My Latest shot at a framework:
The economy is like a game where players get to set some of the rules.
Let’s break it down.
Rules: either through the government or through other forms of power, players can set/change some of the rules of the game. Some of these rules benefit small sets of players, like when Wall Street got rid of rules preventing insanely risky financial moves but kept the “Too Big to Fail” rule. Some of the rule changes benefit lots of folks. These rules can be narrowly focused, like banning lead from children’s toys. Or they can be broad, like the rules in the 40s and 50s — FHA/VA mortgages, college loans, massive government spending on highways, etc., and promoting unions — that helped create the white middle class.
Players: the biggest difference between this framework and a lot of others is that it focuses on the role of players in power. If we tried to prevent another Wall Street meltdown by creating rules that bar risky behavior, the minute the world stops paying attention, Wall Street will start chipping away at those rules. That’s how we got into this mess in the first place. To stop Wall Street from doing it again, we need rules that change the balance of power among players — e.g., Checks and Balances.
Game: if we want to win, we need to play to win — to think strategically. That means figuring out, for example, what board/boards do we want to play on? How do we build our power? Do we have a plan that adds up, or are we acting like the Underpants Gnomes?
Some: Players can set/change some of the rules, but not all — or even most — of them. We can’t control the game, we can just increase the odds of certain outcomes. That also means we have to be willing to make trade-offs — lots of us may want big houses with big yards without the traffic gridlock that comes with it, but wishing doesn’t make it so.
Up next: what works, what doesn’t
