What are your thoughts on technocracy? Is this a good system of government?

>Technocracy is an organizational structure or system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge.
Who gets to pick them?

chech mate

More info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination

it would quickly beecome incredibly corrupt and wouldn't resemble what you had imagined

The end result of technocracy is a bunch of psychologists and economists attempting to centrally plan and social engineer everything but end up fucking everything up

Politics and governance are not scientific questions. Sometimes the wrong decision has more evidence in its favor. It would be a shitty form of government that would just devolve into dictatorship

Ethics are a spook anyways

>Soviet leaders like Leonid Brezhnev often had a technical background in education; in 1986, 89% of Politburo members were engineers

Communism? More like Autism lmao

Generally speaking yes.

The problem with technocracy, i.e. governing positions filled with people competent in their fields, is that they won't necessarily coordinate with one another. A person super competent in managing hospitals, with an understanding of what it's like as a doctor, recognizing trends in medicine and all that might make a great minister of health in theory, but he'd have to stick to his budget, follow government policy, etc. - and most importantly, someone who's from the field might be biased. Like a former general or admiral might be a good minister of defense in theory, but put the well-being of the military over the well-being of the rest of the state.

However, I think that such positions need to be filled from somebody with some experience in the field. If you're the health minister, you need to have an understanding of medicine and how hospitals operate. The defense minister needs to have served in the army, etc.

>The end result of [_______] is a bunch of [_____] and [______] attempting to centrally plan and social engineer everything but end up fucking everything up

human history in a nutshell

>is this a good system of government?
no.

Knowing a lot about physics or engineering or what have you has fairly little use in ruling or administering a nation. That requires interpersonal skills, an understanding of geopolitics and bureaucracy, and how to juggle competing interests in that sweet spot of unsatisfying but acceptable compromises.

Scientists and the like best serve as advisers, providing accurate data and tools to be chosen from. Putting them in charge is a straight shot to ineffective leadership.

Turns out making a better car or discovering a particle requires a different skillset than being a leader of men.

But what if sometime in the future the rise of hyper-efficient computers which can calculate massive numbers of variables turn economics into a true science, and society becomes governed by an economic algorithm maintained by economic engineers and software engineers?

This is a shitpost

>fedora tier
>theocracy

*stimulates cognition*

>devolve
>into dictatorship

>Sometimes the wrong decision has more evidence in its favor.

How is is this any different from the way our current democracy functions - what looks best/most practical in consultation with experts? At least it's better than gut instinct or industry lobbying.

that sounds like an extreme hypothetical behind which all our ideas about society and government become meaningless.

>Sometimes the wrong decision has more evidence in its favor.

How would democracy fix that?

idiot

technocracy is a least bad possible form of government

physics and engineers provide something called "proof of work" which in a complex system is used to prevent predation and rent seeking. for the same reason you have to pay to use a public facility to prevent tragedy of the commons, there needs to be an extremely high cost for entering into politics. note, it needs to be a high NON MONETARY cost, because political involvement reaps high returns. the cost must be in terms of IQ, WASTED TIME, and service. expected returns can be high still, but someone who just wants to leech or make money can find better ways of doing so.

THAT is the purpose of requiring stem people in government.

further, it's GOOD that they don't have experience administering. it means they have less ability to be corrupt and warp the rules.

people like you are idiots. lawyers are fucking evil and we should not let them run the country. kill yourself.

The only place you'd need scientists in a modern technocracy is at the head of the ministry of science.

Today a technocracy would refer to a system where experts in x or y field are put in charge of organizing and administrating their field. For example, a law expert would be justice minister, an economist would be economy minister etc, all of which is not taken for granted any longer. The French were outraged when their last appointed finance minister was an ex banker rather than an elected politician.

In Saint Simonisme though, there would be an academy of scientists ruling the country, alongside an academy of industrials and an academy of the fine arts, which is closer to what you describe, and would be a fine waste of brain power. One could argue that with modern communication systems saint simonisme is more possible now than it was in the XIXth century, if one considers the academics would be able to maintain both their political and technical activites.

that comic is funny and true to some extent, but physicists are better than other experts at their own fields. the problem seems to mostly come down to an iq shortage. the smartest people almost always go into physics.

one of the absurdities of the comic the first language bit. physicists and genomicists are literally reconstruting the first languages as we speak.

It devolves to credentialism and testism. It's as easily corruptable as anything else except it's orders of magnitude harder to get off the ground.

I think governments should have technocratic participation in the form of ministries lead by people competent in the ministry's department.
However I fucking hate how fags from places like r/futurology fetishise technocracy like the ultimate from of government because they think "le epic black science man" they saw on TV and other scientists are some form of supermen immune to corruption,greed or other bad human traits.

as opposed to cartelism in the west where 90% of politicians are lawyers?

technocracy imposes a hard iq limit, as well as imposing time costs as well as earnings costs on the majority of participants. obviously the people who win don't have hte costs, but the majority of entrants will experience costs as the result of failure.

there are literally zero costs imposed upon people getting into politics via becoming a lawyer

>90% of politicians are lawyers?
Why is it so implausible that the people who dedicate their careers to interpreting the law would also pursue careers writing them?

Listen up dummies.

Technocracy is certainly one of the better forms of government on paper, but has it ever worked in reality? I'd rather have a full-fledged meritocracy where a person who has proved himself capable of governing a state does his shtick and takes into consideration the opinions of his advisers, who should be the brightest minds in the country in their respective field of expertise.

Just get the best people to work for you and you're set.

Sounds great in theory, but is invariably nightmarish in execution. No planned economy can outperform free markets and however well they seem to work for a while they always crash and cause massive suffering.

>Sometimes the wrong decision has more evidence in its favor

what do define in this situation as wrong?
morally,
ethically,
economically,
as beneficial for the people living in the country
benceficial for the industry
for the environment perhaps?
for your wallet?
for your ideology maybe?

these things can be taken into account

you research this and question the population what they want.

Can technocracy be a layer on top of democracy?

>but has it ever worked in reality?
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Imagine how powerful computers will be in 100 years. Or 10,000. Or when genetic manipulation becomes a commonplace thing and people engineer themselves into better behavior?

>Can technocracy be a layer on top of democracy?

This is basically representative democracy. The populace decides what it wants, expresses that my electing politicians who hold those views, who then consult the experts as to how best achieve these goals. Doesn't always work like that in practice (what system of government does?) but it's still pretty good, despite what the edgelords of Veeky Forums may believe

planned economy and technocracy are two different things
you can have a experts in decision making of governmental ministries but still leave the market somewhat more or less free

why is it that retards like you are incapable of realizing that putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is a bad idea?

we don't need law experts. we don't want a system that encourages people to skirt around the law, and a system that empowers the people who are best at skirting around the law

this is literally the problem technocracy intends to solve. and you people are idiots.

meritocracy only exists in market systems. technocracy is the attempt to try and institutionalize merit

japan, worst korea, singapore, taiwan, hk, and china are the only technocracies on the planet. 5/6 isn't a bad track record.

free markets don't exist in reality. they are an unstable equilibrium that can only be kept in place by a disinterested government, which never lasts, because a disinterested governor is one who doesn't govern for long

technocracy is more concerned with stability of governance than outright profit. I am a big fan of markets, but we need a way of addressing human needs without resorting to outright retard socialism. technocracy does this adequately.

>No planned economy can outperform free markets
But when left to their own devices free markets suffer crippling market swings and have a way of coagulating into conspiratorial oligarchies, so it's important to make the distinction that all modern economies are mixed systems striving for efficiency, and a completely computerized economy might be the most efficient system imaginable, completely removing human error from the equation.

technocracy is not a layer on top of democracy

if you were to examine the way china, japan, korea, taiwan, and singapore operate, you'd realize that 90% of all legislators and judges are taken from pools of elite STEM professions, sometimes earlier, and sometimes later in their careers. they're promoted b rotating boards, and rotating boards meet via plenums in order to decide national policy.

promotions are decided exclusively according to performance reports (which can be flawed but are openly reformable) and in the absence of plenums separate boards meet individually with each other round robin style. it's endless board meetings.

distinctly different.

this is one of the key features for why you can reliably say that singapore, korea, and japan are not democracies. nothing is actually decided on the voting floor. it is decided n the round robin board meetings and the plenums.

what we have right now is a computerized economy. the first step in computerization was a tenser equation for CDOs invented by david x li which was an attempt to codify stochastically incomplete information.

our computerized economy is the weakest in industrial history

the problem with "removing" inefficiencies is that inefficiencies are the result of poor allocation. it means you need to reallocate.

there's no way you can allocate money to black schools to improve them. you'll fail for 60 years straight. there's no way you can allocate money to certan sectors of the economy to improve efficiency either. the more you try, you're just wasting money.

>why is it that retards like you are incapable of realizing that putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is a bad idea?
Ok, first of all, STFU with the salty language. Maybe I'm scrutinizing your views in an impartial manner because I'm actually interested to see what you have to say in response?

All I'm saying is that these are people who devote most of their lives to studying the law, reading about the law, and using the law to defend a client, be it a powerful corporation or an individual property owner, so why wouldn't they know what separates effective legislation from ineffective (or worse) legislation. You trust licensed doctors to write you prescriptions, right? So why is it such a tyranny to trust lawyers to write new legislation?

>we don't need law experts. we don't want a system that encourages people to skirt around the law, and a system that empowers the people who are best at skirting around the law

But when you take the experts away and put lay people in charge, all those problems amplify because they write shitty, poorly thought out laws which can be more easily manipulated and exploited.

Look at what happened in Iraq when they fired all the baathists? The government was taken over by morons and all those experienced bureaucrats took new jobs working for ISIS, which lets face it, would have curb-stomped Iraq and Syria by now were it not for western and Russian meddling.

>this is literally the problem technocracy intends to solve. and you people are idiots.
Again with the fucking language. But a better question might be to wonder when a pure technocracy becomes feasible. 50 years? 500? When we master artificial intelligence?

>90% of all legislators and judges are taken from pools of elite STEM professions

Hahahaha no. In Japan, Korea, and Singapore, a huge proportion of them come from political families.

central plannen suck a dic. Maybe they would come to the conclusion that leaving the economy as a free market is the most logical conclusion after several failed attempts at managing it tho.

sorry, this board just makes me angry

>good vs bad legislation
it's not the WORDING of legislation that makes it good or bad. it's the type of programs it tries to institute, and the pollution it recieves from special interest.

obamacare is a good example. if you understand basic statistics, you'll understand that expanding the risk pool leads to higher premiums. period. it's a matter of mathematical means.

could specific wording in the law make it less or more bad? yeah, probably. but pelosi herself said that, and the entire court case around it revolved around, trying to change the very language itself to make it less broken. lawyers being in charge didn't fix the language from being broken.

but having someone with a basic background in math could have made sure the entire concept itself wasn't broken.

>exploiting the word of the law
rule by law is a sort of legal fiction. in the end, individuals rule, or people with power rule. do you think that ginsberg looks at the actual wording of the second amendment and decides that gun bans are legal? no, she is an extension of power of an ideology. the ideology is all that matters. a left court will rule one way on the 2nd amendment 100% of the time, and a right court wil rule the other way 100% of thet ime. wording doesn't matter AT ALL

>iraq
iraqis are retards with 70 iq points. this highlights even more that words and laws don't matter. their entire legal structure was set up the same way as ours, the same as liberia's. PEOPLE matter, not words.

>rude
sorry. it's hard to tell who is actually willing to talk, and who is just a shitposter.

we more or less have technocracy operational right now. all of northeast asia except for north korea nd mongolia rae technocracies.

they deliver worse overall market outcomes, and in exchange deliver higher growth, better human capital outcomes, more stability, less war, less violence, mroe infrastructure, etc.

>not supporting the Technocracy
[HITMark chaingun noises]

...

the majority of the current chinese plenum are first generation millionaires. they peacefully phased out legacies over the last 2 decades, though many of them still have a strangelhold on the western provinces and are making them impoverished as a result

the political families became prominent in the first place because they were valuable to the state in establishing technology firms.

compare that to america, that nearly elected three bushes in a row, or two clintons, variously, despite the fact that they've destroyed out country from within

you need to stop throwing out stupid fucking one liners as if it makes a coherent point

I think the claim is that these would go away under a technocracy, but that would require a highly educated populace, willing to put aside their moral concerns.
It's more reasonable to dictate moral issues to localized democratic votes imo.

It's useful for some things. The Supreme Court is technocratic. The Federal Reserve is technocratic. Both have mild checks from the Presiden/congress (not enough to make the positions political, but because there's no better way to pick the members. Plus, its worked pretty well so far--generally the most qualified/intelligent people have been nominated for those jobs. IMO both work pretty well. I would potentially support making more technocratic institutions. It doesn't make sense to make the whole government technocratic though, because how do you choose the members? We need to stay a democratic republic, because elected representatives are the only ones who could properly choose the technocratic officials.

why are ethical questions even a matter of politics in the first place, unless people are trying to enforce morality on one another? aren't leftists the ones who claim that ethics/morality are subjective? that should exclude it entirely from the political sphere.

the fact is that we frame technical issues as moral issues. obamacare is a good example, we have to make smething unworkable, somehow work, because it's the "moral" thing to do.

this is what communism did and millions of people died as a result.

I actually support technocracy but your argument here is flawed

sotomayor writes at an 11th grade level and bernanke/yellen are just playing a shell game on us. american institutions are very far from technocratic. technocracy does't just mean "ge the guy with the qualifications to do it," it's a very specific form of bureaucracy

heres your (you)

know how I know?

>What are your thoughts on technocracy?
It's a stupid idea. The intellectual class spends the vast majority of their time surrounded by their fellow fairly well off intellectuals. Go drop by the MIT campus and ask for some political options. Chances are that the vast majority of them live in their own little bubble and have no idea what life is like for regular people.

At least in a straight democracy you have a small chance of electing a regular guy, even though that isn't how things go 99% of the time.

what makes you think cleetus or trayvon knows what's best for normal people?

Yes goy- I mean free citizenry. Back anything but social egalitarianism, you don't want to be a filthy commie.

It is impossible to "put aside their moral concerns". All political decisions are inevitably based on morality

Singapore is one.

Being a technocrat and being ethical are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the more educated you are, the more likely you're ethically leaning.

Moral was always a bitch for politics.

>implying moral realism

>sorry, this board just makes me angry
>sorry. it's hard to tell who is actually willing to talk, and who is just a shitposter.
no worries, bruh, I just figured if we all started enforcing civility maybe this board wouldn't make us angry any more. Shit irritates me, too.

> it's the type of programs it tries to institute,
My biggest issue, though, is that the alternative to lawyers writing laws is that lobbyists write laws, and these laws tend to exhibit blatant favoritism for whichever corporation or union wrote them.

> lawyers being in charge didn't fix the language from being broken.
The bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. I for one will welcome our new machine overlords.

>obamacare is a good example.
of why state-sanctioned monopolies suck

>rule by law is a sort of legal fiction.
So is all of society, but it's a persistent one. Don't underestimate the power of stories that humans tell each other.
> the second amendment
> a left court will rule one way on the 2nd amendment 100% of the time, and a right court wil rule the other way 100% of thet ime
The fact that the supreme court is currently polarized has nothing to do with the presence of lawyers in congress, as the president appoints those justices.

>iraqis
>70 iq points
But that doesn't change the fact that they are still human, and subject to the same natural laws that all humans are subjected to. Mixing politics with religion was an unmitigated disaster for white Europeans in the early modern era, so why should it be any different when the first amendment of the Iraqi constitution enshrines Islam as its state religion and then Shias and Sunnis start fighting over what exactly constitutes "Islam"? Because of shittily written law

>we more or less have technocracy operational right now.
Agreed, but will it ever be good enough that we become a race of machine tenders?

Everything is a bitch for politics.

Even life.

I don't.
I don't think a bunch of silver spoon toting STEM students do either though. Cleetus doesn't dictate policy in a democracy. He can only vote for a candidate that he agrees with.

>lobbyists write laws
the east asian approach is to recognize that law is a fiction, and tha power is actually held by bureaucrats. they punish bureaucrats who ignore the spirit of the law even if they haven't technically broken any. this is framed as "corruption" but at the same time, it's "legal" in america for our top politicians to recieve millions of dollars from funders of terrorism

>bureaucracy expands to meet needs of bureaucracy
indeed

>state sanctioned monopolies suck
indeed. it also highlights one of the strengths of the technocratic approach.

they set PRIORITIES in 10 and 5 year increments, or so. the priorities are the thing that becomes enshrined, and legislation is a temporary measure to achieve that goal. legislation is always, ALWAYS secondary.

>supreme court
I'm just showing, or trying to, how thin the legal fiction is. what matters is power. we can pretend that the wording of laws is what accords power, but it's really a combination of economics, bureaucratic influence, and force, and always will be. flooding the government with lawyers strengthens the fiction of rule by words, but doesn't actually strengthen the power of words. lawyers just become another bureaucracy in operation, separate from the mechanisms of economics, but another bureaucracy competing for institutions of force.

the competition over force detracts from rule by economics, and destroys the economy slowly

>machine tenders
do you read nick land at all? it seems likely. capitalism wil continue to reward the intelligent, even if it lets the majority of intelligent people get killed by niggers. in the end, A intelligent clan, somewhere, will be the ones to transcend.

who exactly it is depends on how effectively a clan can eliminate subhumans. the chinese seem well suited to execute this, atm.

youtu.be/eKl6WjfDqYA

>capitalism wil continue to reward the intelligent

why didn't we listen

extremely obese americans is probably a really good example of capitalism rewarding intelligence. under a socialist system profits get continually redistributed downward. the capitalist counterstrategy to this is to literally turn low iq people into hogs to be fattened and harvested for labor to the benefit of shareholders and technology producing firms. this is why so many people can end up in destitution despite the fact that everything they have is more than adequately paid for. they willingly become hogs, waiting for the next feed.

it also explains the primacy of american capital markets. our hogs feed more regularly and reliably than any other set of hogs. this encourages nvestment into our feeding mechanisms.

you'l note that technocratic states actively avoid all of this. capital markets are defacto shot in the foot in japan, china, and korea. they engage in human capital markets by which the best commodity is genetic and social class.

>the east asian approach
Has its strengths but it is not without it's share of problems, either. It is descended from historical bureaucracies which were nakedly autocratic and rewarded rote regurgitation of prose over kinesthetic understanding. Their economy is an unholy abomination of state owned enterprises which shits all over its labor force and rewards mass migration of dirt poor rural folk for use as disposable labor and is on the verge of financial meltdown. There are currently about 2 million Chinese men about as old as you and I who will never know the touch of a woman thanks to Mao Zedong pursuing a policy of population control psuedoscience and now there's waaay more Chinese men in our generation than women.

The fact that the communists fancied themselves technocrats and that every single party member was some kind of engineer by trade mattered very little for the long term enfeeblement of their economy.

>but it's really a combination of economics, bureaucratic influence, and force, and always will be
But isn't that a consequence of currently existing laws? And haven't we been able to mitigate the worst of these effects thanks to increasing accountability and checks and balances on power?

>the competition over force detracts from rule by economics, and destroys the economy slowly
I wouldn't say destroyed, I would say that it experiences sclerosis, and that eventually other economies unencumbered by an onerous status quo supersede the culture refusing to adapt with the times.

> nick land
Never heard of him.

>capitalism wil continue to reward the intelligent, even if it lets the majority of intelligent people get killed by niggers.
das racis

But ultimately the growth of Africa will not be limited, it will peter out once Africa finishes developing. Industrialization resulted in an explosion of growth for America in the late 19th century and Soviet Russia in the 1920's and 30's

>intelligent clan
Ashkenazi Jews?

>But ultimately the growth of Africa will not be limited
limitless*

>east asian
you're discounting, I think, the fact that china, aside from military and propaganda matters, functions more similarly to a federation of states. the gains of the coastal areas are greater than a flat number would show, and are the result of technocratic policy copied from japan and singapore. the western territories have made far less progress than the numbers would indicate.

also, your plea about the population imbalance is emotional. 2 million out of 1.4 billion is a drop in the bucket. the population control reforms were needed and we need them, in fact, in the west as well.

the impoverished western territories have rotating members from the party governing them, but it's mostly provincial level communists who are holding back their territories. the further inland you go, the more power communism still holds over regional governments.

>haven't we been able to mitigate the worst?
I'd argue that the balance of power makes things worse, because the number one job of a politician becomes to try and seize, constantly, more power, to maximize their profit. if someone is secure in their power, they are able to administer plans for long term gain.

I'd say accountability is near zero in western systems. the "migrant" crisis, with 70 iq illiterate sand niggers going around and raping thousands of women and beheading hundreds of people is a good example of accountability for VERY BASIC problems.

accountability in japan, korea, taiwan, and singapore is very high in fact. china needs time as well.

>other economies adapt
but what does america do when other ecnomies begin to outperform it? we wage economic war on china and japan because they are a threat to us

>nick land
I reccomend abstract horror.

>africa
they won't industrialize because genetics b rayciss n shiet

>nteligent clan
I'm betting on the chinese. they're the only ones with the ability to defend themselves, and the inherent recognition that genetics are supreme.

Considering that most modern governments are technocratic in fact if not in name, and that dissatisfaction with their efforts is generally pretty high, no, I don't think it's a particularly good method of governance.

>functions more similarly to a federation of states.
But one that is far more centralized than the American model, which is still very much a laboratory of democracy
>, your plea about the population imbalance is emotional.
It's putting a human face on the real consequences of written laws
> the population control reforms were needed and we need them,
no, they were completely unnecessary and they would be unnecessary for us. Population growth in developed areas is flat-lining or even experiencing mild decline.
>I'd argue that the balance of power makes things worse, because the number one job of a politician becomes to try and seize, constantly, more power, to maximize their profit. if someone is secure in their power, they are able to administer plans for long term gain.
I would argue the inverse, that without the balance of power things fly wildly out of control and unscrupulous power brokers seize control. And autocracies can utterly strangle their economies and make violent revolution inevitable.

The ancient Greek Republics were direct democracies which fell victim to demagogues before declining into naked tyranny, and ancient Rome was able to build a far larger and more successful model by learning from the mistakes of the Greeks and structuring their republic to prevent one single person from monopolizing power.

>I'd say accountability is near zero in western systems. the "migrant" crisis,
The single largest mass movement of people in human history has been the migration of rural southern asians into the industrializing regions.

>but what does america do when other ecnomies begin to outperform it?
Reports of America's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Structurally the American economy is still far stronger than anywhere else in the developed world

>I'm betting on the chinese.
My money is still with the United States.

well we obviously think very differently. I encourage you to read book revolving around how the competition for power changes the incentives away from stewardship of a country, and to pillaging it for short-term gain

I highly question your sense in terms of thinking that exponential population growth in a third world country isn't a problem

>america stronk
I'd also heavily question how much you actually know about finance, if you think this is the case. strength is a word that lumps purchasing power and fragility into the same category. which they are not.

> I encourage you to read book revolving around how the competition for power changes the incentives away from stewardship of a country, and to pillaging it for short-term gain
There are problems inherent in a democratic system, but alternative systems have problems that are even worse. Systems structured around property inheritence like monarchies suffer from massive succession problems.
>that exponential population growth in a third world country isn't a problem
It's a function of industrialization. People who live in suburbs and commute to factories/offices are better off than subsistence farmers. The far east, Africa, and India is still in the process of developing, so their growth is naturally faster than that of developed economies, but if history is any guide eventually you've paved over your country and there's no more space for new infrastructure, you have to spend more money for diminishing returns, and growth slows as a result. This was as true for paleoconservative America in the late 19th century as it was for Communist Russia in the 1950's

>I'd also heavily question how much you actually know about finance, if you think this is the case. strength is a word that lumps purchasing power and fragility into the same category. which they are not.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The reason why China is doing so well is because they have the greatest customer to buy all their cheap manufactured bullshit

>they won't industrialize because genetics b rayciss n shiet

But they are developing and industrializing. If you bother to read African news and business sites/ mags and international media pertaining to business in the developing world you'd see it.

>succession
primogeniture isn't the only scheme of succession

singapore currently uses a strange mix of defacto succession based off of majority shareholder status for LKY's son. if ownership of a country is dictated in terms of equity ownership, I don't see a problem.

again, taiwan, japan, and korea all provide examples of functional non-democratic schema. if you speak one of the languages, a wealth more information opens up that isn't available to english speakers. anglos are blinded twofold, once by the fact that they don't speak other languages, and second by the fact that they think they don't NEED to actively seek out and translate foreign works, or that anything worthy has already been translated

>slowing growth
I think it's a canard to link the speed of growth directly to being first world or not, and linking growth directly to population growth.

cina doesn't necessarily need more pop. growth.

and you can't assume that no that industrialization has been accomplished, that it could have been accomplished without the populatin controls, therefore, the population controls were evil.

>fragility
Im not arguing china is more robust than america because of it's manufacturing economy. I'm arguing that china is robust precisely because prices are still extremely low, this makes transitions easier witout causing a collapse.

any decline in american pricing precipitates a collapse, whic is why the fed won't change the funds rate. it literally can't do it.

we are ore efficient, and we do produce more. we have much more purchasing power as a result. but smaller deviations will derail profitability because of tight margins.

think of it as being overbuilt economically.

china still has lots of wiggle room, but america is paving over old "rail lines" so to speak.

das rite dawg. das rite.

dey be ceos in shiet

Bow to your new god luddites.

>they set PRIORITIES in 10 and 5 year increments, or so. the priorities are the thing that becomes enshrined, and legislation is a temporary measure to achieve that goal. legislation is always, ALWAYS secondary.

Lol In South Korea everyone liteally leives jsut to work in a Chaebol. There is no point in trying to strike out on your own because of the sheer dominance of the chaebols on top of the governments sheer lack of support for these entrepreneurs.

I never said their corporate structure was perfect. but their government model is superior.

would it be possible to integrate an east asian style government with a western style cororate structure? maybe. singapore and hk are promising examples

>lawyers are fucking evil

What a child.

What's the difference between regular fascism and /pol/ style?

What do you think the EU is?

Meritocracy?

That's bad though, because able people will go do other profitable shit instead of being a technocrat. What you want is a reward system that rewards them for doing good service. In fact, this reward rate should be higher than the market rate so you get the best minds, but only if they actually serve the government and society.

How do corporations work?

Not a technocracy lol

Nah, it was a meritocracy.

Though the Confucian Scholar-Bureaucrat did tackle practical projects such as the building of roads, canals, and coming up with wacky military inventions, half of which were unused.

>power to the skilled

It's a fairly ambiguous definition, but it is basically what "technocracy" means. How you define who is skilled, and who isn't is another matter, as is how to differentiate between skill sets (do woodworkers, machinists, clock makers, etc belong to the same "technical" group, or are the subclasses, or what?)

Sure, we can make some obvious generalizations:

> Labor Group
those that work with their hands/physical labor;
>Service
techinically a labor, but different?
>Medical
deals with the health of humans/pets/those helpless wild animals that we can't let suffer
>Administration
come on, secretaries have skills guys
>Economic
or is this needed?
>Techno/Networks/Info/communication
basically the industries that provide avenues of information exchange and communication

>Waste Disposal
>Energy Producers
>Military?????

How far do you go? How does one pick and choose, and deal with the aftermath of leaving out a large number people who feel misrepresented. Do you end up with a cluster fuck UN type thing, where nothing is accomplished because to many different interests?

>What are your thoughts on technocracy?
Better than representative democracy, because representative democracy is complete bullshit.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that we keep trying to find a single, perfect system of governance. Some things should be chosen by the masses, like priorities in industry, education, etc. But some things should be exempt from choice, like the rights and freedoms for the individual.

The third category of things should be decided upon, but that decision should not be by the masses, and this is where technocracy has its role. You can't expect the general population to be able to make rational decisions on things that they don't understand, this is the domain of experts.

Basically, the spectrum of things that can't justifiably be decided upon by the general population, but can't simply be legislated as freedoms or rights should be handled by a variety of other appropriate decision-making techniques, one of which could be technocracy.

So, maybe. Or something. Fuck if I know, what ya want from me, sheesh!

>monarchy
Get this faggotyy limp wrist "bow to the queen" guy out of here.

I had the same thought. Possibly a designation would be given too each voter based on their prior tax work, and then the majority vote among each group picks the elected leader. But then it requires a definition of the groups and a system in place to select the elected nominations. It becomes a big and diverse process, with potentially a stupid amount of groups claiming they are different enough to have their own leader.

>end up fucking everything up
Relative.

Under such a regime, where it becomes normal established systems, like what we already have, people become use to a certain way of doing things. They'd obviously object to such a drastic change now, but if a technocracy was ruling for a long period than people would say similar things as your saying: "How can Democracy work when Corporations are allowed dictate the playing field and the side they get to play on"

if smart people go into the private sector, that's good for the economy. the private sector is better at sniffing out predators.

you need to impose costs on people seeking to enter government. there are still rewards, but predators are deterred by costs, whereas virtue is less so

in sngapore people runnng for public office are paid the same wage as their previous profession. so they sacrifice career advancement of various sorts without completely losing out.

I think he meant "Wrong" as in after the fact, you know it was wrong. All the evidence may point to a choice, and so they choose it, but later better evidence comes to light and turns out it was a bad choice. The problem with a Scientific approach to this is that how do we do objective decision making when current thoughts on important issues are divided and do not necessarily have a right or wrong answer. Sometimes it is a grey area that is hard to define, but good governments find ways to flip them to look good, find ways to supress the info, or utilize media as a distraction tool. All these things would fail in a Technocracy, because Science isn't a method that solves human problems by itself.

Sounds like a pipe dream for fedorable autists.

>hyper-efficient computers which can calculate massive numbers of variables turn economics into a true science
It would be far easier to utilize simpler math to proportion our resources based on scientific methods. Find the most efficient way to move resources and still provide everyone with what they need to live, and use scientific methods to keep them in check. Economics, as the industry currently exists, has no place in such a scientific system. Economy of resources, sure, but money is not a resource, though it is made of them. It is a very good illusion of wealth.