But
"Falls Sie dennoch den Ehrgeiz haben, in den Besitz einer obszönen Menge Geld zu kommen - natürlich ohne zu arbeiten - folgt hier eine Schritt-für-Schritt-Anleitung" ( source)
sounds different, more like "make any people rich"...

This is interesting.
Waiting for first tests

@Clemens: You can't make any person rich because the pool where the money comes from is generated by those who lose the gambling game. You can't make money from nothing so your profit is always the loss of someone else, this way there must always be a loser and a winner to play the game.

For sure! Gambling is in fact NO win-win-situation. that's also what jcl indicate at What's the catch?->Pkt.3
What I simply mean is that the german quote above says "obszönen" amount of money, which sounds for me more like "getting quite rich" instead of "getting less poor".

rich != lots of money

@Clemens "make any people rich" often present in my country's political propaganda.......
but seems nobody believe it. in fact, bureaucrats & capitalists (somecases they are one) hold majority of money & cut the chances which let poor pepole earn more.

To avoid a misconception: Trading can indeed generate money from nothing. In fact, financial asset trading generates every second a huge amount of money. But it can also destroy money, as happened in the 2009 crash.

The financial market is no zero-sum game. That's why it's theoretically possible to release a software like Dagobert and increase the worldwide wealth.

But even if money is created, no value is created. More money means inflation. That means if someone makes money out of nothing, someone does lose, not money, but value, because their money will be worth less. And that is everyone else.

How much money do you have to invest since you generate some reasonable profit with Dagobert?

Actually an inflation is not a bad thing at all, if your money is less worth tomorrow you are more likely to spend it today thus you help the market grow which at the end pays you back. If we had a deflation, everyone would sit on their money and nothing would happen, thats a real loss.

However, I don't agree with JCL on his point with the market is not a no-zero game, thats exactly what it should be. Remember the bank crisis 2009? We should have let all of them die, because this is how the market works. You risk money if you want more, but if you lose, you should really lose instead of being saved by whatever. What do you think happens now? I as a bank manager would start the next money risking adventure right away, risking even more money if possible because I know, if I lose, someone will help me out. Thats a problem and it needs to be fixed and not exploited.