That is not a technocracy... that is a national unity government calling itself "technocratic." Sure Mario is filling his cabinet with "technocrats" but the true power still resides in the parliamentary system.

It's also a bit of a last gasp to keep the Italian people from giving up on their government entirely, after 17 years of Silvio "Playboy Extraordinaire" Berlusconi either being PM or the real power behind the PM, it's not surprising that most Italians think their government is just crap period. Calling the new government technocratic in nature is a way to get the public to give the new leaders a chance.

Gaga

Germany433 Posts

November 16 2011 19:38 GMT

#783

On November 17 2011 04:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:
That is not a technocracy... that is a national unity government calling itself "technocratic." Sure Mario is filling his cabinet with "technocrats" but the true power still resides in the parliamentary system.

It's also a bit of a last gasp to keep the Italian people from giving up on their government entirely, after 17 years of Silvio "Playboy Extraordinaire" Berlusconi either being PM or the real power behind the PM, it's not surprising that most Italians think their government is just crap period. Calling the new government technocratic in nature is a way to get the public to give the new leaders a chance.

ofc it's not a real technocracy... it was more of a joke .. thats the smily for.

Shraft

Sweden701 Posts

November 16 2011 23:11 GMT

#784

On November 17 2011 02:15 WhiteDog wrote:
Free market is good when you have a comparative advantage (from Smith to Ricardo, same with the HOS, Heckser Ohlin Samuelson theory in essence). Protectionnism can help an industrie to grow, and it is sometime needed, this has been defended by Hamilton and Stuart Mill back in their time and used in America in 1830 (Tariff of 1828) and in 1930 with the Smoot Hawley Tarrif Act (and you can see the same protectionism in most countries France, UK, Germany).
And that is just an exemple, freedom is not always the best choice economically... he is right.

Schumpeter used to say that competition does not kill competition... he is wrong, everything prove that competition lead to oligopoly. (see multinationalisation)

No.

On November 17 2011 02:15 WhiteDog wrote:
Just to explain you man, the free market does not exist, it will never exist, it's a theory, a myth. In fact, in the world you are living in right now, there are still a lot of protection, but you cannot see them - from volontary restriction of exportation (heavily used in the US to prevent Japan from importing too much cars) to different use of administrativ barrier. The protection of today does in fact cost more to our society than the old ones (taxs).

Lol.

Chronopolis

Canada1484 Posts

December 11 2011 06:35 GMT

#785

I know this is a necrobump, but a few months ago this thread piqued my interests enough so that I ended up writing my term paper (1500 words) on Technocracy (whathasTLdoneforyou.gif). So I'd thought I share as pretty much my actual two cents, lest anyone find it interesting.
Essay:

liberal

1116 Posts

December 11 2011 06:46 GMT

#786

I can't decide what's worse: Giving control of a country to a populace which doesn't know how to properly run a country, or giving control to an elite who have the delusional belief that they know the best way to run the country.

Actually, I can decide. The latter is certainly worse.

In my opinion, the key to a well run country eventually boils down to a well written constitution. It's important to restrict the ability of stupid people to mess things up.

RabidAnubis

United States18 Posts

December 11 2011 06:51 GMT

#787

Doesn't the president already have advisors? Or no?

Also, I wouldn't enjoy having my life bossed around for me.

In short, if the techno doctor said it was bad to eat meat and drink beer, should we stop? It's better to live a slightly shorter well lived life than a long boring one imo.

Flamingo777

United States1190 Posts

December 11 2011 06:57 GMT

#788

Regardless of whether or not it's better than a democracy, it's a form of elitism. As such, you are comparing a subsection of Elitism with Democracy, which is flawed. Your argument needs to either be Elitism vs Democracy (The general principle of political systems), or a Technocracy vs a Democratic Republic. I'm saying this assuming you are trying to compare a potential Technocratic system with American Democracy.

Chronopolis

Canada1484 Posts

December 11 2011 06:58 GMT

#789

On December 11 2011 15:46 liberal wrote:
I can't decide what's worse: Giving control of a country to a populace which doesn't know how to properly run a country, or giving control to an elite who have the delusional belief that they know the best way to run the country.

Actually, I can decide. The latter is certainly worse.

In my opinion, the key to a well run country eventually boils down to a well written constitution. It's important to restrict the ability of stupid people to mess things up.

I believe it's more like a public being manipulated by elites (only in political power, not elites in any other measure) who instead of having the delusional belief that they know the best way to run the country, just don't give a shit and are all in it for self interests. And it's that constitution that's being skirted around by those 'elites'.

Chimpalimp

United States1135 Posts

December 11 2011 07:27 GMT

#790

Pretty sure those two choices are one in the same. If you actually think that the voters are running the country, you should look at the United States government. Its extremely inefficient at getting anything that matters done, but highly motivated to approve special interests of said "elite."

I think a technocracy is as good in theory as just about any type of government, it depends on who is running the show, not what they represent. You can just as likely have a corrupt scientist as you can have a corrupt anything, those who seek power generally shouldn't have it. However, I do honestly believe that engineers, scientists, and etc. would run a country a hell of a lot better than the politicians and the ultra rich.