The tragedy of the commons

[ShakeZula06]

This is something I wanted to discuss in the private property rights thread but I think it deserves special attention as it's an important issue with regards to private property arguments and we're discussing like a kajillion different issues in that thread.

Anyways, the tragedy of the commons is an consequential argument for private property. The argument is that when there is free and unrestricted usage of a resource it is inevitable that it will be abused and exploited, because humans by nature act in self interest. A wikipedia link can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). An example that comes to mind would be oceans. Oceans and most natural bodies of water are not owned by private individuals but by the respective governments (whether it is possible to privatize the ocean is irrelevent as it's only being used to show the problem). Anyways, the result is that over fishing occurs constantly (of course governments have laws on quotas, but they are not easily enforced and even so it's easy to get a government official to look the other way anyways). Species are constantly being added as becoming almost extinct.

Now it's obvious that the overall interests of the people to keep species and the population of the ocean alive and well, but when people are allowed the self interest to better their net worth by getting as much game as you can, it's obvious what the result will be.

Now what the solution would be is privatization of the oceans (remember just an example, don't know if that could be possible) thus giving individuals a vested interest (the depriciation of an asset, in this case the ecosystem of the ocean) in making sure such over use and exploitation doesn't occur.


Anyways, just wondering what some people thought about this.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 11:33 pm
Now what the solution would be is privatization of the oceans (remember just an example, don't know if that could be possible)
It isn't. C'mon.

And what next? Is it possible and desirable to privatize the atmosphere? No?

Then I guess we better learn how to stop trashing the commons then, huh? I mean, if we aim to keep on breathing and all.

I'm not gonna claim that's easy. But then, none of the great transitions in human social relations have been.

Sometimes the ideological defenders of capitalism have some kinda point, as here. I'm not gonna deny that often common property is abused.

But their big problem - the thing that makes 'em just ridiculous - is they pretend all these problems are insurmountable, therefore capitalism is and always will be the best or only possible system, world without end, amen. Everything is for the best under the best of all possible systems, to paraphrase Dr. Pangloss. (Voltaire's character.)

When in reality, the one great certainty is that "This too, will pass away".

I'm not 100% sure of much, but I'm sure of that - and that it applies to capitalism, as to all previous social systems.

[amanondeathrow]

When natural resourses are owned privatly, the owners never go furthur then protecting them as it serves their intrests. Many times these intrests don't match our with our own.

If the oceans were owned privatly and draining the ocean of all its fish would be the most profitable, but would have devistating consequences for the majority of humanity, nothing in their conscience would stop them from doing.

The vast majority of public resources that have been damaged as a result of the "tradgedy" ended up like that because of corporations that only cared about profits.

Communism would not allow such people to hold power, and would give the working class the meand to utilize these resourse, which they would use for the benefit of their class, and thus the benefit of humanity.

[colonelguppy]

i don't see how its the interest of companies to drain the oceans of fish.

[amanondeathrow]

i don't see how its the interest of companies to drain the oceans of fish.

It's just a hypothetical example, building off what the top starter said.

[ShakeZula06]

And what next? Is it possible and desirable to privatize the atmosphere? No?
Dude, did you miss this part?

whether it is possible to privatize the ocean is irrelevent as it's only being used to show the problem
Whether it's possible or not is debatable, with technological advances inherent in capitalism I definitately would say it's possible, and you could argue the only reason such technology hasn't been developed yet is because there is no demand because oceans are not privatized. Actually I don't see why Sonars and such that the Navy use couldn't be used.

I used oceans as an example because it was something in my head because it was in the news the other day. You can apply this to any common, and especially the means of production. Another example would be the treasury of governments. The tax money generated isn't owned by anyone, and as a result it's used wastefully on pork such as spending billions on bridges to no where, road construction that is obviously not needed and spent only to please constituents and special interests. Or $300 billion wars based on false premises, or $2.3 trillion just missing (http://www.truthring.org/?p=1792).

I digress, the point is there is a problem, and the problem is caused by lack of privatization.

Then I guess we better learn how to stop trashing the commons then, huh?
There certainly are commons that are possible for privatization and that seems like an easier task then some how changing the natural instinct of all living things that is to act out of self interest.

I'm not gonna claim that's easy. But then, none of the great transitions in human social relations have been.
Well, what would it require to have it work?

But their big problem - the thing that makes 'em just ridiculous - is they pretend all these problems are insurmountable, therefore capitalism is and always will be the best or only possible system, world without end, amen. Everything is for the best under the best of all possible systems, to paraphrase Dr. Pangloss. (Voltaire's character.)
I presented a problem. I proposed a solution to it. Do you have a solution for it?

[ShakeZula06]

When natural resourses are owned privatly, the owners never go furthur then protecting them as it serves their intrests.
Protecting them the most efficient matter IS their self interest. It directly correlated with their net worth.

Many times these intrests don't match our with our own.
Reasoning or an example to back up this assertion?

If the oceans were owned privatly and draining the ocean of all its fish would be the most profitable, but would have devistating consequences for the majority of humanity, nothing in their conscience would stop them from doing.
How is eliminating your property ever a good thing for you again?

The vast majority of public resources that have been damaged as a result of the "tradgedy" ended up like that because of corporations that only cared about profits.
Reasoning or an example to back up this assertion?

Communism would not allow such people to hold power, and would give the working class the meand to utilize these resourse, which they would use for the benefit of their class, and thus the benefit of humanity.
What make's you think that?

[encephalon]

It is not in the best interest of the bourgeoisie to privatize the ocean nor the atmosphere.

Why? 1) Everyone depends upon those means, and the control over it by one small proportion over the rest is not in the bourgeoisie's interest; 2) It's nigh impossible to define property in such terms. Do you own the water in such a space? Even when the constant flow of the ocean moves it? Or do you just own the space? In which case, you can conduct experiments in that space that will have a detrimental effect upon the whole. An easy example of this is insecticides and GM crops--it's near impossible to isolate the effects to the area that a given entity "Owns." One owner can destroy the property of a million with no repurcussions.

In any case, this is a rather ridiculous argument; your own welfare system argues against the tragedy of the commons. The great majority doesn't abuse the welfare system, though by your logic they most definitely should. Nor are regular fishing holes exploited to the extent that you suggest, even though it's publicly owned. It's a matter of capability and management, not a matter of public vs. private. The entire argument is a straw man designed to avoid the underlying problem.

[chimx]

There is a profit motive behind over fishing.

[Dimentio]

Only in a scarcity environment with free and unrestricted access. Not in an environment of abundance with clear limits of the individual consumption ability.

[mikelepore]

"consequential argument for private property" ... "because humans by nature act in self interest"

Such an argument is circular. It assumes its own conclusion, the enevitability of private property. It assumes an economic system in which the fishing industry is a "self" and therefore it can have self-interest.

If public representatives who had been elected for their dedication to environmentalism _were_ the management that decides when and where to do the fishing, if the management didn't have to issue reports that describe what they have done for profits and deadlines, but instead had to issue reports that describe what they have done for the long-term benefit of the human race, then the fishery workers wouldn't be reporting to a private business which has a self-interest.

Capitalist thought is so habitual that some people automatically think of making the oceans owned, as the fisheries are now owned, instead of the reverse, making the fisheries unowned, as as the oceans are now unowned.

Mike Lepore - http://www.deleonism.org/

[Dimentio]

The fishing industry would'nt exist. I think that environmental legislation is really a bad example since it is a symptome of the price system. The people who works with those issues wants environmental problems [if they don't have them, they create them]. Why?

Because they want to stay in work.

Instead of a zero-tolerance environmental regulation system, we should have some form of point-system, where the restrictions put over organs who violates the environmental codes are proportional. Otherwise, we could'nt do shit.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 01:39 am

Then I guess we better learn how to stop trashing the commons then, huh?
There certainly are commons that are possible for privatization and that seems like an easier task then some how changing the natural instinct of all living things that is to act out of self interest.
You dodged my point: Then how about the ones that can't be privatized, like the air and oceans? What will we breathe, if the trashing of everything non-privatized is accepted as inevitable?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Severian+December 11, 2006 07:40 pm--> (Severian @ December 11, 2006 07:40 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2006 01:39 am

Then I guess we better learn how to stop trashing the commons then, huh?
There certainly are commons that are possible for privatization and that seems like an easier task then some how changing the natural instinct of all living things that is to act out of self interest.
You dodged my point: Then how about the ones that can't be privatized, like the air and oceans? What will we breathe, if the trashing of everything non-privatized is accepted as inevitable? [/b]
That's where government comes in.

Some resources are public, some are private.

[Dimentio]

If we assume that most basic things were abundant then?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 07:56 pm
If we assume that most basic things were abundant then?
No, it'd be based on the practicality of privatizing it.

It's inherently difficult to privatize the atmosphere, so government can play a role in restricting private use of it in order to protect it.

Really not difficult.

[Dimentio]

The greatest problem is not pollution, but overusage of the environment. The best way to deal with it is to remove the need for economic growth whatsoever, and replace the current growth-oriented model with a circulation-oriented model.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 08:06 pm
The greatest problem is not pollution, but overusage of the environment. The best way to deal with it is to remove the need for economic growth whatsoever, and replace the current growth-oriented model with a circulation-oriented model.
Overuse of the environment is what directly leads to innovation. The market is now demanding more efficient cars for this very reason.

You have that 13 point list of why Technocracy is so great? Because I remember going through it and having a good laugh at how ridiculously unrealistic it is.

[Dimentio]

The current system is pretty unrealistic, and wasteful. Technocracy is great because it balances production with consumption, abolishes the different control layers attached to the price system, and cuts a lot of work.

And yes, there could be a lot of problems with it, I am not a zealot, and nothing is perfect, but at least, it would be some steps in the right direction. NET is even going to test out the design to reveal eventual flaws.

[t_wolves_fan]

The current system is pretty unrealistic,

Uh, how exactly does current reality become unrealistic?

I think you mean "sustainable" which is largely opinion-driven. There is no question that the entire world could not live as the West does in a sustainable way. However the current system does not assume current production methods or current demands will remain static - it assumes they will change based on market conditions. And as resources become more rare, the market makes them more expensive, so people adjust by switching or forgoing expensive goods or services.

The market for fuel-efficient automobiles in the U.S. and the market for recycled raw materials worldwide is direct evidence of this.


Technocracy is great because it balances production with consumption, abolishes the different control layers attached to the price system, and cuts a lot of work.

It's a great theory but isn't every theory. It's laughably naive because from what I saw it completely ignores the opinion of the consumer. I'm sorry, I know that you and the folks in the technocratic elite are enlightened and all, but it's impractical and just plain stupid (not to mention scary) to assume that people will just accept your guiding hand in determining what they may consume.


And yes, there could be a lot of problems with it, I am not a zealot, and nothing is perfect, but at least, it would be some steps in the right direction. NET is even going to test out the design to reveal eventual flaws.

With what? A role playing game?

[Dimentio]

It is not about fuel-efficient cars, but about the load factors of cars, transports, consumption, waste [with waste, I mean products which are bought by the governments and thrown away in order to subsidize small or large businesses and prevent the market from collapse due to abundance]. I talk about the over-export and over-usage of natural resources.

The global warming is not the deal, neither is pollution. No specie has ever been extinct due to pollution.

Now to the question of the consumers. You have apparently not understood how technocracy works. In traditional planned economies, it may have been the case that product diversity and product quality more often than not involved waste, simpleness and created artificial scarcity due to price controls and flourishing black markets.

That is not the case in technocracy.

In technocracy, each citizen is given an energy quota in the form of an electronic card. This energy quota determines the amount of production capacity which the individual is entitled. This production capacity is determined by the whole gross capacity/number of citizens.

Given that we produces more food and livelihood today than which can be produced, living standards would be kept the same in the material sector [or increase] while the social sector would face a surge in life quality due to less working hours.

The energy quota is not used to order predetermined products, but actually is entirely free to be used as the consumer please. When it is used, the total amount of input is deciding the production of the technate. The technate does not decide what is going to be produced, but that is decided by the citizens, individual for individual. It is a demand-driven economy.

The personnel of the technate only handles the facilities, raw materials and distribution, but do not interfere or micromanage what should be produced.

http://www.technocracyeurope.eu

Go into the section named "Technocracy" and click on "Study".

[t_wolves_fan]

It is not about fuel-efficient cars, but about the load factors of cars, transports, consumption, waste [with waste, I mean products which are bought by the governments and thrown away in order to subsidize small or large businesses and prevent the market from collapse due to abundance]. I talk about the over-export and over-usage of natural resources.

Right, and you believe that central planning can overcome these problems. Isn't going to happen.


Now to the question of the consumers. You have apparently not understood how technocracy works...In technocracy, each citizen is given an energy quota in the form of an electronic card. This energy quota determines the amount of production capacity which the individual is entitled. This production capacity is determined by the whole gross capacity/number of citizens.

Which is rationing by centrally-controlled means, which isn't going to work. People will probably want more than is rationed to them, resulting in black markets. If the quotas are too high, people will consume that which they do not need.


Given that we produces more food and livelihood today than which can be produced, living standards would be kept the same in the material sector [or increase] while the social sector would face a surge in life quality due to less working hours.

Yup, that's what everyone said when computers were invented and improved and has it happened? No. Increased productivity does not directly correlate to a reduced workday, because demand simply goes up. Increased productivity reduces the cost of the good which means more is demanded.

You like to think you can control that via rationing, but the result will be a black market. This is also frought with problems, because who decides how many energy points a person gets? Is it set democratically? What if the level is set too high, do technocrats intervene? How can you seriously put society in charge of how much I can or want to consume? You can't do it.


The energy quota is not used to order predetermined products, but actually is entirely free to be used as the consumer please. When it is used, the total amount of input is deciding the production of the technate. The technate does not decide what is going to be produced, but that is decided by the citizens, individual for individual. It is a demand-driven economy.

Then what happens when you have demand for 500 units of product N but not enough workers? Are workers compelled via the law to produce the right amount?


http://www.technocracyeurope.eu

Go into the section named "Technocracy" and click on "Study".

Give me a break. On the second screen of the first lesson appears this sentence: "That we have in fact leaved the time when scarcity of necessary goods and services was a natural law, "

You folks should work on conjugating verbs before you tackle the global political economy.

There's also the claim that the "technate" would be run by experts in the field. You do understand, given your significant experience in the workplace (I'm sure), that even experts in physical fields have strenuous and significant disagreements over how things work, right?

How does your system overcome that?

Where's that 13 or 14 point lesson on technocracy that starts with an example about razor blades?

[Dimentio]

People have a physical limit to how much they could consume. In a technate, it is unnecessary to get a car and then only hoard it into a garage. Why not simply take one idle car at a depot and then drive for the time you want? Given that the production capacity is bigger than the consumption capacity, the energy quota won't be noticed.

Everyone who is able to work in a technate should work as a service. But it is voluntary where the individual should work, and the goal is to automatise away so much work as possible.

Black markets are a consequence of scarcity. The premise of a technate is abundance. Why pay for stuff you get to use for free? Over-usage is prevented by the fact that we work to decrease load factors. Of course, you could try to start a black market, but I doubt you would get any clients.

Such disagreements are good, since they spur a dialogue about what methods are best. Politicians and businessmen do also have disagreements. Does a system collapse because of disagreements? The answer is no.

That lesson is on the TSC, Technocracy study course. And hey, do not comment on my spelling, since I am not English. ^^

[t_wolves_fan]

:lol:
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 09:29 pm
People have a physical limit to how much they could consume. In a technate, it is unnecessary to get a car and then only hoard it into a garage. Why not simply take one idle car at a depot and then drive for the time you want? Given that the production capacity is bigger than the consumption capacity, the energy quota won't be noticed.

Everyone who is able to work in a technate should work as a service. But it is voluntary where the individual should work, and the goal is to automatise away so much work as possible.

Black markets are a consequence of scarcity. The premise of a technate is abundance. Why pay for stuff you get to use for free? Over-usage is prevented by the fact that we work to decrease load factors. Of course, you could try to start a black market, but I doubt you would get any clients.

Such disagreements are good, since they spur a dialogue about what methods are best. Politicians and businessmen do also have disagreements. Does a system collapse because of disagreements? The answer is no.

That lesson is on the TSC, Technocracy study course. And hey, do not comment on my spelling, since I am not English. ^^
Fine I'll leave the criticisms for your theory.

Your theory is a farce.

You skip right over the inevitable disagreements, pretending they'd be "no big deal" when in fact they'd be huge given the central role experts would play and the critical role that consensus would play.

Your theory starts with the notion that scarcity can be overcome. It's not physically possible to produce enough for the entire planet to meet the West's standard of living regardless of your fantasies of the abilities of robots, which would mean that plenty of people would have to do with less than they have now. That is what will lead to scarcity and black markets.

Again you simply dismiss the consumer: you simply assume people will be happy to wait until the community vehicle is available. They're not going to be.

You simply pretend these problems all away. Of course a theory sounds good when you do that.

Your theory is wholly unrealistic and is a joke among serious political thinkers. Remember that.

[Dimentio]

*Sigh*

NET actually plans to experiment and field test the theories, and adapt them to reality. Moreover, yes, there would probably be big demonstrations, conflicts and even some persons attempting to subvert the project. It always happen.

But for scarcity, remember that we produces more food than the current world population even needs today, but that a lot of what is produced is destroyed before consumption just to keep up the prices. Moreover, remember that a lot of the miore complex products who are made today are of a quality which ensures that people soon would want to renew parts of the product or the whole product. Like cellphones for example.

Also bear in mind that there would be no entrepreneurs trying to artificially increase production in a technocratic system, because there would be no money or profit.

[t_wolves_fan]

*Sigh*

My reaction exactly.


NET actually plans to experiment and field test the theories, and adapt them to reality. Moreover, yes, there would probably be big demonstrations, conflicts and even some persons attempting to subvert the project. It always happen.

Right, to the point that it would not work.

This was tried in the 1930s and again in the 1960s. Look up "Taylorism" and Max Weber. It doesn't work because you cannot rationally plan an economy where people are often making irrational, subjective and short-term choices.

I know you'd like to believe that your pet theory would cure this, but it won't. It already failed to do so.


But for scarcity, remember that we produces more food than the current world population even needs today, but that a lot of what is produced is destroyed before consumption just to keep up the prices.

This is not capitalism, it's government intervention used for political reasons. These policies are designed to protect a certain group based on emotional needs and lobbying and are contrary to market forces.

Technocracy as you've described it would probably be worse at this, since any "planned" economy has to have political support in order to exist. Therefore, it can be expected that the "planners" will make groups happy by artificially distorting the market in much the same way.


Moreover, remember that a lot of the miore complex products who are made today are of a quality which ensures that people soon would want to renew parts of the product or the whole product. Like cellphones for example.

This is already happening and is increasing.


Also bear in mind that there would be no entrepreneurs trying to artificially increase production in a technocratic system, because there would be no money or profit.

Right, they'd be "encouraged" to work in the factory producing what the technocrats tell them to produce, limiting their freedom to pursue new ideas and limiting the freedom of the consumer to purchase that which they want.

This is the whole problem with centrally-planned economies, they have to standardize in order to maximize efficiency and limit quality in order to maximize production in order to keep people happy. Precisely the reason Americans won't currently accept standardized health care: it costs us more, but we have more MRIs in one of our smaller cities than all of Canada has.

Can your system guarantee a variety of products as diverse as we have now?

No, you can't. This ensures it won't work.

[ShakeZula06]

"consequential argument for private property" ... "because humans by nature act in self interest"

Such an argument is circular. It assumes its own conclusion, the enevitability of private property.
In other words you disagree that living organisms naturally act out of self-interest?

It assumes an economic system in which the fishing industry is a "self" and therefore it can have self-interest.
No it doesn't. The fishing industry is not a self. For individual companies (using say workers, owners as a self) it is beneficial to violate quotas, but for the fishing industry and for anyone with interest in the ocean it is not beneficial. This is a really basic game theory problem.

If public representatives who had been elected for their dedication to environmentalism _were_ the management that decides when and where to do the fishing, if the management didn't have to issue reports that describe what they have done for profits and deadlines, but instead had to issue reports that describe what they have done for the long-term benefit of the human race, then the fishery workers wouldn't be reporting to a private business which has a self-interest.
Profitablility *is* long term benefit of the human race in this case. Whoever owns the ocean does not benefit from destruction of the ocean, and benefits directly from it because it raises the worth of an asset he owns.

Public representation (aka the tyranny of the majority) is a sham and leads directly to the tragedy of the commons, because it creates situations where one can exploit a resource with no repricussions. As I pointed out earlier as an example is government treasury. No one *owns* tax revenue and as a result it is spent ridiculously on things such as war, destruction, or homocide, genocide or pork spending that benefits the elected representative and his associates.

[Dimentio]

There is no market in a technate because there is no money. Hence, there are no "free economy to distort".

Max Weber and Taylor actually produced some valuable stuff during the early 20th century. Weber's bureaucratic model and Taylor's industrial theory provided much interesting features. But you are right in that they are outdated, and so are parts of technocracy. That is why NET is mainly formed in order to study technocracy and actually see if it is possible to implement.

I hope that you do not mean what is not working is a rule by experts. Besides, governments cannot work without plannings and estimations, especially not in the departments.

Technocracy is not a planned economy, which I have already explained. It is an interactive economy, since the consumers decides what is going to be produced in the first place.



Right, they'd be "encouraged" to work in the factory producing what the technocrats tell them to produce, limiting their freedom to pursue new ideas and limiting the freedom of the consumer to purchase that which they want.

Lol!

These people who work in the factories, the programmers, engineers and inventors are the technocrats. And they do not decide what is going to be produced. It is the people who are deciding what is going to be produced, through their energy quotas.

We do not need to limit quality, and the check in this is the fact that the production is controlled by the consumers. They could actually use the interactive software to check how the production is going. Moreover, I am sure that you are unfamiliar with the concept of "modular production"?

Diversity would be even greater than today given modular production and standardisation of micro-parts to electronic products. ^^

[ShakeZula06]

control over it by one small proportion over the rest is not in the bourgeoisie's interest;
How so?

Do you own the water in such a space? Even when the constant flow of the ocean moves it? Or do you just own the space?
Obviously since owning the space is the only plausible option obviously the space.

In which case, you can conduct experiments in that space that will have a detrimental effect upon the whole. An easy example of this is insecticides and GM crops--it's near impossible to isolate the effects to the area that a given entity "Owns."
Obviously such a thing would be looked at as an act of agression.

One owner can destroy the property of a million with no repurcussions.
Strawman. Why would you think there would be no repurcussions for damaging someone's property? If I set my house on fire, flames could jump from building to building (yes, this is possible and it happens) and burn down my neighbor's house. Despite this, housing is privatized. Explain this phenomenon to me.

In any case, this is a rather ridiculous argument; your own welfare system argues against the tragedy of the commons. The great majority doesn't abuse the welfare system, though by your logic they most definitely should.
It's not very beneficial to be on welfare programs, because in most cases it necessitates not having a job, and it's easy for the government to know if you're working or not. Those that want to exploit welfare can and do.

It's a matter of capability and management, not a matter of public vs. private.
But we see that privatization vastly increases the level of capability and management of resources.

The entire argument is a straw man designed to avoid the underlying problem.
Well, what is the underlying problem?

[t_wolves_fan]

There is no market in a technate because there is no money. Hence, there are no "free economy to distort".

There is always a market to distort - there are things that people want and need and there is production. Your theory says the two don't really matter.


Max Weber and Taylor actually produced some valuable stuff during the early 20th century. Weber's bureaucratic model and Taylor's industrial theory provided much interesting features. But you are right in that they are outdated, and so are parts of technocracy. That is why NET is mainly formed in order to study technocracy and actually see if it is possible to implement.

Taylorism ignores that the people involved in production are people who will not be happy and as a result not productive if their actions are reduced to the simplest, most mundane tasks. It failed for the same reason technocracy would fail: people are generally not rational, nor can they be made to be.


I hope that you do not mean what is not working is a rule by experts. Besides, governments cannot work without plannings and estimations, especially not in the departments.

Right, and government is still inefficient. Experts help but their opinions are overruled at the drop of a hat when one important factor goes against them: political practicality. Another reason technocracy will fail.


Technocracy is not a planned economy, which I have already explained. It is an interactive economy, since the consumers decides what is going to be produced in the first place.

It would end up being planned because in theory the experts would have to determine the most efficient way to produce anything, in theory overruling the desire of the workers or the consumer.



We do not need to limit quality, and the check in this is the fact that the production is controlled by the consumers.

Yes you do. In order to maximize production and meet demand, you're going to have to sacrifice quality.

BMWs are very high quality cars, right? Imagine if, given new energy quota cards with lots of points, people all decided they wanted top-quality BMWs. Now BMW has to produce about 10 times as many cars as they did before, and in a short timeframe. How do they do it? They'll have to sacrifice quality to get their product to the market quickly.

There's also the issue of the supply chain. BMW does not control its suppliers, it has to work with them and buy the components of the BMW. What power does BMW's experts have over the experts at the suppliers? If BMW says we now need 10 times as many of component X and we want it by next Tuesday, chop chop, what happens? Are the suppliers compelled to meet that production? Or can the suppliers tell BMW to stick it?

If they choose the former, how are the workers compelled to churn out production? If it's the latter, what happens to BMW when the consumers don't get what they want? BMW turns to alternative suppliers who claim they can meet the demand more quickly, which almost certainly means reduced quality.

If BMW cannot find alternative suppliers and demand quickly outpaces supply, a black market is created.

Then there's food. OK, now T-bone steaks are easy to get under your new system, meaning demand skyrockets. You now need more grain to feed more cows. Are you going to maximize production? What will that do to the environment? If you limit production to protect the environment, presumably by order of the experts, is the consumer really in charge?

If you stop assuming people will behave precisely as you want them to, your theory becomes swiss cheese.


They could actually use the interactive software to check how the production is going. Moreover, I am sure that you are unfamiliar with the concept of "modular production"?

I've heard of it, but it's not a panacea.


Diversity would be even greater than today given modular production and standardisation of micro-parts to electronic products. ^^

A diverse array of end products means resources are utilized less efficiently than if products are standardized.