I could only read a third of the article before starting to crinch too much. If this was on purpose and I missed the same conclusion I am presenting here, sorry

I could only read a third of the article before starting to crinch too much. If this was on purpose and I missed the same conclusion I am presenting here, sorry. The article sounds like "this of course is the smart way, make money first, worry about details later". But if you think about it this is very, very wrong. First, if any system will fail drastically at some point. You wait long enough and something unexpected happens. Second, if this consistency tolerance becomes widely known people will try, and at some point succeed, to cheat the system big time. If any of these two scenarios happens, the whole system breaks. And then, what do you do? You can only get so many bail outs from the tax payers. The smart way, of course, is to not be too greedy and stick close to a relatively consistent scenario.