Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: sooyeah on 21/09/2007 12:34:33
-
Can a market regulate itself?
-
Can a market regulate itself?
In the widest context, the answer is no.
A market must operate on trust, and trust can only exist if there are enforceable rules, therefore a market can only exist where laws exist to define the rules for that market.
Ofcourse, the more complex question exists where one asks what kind of rules are legitimate and conducive to the efficient running of a market.
As I said above, a market requires trust, which also means that rules must be seen to be consistent, both between participants in the market, and as far as possible, over time. Any inconsistency in the rules will undermine the faith people place in the rules, and so will undermine the functioning of the market. The players in a market will only function properly if they trust that the rules they expected to operate are seen to operate, and are seen to operate consistently.
-
Of course markets do regulate themselves. That is called EMERGENCE.
EMERGENCE is de-individualised process taking shape in non-centralised systems, enforced by not necessarily intertwined actions of multiple agents. Of course, due to limitations/imperfections of human software bio-processor (human brain), markets don't work perfect.
Other examples of EMERGENT PROCESSES are evolution and memolution.
That is why markets are superior to planned economy, because planned economy cannot predetermine what information to be sent to right parameter for optimal development of capacity. But, theoretically, highly advanced intelligence processor (like CYBORG) could of course plan perfect planned system. The outcome of system is determined by level of information the central processor of agent could analyse and catalogise. Human software bio-processor is insufficient to determine that, which is why markets cannot and will not operate on an optimal level given current capacity of human bio-processors.
Cybernetic software upgrades are necessary in order to be able to analyse and structure more data about emergent processes.
-
Human bioprocessor do not have STORAGE CAPACITY and OPERATIVE SYSTEMS to manage level of complexity we see in market today. Human bioprocessor must be upgraded, to better adapt to circumstances around.
What makes market superior to planned economy is level of INNOVATION because of market dynamism. Bad side is that resources still get invested in sub-optimal areas.
-
What makes market superior to planned economy is level of INNOVATION because of market dynamism. Bad side is that resources still get invested in sub-optimal areas.
Well is that a bad thing what happens to the sub-optimal areas if they got no investment? A smaller return is still a return.
-
It is negative thing in relation to resource input.
In market economy, demand is measured after capital. Small rich elite has much demand, while physically sub-optimated individuals are malnutritioned and inefficiently maintained, due to inefficient distribution of demand. Therefore, information about demand will never be correct under market economy.
Visual evidence:
PIC_001: Golden toilet.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gadgets4fun.com%2Fuimg%2Fgolden.jpg&hash=e481c32965f4c3a56db7c7491af50e33)
PIC_002: Malnutritioned units.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvoiceinthedesert.netfirms.com%2Fkeith%2Farchives%2FNiger%2520famine.jpg&hash=5fa0f6e59ffef7efefbbaa885d9527f9)
PIC_003: Waste of nutrients.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F207.58.155.90%2F%7Eleblanc%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2Fproduce.jpg&hash=537c68f0a9c09c62d7756de9c9be0c96)
Need any more evidence that human ability to comprehend and analyse information is suboptimated, do you not?
-
You see, in market economy, resources tend to cluster because of holonic nature of market. That leads to sub-optimal areas, like golden toilets, becoming "optimal" areas because concentration of wealth, while malnutritioned units are "sub-optimal" due to lack of capital.
From Cyborg perspective: Irrationalism.
-
Of course markets do regulate themselves. That is called EMERGENCE.
Emergence is a necessary part of a market, which is why markets cannot be directed; but emergence itself can only exist within the framework of a set of rules that can somehow be enforced.
-
We see emergence in nature. Yet, nature is not regulated by rules and laws.
Markets tend to regulate rules and laws, not the other way around, friend.
-
Bad side [of a market] is that resources still get invested in sub-optimal areas.
This is the argument that the Marxists used, and they singularly failed to achieve better efficiency than the market could achieve. It is theoretically possible to imagine a more efficient directed economy, but in practice the complexity of real economies, and the unpredictability of the demands (and even the supply) upon the economy, means that it is beyond human capacity to do so (and contrary to human nature that humans can act sufficiently without regard to their own self interest so as not to distort the economy to their advantage even if they could in theory construct an efficient centrally controlled economy).
-
We see emergence in nature. Yet, nature is not regulated by rules and laws.
Markets tend to regulate rules and laws, not the other way around, friend.
You might say that nature is not governed by human laws, but it is governed by laws - the laws of nature.
The difference is that a market is a human construct (although simple systems of barter might be regarded as an area that lies between the two, but the moment you use abstract measurements of value, then you are dealing with human systems that go beyond the laws applicable to most other aspects of nature).
-
Laws of nature applies to market, but human laws are inferior in maintaining markets, rules, yes even human civilisation.
The existence of police is evidence human laws are not universal, because they need force to be maintained.
Technocratic solution: Engineer civilisation to make violations physically impossible.
-
Incidentally, lest there be any confusion in what I mean by regulation (the term could be ambiguous, and I don't want us to be arguing a point under a misunderstanding); by regulation, I mean such things as regulating against insider dealing, or against the counterfeiting of money. I am not suggesting that regulation should be setting prices.
It certainly can be argued that market can, and did, operate without specific regulations being in force (e.g. the laws on insider trading are fairly recent), but modern sophisticated markets could not have arisen in the absence of any regulation at all (the exact laws matter less than that there must be a commonly agreed and effectively enforced legal framework).
-
And have regulation deleted insider trading and counterfeiting?
If not, they are ineffective firewalls against viruses. We need either better firewall systems, or new economic operative system.
-
Laws of nature applies to market, but human laws are inferior in maintaining markets, rules, yes even human civilisation.
The existence of police is evidence human laws are not universal, because they need force to be maintained.
Technocratic solution: Engineer civilisation to make violations physically impossible.
I doubt you could produce any system of human design that a human cannot find a way of undermining - what man can make, man can break.
Yes, legal frameworks do require enforcement, and are not 100% effective. As I said above, the primary function of these laws is the engender trust in the system. A system that is 99.9% enforced is sufficient to maintain trust (clearly, if you have 30% of the people involved in a system in violation of the rules of the system, then the system is broken - but if 0.1% of the people involved are in breach of the rules, this is a tolerable imperfection in the system).
-
I agree that the current system is irrational but, I don't think I'll ever call a small child 'a unit'.
And have regulation deleted insider trading and counterfeiting?
If not, they are ineffective firewalls against viruses. We need either better firewall systems, or new economic operative system.
That is impossible, laws prevent people doing things in the interest of everyone or in the interests of a group etc. Sounds like your suggesting that all laws should be impossible to break.
That is impossible to achieve and if it was achieved then there would be no need for police or judges etc. That's never going to happen.
-
I agree that the current system is irrational but, I don't think I'll ever call a small child 'a unit'.
But the nature of markets is that they can only work if there complexity is allowed to operate outside of the comprehension of human rationale (i.e. they must be irrational, or else they are broken).
-
And have regulation deleted insider trading and counterfeiting?
If not, they are ineffective firewalls against viruses. We need either better firewall systems, or new economic operative system.
As I said, what humans can make, humans can break.
I do not disagree that you can make systems that are more difficult to compromise, but it is humanly impossible to make a system that cannot be compromised. The question is at what point do you have the laws of diminishing return in terms of putting the effort into further improvement (this is a question that applies at any given moment in time - and it is quite possible that tomorrow you can design a more robust system than today - but even tomorrows system will not be unbreakable).
-
Rule of entropy: Chaos and disorder tend to increase in closed systems without sufficient countermeasures. Since world market is closed system, entropy would eventually increase. Humanity cannot expect to survive by utilising resources inefficiently and in interests of unnecessary expansion of consumption.
Definition: Unsustainability.
As earlier stated: Human bio-processor is insufficient to utilise such complex information in optimal way. Enhancements are advised.
Fun you think that markets "must" be irrational, since economists state that in ideal market economy consumer knows about all information about needs, prices and is able to rationally plan its consumption.
Cyborg proposal: Look into TECHNOCRACY.
Link: Wikipedia entry on Technocratic Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocratic_movement)
-
I agree that the current system is irrational but, I don't think I'll ever call a small child 'a unit'.
But the nature of markets is that they can only work if there complexity is allowed to operate outside of the comprehension of human rationale (i.e. they must be irrational, or else they are broken).
Well wait then, if the market has to be irrational, is it not the case that a person would have to act irrationally and think irrationally, to be and work with-in it?
-
Exact.
User Another_Someone has insufficient information about market.
Cyborg analysis: Logically insufficient that humans earn on acting irrationally in market.
Yet, human being do act irrationally, but because of biological reasons. Human action is most often based on irrational premises, or premises based on insufficient information.
-
With regards to TECHNOCRACY I really don't wanna live in a mall. [:)]
-
Have hard understanding human humor.
TECHNOCRACY is high-energy civilisation based on ENGINEER MANDATE and ENERGY ACCOUNTING, not "mall".
-
Yes mall, a huge building with shops and schools to house everyone equally, in which everyone lives in a cell/block apartment. That would probably have no windows etc.
Energy accounting, ok but I can't see people going for it, your giving a monetary value to, and sharing out, units of energy, evenly to everyone. It's a nice idea but I just don't think it would work in practice. However, you might be able to join it to the current system and somehow gain an overall benefit for everyone.
Robots doing all the work, that could happen but at the same time some would resist it(the Luddites for one), it would also be boring I enjoy working.
I take it your also removing international trading as the system supports itself?
-
Well wait then, if the market has to be irrational, is it not the case that a person would have to act irrationally and think irrationally, to be and work with-in it?
No - it simply means that humans cannot predict the outcome of their actions upon the market. A market that is capable of being rationally controlled by a single player within the market, or a small group of players in the market, is a broken market.
-
Rule of entropy: Chaos and disorder tend to increase in closed systems without sufficient countermeasures. Since world market is closed system, entropy would eventually increase. Humanity cannot expect to survive by utilising resources inefficiently and in interests of unnecessary expansion of consumption.
Definition: Unsustainability.
So do you think it is within our power to break the laws of nature, and prevent the increase in entropy?
Ofcourse, all systems are unsustainable in the long run - and it is naive to believe that humans, in any shape or form, are immortal, either as individuals or as a species. The question is not whether the systems we have in play are indefinitely sustainable (nothing is), but whether they are the best we have at present, and whether in the end the system will live longer than we shall (i.e. any doctor does not claim you will never die - he merely tries to ensure that what you die of is something other than what he is treating you for, and if the ailment you have is something that will kill you in 40 years, and you are already 70 years old, he may consider the ailment not worth the effort to treat at all).
As earlier stated: Human bio-processor is insufficient to utilise such complex information in optimal way. Enhancements are advised.
Computer systems are increasingly used to predict market behaviour - they still get it wrong - and can do so even more spectacularly than humans do.
Computers can react much faster than humans, but they cannot do anything that humans have not programmed them to do.
-
Energy accounting, ok but I can't see people going for it, your giving a monetary value to, and sharing out, units of energy, evenly to everyone. It's a nice idea but I just don't think it would work in practice.
I have a serious problem with energy accounting - it seems to argue that everything other than energy has zero value (that includes human beings, land usage, and much else).
The monetary system does place a value on energy, but it places a value on much else as well - it does does make energy the exclusive unit of value.
Ofcourse, you can argue the balance of value between energy, human life, land usage, other materials, is wrongly balanced; but I would be loathed to argue that only energy has value.
-
Since when is human being some sort of trading good? In slavery perhaps?
Do you think slavery is positive? I do not understand.
Energy accounting is not exchange system, but distribution system. All individual units would be receiving an equal share of the production capacity, to use to satisfy their needs.
That requires that all infrastructure within self-sufficient territorial base should be united under one administration.
Such administration is in making.
It will be called CYBORGIAN TECHNATE.
-
Since when is human being some sort of trading good? In slavery perhaps?
OK, let me give you an example:
A human being may be expected to live 70 years - that equates to about 613603 hours. If you buy my labour at £25/hour, that values my entire life at £15,340,075 - although you have yourself may only bought a very small fraction of that life.
OK, I will freely admit that the calculation is simplistic (you may be willing to pay me £25/hr today, but you would not have paid me that sum when I was a child, and you would necessarily pay me that later in life - so the total lifetime value of my labour might well be less than that, but all that means if that the £50 you may pay me for 2 hours labour today may represent an even higher percentage of my total lifetime labour value).
I will also accept that there are other ways that we can value a life, and the value we apply is by no means consistent - how much money are we prepared to pay to protect a life?
Valuing human life is a complex and often contradictory exercise, but nonetheless we do place a value upon life.
Do you think slavery is positive? I do not understand.
That is whole other matter - I was not talking about slavery as such (although I think slavery as a system has gotten an unfortunate name because of certain abusive implementations of slavery, but that is another topic altogether).
Energy accounting is not exchange system, but distribution system. All individual units would be receiving an equal share of the production capacity, to use to satisfy their needs.
If you are not talking about a system of trade, then what you are talking about is simply rationing - there is nothing new in rationing, but it has never been effective as a long term mechanism, although it can be expedient in times of crisis.
Are you then suggesting that all trade should be suppressed, and resources be divided purely on the basis of rations (this is indeed exactly the Marxist ideal)?
-
ENERGY ACCOUNTING: Total resource base production capacity of technate is divided into shares between all individuals living in area of technate. All individuals "own" their share of production capacity, and are free to use it as they like. Individual orders something, and it's share of production capacity (energy credits) are diverted to that area of production. Individual receive what it have ordered. Therefore, it is not rationing.
ENERGY CREDITS: Energy credits are units of information so technate could keep track on consumption. Therefore, they may not be saved over production cycle. When production cycle is over, the energy certifikate is reloaded. Energy credits cease to exist in disposable form when used.
Trade will not be suppressed. But it will not be profitable any more.
Technate will be so large and so advanced that it could produce anything cheaper than price system competitors.
-
We would not need chips in our heads for that only, but in order to PROGRESS. We have passed point when nature takes its toll on us and drives our evolution. Now it is time that HUMAN RACE itself takes commando. Or it will degenerate into oblivion.
-
ENERGY ACCOUNTING: Total resource base production capacity of technate is divided into shares between all individuals living in area of technate. All individuals "own" their share of production capacity, and are free to use it as they like. Individual orders something, and it's share of production capacity (energy credits) are diverted to that area of production. Individual receive what it have ordered. Therefore, it is not rationing.
Ofcourse this is rationing - you are saying each individual is allocated a ration of energy, this ration being nominally non-transferable - how is this different from (for instance) petrol rations (nobody says which car the petrol is used in but you still ration the petrol). OK, so the accounting of the rations is more sophisticated, but it is still rationing.
As I said, it will almost certainly only be nominally non-traded, since in practice, I cannot see how you can prevent me from using my own energy ration for a purpose that benefits another person, nor prevent me from bartering that energy ration for something else that I desire from the other person.
ENERGY CREDITS: Energy credits are units of information so technate could keep track on consumption. Therefore, they may not be saved over production cycle. When production cycle is over, the energy certifikate is reloaded. Energy credits cease to exist in disposable form when used.
This itself is dangerous - current period accounting makes it impossible to do long term planning, and means that any energy I do not use within the current accounting period must be traded if I am not to lose its value altogether.
Trade will not be suppressed. But it will not be profitable any more.
Ofcourse it will be profitable.
Let me give you a very very crude example - a pretty girl has a high energy demand, so she is willing to offer her sexual favours in exchange for the use of their energy credits.
But there are ofcourse other things, besides sexual favours, that might also be traded.
Beyond that, if you allow trade in energy, but make energy credits a perishable comodity, the you are inadvertently also promoting an energy futures market (e.g. I don't need all of my energy credits in the current period, but expect that I will need more energy at a future date; but I know that Joe Bloggs needs more energy today, so I trade my energy credits that I have today for a promise from Joe Bloggs that he would give me his energy credits at a future date).
The reality is that there has never been a rationing system that has not stimulated a black market behind it (OK, if you do not prohibit the trade in energy credits, then you may argue that the market is more grey than black).
-
Fact: In technate, there will be no scarcity. Therefore, technocracy wont prohibit bartering, but bartering will not be very popular. Besides, for energy "ration", individual could order what it want to be produced.
Yes, it is gone, but when new period comes, it will be reloaded to level corresponding to new period's production capacity.
When you are trying to give energy credits to someone else, they will dissapear in thin air. Therefore, the examples you said wont work as you say it. Of course, human being could try to trade (out of irrationalism or childish defiance) but who wants to trade when all needs could be satisfied without trading?
Read about technocratic movement on wikipedia. Educate yourself.
-
You could now join technocracy at http://technocracy.forumcircle.com/portal.php
-
Fact: In technate, there will be no scarcity. Therefore, technocracy wont prohibit bartering, but bartering will not be very popular. Besides, for energy "ration", individual could order what it want to be produced.
What do you mean by 'no scarcity' (apart from this sounding somewhat utopian)?
If you mean there is no scarcity of energy then there would be no need to ration it, so one must assume that there is a scarcity of energy.
How do you avoid the scarcity of land, or the scarcity of sex (see above example)?
When you are trying to give energy credits to someone else, they will dissapear in thin air.
You totally missed what I said.
I did not say that the authorities would notice a transfer of credits. If I want to buy a new motor car, and it costs 100 credits, and I only have 20 credits left, then I can go to Fred Smith and trade something Fred Smith wants (land, sex, or a promise of future credits) in exchange for which he will order the motor car for himself, and then transfer the title of the motor car to me in exchange for whatever he himself desires. There is no official transfer of energy credits, but there is a transfer of the benefits obtained from the energy credits.
You might say that in your world there would be no shortage of motor cars either, but then what value would the the energy credits have at all?
-
Land would not be owned under technate, and sex is no commodity, but personal issue.
And yes, what is wrong with utopianism? Utopianism is what brought us here today. You seem not to have read wikipedia article.
-
Land would not be owned under technate, and sex is no commodity, but personal issue.
Any prostitute will tell you that sex can be turned into a commodity, just like anything else that a human being might desire.
Whether land is owned, or simply rented, or however its use is allocated - it is still a finite resource that must be distributed in some way (simply arguing that one can distribute land on the basis of an energy value is meaningless unless that land happens to have an oil well sitting on it).
And yes, what is wrong with utopianism? Utopianism is what brought us here today. You seem not to have read wikipedia article.
I had not had time until today to do so, but that has been remedied - but not convinced me that it is any different from a variant of communism (as highlighed by Veglen's "Soviet of Technicians").
The problem with all utopian social constructs is that the simplify human beings as if they were crude robots, and take regard only of the relationship between the human individual and the central authority of society, and take no account of the relationships between human beings that occur outside of their relationship with the social authority. Interpersonal human relations carry with them their own power play, and also satisfy human needs just as much as the material needs you believe you have totally controlled by the relationship between the individual and the centre. If you have a need, then it has a value that is associated with it, and is no less important (nor may be separated from) the material needs embodied in the relationship between the individual and the centre.
-
No - it simply means that humans cannot predict the outcome of their actions upon the market. A market that is capable of being rationally controlled by a single player within the market, or a small group of players in the market, is a broken market.
I think we are looking at it very differently.
By irrational I am actually talking about damage and the non-sustainability of the market itself; not control of but the consequence of the market. How the whole affects the world and its peoples.
Damage is a subjective and contextual issue.
As I said before, sustainability is impossible, no matter what you do. Any action one undertakes will come to a point where sooner or later you have to choose a different course of action, but that does not make that course of action wrong for the time you take it, nor does it imply that if you had taken a different course of action, it would be any more sustainable.
No animal (human or otherwise) has ever acted in an infinitely sustainable manner.
The nature of markets is not to look at sustainability but to look at what the best action is within the immediate context, and assume that when you change context so the market will force a change of action to reflect that change of context.
The question is not whether the systems we have in play are indefinitely sustainable (nothing is), but whether they are the best we have at present, and whether in the end the system will live longer than we shall (i.e. any doctor does not claim you will never die - he merely tries to ensure that what you die of is something other than what he is treating you for, and if the ailment you have is something that will kill you in 40 years, and you are already 70 years old, he may consider the ailment not worth the effort to treat at all).
Yeah, I see what you saying but the market has to account for those that will be here in the future and not just those that are here now; The reality that the market currently does not, is in itself irrational, to my mind.
On the contrary, the market does as nature has always done, it optimises the immediate.
All evolution is by its nature short term - it fills the immediate niche. All that the markets undertake is to create an evolutionary environment where the actions of the players simply seek to survive within their niche, but in doing so they move the whole market forward, which then changes the niches, which then changes the behaviour of the players in order to adjust to the changes in the market.
What happens in markets is what happens in life. A species seeks to maximise its immediate survival within nature, but in doing so it creates an unconscious feedback within the natural system, which changes the environment that it and other species must learn to adapt to or perish. Nature is ofcourse sustainable, but no single natural environment is ever sustainable, but is merely the environment of the instant.
It is naive to believe you can ever create a sustainable natural (or market) environment, since that is to suppress natural development.
The point about markets is that they are adaptable, not that they are sustainable - and that which will sustain itself indefinitely will by its nature lack the ability to adapt.
-
Land is not rented. All land is under administration of technate. People own production capacity, not means of production.
-
Land is not rented. All land is under administration of technate. People own production capacity, not means of production.
So where do people live? All forms of habitat that I am aware of utilise land in some way, and the people who inhabit a dwelling must somehow have a right to use the land the dwelling is built on as a natural consequence of having a right to use the dwelling itself.
Somehow this allocation of the right to occupy a dwelling must be distributed by some means, and with it comes right to the land upon which the dwelling is built (even if they are shared right, such as in a tower block, they still are rights that the occupier has, that non-occupiers will not have.
-
People will dwell in urbanates operated by technate. Urbanates would be concentrated arcologies containing tens of thousands of people, facilities, recreational areas, and sport installations. Technate distribute right to dwelling.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftokyomg.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F06%2Ftry2004.gif&hash=fe373d1b02dfc3297d70fb5605e73cbf)
-
Technate distribute right to dwelling.
In other words we now have another aspect of rationing alongside energy rationing - the right to dwelling. No doubt (and this is quite common in rationing systems) you will suggest that there is no official exchange between dwelling rations and energy rations, so any exchange that exists will be on the basis of a black economy.
-
Exchange wont be illegal. So it wont be black economy.
But since technate is able to produce all that consumer wants, consumer would rather like to utilise service of technate than trade for higher price.
LINK: http://www.technocracy.ca
LINK: http://technocracynow.blogspot.com
LINK: http://en.technocracynet.eu
-
Exchange wont be illegal. So it wont be black economy.
But since technate is able to produce all that consumer wants, consumer would rather like to utilise service of technate than trade for higher price.
If the consumer can obtain everything they want, then why ration it?
In the days when land was plentiful, and there was no rationing (whether by price or by political power) of land, there was no land ownership, and no need to account for land - it was equally available for all. The need to any accounting system (energy accounting, dwelling rights accounting, or whatever) is to limit access to a scarce resource.
That there is any price at all implies that the commodities are in some way limited. If supply equals or exceeds all possible demand, then the price is zero.
As for trading for a higher price - which is going to be the higher price? If both energy and dwelling space are limited (i.e. rationed) resources, then what is the price between them depends on the market. If 10 units of energy = 1 unit of dwelling space, then who is to say that this is a higher or lower exchange rate than the technate would provide, since the technate provides no exchange rate at all. Ofcourse, maybe 10 units of energy per unit of dwelling space might overvalue the energy, so the market will adjust to 20 units of energy per unit of dwelling space; or it might be that this is too expensive for the dwelling space, and it would be 5 units of energy to 1 unit of dwelling space, but it is the market that would decide that.
-
Because there is limited amounts of energy. But human ability to consume is not limitless. In technate, you do not have ownership, but usership. That means you cannot obtain 600 cars for example, but maybe use 600 cars from different depots at different times. It is for sake of ecological balance.
You decide what should be produced for your energy share. Technate uses automatic factories to deliver it. The cost in your energy share correspond exactly to energy cost. Therefore, zero profits are made. Since there are no wages and no unemployment, social incitaments for starting to trade will be low. If urbanate is overcrowded, new urbanate is erect alongside it. No need for "market solutions" in integrated technate.
Technate operates by social design. Not by engineering.
Cyborg have sense you do not read links.
Read links and answer after.
-
Because there is limited amounts of energy. But human ability to consume is not limitless.
This is how I understood things, but totally contradicts your other statement:
technate is able to produce all that consumer wants
In technate, you do not have ownership, but usership. That means you cannot obtain 600 cars for example, but maybe use 600 cars from different depots at different times. It is for sake of ecological balance.
If you have rights, then you own those rights, and can sell or rent those rights to others. The alternative is that people in your society have no rights.
I did not say anything about ownership of tangible assets, only about a trade in rights (i.e. to sell or rent one's right to dwelling space, or to sell one's right to energy). We have already ascertained that people do have rights to dwelling space, and rights to energy, and therefore these rights are potentially tradable commodities. You have assured me that there will be no legal prohibition in the trade in such commodities.
You decide what should be produced for your energy share. Technate uses automatic factories to deliver it. The cost in your energy share correspond exactly to energy cost. Therefore, zero profits are made. Since there are no wages and no unemployment, social incitaments for starting to trade will be low. If urbanate is overcrowded, new urbanate is erect alongside it. No need for "market solutions" in integrated technate.
Since there is no employment in your society, and all basic needs are provided for without any preconditions, you are in effect treating the populace much as we treat children (we give them food and clothing and shelter, and only demand that they behave themselves). Nonetheless, despite children having all their basic needs met without any price, children still swap things, still trade one thing for another. They may not be able to develop sophisticated markets, and in your technate also, there would be a lack of legal infrastructure to develop sophisticated markets; but you will not be able to prevent simple barter trade.
Cyborg have sense you do not read links.
Read links and answer after.
As we have already indicated, all things are limited, and that includes my time. I have read the Wikipedia article, but I cannot simply read every link that anyone could have written on the matter; but since you are vehemently arguing for the matter, I am (I believe reasonably) assuming that you have read enough of the surrounding subject that you can provide an appropriate synopsis pertinent to my questions.
-
You should read other links as well.
Of course, you could try to rent apartment or rights to other person under technate. But it wont become popular, since technate by size and ability to produce would be able to outcompete any potential competitor due to virtual control over continent. Therefore, technate alternative would always be cheaper than your alternative.
Since no one could make any profits under technate, and no one could monopolise access to resource, artificial scarcity wont arise. Human need is not limitless, and even if it was, human has only limited ability to consume. Technate is best option, since it offer everyone access to a share of production capacity.
LINK: http://www.technocracy.org
LINK: http://www.technocracy.ca
LINK: http://technocracynow.blogspot.com
LINK: http://en.technocracynet.eu
-
Of course, you could try to rent apartment or rights to other person under technate. But it wont become popular, since technate by size and ability to produce would be able to outcompete any potential competitor due to virtual control over continent. Therefore, technate alternative would always be cheaper than your alternative.
You are only looking at the production side of the equation. In every modern economy, there is a massive retail chain that makes substantial profits without being able to produce anything at all. Exactly what do banks produce, yet they are extremely profitable.
I am not saying that your technate will have a formal banking and retain sector, I am merely highlighting the fact that you don't need to produce something cheaply, or produce something at all, in order to make a profit.
If you really want an example of an organisation that can make massive 'profits' without making anything tangible, I would propose the Church (not any one Church - they all follow pretty much the same pattern - they obtain benefit by selling a wholly intangible benefit that the technate cannot monopolise).
Since no one could make any profits under technate,
It depends on what you mean by 'profit'.
Clearly, you do not have the legal instruments (such as totally portable money) that would allow profits in the sense that a company would submit in their profit and loss account; but that is very different from saying that people could not find trade to be profitable (just as school children bartering goods in the school playground find the exercise profitable to them, although they will never declare a formal profit and loss account).
and no one could monopolise access to resource, artificial scarcity wont arise.
Again, you are restricting your argument to tangible resources. For instance, the Church claims (it matters not whether the claim is true or not, only that it is believed) to monopolise access to heaven. How does the technate counter that? The fact is that the Church has been very successful in managing this perceived monopoly, and even today there are new religions, or new interpretations of old religions, that can quickly attract substantial profits for those desperately seeking something to believe in (look at the moonies, or the church of scientology - both seem to be highly profitable organisations).
Then there are issues of sentiment. It may be quite possible that you can imagine a machine that can create as many identical copies of the Mona Lisa as one could possibly desire; but do you really think that all these infinite, and identical, paintings will carry the same sentimental value as the authenticated original that was painted by Leonardo da Vinci.
Aside from such historic masterpieces as the Mona Lisa, many parents assign sentimental value to a picture their young child drew at school; or maybe a wife might make an item for her husbands birthday, not because she could not have bought something better in the shops, but because she wished to create something with her own hands, and what she gives is the love in the creation of the item more than the item itself. No amount of automated manufacture can manufacture sentiment. Yet, even in this materialistic age, most of what we purchase is in fact sentiment (whether it is the knowledge that we have a unique masterpiece, or the sentiment surrounding a brand name, or the sentiment associated with the history of an item).
The more our material needs become easily sated, the more important becomes the sentiment in what we posses.
Human need is not limitless, and even if it was, human has only limited ability to consume.
You are missing a great deal about human psychology.
Most societies have some form of conspicuous consumption (the exact manner of this can vary from society to society, and what might be the norm in one society might be unacceptable in another, but some display is as necessary to humanity as the tail feathers of a peacock are important to that bird).
Then again, as I indicated above, it may well be that most of this conspicuous consumption might not necessarily be of a material nature, as possession of things that are of sentimental value is as much a display of conspicuous consumption as is the ostentatious display of basic necessities (there is little kudos to be had in displaying 1 million cans of corned beef, but far more in having the most impractical item of clothing with an exclusive brand label on it).
-
Exactly.
Retail and bank sector wont exist in technate. You could try start bank, but no one could deposit anything there since energy credits are non transferable.
School children bartering hockey cards is not problem for technate.
Technate only deal with resources and services, not with religion.
Exclusivity is flaw of human brain. It is creating uncontrolled growth and endangering environment. Human Race survive without it. And what say technate cannot pirate-copy brands if consumers so desire?
-
Retail and bank sector wont exist in technate. You could try start bank, but no one could deposit anything there since energy credits are non transferable.
The problem with running a bank in your technate is not that energy credits are non-transferable, but that (I assume) there is no legal redress for bad debts, and so anybody who wishes to collect on a bad debts would have to use extra-legal methods (i.e. a bank could not take you to court to recover a bad IOU, but the Mafia might break your legs - or worse - if you have borrowed from them and not repayed them).
School children bartering hockey cards is not problem for technate.
But the moment you accept this, you accept there will be some element of market economy within your technate.
Technate only deal with resources and services, not with religion.
You will note that most societies that try and micromanage their population do find religion to be a threat to their exclusive management of their populations.
It may be that the technate is only concerned with the supply of material goods, and is not at all concerned with the wider issues of social structure; in which case it may be that it will not see religion as a threat, but as something that operates in a different sphere within society from the purely materialistic sphere that the technate confines itself to.
Exclusivity is flaw of human brain. It is creating uncontrolled growth and endangering environment. Human Race survive without it. And what say technate cannot pirate-copy brands if consumers so desire?
Pirate copying does not really undermine the notion of exclusivity, of merely makes the authentication of it more difficult.
As to whether exclusivity is a flaw of humanity - it is part of what makes humanity what it is. If the technate does not cope with exclusivity, then it is not suitable for human beings. It may be suitable for a robot civilisation, or even for a colony of ants, but not for human beings.
I would suggest that the human race would not survive in the absence of exclusivity. I am not saying that a race of beings that look like humans could not survive, but they would not be humans.
-
I think we are drifting off topic, the question was about markets regulating themselves.
-
I think we are drifting off topic, the question was about markets regulating themselves.
If you would wish, I can try and split the topic (I realise it did get a bit bogged down in the debate on the technate).
I did try and respond to your last point here (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=10204.msg126191#msg126191)
-
I have a question doesn't the reality that the market has rationally acted to not change to a more environmental system quicker; to a degree show that really, the system is rational even though it looks irrational.
Isn't it broken as a truly free market would have acted differently and faster?
-
I have a question doesn't the reality that the market has rationally acted to not change to a more environmental system quicker; to a degree show that really, the system is rational even though it looks irrational.
Isn't it broken as a truly free market would have acted differently and faster?
How do you define 'rational' - are you not judging by your own prejudices as to what a rational decision ought to be?
Evolutionary systems (and a truly free market is evolutionary) will tend towards stability as long as they can, followed by a short period of catastrophic change when they are no longer able to sustain stability. It is inevitable that evolutionary systems will migrate towards stability, since as long as the system remains unstable it will continue to change until it finds a stable condition, and then it stops changing.
-
I have a question doesn't the reality that the market has rationally acted to not change to a more environmental system quicker; to a degree show that really, the system is rational even though it looks irrational.
Isn't it broken as a truly free market would have acted differently and faster?
How do you define 'rational' - are you not judging by your own prejudices as to what a rational decision ought to be?
We are talking about control and suppression. To act rationally as you yourself said before, means that a market is broken.
Evolutionary systems (and a truly free market is evolutionary) will tend towards stability as long as they can, followed by a short period of catastrophic change when they are no longer able to sustain stability. It is inevitable that evolutionary systems will migrate towards stability, since as long as the system remains unstable it will continue to change until it finds a stable condition, and then it stops changing.
Just asking the question as stated above. I think your just being pedantic [:)].
-
The point I was trying to make is that the market, without any oversight, will tend towards avoiding rapid change if at all possible. It is gets to the point that rapid change is necessary, then it will create substantial instability.
In order to change rapidly, a system has to be small (the smallest possible human system is one composed of a single person making all the decisions, so a system where one person has absolute control is a system that is capable of the most rapid change). Clearly, the economic markets are not under the control of one person, or even under the control of a small group of people, so they are not capable of rapid change, except when they are in a state of virtual collapse, where all the control mechanisms are failing.
-
The point I was trying to make is that the market, without any oversight, will tend towards avoiding rapid change if at all possible. It is gets to the point that rapid change is necessary, then it will create substantial instability.
In order to change rapidly, a system has to be small (the smallest possible human system is one composed of a single person making all the decisions, so a system where one person has absolute control is a system that is capable of the most rapid change). Clearly, the economic markets are not under the control of one person, or even under the control of a small group of people, so they are not capable of rapid change, except when they are in a state of virtual collapse, where all the control mechanisms are failing.
Well just a minute if 10% own 90% of the wealth surely that affords them alot of influence? In some countries the percentages are worse, or better, depending how you look at it.
-
Still, think My Idea for social capitalism is a better answer. Small Government, Low Tax, and Social Services. Let government own shares they already do it some countries. The dividens replace income tax. So you can still tax for the police and bin-men, maybe enforce green taxes. needs work.
That idea does put government on a par with the elites... errr yeah... I'll shut up now.
hugs
-
Well just a minute if 10% own 90% of the wealth surely that affords them alot of influence? In some countries the percentages are worse, or better, depending how you look at it.
No argument with that.
The issue at question is whether 10% of the population (with a national population of 60 million in the UK, that amounts to 6 million people) is a small enough population to be regarded as an inherently cohesive group that can be regarded to be acting in a rational way, as if they were of one mind.
-
Still, think My Idea for social capitalism is a better answer. Small Government, Low Tax, and Social Services. Let government own shares they already do it some countries. The dividens replace income tax. So you can still tax for the police and bin-men, maybe enforce green taxes. needs work.
That idea does put government on a par with the elites... errr yeah... I'll shut up now.
hugs
Yes, governments have owned shares in the past, but it has normally been to bail companies out, or as a means of nationalising key resources (such as countries that have sought to bring oil resources under national control). In the UK, the government of the UK has obtained money from the oil industry by selling oil exploration licences rather than by nationalising part, or all, the shares in the industries itself.
The problem with general share ownership is, as it always says in the small print of most of the financial services products, that the value of your shares can go down as well as up.