October 21, 2016

I am going to assume you don’t want to break the law or rob a bank, because as quickly as it could make you wealthy to rob your local casino, it is just not the right thing to do. I will also assume you don’t want to marry money or hope for a winning lottery ticket, what I am going to propose is a sound and hopefully rational explanation of the quickest way to make money on Earth.

First, I want to introduce you to the three types of money. Time money, Credit money and Solutions money. All three of these are ways to get money. Time money is connected to time and is typically offered in a job. You work 8 hours, you get 8 hours pay. The very next day you start from scratch, the work you did yesterday has been paid for and you will never earn for those 8 hours of work ever again. The next is credit money and this type of money trades tomorrows hours of work today. Typically, you can only get credit money, if you can prove you work in a job and have access to time money. So these two methods of getting money are both closely connected to the time component.

The third type of way to get money is solution money. Its where the fun begins. Most of the corporate world makes its money this way and pays their staff slow time money. While they make $100,000 in a single afternoon, they pay their staff an hourly wage. There is nothing unfair about this, but it is important to note that solution money has no time component. Solution money is made by creating solutions to peoples problems.

The quickest way on Earth to make money is to earn it offering solutions to peoples problems. The more specialized and effective your solution, the more in demand that solution is, the more ridiculously high your income will be. Company’s. are groups that have money, lot’s of money. If a company has a problem or to be honest, even the Government, for that matter, then, this is ideal for people wishing to make money quickly. But for the average person, how does this translate into income today? Well…it’s true, average people don’t have much money, but the point is getting paid to fix problems for people that need help. Even average people without much money would pay a handsome and quick payment to somebody that could assist them with a quick solution!…

Lynn Visson's "Wedded Strangers" explains:

"For Russians, the ultimate sin is being stingy.

Russians and Americans have vastly different views of money. This is understandable considering that Russians were under the Soviet system and Americans were raised under a capitalist system.

Under the Soviet system, Russians had money in their pocket, but no place to spend it. Jobs, medical care, apartments, pensions – the basic necessities that one needed for life – were provided by the state.

The problem was that the state decided what to produce. Choice in goods was unavailable. That was if the product was even available. Goods were scarce. You could not compare shop even if you wanted to.

You did not have to worry about spending too much money because there were not too many goods to spend money on.

There are stories to illustrate life during the Soviet times. When you walked down the street and you saw a line of people, you got in line, even though you did not know why the line was forming and what you were waiting for.

Whatever it was, it was scarce and people wanted it, so it was better to get in line before you missed out.

Conversely, Americans have more money, but they have a thousand choices on how to spend that money. The whole American consumption system is designed to get you to spend money on whatever product is advertised. They supplement the myriad choices with easy credit.

The trick in the American system is to figure out what it is that is really important to you. It becomes important to make wise choices because there are so many choices available. Shopping for bargains and good value becomes imperative to survive American capitalism. Your choices are virtually unlimited. You could spend hundreds of thousands times your income in America without giving it a second thought.

The problem is that you would soon find yourself wallowing in consumer debt.

Americans value their ability to negotiate a good deal and to find a bargain. They brag about the great deals they get. They are proud of their ability to get the most for their money. To live at the highest standard of living possible is the goal of America's consumer society.

For that same reason, American men are proud of their success and the assets they have accumulated. They think that they can attract a Russian woman by telling her about their ability to provide for her.

They brag about their income and their wealth to impress her and then they turn around and tell her about what a good negotiator they are in exacting the best price for things.

These tracks are valuable in American society. But all that talk about money makes them sound like Ebenezer Scrooge to the Russian woman they are trying to impress.

To a Russian, who earns one dollar for every fifty dollars an American earns, an American sounds incredibly cheap when they talk about what a hard bargain they …

The real nature of insurance is often confused. The word “insurance” is sometimes applied to a fund that is accumulated to meet uncertain losses. For example, a specialty shop dealing in seasonal goods must add to its price early in the season to build up a fund to cover the possibility of loss at the end of the season when the price must be reduced to clear the market. Similarly, life insurance quotes take into consideration the price the policy would cost after collecting premiums from other policyholders.

This method of meeting a risk is not insurance. It takes more than the mere accumulation of funds to meet uncertain losses to constitute insurance. A transfer of risk is sometimes spoken of as insurance. A store that sells television sets promises to service the set for one year free of charge and to replace the picture tube should the glories of television prove too much for its delicate wiring. The salesman may refer to this agreement as an “insurance policy.” It is true that it does represent a transfer of risk, but it is not insurance.

An adequate definition of insurance must include both the building-up of a fund or the transference of risk and a combination of a large number of separate, independent exposures to loss. Only then is there true insurance. Insurance may be defined as a social device for reducing risk by combining a sufficient number of exposure units to make the loss predictable.

The predictable loss is then shared proportionately by all those in the combination. Not only is uncertainty reduced, but losses are shared. These are the important essentials of insurance. One man who owns 10,000 small dwellings, widely scattered, is in almost the same position from the standpoint of insurance as an insurance company with 10,000 policyholders who each own a small dwelling.

The former case may be a subject for self-insurance, whereas the latter represents commercial insurance. From the point of view of the individual insured, insurance is a device that makes it possible for him to substitute a small, definite loss for a large but uncertain loss under an arrangement whereby the fortunate many who escape loss will help to compensate the unfortunate few who suffer loss.

The Law of Large Numbers

To repeat, insurance reduces risk. Paying a premium on a home owners insurance policy will reduce the chance that an individual will lose their home. At first glance, it may seem strange that a combination of individual risks would result in the reduction of risk. The principle that explains this phenomenon is called in mathematics the “law of large numbers.” It is sometimes loosely referred to as the “law of averages” or the “law of probability.” Actually, it is but one portion of the subject of probability. The latter is not a law at all but merely a branch of mathematics.

In the seventeenth century, European mathematicians were constructing crude mortality tables. From these investigations, they discovered that the percentage of …