Thoughts on Education, Supply, and Demand

Competition between unit herd demand is directly proportional to margins for supply. Where units are maximized at greater densities, representatives of supply side can negotiate higher margins in exchange for earlier allocations. This applies to all forms of buying and selling; and can be seen in real estate to food markets.

So basically, for GDP growth and investment opportunities, policy makers encourage more competition in the colosseum of the market by disincentivizing assembly seeking to redress grievances [of pricing or quality of supply] (aka: union-izing), which can petition for lower margins, reduced costs, and improved quality of supply by leveraging their withdrawal of their collective demand. This is how Walmart, Amazon, Home Depot, and other distributors behaving as consignment operators, aggregates consumer demand, uses it as leverage, and forces the lowest prices onto suppliers.

Basically, unions which represented people, need to learn from these aggregated consignment operators for human demand. In short: School Systems need to work together. Unfortunately, this is being actively discouraged by a Federal Vacuum of inter-state unity. It’s basically a dysfunctional relationship. The union representing inter-state education, basically the Department of Education, has abdicated this responsibility.

“Divided we fall,” benefits investors by way of increased competition generating more individual transactions, which allows for higher justifiable margins. So perhaps the best solution is to create a School Depot. Unfortunately this will offshore more jobs in production, just like it has in all other verticals, as the tough work of aggregating demand (a costly endeavor) was done by the demand side rather than the supply side. This allows supply side to more easily aggregate production without paying for it, for higher margins in manufacturing rather than higher margins in selling. In this scenario, more wealth is aggregated to the top of the capital market than distributed among distributed production chains.

The only option is for the unionizing to demand distributed production, whereby supply side may withdraw supply and wait out the demand, essentially starve demand of supply. This is no different than supply side acting as a military strategy starving the aggressor (such is why military tactics should never be taught to supply chains, for theirs is the work of separateness opportunity in competitive schemes, where as a military is the work of unity survival in generosity themes.)


All of the aformentioned demonstrates a world ascribing to, practicing, and built by competitive spirit. Players are in a scenario of a lack of resources to support the well being of all parties. Scarcity allows for higher margins. Basically in short, “not all people can have nice things.” Gaming the system to create scarcity is by very definition the work of creating luxury. However, when basic needs for humans become a luxury, all suffer.

The only way out of this will be, is, and was professed by all matter of prophet and sage: basically the role of a parent to uproot and guide a people into unity instead of separation, and that implies generosity rather than competition, and a love thy neighbor mentality. The transition between a competitive market, and all matter of rules and laws in support of it, to a more generous market, and all matter of rules and laws in support of it, has been seen in history and that time will come again. The transition will be as easy or rough as the willingness of individuals and herds to let go of attachments, and give freely of pleasures, namely, food, water, shelter, and the maintenance of the flows of these for all.


When an intelligent species can factor in the cost of maintenance of essentials for individuals of those species, both in singular, and plural, then the world will more closely approach equality. However in a world that cannot factor in maintenance of a household into the cost of living, that world will vastly lean toward inequality.