Some miscellaneous "scribbles" which may or may not be expanded.
So, any "solutions" are formed only within the parameters of that "conflict". So, for instance, school shootings are seen as a conflict between shooters and authorities. The proposed solutions all deal with making authorities stronger, able to dominate in the conflict with shooters (arm teachers, more LE in schools, more mental health professionals in schools), or taking guns away from shooters. Political solutions can't see that the problem acutally exists in the larger, enveloping social system and school shootings are only a symptom of a problem in the larger, enveloping social system. So, political solutions to school shootings will always fall short of true solutions because, by nature, politics only sees the conflict between shooters and authority.
To further limit solutions, politics accepts that which gets the most votes as "the solution". What get the most votes will be that which creates the smallest change in order to appeal to the most varied "political leanings", always resulting in (Medard Gabel's) "half vast solutions to vast problems".
Because the problem is not in the schools, the schools are not causing school shootings, changing the schools will not prevent school shootings. More police presence, mental health professionals in the schools, arming teachers, metal detectors will not solve the problems in the enveloping systems, so the symptom, school shootings will remain.
As it is the MO of politics, to change as little as necessary in order to get legislation passed, government will continue to try to change the schools as it is more popular than changing the social and economic systems of which schools are only a part.
Instead of asking "how do we power 1.6 billion vehicles" we should be asking "how do we eliminate the need for 1.6 billion vehicles". If we can eliminate the need for so many powered vehicles we can eliminate the resource extraction and pollution caused by powering them. We eliminate the resource extraction required to build them. We eliminate the costs of disposing of them at the end of their lives. We eliminate the extraction of resources and the destruction of Nature required to build vehicle infrastructure, and the costs of maintaining and eventually decommissioning that. We might well strengthen local economies and local communities. There are likely social benefits to not locking people in metal cans for hours each day.
Neither increased demand, decreased supply, nor increase in money supply have any inherent power to cause a company to raise its prices. Those three things only act as signals to the supply side that it can indulge its greed. The law of supply and demand is a construct, created to cover corporate greed.
As is usual in a political system, a symptom has been misrepresented as the a problem. Inflation is not the problem, it is a symptom of unbridled greed and the glorification of the accumulation of ersatz wealth.