> So please stop covering laziness with moralizing. The rest of us are working and tired of the entitlement from the parasites.

What is your second sentence here, apart from pure moralizing?

> Scrubbing toilets pays less because fewer people can write software

Sure, this is the obvious dogma so I didn't repeat it. But it only applies within certain assumptions - namely that unskilled labor can be arbitraged across borders, and that the people who aren't capable of writing software still need to bid against those who can to make a comparable amount of income to pay as rent. As I said, the contextless narrative is quite convenient if you're not subject to the pointy end of the market mechanism. But when we're critiquing the system, we need to examine its assumptions.

> The idea of some huge protected aristocracy in the US is a convenient myth

I never said there was one. By my analysis, our oppression is quite democratic - hence the lower-middle class goal of buying into real estate / stonks / etc and thereby becoming beneficiaries of the problem. While this is a common path to success under the current system, that doesn't mean that it is possible for everyone to actually take it.

In a debt-based economy, economic positioning is intrinsically zero-sum - by succeeding in moving up the ladder, others must be stuck below you. And the economic priesthood has driven us more and more into debt because it puts the economy under centralized direction. I'd wager this is the true source of your discontent, yet rather than looking at the puppetmasters pulling the abstract strings that define the large-scale trends, you're doing the easy thing of blaming those closest to your position.

Since we're responding in edits:

> One only needs to look at your words. “Puppet masters”, “preisthood”, “debt based economy”, etc. None of it jibes with reality.

Puppet masters is hyperbolic, but priesthood is simply a call back to an older term for the same role - setting and promulgating societal policy while pretending to be neutral. And "debt based economy" is straightforwardly factual - add up your monthly budget and look at the proportion that goes to your actual survival (food, utilities, maintenance, depreciation), versus how much goes to servicing debt streams (mortgage and property taxes). We're a debt based society - the poorest members don't have small positive balances but rather negative balances, and are thus forced to work to pay their economic rent "or else".

> I suggest perhaps examining what psychologist would call your external locus of control, it won’t serve you well in life

When describing how the system works, what else would I use besides an external locus of control? I obviously don't control the economy!

I'm on the financial treadmill the same as everyone else, and take my own actions based on what I can change (internal locus of control). But touting those actions as if they're a solution rather than mere mitigations is falling into the trap of assuming the system can only be this way.

Economically, I'm in the libertarian-Austrian camp rather than progressive-MMT/UBI. It's my experience that when people say to "study economics", they really just mean stop questioning the assumptions of the Keynesian/post-Bretton-Woods regime of overwhelming monetary inflation.