(01) I often tell people that their get-quick-rich schemes have moral flaws.
(02) Not the thing is that they want to both be moral as well as get rich.
(03) So they are dis-satisfied with my opinions.
(04) And it ends up with them wanting me to stop giving opinins, because it will affect them.
(05) But my point was that you always have to cheat on some level to get richer beyond how much you work.
[Usually this is achieved by automation, such as online courses which can be copied and shared without extra effort]
(06) I also gave the idea that some arbitrary level of cheating can be used, and everyone can agree to do
it, and that would make it not cheating, and it would end up having to be paid off equally by everyone later.
(07) My arguments were simply based on the first principles of economics, and the short term and long term debt cycle
which have to be paid off, and the only ones who don't pay it off are the ones who cheat, and the ones who are smart
tend to avoid the effects of cheating, and the third get cheated.

(08) So basically what I do is just that, I abstract the whole economy into a machine, and it is such that what goes
in must produce a result.
(09) Then by definition, what goes inside should all add up.
(10) And that means if someone got rich quick, someone had to work more for to compensate for that. Though an individual
may not have worked like that, collectively, all of them had to work more that they had to.

(11) But the people in general do not think about the whole machine, and they only think on their level. They find
that their side seems moral, and it seems to be justified by cause and effect. But if they look at how their actions
directly influence other actions in the machinery, only then can they realize how their contribution

Left-click: follow link, Right-click: select node, Scroll: zoom