When the system feels rigged, taking shortcuts seems logical

How many times have we looked for a quick fix? A fast opportunity. A hidden trick. Something to skip the long, boring grind. I've been there. Too many times. And almost always I ended up worse off than if I’d just stayed patient. A few months later, though, I find myself searching again. Why do we keep doing this? I think it’s because the usual path feels impossible. Work for decades. Save a little every month. Cross your fingers nothing goes wrong. Pray that prices don’t rise faster than your savings. Hope you stay healthy. Hope your job isn't phased out. So much to hope for. And when you realize the safe path isn’t really safe, shortcuts start to seem reasonable. Not just greedy, but sensible. If the slow option could fail anyway, why not try the quick route? At least there’s a shot. I totally get this thought process because I’ve felt it. But here’s something I’m starting to consider. It’s not just that we want shortcuts. The real issue is we’re relying on things we can’t control. Jobs that can vanish. Systems that can shift. Prices set by people we’ll never meet. The real shortcut (maybe the only one that matters) is to depend less on these systems. Learn how to do things that stay valuable even if industries crumble. Build relationships with real people, not just faceless platforms. Spend less so you need less.

The system had been built and controlled to be like that from the beginning of colonisation, the system warned that, those that try to shortcut will be punished and be destroyed and so every others learn lessons and never try it. Shortcut is a threat to the system, whoever discover shortcut to success without been caught is said to be filty rich and make any changes to what he wants or not. Because it's been known that it's harder to build on a salary based jobs, imagine a hacker could get some million dollars at once, the economy would be easy for him even when it's tough for others, would be more easy to establish more businesses that can print more and more for him.

And what pushes people to really contemplate short shortcut is that you see people who have done it or are doing it, and they're so successful. When you look at the business history of a lot of wealthy people, you will see that even though they didn't do anything illegal, they were unethical. They didn't break the law, but they bent and stretched the law as much as they could. The game is actually rigged. It's so difficult. I see how big corporations shut down small competitors, and I wonder how we are supposed to compete. It's really a "survival of the fittest" world. The strong crush the weak. You don't even need to be weak to be crushed; if you don't want to dance along to the turn of the music, you will be crushed. An example of this is Shayne Coplan, the founder of Polymarket, who had his house raided by the FBI a year ago, found a way to dance along with the music, and now he is swimming with the sharks.

I believe shortcuts are dangerous not because of their speed, but because of their slow impact. When we take shortcuts, we forgo discipline, frustration tolerance, resilience, and stress management. Shortcuts often lead to instant results that often make us feel self-sufficient, underestimating the hard work of others, and becoming vulnerable when real challenges arise. Worse, shortcut takers often view others' success as a fluke and feel entitled to the same results without commensurate effort. The long road isn't always safe, and shortcuts aren't always bad. What matters is our capacity to navigate them. What makes life's journey feel light and stable isn't speed, but resilience, which comes from transferable skills, healthy financial management, strong human relationships, and a lifestyle that doesn't overwhelm ourselves. When our foundations are weak, shortcuts often appear, even though if our character were strong, we could solve problems without shortcuts. This is an emotional reaction to uncertainty, not a morally wrong choice. Shortcuts may speed our pace, but it's the process that expands our capacity. What we pursue with shortcuts can be obtained quickly, but only the process makes us able to maintain what we achieve/get.

The lack of control over factors beyond our control pushes us to take shortcuts. After all, what a shortcut is is a reduction in the amount of time in which we depend on factors beyond our control (for example, luck in gambling). I will not give an obvious example of stealing something because it is a criminal act. But I can't help but give an example of trading on the stock exchange with leverage. In both the short and especially the long path (career), the most dangerous thing is the illusion of control that sometimes arises. In fact, the OP is right - there is no control.

The system is not neutral. It was never intended for people at the bottom to move up easily. From colonisation to modern day credit scoring, the entire structure ensures that most people remain predictable, scared and dependent. But I think the "hacker gets millions and then life is easy" example is exactly the sort of thing to keep a lot of us locked in. It makes outliers into a blueprint. For every hacker who walks away with money, there are hundreds of those who end up broke, caught or unable to deal with what they stole. We don't see them, and so our brain thinks that the exception is the rule. Also, notice something: in your description, the system punishes normal people who try shortcuts, but the ones who actually "win" are still playing the same game: get a pile of capital, build businesses that "print more and more", sat on top of other people's effort. It's still the same pyramid just it has a different person at the top. The entire point of my thread was: I don't want my entire life strategy to be based upon becoming a statistical miracle. I don't want to put all my eggs in the basket of being the 0.01% that succeeds in beating a system created by people who are smarter, richer and more protected than me. You're right that a lot of big winners did things that weren't ethical even if they weren't illegal. You're right that big corporations fight all out to destroy smaller ones. You're correct that, if you refuse to "dance" at all, the system can run over you. But there's another bias lurking under your comment: We see only the survivors who can be seen. We don't see the dozens of guys who tried to follow in the footsteps of Shayne Coplan, bent the rules in the same way and just got wiped out with no New York Times article and no second act. Survivorship bias one makes "dancing with the sharks" appear statistically smarter than it is. The case of the Polymarket story is a good illustration of the tradeoff, in that yes, he "found a way to dance along with the music," but that implies that you accept you are currently in their game. Once you rely on that level of capital and that level of tolerance from regulatory regimes, you are less free than you appear to be from the outside in. You've had an upgrade to your position, but you've also had an upgrade to your vulnerability. That can be a valid choice, but it's not obviously better than building a smaller, more self-reliant life where you're not always one legal letter / policy shift away from disaster. When all that is significant in your own life is based on the decisions that are being made far off (central banks, employers, regulators, random market shocks), it is almost rational to attempt to fast-forward yourself on that mess. I've done it. Leverage, in that regard, is similar to screaming at the universe: "Now, let us see whether or not I am going to make it. The place I disagree with you is the line "there is no control". I would be buying the same idea entirely, so there is no real distinction between a 50x leveraged account and somebody just quietly spending less, accumulating skills, and having a small cash buffer. They're both just "no control". But they're not. The former is essentially a naked man caught in the storm. The weather still hits the second person, though at least he bothered to put a roof on the place. The illusion of control, it is dangerous, yes. But so is total surrender. When I say to myself that there is nothing under my control, any risk just starts to be fair, as everything is just chaotic. That mindset is the perfect soil for just the kind of products and decisions that blow people up.

You are right but Not all of them, some people rise up from the slums, they hated the way their are living and their own ways are different from those who are motivated by others, this are the type of people that i feared the most. To weaken them will be near impossible, because they don't have anything that turned them into what they are doing, they decide to go that route because they feel it's the necessary thing to do. In the history books, there have been many villains that rise up not because of what happened to people they know or what they see, they are purely born for that path they took, that's why they reign for a long time before they fell.

Maybe the second person has taken shelter from the weather, but continues to run in pursuit of success, like a squirrel on a wheel? He hasn't capitulated; he's just following a long path. But on the long road, we also face risks that come from where we don't expect them. There may be a difference between long and short routes only in the degree of risk concentration per unit of time..

I respect those people a lot. If you come from nothing and work hard to get to somewhere better, then you are a great person in my mind. I know that it is not an easy thing to achieve and some people still manage to do it. I think that is a great way to move forward and I think we will get a lot out of it as well. Most people just end up with nothing when they start from nothing, because it's nearly impossible to be richer after you start with nothing, you start behind the ball and you stay there. So the only few people who manages to get a greater life by working hard, are great people. But no matter how you start, taking shortcuts is not acceptable, always stay within the legal lines and never go out of your way.

Survival is winning, bro. Every other thing is relatively what the society choose to make of it as long as we are looking at it from a legalistic point of view. You can decide to be a part of a system or not and depending on the circumstances around what you're doing, what you term to be short cut might just be a better alternative way of meeting a set out result. Untill you have what it takes to work smart, you in most cases will have to work hard. Untill you have what it takes to create your own short cut, you will first have to have to follow set down process that has what it takes to yield the expected outcome. At the end, you have to work and set out what you want to achieve based on what's peculiar for you and not just what the economy demands or expect of you. The ability to gain that level of freedom is yet what gives you your own leverage in the society.

Such shortcuts will definitely be wrong since you are working against something evil & beyond your control, and also building on a wrong foundation, The best thing to do is to build on a good alternative By the way, it's important to note that the actual "Straight and Narrow" way isn't what you think. It's very difficult to pass through, not because it's a way full of uncertainty and issues, but due to the very high standard or requirement one need to pass before they scale through. It's actually a safe way with less uncertainty and other issues you mentioned. Many will try to get through the way but won't be able to because they will need to abandon their bad and unnecessary cultures of the old way.  Ofcourse the right way requires you to be more productive, do good work, do more charity, use your money well, don't buy/acquire more than you need, don't pile up riches for selfish use, etc. If you obey, you will begin to invest more, give more, gain more wealth, have more secure business/wealth, etc

I completely agree with you, means of financial stability in most countries is a bit rigid, this is majorly because of policy formation by the government which makes people struggle to find a strong economic standing. but whilst those in authority are arguably having a seamless and less stressful opportunities that gives them a better placement on the economic table... But then situations like this would ordinarily trigger some persons not to go by the rules, because it's looking like the rules is not in favour of them, so short cut becomes an alternative..

You're right "the straight and narrow" is not going to get you that far even after 30 years, savings accounts are a rookie game and you have to put your money to work much harder than that in order to succeed. Savings accounts right now are reasonably high, at least compared to five years ago, but trending back down again. Investing in index funds will be earning you 6-8% per year on average, compared to savings accounts which are headed back down to sub 3%. Even one percent point can make a huge difference when it comes to the effects of compounding. If you want to stay "safe" then you will earn safe returns, but they'll be much lower than you should have. Everyone who has retired so far has had to adapt throughout their lifetimes to change, very few had lifetime jobs, so the situation we are in right now is not special or unique.

There are times when some citizens could discover a shortcut to other countries without passing through legit medium of transportation, maybe through thick forest or jump in through trains, doing this to fail the rules because of passing through the rules are only possible by the rich that can afford. Following rules will make you look rich and free but in reality, you are in bondage. In my country, those that actually failed rules are leading and surviving the economy than others.

The fact is just that most of us somehow just wish for a shortcut even in things we know that it is achievable in the long term, but we begin to have the feelings of doubt and uncertainty, and it is normal because we are humans so there will surely be some feelings of unlikelihood in us. It's not bad to look for a shortcut if something is taking too long or if we just want to take the risk of not following a due process but it better to have an alternative in case the shortcut fails so that we can still hold on to something while exercising patience. Following a shortcut without any backup plan can be very dangerous because if it fails, you will become so confused and depressed then start regretting why you were not patient enough to make an achievement.

Being kind gets you nowhere. I’m not saying you should be evil but you can’t let others walk all over you. You have to make sure that you stand your ground and you are able to make decisions that are not affected by emotions but by logic.

I'm sure we're familiar with the saying that says working smart is more payable than working hard. So must of us had also put it to fact of finding an easier way to reach out goals in no time by implying innovations with very minimum concepts that may not necessarily much of resources but finding what to catch a networking interests of others towards your resorts. Then when you begin to grow, also consider making provisions to empower others through employments with the applications of good managements could also contribute to bring you increase in success. Greeds of doing it all by yourself could sometimes delay the process and affecting your success.

We don't have to be more dependent of the economy, because it was believed right from the state to be rigged and operate s under the pretense of everything being alright when we all know that they are not, the role of inflation has caused the spoil of them all, but we can choose to go for what we want, since we have Bitcoin, the alternative is there for us to use with bitcoin, at least this is running under a decentralized economy.

The system is designed that way. We call it capitalism. On paper, everybody has a chance to get rich, drive lambos, fly jets and wear golden necklaces but it is just a small possibility because there simply isn’t enough supply of lambos for everiebodie. The majority will have to do what you explained. Born, graduate, have a job, get married, make 2 kids, die in poverty. It is because the system needs people to enter this life cycle. Otherwise rich peupol woulnt be driving ferra… i mean lambos. If you want to escape that rat race become one of the overseers, you will need some incredible luck, smarts and a head start capital. Some people manage to do it with less resources but they are outliers. Their data is meaningless. (In other words,  If you were one, you would have escaped it too.)

Accelerating inflation makes all these ideas difficult, which prompts many to search for quick ways. If, for example, you saved $250,000/per 10 years to buy a house, you will find that prices have changed greatly. We are not talking about 300,000, but 500,000 or more. Therefore, the ideal solution is to invest what you save in various assets that achieve an average return on investment that is higher than inflation. Otherwise, you are wasting your time.