The Industrial Congress is the leadership component which identifies priority goods and services clearly needed by all.
• Priority production is identified by category, and then by generic item. Although documentation of goods and services authorized for resource use will be generated, (so that the Banks can sanction Business Proposals), the process at the Planning level is more a weeding of what is not seen as worthy of the nation’s commitments of labor and resources, rather than dictating the minutiae of what will be made. [See Index for Sample list of Priority Goods.]
• The Industrial Congress leadership is charged with judging what production can be committed to the nation for specific goods and services. They are actually drawn from the same pool of people producing them. That is, active representatives from technologically experienced and organizationally trained practitioners (manufacturers and tradesmen) and the academics who train practitioners in their respective fields must take on this responsibility–as capacity–not desire–is what is being ascertained. (Note: no lobbyists are required to persuade the government. Manufactures and Professions make up this Congress–they represent their own needs (which are not financial, but their personal desire to participate in the productive arenas of their own talents. They are appointed to the leadership from within the hierarchy, by working their way up from regional leadership positions–rather as the Pope is elected by the Bishops worldwide).
• Those making the final decisions on priorities–generically– are comparing total resource demands among all the priorities. It is an accounting system, at this level. It will become clear enough to all players that resources are finite, and values have to be established for production goals.
This is where the National Resource Management Board’s databases are indispensable, because when the Banks [see below] authorize production from a particular applicant’s Business Plan, the resources projected for use will instantaneously be subtract electronically from the posted Resources. (It’s as simple as linking any spreadsheet known today.) So everyone can see what impact their own choices are making on the whole, and all players, manufacture as well as the Industrial Congress, are tracking Resource Use, not only by industry, but by specific user.
When functioning in the prioritizing role, Industrial Leaders are not looking to secure their own bottom lines. They are, even in pursuing “individual interests,” making a much greater contribution–by virtue of the priority signals the Industrial Congress is able to provide–to the full thriving of the entire nation. This Congress (not to be confused with the government now claiming that name) will contain, at the national level, perhaps only 4-5 management leaders per priority category. Such a shared responsibility has never before been possible without several sophistications of the current age.
(The changes in government roles and structures that would necessarily be provoked in instituting such large changes in economic production have not been attempted in this work; but clearly, without money as the operative means, a major (financial) focus of state and national governance will simply disappear. A much smaller government will take shape as economic interchange becomes not only more powerful, but more fruitful, as the welfare state entirely disappears (every resident is “entitled”), and the Social Sciences initially invest significantly more services to identify variously compromised citizens who require on-going household support, but also bring currently “unemployed” individuals into the system, where they can take more and more responsibility for meeting their fundamental physical and psychological needs.)
The modern advances that permit such daring flipping of government to true resource dominance:
• the speed of electronic data management and communications;
• systems tracking resources, rather than profits;
• significant gains made in the social sciences, assessing leadership qualitites and integrating labor in a process come to be known as a negotiated economy, where it is critical to “include all stakeholders.”
• The Industrial Congress does not assign either particular organizations or workers to any project [see entrepreneurial flow below under Trade and Professions, and Banks]. This is significantly different than Central Planning, in early 20th century (Soviet and Chinese) communist systems, which failed irremediably in their attempts to micro-manage, being reduced to violence and enforced labor, rather than invoke individual initiative–and becoming vivid icons of bureaucratic paralysis and corruption. In the alternative commerce being proposed here, managers themselves and workers also, range widely within the economy and negotiate their own Skills-to-Vision match, much as they do now in a money economy, except the artificial hindrance of “money rules” disappear. Hiring and firing remain solely in manufacture and service providers’ domain–not in a hierarchical Industrial Congress; and the workforce is fully fluid in seeking out their own meaningful contributions.
[A fine example of how fanciful supposedly binding “money rules” are under market management resides in the November 30, 2011, notice given by the European Union and American central banks. They “decided” (among themselves) to simply “swap currencies,” (rather than buy them, in the customary manner), in order to forestall bankruptcies within certain nations, and forestall further disintegration and collapse of global exchange. Such gamesmanship clearly is to be shunned, and not just via state “regulation.” ]
• Identifying the scope of production and services without a signifying medium of exchange, however, clearly requires a body that markedly increases allocative efficiency when it comes to resource dissemination. The Industrial Congress described here is not tracking “demand” anymore; they’re making commitments. (The vital difference here is that when money (or any legal tender) is exchanged and profit margins are the key goal, demand is stimulated far beyond the earth’s ability to provide–which quite inefficiently causes prices to rise. In an economy managed for its resources, “demand” includes both needs and desires, but sets a brake on production overall. The point is to manage for the long haul, and “cleverness” (“taking a market”) rather than thoughtfulness (delivering a market) misses that point altogether.)
So without money and its profit-making, health standards and maintenance of them will clearly lie within the Health Priority Council–as it is under a money system, but without the need of an Insurance Industry with their hands in the prioritizing spigot. So, yes, triaging will occur, but with acute consideration (as all triaging is). The Energy Council will clearly be represented on all other Councils, as energy is the quintessential economic scarcity bearing on us all. Representation of other technical professions will be commonly provided other Councils–nutritionists serving on the Foods Council, for instance, and Social Scientists in assessing Housing parameters. (Mayor Bloomberg will not stand alone in his resistance to 32-oz drinks becoming an “industry” standard. McMansions will not survive a steely test of building supplies.)
• In the alternative organization proposed, Research Analysts would be the dominant leadership in each allocation council, along with the executives and laborers who turn the wheels–again, the practical hands that know what can be done. Leadership, between the various specialities, would certainly be required to vigorously represent the comparative value of options proposed.
• The entire role of the Industrial Congress is fostering and keeping up with “best practices,” not only in the technologies developing unique functions, but in the context of wise resource management, and without duplication. The role of the professions and trades is critical in proactive engagement of both conservation and utilization of resources.