Some thoughts on my latest stab at a framework — “the economy is like a game where players set some of the rules.”
What works: it pulls together several points that I really like, although they still feel like they’re duct taped together.
What doesn’t: it doesn’t pull in the nitty-gritty details about how the economy actually works and therefore the different types of rules we’ll need to use — stacking the deck, make it easy, make it visible.
I feel like I keep banging my head against variations on the same 3 problems:
1) I’m not sure what I want to emphasize. One minute it’s the importance of players in power, the next it’s the nitty-gritty details of how people & organizations actually make decisions.
2) The framework still doesn’t chunk things properly. When I imagine an ideal framework, I think about a table. A table lets you do things like say, “that solution takes care of Type A problems, but it also needs to address Type B and C problems.” It lets you classify/tag and bag issues.
3) The Big Problem: extra dry white bread. I want to get into the nitty-gritty — make it easy, make it visible, stack the deck, checks and balances, sustainable success. But the minute I do, the minute it feels like I’ve pulled the pieces together, the end result feels dry and mechanical — I don’t feel the connection back to the issues folks really care about. And when I try to connect it back, the result forced, not fluid or authentic.
