>This is not what A/H suggest at all. I think Brett has mis-spoken on
>this one --- at least confused two separate ideas.
Bill is correct. I didn't mean specialized skills would be eliminated, only the monopoly on management roles that such people usually enjoy. We need to eliminate the coordinator class or role. You would still have engineers, technicians, etc. in ParEcon. The difference would be that janitors and clerks would make an equivalent salary (assuming they worked the same number of hours), and they would also have some input into design decisions, as well as having the engineers and scientists take out the trash every so often (in order to ensure a balanced job complex).
>> My understanding of ParEcons proposed iterative method for
>> determining prices goes something like this: consumers have
>> a budget, and they write down what they want for the next
>> period.
>
>This is just a hoot. A laugh riot. You mean that ParEcons think
>that people are actually capable of knowing what they will want
>or need in the future?
Yes. And more to the point, what is the alternative? If they don't get to make their own choices, someone else has to make decisions for them, which ruins the whole notion of self-management. Besides, people have to plan all the time, even in today's economy.
>That they can actually calculate these
>budgets. I wrote recently that people often find it hard to fill
>out 1040EZ. They really are just daunting for many folks. I'm
>not altogether sure why, but obviously it likely has much to do
>with illiteracy and innumeracy. And probably more importantly, a
>socially produced fear of forms, bureaucratic language, and
>anything that comes in the mail that has U.S. Federal Gummint
>stamped on it. I rec'd an reply off list recounting a story
>which reinforced this claim. What do the ParEcons propose to do
>about this problem?
How about reduce illiteracy and innumeracy? Again, what's the alternative, whether you are talking about ParEcon or the economy we have now? Should we eliminate the 1040EZ form because some people have difficulty filling it out and just send them a bill instead? Should we ban books because some people can't read?
I would hope, just like there are places you can go now to help you with your taxes, that there would be places to go to help you out with problems you might have in ParEcon. I also think that the more egalitarian structure would lead to less illiteracy and similar problems in ParEcon compared to the current system.
>> Producers will do the same (propose output levels). These initial
>> requests/plans are then compared and prices for each commodity are >>
determined.
>
>Who are the producers who make these decisions?
The people who work in a workplace. I'm in a small software company. We would all get together and say, OK, I'll work so many hours and I promise to get these projects done, etc. After this meeting, the company as a whole can say, we will finish 2 new programs this period which will do the following things, etc. This is what gets submitted.
>> This could conceivably be done in a completely mechanical
>> fashion (i.e., a computercould do it - presumably the algorithm
>> for arriving at the resulting prices would be subject to popular
>> approval).
>
>Oooooh great. Now the the mysteries of market supply and demand
>are now further obfuscated by the mysteries of computer
>algorithms. Oh I suppose that computers are just like any other
>form of technology insofar as technology is often shrouded in
>mystery. Lots of folks have no clue about how electricity works,
>where it comes from, for example. And we've managed to survive I
>guess...The algorithms of computer logic it seems to me are just
>as mysterious to most folks, so I don't see how they'd willing
>allow a computer program to mediate this process.
They wouldn't have to allow a computer program to mediate the process. This is really a detail. I brought up the example to refute Dennis' assertion that the facilitation board A/H have proposed will necessarily become a central planning agency and usurp power from the people (of course, you could argue that this would only put the real power in the hands of the programmers...). If people wanted people to do the job, so be it. Decisions are made democratically, so the system is flexible enough to handle it. Computers would not be used in the planning process if people were uncomfortable with them.
>It seems to me that ParEcon just wants to replace one form of
>technocratic administration (managerial/professional expertise)
>with another that lots of folks don't understand either. Isn't
>that a problem for them? Do they not see how undemocratic that
>is? Well, it may be *procedurally* or *formally* democratic, but
>it sure ain't fully participative democracy.
Well, who knows? It might work that way in practice. But again, I think the criticism is a red herring. How do you attain fully participatory democracy without administration of some kind? Do we really want to require that everyone understand how all social institutions function before adopting a new institution?
Besides, if these institutions are designed properly, they should function well in spite of a lack of understanding. Even the stereotypical Bubba, who Molly Ivins always pokes fun at, can function in our system. He may not understand supply and demand, but he knows he needs an extra $10 to buy dog food and so puts in an couple of overtime hours. Only in ParEcon he's getting the same hourly wage as everyone else, and he has the opportunity to provide input into how the garage is run, etc. I don't think that's meaningless - in fact, it would be major progress.
>It's just another way in which people register their so called
>private preferences without asking how those preferences are
>socially produced and why.
One of the goals of ParEcon was to come up with a system that recognizes, specifically, that preferences are socially produced and to deal with this fact in an appropriate manner. This is why A/H propose to make qualitative information on how products are produced publicly available. Prices just can't get across ideas like working conditions or waste disposal procedures. This qualitative information is designed to make people more aware of the implications of their choices on others, which will hopefully foster solidarity and combat the alienation that our current system breeds.
Still, at some level, you WANT people to make their preferences known. The thing that ParEcon strives to do is ensure that people understand the implications of their preferences on others, as well as to equalize economic power across the population.
Brett