Every policy has winners and losers. Answer these things: 1. Here's how it is now. 2. Some people it's broken because X. Others think it's not broken because Y. 3. Here's the proposal. Here's who benefits, who doesn't, and externalities to be mindful of.
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
Then it becomes a lot easier to talk about UBI, healthcare changes, farm incentives, tax changes, student debt solutions, etc. How can we make sense of things without understanding them? People are hungry for the tools to enable better sensemaking.
Prikaži ovu nit -
First-order thinking breaks, when we go straight to solutions. But we need to understand how it is *now*, first. Example: w.r.t. PE LBOs running companies into the ground it's hard to say if it's working as designed or not without understanding alternatives
Prikaži ovu nit -
Example: We want people to have equal access to higher-ed, so solution: we subsidize student debt, fix lower underwriting standards by make not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Yet, disconnecting market forces means costs still ↑ and we have a generation burdened with massive debt
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/ does this kind of work for congress. Brookings, Rand, and others also do this work. Note: everyone has biases. The good ones tell you upfront. Nature of public policy, it involves humans.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
