Cryptocurrency is a payment medium for services and like fiat, we also need to work to earn bitcoin. Gone are the days when people could mine bitcoin with their PC. These days getting bitcoin isn't as easy as before and an average man with no money can't have bitcoin. Decentralization is only about the ledger not being handled by anybody, not that anybody can access bitcoin. If not all humans would be rich today. Getting loans in bitcoin still requires collateral and trust. In the forum, a member must have proven to have a proven track record of trust and consistency to get loans. He doesn't need to explain what he'd do with the money. Defi projects also need collateral submitted first before approving any loan. Hence, money has limits on who can have it, based on trust. Nobody gives money to a stranger who can freely go away without returning the loan. So restrictions revolve around money; bitcoin. Only the rich can afford to buy bitcoin in large quantities.

The average person's imagination must be reasonable and unique to earn him bitcoin. Rendering substandard services wouldn't generate bitcoin for an average person, despite being imaginative. In recent times, the government has lent out money on different bases, especially for agricultural purposes. The only requirement is showing that you're a farmer. The only dispute with taking a loan is not having a substantial reason for what the money could be used for. Looking to build a hotel, the bank will easily hand out loans, once it's confirmed that you've got a large land. Delaying the payback frame the bank can easily take over the hotel; run or sell it to recover their money and make profits. Many loan proposals are being declined if the reason sounds fishy to the bank management.  Banks easily send loans to local businesses with the potential of succeeding. Don't know where Op got his insights, was it expected that loans will be sent out without being reviewed?

Dealing without the bank will limit our level of transacting with people. Fiat is needed to settle local businesses and clear bills. Bitcoin hasn't gotten to an era where users can easily trade peer-to-peer with vendors in local markets. Bankers may have illicit players in their midst, but the funds are safe. Although the inflation rate keeps dwindling the value of fiat, running away completely from using banks won't help some bitcoin investors. Holding money in bitcoin and spending the few fiat we earn is the right step to take. However, we have to wait until the usage of bitcoin gets too viral like the fiat before we integrate bitcoin as the only currency and neglect banks. In some countries where bitcoin is illegal, trading bitcoin could be a hassle. Cooperating with OP's idea will only cause stress for the bitcoin investors or traders in the region. Selling bitcoin successfully needs the bank to receive the money in fiat. The trader then gets to withdraw and spend.

The only alternative, though stressful, is consistently redirecting our bitcoin sales to the vendor's bank account, then the bitcoin user can move to the store and get an equivalent of his money in items sold in the vendor's store. This method will reduce the rate at which the bitcoiner touches fiat money and needs it. But, considering the numerous utilities that satisfy the needs of a human, one vendor won't be enough. Buying gasoline, paying parking lot fees, helping the less privileged, etc will only ruin the dream of dealing with bitcoin, alone. The bitcoiner won't continue stressing the trader to always help him forward funds to any vendor he meets. Considering the rate of bitcoin fees, in recent days. Contrarily to purchasing products, banks seem less important in saving money for a bitcoiner. Because he doesn't make enough profits saving money in banks compared to doing the same in his wallet. If the goal is to save or hold, then banks are not needed. As for daily transactions, banks are still important.

At 13 years a child's decision is his and the blame goes to him if he ends up making the wrong choice. Gambling isn't for kids under the age of 18. A teenager below the required gambling age bracket in his country is expected to abstain from participating in gambling. Insisting on going against the rules would be to his detriment. The duty of his parents is now over, and all he's been told about gambling at a younger age should be enough to guide him not to gamble recklessly. Then if he decides to gamble after 18, it's right, but demands adequate supervision from his parents. Mistakes are around the corner for teenagers who choose gambling at an early stage. Parents shouldn't fight their kids over gambling, instructing the young lad is necessary in helping him avoid addiction. Aggressively resisting them from gambling would improve their secret gambling activities. And the parents won't be able to detect when the child is on the wrong gambling path. Looking into the environmental factors, matters a lot, as all growing youth have multiple lessons to learn from their environment; now or later.

Winnowing out the good and bad factors is the duty of the parents. Kids don't know much about a few things; pros and cons of gambling. Money talk sweetens the ears of every child. Purchasing new toys triggers their interest in finding quick means to earn money. Kids are handed out mobile phones to communicate with parents, when out of home. Parental guide on the phone is great, but kids seem to bypass them with a few tricks they'll learn from schoolmates. Hence, the child can gamble on the same phone his parents are supposed to receive notifications from Google that his ward is visiting prohibited websites. Keeping a close eye on the child helps in catching him when cheating the parental control rules. Parents are expected to work very hard in monitoring the internet activities of children; no excuses. While the environment, school, peers, etc add a new attitude to a child, parents are expected to review those behaviors, and then decide whether to remove or allow them. So that as an adult, the child will not be welcomed into a more difficult world.

Following multiple gambling strategies shared in this board, a gambler may end up not enjoying the fun of gambling. Staking games 10 times and expecting 4 wins is not realistic. The wins differ per session and gamblers hoping to win a certain time in a series of bets can be disappointed when the choices don't appear as planned. Calling this type of player investment players wouldn't sound weird. Money spent on gambling is meant to be forgotten, but lots of gamblers can't help, but think about their lost funds. They keep calculating in their mind, ways to get them back. Try again is the best possible answer for them, and no other answer like taking a break suits their expectations. Next thing, you'd notice the anger written on the player's face for losing one more time, with no positive result of getting his funds. Realizing that these occurrences aren't supposed to bother the player is the idea behind gambling.

Staying focused on our daily work and improving productivity to make money and increase our income is quite the focus of anybody. When redirecting this focus on gambling it'll curtail the dreams we've got for other real-life activities. This leads the gambler to feel weird about himself, whenever the losses keep piling up. Watching others win also contributes to irresponsible gambling. Gambling streaming influencers have made newbies jump into gambling without any prior information about what the niche is about; how the money is meant to be managed, time limitations, and responsible gambling. They'll chase the wins like they appeared on their screen when watching the streamer play. Silence also has kept gamblers to remain addicted, trying different strategies that won't work. Speaking up helps gambling to figure out ways of surviving loss chase. Not saying OP's methods ain't great, but they won't work for other, even if the chances of working for him, OP, is also slim. Being realistic in gambling; staying happy and gambling for fun. 

Spending a short time on casinos is a strategy that works for newbies. Consistently limiting our gambling duration helps in the creation of a responsible gambling habit. The self-control of a newbie can be tested by how long he'd continue to keep up with such practice. Certainly, time limitation doesn't guarantee any win for the gambler. But, saving our money, is also a form of earning money. Gamblers who spend more time gambling lose additional money compared to the gamblers with lesser gambling duration. However, it also depends on the type of gambler as some gamblers don't require a longer duration to wager all their money.  Any gambler who is conscious of the time limit should also follow good principles for managing money. Missing one of the two factors, time limit and money management, would result in wagering a large amount of money, thereby reducing all the money in a short period. Less concerned gamblers can wager thousands of dollars in one bet and due to their lack of patience they'll lose out the whole money including winnings, within a few minutes.

Whatever gambling-related logic that seems to be the best, it doesn't apply to everyone. Regardless, the method is great, but lots of gamblers don't need, it because they'll want to gamble for a long time to be able to enjoy the game. Scared to lose gamblers would follow Op's good advice, which will also help them escape addiction. Hence, all gambler is required to manage bankroll, while following the rules of other gamblers in the community. Different gamblers with unique intentions and potentials don't share the gambling strategies yielding them more money. While time limitation is great for some newbie gamblers, top professional players try to limit their time in a long form. At least 5 hours limit, helps in controlling the decision of the gambler in a way that, any result he sees within the 5 hours interval won't terminate his rules on stopping immediately it gets to that point.

Impossible! the right answer to your questions. no way for a child to go against the luxurious training parents offer to him. Isn't it obvious that every human wants to appear good and luxurious? Tired rich men don't get moved by that lifestyle anymore, but kids are moved to enjoy the same lifestyle especially when sponsored by their parents. It's rare in most cases to find a child that'll do what Junder said in his response. But, if a child is superb enough to break free from all those lifestyles his parents feed him, he'd be successful in money management, or unsuccessful if his parents don't like him for his actions. Naturally speaking a child is what his parents teach him from childhood. The role of the parents consists of a high percentage of the child's adult life. Adults who visit places with different cultures and traditions can draft out a better way of living their life, but his beginning will hunt him. Blaming the parents isn't required in this situation, but the future of the kids is what presents a shame to most families.

Good-mannered children can come from a well-disciplined home. But a luxurious home consists of wayward children. Who rarely care about the condition of other people in their life. Figuring out a parent who is spending much more in maintaining a luxurious lifestyle for their kids and still controls them to be disciplined, would be the most tedious work in the world. As such kids will have a difficult time learning a disciplined lifestyle. Companions of luxuriously trained kids are mostly arrogant. Growing up with an arrogant attitude explains the home of the child. Some get discouraged by their parents not to set up a business. The cool-headed child who wishes to be disciplined and doesn't follow the training of his parents hardly gets supported by his parents, in terms of business. Such parents want to do it all for their kids, which ends up ruining the future of those children. Most of them fall back to the middle class or lower class.

Investing in those environments is rare, because they stay far from the main town of any state. Although their natural ways of fishing may be affected, piracy isn't good for the economy. Ships are expected to be equipped with few naval officers to guide goods from pirates. Fighting the hijackers is better than paying those huge ransom. Pirates are also heavily equipped and fight well at sea, but when intercepted by the military Navy, the hijacking won't be simpler for them. Thereby reducing the rate of kidnapping and stealing of people's properties. Whatever it is they're fighting for, the innocent businessmen shouldn't suffer for it. Lots of money goes into those imported goods, meant to be marketed in the local market. Pirates spoil the market for many and hike the price of commodities due to scarcity. Imagine a country where a cargo of car tires gets intercepted by pirates and hijacked, there'll be a limited supply of car spare tires in the region where it's meant to be delivered.

So, ship crews should figure out a way of preventing pirates from evading their ships. There are multiple precautionary methods for preventing pirates from hijacking a ship. Coupled with the security, most ships will be able to bypass the pirates. When ships don't travel too close to the shores like you suggested, what exactly would it prevent? because these pirates move with boats and are better swimmers. That part of the sea is mainly their territory and they grew up there. Hence, shooting will be easier for them, increasing crime. So, they'll have fewer people visiting such environments, for safety reasons. Due to such acts the government is favorable to the locality, and the poverty will increase, causing people to migrate to a greener pasture. Many kids around such vicinity, will grow up looking to join pirates since it's part of their livelihood. Only a few of them would cherish formal education.

Believing that everything works for a good reason, is a bigger mindset of overcoming difficult or rigorous situations in our career. During the journey of a growth mindset person, he'll experience troubles on his way to success. But, his mindset strengthens him to continue trying and providing good services to his customers and never to back down. He'll instead figure out fresh methods to avoid any threat to repeat in his life. While the fixed mindset person is still great on his journey, few storms can shrink their dreams. Hence, they feel better working with a growth mindset person who has all that is required to keep moving regardless of the forthcoming threats or trouble. Potentials differ for everybody. What we think is different from the next man or competitor. Just like our faces are different so is the thoughts of our mind and ideas. Whatever, it is the fixed mindset person has in mind, it could be helpful to the growth mindset business man. Both ideas are needed to successfully run a business. Sometimes the fixed mindset is needed to stop a growth mindset from making a huge mistake. In need of a stable moving business and lesser risk? get a fixed mindset person. He'll manage the funds and won't take new risks or opportunities. Looking out for a fast growing business with numerous risk factors, get a growth mindset person. He'll run the business and try anything within his jurisdiction to boost sales and profits, but be assured of lots of money being lost in the process. Few responses or people don't seem to see the potential a fixed mindset person possesses, hence they think it's wrong to have a fixed mindset.

It's difficult to admit that we don't feel sad about losing a game we staked money for a particular team to win. It feels better to gamble on a game and not watch the match than view it, as every single mistake by the team would result in our emotional emotions. Some gamblers don't hesitate to complain about the incompetence of the team when they are losing. Football is fun, but for a gambler, it's a big competition. Their team must win. Betting on teams we don't know isn't favorable either, but it feels safer. Watching games uncomfortably, derails the fun and relaxation we are meant to gain from the game. I'd still prefer watching without a bet. The viewers tend to enjoy both sides of the game. Happiness is derived in football, when the results regardless of the winning team, don't affect the emotions of the streamers or spectators. Aside from the passion for football, spectators cry about losing a match, especially during county games. Feeling sad over the money we staked in the game, isn't appropriate. We should watch games with a stable mind, as it's what matters. Gamblers already have jeopardized the idea of football, because of money. And such ideas speedily affect the mental health of people who don't enjoy a game because they are about to lose money. This can be related to the extreme joy the viewer feels when he is about to win more money. The happiness is enormous enough to diminish anxiety in the player's life. But to stay on a stable side of such a feeling will be watching matches for the joy of football. If the passion hits us, then we feel the solidarity for our team; club or country team.

 
Betting large amounts is very painful compared to the lesser amount, and the gambler would have to remain uncomfortable until the game is over; 1hr 30mins. Slots could be more painful but in a short while. During the Arsenal game with Aston Villa, we all wanted Arsenal to win. The mind didn't rest, not until the last whistle was blown. I felt a sigh of relief, despite Arsenal losing the game. Watching the game and losing, isn't ok, as the gambler expects a magical goal. The fun is instantly recovered once our team scores.

Yeah, the deceased might be indebted to someone who's aggressively asking him to repay. A businessman should be able to withstand gambling threats, though the correlation between gambling and suicide is not completely clear, as many factors lead to suicide. Depression, anxiety, hopelessness etc, these things can be generated via gambling, and multiple factors like heartbreaks, loss of a loved one, or a collapse of business. However, the blame immediately goes to gambling in most people's lives. The deceased may have been a compulsive gambler, whose ill gambling behavior attracted the attention of the society. His business may have suffered a series of losses and he'd be bittered to lose out more money in gambling. Anxiety harms the body by causing the amygdala to increase and get intensified by threatening situations. And also affects his memory, the deceased would be forced to engage in a decision, that he doesn't understand or have direct control over. In gambling, we must avoid the anxiety caused by too many losses.

Money-making ideas linked to gambling have led to suicide cases in most parts of the world. The government of Australia is suffering from the loss of the lives of gambling youths. And try to help via health care facilities that help to control depression and anxiety. Taking loans for gambling purposes also contributes to the shrinking of the hippocampus and at some point the gambler would feel a refresher on his brain, and think badly of himself. Shame and agony overwhelm them, as they don't seem to remember how the ill behavior had developed in their life. Nothing seems to hold back a suicidal mind, they hardly open up to people about their problems. You'd see them laughing and happily communicating with people, it takes a miracle to discover that a person is suicidal. Surprises emerge in a society when they take the painful idea of ending entirely their life, which troubles them. Family don't understand, as most of them don't look moody, only during their private times that they feel pains within. It's quite a difficult situation, if caused by gambling addiction, players should be careful of becoming addicted. I need to know why gambling addicts mostly end up being suicidal compared to drug addicts.

"Money can help you get ahead or hold you back" I'm quoting this for reference purposes. Consistent thoughts on money has removed the idea of reading, and being joyful in the life of many people. Rich folks bother a lot on difficult problems, which money isn't a part of. Convincing the mind that money removes problems is one example of money holding people back. Families work all day to raise money to better the lives of their children but fail to give adequate home training. Money won't be there to solve such a problem. We can't have it all, and the speed at which it finishes is alarming. Why not hold on to the little things that we can control and benefit from in the future? The children of the rich, in this context, are those who can afford to buy a car and pay rent but still work late hours each day. Such kids miss the parental love and care, yet seem to get anything they'd need as kids; toys and cash. Growing up, the demand increases, and the wealth of the parent decreases. The parent's love and care weren't there initially, and the child or kids grew up with little or no much time spent with their parents. They only believed that whatever they asked of their parents, they'd provide.

Moving forward, they begin to demand more expensive things, and the parents, both, try to deliver them instead of cautioning the kids that money isn't treated in a way like that, where they keep buying expensive products. Keeping calm on such matters, the parents want to maintain a rich lifestyle for the kids. With no financial advise or business left for the children. The parents only work hard and earn high paychecks, to meet up with such demands. When the parents depart this earth, those kids despite having all the money could buy to look rich in the eyes of the society. They'll be far backward from the ideas of managing funds. Like a hammer, money has broken them and weighs in a bigger problem that holds them back. Practicing similar behavior inherited from their parents, the child will continue reckless spending of money as a habit. Until money is gone, and the family goes bankrupt. Many years would creep by before the family would bounce out of poverty. This type of person suit the context of Op's thread. As for the Upper class, 1%, money doesn't dry in the family, because the kids of such men are well groomed on the ethics of financial management.

Both of you made reasonable points, which I see differently. If a visionary works in a company, his departure depends on many factors. A company that acknowledges his visions and ideas won't hesitate to increase his pay rates and give him offers that will help him grow. That's making him feel like a part of the company. On the contrary, most visionaries like you said, RockBell, don't share their ideas, hence they'll soon stop working for their boss if he doesn't treat them fine or allow them enough time for a vacation. Most visionaries working for other people are bothered with time, how much time they've spent working for the company, and how it has contributed to their lives. I mean what has been achieved from the job? So, in addition to the qualities listed by Latviand, a visionary should be focused on achieving his goals. Being a visionary doesn't zero down to making lots of money. These people must have a goal that pushes them to work every day. They're problem solvers.

That's why when they unleash their skills in a cooperate world, they easily climb the ladder to management level. Similar to the entrepreneur niche, when they begin to follow such a route. A visionary is expected to perform well in any field he finds himself. And when they get to the CEO level, their ideas are unique and may sound scary. It's the only way people get confused about them. They make too many mistakes, but don't stop at it until the goal is achieved. Read the story of Steve Jobs you'll understand better, what a visionary is all about. Their goal is to make the world a better place. Not money. Steve Jobs had a dispute with the boards of directors for not believing in his vision, hence he left the company he built. He came back later and made a bigger picture of the Apple company we hear today. In a nutshell, only a few people get along with visionaries in terms of ideas, and when your team doesn't like your ideas, you'd seem like an incompetent CEO to them.

"You can't end your suffering by instigating suffering on other people" Martin Luther King Jr. Whoever enjoys the fact that a certain person got kidnapped or ship hijacked and the money generated through it would help their local economy is rendering himself a bad service. He's nothing better than a thief. One day the pirates will come hunting the same people who think they're beneficiaries of the evil act. Are you saying in regards to Robinhood methods, where the stolen money would be used to help the poor? You need to know that stolen money doesn't help the economy of any locality. Rather it diminishes the economy. How do you expect a local area depending on thieves to survive. That locality will face abject poverty. Because thieves don't help the society. They only take away money meant to be circulating in society and waste it on a lavish lifestyle. What the pirates do, ain't good for the society, despite the fact the goods aren't headed to their nation or country.

The owners of the hijacked goods, families of the kidnapped will suffer and cry for their loss, while some are happy believing it's a great service to their society. First, they won't be able to manage the stolen goods and money, hence it won't circulate properly. Second, the price of things in that locality will skyrocket, because vendors believe they're dealing with thieves, and they won't bother buying things at any price. Generally, every human in that society will suffer huge losses for supporting stealing. Then taking it on a more realistic aspect, the way you want to see it, is it possible for money derived through kidnapping and stolen treasures to feed millions of people in a society? remember the pirates will take their share of the money, and hoard huge amounts, for weapons and armories. If that locality doesn't produce weapons, the utility of the pirates, how is the economy going to be helped? How many times will those Pirates patronize the food market, compared to the bullets and weapon sellers? It makes no sense, however, that Navy officials don't put more effort in endeavor to reduce such problems, as it's bitter to hear that so many businesses crumble due to their ship being hijacked.

At first Op used his finances made through his stable income to trade in bitcoin. Which yielded him some profits, and his next possible idea was to leave the civil services work. Would he have made it to the trading level, if he didn't earn stable income? Many people have been deceived by such discussions and dropped their good-paying jobs to start a business. Later they'll end up being unemployed and won't earn anything. Moving from living large to not living at all. Hence, everyone should stick to a plan they'll be able to complete from start to finish. And not make decisions because they're being paid lesser in their place of work, compared to earnings from their side hustle. Most times after the funds increase the person's expenses skyrocket too, he'd purchase things he never would have if paid the normal salary, leaving him with no savings. It's all good to have a high income, but the plan must be calculated. The disadvantage of losing one job for another is losing both.

Successful businessmen still undergo losses and can also go bankrupt and rely on loans to survive. Money management is the key to a good living. Provided the employee earns a decent salary like OP said, moving out of the work, isn't worth the stress. Unless the working environment is not conducive, the person is also advised to stay clear or resign, if they've got a side hustle. Factors that affect employees to leave a company may include; bad management, inadequate relationship with staff, low salary, and unstable salary rate. Employees in such a company with one or two of the above disputes can move away and start up a life outside the company or build a business. But, tagging crypto trading as a reason to quit a job, is a red-flagged decision, the person may end up regretting in the nearest months ahead. Practicing crypto trading won't affect Op's working hours in the office. I'd prefer he does the same job and keeps on trading, instead of leaving his job to focus on trading as a profession. Considering the risks, he'll claim to be vast, but it's not worth resigning.

Looking out for methods or strategies to control our finances is the right way to survive in this current world harsh condition. The labor increases for the worker, and he'll stress himself to meet up with the prices. Working late hours and learning new skills, is the fastest way of building our income in the future. However, some companies don't allow the workers enough time to rest, they are dismissed so late and aren't able to go to classes; online or offline to learn new skills. Such people will need to depend on the government for a decrease in the price of commodities. Boycotting their place of work to learn those skills could affect them if they get laid off. In most situations, it's good to look out for everyone. Though seems impossible, when making a suggestion, a good number of people should be on our minds. And people have already made life difficult for one another, the rich won't help the less privileged. The price of learning a skill skyrockets and difficult books are hard to find. Slimming the chances for most people with less time and money to fit into this category of survival methods.

While I agree with this survival ethic, I'd also love to encourage people who learning a new skill seems impossible, endeavor to do the right thing in their prospective companies to get promoted. Thereby, increasing their wages. Because it's easier and helps to stay focused. Then, the larger community of unemployed people, should get their hands on new skills in the tech and agricultural niche. Or better start up with reselling of products online, it serves the risks of being a middleman, but in the long run, they'll be able to generate wealth. That way a high number of citizens in a country will be able to survive the hike in prices of food. They now need to work closely with the producers in changing those prices. Buyers are also not told that they can manipulate the market. The power has already been removed from the citizens. Market prices are determined by the producers and the masses. If they refuse to buy at a high amount, the producer will reduce the price, when no sales are available.

The bitter truth is, that he'll need to lose all that money to learn again. Staying without money makes him think straight, hence it's not bad if he continues to be with less money and reasonable. Because the abundance of money can ruin the life of such men, if he's scared of managing 5k how would he handle higher figures? If truly he's the one seeking the advice, then he's half cured. This type of mistake is caused by the friends he keeps. The behavior can also affect his productivity during work. Going broke isn't bad for a businessman, he can become a better man when another money visits him next. However, if he continues lavishing the wealth meant for his family and wants to change, then he has to allow double signatory before accessing his money. His wife should own the second signature. So, whenever he wants to withdraw money, his wife would be aware of how he's going to spend the money. And whatever activity is not reasonable or helpful to the growth of the family, shouldn't be approved by the wife.

I wouldn't have minded his personal life and his money, but the fact he is married changes the scenario. Because his lavishing lifestyle won't affect only him. The wife will suffer for something she didn't subscribe to, the memory is painful. Single men can live such a life comfortably. The married men, don't enjoy this after the money disappears, risking the happiness of his woman. Reading our responses won't affect immediate help, he should practice quality comments. Your advice as the brother, is to assist him to stop drinking alcohol. It's simple, the lifestyle he found himself, in could be powered by too much alcohol. The drink changes the emotion in the decisions of the man. Surviving with no alcohol, or substance, helps the brain with great decision. Men when that urge arrives, abstain from drinks that'll control the speech and thinking you've piled up in the future.

It's unkind of a parent to start teaching gambling cons and pros to his kids. Gambling could be a fun activity, discussing gambling around kids, is quite very early. Would they be able to grow up without participating in gambling? and the fact the child has been lectured about the importance of gambling responsibly doesn't guarantee he would, as an adult. Hence your idea is great, waiting till they grow up is a smart move. The guardian needs to follow procedures. If the child isn't interested in gambling, what importance would it be to teach him gambling ethics? Doing that can send him into gambling prematurely. When not under our watch, he'd make a series of mistakes. Parents who gamble should be able to detect symptoms of gambling in the life of their ward. If discovered, they can initiate the idea of advising him not to make mistakes or gamble irresponsibly. The benefit of following procedures like what I wrote above, is to avoid the anger, agony, blame, and transfer of aggression in the life of our ward.

Because if we abuse the discussion of gambling, and lecture a kid on it, when he grows up, he'll easily learn to blame the parents for being the reason for his addiction, if he gets addicted. And blaming other people only worsens the situation of the child. His emotions and mind would convince him that all he's going through was as a result of his parent's carelessness. Thereby, transferring the aggression to his parents, instead of seeking help, the family will be at war. Parents understand that a few careless behaviors we exhibit to our child can ruin the home when he's grown. So, if you're planning on talking about gambling with a toddler, Pierre, please it isn't worth the stress and mental disorder it could cause him in the future. Allow the child some time to grow and decide where he wants to belong. Then, choose the right moment to inspect his results, then issue advice. Whenever things go wrong, he should blame himself, than his parents. Blaming ourselves helps us to heal; by taking responsibility.  

There is a general upbringing in the world, amongst children. Which is to try again. We keep on trying, and even after getting what we want, the impulses seek more of it. The gambling world is dealing with humans not robots. And we are obliged to behave accordingly. A problem if happening to one person could be seen as personal, but when it occurs with too many people, then the fault shouldn't be on anyone. But, it'll be seen as a general psychological problem. Go on Quora, you'll read hundreds of posts about people who wagered all the money they've won, ranging from 1k dollars, at once and lost it all. When credited with extra money maybe from family, they'll wager all the money, still. Believing that luck is on their side for winning thousands of dollars. The whole money goes back to the casino. Even if the gambler withdraws the money, he'd feel the urge to play more the next day. Within him, all his efforts are paying off. He wouldn't mind the subsequent losses, and keep on wagering until the whole funds gets exhausted.

Gambling addiction causes this type of problem to players, and they try to stop when broke. Immediately money is handed to the person, he'll rush back to gamble. This is related to the thread that says; reckless gambling begins from a win. However, not all gamblers get involved in this ill behavior. But, a colossal amount of gamblers have been through similar situations. While we blame the gamblers, let's take it outside the gambling niche. If a salesman gets more calls and closes deals often, he keeps on going to work. And also work diligently as a salesman. Humans tend to repeat, whatever works out in their life. Regardless of the challenges that follow after it worked. They'll keep reminding themselves of the positive days, as a weapon to get passed the negative moments. In a niche other than gambling, it's quite okay to keep on trying after a one-time win. But, gambling isn't a profession, and following a similar route would be detrimental to the life of the gambler. Yet it seems inevitable. The brain doesn't recognize whether it's gambling or not. It only releases those impulses, involuntarily.

Laughing, reading this, remembering old days, playing drought games, and watching older folks enjoy the fun. Not sure any casino has such a game. It's quite common amongst the old folks. And they usually gamble with the game. Spectators can also stake games on their favorite player. However, I don't think anyone has ever been addicted to a drought game. Unless a playmate is constantly available, it's not enjoyed alone. So, the fact that one party gets tired and stops playing, helps the players not to get addicted. The man in the story, is indeed a pro, for optimizing the fun of the game with lots of monetary rewards. Inviting old hands like him only improves the charisma of the spectators, players, and the game. It's quite a calculative game and helps brain power, a close cousin to chess games. His ideas are great, because of the joy he puts on the faces of older men. This could be an innovative idea in the future. Lots of people are interested in the game, but I rarely see such activities in today's society. Now, that he's retired, he can schedule weekly games, receive regular fun, and reduce the reward. At least to save up money for his retirement plan.


The only painful aspect of the game is losing money, but the way it's done, like any other board game, the losers are evicted for another player to participate. Hence, it reduces the rate of addiction, unlike online casinos where we can play every minute or second. I've watched men play it, they don't get addicted. Because money is involved, they only have a long argument over a mistake or broken rule. The fun is quite on a big cap with the losses, and it helps the elderly men to have real fun and improves critical thinking in men's lives. So, the fact he controlled himself to old age without being addicted also has to do with the nature of the game. Hence in gambling the structure, rules, and regulation of the game, contribute to the rate of addiction of the player.

The Government doesn't determine prices as it's under the decision of producers and customers. It solely depends on the rate of demand. But the government has the power to control the price. They can mandate that the price of a specific product doesn't bypass some amount; ceiling or floor. Yet it seems like the government only controls the price, but doesn't do its best in setting the salaries of civil servants, that barely get increments in salaries or minimum wage. The difficulty increases instead of salaries. If the government controls the prices of commodities, they are also aware of the expensive rate of those commodities. And doesn't care if their workers would be able to afford it or not. Hence a high number of suffering citizens keeps growing each day. The only thing the government should focus on is reducing the price of gasoline for transportation, then you'd notice a reduction in the high rate of food cost in the market. I've experienced that some food products are cheaper in the location where it's farmed or produced and more expensive in other places where it's transported.

So, the increase in the price of oil affects the prices of many products. Perishable goods like tomatoes transported by Aeroplane keep reducing in quantity per tagged prices. Making it difficult for the masses to feed well on fresh tomatoes. Due to the high cost of jet fuel. Transportation is one crucial aspect of the business chain, the producer may sell cheaper to the distributor, who increases the prices down to the retailer, and the final consumer buys commodities more expensive in small quantities. If they had enough money, they would have been buying in large quantities, saving them extra money to sort out other problems. In most countries, food takes up most people's salary, before the end of the month. So, since the government can't help with reducing the prices of these foods, they can increase the amount of money paid to workers to help them buy food in large quantities and save more money.