The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. … A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. … But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socio-economic unfairness. (Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms)

Source: Solo Leveling(?)

I’m guessing based on the art style.

Fair enough. I get overwhelmed by all the ethical questions that come with being in the real world.

My partner outsourced most of that mental work and focused on trying to be a good person from moment to moment. I think she would’ve broadly agreed with you from a karma standpoint.

As long as they punch down and kiss up to the right people, assholes can usually reduce “tit for tat” to “tit for slap-on-the-wrist”.

I agree you that they are more likely than not to produce a suboptimal future.

I just disagree with the premise that “winning less” is the same as tit for tat.

Tell me if I’m wrong, but I think tit for tat was written from the perspective of nation vs nation decision-making.

It assumes you have roughly equivalent power, i.e. person vs person or business vs business.

I don’t think it applies in person vs boss, or mom 'n pop shop vs international conglomerate.

Source: Kowloon Generic Romance?

What is TBATE?