Domestic Summits and the Design Perspective

Interesting indeed, that Shane Parrish found in The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual, these thoughts on the differences between design and planning:

While both activities seek to formulate ways to bring about preferable futures, they are cognitively different. Planning applies established procedures to solve a largely understood problem within an accepted framework. Design inquires into the nature of a problem for solving that problem...Where planning focuses on generating a plan - a series of executable actions - design focuses on learning about the nature of an unfamiliar problem. When situations do not conform to established frames of reference - when the hardest part of the problem is figuring out what the problem is - planning alone is inadequate and design becomes essential.

Many have given up on the earlier growth trajectory, in part because reform tends to be couched in the language of planning instead of the language of design. As a result, attempted financial reforms are little more than reactions to already known givens. Reactions are only exacerbating political differences, and means to discover alternate pathways should be at the top of the national agenda. In particular, the fact that design elements remain missing from housing as a consumption good, affects the weakness of the housing market. For instance, James Picerno asks: can the U.S. economy remain strong as it presently appears, if housing remains wobbly?

Part of the problem is that governments and citizens are not used to working together for design perspectives, and scarcely have applicable context by which to do so. Domestic summits would be one way to address this, because the design format would apply for those who wish to take part in the result, instead of populations as a whole. Recently I've read several books which cover history around the time of the American Revolution, and by no means was the required coordination for those original states a walk in the park. They were more inclined to think of themselves as distinct countries! In retrospect, it is amazing that so many individual visions were able to coalesce to the degree they did, to form a new nation.

Today, design scenarios need to occur within specifically contained templates, so that problem solving efforts do not pose threats to already existing design patterns. Of course, this would not make design process outcomes any less important. The new communities which could eventually result, would highlight the efforts of incredibly diverse imaginations.

What, then, are underlying design elements which would apply in multiple circumstance? First, ask: what overall purpose would new communities serve? Economic inclusion is important, in that it is too often not possible in primary equilibrium. The main reason for internally generated unique equilibrium levels, is to make resource use representative of multiple income and lifestyle choices. One reason today's monetary policy exists on such a knife's edge, is the fact that entire populations are expected to make do with a very similar equilibrium, re non tradable asset and services structures.

Compensation for a common time base, would allow individuals to design personal time use as they see fit. What's more, time arbitrage brings clarity to automation choices, which would also become ongoing community investment options. Another important design element of time choice, exists in regard to the "slow economies" which offer experiential product. Again, automation in combination with a common time base, creates time, production and consumption choices at personal levels. Each community would have unique automation and "slow economy" imprints.

Experiential aspects of "slow economies" would include numerous hunter gatherer elements - both in terms of knowledge use and environmental definition. Of course, these elements are also representative of the challenges which need to remain in otherwise static primary equilibrium, where possible. To be sure, equilibrium does not always appear static, for high income levels with considerable economic freedom. However, time use and resource options need to remain fluid at lower income levels as well.

How to think about design for production and consumption in general? Everyone wants product options which are tempting by design, but not in such a way that those choices require unnecessarily having to give up on other desired options. In other words, what is scarce, and what is artificially scarce? Understanding the difference means everything, for time use potential.

What's more, design needs to be such that one can move forward in a series of steps in which if a hard fall occurs, that does not mean falling all the way back to the bottom. A marketplace which is designed for economic freedom, leaves as many options in this regard as possible. And with economic freedom, Hope Has a Place.