0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When you are trying to give energy credits to someone else, they will dissapear in thin air.
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.
Quote from: another_someone on 22/09/2007 15:13:46No - 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.
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.
Quote from: another_someone on 22/09/2007 15:21:56The 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.
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).
Land is not rented. All land is under administration of technate. People own production capacity, not means of production.