|
Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!
-Feodor
Dostoevsky
In this chapter
we present a hypothetical picture of consumption planning. We assume
that all higher level consumer federations have already arrived at a
plan for collective consumption. We follow the consumer calculations
of two residents of Martin Luther King County, Pearl and Larry.
They behave
in what we consider a more or less average fashion.
Determining County-Level Collective Consumption
Consumption
planning begins with collective consumption projects, starting at the
highest level and working down, and culminating in a vote on an entire
collective consumption package. We look in on this process at the point
where actors present requests for county-level collective and individual
consumption.
Of course, all
of last year's data is available. MLK residents pay particular attention
to records of their requests and final plan from last year, to their
county's status as a borrower or creditor, to iteration facilitation
board projections for this year's average consumption, and to the county
consumption facilitation board's summary of collective consumption projects
members have suggested.
The CFB would
propose various options. But consumers aren't hit with a menu of collective
consumption options they know nothing about, have not discussed, and
have no opportunity to alter. On the contrary, consumers are periodically
informed regarding the formation of these proposals during the year
and can intervene at any time with comments, suggestions, and alternative
proposals of their own.
Given time to
evaluate the various proposals, -each living unit discusses the CFB
proposals, suggests alterations if it wishes, and registers preferences.
Individuals weigh the benefits of proposed collective consumption requests
against their estimated social costs as well as estimates of average
county consumption within their region. People also consider the implications
for individual consumption of collective consumption for which they
will be "charged" their fair share.
For example, Pearl who lives
with her husband and their three children, a member of Emma Goldman
co-housing community, considers how options vary in social costs and
benefits. She considers how much a new county cultural center would
reduce, -the need for personal cultural products, what strains would
it place on workers and how much would it diminish each county residents
personal consumption budget.
Of course a
particularly large county collective consumption request needn't reduce
individual consumption budgets drastically in the same period. The "debt
to society" can be spread out, over time through county borrowing
and saving. This is not only reasonable but essential if any large-scale
collective consumption is to occur. It would unnecessarily complicate
this chapter to incorporate the borrowing and savings aspects of collective
consumption, ,so we assume these "accounting" matters have
been taken care of.
In any event,
Pearl and others deal with these issues with the aid of the information
made available by the CFBs, and computers that quickly and conveniently
provide information on the implications for average consumption bundles
and make comparisons with other units and past plans. Consumers manipulate
software that helps them evaluate the implications of alternative collective
consumption choices. For example, Pearl can see data describing how
a new. community athletic center would reduce allowable individual consumption
but permit greater access to exercise equipment, basketball and volleyball
courts, pools, etc., for herself, her husband; and her children.
After receiving
feedback from all the households that make up the county council, the
CFB modifies its list of proposed collective consumption projects and
resubmits the list for consideration by households. After a time for
discussion, each household ranks the revised proposals, including explanations
for its preference&
At this point,
the CFB proposes four possible collective consumption agendas, explaining
the implications of each for overall plan possibilities.
Households, co-housing communities,
and other living, units then vote on the four collective consumption
bundles, dropping the least popular with each vote until one remains.
This voting is "live" - living units and representatives are
linked by computer and., TV hookups so that votes can be inclusive and
tabulated immediately. In this example as in most other voting procedures,;
representative structures facilitate making amendments to incorporate
as many viewpoints as possible. Then all citizens are able to vote on
the amendments because of the speed with which the votes can be tallied.
As emphasized earlier, there is no one right way to undertake collective
consumption decision-making. Different counties would employ different
procedures.
Once MLK and
other counties have settled on their collective consumption requests,
they can be summed with state and national collective consumption requests.
This accomplished, neighborhood and personal consumption requests can
be developed.
|
