CPC Society or How Bartholemew Sold His 500 Hats

I love some of the things I overhear in this city, and just the other day I heard a tidbit close to my heart. One gentleman posited to another that the future of sales was not in large quantities of online sales with small profit margins, but rather in the large margin, low quantity trade of goods. He went on to stipulate that large volume interactions of any kind were inimical to good business.
As with most of the world, there is no either/or in e-commerce. I have heard such a number of people declaiming the Amazon revolution, but in a broad sense it is no different from any other commerce innovation. Commodities have changed in name but not in nature, and are still traded in bulk. Craftworks are still traded in single fashion. Boutique items are still exchanged on a smaller scale with greater profit margin. So why cry havoc when large corporations form their own market places? There is little room for conspiracy, no more so than ever before. The venue has changed, but the nature of trade has not.
In internet advertising there exists the term "CPC" or cost per click. The idea is that volume will generate revenue (a simplified but relevant definition). There are also "CPA" revenue plans, with greater gratification over fewer exchanges. So, by this definition, when our Bartholemew runs through the sack of gold given him for the last hat and finds the king to be too stingy, he can sell the other 499 hats at market. Since many of the hats are plain, they can be sold in bulk. That way, a cheaper item will move faster, requiring lower overhead and generating faster, more efficient revenue. The more elaborate hats may be displayed and sold piecemeal, being of greater value.
The former hats are Amazon. The latter hats are boutique.
Economics by dint of Dr. Seuss. There you have it.

The Uncarved Block OR The Profession of Changing P'u

I work at a daycare with children spanning the range of Infant to Preschooler, and we spend much of our time knee deep in poo.
We are adults, of course, and so the tendency is to call it by more socially acceptable terms; as adults it should be shit, crap, or perhaps even faeces or excrement. These widely accepted adult terms are not, of course, acceptable for children. Shit is violent, crap simply vulgar, and faeces/excrement are just above developmental levels.
Poo it is.
We spend quite a lot of time talking about it, given that we are so very thoroughly ensconced in it for so much of our working day, and the monosyllabic delight bears a marked resemblance to another term, P'u. As far as I understand it, P'u is the concept of the unshaped block, the idea of our unchanged, simple nature unclouded by abstract thought or gross academic activity. I will not be the first to discard my hard-won education, but sublimating the "higher" aspects of thought to achieve a kind of heightened perception of the world (what one might call enlightenment) does have a certain ring to it.
Children are it's essence, which is no surprise given that Benjamin Hoff used Pooh to explain the Tao. They are unformed blocks, lacking in refinement. The business of a worthwhile daycare is early education, the shaping of those blocks. Lately, it occurs to me that shaping those blocks should not mean forming them into concrete shapes, but rather developing tools for that shaping. The hands that create the final form should be the child's, not mine, else the shape would not be there own.
I am not sure how such a thing could be accomplished, but the answer lies somewhere in the acceptance of that which is, be it poo or P'u.