Three Ways to Get Paid: The Economics of Truth and Deception

Financial success is often determined by the alignment between the information a provider delivers and the desires of the recipient. According to a rule shared by Jason Zweig, there are three distinct economic outcomes based on whether one tells the truth or lies to people who either want the truth or want to be deceived.

The Three-Part Rule of Making a Living

The core framework for understanding how people get paid based on honesty and client expectation is divided into three scenarios:

1. Get Rich: Lie to people who want to be lied to. This path leads to high wealth by catering to the confirmation bias and desires of those seeking falsehoods.
2. Make a Living: Tell the truth to those who want the truth. This path provides a sustainable, modest income by providing genuine value to those who prioritize accuracy.
3. Go Broke: Tell the truth to those who want to be lied to. This path leads to financial failure because it violates the expectations of those who are not seeking the truth.

Professional Applications and Real-World Examples

Industry professionals across various sectors have noted that these dynamics frequently manifest in corporate environments, sales, and technical leadership.

Technical and Product Management

In software development and product leadership, the tension between sales promises and technical reality often mirrors this framework. One developer noted that partnering with a business-oriented partner who promised clients "the world" without knowing if the features were possible led to higher earnings than working independently.

Similarly, the role of a CTO can become a focal point for this dynamic, with some reporting experiences where leadership misrepresented feature capabilities to the entire company to navigate internal politics and secure funding or buy-in.

Market Research and Consulting

In fields like market research, the perceived value of a truth-teller can be a misconception. While some enter the field believing they are paid for the unvarnished truth, they may discover that clients actually pay for confirmation of their existing beliefs rather than objective data.

Corporate Culture and "Collective Lies"

Corporate environments often maintain "collective lies" to preserve harmony or professional image. For example, stating the objective truth—that employees work primarily for money in a for-profit corporation—can be perceived as a "bad attitude" by management, even when the statement is factually correct.

Synthesis of Perspectives

Discussion around this framework suggests several extensions to the original rule:

• The Confirmation Bias Loop: Many people seek beliefs to be confirmed rather than challenged. This creates an echo chamber where those who provide confirmation (regardless of truth) are rewarded more highly than those who provide objective reality.
• The Integrity Trade-off: There is a perceived trade-off between maintaining a moral compass and achieving maximum wealth. Some observers suggest that those who lack scruples are better positioned to execute the first rule (lying to those who want to be lied to) and thus accumulate more wealth.
• The Knowledge-Action Gap: Beyond truth and lies, some argue that the most sustainable "sweet spot" for earning is getting paid for actions that specifically leverage specialized knowledge.

"There are three ways to make a living: 1) Lie to people who want to be lied to, and you’ll get rich. 2) Tell the truth to those who want the truth, and you’ll make a living. 3) Tell the truth to those who want to be lied to, and you’ll go broke."

This framework suggests that the market does not always reward truth, but rather rewards the satisfaction of the customer's psychological desire for specific information.