> This is irrelevant to the individual. The cycle already exists. Sorry to be so blunt but that's a very superficial view and mostly wrong. The cycle isn't "al

> This is irrelevant to the individual. The cycle already exists. Sorry to be so blunt but that's a very superficial view and mostly wrong. The cycle isn't "already there" more than the internet, running water, or toilet paper on shelves are "already there". You're asking why would any farmer bother raising cattle and growing crops when they could just go to the supermarket for milk, meat, etc. It's only irrelevant if you don't care about understanding what we're talking about. > Of course there's still work to do Your premise was to build a system that generates revenue without your presence being required, in contradiction to your follow-up. > the possibility of a creating a money-making asset that is unpegged from a 40 hour work week is very real Agree on this. I'm sure working a classic job is not the only way to make money but my point was different. So far all of the ways mentioned here for making money by decoupling yourself from the 40h work week are either actually conceptually the same as "renting your time", or work because so many others are renting their time, and they are the niche. You're either self-employed (you invest the money, produce the asset, and collect profit), or you employ others to bring you profit (you don't produce the asset, just invest money and collect profit). Either way there's no way to remove the "asset producer" from the equation without turning it into 0=0. And just like anything else on the market the higher the supply, the lower the price. The more people only invest for a living, the smaller the returns for each and the fewer assets that are actually created.