Formulations

iPower and iHarmony present a seeming paradox: satisfying one will cause problems with the satisfaction of the other. Thus, the society we seek to create must not contain within it the satisfaction of any of these impeti or their relations, merely the potential for its members to choose their satisfaction. This again creates a tension, as our present society exemplifies: the satisfaction of iPower destroys harmonics.
How to counter this? We require a self-regulating system. The market, in theory, is an example of such a system. The impeti of consumers aims them towards the most satisfying product, and the impeti of producers makes them strive to produce that product. This is a continuous cycle of improvement in terms of efficiency of energy, based on the natural regulation of the impeti. However, it 'breaks' when either a producer becomes a monopoly or producers gain some sort of ability to influence the empithym of consumers, and thus determining their choices. In today's world of transnationals and Bernaysian advertising, the market is broken. It is thus apparent that excessive satisfaction of iPower destroys the system. However, if iHarmony is wholly satisfied (i.e. all products are identical) the system again breaks down.
Thus, another regulating system is required alongside the market that guards against similarity and yet also prevents divergence. In current society this role is taken by the Government, who attempts to break up monopolies and encourages competition. To a certain extent this is self-regulating, as a Government that performs this task unsuccessfully will be voted out of office. However, this cannot counter control via advertising. What is required, therefore, is a mechanism that decreases the power of large companies while encouraging a wide range of products. Is there a way of stopping consumers spending when the market begins to lose its effectiveness? Or, indeed a way to prevent either impetus from destroying the mechanism?
Perhaps I am approaching this the wrong way. Perhaps all that is needed is some way of defeating big companies on their own terms.
Consider two approaches to organisation, horizontal and vertical. Vertical organisations are feudal in nature, with the lower ranks being subserviant to the top. Everything that organisation requires to function is, to a certain extent, contained within it. Horizontal organisations, on the other hand, only deal with one specific area within a vertical organisation. They cut across the heirarchy.
If one divides a vertical organisation into its component parts, then it becomes clear that a co-operative of myriad smaller organisations could share the economies of scale of a large one. However, to render this effective, the horizontal organisation would not be able to make a profit. How, then, can it operate? It would be a true co-operative, then, with each minor organisation(say each shop) funding part of the cost. It would certainly bring efficiency savings, without having control over its constituents. But who would control it?
The beginnings of an economic theory present themselves. I shall work more on this.