Okay then. Either a scammer or a fool. Now we are really on the same page! I always described these types as "either a scammer or an idiot."
They are usually observationally equivalent.
Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.
I usually reserve "idiot" for those who invest with fools. They are usually observationally equivalent.
Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.
I assure you, I wasn't trying to be polite. I genuinely think Patrick was an idiot at the beginning, and gradually shifted to scammer as the amounts got larger and he started to realize how high the risks were.
From the beginning, my argument was essentially this: Either Patrick was making decent profits, or he wasn't. If he was making decent profits, his first order of business, if he's not an idiot, would be to pay down his outrageously usurious debt. Yet he was taking on more and more of it. So either he's an idiot, and only fools invest with idiots, or he's not making decent profits. But if he's not making decent profits, why would he take on all this risk and do all this work? It could be because he's an idiot, but again, who wants to invest with an idiot? The most likely other possibility is that he intends to walk away with everyone's money and it sure as hell means he wouldn't honor the guarantee if he suffered huge losses.
In retrospect, I would have made a better argument (more focused on why he wouldn't honor his guarantee). But anyone can make better arguments in hindsight.