An energy-credit, sometimes called an energy certificate, is a hypothetical unit of currency used in a technocracy, or technate as the movement likes to call it. Unlike tradition money, energy-credits cannot be saved or earned, only distributed evenly amoung a populace. The amount of credit given to each citizen would be calculated by determining the total productive capacity of the technate and dividing it equally. The reason for the use of energy-credits serves to ensure equality amoung the technate's citizenry as well as prohibit a spending that is beyond the productive capacity of the technocracy.

The system is usually referred to as energy accounting.

Proclaimed Benefits

Under the energy-credit system, a car, for example, would be valued by the energy it takes to create the product (energy to run the factory plus the energy to transport all materials and the final product). In this way, ecology is supported, as any system which produces a car using less energy would be cheaper in price and cost less energy-credits.

Another example why technocrats support the energy-credit system is that, they say, it eliminates forms of corruption that exist under the current price system. Since the productive capacity of the technate is evenly distributed, technocrates state that things such as theft, robbery, corporate tax evasion, and even fixed marriages would be greatly discouraged.

Since technology is continuously evolving, there is much debate on what method would be used to distribute energy credits amoung the populace. In any case, technology would attempt to eliminate security risks and make the process seamless.

Opposition

The primary arguements against energy accounting are briefly listed here and explained below:

• it creates too much equality; communism has never worked
• there is no structure to the society, and people need hierarchies
• the money incentive is lost; people will not work

Opponents of technocracy argue that a system of energy-credits is too communist in origin, and that people need hierarchies and unequal distributions of wealth because some people are more apt than others. Technocrats argue that their system allows hierarchies and positions of higher responsibility and accountability, and that if a corrupt person enters a position of power they will be thrown out because of their lack of competence or technical skills required for that position. An example the technocrats give is that of a scientist. If the scientist accomplishes a great feat, he would become well known and gain fame, thus more accountability, and most likely an increase in power, or responsibilities.

The technocrats would agree, that economically, every person would be equal (though there is debate as to whether scientists and others working on specific projects would be given more energy credits due to the requirements of their job/hobby). In this way, they say that their system is communist, but argue that the post-cold war era has given the term Communism a negative connotation which is not the applicable definition in this case. Plus, we've never tried to adjust to a system based on abundance instead of scarcity.

The primary arguement that technocrats use against the money incentive is human nature. They argue that there are internal (initiative) and external (incentive) forces that act on a person. They state that the internal force usually wins, and things like the open-source movement are prime examples of a person's internal desires overriding the the money incentive in our current society.

References

• Official Technocracy Inc Article (http://www.technocracy.org/?p=/documents/briefs/b29&TC=e1ac9ae9145d76e739f27a7ee7a53c54)
• Technocracy.ca: Energy Accounting (http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=6&page=1)
• Technocratic Glossary (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/glossary.htm)
• Technocracy, Inc. (http://www.technocracyinc.org/MainIndex.htm)