Y intercept is non-zero.
Because the predicate is false to begin with.
No money may only be one problem, but it’s a very big one.
There’s a minimum
No money no problems means we have moved past a currency based economy and have achieved true enlightenment as a species.
Maybe next life…
More money, more problems is just a lie.
The only problem you can have with money that wouldn’t be replaced or superceded by other problems is having bills. If you don’t have money, it’s very easy to not have bills. But then you’d also not have a home or probably anything else, which is a bigger problem than having bills.
Diogenes would beg to differ.
There will always be problems and money offers solutions to a lot of problems. So even if your problems grow, it’s possible for your solutions to grow faster.
No money = suprisingly enough, straight to jail.
I speculate the original intent of that expression was “more money; DIFFERENT problems.”
Because there is a sweet spot somewhere.
Because it is an untrue statement
It’s because people can have more money, and they know that when they do there’s more problems. But having no money is simply unaffordable.
More money actually just inflicts the “mo’ money” status debuff which multiplies your problems, not adds to it
The consequences increase.
You know the saying: “if you owe 100 to the bank, then you have a problem, but if you owe 1 000 000 to the bank, then the bank has a problem”
For a regular person, this translates into being able to pay off 100 by working hard, but owing 100 000 is a lot harder to work off, so they’ll need alternative solutions, like selling the car.
Financially speaking it’s the difference between a profit/loss statement and a balance sheet. Once you have enough money, P/L doesn’t matter in comparison to the balance.
Someone like Elon Musk stating that he doesn’t have any money to pay is playing on this. He’s all balance and no profit.
