In a convoluted turn of events which began with the politics of Germany (specifically the Christian Democratic Union) with a major stop at political color, I ended up reading about the technocracy movement. Now I've been interested in the idea of technocracy for a long time, particularly because I advocated a similar program long before I ever read the word. By the time I encountered the idea, though, I'd largely abandoned that program in favor of liberal capitalism.
After my first dip into the technocratic pond, I considered the idea of combining the better aspects of technocracy with capitalism, which I termed capital technocracy. Though I didn't get very far along articulating my ideas at the time, I'd now describe the idea of capital technocracy as using the opposing forces of self-interest and competition exemplified in capitalism to achieve technocratic ends. In English, that means that forward-thinking entrepreneurs end up making the best decisions in their pursuit of profit, leading to optimal outcomes. At that time, my understanding of capitalism was primarily based on competition, rather than understanding markets as a whole.
I re-approached the idea of technocracy from a market capitalist perspective, and realized that the idea of integrating capitalism and technocracy is still essentially valid, but requires a different tack. Markets are essential giant organizers, which aggregate the value decisions of millions of actors to result in a price. The technocrats rejected the price system because of the bust in 1929, but I think that central banking deserves more blame than prices (?!) for starting the Great Depression. The technocrats thought that central planners could make economic decisions better than millions of people could for themselves, and that is the fatal conceit, isn't it? In 1935 I can understand that position; having seen the abject failure of the Soviet Union compared to market economies, I can not.
Ultimately, though, I'd say that the market performs the technocratic function far better than socialism ever could, and for that reason I may start advocating for the free market under the label market technocracy. My main reason is simply that the term "capitalism" comes with so terribly much baggage that using it often does more harm than good. I've thought about using other terms, but only liberalism seemed to fit, and that would only serve to confuse.
In addition, technocracy can be marketed with social reform towards a rational society. Capitalism is usually linked, both when it is and isn't warranted, to the various forms of conservatism, particularly social conservatism and traditionalism in general. I find many traditional ways of doing things (the English system of measurement, the Gregorian Calendar, contemporary public education) quite abhorrent for various reasons. Integrating reforms away from those into my political platform wouldn't be exactly distasteful.
Last thing tonight: would ordoliberalism be considered comparable to market technocracy?
