. But, I have an open mind; if you ever come up with a system that would be better then I am all ears.

4/23/2008 12:50:33 AM

Quote :

"^if you cut out the incentives for having kids, I dont think immigrants or poor people will have as many. "

For immigrants, it's mostly cultural, and it's a first generation thing. The incentives are a small part, if at all, of it.

4/23/2008 12:52:17 AM

then their cultures should change, having a lot of kids for the sake of culture is retarded and should not be encouraged through free education and tax breaks...

the biggest problem in the next 30 years is not gas prices nor mortgages nor poverty, it will be population control, and successful people, as a rule, have fewer kids

and notice the numbers on projected population, it's just scary (although a good time as a whole to own property!)

[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 12:59 AM. Reason : ]

4/23/2008 12:58:17 AM

Quote :

"Capitalism is not the chosen system by elites."

Depends on the elite group in question, but I assure many current American elites favor capitalism. You can easily verify this claim for yourself. Various features of capitalism, such as property rights, inherently benefit the rich and powerful. Capitalism would falter without the policeman's gun.

Again, why assume that the current exists because it benefits the most people? That's not how economic systems are determined. It could be part of the equation, yes, but you can't discount the interests of the powers that be.

Quote :

"We have many thousands of years of various peoples trying every system their imaginations could devise; so far, today's structures seem to work far better than our ancestors ever thought possible."

Technocracy hasn't even been around for hundred years. Industrialization came only a little earlier. There's still plenty of time.

Quote :

"But, I have an open mind; if you ever come up with a system that would be better then I am all ears."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

4/23/2008 1:08:14 AM

Quote :

"then their cultures should change, having a lot of kids for the sake of culture is retarded and should not be encouraged through free education and tax breaks... "

Did you miss the "and it's a first generation" thing?

it seems like you just read the word "immigrant" and went

4/23/2008 1:10:37 AM

that is true, im seeing a great deal of mexican only children...

4/23/2008 1:12:53 AM

Quote :

"1) student loans aren't that bad given the wage increase one can expect with the education that buy"

You've never met an actual, honest-to-God, middle-class college graduate who didn't have a great deal of difficulty paying off their student loans?

Quote :

"*Needs: food, bed, appropriate clothing, water"

No cars? You don't think it impacts one's employment opportunities when they show up on the bus? Because I call bullshit. I've seen that happen too often.

And medical care isn't a need? Really? Really? We practically hand out free water, and you'll include it, but the basic level of maintenance necessary to keep some people alive, and which potentially costs far more than food, a bed, and clothes, that you leave out?

Quote :

"having a lot of kids for the sake of culture is retarded"

Here we have the root of so much racism, the idea that other people don't have kids for the same reason you or I do.

Quote :

"and should not be encouraged through free education and tax breaks..."

So we should instead encourage the growth of an uneducated and poorer population?

Tell you what, you line up for the guillotine all you want, I'll keep running around with some basic level of human fucking decency.

Quote :

"the biggest problem in the next 30 years is not gas prices nor mortgages nor poverty, it will be population control"

Support this statement with something, anything, please. Try to remember that increasing population is not an inherently, patently bad thing. Are we reaching carrying capacity? Plz 2 support kk thx.

I suppose I should remember that we're talking about the only person for miles to actually think that eyedrb has won at anything, ever, under any circumstances.

4/23/2008 3:51:15 AM

Quote :

"Here we have the root of so much racism, the idea that other people don't have kids for the same reason you or I do. "

How is this racism? You can have as many kids, cars, houses as you want. As long as you pay for them.


Grumpy, There has been alot of talk about global food shortages in recent weeks.

I think our biggest threat nationally are entitlement programs and growth of those. We wont be able to sustain them without massive changes.

4/23/2008 9:01:22 AM

Let's just shower poor people with free money, healthcare, food, and shelter. Hoping they will see the light get off their couch and be productive in society and not spend all their leisure time smoking crack rocks.

4/23/2008 10:03:24 AM

Quote :

"Depends on the elite group in question, but I assure many current American elites favor capitalism. You can easily verify this claim for yourself. Various features of capitalism, such as property rights, inherently benefit the rich and powerful. Capitalism would falter without the policeman's gun."

I did not say elites favored a system without property rights. I said elites do not favor capitalism. While they may feign a defence of the market in general, in their particular case, the CEO of General Motors has never favored free trade and the owners of Pan Am vehemently opposed the Airline Deregulation Act. Yes, the rich love owning property. But what good is owning Pan American World Airways, the largest airline in the world, when anyone can lease an airplane and drive you into bankruptcy? When I use it that is what the term capitalism means: the equality of capital regardless of who the owner's race and sex or who they know. Now, in many ways the current system is not capitalist; to suceed you must know a congressman or two. But equality is at least the ideal our society strives for.

Quote :

"Again, why assume that the current exists because it benefits the most people? That's not how economic systems are determined."

I did not say it benefitted the most people, neither did Adam Smith (although it was implied). What was said was that it was so substantially more productive that it was able to accumulate production sufficient to bribe the powers that be into allowing its expansion.

Quote :

"You've never met an actual, honest-to-God, middle-class college graduate who didn't have a great deal of difficulty paying off their student loans?"

It is human nature to spend on yourself and just the minimum on paying back loans.

[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 10:07 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/23/2008 10:05:33 AM

Quote :

"You've never met an actual, honest-to-God, middle-class college graduate who didn't have a great deal of difficulty paying off their student loans?"

Well i have, i know some people that went to duke on loans to get a humanities degree (i know of at least 1 that did undergrad and masters there, and ended with with a student loan debt the size of a decent mortgage). But those are self chosen difficulties. You can also go to a state school in NC for < 10k a year + books, even if you have to borrow the entire amount (IE no grants, which in that income bracket you can qualify for, no work study, and no part time job) you end up with maybe 44k in student loan debts. Yes, thats like 450/month if you take out a loan for every dime of it. However, the average debt after gaining a bachelors degree is currently around 16k, which is about 215 a month, if your a college grad with a job that reflects this, you should be able to budget that in just fine.


And no, a car is not required, its nice, but if you have to make due then you have to make due. You can also buy a used car in decent shape for <8k instead of something new, or getting into a lease (leasing a car is not a good fiscal call).

Medical insurance. Go work part time at UPS/fedex. The job sucks out loud, great benefits, and they offer tuition reimbursement. But no, its another nice thing (unless you are chronically ill, then its going to be a necessity.)

4/23/2008 10:38:32 AM

Quote :

"You can have as many kids, cars, houses as you want."

To hell and be damned with any system of thought that boils down our most fundamental biological imperative to a commodity. Of course, it has generally been your policy to be so outraged at the parents as to forget that their kids are in fact people, and people with no responsibility for their action to boot.

You really are a social darwinist. It's impressive to meet somebody who is actually perfectly willing to let people starve in a gutter.

Quote :

"Grumpy, There has been alot of talk about global food shortages in recent weeks."

The primary problem has been the cost of food, not the existence of it. There is still more than sufficient food to keep everybody fed, both in America and around the world.

Quote :

"I think our biggest threat nationally are entitlement programs and growth of those. We wont be able to sustain them without massive changes.[quote] My God, you're right, soon we'll have collapsed into national ruin just like Western Europe and Canada. [quote]Hoping they will see the light get off their couch and be productive in society and not spend all their leisure time smoking crack rocks."

As usual, the prevalence of such situations is grossly exaggerated. Still and all, I agree that a retooling of social programs is necessary to prevent abuses and get more out of recipients.

Quote :

"Well i have, i know some people that went to duke on loans to get a humanities degree (i know of at least 1 that did undergrad and masters there, and ended with with a student loan debt the size of a decent mortgage)"

But but but...I thought the increased earning potential was supposed to make all that worthwhile?

Quote :

"And no, a car is not required, its nice, but if you have to make due then you have to make due."

Fine, not a car specifically (disregarding yet again the serious damage not having one can inflict on employment prospects), but transportation in general. Buses and subways generally aren't free.

Quote :

"But no, its another nice thing (unless you are chronically ill, then its going to be a necessity.)"

What about unexpected injuries and illnesses? Do you even realize how much even a short hospital stay can cost?

4/23/2008 12:39:18 PM

Quote :

"To hell and be damned with any system of thought that boils down our most fundamental biological imperative to a commodity. Of course, it has generally been your policy to be so outraged at the parents as to forget that their kids are in fact people, and people with no responsibility for their action to boot. "

The problem is when Becky Sue spreads her legs, pumping out 7 kids while only making 18K a year as a motel maid. Then she turns around and expect uncle sam to help pay for her to feed and provide medical care to her kids. All at the expense of the tax payer.

I should not have to pay to subsidize someone elses child expenses.

[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 12:57 PM. Reason : a]

4/23/2008 12:56:40 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you expand on the idea a bit so I get it? While capitalism clearly aggregates and distributes information, I've never heard economists talk much about SDIC or chaos theory. On the other hand, they love to discussing incentives."

So, the problem is that optimizing production in a industry requires detailed knowledge about costs and benefits of an action. However, the cost and benefits are dependent upon other opportunities and the level of other production.

In economics speak there are opportunity costs to resources used in production and there are compliments and substitutes to the goods produced. Moreover, once invested in a particular type of capital or human training, the resources used cannot be revived.

So calculating the optimal production path of an entire economy is going to depend very heavily on details from each specific industry and the particular choices that you have made along the way.

As the number of firms and types of capital grows even relatively simple simulations become chaotic. The price system, however, solves this by transmitting economy wide information to individual actors who then maximize based on their detailed knowledge of their own personal situation.

The incentive argument is much simpler but I think fails to address for example, why institutions like Wikipedia can be so incredibly successful with a relatively mild incentive structure.

My sense on the matter is that Capitalism works because it fosters decentralization more than because it creates strong incentives. Now I think this is a relatively new debate because until the advent of massive open source type projects there wasn't a huge practical distinction between the two concepts. It was is government better or the market better.

Now there is a little bit more to the argument are traditional firms better or are widely individuals with unknown motivations better. Luckily our system allows both to coexist. Though, to the extent decentralization is better there may be some justification for publicly financed projects which create more opportunities for decentralized collaboration. For example, subsidizing the Internet.

Quote :

"Then she turns around and expect uncle sam to help pay for her to feed and provide medical care to her kids. All at the expense of the tax payer. I should not have to pay to subsidize someone elses child expenses."

Okay so lets stipulate that Becky Sue is owed nothing and to boot should suffer nothing but scorn from society. What about Becky's kids, who so far seemed to do nothing wrong.

It seems to me that we can

a) Let the kids rot

b) Take away the kids and suffer a huge infringement on personal liberty by breaking up loving families

c) Subsidize the kids

Of those (c) seems the best option.

[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 1:30 PM. Reason : becky sue]

4/23/2008 1:26:35 PM

Quote :

"When I use it that is what the term capitalism means: the equality of capital regardless of who the owner's race and sex or who they know. Now, in many ways the current system is not capitalist; to suceed you must know a congressman or two. But equality is at least the ideal our society strives for."

There's something to be said for this argument. Some capitalism is better than elites simply dictating everything. I'd rather live in modern America than under feudalism. Technocracy is the next step up. Why not extend your principle of equality beyond capital?

Quote :

"What was said was that it was so substantially more productive that it was able to accumulate production sufficient to bribe the powers that be into allowing its expansion."

That's nice way to put it. Unlike anarchism and technocracy, capitalism allows elites to retain most of their privilege. Could explain the system's success.

Quote :

"My sense on the matter is that Capitalism works because it fosters decentralization more than because it creates strong incentives."

Very interesting. I'm glad you explained yourself, kwsmith2.

As you would expect, I favor the open source projects.

4/23/2008 1:47:58 PM

Grumpy, What im advocating is responsiblity. Im saying I dont care what you do with your life as long as you handle it. Now when your irresponsible actions are paid for by the taxpayers, then the taxpayers should have a say in your matters.

I dont think in a country this rich that kids should starve. I just dont think its the govt job to do it. And in case you didnt notice, alot of "poor" kids are now obese.

I mentioned entitlements grumpy, bc that is where the majority of our money goes currently and is the fastest growing expense. Adding more entitlements is out of the question in my mind. When we need to cut spending across the boards, even to entitlments, and reform the programs all together. Lets stop encouraging people to have kids and remain unmarried bc the get more cash. I dont think the majority of people would disagree with that thought. Do you Grumpy?

4/23/2008 2:39:52 PM

Quote :

"t seems to me that we can"

what about option d.



d. fine becky sue (much like china) but this fine is more of like a "savings plan" b.c she will end up getting this money back as additional tax credits, food stamps, welfare funds. etc.

or option e

e. sterilize becky sue since she is a whore and nothing but a drain on society.

4/23/2008 2:39:55 PM

Quote :

"The primary problem has been the cost of food, not the existence of it. There is still more than sufficient food to keep everybody fed, both in America and around the world."

Sorry I missed this earlier. THe cost of food is rising in part over supply shortages. Even Sams Club is limiting rice sales.

"Sam's Club warehouse division said on Wednesday it is limiting sales of several types of rice, the latest sign that fears of a rice shortage are rippling around the world."

"where regulators said high prices are mostly the result of soaring world demand for grains combined with high fuel prices and drought-induced shortages in many countries."

4/23/2008 3:43:48 PM

Quote :

"Now when your irresponsible actions are paid for by the taxpayers, then the taxpayers should have a say in your matters."

To an extent I agree with this. I've never said we should just hand over money with no expectations whatsoever.

Quote :

"I just dont think its the govt job to do it."

Right, because historically, when left to their own devices, private citizens have handled this quite well.

Quote :

"Lets stop encouraging people to have kids and remain unmarried bc the get more cash. I dont think the majority of people would disagree with that thought."

Where people disagree with you is in this idea that the current system "encourages" or "rewards" these things.

Quote :

"fine becky sue (much like china) but this fine is more of like a "savings plan" b.c she will end up getting this money back as additional tax credits, food stamps, welfare funds. etc."

We can't get deadbeat dads to pay child support, but we'll be able to get a fine out of whorish moms?

Don't get me wrong, the underlying sentiment of this plan is very agreeable to me, but it needs quite a bit of fine-tuning.

Quote :

"sterilize becky sue since she is a whore and nothing but a drain on society."

More wrong with this than I care to get into right now.

Quote :

"THe cost of food is rising in part over supply shortages."

Yes, in part. But it's also because of:

-Increased fuel costs
-Increased demand for non-staple foods in India and China
-Diversion of crop production towards biofuel (according to some)

Yeah, there are droughts some places. This happens from time to time. It has happened in history when there were far fewer people than there are now, and with far more cataclysmic results.

The fact remains that there is now, and probably has always been so far, enough food to keep everybody comfortably fed.

4/23/2008 4:43:50 PM

Grumpy, you dont see how the system encourages you?

I have a very REAL example for you. I had a tech who was divorced and had a kid. She made too much money to qualify for assistance, esp since she lived with her mother. So she goes out gets pregnant so she can "quit her job and stay at home." Im against any system that rewards that behavior.

Ive already mentioned people putting their kids on ADD meds to get thier kids on disability for more money.

Do we not pay more for every kid you have?
Do you not get less money if you have a spouse esp one with an income?

On, the food deal. Look at the measures we take to keep up with our food demands? Hormones, etc. I dont think we are running out of food here either, but there is no doubt a level of population that isnt sustainable, would you agree?
The current welfare reform requires the parent find work after a certain period of having a baby. OR you could just get pregnant again and avoid finding a job. Which is easier?

I dunno, just a couple of examples of how we encourage irresponsible behavior. Kinda like a housing bailout. BUt thats a different topic.

[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .]

4/23/2008 4:55:08 PM

Quote :

"I have a very REAL example for you."

It's a pity you then took the time to write it all out, given how completely useless such anecdotal evidence is.

There are abuses. They need to be corrected. The way to correct them is not gutting entitlement programs.

Quote :

"Do we not pay more for every kid you have?"

Sure. Is it enough to fully compensate the costs of having and raising a kid? No. Until it gets above that point, it's not a "reward."

Quote :

"Do you not get less money if you have a spouse esp one with an income?"

I honestly don't know, but I'm pretty damn sure that if it's not the government's job to pay to keep kids to starve it's damn sure not the government's job to pay people to get married. I think in general it makes sense to give more to people whose households make less money.

Quote :

"I dont think we are running out of food here either, but there is no doubt a level of population that isnt sustainable, would you agree?"

Of course there is, but we're not running into it so headlong as to necessitate all this moaning and wailing about an overpopulation problem that is not imminent in this or most (arguably any) other country.

Quote :

"On, the food deal. Look at the measures we take to keep up with our food demands? Hormones, etc."

This is barely legible. I gather that you want me to consider "hormones, etc," but that's about it. You're a doctor, for chrissakes. I'm sure you know how to compose a complete sentence, place a comma, and effectively use a question mark.

Quote :

"OR you could just get pregnant again and avoid finding a job. Which is easier?"

I'm sure there's no shortage of parents who would readily tell you that the latter is far, far easier.

---

You want to fix this whole baby problem? Make any money contingent on parents providing a certain basic standard of care -- a standard slightly higher than what the money we give them can achieve, so they have to have at least some other income. If they consistently fall below that standard, there's a range of options at our disposal.


[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 5:24 PM. Reason : ]

4/23/2008 5:21:01 PM

Quote :

" I'd rather live in modern America than under feudalism. Technocracy is the next step up. Why not extend your principle of equality beyond capital?"

Because from what I have read, technocracy does not improve equality, it attempts to stamp it out. Under capitalism, if I have the money and the desire to keep a car parked in my drive-way 22 hours a day then I can do so, even though doing so is entirely contrary to technocratic principles.

To set up a Technate would involve charging a few individuals with the planning of an entire economy. How would this be any different from what Kruschev tried to create in Russia? While there would be equality among technocrats, the rest of us would become little more than serfs carrying out the orders of our technocratic superiors.

I see that you also linked Anarchism, a concept which has always fascinated me. I am of the opinion that any true anarchist society would quickly evolve into anarcho-capitalism with markets and social contracts and then into capitalism proper with a state, voting, and majoritarianism. That is how it happened in the western territories in the past, why would it be any different in the future?

4/23/2008 5:51:09 PM

I dont understand you Grumpy, I give you real examples and you choose to ignore them.

Your lack of knowledge on entitlments is pretty evident. I dont know if that is out of ignorance or just refusal to listen to people. I dont mean that as an insult. You just seem naive to me. Go spend 4 years working a downtown health clinic in memphis, it will open your eyes.

Ok, since you dont see how getting more money per kids is a reward, let me simplify it for you.

In order to bring home money I have to work. So I provide a service and get compensated for that service. This is true for millions of americans...agreed? If I choose not to work that means NO money. Ok. Now If I choose not to work, I can get a check mailed to me every month If I had a kid. The more kids I have, the more money comes in. Where as I would have to work harder or more hours to get more money, correct? Now, here is the clincher... who pays for MY kid? I do, now with less of MY MONEY.

Let me really break this down for you. Lets say there are two people in the US. Grumpy and DocB. DocB works 40hrs a week and makes a 100 bucks a week. Grumpy chooses not to work and makes 0 a week. Now grumpy has a kid, now we send grumpy 20 bucks a week. Now Doc takes home 80. That money has to come from somewhere, correct? Now you have two kids, so you get 40 and I make 60. Now I have a kid... I have to work and raise my kid on 60% of my salary, while you get REWARDED for being irresponsible. Savy?

About the marriage thing. Yes, benefits are determined by household (family) income. Its why many people choose to live together and have kids rather than be married. That way the mother can get her and the kids on medicaid and other programs, while the father makes too much to be eligible if they were married. Since it is mostly determined by ones income, the cut off varies by state.

Yeah, my point on the food production. I have a friend who is a big health nut, she probably could better address this, but it basically boils down to the chemicals we pump into cows to not only fatten them up quicker, but so they will produce more milk so we can milk them more often. The same, other than the milking, can be said with turkeys, chickens, etc..

4/23/2008 7:49:00 PM

Tax and welfare benefits should not extend beyond 2 (maybe 3) kids.

Instead of the current system where every baby is a payraise.

4/23/2008 8:14:59 PM

why not one?

What is wrong with having people getting thier checks get birth control?

4/23/2008 8:21:04 PM

I am in favor of a growing population, so I have no objection to subsidizing the reproductive behavior of others.

4/23/2008 8:35:26 PM

loneshark, and you have every right to. I, however, choose not to. So i get pretty pissed when they take more of my money to pay for this BS.

YOu do away with an income tax, then we both can send our money to where we both choose. Whats wrong with that?

4/23/2008 9:05:05 PM

Quote :

"Because from what I have read, technocracy does not improve equality, it attempts to stamp it out."

This depends on your measure of equality. Technocracy imposes a certain equality with equal energy credits for all.

Quote :

"Under capitalism, if I have the money and the desire to keep a car parked in my drive-way 22 hours a day then I can do so, even though doing so is entirely contrary to technocratic principles."

Yes, technocracy is opposed to waste. The system doesn't support consuming vast resources to display status or satisfy some personal whim. It would allow sustainable inefficiency. I could live with that restriction.

Quote :

"To set up a Technate would involve charging a few individuals with the planning of an entire economy. How would this be any different from what Kruschev tried to create in Russia?"

You can find some similarities, but that's not the goal. The technocrats would run the society for efficiency. Everyone would consume as much as the society could afford.

Quote :

"While there would be equality among technocrats, the rest of us would become little more than serfs carrying out the orders of our technocratic superiors."

No one would be physically compelled to work under technocracy. In that way, it's similar to anarchism. Note I would want extra anarchism with my technocracy. I think the technate should form freely. The concept resembles anarchist syndicates. I reject certain elements of technocracy, such as the police forces and immigration controls.

Quote :

"That is how it happened in the western territories in the past, why would it be any different in the future?"

Had those humans been reading anarchist theory? Did they attempt to form a free society focused on the good of all? I don't think so. Anglos claimed the western states with their guns. They valued dominance as highly as liberty and cooperation. That's not anarchism.

4/23/2008 9:46:54 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb: I think our biggest threat nationally are entitlement programs and growth of those. We wont be able to sustain them without massive changes."

Well, we need to eliminate Bush's entitlement to blow shit up program. Billions a month is getting a little pricey for a boy and his toys.

I don't see how anyone could look around this kick ass place and even begin to suggest that we don't have enough for everybody. We've got so much fucking shit. So much shit. Money and luxury everywhere.

And you wanna act like we can't afford to help our nation's poor.

You're such a visionary.

[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 10:00 PM. Reason : no hate ]

4/23/2008 9:59:17 PM

Bridget entitlement spending is growing, FAST.

Since you mentioned the war. We spent anywhere from 100-114B last year, depending on what source you read. No doubt a shitload of money.

We spent:
586B on SS 21%
394B on medicare 14%
276B on medicaid 10%
367B on welfare/unemployment etc. 13%

The big three are expected to grow a combined 33% next YEAR. The boomers are coming. This is the iceberg dead ahead... but no one wants to talk about.

Im sorry if im worrying about the 60% of spending and GROWING as more of a concern than 100B a year.

No hate

4/23/2008 10:12:12 PM

Not to be blunt, but energy credits as a fundamental unit to build an economy around is perhaps the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Ignoring the fact that not all forms of energy are equal (do you want your energy in the form of electricity or propane? Who decides who gets which?) But your system will suffer from the same problems inherent in an economy based upon the gold standard because it is pro-cyclical. Whenever a consumer choice induced crises develops the money supply dries up because people hoard the backing commodity, be it gold or gasoline. Imagine if today's prices had been fixed to energy instead of allowed to float independently as the dollar is. Yes, you fix the price of energy, but that means all other prices fluxuate wildly: prices would have quandruppled from 1986 to 1989 and then collapsed 90+% from 2001 to 2008. In comparison, prices fell 30% during the great depression.

Quote :

"Yes, technocracy is opposed to waste. The system doesn't support consuming vast resources to display status or satisfy some personal whim."

Personal whims such as having children, taking vacations, or playing video games. How can you be certain that the technocrat placed in charge of deciding what is a personal whim will have the same definition as you? Unless the technocrat in charge happens to be you, how can you be certain it won't be George Bush? It seems to me he might consider car sharing and mass transit an unworthy diversion of resources away from highway and personal car production.

Quote :

"No one would be physically compelled to work under technocracy."

Then your technocracy will be indistinguishable from capitalism. Yes, people will feel guilty owning and driving their own car; but they will still pay the monthy maintenance fee of their personal parking space. Without the police to arrest us non-technocrats, you will find it impossible to plan your economy. I recommend you look into the history of similar planning schemes in history, such as European Fascism. It was one of Mussolini's complaints with the west that our capitalists kept thwarting his government agencies attempts at economic planning. Fascists finally settled on the restriction of all non-government imports, something your technocracy will be unable to do since your people will be living right next door to mine.

4/23/2008 10:16:05 PM

Quote :

"Not to be blunt, but energy credits as a fundamental unit to build an economy around is perhaps the dumbest idea I have ever heard."

I hope you realize this only encourages me. I'm not surprise a student of economics is horrified by the notion of basing a system on something scientific and concrete.

Quote :

"But your system will suffer from the same problems inherent in an economy based upon the gold standard because it is pro-cyclical."

No, technocracy is designed to avoid such fluctuations. There's no currency. Energy is energy. The only thing that could reduce the energy cost of an item would be more efficient manufacturing methods. Similarly, an expanding energy supply to provide more credits for all. We're not talking about colored slips of paper here.

Quote :

"Whenever a consumer choice induced crises develops the money supply dries up because people hoard the backing commodity, be it gold or gasoline."

Technocracy would not allow hoarding energy credits. As I said, they're not currency. They're mainly meant to measure consumption, not restrict it. The idea is distributing abundance, not managing scarcity. You're thinking like an economist. Technocracy won't work that way. It's an entirely different model. It discards the core assumption of scarcity you find in economics.

Quote :

"Personal whims such as having children, taking vacations, or playing video games."

Not at all. We're plenty rich to provide those things to everyone. We're not rich enough to allow everyone to strap their solid gold Humvee to a giant rocket and fly around for kicks. Not yet, anyway. Do you see the distinction?

Quote :

"Unless the technocrat in charge happens to be you, how can you be certain it won't be George Bush? It seems to me he might consider car sharing and mass transit an unworthy diversion of resources away from highway and personal car production."

Under technocracy, production would be determined by use and demand. You're muddling various things together. The goal is giving everyone what they need and want as efficiently as possible. It's not simply a matter of personal preference. Car sharing programs would be favored over parked cars because they consume less energy.

Technocracy doesn't want to deprive anyone from the benefits of consumption. Far from it. They designed the system to allow everyone to enjoy material wealth. They wouldn't prevent you driving to California. They'd determine the ideal method of getting you to Cali and Jane to New York.

Quote :

"Then your technocracy will be indistinguishable from capitalism."

Perish the thought. I don't know about you, but our current capitalism doesn't allow me to consume without serving as a wage slave.

[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 10:59 PM. Reason : wage slavery]

4/23/2008 10:54:34 PM

Quote :

"I think in general it makes sense to give more to people whose households make less money. "

Communism didn't work, it failed in the early 90s

4/23/2008 11:25:45 PM

Quote :

"Capitalism would falter without the policeman's gun. "

no it wouldn't.

under capitalism, those with enough to protect would hire people to protect it for them rather than rely on the public police force currently in place.

someone would get fucked without the policeman's gun, but not who you were insinuating.

[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 11:36 PM. Reason : asfd]

4/23/2008 11:36:00 PM

Quote :

"under capitalism, those with enough to protect would hire people to protect it for them rather than rely on the public police force currently in place."

Yeah, that's possible. Either way, capitalism requires the protection of property. Note that many successful capitalist countries have large armies and police forces. The US, of course, being the best example.

4/23/2008 11:40:56 PM

Quote :

"MY MONEY"

haha you people are pathetic

4/24/2008 12:26:47 AM

Quote :

"586B on SS 21% 394B on medicare 14% 276B on medicaid 10% 367B on welfare/unemployment etc. 13% The big three are expected to grow a combined 33% next YEAR"

Oh please, you conveniently left out defense appropriations, which when added to the supplemental funding for the Iraq war equal over $600 billion a year. You want to lower your taxes? End the war and stop this ruinous spending on bullshit for the Presidents political allies.

[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 12:37 AM. Reason : .]

4/24/2008 12:36:47 AM

Quote :

"I hope you realize this only encourages me."

Such I would not consider a negative outcome.

Quote :

"No, technocracy is designed to avoid such fluctuations. There's no currency. Energy is energy."

So, when you go down to the local store to buy a hamburger you bring the energy with you? In what form? Are we all hauling around gasoline containers and batteries to make purchases? Even if you go electronic, the problem is the same. Either you have a 100% reserve financial system where you are keeping massive amounts of energy stored somewhere and citizens trade it back in force at the swipe of a card, which would be wasteful and silly. Or, the system is trading promises of energy and not actual energy. A promise of energy is not energy: depending on conditions, a promise of energy might be worth nothing compared to actual energy; alternatively, a promise of energy might be worth more than actual energy. Hence the booms and busts of a fractional reserve monetary system as you have described.

Quote :

"Similarly, an expanding energy supply to provide more credits for all."

More is scarce in the universe than just energy.

Quote :

"Technocracy would not allow hoarding energy credits."

More men with guns?

Quote :

"The idea is distributing abundance, not managing scarcity. You're thinking like an economist. Technocracy won't work that way. It's an entirely different model. It discards the core assumption of scarcity you find in economics."

The idea of capitalism is distributing abundance too. The problem of scarcity was not invented by capitalism but imposed by our environment. There is simply not enough stuff for everyone to have everything they want and you have presented no mechanism to alter this fundamental reality.

Quote :

"Under technocracy, production would be determined by use and demand. You're muddling various things together. The goal is giving everyone what they need and want as efficiently as possible. It's not simply a matter of personal preference. Car sharing programs would be favored over parked cars because they consume less energy."

Who determines if they consume less energy? Who determines what we do about it? In my opinion, car sharing will often consume more energy, not less. So, how do the men with guns figure out which of us to arrest?

Quote :

"They wouldn't prevent you driving to California. They'd determine the ideal method of getting you to Cali and Jane to New York."

Again, who is 'They'? George Bush?

Quote :

"Perish the thought. I don't know about you, but our current capitalism doesn't allow me to consume without serving as a wage slave."

This is a good thing. It would be immoral for you to consume to products of society without contributing any yourself. If everyone took and no one contributed then we would very quickly have nothing. Of course, that is a capitalist notion. Are you suggesting no one will have jobs under technocracy? Will we not all starve if all the farmers insist on being poets?

4/24/2008 12:45:47 AM

Quote :

"under capitalism, those with enough to protect would hire people to protect it for them rather than rely on the public police force currently in place"

To address your question directly, capitalism could not exist in an efficient form without a public police force. Markets can only operate in conditions of stability. Contractors can provide this stability alone for private individuals, but ultimately its futile. You have to have stability for the entire system, just not one component. Otherwise the entire system breaks down. Thus, without security for all, the conditions do not exist for trade with all. I think your system of private security guards works for celebrities and drug cartels that need specialist representation the government cannot provide, but is impossible for the free market to supply a collective security good.

For all its worth, thats what the difference between a policeman and a member of the military have over a contractor. They are entrusted to protect the public safety, usually at personal expense of liberty or economics, but do so for a greater, selfless purpose. Thats why we have memorials for soldiers who perish in the line of duty, but not even a mention in the news of a private security contractor dying in Iraq. Our society has contempt for those who use force as a means in search of private wealth, as it is a function of government that needs oversight.

PS - I think you are confusing economic and political systems. Capitalism is not democracy, but an economic system. If anything, capitalism expands liberty for few at the expense of curtailment of liberty by the many. Socialism is perhaps democracy in its truest sense, communism is authoritarian thus antidemocratic. Police powers are regulatory, done under the guise of protecting the public health and safety. Capitalism alone fails in providing adequate police coverage, because protection is only provided to those who can afford it. A stable society is a collective, not an individual right.

[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 1:16 AM. Reason : .]

4/24/2008 1:02:24 AM

We would all have been better off if your post was never made. Nothing you said contributed to the discussion and most of it is known to be false by even the least versed among us.

4/24/2008 1:18:36 AM

You can't just declare victory and move on. Either justify your self righteous response, or prepare to be tormented until you do.

4/24/2008 1:37:10 AM

Quote :

"Such I would not consider a negative outcome."

Not until the technocrats remove your economics freedoms, anyway.

Quote :

"Are we all hauling around gasoline containers and batteries to make purchases?"

Obviously not. Why suggest this? They're called energy credits for a reason. Anyways, there would be no need for reserves. It's not traditional currency. As I said, it wouldn't be like the economic systems you're familiar with. If went to get a hamburger from the store, they'd record the amount of energy required to produce the hamburger.

Quote :

"More is scarce in the universe than just energy."

Well, technocracy wouldn't necessarily be interested in rare works of art and the like. You could make a separate systems for such things.

Quote :

"More men with guns?"

The nature of energy credits. Each individual would be able to consume a certain amount in a certain period of time. Consuming less wouldn't provide any benefit.

Quote :

"The idea of capitalism is distributing abundance too."

I'd like to see some evidence for this.

Quote :

"The problem of scarcity was not invented by capitalism but imposed by our environment."

Before industrialization, sure. Physical realities have changed. It's not the same world.

Quote :

"There is simply not enough stuff for everyone to have everything they want and you have presented no mechanism to alter this fundamental reality."

There's plenty of energy to go around. We've had enough at least since the 1910s. Inefficiency of distribution and conspicuous consumption create current scarcity.

Quote :

"Who determines if they consume less energy?"

In case you haven't noticed, energy consumption can be measured. Folks do this daily.

Quote :

"Who determines what we do about it?"

That's a trickier question. I'd want people to cooperate to find the most efficient solution. I'd want to avoid guns.

Quote :

"In my opinion, car sharing will often consume more energy, not less."

Energy usage isn't a matter of opinion. You simply measure it. A properly done car-sharing system would undoubtedly save energy. We wouldn't have to produce nearly as many vehicles, conserving vast resources. The only question is whether society could pull it off successfully.

Quote :

"This is a good thing. It would be immoral for you to consume to products of society without contributing any yourself."

Machines already do most of the work.

Quote :

"Are you suggesting no one will have jobs under technocracy?"

At current tech levels, the machines still need humans. Any technate would employ many. As you might expect, the technocratic approach is dividing the required labor by the available workforce. The system would be optimize for leisure, of course.

[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 2:24 AM. Reason : technocracy ftw]

4/24/2008 2:22:37 AM

Well, nevermind.

[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 2:26 AM. Reason : ^]

4/24/2008 2:26:09 AM

I don't think you can catagorically say that people are poor for any one reason. I do believe that many poor people abuse things like wellfare, dissability, and social security. I get a small dissability check every month (10%) for nerve damage to my left eye I recieved from being blown out of the back of a 7-ton truck in Iraq. I Know a girl who is poor by virtue of her earned income (she doesn't work) who gets 50% dissability for being a drunk. She drives a hell of a lot nicer car than I do and lives in a 3 bedroom house. Numerous times I have seen people pay for their groceries with food stamps and then pull out a wad of cash to buy litterally a shopping cart full of alcohol. Made me feel great about how my tax dollars are spent. The point is that as long as these individuals recieve money from the government, they will never have any incentive to try and improve their situation.

I also believe that there are many poor people who do need assistance and are not abusing it to support their poor lifestyle choices. I'm not cynical enough to think that no one out there is trying to better themselves. It's just that I've met much fewer of them. I think that you have to look at each case individually.

4/24/2008 3:26:14 AM