|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 13 2011 13:33 tech information wrote:Reminder: This discussion is about TECHNOCRACY, an advanced industrial society of continental extent in which the supporting economy uses energy units for measurement and control, in place of the monetary values (money) of the Price System. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 12:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Replacing money with distribution certificates does not increase the amount of real goods and services produced in the economy.
Simply put, you are doing nothing but changing the name of the money you are using the the method of distribution. Now you might think that the Energy Certificate is merely the substitution of one kind of money for another. But that's not so. Money is a debt token, it is a promise to pay a debt. The Energy Certificate is part of a measuring system. There's a vast difference between the two. Money is a medium of exchange, and it has value. The Distribution Certificate is a medium of distribution and it is used for measuring. There's quite a difference. Let's consider how they differ. The Certificate is issued for a specific time period and then it is canceled. Not so with money. The Certificate is issued to a specific person, and only that person can use it. Money, by the way, or otherwise, is negotiable by anyone! The Certificate identifies this person, or the owner. It tells who you are, where you are, and what you are. Money doesn't do that. The Certificate also records when you made your last purchase, where you made it, and it even describes the item that you bought. Money doesn't do any of those things. Now the Certificate is also part of a 24 hour inventory control. Money isn't. The Certificate helps to maintain a supply of stock on hand at all times, and it's an intrical part of the system for planning production schedules. Further, it is a guarantee of security because it is issued to every person male and female alike, not so with money. The Certificate is issued to everybody as a right of citizenship and no one can deny you that right.
So instead of money we have rationing? Yuck.
Hmm, I think there's going to be a black market where money does exist. And it will be free from technocracy control. That's a plus.
"Planning production schedules" ... so planned economy?
"Guarantee of security" sound like guarantee of control.
Sounds like a dictatorship. This will easily devolve into a distopia.
|
On September 13 2011 13:50 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Yep, most "ideologies", democracy included, tend to fail. We are humans - and humans are sinful whether you like it or not. The flesh does not incline towards any kind of general good. Yes - there will be your volunteer who just loves helping the sick and the homeless. But I guarantee you - 99.99% of the population don't care enough. Selflessness is what it takes to make a happy society. Mankind sucks at selflessness
Yup.
THE HERALD of Christ's Kingdom - VOL. XV. November, 1932 No. 18 - "Heaping Treasure Together for the Last Days" - Howard Scott, Technologist, Says Data Already Compiled Shows Machine Age Menace. Holds New System Vital.
Again prophetically, this situation has been referred to by the Apostle James when he says, "Go to now ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and, the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth."
Manifest is it before all people that we are in a time pre, eminent above all others, for heaping together treasures, for accumulating wealth. Entering into this situation and constituting an important factor is modern knowledge and its wide dissemination in these last days, resulting in marvelous scientific discoveries, inventions and labor-saving machinery. Labor-saving devices of every description whose efficiency is daily increasing, are replacing human labor in every department of industry, resulting in turn in depriving millions of their employment, of means by which to earn a livelihood. It is then modern knowledge operating in connection with selfishness in the present social system that has brought about the present unparalleled world crisis, which in turn is preparing the way for the new order of things under the administration of the Kingdom of God.
It is interesting in this connection to observe how thoughtful minds of the world are tracing the legitimate causes of the present world depression, and pointing out how this is the logical result of the social system under which the governments of the world are operating. As an example of how the analysis of some is in remarkable harmony with the Bible, the following, we believe, will be perused with deep interest by our readers:
"An extensive 'energy survey,' tracing the industrial and agricultural development of the United States during the last 100 years in terms of production, employment and energy expended, is under way at Columbia University. It is being made under the joint auspices of the University's Department of Industrial Engineering and the Architects' Emergency Committee of New York, it was announced yesterday by Professor Walter Rautenstrauch, head of the department.
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eFaJbREPVCA/TffvAr7vFvI/AAAAAAAAALk/CngjaGtpcOc/s1600/Technocracy+Events+%252811%2529.jpg)
|
On September 13 2011 13:36 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +As a case in point, you can see this video where Bill Frist, former Republican majority leader and physician... Former? As in no longer a politician? Huh... Sure. It's nice that people can stand for something strongly once they're no longer in politics.
Former Majority leader. He's not anymore.
The major problem with Democracy, Technocracy, and any other form of government is not the philosophy or structure of the government, so much as the human dispensation towards greed and lust for power. Call it sin, call it animal urges, call it a darwinian evolutionary response, it exists and fucks up any attempt we have at creating a perfect (or even close to perfect) society.
If human beings can find a way to stop both themselves and everyone else from fucking up, then we can have our perfect society. Since that's impossible, I'll shy away from utopian dreams.
What I'm getting at here is that the projected benefit of this endeavor will not outweigh the cost in social unrest, political backlash, and transitional costs (money,time, effort among a large group of people) for a society that may or may not be better and will be ruled by people just as corrupt as the last bunch.
|
On September 13 2011 14:00 TanGeng wrote:
So instead of money we have rationing? Yuck.
Hmm, I think there's going to be a black market where money does exist. And it will be free from technocracy control. That's a plus.
"Planning production schedules" ... so planned economy?
"Guarantee of security" sound like guarantee of control.
Sounds like a dictatorship. This will easily devolve into a distopia.
PRICE SYSTEM:
Any social system whatsoever that effects its distribution of goods and services by a system of trade or commerce based on commodity evaluation effected by means of debt tokens, or money, debit cards, et cetera.
The term Price System must not be confused with such terms as profit system, or capitalist system. The factor of ownership does NOT alter the mechanics of operating a Price System, and it may be added in passing, that unless it be in some remote and primitive community, none other than Price Systems exist at the present time.
A price system may be either a fixed price system where prices are set by a dictatorial government or it may be a free price system where prices are left to float freely as determined by unregulated supply and demand. Or it may be a combination of both with a mixed price system. The Soviet Union and other communist nations with a centralized planned economy were controlled price systems. Whether the ruble or the dollar is used in the economic system, the criterion of a price system is the use of money as an arbiter and usual final arbiter of whether a thing is done or not. In other words, few things are done without consideration for the costs and the potential making of a profit in a Price System.
|
|
|
On September 13 2011 14:24 tech information wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 14:00 TanGeng wrote:
So instead of money we have rationing? Yuck.
Hmm, I think there's going to be a black market where money does exist. And it will be free from technocracy control. That's a plus.
"Planning production schedules" ... so planned economy?
"Guarantee of security" sound like guarantee of control.
Sounds like a dictatorship. This will easily devolve into a distopia. PRICE SYSTEM: Any social system whatsoever that effects its distribution of goods and services by a system of trade or commerce based on commodity evaluation effected by means of debt tokens, or money, debit cards, et cetera. The term Price System must not be confused with such terms as profit system, or capitalist system. The factor of ownership does NOT alter the mechanics of operating a Price System, and it may be added in passing, that unless it be in some remote and primitive community, none other than Price Systems exist at the present time. A price system may be either a fixed price system where prices are set by a dictatorial government or it may be a free price system where prices are left to float freely as determined by unregulated supply and demand. Or it may be a combination of both with a mixed price system. The Soviet Union and other communist nations with a centralized planned economy were controlled price systems. Whether the ruble or the dollar is used in the economic system, the criterion of a price system is the use of money as an arbiter and usual final arbiter of whether a thing is done or not. In other words, few things are done without consideration for the costs and the potential making of a profit in a Price System.
What's your point?
You are advocating a planned economy with a controlled price system.
No successful economy today uses such a system.
Please stop posting your crazy propaganda. It's worse than scientology.
|
On September 13 2011 13:36 lorkac wrote:
Yes... coworkers can agree with each other.... I didn't know that needed a study.
Reading comprehension fail on your part. Technical experts in the same field =/= coworkers. The vast majority of both Democratic and Republican biologists tell you that evolutionary theory is fact, even if the Republicans would be crossing party lines by doing so. Politicians and voters, on the other hand, vote only based on their ideology and pathetically limited knowledge.
The point here is that technical experts are guided by their expertise rather than personal ideologies, at least regard to their field of expertise.
On September 13 2011 13:36 lorkac wrote:[Former? As in no longer a politician? Huh... Sure. It's nice that people can stand for something strongly once they're no longer in politics.
It's just an example. He also endorsed expanding federal funding of stem-cell research and funding to fight AIDS in Africa, both against party lines. Further, the fact that he's no longer Senate majority leader does not mean he's done with politics, as he's expressed an interest in running for governorship of Tenessee. And in spite of all that, he's jeapordized his own interests in supporting Obamacare because he's first and foremost a doctor.
The point is, technical experts use their expertise in decision-making when they have the power to do so. The big pro for technocracy (not that I'm saying there are no cons), is that you get to have things like doctors shaping the health care reform process, instead of people who don't know anything about it.
|
I don't think Technocracy and Democracy are mutually exclusive. There are a lot of decisions that need to be made with no clear right decision, in which case it might as well be the elected politicians making those decisions. Similarly, the expert panels might disagree with eachother, in which case a third party needs to decide between the two. This would happen when for example a medical decision would have wide-ranging economic downsides, etc.
The problem with our current system is that politicians care more about public opinion than making the right decision, they already have access to experts in any field they want, but they choose to second-guess their recommended decisions in order to gather more votes for the next election.
|
From your link
The administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson theorizes that technocrats are primarily driven by their cognitive "problem-solution mindsets" and only in part by particular occupational group interests.
In other words, benevolent leaders. Yup. Nothing at all like a dictatorship to have a government system where we hope that the technocrats aren't corrupt 
|
On September 13 2011 15:33 sunprince wrote:
The point is, technical experts use their expertise in decision-making when they have the power to do so. The big pro for technocracy (not that I'm saying there are no cons), is that you get to have things like doctors shaping the health care reform process, instead of people who don't know anything about it.
You actually have that option with democracy. The populace "could" vote for doctors and engineers.
Technocracy is forcing leaders to be doctors and engineers--not allowing any other option. It is leadership by government decree, government choice, and government desires. It is limiting human options in the hope that "the experts" know better than feeble civilians.
|
On September 13 2011 15:33 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 13:36 lorkac wrote:
Yes... coworkers can agree with each other.... I didn't know that needed a study. Reading comprehension fail on your part. Technical experts in the same field =/= coworkers. The vast majority of both Democratic and Republican biologists tell you that evolutionary theory is fact, even if the Republicans would be crossing party lines by doing so. Politicians and voters, on the other hand, vote only based on their ideology and pathetically limited knowledge. The point here is that technical experts are guided by their expertise rather than personal ideologies, at least regard to their field of expertise. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 13:36 lorkac wrote:[Former? As in no longer a politician? Huh... Sure. It's nice that people can stand for something strongly once they're no longer in politics. It's just an example. He also endorsed expanding federal funding of stem-cell research and funding to fight AIDS in Africa, both against party lines. Further, the fact that he's no longer Senate majority leader does not mean he's done with politics, as he's expressed an interest in running for governorship of Tenessee. And in spite of all that, he's jeapordized his own interests in supporting Obamacare because he's first and foremost a doctor. The point is, technical experts use their expertise in decision-making when they have the power to do so. The big pro for technocracy (not that I'm saying there are no cons), is that you get to have things like doctors shaping the health care reform process, instead of people who don't know anything about it.
Experts are already often used to craft legislation, however. Plus government agencies are filled with experts who then enforce the laws / draft regulations based upon the laws. For example the Fed has great economists, the CBO great accountants, the FDA great doctors etc and all these agencies have the power to make important decisions.
|
I don't think it would work but it probably would be better than what USA has now lol.
First of all the scientists of different fields in charge of everything would be arguing most of the time about where to put the funding considering they all have a bias. Second, they won't have time to do their science shit if they are busy trying to run a country. Bright idea, but just won't work, like communism.
|
On September 13 2011 15:59 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 15:33 sunprince wrote:
The point is, technical experts use their expertise in decision-making when they have the power to do so. The big pro for technocracy (not that I'm saying there are no cons), is that you get to have things like doctors shaping the health care reform process, instead of people who don't know anything about it. You actually have that option with democracy. The populace "could" vote for doctors and engineers. Technocracy is forcing leaders to be doctors and engineers--not allowing any other option. It is leadership by government decree, government choice, and government desires. It is limiting human options in the hope that "the experts" know better than feeble civilians.
The populace could do that. Or they can vote for free candy.
Politicians are the real experts in the field of manipulation the general public. If the public votes for what they believe is the best, then an expert in civil engineering doesn't a stand to be voted to a housing committee, next to the politician who promises free housing for all.
|
On September 13 2011 17:11 Timestreamer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 15:59 lorkac wrote:On September 13 2011 15:33 sunprince wrote:
The point is, technical experts use their expertise in decision-making when they have the power to do so. The big pro for technocracy (not that I'm saying there are no cons), is that you get to have things like doctors shaping the health care reform process, instead of people who don't know anything about it. You actually have that option with democracy. The populace "could" vote for doctors and engineers. Technocracy is forcing leaders to be doctors and engineers--not allowing any other option. It is leadership by government decree, government choice, and government desires. It is limiting human options in the hope that "the experts" know better than feeble civilians. The populace could do that. Or they can vote for free candy. Politicians are the real experts in the field of manipulation the general public. If the public votes for what they believe is the best, then an expert in civil engineering doesn't a stand to be voted to a housing committee, next to the politician who promises free housing for all.
Oh how cute
How very very cute.
You're like what, 19? 20? Almost 21? How simplistic a world view you have
Leaders are either chosen by the people, or they're not. You don't trust voters obviously, so you're hoping for a governmental authority to benevolently choose a benevolent leader.
Yeah... I love imagining worlds where the people in charge are never corrupt. Those ideas are indeed very cute.
|
Canada2068 Posts
^ Why the ad hominem? Timestreamer raised a perfectly valid point. Attack the argument, not the person. Otherwise the discussion won't get anywhere beyond name-calling.
|
Straight away reminder of Deus Ex 1, with Helios and JC Denton
|
On September 13 2011 15:59 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 15:33 sunprince wrote:
The point is, technical experts use their expertise in decision-making when they have the power to do so. The big pro for technocracy (not that I'm saying there are no cons), is that you get to have things like doctors shaping the health care reform process, instead of people who don't know anything about it. You actually have that option with democracy. The populace "could" vote for doctors and engineers. Technocracy is forcing leaders to be doctors and engineers--not allowing any other option. It is leadership by government decree, government choice, and government desires. It is limiting human options in the hope that "the experts" know better than feeble civilians. But the experts do know better than feeble civilians. Most humans are too dumb to make an educated vote, why should they be allowed to ruin our world? Just look at America for example, half their country does not believe in global warming or evolution. How can you possibly defend democracy when you know it completely fails in one of the largest and important countries on earth?
If you get a large enough council of experts, corruption shouldn't be a problem either. Even better yet, we could use a techno/democracy hybrid.
|
the problem of experts and technocrats is that they think they know what they are doing...
I can't understand why people assume politics may have some scientific solution. Who would believe someone claiming that he/she has made studies and has found the way to organize human life in the most rational way?
Besides that, if knowledge was the guarantee of good politics, 20th century would have been the most positive encouraging political century in history, which obviously has not been the case.
How many scientists did work for nazis? biologists (mengele); geographers (Christaller, who wanted to reorganize poland in a "scientific way"); not to mention anthropologists justifying the inferiority of jews, specialists of physics to make good weapons, historians inventing the glorious eternity of the German nation, etc...
Technocrats should just admit that their supposed superior capacities or knowledge are actually extremely limited, if not completely inexistant (the best sign of which being that they don't agree together)
|
I can't understand why people assume politics may have some scientific solution. Who would believe someone claiming that he/she has made studies and has found the way to organize human life in the most rational way? You realise you can study sociology, or politics, history and any other subject that concerns politics, right? We obviously wouldn't have a council full of physicists and biologists...
Besides that, if knowledge was the guarantee of good politics, 20th century would have been the most positive encouraging political century in history, which obviously has not been the case.
How many scientists did work for nazis? biologists (mengele); geographers (Christaller, who wanted to reorganize poland in a "scientific way"); not to mention anthropologists justifying the inferiority of jews, specialists of physics to make good weapons, historians inventing the glorious eternity of the German nation, etc...
Guess what, the scientists weren't in charge, they were told by politicians and/or dictators what to do.
|
You mean people actually capable of running the stuff they are in position for, like an actual doctor running the national health? Surely not, let's put the one who lies good and looks the best in a suit. herpa derp and *sheep sounds*.
People having the actual balls to make decisions in favor of what the population needs and not what they want, making the unpopular decision because the popular one is retarded? No, that would make the human race actually have a chance to get back from this monetary greedy "let's fuck eachother so we can have more money" shithole we're in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FltUZxggbno/Tm7n1YdFzYI/AAAAAAAAAZk/KBH2xybDYdc/s1600/Communist+Money.png)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y4vVxAjqWlo/Tm7muOrTNWI/AAAAAAAAAZc/qa4Z7Jpn6MQ/s1600/big+brother.gif)
