Technocracy and Economics?

[Dejavu]

I was reading ' What is Technocracy? (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm)' and it said :

Technocracy is a proposal for a steady-state, post-scarcity economic system. It is intended for industrialized nations with sufficient natural, technological, and human resources to produce an economic abundance. Primarily this refers to the continent of North America, but may also apply to other areas today as well if they have acheived certain minimum criteria.

After noticing achieved was spelled wrong, I was quite confused about on particular claim, post-scarcity economic system.

Immediately I see it as an oxymoron since the definition of economics or 'to economize' is the rational allocation of scarce resources.

In other words , if the purpose of economics is to allocate resources to their best possible use or highest value, does it not mean that the use in question is being compared to an alternative use? A cost? In a world of post-scarcity or superabundance, to economize would be meaningless since no calculation would have to be made.

If I had a scarce amount of X commodity, and I only have enough to chose between purpose Y and purpose Z , then that involves economics. If X was not scarce, then no calculation for purpose Y or Z would be necessary, right?

In other words , economics necessarily presupposes scarcity or else it is a useless discipline a bit like trying to determine the value of each breath of air in a normal situation. Air is superabundant and thus requires no calculation for use, its useless to calculate it's economic value.

Which brings me to my next question? What is the point of energy accounting? By all descriptions I have read so far, it seems to take over the function of money or exchange mediums in a market economy. Energy accounting would function the same way money does in terms of measuring demand. But what is the point of measuring demand in a post-scarce technocracy? That's not saying demand would not exist its just that it has nothing to do with economics anymore since economics implies scarcity.

Third question. How does energy accounting square with Marxism? I mean energy accounting basically implies that the only relevant factor in production is the amount of energy ( KW/hrs) is exhumed on production. Aside from being a pointless measurement in a post-scarce world, it has nothing to do with labor inputs and that's why I want to know how it can be compatible with Marxism.

I will be the first to admit that in a post-scarce world , economics and markets are basically useless and not necessary. There would be no point to gauging demand or rational allocation of resources. I see such a system as Utopian but maybe achievable some day though at this point I can't even begin to think how.

I know there are some self-described technocrats here and I am interested in their thoughts. Thanks.

[Demogorgon]

As a disclaimer I must state that I make no secret of the fact that I have very little time for technocracy, so cannot answer most of these questions, but I think they see scarcity in different terms. They believe that a more efficient production process could give us all we can consume. The one thing I agree with them on (though it is hardly exclusive to them) is that unlimited wants are not an issue because our capacity to consume is finite.

As I learned it, and I am sure you did too, the problem of scarcity is that with our limited resources we cannot fill our unlimited wants. Technocrats see it as being we are failing to fulfill our limited capacity to consume with the resources we have (which is probably a better definition as I say) and that through better organisation they can be fulfilled so that everyone has as much as they can consume.

As I say, I think it is nonsense and actually agree with most of your criticisms, but that is rough hash out of their views of scarcity.

[trivas7]

IMO Technocracy is the most utopian of socialist schemes. It grew full-blown from the head of an American engineer; envisioned as an educational society, much like the "schools" of the economic works of Henry George. It focuses as its object solely on one material factor -- the technical aspects of energy consumption -- almost casually forgetting that it is complex human beings that are it subject.

[Lynx]

In other words , if the purpose of economics is to allocate resources to their best possible use or highest value, does it not mean that the use in question is being compared to an alternative use? A cost? In a world of post-scarcity or superabundance, to economize would be meaningless since no calculation would have to be made.
Choices still have to be made. The choices themselves and the methods used to make them are not inconsequential.

Which brings me to my next question? What is the point of energy accounting?
The purpose of energy accounting is to calculate opportunity cost.

Third question. How does energy accounting square with Marxism? I mean energy accounting basically implies that the only relevant factor in production is the amount of energy ( KW/hrs) is exhumed on production. Aside from being a pointless measurement in a post-scarce world, it has nothing to do with labor inputs and that's why I want to know how it can be compatible with Marxism.
A post-scarcity economy as described by technocrats is structurally compatible with the 'higher stage of communism'. There is no profit-motive, or property-owning class and consumption rights are equally distributed to individuals.

[Dimentio]

We technocrats claim that human wants to consume infinitly is only relevant in a world where production capacity is allocated as private property, thus giving some individuals the right to restrict access to the means of production for the rest. Otherwise, it is moot, given that people have a limited ability to consume.

We have never claimed to adhere to the view of abundance and scarcity as the economists see them. With the crude assumption that scarcity is a matter because people want everything, we could justify any kind of inequalities.

As for utopianism. If your only argument is "human nature", I think this debate is a walk-over.

[Dean]

Here's a great one (which our "socialist" Technocrats tend to uphold):


-The elimination of political decision-making from technical affairs

Well, I guess that means that technical issues - like medicene - don't get public input :laugh:


IMO Technocracy is the most utopian of socialist schemes. It grew full-blown from the head of an American engineer; envisioned as an educational society, much like the "schools" of the economic works of Henry George. It focuses as its object solely on one material factor -- the technical aspects of energy consumption -- almost casually forgetting that it is complex human beings that are it subject.
I would thank your post if I could. You're exactly right, of course; Technocrats tend to fiercely defend their vision, despite how irrelevant it is to social existence, and the current technical progress we have achieved. Medicene, for instance, has so many problems to solve - and so many "problems" which are up for debate if they are even illnesses - so many different treatments with various side effects, that it will always be political, and I doubt we will ever reach a "post scarcity" for medicene. The Technocrats also totally ignore most psychological issues (my experience is that they have contempt for many psycho-theories, while they dismissively support the standard attitudes about mental illnesses). If we are ever to achieve Marx's "New Man" then it won't come from their innovations.

[Dimentio]

Here's a great one (which our "socialist" Technocrats tend to uphold):



Well, I guess that means that technical issues - like medicene - don't get public input :laugh:

Everything is supposed to be transparent within NET and within the technate. With political decisions, we mean economic and religious interest groups influence technical operatibility.

[Lynx]

Well, I guess that means that technical issues - like medicene - don't get public input :laugh:
Technical issues usually don't get public input. The usual level of most debates is related to policy-making. Under the current representative system, public input towards policy-making is severely limited.

[Ele'ill]

It is intended for industrialized nations with sufficient natural, technological, and human resources to produce an economic abundance.


There's no such thing as sustained growth.

[Dimentio]

[/I]


There's no such thing as sustained growth.

Exactly. That is the main point behind technocracy.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Why is a technate restricted to a "nation"? Do you recognize the current national borders? Any plan to transform to a borderless system?

[Dimentio]

Why is a technate restricted to a "nation"? Do you recognize the current national borders? Any plan to transform to a borderless system?

A technate could not be any single nation, except maybe for a large, self-sustaining nation. That is because a technate needs to be basically self-sustaining. Sweden, France or even USA alone could not constitute a technate! Australia probably could.

A technate, out of necessity, must at least compose an area of the size of a continent.

NET eventually sees the entire world adopting energy accounting, or something similar to that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, I guess that means that technical issues - like medicene - don't get public input :laugh:

So you're happy to let anti-vaccination idiots, autism "curebies", alternative "medicine" peddlers, AIDS denialists, and other conspiracists and snake oil salesmen have a hand in deciding public health policy?


I would thank your post if I could. You're exactly right, of course; Technocrats tend to fiercely defend their vision, despite how irrelevant it is to social existence, and the current technical progress we have achieved. I believe that humans are perfectly capable of managing their own social existance. Being social creatures, they don't need people with psychology degrees and an overinflated sense of self-importance to tell them what to do.


Medicene, for instance, has so many problems to solve - and so many "problems" which are up for debate if they are even illnesses - so many different treatments with various side effects, that it will always be political, and I doubt we will ever reach a "post scarcity" for medicene.Your solution seems to be to throw open the doors to the quacks, rather than leaving the issues be debated and decided by qualified doctors and physicians.


The Technocrats also totally ignore most psychological issues (my experience is that they have contempt for many psycho-theories, while they dismissively support the standard attitudes about mental illnesses)."Standard attitudes" such as what?


If we are ever to achieve Marx's "New Man" then it won't come from their innovations.I find the very idea of attempting to reshape the psychology of the entire human race according to a dead man's preconcieved notions to be pretty fucking chilling, to be honest.

[trivas7]

Technical issues usually don't get public input.
Who decides what is and is not a technical issue? Is medicine (most would call it an art)? entertainment? mental health?, etc. The truth is technology is woven inextricably w/ almost every aspect of human behavior.

[Dejavu]

Thanks to the technocrats and everyone else for responding to the thread. Some interesting insight to consider:)

However, none of my specific questions were really answered. If you guys don't mind, can you take a closer look and give a more detailed reply. Thanks, I'd appreciate it.

Lynx came the closest though so :


Choices still have to be made. The choices themselves and the methods used to make them are not inconsequential.This is vague as I can say this about anything. Can you be more specific as it relates to economics?


The purpose of energy accounting is to calculate opportunity cost.Why is this necessary in a post scarce world?

To quote myself :

If I had a scarce amount of X commodity, and I only have enough to chose between purpose Y and purpose Z , then that involves economics. If X was not scarce, then no calculation for purpose Y or Z would be necessary, right?


A post-scarcity economy as described by technocrats is structurally compatible with the 'higher stage of communism'. There is no profit-motive, or property-owning class and consumption rights are equally distributed to individuals.Well sure, that was my point. In a post-scarce world there would be no point to economics, profit , or property. Again, what is the point of energy accounting then?

[Dimentio]

Thanks to the technocrats and everyone else for responding to the thread. Some interesting insight to consider:)

However, none of my specific questions were really answered. If you guys don't mind, can you take a closer look and give a more detailed reply. Thanks, I'd appreciate it.

Lynx came the closest though so :

This is vague as I can say this about anything. Can you be more specific as it relates to economics?

Why is this necessary in a post scarce world?

To quote myself :

If I had a scarce amount of X commodity, and I only have enough to chose between purpose Y and purpose Z , then that involves economics. If X was not scarce, then no calculation for purpose Y or Z would be necessary, right?

Well sure, that was my point. In a post-scarce world there would be no point to economics, profit , or property. Again, what is the point of energy accounting then?

Technocrats do not use the same definition for scarcity and abundance as an economist would do. An economist assumes that the human beings need/want to consume so much as possible (consume means both hoard and use in this world), out of safety. Given that, the resources will never be enough to feed everyone. By allotment, property rights serve as a mean to reinforce such a system.

We technocrats take the stand that even if human beings might want to consume limitless resources, they lack the physical capacity to do so, and hence, scarcity is not a matter of human wants but of the civilisation's physical capacity to produce and distribute resources to a population.

[Dejavu]

Technocrats do not use the same definition for scarcity and abundance as an economist would do. An economist assumes that the human beings need/want to consume so much as possible (consume means both hoard and use in this world), out of safety. Given that, the resources will never be enough to feed everyone. By allotment, property rights serve as a mean to reinforce such a system.

That's not exactly how economists would define scarcity. People have different consuming habits tempered by a myriad of factors but it does not necessarily follow that they will consume as much as they possibly can if they had more to spend. Saving , by definition , is deferring consumption, at least in economics rhetoric. According to most economists , scarcity facilitates and maintains demand. If a thing is in a post-scarce condition, meaning there is enough to compensate any amount of demand, then typically these are referred to as 'free goods' and there is no purpose to calculate opportunity costs or measure the demand. As I stated before , there is no purpose to calculate the economic value of each breath of air. Property rights, according to most economists , are simply a principle to facilitate legitimate trade. If two things are to be traded, it implies an exchange of ownership rights or else something like theft would have no meaning in this sense.


We technocrats take the stand that even if human beings might want to consume limitless resources, they lack the physical capacity to do so, and hence, scarcity is not a matter of human wants but of the civilisation's physical capacity to produce and distribute resources to a population.But in order to even say something is scarce , the supply of X must be compared to something else or else it is meaningless and no calculation is possible. Its like trying to do calculus without a basic understanding of core mathematical principles, a three year old trying to do calculus in otherwords. That something it is compared to is demand, remember, scarcity is primarily maintained by demand. If people did not want X , and there is a Z supply of X , it would not matter an scarcity for X would not have any meaning. If you cannot define scarcity its pretty hard to compare it to post scarcity and you cannot define post scarcity.

[Dimentio]

That's not exactly how economists would define scarcity. People have different consuming habits tempered by a myriad of factors but it does not necessarily follow that they will consume as much as they possibly can if they had more to spend. Saving , by definition , is deferring consumption, at least in economics rhetoric. According to most economists , scarcity facilitates and maintains demand. If a thing is in a post-scarce condition, meaning there is enough to compensate any amount of demand, then typically these are referred to as 'free goods' and there is no purpose to calculate opportunity costs or measure the demand. As I stated before , there is no purpose to calculate the economic value of each breath of air. Property rights, according to most economists , are simply a principle to facilitate legitimate trade. If two things are to be traded, it implies an exchange of ownership rights or else something like theft would have no meaning in this sense.

But in order to even say something is scarce , the supply of X must be compared to something else or else it is meaningless and no calculation is possible. Its like trying to do calculus without a basic understanding of core mathematical principles, a three year old trying to do calculus in otherwords. That something it is compared to is demand, remember, scarcity is primarily maintained by demand. If people did not want X , and there is a Z supply of X , it would not matter an scarcity for X would not have any meaning. If you cannot define scarcity its pretty hard to compare it to post scarcity and you cannot define post scarcity.

As earlier said, technocrats do not use the same definition as economists, since technocracy is not a system of exchange, but one of distributionism. NET has published some models of how a technocratic society might look like.

http://en.technocracynet.eu

[Lynx]

This is vague as I can say this about anything. Can you be more specific as it relates to economics?

Why is this necessary in a post scarce world?

To quote myself :

If I had a scarce amount of X commodity, and I only have enough to chose between purpose Y and purpose Z , then that involves economics. If X was not scarce, then no calculation for purpose Y or Z would be necessary, right?
The calculations remain necessary, you're merely describing a situation where no trade off is necessary. This is not comparable to an actual economy, where there are many, many uses for finite primary resources.
You are perhaps describing an economy where energy and resource production greatly exceeds consumption levels. This would be considered over-abundance, and is not something that is likely to exist in real terms.

Well sure, that was my point. In a post-scarce world there would be no point to economics, profit , or property. Again, what is the point of energy accounting then?
Energy is finite. Hence the need for a mechanism able to determine its most efficient use. Obtaining "more from less" is as necessary a challenge as allocating output.

Who decides what is and is not a technical issue? Is medicine (most would call it an art)? entertainment? mental health?, etc. The true is technology is woven inextricably w/ almost every aspect of human behavior.
When your car doesn't start, does it have anything to do with public opinion?
If something is not a technical issue, then it likely is a policy issue. An honest, unbiased analysis should be able to sort this out and propose solutions.

[Dejavu]

The calculations remain necessary, you're merely describing a situation where no trade off is necessary. This is not comparable to an actual economy, where there are many, many uses for finite primary resources.

Then the technocracy article I posted is an incorrect description of technocracy, at least from your point of view. It is not post scarcity in other words. Or it could be the case that what you think is technocracy is not actually technocracy. Thanks, that's what I had an issue with.


You are perhaps describing an economy where energy and resource production greatly exceeds consumption levels. This would be considered over-abundance, and is not something that is likely to exist in real terms.

I was describing post scarcity as implied by the technocracy article. Again, either the article is incorrect about technocracy or you are. I don't know which is correct quite yet.


Energy is finite. Hence the need for a mechanism able to determine its most efficient use. Obtaining "more from less" is as necessary a challenge as allocating output.

Yes, I call it market economics which implicates supply + demand , opportunity costs, measurement of demand, and trade of goods and services. I would say technocracy by your definition is a subset of market economics especially since you advocate the use of energy accounting as a means to measure demand in a finite world.

[Dejavu]

As earlier said, technocrats do not use the same definition as economists, since technocracy is not a system of exchange, but one of distributionism. NET has published some models of how a technocratic society might look like.

Please describe what you mean by distributionsim?

[Dimentio]

Then the technocracy article I posted is an incorrect description of technocracy, at least from your point of view. It is not post scarcity in other words. Or it could be the case that what you think is technocracy is not actually technocracy. Thanks, that's what I had an issue with.



I was describing post scarcity as implied by the technocracy article. Again, either the article is incorrect about technocracy or you are. I don't know which is correct quite yet.


Yes, I call it market economics which implicates supply + demand , opportunity costs, measurement of demand, and trade of goods and services. I would say technocracy by your definition is a subset of market economics especially since you advocate the use of energy accounting as a means to measure demand in a finite world.

I think the Technocracy Incorporated are using vague terms to some extent, which I think is unfortunate. What modern technocrats, like Mark Ciotola, are focusing on, is how to actually carry out EA.

[Dimentio]

Please describe what you mean by distributionsim?

Trade is not possible with energy credits since they are deleted when they are used. Instead, you order what you want to the technate, the production cost is derived from your account, and what you want to have or use is then produced/assembled.

[Lynx]

Yes, I call it market economics which implicates supply + demand , opportunity costs, measurement of demand, and trade of goods and services. I would say technocracy by your definition is a subset of market economics especially since you advocate the use of energy accounting as a means to measure demand in a finite world.
A post-scarcity economy requires energy accounting. You seem to believe otherwise. This is a matter of being realistic versus believing in a utopia that will magically run itself.

[Dejavu]

Trade is not possible with energy credits since they are deleted when they are used. Instead, you order what you want to the technate, the production cost is derived from your account, and what you want to have or use is then produced/assembled.

Then what do you use energy credits for if not accounting? Accounting for what pray tell? It still implies a market system of trading your energy credits for X no matter how much you want dress it up. I mean , I don't mean to be condescending at all but I'm having a hard time seeing past this and I'll admit ignorance if it is warranted.

Perhaps it does not work like money in the capitalist system where money still hangs around when its been used to purchase something and everybody is just handing around debt.

But in a general sense of trade , you could trade me a toothbrush for an apple and I consume the apple , in essence , 'deleting it' because even the waste I produce from the apple ( sorry, its a bit gross but bare with me) is no longer an apple. It's poo. How does that negate the fact that there is a system of value trading ? Even technocracy explicitly acknowledges this and that's why technocrats created energy accounting. The only difference is that the value is based on energy. Again , if there was no real trade , why would you have to account for the energy? What calculation are you attempting to do?

[Dejavu]

A post-scarcity economy requires energy accounting.

Since economics requires calculation based on scarcity, how do you not see post scarcity economy as an oxymoron?

Oh, and why does it require energy accounting?

Sorry for being repetitive but I would wager I'm not the only one here not totally grasping this.

[Lynx]

It's analogous to suggesting if we are able to perfectly predict the weather, then we no longer need to keep gathering and processing data. Or if a business is profitable, it can dispense with accounting. Dynamic systems do not allow for any kind of slacking off. A post-scarcity economy may allow for a different outcome (no trade-offs), but the mechanisms used to make it work cannot be dispensed with.

To answer an earlier question, energy credits represent individual consumption rights and they are distributed equally. As described in the original documents, energy credits are not distributed according to hours worked.

[Demogorgon]

It's analogous to suggesting if we are able to perfectly predict the weather, then we no longer need to keep gathering and processing data. Or if a business is profitable, it can dispense with accounting. Dynamic systems do not allow for any kind of slacking off. A post-scarcity economy may allow for a different outcome (no trade-offs), but the mechanisms used to make it work cannot be dispensed with.

To answer an earlier question, energy credits represent individual consumption rights and they are distributed equally. As described in the original documents, energy credits are not distributed according to hours worked.
The problem that Deja Vu is driving at is that economics is the science of dealing with scarcity, that is how to manage limited resources so as to maximise desirable return. Post-scarcity implies either our resources are unlimited or at least there is enough to make as much of what we please whenever we like without them ever running out, when that is achieved economics becomes obsolete, it is no longer needed.

Which means that technocracy is making a strange claim, in that it wants to apply economics to a post-scarcity situation and impose limits on consumption (in terms of the number of credits given) when in a post scarcity situation doing both would be utterly pointless.

What you are really doing though is changing the definition of scarcity to give it a meaning that no one else uses. You are saying that by using this method of dealing with scarcity everyone will have enough. Such a claim needs to be examined on its own merits, but it is not post-scarcity.

[Dimentio]

The problem that Deja Vu is driving at is that economics is the science of dealing with scarcity, that is how to manage limited resources so as to maximise desirable return. Post-scarcity implies either our resources are unlimited or at least there is enough to make as much of what we please whenever we like without them ever running out, when that is achieved economics becomes obsolete, it is no longer needed.

Which means that technocracy is making a strange claim, in that it wants to apply economics to a post-scarcity situation and impose limits on consumption (in terms of the number of credits given) when in a post scarcity situation doing both would be utterly pointless.

What you are really doing though is changing the definition of scarcity to give it a meaning that no one else uses. You are saying that by using this method of dealing with scarcity everyone will have enough. Such a claim needs to be examined on its own merits, but it is not post-scarcity.

I am actually in half-agreement. I think it is confusing for a lot of people to use terms such as scarcity and abundance in that way which North American technocrats do. NET has basically scrapped that kind of definition.

[Lynx]

The problem that Deja Vu is driving at is that economics is the science of dealing with scarcity, that is how to manage limited resources so as to maximise desirable return. Post-scarcity implies either our resources are unlimited or at least there is enough to make as much of what we please whenever we like without them ever running out, when that is achieved economics becomes obsolete, it is no longer needed.
I don't know why you believe post-scarcity signals the end of economics. Perhaps we need to revisit the definition of economics.

Which means that technocracy is making a strange claim, in that it wants to apply economics to a post-scarcity situation and impose limits on consumption (in terms of the number of credits given) when in a post scarcity situation doing both would be utterly pointless.
Energy credits are required to track consumption. This is a feedback mechanism, so that production can respond to demand.

What you are really doing though is changing the definition of scarcity to give it a meaning that no one else uses. You are saying that by using this method of dealing with scarcity everyone will have enough. Such a claim needs to be examined on its own merits, but it is not post-scarcity.
Technocrats claim we would not be able to consume all of our energy credits. They also recognize that there are limits to energy and resources. If they consider this situation to be an example of post-scarcity, then I don't find this strange. It's realistic, given our current level of technology. It's also compatible with a gift economy.

"When it comes to paper clips, we are in a state of post-scarcity."

edit: as Serpent suggests, we can simply drop the term. I don't believe I used this term prior to comparing energy accounting with the LTV

[trivas7]

When your car doesn't start, does it have anything to do with public opinion?
If something is not a technical issue, then it likely is a policy issue. An honest, unbiased analysis should be able to sort this out and propose solutions.
No, starting my (non-existent) car has nothing to do w/ public opinion, but it does have to do w/ my use of the freeway, city planning, pollution and conceivably a host of other public policy issues. My point is that you can't separate technical issues from social issues not amenable to technical analysis.

[Lynx]

No, starting my (non-existent) car has nothing to do w/ public opinion, but it does have to do w/ my use of the freeway, city planning, pollution and conceivably a host of other public policy issues. My point is that you can't separate technical issues from social issues not amenable to technical analysis.
In such cases, social and political considerations are usually given priority.

[Technocrat]

Technocracy claims that it is impossible to fulfill everyone's ownership wants, because it is possible to own an unlimited number of things. For example, I could desire to own the entire planet. When we look at the physical limits of people's ability to consume, it becomes theoretically possible to fulfill all consumption needs and desires. The only question that has to be answered to determine whether or not an area is capable of producing such an abundance is whether or not the specified area has sufficient resources to meet all these consumption needs and desires. To use an analogy, you would not own your own car in a Technate, but you would be able to rent any type of car for however long you wanted in addition to having access to many other modes of transportation. This way all of a person's transportation needs and desires are met - the only thing the Technate can't do is satisfy everyone's ownership desires by giving them 10 sports cars or whatever else they would like to own. That is why there is no private ownership at all in a technate, just personal items (such as your house, your clothes, etc).

Technocracy never said that it could give everyone whatever they wanted, but it has proven that it would be possible to produce more than people could consume, which is a very different thing.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I've heard the above idea before, and found it very interesting, but I can think of at least one problem with it: How do you know in advance how many people will want to consume a certain type of good at the same time? Or in other words, to use your car example, suppose the Technate is trying to decide how many red sports cars to produce. The goal is not to allow everyone to own a red sports car, but to allow anyone to use a red sports car if they so desire. What happens if, one day, everyone wants to use a red sports car at the same time? To plan for this contingency, the Technate would have to produce as many red sports cars as there are people.

Generalizing this point, wouldn't the Technate be required to produce one of every single type of good for every single person in order to ensure that there are more goods than people can consume? Just in case everyone decides to use the same kind of good at the same time?

[Technocrat]

I've heard the above idea before, and found it very interesting, but I can think of at least one problem with it: How do you know in advance how many people will want to consume a certain type of good at the same time? Or in other words, to use your car example, suppose the Technate is trying to decide how many red sports cars to produce. The goal is not to allow everyone to own a red sports car, but to allow anyone to use a red sports car if they so desire. What happens if, one day, everyone wants to use a red sports car at the same time? To plan for this contingency, the Technate would have to produce as many red sports cars as there are people.

Generalizing this point, wouldn't the Technate be required to produce one of every single type of good for every single person in order to ensure that there are more goods than people can consume? Just in case everyone decides to use the same kind of good at the same time?

The concept of energy accounting handles all of these problems that you have mentioned. This is an extremely simplified explanation, but If I dedicated 10% less energy to the production of red sports cars, than necessarily 10% fewer red sports cars can be produced. If I dedicate 10% more energy to the production of red sports cars, than 10% more red sports cars can be produced. With energy accounting consumption is automatically recorded so that we know how much energy to dedicate to each specific function.

Also, an important thing to understand is that in a Technate, only the most efficient designs possible would be used. For example, you would not have entry-level computers, mid-level computers, and high-end computers. You would only have high-end computers, and they would be made to be as durable as possible. You see, all those different products are only necessary in a scarcity-based system. With a Technate every product would be designed to be high-end and would be designed to be as durable as possible and to consume as few resources as possible.


What happens if, one day, everyone wants to use a red sports car at the same time? To plan for this contingency, the Technate would have to produce as many red sports cars as there are people.Well, this never happens. :). We know today that the load factor on cars is close to 5% - in other words, if we look at all vehicles, on average they are parked for 95% of the time. If we can keep vehicles in use for 50% of the time, than we only need 1/10th as many cars to allow everyone to have access to a car whenever they want. If it noticed that more cars are needed to meet the demand for the next production cycle, than more cars are built. Your example is such a remote possibility (impossible really) that it is scarcely of concern to the operations of the Technate. This is similar to someone who once said "well, what if I used all of my energy units to buy shoes and build a mountain of shoes?" Well, is that really going to happen? For the small chance that something like that does occur, there would probably be something built into the system to detect such things so that they can be investigated and stopped, in a similar way that today your bank notifies you if you go over your limit on a credit card. If someone was building a mountain of shoes, that is something that concerns everyone because we don't want our resources wasted like that and it would interfere with other people's share of abundance.