I agree with you in that technocracy has a lot of potential and definitely sounds appealing, but I think it’d almost have to be socialist - both to atleast somewhat prevent the plutocratic devolution you speak of, as well as halting anti-intellectualism (‘you don’t need an education’) and post-truth (like you see with American social media now).

Then again, not having a free market would also require new guardrails (how do you ensure proper distribution beyond the formal mathematics?), which makes it more complicated.

Always better than a monarchy though.

This is not a technocracy: it’s not about expertise in a given area that decides leadership, but about plutocratic autocracy. I wouldn’t say ‘the rich’ are naturally the experts.