0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Technate distribute right to dwelling.
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.
Because there is limited amounts of energy. But human ability to consume is not limitless.
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.
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.
Cyborg have sense you do not read links. Read links and answer after.
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.
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?
I think we are drifting off topic, the question was about markets regulating themselves.
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?
Quote from: sooyeah on 24/11/2007 16:01:18I 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.
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