Debate Technocracy/Energy based economies - Viable?

I've recently been reading up on Technocracy, and I find it quite intriguing. Among one of the most interesting concepts is the energy based economy - in which, rather than money, an items "price" is simply the energy used to make it. Instead of spending dollars, you would spend kilowatts (or perhaps some other unit). What this means is that inflation would end (something which uses 60 watts today will still use 60 watts tomorrow) among other things.

However, I am not sure if technocracy is entirely viable (particularly in their beliefs on new living arrangements which seem slightly fanciful). The energy based economy, while seemingly perfect, does have two major concerns as far as I go.

1) How would we convert from the current economy structure into a radically different energy based economy?
2) Since items have their true cost as their price, this removes the need to stay competitive (for example, you couldn't really have a sale, and you can get the same products at any store). I am concerned that the need to innovate would by and large be reduced by a massive factor.

What is everyone elses stance?

 

i've never heard of any of this before, and i've got to say it seems pretty strange.

:bleed2: . this seems pretty fanciful. it seems more effort than it's worth for what it would take to convert to this system. but i don't quite understand the whole concept... a few questions..
1. by this concept, is a countrie's wealth determined by how much energy it a), produces, b) uses or c) doesn't use?. and secondly, how would this filter down to individuals? how is it determined how much an individual earns?. is their Kw output measured while at work and returned to them as credit? :anime:

and how would they instigate such a change? every countriy in the world would have to convert to this system at the same time would they not?

 

Unless I'm mistaken, how much it produces.

I believe it's something like... take the total power generation of the country and divide it evenly among the individuals. For example if for some reason I generated 1,000,000 watts in my backyard and my backyard was a technocracy and there were 4 inhabitants, they would get 250,000 watts each to spend. I may be mistaken though.

Which is exactly what I asked.

No. Did every country in the world have to convert to communism?

Edit: Energy Accounting

Secondary edit: Wait. Wait wait wait. How is measuring all the energy used on the continent fanciful? We already do it for billing purposes!

 

yeah we kind of already do, but how accurate are they?. and what about effeciency, nothings 100% efficient out there, hell, plenty of stuff wastes more energy than it uses. it'd be like pouring half the GNP down the toilet!.

by distributing the units evenly like in your backyard annalogy, isn't it just a reincarnation of communism, but with a different currency?. no-one would want to work, everyone would just want to bludge.^_^

 

No crap nothing is 100% efficient, but that doesn't matter. Why? If a machine consumes, say, 1000 watts to make a little plastic bird, and due to efficiency only 1/3rd of that actually goes to good use, its -still- going to cost 1000 watts (plus whatever energy it took to get the materials).

Edit: As far as accuracy goes, I'm not sure. Do you have a statement to make on the accuracy?

Not entirely, because in communism everyone has the same stuff. You can't buy a better tv than your neighbour.

It does seem to have some similarities to communism, however...

As you can see, everyone gets taken care of, but you can still buy what you want (not unlike, say, the economic set up of Canada, where welfare does exist and everyone can be taken care of [theoretically], yet it is full of capitalist establishments).

 

I might be way off here, but if people didn't produce energy (work) to convert into credits, then they would not get any, right?

 

More or less a work ethic towards equal luxury. Very similar to communism if anything.

But, yes, I do wonder how it would be instigated in this world. I doubt it would happen. This equal-price theorem will throw off the 'big boys', the powerful men who control inflation, who benefit from it. They take advantage of the economy for their own good, and thusly gained much power over economical decisions themselves. Would they be satisfied with equality, thinking of living the same lives as anyone else? Nah.

Otherwise, it is an interesting idea, but there are many other interesting ideas, and not many of these alternate world-impact ideas have actually gone through.

 

Thats probably true, the 'big boys', if anyone, wouldn't like it. *thinks about Bill Gates living in an apartment like Greywood Glen or Bellville(my old town's apt. complexes)*

 

Oh please. This is an absolute pipe dream: Something tremendously hard to obtain, and, once put into place, doesn't work very well. It's a novel idea. In theory, it sounds like the perfect solution to all our problems. But wait, who else came up with a brilliant idea for an economic system, only to have it fall down the drain?

Karl Marx.

This is just communism using watts instead of dollars. It's something that someone with way too much free time was just thinking out loud. It's something that can be fully disregarded.

 

How do you know it doesn't work well if it hasn't been done in real life yet?

Isn't that a tad hefty? Take a look at some of the other ideas floating around it instead of simply the economic aspect.

For example...

Additionally, your comparison of it to communism with watts in place of dollars is flawed. You could take whatever job you wanted, you could buy whatever you wanted, its simply that instead of paying extra for rarity you would be paying what it cost to produce.

In fact, hell, read this article debunking your uneducated statement. Also read this especially.

 

Because it's too similar, in idea, to communism. The idea of these "watts" spread among the people evenly suggest the idea of a communistic economy.

I would have to concur that some of these ideas are very meritable. However, the economic system is so inherently flawed, that, if faced with a choice, I would reject these ideas simply because they come bundled with the economic system.

Again. I think that a Technocratic economy is a good idea. But the idea of paying extra for rarity works. If one did not pay extra for rarity, then one could say that a Van Gogh piece of art cost as much as a child's scribble. I mean, assuming they used the same material (Because when people buy art, they usually don't want spare canvas), then both things would cost exactly the same number of watts.

Also, another complication: How do you calculate the number of watts for a service? Or, as an example, food products. Do you consider the energy that the animal used? The energy used to care for it? The energy used to kill it? The energy used to process it? The energy used to transport it? There are so many unanswered questions here, that this idea has no chance other than to fall flat on it's face.

 

There may be ways yet that it could work that we are not thinking of. The only socialist country I really have any idea of is the former Soviet Union, so I'm not sure I could use them as an example. The way I'm seeing this, and I might be wrong, and I have been before, is that the more energy you put out, the more 'watts' you get. Its not 'you get this much for because you clocked in for this many hours of work', its more like 'you get this much because you did this much work'.

 

And, by that system, a guy who picks up heavy stuff all day makes many times more than, oh, a computer technician. That's pretty ludicrous, don't you think?

 

You've got a point, but I don't know, the 'watt system' could include mental energy (which someone like a computer techie would need) and physical energy.

 

But, again, there arises the problem of watt measurement. Hard as it is to measure physical things, how could you possibly accurately measure mental energy? Sure, there are ways of doing it, but they cost so much money that caving one for every worker is highly impractical, if not impossible.

 

Even so. If it is impossible, there is always the chance of it becoming possible. And even if it remains a dream, it is good to contemplate on. 'How would this work in the real world?' 'Would this make the world better?' It would, if it was indeed possible, make the world a little better. People would be getting just pay for thier work, instead of being paid the same as the slacker next to them.

 

Problem is, we're not talking about a dream. We're talking about the reality of right now, and right now, it's not possible. Sure, it'd be great to be able to track work like this. It'd be great of rid Africa of AIDS, and replace it with ample food. It'd be great to not have any crimes commited, everything would be great. If I had one wish to help the world, I assure you, it would not be the one to make a full technocratic economy viable.

 

Go read the links. Till you do I am simply not dealing with you.

 

I HAVE read the links. While I may agree that, in itself, technocracy is not similar to communism, a technocratic economy is very similar to a communistic one. And, the economy is what is at the heart of this debate.

Let's look at one of your earlierposts.

Take the word "power", replace it with "monetary".

Now, take the words "watts", and replace it with "dollars". Let's read the edited statement back.

I believe it's something like... take the total monetary generation of the country and divide it evenly among the individuals. For example if for some reason I generated 1,000,000 dollars in my backyard and my backyard was a technocracy and there were 4 inhabitants, they would get 250,000 dollars each to spend.

By not even touching the meat of the argument, and just changing the idea of "power" to the idea of "money", I have created the basic prinicple for a communistic economy.

 

No it isn't. If you had read the links in detail you would have noticed that communist economics are still done via a rarity based price system; whereas technocracy isn't and that in itself is a huge difference. The two are quite different. Go back and re-read them. Then maybe I'll bother dealing with you.