（#sale #busines #product #revenue）Society of 100 People and Business Formation
The 100-Person Market Theory: A Paradigm Shift
The total number of humans on Earth is said to be 8.2 billion.
Since 8.2 billion is a massive number, let us assume there are 100 people here.
It seems that humans, as part of their lives, engage in forms of trade and economic activity.
These 100 people work hard day in and day out in these economic activities.
If we assume there are only "100 people" on this Earth, how would our society, economy, and the practice of "business" look?
Through this minimal social model of 100 people, we will deeply contemplate the essence of economic activity and the true nature of the "competition" we face daily.
Let's take a quick look at how it works.
The Essence of Economic Activity and the Psychological Friction Born from the Monopoly of Wealth
The concept of "business," which forms the foundation of human society, is always accompanied by performance indicators such as "sales" and "profits."
In our modern social structure, individuals with higher numbers in these performance metrics are more likely to be positioned higher in society, creating a system where power and prestige naturally accumulate around them.
Let us assume that there are three companies, "A," "B," and "C," each with its own product.
-
"A" had 100 customers and generated sales of 10.
-
"B" is 0.
-
"C" is 0.
| Company | Customers | Sales |
|---|---|---|
| A | 100 | 10 |
| B | 0 | 0 |
| C | 0 | 0 |
In the initial state of the market, all 100 customers gathered at Company "A."
As a result, "A" generated overwhelming sales of "10."
"A" enjoys immense popularity, bustling with people flocking to it.
On the other hand, while companies "B" and "C" also existed and had prepared their own wonderful products, they did not have a single customer, leaving their sales at absolute zero.
"A" has completely monopolized the market and is likely feeling unparalleled happiness, superiority, and a sense of accomplishment.
However, this does not mean the society as a whole is stable.
Conversely, from the perspective of "B" and "C," this situation is highly unsatisfactory and utterly unreasonable.
Despite racking their brains and offering products in the same manner, their result is nothingness, making it feel as though their very social worth is being denied.
Such an excessive disparity can eventually breed intense jealousy and resentment toward "A," which may develop into twisted, vengeful emotions.
In the worst-case scenario, it could even trigger radical, destructive impulses to "completely erase the very existence of 'A' from society."
This dynamic, where the have-nots fiercely hate the haves, is an inevitable aspect of human psychology and the very definition of the fatal social risks brought about by monopolies.
The Distribution of 100
So, what happens if we socially distribute wealth and customers in order to avoid such conflict and hatred?
The major premise here is that the total number of humans is fixed at "100," and this framework cannot be increased from the outside.
Under this absolute constraint, let us assume that the market has been distributed as follows.
-
"A" now has 20 customers. It has generated sales of 2.
-
"B" has attracted 50 customers. It has generated sales of 5.
-
"C" has attracted 30 customers. It has generated sales of 3.
| Company | Customers | Sales |
|---|---|---|
| A | 20 | 2 |
| B | 50 | 5 |
| C | 30 | 3 |
Due to changes in the market, "A" now has 20 customers, and its sales have decreased to "2."
Meanwhile, "B" has attracted 50 customers, achieving sales of "5."
Furthermore, "C" has attracted 30 customers, obtaining sales of "3."
As a result of this reallocation, "B" and "C" have gained new customers and achieved their long-awaited sales figures.
They have been saved from the brink of despair, and social discontent appears to be temporarily resolved.
On the other hand, however, "A," which once enjoyed ultimate prosperity, has seen its customer base plummet, and its sales have dropped significantly from "10" to "2."
Now, it is "A's" turn to harbor dissatisfaction and a sense of loss.
The modern society we live in is overflowing with countless companies and a diverse array of products.
New services are launched almost every day, and groundbreaking innovations are loudly proclaimed,
but in reality, could it be that we are all simply fighting over this limited pie of "100"?
"A," "B," "C," "D," "E," "F"...
No matter how many attractive products we add, there is a strict limit of 100 people from the very beginning who can actually purchase and consume them.
The more the number of products increases, the more the initial 100 is simply divided up.
If there are 2 products, the share drops from 100 to 50; if there are 5 products, it drops to 20; if it increases further to 100 products, it becomes 1 person per product; and if it goes beyond that, it splits into decimals of less than 1. In this way, the number of people allocated to each product will inevitably decrease.
No matter how much we try to expand the scale of our economy,
our only business partners are "humans."
Even if you try to pitch instant noodles to lions living in the savanna, it is something they do not need, and they cannot take over the human market for us.
Business is constantly hitting an absolute wall: the total number of human beings.
Disposable Time
This concept of "limitation by the total number of humans" has exactly the same structure as the constraints of "disposable time" (free time) frequently discussed in the entertainment and gaming industries.
Disposable time refers to the time that humans can freely use of their own will, after excluding essential daily activities such as sleeping, working, and eating.
A day consists of only "24 hours," equally for everyone.
This 24-hour framework is an unmovable limitation.
No matter how many game titles a user adds to their collection, the time they can consume cannot exceed the daily limit.
The more the number of titles increases, the more the time allocated to each game is fragmented and reduced.
For example, if you have 4 attractive games at hand,
the absolute limit would be to evenly allocate time to each, such as "6 hours," "6 hours," "6 hours," and "6 hours."
-
"aa" - 6 hours
-
"bb" - 6 hours
-
"cc" - 6 hours
-
"dd" - 6 hours
No matter how much passion and vast sums of money developers invest in making a game, if there are other interesting titles, the user's time will be ruthlessly taken away.
Rather, if a user owns only one game title,
it becomes possible for them to dedicate all of their disposable time,
namely "24 hours," to that single title alone.
-
"ee" - 24 hours
An overwhelming level of engagement, such as pouring all 24 hours into a specific game title "ee," is only possible because there is only one choice.
Looking at actual statistical data, despite the increasing supply of content, human gameplay time and media consumption time have leveled off or shown a downward trend after reaching a certain threshold.
This proves that humans have reached the "limit of time."
If the absolute limit in gaming is the 24 hours of a day,
then the absolute limit in business is the total number of humans itself, which is "100 people."
It must be said that we are continuing a futile cannibalization over resources that cannot be increased.
The Total is 100:
The Illusion of Infinite Growth and the Fraud of Non-Existent Numbers
The total number of humans is 100.
Many economists and corporate executives advocate for "sustained market growth" and plan to double sales or expand the market.
However, in a society where the total population is 100 people, it is logically impossible to create a situation like the following:
-
"A" attracted 80 customers. Its sales became 8.
-
"B" attracted 80 customers. Its sales became 8.
-
"C" attracted 80 customers. Its sales became 8.
| Company | Customers | Sales |
|---|---|---|
| A | 80 | 8 |
| B | 80 | 8 |
| C | 80 | 8 |
In other words, a world where Company "A" attracts 80 customers with sales of 8, while at the same time Company "B" attracts 80 customers with sales of 8, and Company "C" also attracts 80 customers with sales of 8.
If you simply add these together, the total number of customers becomes 240, and the total sales reach 24.
However, the reality of the world is that the total number of humans is only 100.
This figure of "240 people" is nothing less than fraudulently inflating numbers using phantom humans that do not exist in reality or non-existent sales, or else improperly borrowing future numbers through excessive debt or fictitious demand.
The bubbles and financial crises that the current capitalist economy frequently falls into stem precisely from the distortion of trying to treat these "non-existent 140 people" as if they actually existed.
No matter how attractive a growth strategy one draws up, as long as there is an upper limit of 100 people, the more companies compete with each other, the more their respective shares of customers and sales will only be fragmented and eroded.
Competition does not increase overall wealth; instead, it consumes individual resources and results in the exhaustion of society as a whole.
What lies at the end of this scramble is nothing but a harsh, bleak society of mutual distrust, where no one can secure sufficient profits and everyone fears falling behind tomorrow.
Growth theories that ignore limitations are merely numerical tricks and deceptions.
The total number of humans is 100.
Since there is inevitably a limit of 100, fighting over it will only decrease everyone's respective customers and sales.
Convergence into "Integration Z" and a Simulation of Peaceful Coexistence
If so, shouldn't we choose a completely different approach to put an end to this futile scramble?
Why not merge companies "A," "B," and "C" together into a single product, "Z"?
Instead of glaring at each other as separate organizations of "A," "B," and "C" and shaving away each other's pie, we could combine them all into one ultimate product—or rather, integrate them into "Z" as a single social infrastructure.
At this time, the corporate organizations themselves would also merge, sublimating into a single, unified entity.
In this new alternative, the integrated "Z" would have all 100 customers right from the start, reliably achieving sales of "10."
-
"Z" attracted 100 customers. Its sales became 10.
| Company | Customers | Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Z | 100 | 10 |
This state is decisively different from the chaotic past where things were split into "A," "B," and "C."
And at the same time, its fundamental nature differs entirely from the monopoly by "A" that we saw at the beginning.
The monopoly of "A" was structured in a way that left excluded losers like "B" and "C" in the background, breeding their resentment and desire for revenge.
However, this "Z" is an integrated entity where all elements have melted into one from the very beginning.
There are no excluded parties, nor anyone crying in defeat.
This is because the wisdom and resources of the originally separate "A," "B," and "C" are equally encompassed within this "Z."
The circumstances I found myself in were like those of the former "B" and "C"—an environment on the side of 0 or the few.
Even so, I do not believe our companies or products were inferior to "A."
In the world of "Z," where all 100 people are gathered from the start, the needless anxiety of worrying about tomorrow's competition—riding an emotional rollercoaster over sales going "up" or "down"—completely vanishes.
The market pie is 100% perfectly filled, and no further wasteful division occurs.
Rather than blindly pursuing product diversity, fragmenting the pie, and dragging each other down, we should honestly accept the constraints of a limited human population and limited time, and aim for harmony and integration.
This may well be the only path for humanity to break free from the endless cycle of scrambling and reach true stability and peace.
The Timeline of "Z"
In this way,
the concept of the integrated entity "Z"—merging all companies and sublimating them into a single social infrastructure—was presented as the ultimate solution to end this futile war of attrition.
However, we must clear up an important misconception here.
Just because all companies and products are integrated into a single framework called "Z," it does not mean that human lifestyles and choices will all become identical, resulting in a standardized dystopia.
The timeline realized by "Z" is a highly rational and ideal world structure that perfectly respects people's diverse "individuality" and "preferences,"
while
completely maintaining a sense of "fairness" across the market of 100.
For example, let's consider the snack market.
Just because a single integrated organization called "Z" is born, it does not mean that the world's snacks will be reduced to "just one type of chocolate."
Under the umbrella of the integrated entity "Z," the highest technology and dedication previously held by "A," "B," and "C" will be brought together,
・Appearing in the market as a few types of sophisticated chocolates made by "Z",
・A few types of highly varied chips made by "Z", and so on.
The same applies to the world of gaming, the symbol of entertainment.
・Grand RPGs made by "Z",
・Exhilarating action games made by "Z",
・Casual yet deep puzzle games made by "Z", and more—
the options to satisfy players' diverse preferences will remain richly preserved.
Is this not a world structure where the ideal of respecting each person's individuality while completely maintaining a sense of fairness across the 100 becomes reality?
The beauty of this structure lies in the fact that while consumers can freely enjoy choices tailored to their own individuality,
the supply side (the creators) experiences absolutely no "futile scrambling for the pie" or "unreasonable disparity."
No matter which game you play or which chocolate you choose, they all become achievements of a single, large community called "Z,"
meaning the 100 people are always "Z,"
and remain customers of "Z" who enjoy and support the value of the whole.
Talented people who, like the former "B" and "C," possessed excellent quality but were forced to accept an environment of "0" due to structural reasons, can now fully express their individuality and contribute to society within the integrated entity of "Z."
There is no wasting of advertising costs to tear others down, nor is there excessive stress from fearing the rise of competing companies.
The market pie is 100% perfectly filled, and there is no longer any need for needless anxiety over numbers going up or down.
"Z," operated by all 100 people
While guaranteeing individual freedom of diverse choices, it secures the solidarity and 100% fairness of society as a whole—making it the most sophisticated final form of economy (grand design) that humanity should strive for.
